Excited states can be deactivated in several ways – they can emit, giving off light energy, deactivate – resulting in a “vibrationally hot” ground state (i.e. energy loss as heat) or be quenched by another molecule. In this section, we will consider the process of quenching, and outline some ideas that use the process of quenching in applications. In addition, we will examine how the process of quenching can be studied to give us information on the nature of the excited state-quencher interaction. It is assumed the reader is familiar with the information presented in the Light Absorption and Fate of Excited State post.
Quenching of the excited state is a significant process because it is usually a very efficient process. The excited state of many organic compounds, for example, are efficiently quenched by the presence of oxygen, at rate constants several orders of magnitude faster than emission processes from the triplet state. (Emission from the triplet is spin forbidden, and hence has rate constants in the range 10 to 103 dm3 mol-1 s-1, whereas oxygen quenching may take place at rate constants of the order 109 dm3 mol-1 s-1. Therefore, to study the emission from triplets, we need to deaerate the sample (and have it at low temperature – see the experimental section). Quenching processes can occur by two processes – electron transfer or energy transfer. In both cases, the excited state energy of the luminophore (the luminescent species) is deactivated due to the presence of the quencher. There are two scenarios by which quenching is generally modelled, and these are discussed below.
Dynamic Quenching of an Excited State
If a solution with emitting species is studied, and for every 100 photons absorbed by the solution, 30 are re-emitted, the quantum yield of emission is said to be 0.3. What happens to the other 70? They are translated into radiationless transitions, such as deactivation. As mentioned in the Ruthenium polypyridyl photochemistry post, we can quantify the quantum yield of emission (or any process) as being the rate constant of that process (in this case emission) divided by the sum of all rate constants deactivating the excited state. If we divide the emission quantum yield in the absence of quencher by that in the presence of quencher, we can generate an expression known as the Stern-Volmer equation, as shown below.
The Stern-Volmer equation models what is called dynamic quenching, quenching which occurs by the quencher diffusing through solution and interacting with luminophore, resulting in a deactivation of the excited state. The emission intensity is reduced, because as well as other deactivation pathways before the presence of quencher, the presence of quencher now adds another deactivation pathway in competition with luminescence. This quenching process is controlled by how fast the quencher can diffuse through solution and “collide” with luminophore, and as diffusion is usually a very fast process in solutions, it can be very efficient.
The Stern-Volmer equation is the equation of a straight line, and hence it allows for very easy experimental determination of the quenching rate constant, kq. If the emission intensity (or lifetime) in the absence of quencher and then in the presence of incremental amounts of quencher is measured, and the resulting ratio of emission intensities (I(0)/I) is plotted as a function of quencher concentration, the resulting graph (called a Stern-Volmer plot) will have an intercept of 1 and a slope called the Stern-Volmer constant, KSV. KSV is the product of the natural radiative lifetime (the lifetime in the absence of quencher, τ0, and the quenching rate constant, kq. Knowing the slope and the natural radiative lifetime allows easy calculation of the quenching rate constant. An outline of a common experiment – quenching of a ruthenium polypyridyl complex emission with Fe3+ is shown below.
The fact that quenching can be so efficient means that it can be a useful probe in studying systems with emission properties. For example, ruthenium polypyridyl complexes have been used successfully as oxygen sensors, whereby the complex has been incorporated into a silica matrix and the resulting stub located inside packaging. In the absence of oxygen, emission is observed when the stub is irradiated with light. However, if oxygen leaches into packaging, the emission observed will be substantially reduced, as it will be quenched by the oxygen. By calibrating the reduction in intensity using a Stern-Volmer plot, it is possible to estimate the concentration (partial pressure) of oxygen in the system. The concept has applicability in food packaging and for containers holding oxygen sensitive artefacts (e.g. paintings).
Dynamic quenching results from collisions between excited state and quencher. However, if the quencher is somehow associated with the luminophore in solution prior to light absorption, the association may mean that the luminophore will not emit, due to induced changes in its properties because of presence of quencher. Therefore the reduction in emission intensity will be affected by the extent to which the quencher associates to the luminophore and the number of quenchers present. The reduction in emission intensity can be quantified as follows. If the luminophore, M, associates with quencher, Q according to an equilibrium constant of association, Ks, then this association constant can be quantified as the ratio of associated luminophore-quenchers luminophore-quenchers moieties ([M-Q]) to the product of unassociated luminophore and quencher; [M][Q]. Since the total concentation of luminophore, [M]0 is equal to the sum of associated and unassociated luminophore, substitution of this into the equilibrium expression, followed by rearrangement results in another equation of a straight line, very similar in form to the Stern-Volmer equation. However, while plotting I0/I (as emission intensity can be said to be proportional to concentration) against [Q] will result in a straight line for static quenching, analogous to dynamic quenching, interpretation of the slope is different. In this case, the slope quantifies the association constant between quencher and luminophore – and therefore is useful in providing information on how these two species interact in the ground state.
