Physica Scripta. V ol.
71, 190–192, 2005
Semi-Classical Impact Stark Shif t Calculations of Singly -Ioniz ed
Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxy gen Spectral Lines
W. F. Mahmoudi1 , N. Ben Nessib1 and S. Sahal-Bréchot2*
1 Groupe de Recherche en Physique Atomique et Astrophysique, Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, 7021 Zarzouna, Tunisia
2 Laboratoire d’Etude du Rayonnement et de la Matière en Astrophysique, Observatoire de Paris, Section de Meudon, UMR CNRS 8112, Bâtiment 18,
5 Place Jules Janssen, F-92195 Meudon Cedex, France
Received May 18, 2004; accepted in revised form J uly 9, 2004
pacs number: 32.70.Jz
Abstract
Using the semi-classical approach by Sahal-Bréchot [Astron. Astrophys. 1, 91
(1969), ibid. 2, 322 (1969).], we have calculated Stark shifts for CII, NII and
OII spectral lines. The needed oscillator strengths have been obtained from the
sophisticated atomic structure data base “TOPbase.” Then we have compared our
results with available experimental ones and with other theoretical results. We give
also new values of Stark shifts.
1. Introduction
The Stark shift is the dominant pressure line shift in atmospheres
of hot stars and white dwarfs. Furthermore, Stark shift is one of
the important causes of solar and stellar spectral line asymmetries
[3, 4]. Therefore it can be used for a more precise determination
of other causes of asymmetry, such as the granular motion
[5, 6]. Knowledge of Stark shifts can make possible accurate
determination of the gravitational red shifts in the spectra of white
dwarfs [7, 8, 9].
The singly ionized carbon (CII), nitrogen (NII) and oxygen
(OII) atoms, as emitters or absorbers, are especially important due
to their presence in many kinds of cosmic sources of radiation.
They are frequently applied in various sorts of investigations in
plasma physics and astrophysics. In spite of this, the number
of published papers dedicated to experimental and theoretical
predictions of Stark shifts for these ions is small. According to
Konjević et al. [10], there are no experimental Stark shifts data
for many spectral lines studied in the present work.
The aim of the present paper is to provide new data for the
Stark shifts of astrophysically important CII, NII and OII lines,
for the same lines as those of our preceding paper (Mahmoudi
et al. [11]). We will also compare our results with the available
experimental and the other theoretical ones.
2. Stark shift impact theory of isolated lines
We use the Stark broadening and shift impact theory based on
the fundamental work by Baranger [12, 13] for isolated lines,
according to the validity criteria (the impact approximation),
discussed by Mahmoudi et al. [11].
For the line corresponding to a transition between the initial
level i and the final level f , the width w and the shift d are given
by the Baranger’s formula:
w + id

∞

max
= Np vf (v) dv × 2
d
{1 − i|S|if |S −1 |f }av , (1)
0
min
* Send offprint requests to: S. Sahal-Bréchot (Sylvie.Sahal-Brechot@obspm.fr).
Physica Scripta 71
where w + id is a complex number (i2 = −1). Np is the density
of the perturbers, S is the scattering matrix obtained for the atom-
perturber interaction corresponding to the impact parameter 
and the relative velocity v. f (v) is the Maxwell distribution of
velocities and {. . .}AV is the angular average over the magnetic
quantum numbers which will not be detailed here.
The shift d is given by the imaginary part of eq. (1):

∞
RD
d = Np vf (v) dv 2
d
sin2 p . (2)
0 R3
The symmetrization procedures and the way to obtain
the lower cut-off R3 chosen as to enforce the unitarity of the
S-matrix is discussed by Sahal-Bréchot [2]. RD is the upper cut-
off allowing for Debye shielding. p is due to the second order
dipole interaction.
The calculations are made in LS coupling, and the widths and
shifts of the lines belonging to a same multiplet are the same
in angular frequency units. When the wavelength of a particular
line within the multiplet differs significantly from the average
wavelength  of the whole multiplet, we use the following
scaling (Popović et al. [14]):
 2

dline = d. (3)

