A R T I C L E S
Altoe` et al.
Table 3. Quantum Yields and Ratios of Quantum Yields for
Photoisomerization of Compounds 4 and 5 in Acetonitrile
so that reactant back formation on the ground-state surface
becomes the favored process. Furthermore, the absence of
fluorescence, the ps excited-state lifetime and the different
singlet and triplet quantum yields observed, reveal that a direct
efficient radiationless decay channel from S1 to S0 exists (that
is, this route does not involve the triplet state, i.e. no ISC occurs).
Starting from these premises, we have investigated the intersec-
tion space between S0 and S1, performing series of constrained
conical intersection optimizations at different values of the
central CdC bond twisting angle. Thanks to this procedure, we
have identified an extended S1/S0 crossing seam which spans
structures of increasing energy from 90° (i.e., the fully twisted
and lowest energy CI S1/S0 90°) to 150° (CI S1/S0 30°,
possessing an almost planar backbone), see Figure 8.
Analogously, an extended crossing seam exists also between
S2 and S1. In particular, we have identified another crossing
between S2 and S1 (High CI S2/S1) that has a planar structure,
yet is much higher in energy then CI S2/S1 planar. Remarkably,
this crossing has the same energy as CI S3/S2 and it is close to
this (2.85 mass weighted a.u. distance only, see Figure 9). This
means that the S2/S1 crossing space spans a region of increasing
energy (and substantially planar structures) that approach the
high energy part of the S2 MEP. It is thus conceivable that high
energy regions of the S2/S1 crossing seam (such as the planar
High CI S2/S1) becomes accessible from CI S3/S2 (i.e., from
the beginning of the S2 MEP) for dynamics reasons: even normal
(thermal) vibrations may easily drive the system into the S2/S1
crossing space from the top of the S2 MEP. Hence, the system
does not necessarily need to fully follow the S2 MEP till to the
S2 minimum to hit the S2/S1 crossing seam and hop to S1, since
this process (i.e., the radiationless decay to S1) can occur much
earlier than predicted previously by the static (Kasha rule-based)
model. If that occurred, as it appears from these analysis, then
the system could jump to S1 at a much higher energy than CI
S2/S1 planar, thus accessing novel high energy regions of the
S1 PES such as the high energy (almost planar) structures of
the S1/S0 intersection space previously shown (see Figures 8
and 9).
In conclusion, it is conceivable that the system decays to high
energy regions of S1 via S2/S1 crossing points nearby the planar
and high energy High S2/S1 CI found close to the CI S3/S2,
and that from here it hits the S1/S0 crossing seam (and, therefore,
it is funneled to S0) much before reaching the twisted CI
minimum (CI S1/S0 90°): i.e. deactivation to S0 may occur via
high energy almost planar (or only slightly twisted) S1/S0 CI
structures. If this were the case, besides opening a very efficient
radiationless decay channel to S0 that quenches the fluorescence,
a very small photoisomerization quantum yield would be
expected, since reactant back formation (following decay from
almost planar molecular structures) would be the most favored
event. A schematic representation of this behavior is reported
and summarized in Figure 10.
This “dynamic interpretation” of fumaramide deactivation can
be schematically represented by using two bidimensional
intersecting surfaces as models for the S1 and S0 PES (see Figure
11). The x-axis represents the relevant stretching coordinate and
the y-axis the rotation of the central CdC bond. It is apparent
that an extended crossing seam exists between these two surfaces
even for small torsional angles, although at higher energies.
Thus, if the system may hit these regions, it can hop down to
S0 before reaching the minimum on S1. Under this hypothesis,
it comes clear why no emission is observed. Moreover, the low
photoisomerization quantum yield observed is a consequence
Isomer
pair
Direct
irradiation
Sensitizeda
b
b
OEfZ
OZfE
O
EfZ/OZfE
)
OEfZ
OZfE
OEfZ/OZfE)
4
5
0.044 0.044
0.015 0.0028 5.27c, 5.58d, 5.36e 0.20 0.0008 37f, 250e
1.05c, 1.15d, 0.99e 0.17 0.20
1.07f, 1.18e
a Using benzophenone as the sensitizer. b At 254 nm. c From the
photostationary state composition upon 300 nm irradiation (Equation 1).
d From the photostationary state composition upon 254 nm irradiation
(Equation 1). e Determined directly from the quantum yields. f From the
photostationary state composition.
conditions, but considering the low oscillator strength of the
transition, it is unlikely to have a high radiative rate and this
path will not play an important role.
iv) Also a competitive (fluorescence quenching) S1fT1 ISC may
not be ruled out at Min S1, since singlet and triplet are almost
degenerate here and their spin-orbit-coupling (SOC) is significant
(see the subsection below for a detailed discussion on triplet
photochemistry).
Experiments support our hypothesis for an unfavored/inef-
ficient photoisomerization process, the singlet photoisomeriza-
tion quantum yield recorded for the threads 4 and 5 being rather
small (see Table 3). On the other hand, emission is not observed
and a very short (ps time scale) excited-state lifetime has been
recorded for 3-6, revealing that an efficient and ultrafast
radiationless decay channel exists that quenches fluorescence
and quickly triggers excited-state decay and reactant back
formation. Although apparently rather surprising for a spin-
multiplicity change event such as ISC (which generally implies
longer timescales to occur), this process seems to be the unique
way to account for the experimental data, provided it is ultrafast
and very efficient. If this were the case, singlet and photosen-
sitized (i.e., triplet) photochemistry should lead to the same
outcome. That is, the recorded singlet photoisomerization
quantum yields for the threads should coincide with the triplet
values, since singlet photochemistry eventually turns out to
become a triplet process. It is anticipated here that this is not
the case: experimental results reported in Table 3 shows that
the photoisomerization quantum yields recorded for the singlet
and the triplet are very different.
Thus, while it can be concluded (according to the Kasha rule-
based view) that Min S1 collects most of the excited population
and that deactivation to S0 must involve either emission or ISC,
unfortunately neither of these mechanisms is supported by the
experiments. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that
fumaramide is not a Kasha rule-based system, i.e. its photo-
chemistry cannot be accounted for dealing with the lowest
energy points of each electronic state only. For a more correct
and realistic interpretation of the experimental results nonstatic
effects need to be accounted for, i.e. it is mandatory to explore
also higher energy regions along (or close to) the MEPs and
the crossing seams, which may turn out to become important
for dynamics and will be the focus of the dynamic model
presented below.
(B) The Dynamic Model. The inconsistencies found between
the experiments and the Kasha rule based-model reported in
the previous section, motivated us to explore higher energy
regions of the photochemically relevant potential energy surfaces
in order to identify other feasible deactivation mechanisms. The
low isomerization quantum yields observed in the singlet
photochemistry suggest that deactivation must involve funnel
regions where the CdC central bond is not yet fully twisted,
9
114 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 131, NO. 1, 2009