Dynamic or Static?
The question that immediately arises now is that if plots of emission intensity against quencher concentration both produce straight line graphs, how do we know which type of quenching is occurring? The answer lies in thinking again about the nature of each type of quenching. For dynamic quenching, all luminophores are affected by the quenching process as it is probable that they will all collide with a quencher during their excited state lifetime, so both emission intensity and lifetime reduced on increasing quencher concentration. For static quenching by association, only luminophore-quencher associations result in reduction in emission, unassociated luminophores are free to luminesce as if there was no quencher present. Increasing quencher concentration affects emission intensity, because there are more associations, but not emission lifetime, as the unassociated luminophores can emit in the absence of quencher. (Note that these two scenarios are the extremes, and there are cases where a mixture of both static and dynamic quenching may occur simultaneously.)
Therefore the diagnostic test for assigning whether a quenching mechanism is dynamic or static is to compare how the emission intensity and emission lifetime changes as a function of increasing concentration. In the case of dynamic quenching, plots of relative emission intensities and emission lifetimes will be th same, changing on increasing quencher concentration. For static quenching, only a plot of relative emission intensity will change, the emission lifetime plot will have slope close to zero.
Another model of static quenching is where the quencher is in a fixed position close to the luminophore (e.g. in a frozen matrix or a zeolite). This is modelled by the Perrin model of quenching, which will be discussed in the experimental techniques section when discussing phosphorescence.
MK Seery, N Fay, T McCormac, E Dempsey, RJ Forster, TE Keyes, Photophysics of Ruthenium Polypyridyl Complexes formed with lacunary polyoxotungstates with iron addenda, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., (2005), 19(7), 3426 – 3433. An example showing unusual static quenching between a quencher (large polyoxometallate clusters) and a luminophore (a ruthenium complex).
B Valeur, Molecular Fluorescence: Principles and Applications, Wiley: Weinheim, 2002. Discusses the principles of dynamic and static quenching well.
Ruthenium polypyridyl complexes certainly rank amongst the most researched family of compounds in inorganic photochemistry. They are interesting complexes to study, having relatively long (100′s ns) emission lifetimes and a range of applications. It was the oil crisis of the 1970′s that sparked interest in these compounds, as potential hydrogen fuel generators by the photochemical splitting of water, and as seen in other posts, they are currently at the forefront in terms of efficiency in dye-sensitised solar cells. In addition, they have been used as DNA probes and oxygen sensors. The photochemistry of these complexes is discussed below. Readers are recommended to be familiar with the concepts in the “Light Absorption and Fate of the Excited State” article before studying this material.
Like so many aspects of modern photochemistry, Ireland has some key researchers in ruthenium photochemistry and the article below draws from a recent perspective by John Kelly (TCD) and Han Vos (DCU). The fundamentals are discussed here with applications discussed in a forthcoming article.
1. Introduction to Inorganic Photochemistry
We have looked elsewhere at Jablonski diagrams for organic molecules. Inorganic molecules, or more specifically d-block complexes, add an extra layer of molecular orbitals to this Jablonski diagram, between the ground state (HOMO) of the organic compound (which is now the ligand) and the excited state (LUMO). This opens up a range of new transitions, aside from the HOMO-LUMO transition observed in organic chromophores. This latter transition in inorganic photochemistry is called a ligand-field or ligand-ligand transition, as in the excited state the electron is located on the ligand. As well as this, because of the presence of the metal’s molecular orbitals, three other transitions are available – a d-d transition, where an electron is excited from a metal orbital to an unoccupied metal orbital (this is usually referred to as a metal centred (MC) transition as well as transitions between the metal and the ligand. These can be either an electron excited from the ligand to the metal, called Ligand to Metal Charge Transfer (LMCT) or from the metal to the ligand (MLCT). Because of the energy differences between the various types of transitions, ligand field transitions are usually in the near-UV region (analogous to where we would expect organic molecules to absorb light), charge transfer transitions are in the visible region. The resulting emission from charge-transfer states is often highly coloured.
