Edwin K. L.
Yeow
and
Ronald P.
Steer
*
Department of Chemistry, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5C9. E-mail: ron.steer@usask.ca; Fax: +1 306 966 4730
First published on 19th November 2002
Electronic energy transfer between the S2 state of azulene as donor and the S2 state of zinc porphyrin as acceptor in dichloromethane and CTAB micelles has been investigated. In dichloromethane high S2–S2 energy transfer efficiency, which cannot be explained using the Förster theory, is observed. An inhomogeneous distribution of acceptors surrounding the donor, leading to short-range exchange interaction and higher multipole interaction is proposed. In CTAB micelles, Förster's mechanism is found to agree well with the observed energy transfer efficiency when a surface-uniform distance distribution between donor and acceptor is assumed. The implications of S2–S2 energy transfer in our system for designing efficient molecular devices is discussed.
The investigation of electronic energy transfer (EET) from upper excited states (Sn, n>
1) is both important and challenging. In the light-harvesting complexes of photosynthetic systems, energy transfer from the initially excited S2 state of carotenoids to chlorophylls is found to be important.13 Furthermore, molecules that exhibit S2 fluorescence would be of particular significance in the design of molecular photonic switches and molecular logic gates.14,15 Levine and co-workers have described the concept of using EET from the S2 state of azulene to develop suitable logic gates and circuits.14 The full potential of such molecular devices is realised when the number of electronic states of the component molecule that can undergo photophysical reactions (e.g. energy transfer) is large. Therefore, EET involving both higher electronic states (e.g. S2–S2 EET) and S1 states of the energy donor and acceptor chromophores is advantageous in this respect.
Previous studies of energy transfer involving high excited states have been mainly centered around EET from the donor S2 state to the acceptor S1 state.16–23 There are only a few reports of S2–S2 energy transfer.24–26 For example, Oster and Kallmann used X-rays to excite the S2 state of benzene, and then examined the subsequent energy transfer to the S2 state of phenylbiphenylyl oxadiazole.24 Osuka et al. have synthesised a series of porphyrin dimers and trimers consisting of a zinc porphyrin donor and a zinc diphenylethynyl porphyrin acceptor.25,26 In their systems, S2–S2 EET from donor to acceptor followed by back EET from the S2 state of the acceptor to the S1 state of the donor was reported.
In this paper, we examine the energy transfer dynamics from the S2 state of azulene to the S2 state of zinc porphyrins in dichloromethane and in aqueous CTAB micelles. Due to its relatively large S2 fluorescence quantum yield and S2 emission lifetime, azulene can act as an excellent S2 energy donor. 1,3-difluoroazulene, with a significantly higher S2 fluorescence quantum yield,4 is also used here as an energy donor. The choice of zinc porphyrin as an energy acceptor is driven by the fact that after the initial S2–S2 EET, subsequent back S1–S1 energy transfer is probable which results in a bidirectional and cyclic energy transfer process. This inadvertently has important implications in the design of efficient molecular devices as discussed by Levine and co-workers.14 To understand the S2–S2 energy transfer process occuring in dichloromethane and CTAB micelles, the EET efficiency was determined from the fluorescence quenching of azulene in the presence of zinc porphyrin under steady-state conditions.
Solutions of Az and DFAz with concentrations ca. 3.6×
10−5 M were first prepared in CH2Cl2. Stock solutions of ZnTPP were then introduced into the Az/DFAz solutions using a microlitre syringe to achieve a quencher concentration between ca. 10−5 and 10−4 M. Dissolved air was removed by bubbling the samples with solvent-saturated Ar for 15 min before taking any measurements.
The micelle solutions were prepared by dissolving an appropriate amount of CTAB in Millipore-purified (Milli-Q) water such that the concentration of the surfactant was well above the critical micelle concentration (c.m.c.) of CTAB (c.m.c.=
9.2
×
10−4 M).27 Az was dissolved in the CTAB micellar solution by stirring for about 24 h, and any undissolved Az was then removed by filtering the solution. The final concentration of solubilised Az was 2.8
×
10−5 M. Stock solutions of ZnTPPS were added into the micellised Az solutions via a microlitre syringe. In this way, the concentration of ZnTPPS was in the range of ca. 10−5 and 10−4 M. Finally, the sample solutions were allowed to stand for about 12 h. Since the oxygen concentration within a micelle is low,27,28 effects of oxygen quenching on the relatively short-lived Az emission can be neglected. Fluorescence measurements were therefore performed in aerated micellar solutions. All samples, both in CH2Cl2 and CTAB solutions, were protected from room light at all times.
