Kinetics and Mechanism of Hydration of<i>o</i>-Thioquinone Methide in Aqueous Solution. Rate-Determining Protonation of Sulfur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
o-Thioquinone methide, 2, was generated in aqueous solution by flash photolysis of benzothiete, 1, and rates of hydration of this quinone methide to o-mercaptobenzyl alcohol, 3, were measured in perchloric acid solutions, using H2O and D2O as the solvent, and also in acetic acid and tris(hydroxymethyl)methylammonium ion buffers, using H2O as the solvent. The rate profiles constructed from these data show hydronium-ion-catalyzed and uncatalyzed hydration reaction regions, just like the rate profiles based on literature data for hydration of the oxygen analogue, o-quinone methide, of the presently examined substrate. Solvent isotope effects on hydronium-ion catalysis of hydration for the two substrates, however, are quite different: k(H)/k(D) = 0.42 for the oxygen quinone methide, whereas k(H)/k(D) = 1.66 for the sulfur substrate. The inverse nature (k(H)/k(D) < 1) of the isotope effect in the oxygen system indicates that this reaction occurs by a preequilibrium proton-transfer reaction mechanism, with protonation of the substrate on its oxygen atom being fast and reversible and capture of the benzyl-type carbocationic intermediate so formed being rate-determining. The normal direction (k(H)/k(D) > 1) of the isotope effect in the sulfur system, on the other hand, suggests that protonation of the substrate on its sulfur atom is in this case rate-determining, with carbocation capture a fast following step. A semiquantitative argument supporting this hypothesis is presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".