In order to discuss these transitions in context, we will focus on the, that is, the, inorganic photochemistry complex: Ru(II)(bpy)32+.
2. Fundamentals of ruthenium polypyridyl photochemistry
2.1 Absorption and Emission
Because of the incorporation of metal orbitals, the Jablonski diagram needs to incorporate the notation discussed above. Ruthenium in oxidation state II is d6, and so as an octahedral complex its electrons are in the low-spin t2g6 configuration. Incident light at about 450 nm promotes one of these electrons to a ligand anti-bonding orbital, a metal to ligand charge transfer. (We’ll discuss this, but you might consider how this was established.) Therefore we modify the S0 – S1 notation used in the Jablonski diagrams of organic molecules to one which denotes the type of excited state in inorganic ones – in this case 1MLCT. Transfer to 3MLCT is efficient (heavy atom effect) and so ruthenium complex’s photochemistry generally happens from here. [Remember intersystem crossing is effectively an electron flip, from a situation where electrons are paired to one where they are unpaired.]
The absorption and emission data are shown. Ruthenium absorbs at 450 nm (2.8 eV) and emits strongly at ~620 nm (~2.0 eV) in water. This emission is caused by radiative process from the 3MLCT state to the ground state. Emission lifetimes are approximately 200 ns in water in aerated solution and 600 ns in deaerated water. The oxygen in water is a very efficient quencher, and quenches emission with a rate of ~ 109 M-1 s-1. It is possible to map out the various deactivation processes of the excited state to investigate its kinetics:
The quantum yield of emission is therefore affected by how efficient the rate of emission is compared to the rates of deactivation and quenching. This is quantified by the Stern-Volmer relationship (oxygen quenches according to the dynamic quenching model) as discussed in the Quenching section, according to the equation below:
The rate constants, in particular the rate constant for deactivation, are dependent on how close the ground and excited states are. The excited state of this complex is a charge-transfer state (charge has moved from one region of the molecule to another), and therefore is very sensitive to solvent polarity – it will be stabilised in more polar solvents. Therefore, changing solvent polarity will affect the energy of the emitting state. It is found that on changing the solvent from water to acetonitrile, the emission lifetime increases from 635 ns to 870 ns, and the quantum yield of emission increases by 50% from 0.o4 to 0.o6. The emission maximum increases in energy from 627 nm to 615 nm.
These results can be explained as follows: on decreasing polarity of the solvent, the emitting state is destabilised by about 12 nm. This increase in energy difference between ground and excited state means that there is poorer overlap of the vibrational levels of the ground and excited state, so the deactivation process is not as efficient. Therefore the deactivation rate constant term is lower in the expression for the emission quantum yield in the presence of quencher, above, indicating a larger emission quantum yield. All of this is based on the assumption that the radiative rate constant remains unchanged, which is found to be true in practice. This observation is generally summarised as the Energy Gap Law – the larger the gap between ground and excited state, the less efficient deactivation processes are.
2.2 Nature of the Excited State
Absorption and emission spectra give initial information on the excited state, and are the photochemist’s initial tools to probe the excited state chemistry of molecules. To delve further, flash photolysis/transient spectroscopy give more detailed information. Flash photolysis, as mentioned elsewhere on this site, allows us to study the excited state by obtaining its lifetime and absorption spectrum. An experimental set-up is outlined below (more details onthe general details of flash photolysis in the Experimental article on Flash Photolysis). Excitation using, for example a Nd:YAG laser at 355 nm, generates the excited state which quickly equilibrates to the 3MLCT state. At this stage, a Xe or Hg/Xe obtains an absorption spectrum of the excited state. This was traditionally acquired point by point (i.e. measuring the change in absorption at 400, then 410, then 420 nm, etc) but iCCD (intensified charge coupled device) detectors are now the norm – these acquire information across a broad spectral range (~600 nm) at once. As well as providing structural information on the nature of the excited state by generating its absorption spectrum, flash photolysis also allows for the lifetime of this state to be measured, by acquiring a spectrum at intervals after the laser flash, therefore monitoring the decay of the excited state.