In the above expression, d and  are values for the multiplet,
and dline and  refer to a particular line within the multiplet.
3. Applications to CII, NII and OII spectral lines
The atomic energy levels and oscillator strengths for CII, NII,
and OII have been taken from the “TOPbase” atomic structure of
the “Opacity Project” [15] (cf. also [16] and [17]). “TOPbase”
does not provide mean radii and mean square radii. Therefore we
have calculated them within the hydrogenic approximation with a
quantum defect, using the effective quantum numbers n∗i obtained
from the “TOPbase”.
By using the semi-classical approach of Sahal-Bréchot [1, 2],
we have calculated impact Stark shifts of five CII , twenty one
NII and twenty seven OII spectral lines. The obtained Stark shift
values at various electron temperatures and electron densities
and comparisons with other experimental and theoretical data
are given in Tables I–III. dm denote the measured shifts, deG
is the semi-classical approach by Griem [18], de and di are
the present electron and ionic impact Stark shift calculated on
the basis of the semi-classical approach [1, 2] corresponding
to Eq. (2).
It should be pointed that our calculations indicate that the
impact approximation is valid for collision with electrons and for

C Physica Scripta 2005
 Semi-Classical Impact Stark Shift Calculations of CII, NII and OII Spectral Lines 191

Table I. Experimental CII Stark shifts dm , and different Table III. Same as in Table I but for OII.
calculations: the semi-classical values of Griem [18] deG and our Ne
 T 1017 dm deG de di
calculation of the electron and ionic impact Stark shifts de and Multiplet Å K cm−3 Å Å Å Å Ref
di obtained with the semi-classical formalism of Sahal-Bréchot 3s 4 P− 4349.43 40000 1.0 −0.0084
[1, 2]. The data indicated by † mean that the corresponding widths 3p 4 P0 4336.86 40000 1.0 −0.0084
4366.89 40000 1.0 −0.0085
have not been calculated in our preceding paper [11]. 4345.56 40000 1.0 −0.0084
4319.63 40000 1.0 −0.0083
Ne 4317.14 40000 1.0 −0.0083
 T 1017 dm deG de di 4 P−4 S0 3749.48 54000 2.8 0.000 −0.0124 −0.0049 [19]
Multiplet Å K cm−3 Å Å Å Å Ref 2 P−2 D0 4414.90 18800 0.31 −0.0031
3s 2 S− 6578.05 17100 0.25 −0.0080 19100 0.41 −0.0040
3p 2 P0 17500 0.23 −0.0072 19500 0.46 −0.0045
17800 1.96 −0.11 −0.688 −0.0575 −0.0248 [22] 19500 0.39 −0.0039
18800 0.31 −0.0092 19800 0.44 −0.0043
19500 1.44 −0.0436 19900 0.47 −0.0046
20500 0.98 −0.0301 4416.97 18800 0.31 −0.0031
19100 0.41 −0.0040
35000 1.43 −0.14 −0.452 −0.050† −0.0239† [23]
19500 0.46 −0.0045
6582.88 17100 0.25 −0.0080
19500 0.39 −0.0039
17500 0.23 −0.0072
19800 0.44 −0.0044
17800 1.96 −0.15 −0.714 −0.0576 −0.0249 [22]
19900 0.47 −0.0046
18800 0.31 −0.0093 2 P−2 P0
19500 1.44 −0.0437 3954.36 54000 2.8 0.000 −0.0023 0.0036 [19]
20500 0.98 −0.0301 3p 4 D0 − 4075.86 40000 1.0 0.0084
35000 1.43 −0.13 −0.464 −0.050† −0.0239† [23] 3d 4 F 4072.15 40000 1.0 0.0084
4092.93 40000 1.0 0.0085
3p 2 P0 − 7236.44 17100 0.25 −0.0061 2 D 0 −2 F 4705.35 18800 0.31 0.0003
3d 2 D 17100 0.31 −0.0078
19100 0.41 0.0004
18800 0.31 −0.0076
19500 0.46 0.0005
35000 1.43 −0.0622†
19500 0.39 0.0005
7231.33 17100 0.25 −0.0061
19800 0.44 0.0005
17100 0.31 −0.0078
19900 0.47 0.0006
17800 1.96 −0.142 −0.254 −0.0482 −0.0428 [22] 4 S 0 −4 P 4890.86 54000 2.8 0.000 0.0216 0.0144 [19]
18800 0.31 −0.0076
4924.53 60000 0.81 0.000 −0.004 0.0072 0.0043 [20]
19500 1.44 −0.0374 2 P 0 −2 D
20500 0.98 −0.0274 4955.71 60000 0.81 0.000 0.087 0.0007 −0.0108 [20]
35000 1.43 −0.0621† 3p 2 F0 − 4185.46 15700 1.45 −0.0979
7236.19 17800 1.96 −0.159 −0.252 −0.0482 −0.0428 [22] 3d 2 G 18300 1.82 0.077 −0.1163 −0.0087 [26]
19500 1.44 −0.0375 20500 0.98 −0.0600
20500 0.98 −0.0275 4189.79 15700 1.45 −0.0981
18300 1.82 0.087 −0.1166 −0.0087 [26]