Absorption spectra were recorded with a Varian Cary 500 UV-Vis spectrometer, and corrected steady-state fluorescence measurements were recorded on a SPEX 212 spectrofluorometer. All measurements were conducted in 1×
1 cm cuvettes at room temperature. The fluorescence of the donor molecule after excitation was observed at right angles to the incident light. At the donor excitation wavelength (λex
=
327 nm for Az and DFAz in CH2Cl2, and λex
=
325 nm for Az in CTAB solution), some of the incident light is absorbed by the quencher chromophore (i.e. ZnTPP and ZnTPPS). This results in an attenuation of the excitation beam reaching the donor molecules (primary inner filter effect).29 Furthermore, ZnTPP and ZnTPPS can absorb a fraction of the emitted donor fluorescence at the observation wavelength (λem
=
374 nm for Az and 380 nm for DFAz in CH2Cl2, and λem
=
374 nm for Az in CTAB solution), causing a secondary inner filter effect.29
Inner filter effects were corrected for by using a correction factor.30–32
Fcorr![]() ![]() | (1) |
Icorr![]() ![]() | (2) |
The quantum yield of Az in CTAB micelle, ΦCTABAz, was determined using DFAz in degassed ethanol as a reference (Φref=
0.197):4
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
![]() | (5) |
The energy transfer efficiency, E, can be calculated from the emission intensity of D, in the absence (I0), and presence (IA) of A. Accounting for inner filter effects (eqn. (2)), such as radiative energy transfer, the experimental non-radiative EET efficiency is readily obtained from eqn. (6):32
![]() | (6) |
The fluorescence decay of a donor surrounded by a homogeneous distribution of acceptor was also obtained by Förster:37
IA(s)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | (7) |
![]() | (8) |
![]() | (9) |
IA(s)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | (10) |
![]() | (11) |
Using the time-dependent Smoluchowski quenching rate constant, Sipp and Voltz42 derived a time-dependent donor fluorescence decay function given by eqn. (12):
IA(s)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | (12) |
![]() | (13) |
![]() | (14) |
The distance distribution, ω(R), is defined as the probability of finding an acceptor at a distance between R and R+
dR from the donor. For a spherical micelle with radius Rm, the most common distance distributions are:45,46 (1) surface–surface distribution (i.e. both D and A are randomly distributed on the surface of the micelle, ωss(R)
=
R/2R2m), (2) surface–uniform distribution (i.e. one of the chromophore is randomly distributed on the surface of the micelle, while the other is uniformly distributed within the micelle, ωsu(R)
=
3R2(2Rm
−
R)/4R4m), and (3) uniform–uniform distribution (i.e. both D and A are uniformly distributed within the micelle, ωuu(R)
=
3R2(2Rm
−
R)2(4Rm
+
R)/16R6m). In all of the above cases, the limit of integration in eqn. (14) is from 0 to 2Rm.
When the probability of finding acceptors in a micelle follows a Poissonian distribution with mean occupation number μ, the average donor fluorescence decay is written as45,46
![]() | (15) |
![]() | ||
Fig. 1 The absorption and emission spectra for Az and ZnTPP in CH2Cl2. The absorbances are normalised to the maximum optical density. ZnTPP S2 emission peak is amplified 30 times. abs is the absorption band, while em is the emission band. |
![]() | ||
Fig. 2 The absorption and emission spectra for DFAz and ZnTPP in CH2Cl2. The absorbances are normalised to the maximum optical density. abs is the absorption band, while em is the emission band. |
Note, in Figs. 1 and 2, that there is a substantial amount of overlap between the S2 emission spectrum of the donor (i.e. Az or DFAz), and the S2 absorption spectrum of the acceptor ZnTPP. This indicates that efficient resonance energy transfer from the excited S2 state of Az/DFAz to the S2 state of ZnTPP is feasible. The spectral overlap integral values (J(), see eqn. (5)), calculated using the PhotochemCAD software,49 for Az-ZnTPP and DFAz-ZnTPP systems are 9.93
×
10−14 cm3 M−1 and 1.21
×
10−13 cm3 M−1, respectively. The molar absorption coefficients of ZnTPP in CH2Cl2 were taken from ref. 6. Given further that the quantum yields of Az and DFAz in CH2Cl2 are 0.041 and 0.158,4 respectively, the Förster critical distance, R0, determined from eqn. (5) are 28.9 Å and 37.4 Å for Az-ZnTPP and DFAz-ZnTPP systems, respectively. The orientation factor, κ2, was assumed to be 2/3 for randomly oriented chromophores in a fluid medium.
