Correction to “Ruthenium Dye Excitations and Relaxations in Natural Sunlight”

An error in computing the optical rate coefficients for dye RuP was discovered in Table S4 of the Supporting Information Section S8 Model S? for this article, published in J. Phys. Chem. A, 2021, 125, 4365-4372, 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c02386. The optical rate coefficients include absorption, stimulated e...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of physical chemistry. A, Molecules, spectroscopy, kinetics, environment, & general theory Molecules, spectroscopy, kinetics, environment, & general theory, 2023-03, Vol.127 (9), p.2212-2213
Hauptverfasser: Cheshire, Thomas P., Houle, Frances A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:An error in computing the optical rate coefficients for dye RuP was discovered in Table S4 of the Supporting Information Section S8 Model S? for this article, published in J. Phys. Chem. A, 2021, 125, 4365-4372, 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c02386. The optical rate coefficients include absorption, stimulated emission, and ground-state bleach associated with the ground state and the singlet and triplet excited states as well as for the excited-state absorption between the excited states and implicit higher-energy excited states. The optical rate coefficients for continuous solar irradiance were computed using eq 3 of the main text in which the product of the individual signal components and the solar spectrum are integrated and multiplied by the fundamental optical rate coefficient. We determined the incorrect signal components were used for RuP in the published Supporting Information Table S4. The corrected Table S4 column for RuP is presented with the reported values from the original paper in the corrected Supporting Information. New simulations have been performed using the corrected values, and the results were used to update Figures 5 and 6 and also Figure S9 in the corrected Supporting Information. The published conclusions are unchanged. The populations of RuP excited states, Figure 5, are only marginally smaller, which should be expected with minor changes to the optical rate coefficients. There is not a significant change in the results for the number of radiative and nonradiative interactions per dye per second (the optical transitions and nonradiative transitions increased, respectively, by approximately 2% and 10%, Figure 6A). The occurrence of excited-state absorption (ESA) and excited-state emission (ESE) events, Figure 6C, both decreased from the original simulation results by 20% and 33%. The most notable difference is exhibited in Figure 6B; the fraction of population moving from the lowest-energy singlet state (i.e., intersystem crossing or ultrafast nonradiative relaxation) and nonradiative relaxation from the triplet state have decreased from ~0.45 to ~0.4 and increased from ~0.35 to ~0.4, respectively..
ISSN:1089-5639
1520-5215
DOI:10.1021/acs.jpca.3c00732