2982
J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 109, No. 8, 22 August 1998
Communications
specific site effect on the translational energy distribution of
the H2, HD, and D2 elimination is shown in Fig. 4͑a͒, while
the isotope effect on the translational energy distribution of
specific site eliminations is shown in Fig. 4͑b͒. For conve-
nience of comparison, all translational energy distributions
shown in Figs. 3͑a͒ and 3͑b͒ are normalized to the same
height.
channel ͑1,1 molecular hydrogen elimination͒, the transla-
tional energy distributions for H2, HD, D2 are almost exactly
the same ͓see Fig. 4͑b͔͒ implying that the isotope effect on
the dynamics of the 1,1 elimination channel are very small.
The isotope effect on the translational energy distributions
for the four center elimination channels, especially the 1,2
cis elimination, is much more significant. From Table II, it is
easy to see that the relative yields for any specific site elimi-
nation increase as the eliminated species (D2, HD, and H2)
gets lighter.
From this study, complete and important information on
the site and isotope effects on the molecular hydrogen elimi-
nation processes from ethylene has been derived. Using the
new improved experimental technique, dynamical differ-
ences between different microchannels of molecular hydro-
gen elimination processes from ethylene can be detected.
The results of this work provide an excellent test ground for
further theoretical investigations of molecular elimination
processes of ethylene.
From the translational energy distributions and yields for
the specific site H2, HD, and D2 elimination ͓see Fig. 4͑a͒
and Table II͔, it is very clear that the 1,1, 1,2 cis and 1,2
trans D2 elimination processes show significant differences
in their kinetic energy distributions, indicating that the dy-
namics of D2 elimination from different sites are quite dif-
ferent. The difference between the 1,2 cis and 1,2 trans D2
elimination is especially interesting because all previous
studies at different wavelength excitations show no differ-
ences between these two microchannels. The HD elimina-
tions from different sites also show significant differences in
their translational energy distributions. For the H2 elimina-
tion processes, however, the differences between the 1,2 cis
and trans H2 eliminations have diminished. It is clear that the
four center molecular elimination requires a 1,2 hydrogen
atom migration. The transition state of the 1,2 elimination is
believed to be the so-called ethylidene radical
(:CHCH3).13–17 Recent theoretical studies on the ethylene
photodissociation show that the structures of the transition
state of the 1,2 trans and the 1,2 cis elimination processes are
slightly different.17 This will certainly cause some differ-
ences between the dynamics of the 1,2 cis and trans elimi-
nation processes. The main difference shown in the dynam-
ics of 1,2 cis and trans eliminations cannot, however, be
solely explained by the differences in the transition states.17
Other dynamical processes such as 1,2 concerted molecular
hydrogen elimination, which does not require 1,2 hydrogen
atom shift, might be responsible for the main difference be-
tween the cis and trans molecular hydrogen eliminations. It
is certainly conceivable that the concerted molecular hydro-
gen eliminations from cis and trans configurations might be
quite different because the distances between the two hydro-
gen atoms are significantly different in the two type elimina-
tions in which tunneling effects might be important.
This work is supported by the National Research Coun-
cil and Academia Sinica of the Republic of China.
1 J. J. Lin, D. W. Hwang, S. Harich, Y. T. Lee, and X. Yang, Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 69, 1642 ͑1998͒.
2 M. Sauer, Jr. and L. M. Dorfman, J. Chem. Phys. 35, 497 ͑1961͒.
3 R. A. Back and D. W. L. Griffiths, J. Chem. Phys. 46, 4839 ͑1967͒.
4
͑a͒ H. Hara and I. Tanaka, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 46, 3012 ͑1973͒; ͑b͒ 47,
1543 ͑1974͒.
5 P. Ausloos and R. Gorden, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 36, 5 ͑1962͒.
6 H. Okabe and J. R. McNesby, J. Chem. Phys. 36, 601 ͑1962͒.
7 A. B. Callear and R. J. Cvetanovic, J. Chem. Phys. 24, 873 ͑1956͒.
8 B. A. Balko, J. Zhang, and Y. T. Lee, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 935 ͑1992͒.
9 A. Stowlow, B. A. Balko, E. F. Cromwell, J. Zhang, and Y. T. Lee, J.
Photochem. Photobiol., A 62, 285 ͑1992͒.
10 Evan F. Cromwell, Albert Stolow, Marcus J. J. Vrakking, and Y. T. Lee,
J. Chem. Phys. 97, 4029 ͑1992͒.
11 A. M. Mebel, Y. T. Chen, and S. H. Lin, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 9007 ͑1996͒.
12
͑a͒ X. S. Zhao, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Chemistry, University of
California, Berkeley, 1985; ͑b͒ J. D. Myers, Ph.D. thesis, Department of
Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, 1991.
13 E. M. Evleth and A. Sevin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103, 7414 ͑1981͒.
14 J. D. Goddard, Chem. Phys. Lett. 83, 312 ͑1981͒.
15 G. J. Collin, Adv. Photochem. 14, 135 ͑1988͒.
16 K. Raghachari, M. J. Frisch, J. A. Pople, and P. v. R. Schleyer, Chem.
Phys. Lett. 85, 145 ͑1982͒.
17 A. H. H. Chang, A. M. Mebel, X. Yang, S. H. Lin, and Y. T. Lee, Chem.
Phys. Lett. ͑in press͒.
The isotope effect on the translational energy distribu-
tion is also quite interesting. For the three center elimination
128.143.1.222 On: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:15:43