Hydrogen Atom Abstraction Selectivity in the Reactions of Alkylamines with the Benzyloxyl and Cumyloxyl Radicals. The Importance of Structure and of Substrate Radical Hydrogen Bonding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A time-resolved kinetic study on the hydrogen abstraction reactions from a series of primary and secondary amines by the cumyloxyl (CumO(•)) and benzyloxyl (BnO(•)) radicals was carried out. The results were compared with those obtained previously for the corresponding reactions with tertiary amines. Very different hydrogen abstraction rate constants (k(H)) and intermolecular selectivities were observed for the reactions of the two radicals. With CumO(•), k(H) was observed to decrease on going from the tertiary to the secondary and primary amines. The lowest k(H) values were measured for the reactions with 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine (TMP) and tert-octylamine (TOA), substrates that can only undergo N-H abstraction. The opposite behavior was observed for the reactions of BnO(•), where the k(H) values increased in the order tertiary < secondary < primary. The k(H) values for the reactions of BnO(•) were in all cases significantly higher than those measured for the corresponding reactions of CumO(•), and no significant difference in reactivity was observed between structurally related substrates that could undergo exclusive α-C-H and N-H abstraction. This different behavior is evidenced by the k(H)(BnO(•))/k(H)(CumO(•)) ratios that range from 55-85 and 267-673 for secondary and primary alkylamines up to 1182 and 3388 for TMP and TOA. The reactions of CumO(•) were described in all cases as direct hydrogen atom abstractions. With BnO(•) the results were interpreted in terms of the rate-determining formation of a hydrogen-bonded prereaction complex between the radical α-C-H and the amine lone pair wherein hydrogen abstraction occurs. Steric effects and amine HBA ability play a major role, whereas the strength of the substrate α-C-H and N-H bonds involved appears to be relatively unimportant. The implications of these different mechanistic pictures are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".