The transient spectrum is shown with the accompanying ground state absorption spectrum. In the transient spectrum, it can be seen that some peaks have negative changes in absorbance whereas others have positive changes. The negative changes in absorbance (“bleaching”) occur where the molecule shows absorbance bands in the ground state. Hence, with a transient spectrum, the lash flash results in the formation of the excited state, and the xenon lamp records the loss of ground state chromophores – any absorbance that was present because of these chromophores is now registered as negative changes in absorbance in the transient spectrum. On formation of excited/transient state, new chromophores are present, which are monitored by the xenon lamp, and hence appear as positive changes in absorption (remember ground and excited states are chemically different species). To generate a true transient spectrum, the differences in absorption is subtracted from the absorption spectrum, although this is rarely necessary. The decay curve, in the inset is the rate of decay of one of the peaks – e.g. the transient peak at 390 nm. Fitting this curve to an exponential function allows for the rate constant (and hence lifetime) of the transient state to be easily determined. For example, if the decay was found to be mono-exponential, the curve of intensity (I) versus time (t) would be fitted to the expressionand allow for calculation of k.
The above experiment discusses results from a nanosecond experiment, but if we were to push faster, into the picosecond and femtosecond domain, the processes of intersystem crossing and relaxation in the triplet state would be observed. These kind of experiments are how information such as charge injection rates in dye-sensitized solar cells can be determined.
The extent of positive absorbances in transient spectroscopy provide information on the nature of the transient species or excited state. Like conventional UV/vis spectroscopy, broad featureless bands very often don’t provide much direct information. However, considering the various types of transitions available, why is the excited state assigned as a MLCT state? This state, as indicated above, results in an extra electron residing on the bipyridyl (bpy) ligand, after an electron was transferred from the metal to it. Therefore, the transient spectrum should show characteristics of this bpy radical (called “bpy dot minus”). How can this be done? Well with the assistance of our electrochemical friends, we can electrochemically generate the bpy radical, and obtain its UV/vis spectrum (this technique is called spectroelectrochemistry). If it has characteristics similar to those in the transient spectrum (which in this case it does, the band at 368 nm), we can conclude that they must be attributed to the same chromophore.
In this first of two articles, we have looked at basic photophysical properties of a ruthenium complex and examined how absorption, emission and transient spectroscopic studies provide information on their excited state. In the second article, we will look at how these properties are used in a variety of applications.
4. References and Further Reading
Photochemistry of polypyridine and porphyrin complexes, K. Kalyanasundaram, Academic, London: 2002. Very comprehensive book on the area with excellent introduction covering theory in much more detail than above.
Vos, J. G. and Kelly, J. M., Ruthenium polypyridyl chemistry: from basic research to applications and back again, Dalton. Trans., 2006, 4869 – 4883. Good ooverview of the synthesis of these complexes and their variety of applications, especially looking at the role of Irish researchers in the area
Photochemistry is the study of what happens to molecules when they absorb light. Therefore it is important to consider the factors affecting whether and how efficiently molecules absorb. In addition, in the very short time-frame after a molecule has absorbed light, it can undergo a variety of processes. In applications, we may desire a particular process, so again an understanding of what pathways are available to excited states is important so that systems can be optimised as required (e.g. by changing solvent, modifying the molecule).
Students should note that this topic is traditionally approached from a quantum chemical background. All textbooks on photochemistry cover this well (for example see Turro or Gilbert and Baggott) so it is not necessary to relay it in too much detail here. Instead, a qualitative overview is presented for the purposes of providing a background to the material elsewhere on this site.
1. Light Absorption – Formation of the Excited State
Photochemistry is based on the reaction/reactivity of molecules in their excited state after they have absorbed light. By “light”, we mean that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can promote electrons in the outer atomic orbitals to unoccupied orbitals – i.e. electrons near or at the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) to orbitals near or including the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). To do this, the light must be of sufficient energy to promote electrons between electronic energy levels, and this is found to be light in the UV/visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. For this reason, the region of the spectrum 200 nm < λ < 800 nm is sometimes referred to as the “photochemical window”. The range of wavelengths in the spectrum and the result of absorption by the atom/molecule is shown below.
Therefore, absorption of a photon of light of wavelength 200 – 800 nm may result in a HOMO-LUMO transition (dependent on other factors which we will discuss later). A very clear indication of this is observed in d-block complexes. For example, a ruthenium (II) complex has six d-electrons and has a low spin octahedral configuration t2g6. On absorption of visible light (λ ~450 nm), an electron is promoted to an eg orbital, giving the complex its red-orange colour. This transition is in the visible region. For d0 complexes such as TiO2, a d-d transition is not possible, and a transition from the oxide ligand to the metal centre – a ligand – to metal charge transfer (LMCT) transition occurs, but only if the molecule is irradiated by UV light (λ < 390 nm). Hence TiO2 is white, as it does not absorb any visible light.
