Energy Transfer and rate equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unit of the energy transfer rate constant in the context of energy transfer reactions, particularly focusing on the order of reaction for processes such as Förster resonance energy transfer. Participants explore the implications of different models and mechanisms of energy transfer on the classification of these reactions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the unit for the energy transfer rate constant, noting that the reaction A* + C → A + C* appears to be second-order based on their rate equation.
  • Another participant suggests that the units for the rate constant depend on the specific mechanism of energy transfer, indicating that collisional and resonance energy transfers may not be directly comparable.
  • A participant highlights that both referenced papers consider resonance mechanisms for energy transfer but differ in their classification of the reaction order.
  • One participant proposes that the Förster resonance energy transfer equation assumes intramolecular transfer, which may explain the differing interpretations in the papers.
  • A later reply expresses confusion, noting that both papers indeed consider intramolecular resonance energy transfer, which complicates the understanding of their differing conclusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the energy transfer should be classified as first-order or second-order, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding the classification of the reaction order based on the specific mechanisms discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of the exact mechanism of energy transfer in determining the appropriate classification and units for the rate constant, but does not resolve the discrepancies between the papers referenced.

HAYAO
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
381
Reaction score
238
What is the unit for energy transfer rate constant?

I am confused because of the order of reaction of energy transfer. Consider the case for following energy transfer A* + C → A + C*. The star represent excited state. Then the rate equation for A* would be as follows:
\frac{d[A^{*}]}{dt} = \frac{d[C]}{dt} = k_{C^{*}\rightarrow A}[A][C^{*}] -k_{A^{*}\rightarrow C}[A^{*}][C]
and you can see that energy transfer in this case is a second-order reaction.

If [A^{*}] is in unit of concentration M (mol l-1), obviously the unit for k_{A^{*}\rightarrow C} would be M-1 s-1. As so, units are different from typical photophysical process like fluorescence which is usually first order reaction. However, I have seen papers that treats energy transfer as first-order reaction (like this one), while I've seen ones that treats it as second-order reaction (like this one). Which one is right? I think that the latter is right, but then if you think about for example Forster transfer equation:
k_{A^{*}\rightarrow C} = \frac{9000c^{4}ln10}{128\pi ^{5}n^{4}N_{A}\tau _{0}^{a}}\cdot \frac{\kappa ^{2}}{R^{6}}\int f_{a}(\upsilon )\varepsilon _{b}(\upsilon )\frac{d\upsilon }{\upsilon ^{4}}
it is obvious that the unit is given as first-order reaction. Do you have to change the units into second-order reaction? If so, then how do you do that?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Like the rate constants for chemical reactions, the units for the rate constant depends on the exact mechanism of energy transfer. Collisional energy transfer is a different process than resonance energy transfer, so why would you necessarily expect the rate constants to be comparable?
 
Ygggdrasil said:
Like the rate constants for chemical reactions, the units for the rate constant depends on the exact mechanism of energy transfer. Collisional energy transfer is a different process than resonance energy transfer, so why would you necessarily expect the rate constants to be comparable?
Because in the above two papers I have given as an example both considers the energy transfer to be in resonance mechanism. Despite so, both paper have different take on whether the transfer is first-order or second-order.
 
I think the equation for Förster resonance energy transfer assumes that the transfer occurs intramolecularly, especially because the equation requires defining the distance (R) between the transition dipoles as well as their relative orientation (κ2). Perhaps the difference between the two papers is whether they're considering intermolecular RET or intramolecular RET (again, the details of the exact mechanism are important).
 
Yes, that is what I thought. But both papers consider intramolecular RET, hence the reason I am confused.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
10K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K