In the presence of ZnTPP, the fluorescence intensities for both Az, and DFAz are reduced from I0 to IA,corr by energy transfer to ZnTPP. Using eqn. (6), and the maximum fluorescence intensities of Az (at 374 nm), and DFAz (at 380 nm), the EET efficiency, E, is obtained and presented in Fig. 3 for different concentrations of ZnTPP. We observe that E increases with [ZnTPP] for both donors, and that the excitation transfer is more efficient for the DFAz–ZnTPP system.
![]() | ||
Fig. 3 The experimental S2–S2 energy transfer efficiency, E, for DFAz (■) and Az (●) at different concentrations of the quencher ([ZnTPP]) in CH2Cl2. Lines a, b and c are Gösele's theoretical energy transfer efficiency, EG, computed using the critical distances R0![]() ![]() |
We examine the mean diffusion length, (2τD)1/2, by first defining the diffusion coefficients of D and A using the Stokes–Einstein equation,32 such that
![]() | (16) |
[ZnTPP]/10−5M | E a | R 0/Åb |
![]() |
---|---|---|---|
a calculated from eqn. (6).
b obtained from Gösele model, eqn. (11), with ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
0.981 | 0.054 | 101.4 | 0.91 |
2.224 | 0.106 | 97.5 | 0.81 |
3.072 | 0.164 | 103.7 | 1.04 |
4.004 | 0.205 | 103.4 | 1.05 |
5.718 | 0.314 | 110.4 | 1.41 |
6.502 | 0.373 | 114.8 | 1.69 |
7.363 | 0.443 | 120.3 | 2.11 |
Pandey, Pant, and co-workers have previously studied energy transfer between different dye molecules (e.g., EET from trypaflavine to rhodamine 6G).50–52 They found that a reasonable fit to their donor fluorescence decay, using Gösele's model (eqn. (10)), is attained only when a larger than Förster critical distance (e.g., for the trypaflavine–rhodamine 6G system with Förster critical distance=
54 Å, an observed critical distance as large as 158 Å was obtained), or a larger than donor-acceptor translational diffusion coefficient
in eqn. (10) is used. Pandey et al. argued that when the acceptor concentration is low enough, donor–donor energy migration can result in a faster quenching by the acceptors. In this case, the effective diffusion coefficient,
, found in eqn. (10) and (11) is given by the sum of donor–acceptor translational diffusion coefficient (eqn. (16)), and donor–donor excitation migration diffusion coefficient (
E).53 Gochanour, Anderson, and Fayer (GAF) have found that at long times, the energy migration process becomes diffusive with a limiting diffusion coefficient given by54
![]() ![]() ![]() | (17) |
When R0 is fixed to the Förster critical distance, Gösele's model returned a value of =
6.2
×
10−3 cm2 s−1 in order to adequately explain the experimental E values observed for Az–ZnTPP. Likewise,
ranged between 9.1
×
10−4 cm2 s−1 and 2.1
×
10−3 cm2 s−1
(depending on [ZnTPP], see Table 1) for DFAz–ZnTPP. Clearly, the sum of the calculated donor-acceptor translational diffusion coefficient (eqn. (16)), and the GAF excitation migration diffusion coefficient (eqn. (17)) is insufficient to fully explain the apparent higher
values for our systems.
The GAF model suffers from the assumption that donor molecules are immobile during energy migration. Jang et al.55 removed GAF's assumption, by formulating an expression for E based on the combined effects of donor translational diffusion, and energy migration among donors. It was found that translational motion reduces the distance between donors, and hence increases the efficiency of energy migration and quenching. Jang's expression for
E is
E
=
(2πτD−1R60EnD)/3rc, where rc is a cutoff distance for self-transfer. Here a value of rc
=
1.81
×
10−6 cm for Az, and a
E value of 2.71
×
10−11 cm2 s−1 have been calculated using Jang's model. Although Jang's energy migration diffusion coefficient is larger than GAF's, it is still insignificant compared to the donor–acceptor translational diffusion coefficient. This is easily rationalised from the fact that R0E for Az (i.e. 10.4 Å) is very much smaller than the Az-ZnTPP critical distance (R0
=
28.9 Å). The very low R0E implies that energy migration among Az is highly inefficient. Similar behaviour is also observed for DFAz, which lead us to believe that the effects of donor energy migration on
, and hence E is negligible.