35000 1.43 0.00 0.00 −0.0622† −0.0401† [23]
20500 0.98 −0.0601
2 P 0 −2 D 4860.97 60000 0.81 0.000 −0.0135 −0.0204 [20]
4871.52 60000 0.81 0.04 −0.0135 −0.0204 [20]
3s 2 D− 4590.97 40000 1.0 −0.0113
3p 2 F0 4596.18 40000 1.0 −0.0113
Table II. Same as in Table I but for NII. 54000 2.8 0.000 −0.0329 −0.0186 [19]
4595.96 54000 2.8 0.000 −0.0329 −0.0186 [19]
Ne
3d 4 F− 6895.10 60000 0.81 0.159
 T 1017 dm deG de di
4p 4 D0
Multiplet Å K cm−3 Å Å Å Å Ref
2p3 1 D0 − 4895.12 28000 1.0 0.132 0.0508 0.0116 [24]
3p 1 P 31000 1.6 0.000 0.0773 0.0168 [25]
3s 3 P0 − 6379.62 28000 1.0 −0.0361
3p 1 P
3 P0 −3 D 5679.56 17000
17500
0.17
0.23
−0.0056
−0.0075
total shifts (de + di ) and the measured ones is better, except for
18800 0.31 −0.0098 the multiplet 3p 2 P0 − 3d 2 D at 35000 K.
28000 1.0 −0.031 −0.244 −0.0311 −0.0138 [24]
31000 1.60 0.000 −0.368 −0.0496 −0.0199 [25] Table II, that concerns the multiplet 3s 3 P0 – 3p 3 D, shows
5666.63 28000 1.0 −0.034 −0.244 −0.0309 −0.0137 [24]
31000 1.60 0.000 −0.366 −0.0493 −0.0198 [25]
that our theoretical data agree with the experimental ones when
5676.02 28000 1.0 −0.028 −0.244 −0.0310 −0.0137 [24] taking into account the error bars of the experiment. Griem [18]
31000 1.6 0.000 −0.368 −0.0495 −0.0199 [25]
5686.21 28000 1.0 −0.031 −0.244 −0.0311 −0.0138 [24] has obtained considerably large negative values deG . There is a
31000 1.6 0.000 −0.369 −0.0497 −0.0199 [25]
3p 3 D− 5005.15 17100 0.25 −0.0003
discrepancy between experimental and our theoretical data for
3d 3 F0 17500 0.23 −0.0002 the multiplet 3p 3 P −3d 3 P0 , where the experimental values are
18800 0.31 −0.0000
5001.47 17100 0.25 −0.0003 4 times larger than ours.
17500 0.23 −0.0002
18800 0.31 −0.0000
Table III shows a good agreement between our data and the
5001.13 17100 0.25 −0.0003 experimental results of Djeniže et al. [19]. The experimental
17500 0.23 −0.0002
18800 0.31 −0.0000 values are generally very small. Considering the experimental
5016.38 28000 1.0 0.0007
3 D−3 D0 4810.30 28000 1.0 0.0032 error (± 0.0015 nm), they are close to zero, the agreement may be
4793.65
4781.19
28000
28000
1.0
1.0
0.0032
0.0032
regarded as satisfactory considering the limits of the accuracy
4774.24 28000 1.0 0.0031 of both experimental and theoretical values. This situation is
3 D−3 P0 4507.56 28000 1.0 0.0109
3 P−3 P0 5452.07 28000 1.0 0.0100 the same for the Djeniže et al. [20] experimental results, the
5454.22
5462.58
28000
28000
1.0
1.0 0.045
0.0100
0.0100 0.0003 [24]
measured values are close to zero within the experimental error
5478.09 28000 1.0 0.0100 (± 0.002 nm). For the multiplet 3p 4 S0 − 3d 4 P at 60000 K,
5480.05 28000 1.0 0.036 0.0100 0.0003 [24]
5495.65 28000 1.0 0.029 0.0101 0.0003 [24] Griem [18] predicts an opposite sign to our data and the trends
of the theoretical predictions taken from Griem [18], lie above
our calculations and the experimental value, especially for 3s 2 P
collisions with ions for the densities of the Tables and indeed for −3p 2 P0 (see Djeniže et al. [19], Fig. 4). A disagreement occurs
smaller ones (see Mahmoudi et al. [11]). di depends on the ionic between experiment and theoretical calculations for the multiplets
perturber in every experience. It can be ionized carbon, ionized 3p 2 F0 − 3d 2 G at 18300 K and 3p 2 P0 − 3d 2 D (4871.52 Å):
nitrogen, ionized oxygen or ionized helium. our calculation predicts a negative shift contrary to the experi-
We can see from Table I that our data obtained using the semi- mental values.
classical formalism [1, 2] are smaller than the data calculated by Table IV presents a comparison of our data (de ) with the
Griem [18]. The Table also shows that the agreement between our theoretical results of Dimitrijević [21] (dD ) obtained by using

