1097-461X/asset/QUA_left.gif?v=1&s=c17f602d4ad3c3f31aa9b3acb1b4953adb14cefb)
1097-461X/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=b363715e04077d5db4c97d27d3e65d17e56e63ef)
Article
Comparison of ground and triplet state geometries of malonaldehyde
Article first published online: 19 OCT 2004
DOI: 10.1002/qua.560480842
Copyright © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Issue
1097-461X/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=7d5c5cfa0338c787958c2cc55b94246c4766bd2f "International Journal of Quantum Chemistry")
International Journal of Quantum Chemistry
Supplement: Proceedings of the International Syposium on Atomic, Molecular, and Condensed Matter Theory and Computational Methods
Volume 48, Issue Supplement 27, pages 419–429, 13/20 March 1993
Additional Information
How to Cite
Luth, K. and Scheiner, S. (1993), Comparison of ground and triplet state geometries of malonaldehyde. Int. J. Quantum Chem., 48: 419–429. doi: 10.1002/qua.560480842
Publication History
- Issue published online: 19 OCT 2004
- Article first published online: 19 OCT 2004
- Manuscript Received: 28 MAY 1993
- Abstract
- References
- Cited By
Abstract
The geometries of the ground and first triplet excited state of malonaldehyde are compared for two distinct configurations of the molecule. The first represents the equilibrium geometry and the second structure corresponds to the transition state for the interamolecular hydrogen transfer. The ground state computations utilize both self-consistent field and Moller–Plesset second-order perturbation theory. The excited state computations employ several different theoretical methods; unrestricted Hartree–Fock (UHF), unrestricted second-order Moller–Plesset perturbation theory (UMP2), CI Singles (CIS), and complete active space self-consistent field (CAS). The geometric parameters obtained for the two configurations are contrasted in both the ground and excited state. The structural differences are related to the extent of hydrogen bonding present, which is compared to the calculated proton transfer barrier. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.