As discussed by Sipp and Voltz,42 short-range exchange interaction, in addition to long-range Coulombic coupling, can contribute to the overall energy transfer quenching dynamics. The classical Dexter mechanism is often used to interpret the orbital-overlap dependent interaction.56 The importance of considering exchange interaction for a D–A pair with large Förster critical distance in a highly diffusive medium has been highlighted by Bandyopadhyay and Rao.57 Their study compliments those of Ali and co-workers.58,59 Birks and Leite60 found a larger than Förster's critical distance for EET between naphthalene and 9,10-diphenylanthracene in a series of solvents with varying viscosities. Adams et al.61 obtained large experimental R0
(e.g. 152 Å) values for EET from DODCI dye to malachite green in ethanol, which could not be explained using Förster's theory (Förster critical distance=
59 Å). Stevens and Dubois62 have also reported a two fold increase in the experimental critical distance (31 Å) compared to Förster's R0
(16 Å) for the quenching of the S2 state of Az by anthracene in ether solvent. In all of the above studies, the breakdown of considering solely Förster's theory was attributed to extra contributions arising from higher order Coulombic terms, and distributed transition-monopole theory.63–66 Both factors are known to become significant for large chromophores (e.g. porphyrin) when the D–A separation approaches the size of the molecules.
We examine the effects of short-range interaction for Az-ZnTPP using the Sipp–Voltz model, where the effective reaction length is defined by42
![]() | (18) |
![]() | (19) |
An effective reaction length of r=
1.56
×
10−6 cm was determined from our experimental E values, and using eqns. (18) and (19), we obtain a short-range exchange interaction length of re
=
86.9 Å. We note that re is unreasonably large compared to rd, and we conclude that short-range interaction cannot be used to explain the efficient energy transfer observed, at least not when a homogeneous distribution of A around D is assumed.
Kaschke and Vogler67,68
(KV) were the first to propose an inhomogeneous distribution of A around D. They developed a model whereby a raised acceptor concentration (n′A) is found around the donor (say between two spheres of radii R1 and R2, such that D is located in the centre of the spheres, and R1<
R2
<
Förster R0) which exceeds the bulk acceptor concentration (nA) found outside this region. The raised acceptor concentration is due to mutual attraction between the molecules caused by weak van der Waals interactions. Kaschke and Vogler were able to explain the efficient EET observed between rhodamine 6G donor and several acceptors (DOTC, cresyl violet, oxazine) in ethanol using their model. For an example, in the case of rhodamine 6G-cresyl violet, an observed critical distance as large as 94 Å was reported compared to a Förster critical distance of 56 Å. Using an inhomogeneous acceptor distribution, whereby the raised acceptor concentration is 57 times higher than the bulk acceptor concentration, Kaschke and Vogler were able to rationalise the more efficient energy transfer observed.
We adopt the KV approach to model our experimental results. Apart from van der Waals forces, weak π–π interactions can also induce ZnTPP to form a raised acceptor concentration around the donor (Az or DFAz).69 It must be stressed, as Kaschke and Vogler have,67,68 that this does not mean the formation of complexes or aggregates. However, in the region of raised acceptor concentration, the D and A are often close enough to effect short-range exchange interaction (e.g. Dexter mechanism), and higher multipole–higher multipole interactions. We therefore include two more terms in the KV model to account for the latter mechanisms. The time-dependent donor fluorescence decay, taking into consideration an inhomogeneous distribution of acceptors, and ignoring the effects of diffusion, is given by
![]() | (20) |
A(t) is the result of the modified Förster theory, and is given by67,68
![]() | (21) |
![]() | (22) |
![]() | (23) |
![]() | (24) |
![]() | (25) |
We illustrate the effects of an inhomogeneous distribution of ZnTPP around Az by considering only the self-decay, A(t), and B(t) terms in eqn. (20). Owing to the experimental difficulties in obtaining R1, R2, and R0s, our results will be semi-quantitative at best. Nonetheless, the implications of the results are generally true for all cases. A(t) has been shown to be insensitive to R1,67 and the latter is assigned a value of 10 Å. R2<
Förster's R0 was given a value of 20 Å. Dexter's mechanism is generally valid as long as the interchromophoric separation between D and A is smaller than ca. twice the encounter distance.71 Therefore, we chose R0s
=
