Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026

Excitonic Hamiltonians for Calculating Optical Absorption Spectra and Optoelectronic Properties of Molecular Aggregates and Solids
Published on: May 27, 2020
Estimation of electronic coupling in pi-stacked donor-bridge-acceptor systems: correction of the two-state model
1Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain. alexander.voityuk@icrea.es
Abstract:
Comparison of donor-acceptor electronic couplings calculated within two-state and three-state models suggests that the two-state treatment can provide unreliable estimates of V(da) because of neglecting the multistate effects. We show that in most cases accurate values of the electronic coupling in a pi stack, where donor and acceptor are separated by a bridging unit, can be obtained as V(da) = (E(2)-E(1))mu(12)R(da) + (2E(3)-E(1)-E(2))2mu(13)mu(23)R(da) (2), where E(1), E(2), and E(3) are adiabatic energies of the ground, charge-transfer, and bridge states, respectively, mu(ij) is the transition dipole moments between the states i and j, and R(da) is the distance between the planes of donor and acceptor. In this expression based on the generalized Mulliken-Hush approach, the first term corresponds to the coupling derived within a two-state model, whereas the second term is the superexchange correction accounting for the bridge effect. The formula is extended to bridges consisting of several subunits. The influence of the donor-acceptor energy mismatch on the excess charge distribution, adiabatic dipole and transition moments, and electronic couplings is examined. A diagnostic is developed to determine whether the two-state approach can be applied. Based on numerical results, we showed that the superexchange correction considerably improves estimates of the donor-acceptor coupling derived within a two-state approach. In most cases when the two-state scheme fails, the formula gives reliable results which are in good agreement (within 5%) with the data of the three-state generalized Mulliken-Hush model.
Related Concept Videos
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the involved orbitals. The...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...
π Electron Effects on Chemical Shift: Overview
Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling
The Two-State Receptor Model
The binding affinity of a drug determines its interaction with one...
¹H NMR: Long-Range Coupling
In alkenes, spin information is communicated via σ–π overlap, as seen in allylic (four-bond) and homoallylic (five-bond) couplings. These coupling interactions are stronger when the σ bond is parallel to the alkene π orbitals.