C Physica Scripta 2005 Physica Scripta 71
192 W. F. Mahmoudi, N. Ben Nessib and S. Sahal-Bréchot

Table IV. Calculated shifts for the OII 3s − 3p multiplet: semi- 4. Conclusion
classical (Griem [18]) values dD calculated by Dimitrijević [21]
By using the semi-classical method of Sahal-Bréchot [1, 2],
and our calculation with the semi-classical approach (Sahal-
we have calculated Stark impact shifts for two multiplets of
Bréchot [1, 2]) de . m is the averaged wavelength for the multiplet.
CII, seven multiplets of NII and twelve multiplets of OII. No
m T Ne de d previous theoretical or measured values exist for several lines. In
Multiplet Å K 1017 cm−3 Å Å order to test the applicability of the method, we have compared
4 P−4 P0 4341 20000 1.0 −0.0070 −0.0812 our results with experimental results, with the semi-classical
30000 1.0 −0.0075 −0.0686 calculations of Griem [18] and of Dimitrijević [21]. The obtained
60000 1.0 −0.0084 −0.0592
agreement between experimental values and ours, validates the
80000 1.0 −0.0078 −0.0574
4 P−4 S0 3736 20000 1.0 −0.0055 −0.0589 semi-classical model when an accurate atomic structure is used
30000 1.0 −0.0043 −0.0538 (TOPbase). According to our knowledge, results on Stark shift
60000 1.0 −0.0047 −0.0383 measurements on CII, NII and OII lines are still missing in the
80000 1.0 −0.0048 −0.0290 literature. Therefore new experimental Stark shift values would
be helpful.

Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the cooperation between the French CNRS
and the Tunisian DGRSRT. Part of this work has been supported by the Ministry
of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Technology in Tunisia under the
project (LMA, FSB, 2001–2004).