16 Å. Fig. 4 shows that when the ratio between raised acceptor concentration and bulk acceptor concentration, θ, equals 119, the theoretical EET efficiencies agree well with experimental E values. Even though the KV approach shows a vast improvement over Förster's model, both yield theoretical E values which are lower than the experimental ones (see Fig. 4). Clearly, the inclusion of Dexter's B(t) term in eqn. (20) cannot be ignored. The higher multipole interaction factor C will further reduce the value of θ. Two other short-range interaction mechanisms (i.e. the distributed transition-monopole and the through-configuration interactions) were left out in eqn. (20), which will further affect the value of θ. The through-configuration interaction term arising from interactions between ionic charge configurations and locally excited states have been previously shown to be just as important as Dexter's mechanism.72,73
![]() | ||
Fig. 4 The experimental S2–S2 energy transfer efficiency, E, for Az (●) is compared with various theoretical models: a: Förster's model assuming a homogeneous acceptor distribution (EF, eqn. (9)), b: Kaschke and Vogler (KV) model assuming an inhomogeneous acceptor distribution (i.e., eqn. (20) with B(t) and C terms![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The more efficient quenching observed for DFAz when compared to Az (Fig. 3) is now rationalised using the modified KV model. The DFAz emission spectrum is red-shifted with respect to Az, thus increasing the amount of overlap with ZnTPP absorption spectrum. Along with a higher fluorescence quantum yield, all the relevant resonance energy transfer critical distances (i.e., Förster, Dexter, higher-multipole interactions) for DFAz are larger than Az's. Furthermore, the π-donating effect of the two fluoro substituents to the azulenic aromatic system in DFAz will enhance the weak π-π interaction with ZnTPP. Therefore, a greater raised acceptor concentration around DFAz will amplify the quenching efficiency.
So far, we have reported energy transfer as the only quenching mechanism. The feasibility of electron transfer from Az to ZnTPP, especially in the region of raised acceptor concentration, is examined via the Gibbs free energy change (ΔG°) involved in the charge separation process,74
![]() | (26) |
![]() | ||
Fig. 5 The absorption and emission spectra for Az and ZnTPPS in CTAB micelles. The absorbances are normalised to the maximum optical density. The ZnTPPS S2 emission peak is amplified 20 times. abs is the absorption band, while em is the emission band. |
The spectral overlap integral between the emission spectrum of donor Az and the absorption spectrum of acceptor ZnTPPS is 6.40×
10−14 cm3 M−1. The molar absorption coefficients of solubilised ZnTPPS in CTAB were taken from ref. 77. Given further that the quantum yield of Az is determined to be 0.02 in CTAB micelles, the Förster critical distance calculated from eqn. (5) is 21.6 Å. Molecular motions are known to be greatly impeded upon encapsulation of the molecules in micelles.43,81 Hence, in the event of restricted rotation, a value of κ2
=
0.476 is assumed for randomly oriented chromophores.82
Using the maximum fluorescence intensity of Az at 374 nm, the experimental energy transfer efficiency, E, is calculated from eqn. (6), and the results are presented in Fig. 6 for different concentrations of ZnTPPS. To compare our experimental results with the model discussed in Section 2, the theoretical energy transfer efficiencies, ET, were obtained by integrating eqn. (15) over time. The numerical computation was performed using Maple 7 (Waterloo Maple Inc.) software. J(s) for the various distance distributions are given by:45,46
![]() | (27) |
![]() | (28) |
![]() | ||
Fig. 6 The experimental S2–S2 energy transfer efficiency, E, for Az (●) at different concentrations of the quencher ([ZnTPPS]) in CTAB micelles is compared with the theoretical model, ET, given by eqn. (15). A surface-uniform distance distribution (eqn. (27)) with micellar radius of 31.8 Å shows good agreement with E. |
From Fig. 6, we see that when the radius of the micelle Rm=
31.8 Å, for a surface–uniform (su) distance distribution, the theoretical ET values, based on Förster's theory, are in excellent agreement with the experimental ones. Similarly, good agreement between ET and E is obtained when Rm
=
30.6 Å, and 38.8 Å for the surface–surface (ss), and uniform–uniform (uu) distance distributions, respectively. An interesting feature is the sensitivity of Rm to the distance distribution function. As discussed by Barzykin,45 the mean distance between D and A is largest for the s–s distribution, and smallest for the s–u distribution. Therefore, in order for eqn. (15) to appropriately describe E, a larger Rm is required for the s–u distribution. As discussed earlier, energy migration among Az chromophores is insignificant. An R0E value of 10.5 Å for Az–Az energy transfer implies a D–D Förster transfer rate of only 1.3% of that of the D–A one.
