Determine energy state difference using absorption-emission spectra

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on determining the energy state difference between the vibrational ground state S0,v=0 and the first excited vibrational state S0,v=1 using anthracene absorption and emission spectra. The provided solution incorrectly identifies transitions at wavelengths of 400 nm and 380 nm, leading to confusion regarding the correct labeling of fluorescence peaks. Participants clarify that the transitions should be represented in energy units such as eV or cm-1, rather than wavelengths, as energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. The correct transitions involve internal conversions and should accurately reflect the energy state differences.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Jablonski diagrams and their application in spectroscopy
  • Familiarity with anthracene absorption and emission spectra
  • Knowledge of energy units such as eV and cm-1
  • Concept of internal conversion in molecular transitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the construction of Jablonski diagrams for various molecular states
  • Learn how to calculate transition energies from wavelengths in both eV and cm-1
  • Investigate the principles of internal conversion and its impact on fluorescence
  • Review anthracene's spectral properties and their implications in photophysics
USEFUL FOR

Chemists, physicists, and students studying molecular spectroscopy, particularly those interested in fluorescence and energy state transitions in organic compounds.

JoJoQuinoa
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I was wondering if someone could help clarifying this question.

The question asks to estimate the energy state difference between the vibrational ground state of S0,v=0 and the first excited vibrational ground state S0,v=1 of the spectra below.

The given solution: S1,v=1 -> S0,v=1 at \lambda = 400 nm and S1,v=2 -> S0,v=1 at \lambda = 380 nm.

There are two things I'm confused about the solution:
1) From Figure B, I would assume that the first Fluorescence peak at 380 nm in Figure A corresponds to S1,v=0 -> S0,v=1 and the second peak at 400 nm corresponds to S1,v=0 -> S0,v=2. Larger transition results in higher emission energy or smaller wavelength.

2) Why is S0,v=1 being used as the final state for both peaks?
The S1,v=1 -> S0,v=1 would occur as S1,v=1 ->S1,v=0 ->S0,v=1 and
S1,v=2 ->S1,v=0 ->S0,v=1.
Since S1,v=2 or 1 ->S1,v=0 is internal conversion, wouldn't S1,v=0 ->S0,v=1 for the two transitions give off the same energy?

Thanks in advance!
anthraspec.PNG
peakid.PNG
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think the solution matches what the question asks for. Could you write the fully replicated question and the solution? Perhaps, a screenshot/photo of the question and solution?

For example, the question asks for the energy state difference, which means that the solution should be in the units of eV or cm-1 (or Hartree). It doesn't make any sense that the solution is in wavelength (nm) because wavelength is inversely proportional to energy and is not linear. Thus, you can't just add/subtract wavelength differences (unless you know what you are doing).

Also,
1) No, the fluorescence peak at 380 is not S1,v=0 → S0,v=1, and the second peak at 400 nm is not S1,v=0 → S0,v=2. What is your reasoning that you are not seeing any v=0→0 transition?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JoJoQuinoa
Hi Hayao,
Thank you for your response!

The question was: Use the anthracene absorption and emission spectrum in Figure 8.5 (Figure 1 in this post) to construct a combined Jablonski diagram/absorption/emission spectrum sketch. Label all states and calculate transition energies in cm-1.

The solution provided by the Professor and the one I found on Google were similar and as provided in the original post: S1,v=1 -> S0,v=1 at λ = 400 nm and S1,v=2 -> S0,v=1 at λ = 380 nm. I believe both were mislabeled. I found the figure below from ScienceDirect and I think it is correct.

"No, the fluorescence peak at 380 is not S1,v=0 → S0,v=1, and the second peak at 400 nm is not S1,v=0 → S0,v=2. What is your reasoning that you are not seeing any v=0→0 transition?"

Initially, I labeled the first peak as v=0->0 (overlapping peaks in Absorption and Emission spectrum are v=0->0 transition) and second peak to be v=0->1. I got confused by the solution and modified my answer.

anthraspeccorrect.PNG
 
Yes, that figure is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JoJoQuinoa

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 178 ·
6
Replies
178
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
909
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K