Fig. 1. Stark shift as a function of the electron temperature for an electron density
of 1 × 1017 cm−3 for the OII 3s 4 P−3p 4 S0 multiplet.
, Djeniže et al. [19];
the dashed line denotes results of Dimitrijević [21] obtained by the semi-classical
theory of Griem [18] and the dotted line denotes our present calculations with
the semi-classical formalism of Sahal-Bréchot [1, 2] and the TOPbase atomic
structure data [15–17]. m is the averaged wavelength for the multiplet.
the semi-classical approach of Griem [18] for the OII 3s − 3p
quartets. The results of Table IV are plotted in Fig. 1, together with
the available experimental data. We note that the experimental
results are for particular spectral lines within a multiplet, while
the theoretical data are calculated for the multiplet as a whole,
because LS coupling is used. Consequently, the different lines
of a same multiplet have the same width and the same shift.
One can see that our results obtained with the semi-classical
approach of Sahal-Bréchot [1, 2] are in agreement within the
error bar of the experimental data. No experimental values exist
for 3s 4 P − 3p 4 P0 .
One can see from this Table that there is a large difference
between our Stark shifts calculations and those of Dimitrijević
[21]: our data have the same sign but they are ten times higher.
This discrepancy can be explained by taking into account the
sensitivity of the shifts calculations to the oscillator strengths and
atomic energy data. Dimitrijević [21] used LS coupling and the
Coulomb approximation to perform the one-electron model for
oscillator strengths, whereas our values have been taken from the
“TOPbase” atomic data given by the “Opacity Project”. On the
other hand the number of perturbing levels which are included in
the calculation has an appreciable influence in the resulting shift.
If one omits some of them, erroneous results may appear.
References
1. Sahal-Bréchot, S., Astron. Astrophys. 1, 91 (1969).
2. Sahal-Bréchot, S., Astron. Astrophys. 2, 322 (1969).
3. Vince, I., Dimitrijević, M. S. and Kršljanin, V., “Spectral line shapes,”
(Rostas, F., ed), (Berlin, New Y ork: W. de Gruyter 1985), 3, 649.
4. Vince, I., Dimitrijević, M. S. and Kršljanin, V., in “Progress in stellar spectral
line formation theory,” (Beckman, J. E., Crivellari, L., eds.), (Dordrecht,
Boston, Lancaster: D. Reidel 1985), 373.
5. Vince, I. and Dimitrijević, M. S., in “Solar and granulation,” (Rutten, R.,
Severino, G., eds.), (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1989), 93.
6. Kršljanin, V., in “Solar and granulation,” (Rutten, R., Severino, G., eds.),
(Dordrecht: Kluwer 1989), 91.
7. Wiese, W. L. and Kelleher, D. E., Astrophys. J. 166, L59 (1971).
8. Grabwoski, B. and Halenka, J., Astron. Astrophys. 45, 159 (1975).
9. Kršljanin, V., in “Ion lines Stark shifts in spectra of hot stars,” (Belgrade;
Publ. Astron. Obs. 1989), 1.
10. Konjević, N., Lesage, A., Fuhr, J. R. and Wiese, W. L., J. Phys. Chem. Ref.
Data 31, No. 3, 819 (2002).
11. Mahmoudi, W. F., Ben Nessib, N. and Sahal-Bréchot, S., Physica Scripta 70,
142 (2004).
12. Baranger, M., Phys. Rev. A111, 494 (1958).
13. Baranger, M., Phys. Rev. A112, 855 (1958).
14. Popović, L. Č., Milovanović, N. and Dimitrijević, M. S., Astron. Astrophys.
365, 656 (2001).
15. “The Opacity Project”, Vol 1, compiled by the Opacity Project Team,
(Institute of physics Publ., Bristol, UK 1995).
16. Cunto, W., Mendoza, C., Ochsenbein, F. and Zeippen, C. J., Astron.
Astrophys. 275, L5 (1993).
17. Zeippen, C. J., Physica Scripta T58, 43 (1995).
18. Griem, H. R., “Spectral Line Broadening by Plasmas,” (Academic Press Inc.,
New Y ork, USA and London UK 1974).
19. Djeniže, S., Milosavljević, V. and Srećković, A., J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat.
Transf. 59, 71 (1998).
20. Djeniže, S., Srećković, A., Labat, J. and Platiša, M., Z. Phys. D 21, 295
(1991).
21. Dimitrijević, M. S., Astron. Astrophys. 112, 251 (1982).
22. Srećković, A., Drinčić, V., Bukvić, S. and Djeniže, S., J. Phys. B 33, 4873
(2000).
23. Djeniže, S. et al., Z. Phys. D 9, 129 (1988).
24. Mar, S. et al., J. Phys. B 33, 1169 (2000).
25. Djeniže, S., Srećković, A. and Labat, J., Astron. Astrophys. 253, 632
(1992).
26. Srećković, A., Drinčić, V., Bukvić, S. and Djeniže, S., Physica Scripta 36,
306 (2001).

Physica Scripta 71 
C Physica Scripta 2005