The sites of solubilisation of aromatic molecules, such as benzene and higher arenes, have been found to be located at the interface of ionic micelles near the polar head groups.84–86 Cardinal and Mukerjee85 have ascribed the micellar surface activity of aromatic molecules to the interaction beween water dipoles and π-electron system of the aromatic molecules. The Az chromophores are thus taken to be absorbed at the CTAB micellar surface. On the other hand, several studies have shown that porphyrin systems tend to be embedded in the hydrophobic core of micelles.77,78,81,87 In particular, Kadish et al.77 have reported that significant perturbation of the 1H NMR peaks of the CTAB's surfactant head group, terminal methyl group, and intermediate methylene groups are seen upon inclusion of free-base tetra-(4-sulfonatophenyl) porphyrins. This suggests that the ZnTPPS molecules interact throughout the surfactant chain, and are probably distributed uniformly within the micelle. Therefore, the surface–uniform distance distribution seems to be the most suitable description for our Az-ZnTPPS system.
The radius of CTAB micelle in the absence of solubilizate has been independently determined to be ca. 24 Å
(i.e. hydrophobic core radius+
head group radius).88 The CTAB micelle radius obtained from this study, assuming a surface–uniform distance distribution, is 31.8 Å, which is not unreasonable. Two plausible explanations of the slightly larger observed Rm can be offered. Micellar structures are known to be modified by the addition of solubilizates.89,90 In our case, ZnTPPS which are solubilised within the CTAB micelles can produce a swelling of the latter,89 hence increasing the radii of micelles. Recently, Zhao et al.91 have studied the hydrocarbon chain packing behaviour of CTAB micelles using a 1H NMR relaxation technique. They found that intermediate methylene groups of CTAB have some probability of spending time at the micellar surface layer. This means that the interior of CTAB micelle is inhomogeneous, and a uniform distribution of ZnTPPS becomes a simplified picture of the true acceptor distribution.
The possible fate of the excitation energy after the initial S2–S2 transfer is worth mentioning here. The porphyrin in its S2 state will subsequently undergo rapid relaxation to its S1 state (see Fig. 7). The internal conversion rate from the S2 to the S1 states of the acceptor corresponds to its S2 fluorescence decay rate (i.e.τ2=
ca. 2 ps for ZnTPP,92 and ca. 1.3 ps for ZnTPPS93). Thereafter, the excited molecule can either emit radiatively as acceptor fluorescence (i.e.τ4
=
1.5–3 ns),6 or return to the donor via a radiationless back energy transfer from the S1 state of A to the S1 state of D (Fig. 7). From Figs. 1, 2, and 5, we find significant spectral overlap between the S1 emission spectrum of zinc porphyrin, and the S1 absorption spectrum of azulene, strongly suggesting probable resonance back-EET. Finally, the system returns quickly to the ground state by the S1–S0 conical intersection (i.e.τ3
<
2 ps for Az).94 The cyclic energy transfer process, seen in Fig. 7, has very important implications in the design of molecular logic gates. Levine et al.14 have discussed how one can utilise bidirectional intermolecular EET to perform logical operations on different chromophores. We are presently investigating the cyclic EET dynamics for a series of linked (flexible and rigid) systems, consisting of azulene donor and zinc porphyrin acceptor chromophores, which will shed further insight into the functionality of such molecular logic gates.
![]() | ||
Fig. 7 Energy levels of donor (D) and acceptor (A) chromophores, and the various EET and energy relaxation pathways. Solid lines are radiative processes, while broken lines are non-radiative processes. τ1 is the fluorescence lifetime of the donor S2 state (e.g., 1.17 ns for Az, and 8.84 ns for DFAz in CH2Cl2).4 |
Another interesting issue concerns the choice of the orientation factor (κ2, eqn. (5)) for the back S1–S1 EET. In a random array of chromophores, κ2 is usually assigned a value of 2/3 in a fluid medium. However, because the porphyrin S2 state is very short-lived, there will be a photoselection of porphyrin S1 states after S2–S2 EET, invalidating the assumption of random S1 transition dipole moments. This problem will be tackled by us in a future publication.
This journal is © the Owner Societies 2003 |