Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In an effort to confirm the classification of four organic donor-acceptor crystals into the almost fully ionic (``holoionic'') class, and the nearly neutral (``nonionic'') class, their electrostatic binding energies EC, based on the point-charge model, have been calculated rigorously. The EC were found to be model independent, and were compared with 2ε0, the cost of ionizing the lattices. EC+ 2ε0>0 was expected for the two crystals which are experimentally known to be nonionic: for (1:1)-(hexamethylbenzene: para-chloranil) the result was EC=−4.4 eV against 2ε0=6.6 eV, and for (1:1)-(naphthalene:tetracyanoethylene) EC=−4.3 eV vs 2 ε0=6.5 eV. For the two crystals which are holoionic by experiment EC+ 2ε0<0 was expected, but for (1:1)-(N, N, N′, N′, -tetramethyl-para-phenylenediamine+ 7, 7, 8, 8-tetracyanoquinodimethan−) the result was EC=−3.9 eV vs 2ε0=4.6 eV, and for (1:1)-(N, N, N′, N′-tetramethyl-para-phenylenediamine+ -para-chloranil−) EC=−4.4 and 2ε0=4.9 eV. Clearly in these crystals the total binding energy must include a nonnegligible exchange Coulomb energy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert M. Metzger (1972) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: