3 resultados para Latva-Äijö, Annika: Lotta Svärdin synty
em Universitat de Girona, Spain
Resumo:
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 Vda because of neglecting the multistate effects. We show that in most cases accurate values of the electronic coupling in a π stack, where donor and acceptor are separated by a bridging unit, can be obtained as Ṽ da = (E2 - E1) μ12 Rda + (2 E3 - E1 - E2) 2 μ13 μ23 Rda2, where E1, E2, and E3 are adiabatic energies of the ground, charge-transfer, and bridge states, respectively, μij is the transition dipole moments between the states i and j, and Rda 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
Resumo:
Intra-urban inequalities in mortality have been infrequently analysed in European contexts. The aim of the present study was to analyse patterns of cancer mortality and their relationship with socioeconomic deprivation in small areas in 11 Spanish cities
Resumo:
After publication of this work in 'International Journal of Health Geographics' on 13 january 2011 was wrong. The map of Barcelona in Figure two (figure 1 here) was reversed. The final correct Figure is presented here