As well as the type of transitions possible, a second factor to consider is the intensity of absorption as a function of wavelength. These absorptions, measured by UV/visible absorption spectroscopy for gases or solutions and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) for solids will vary depending on the extinction coefficient, ε, of the molecule at that wavelength. The extinction coefficient is a measure of the probability of an electronic transition from ground to excited state, at a given wavelength. This probability is calculated via quantum chemical parameters that are beyond the scope of this course. However, in simple terms, the value of ε gives an indication of how “allowed” a transition is, where “allowed” is a meant strictly as a quantum chemical term. If ε is measured to be greater than 105 dm3 mol-1 cm-1, then the transition is “fully allowed” – all quantum chemical rules are passed. For transitions below ~100 [dm3 mol-1 cm-1 ,units implied from hereon], the transition is “forbidden”, indicating that all quantum rules are not passed, and the probability of transition is very low – i.e. the molecule does not absorb well at this wavelength.
The in-between grey area, for ε values between ~102 and ~104, are where the transitions are “partially allowed”. The quantum mechanical rules are based primarily on two components – spin and symmetry. The spin component says that if a transition involves a change of spin (e.g. singlet to triplet) then the transition is forbidden. The symmetry component examines the symmetry of the ground and excited state, and depending on these symmetries the transition will be allowed or forbidden. But these symmetry calculations are based on a molecule idealised conditions, so the symmetry of the real molecule may be distorted by the presence of solvent or of a heavy atom on the molecule (the so-called “heavy atom effect” – we will return to later). Hence if a transition is spin-forbidden, symmetry allowed, then the probability is very low, and ε will be <100. But if it is spin-allowed, symmetry forbidden, then appreciable absorption may be observed (102 – 104) because of the symmetry distortions mentioned above.
The final factor to consider about light absorption, having discussed types of transition and intensity of absorption above is the shape of absorption spectra. Again, these relate to the discussions above on the value of ε at each wavelength, but for an individual electronic transition (e.g. HOMO – LUMO), transitions between vibrational levels of each orbital may be more intense than others. These transitions are governed by the Franck-Condon Principle, which states that:
the electronic transition in a molecule takes place so rapidly compared to nuclear motion, that immediately afterwards the nuclei have still very much the same nuclear geometry (position and velocity) as before the transition.
In simple terms, this means that electronic transitions take place so quickly the nuclear geometry differences between ground and excited states do not have time to adjust, or in even simpler terms, these transitions are vertical. Consider the potential energy diagram for a HOMO and LUMO shown below. Each electronic orbital has some of its vibrational levels shown. The probability of an electron being in one of these orbitals can be calculated, and are “mapped” using wavefunctions, as shown.
Looking at these qualitatively, we can say that the most probable transition between a vibrational level in the ground state (HOMO) and one in the excited state (LUMO) will be the one where the wavefunctions overlap the most in the vertical line above the ground state groud vibrational level. (in either a positive or negative direction). On the left hand side of the diagram, the greatest overlap is (hypothetically) the ground state vibrational level 1 and the excited state vibrational level 1, so we have a 0 – 1 transition (spectroscopists will get annoyed at this notation, but it is used here just to illustrate the principle). On the right hand side, the excited state geometry is different to the ground state (the potential energy diagram is shifted to the right a little), so in this case the hypothetical best overlap is between 0 in the ground state and 4 in the excited state. Tehrefore the shapes of the two absorption spectra in each of these scenarios is different. Of course, in practice we don’t see this fine structure, the absorption spectra are essentially a line drawn over the tops of the individual transition peaks, resulting in the broad, generally featureless absorption spectra we are used to. But if we were to do it in the gas phase (eg iodine vapour experiment) we would see this fine structure. If you’re wondering, the reason we don’t see fine structure in solution is because the molecules absorbing light are being battered around by solvent molecules, so the energy levels are constantly moving up and down a little, therefore blurring the transitions a little. Each electronic transition will have a suite of different vibrational transitions, so a molecule with, for example, three bands in the experimental absorption spectrum consists three of these processes happening. Because electronic transitions also vary in intensity, some of the bands may be more intense than others.
