Electron and proton transfer (see Eqs. (13.1) and (13.2), involve obvious similarities. When the starting materials are neutral, both result in the formation of charge and in the necessity for separation of charge to stabilize the product states. In principle, both can occur in the ground state, but transfer that is exoergic only in the excited state allows the use of time-resolved spectroscopic techniques to determine the details of solvation and structural reorganization. For electron transfer, the development of such techniques and the accompanying theoretical rationale, most especially the Marcus theory, has been one of the triumphs of modern mechanistic chemistry.The relationship between driving force and proton transfer has been much more elusive despite considerable evidence that the vast photosynthetic electron transfer machinery mainly exists to set up a charge gradient to drive proton transfer. This is due to a combination of two factors. First, there is a vast reservoir of readily available materials with which to examine electron transfer. Second, the relationship between rates and driving force for electron transfer, based upon the excitation energies and the relevant redox potentials (the Rehm-Weller equation [1]) is reasonably straightforward. In contrast, the relationship between rates and driving force for excited-state pK a * ¼ pK a À DE o;o =2: 3RT (13.3) proton transfer (based upon relative pK a s and calculated through the Förster equation, Eq. (13.3) [2]) is less straightforward. For instance, the existence of a so-called "inverted" region for proton transfer has been the subject of much controversyHydrogen-Transfer Reactions. Edited by