2. The Excited State
If a molecule absorbs light and forms an excited state, then it is in a very different state to one it was in the previous few sub-picoseconds. Excited states have been called “electronic isomers”, which rather underestimates their relevance. To emphasise the point, excited states are chemically different species to their corresponding ground states. This statement reflects the true beauty and power of photochemistry. For every photoactive molecule a second different molecule can be “created” by literally, the flick of a switch – this gives an inkling of the true potential of photochemistry as a discipline. Very often, these states are not accessible by thermal means because of the great differences in energy levels.
Excited states are energetically unstable and very short-lived. “Short” in this context means from sub-nano and nanosecond (if a process is allowed) to milliseconds and seconds, if a process is forbidden, such as phosphorescence. To put these numbers in context, the German photochemist and educator Michael Tausch has pointed out that the positive equivalent of a nanosecond (10-9 s), which is 10+9 s (or 1 gigasecond), is about the equivalent of a human lifetime.
Therefore the equipment and scientists which experimentally determine the processes which are discussed below should not be overlooked, and we will look at some of these in various articles (see Experimental). For now, it can be said that since the discovery of microsecond (x 10-6 sec) flash photolysis by Norrish and Porter in the 1950’s, each decade has seen another power of ten on the limit of time that can be studied culminating in Zewail’s development of femtosecond (x 10-15 sec) spectroscopy in the 1990’s. This is at the limit of atomic vibrations and indeed electron transfer, and so is probably a “true” limit, as beyond this the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle becomes significant. Scientists at either end of the timescale, Norrish and Porter, and Zewail, won Nobel prizes for their efforts. these developments will be covered in more detail in a future article.
So what is the fate of the excited state? When a molecule absorbs light, it is a very fast process – on the order of picoseconds or lower. Depending on the wavelength of light used, and the Franck-Condon principle, above, the vibrational levels of some upper excited state will be populated with electron density. The various processes which occur can be represented on a Jablonski diagram, a sketch of the electronic energy levels in an atom together with their vibrational levels.
In principle the Jablonski diagram is similar to the transitions in the potential energy curves, shown above, except the potential energy curves are usually not represented. A simple Jablonski diagram for an organic molecule is shown above. Note that a similar diagram for an inorganic compound will also include metal orbitals, so will be different in style. The processes which occur when a molecule absorbs light are below. We will discuss the kinetics of these processes in a separate post, looking at how they can be measured.
- Molecule absorbs light and populates upper excited state S* with electrons
- Electrons in upper vibrational levels of S* undergo vibrational relaxation and the electrons move to the lowest vibrational level of S*.
- The molecules very quickly dissipate this very high energy by internal conversion – the electron density moves to the lowest excited state, S1. Internal conversion occurs by the electron density transferring from the vibrational levels of the upper excited state to vibrational levels of a lower excited state which they are overlapping. Hence this is a “horizontal energy” transition, or a radiationless transition – it does not give off a photon of energy (light) as the electron density has not moved in one “big jump”.
- Vibrational relaxation again occurs, and the electron is now in the lowest vibrational state of S1. This is a statement of Kasha’s rule, which says that photochemical processes (fluorescence, quenching) happen from the lowest vibrational state of the lowest excited state (S1). The reason for this is that the processes described above leading to this situation all occur in a matter of picoseconds. The electron now has a choice of what to do next
- It may undergo fluorescence, giving off a photon of energy.
- It may undergo internal conversion as above.
- The electron may undergo intersystem crossing (ISC) to the triplet state. Once here, the molecule can undergo phosphorescence or deactivation. These processes are shown in the Jablonski diagram. Note the timescales involved in the various processes.
Light absorption can result in the formation of an (electronically) excited state, which has different chemical properties to the groud state. The intensity and shape of absorption spectra are a result of the nature of excitation between ground and excited states. Various processes result in the deactivation of the excited state. The timescales of these indicate their efficiency, and we will look at these in more detail in future posts.
All general photochemistry texts discuss the principles of light absorption and deactivation of the excited state in good detail. some are given below, but any will give pretty much the same information.
Gilbert, A. and Baggott, J. E., Essentials of molecular photochemistry, Blackwell Scientific: London, 1991.
Turro, N. J., Ramamurthy, V. and Scaiano, J. C., Principles of molecular photochemistry: an introduction, University Science Books:Sausalito, 2009. Despite the title, a detailed text with lots on the various photophysical processes that occur on light absorption. These three authors are among the best known photochemists today. Turro’s classic, Modern Molecular Photochemistry, was for a long time the bible for photochemistry.