Alkali‐Metal‐Ion Catalysis and Inhibition in the Nucleophilic Displacement Reaction of Y‐Substituted Phenyl Diphenylphosphinates and Diphenylphosphinothioates with Alkali‐Metal Ethoxides: Effect of Changing the Electrophilic Center from PO to PS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A kinetic study of the nucleophilic substitution reaction of Y-substituted phenyl diphenylphosphinothioates 2 a-g with alkali-metal ethoxides (MOEt; M = Li, Na, K) in anhydrous ethanol at (25.0±0.1) °C is reported. Plots of pseudo-first-order rate constants (k(obsd)) versus [MOEt], the alkali ethoxide concentration, show distinct upward (KOEt) and downward (LiOEt) curvatures, respectively, pointing to the importance of ion-pairing phenomena and a differential reactivity of dissociated EtO(-) and ion-paired MOEt. Based on ion-pairing treatment of the kinetic data, the k(obsd) values were dissected into k EtO - and k(MOEt), the second-order rate constants for the reaction with the dissociated EtO(-) and ion-paired MOEt, respectively. The reactivity of MOEt toward 2 b (Y = 4-NO(2)) increases in the order LiOEt NaOEt>KOEt>EtO(-). The current study based on Yukawa-Tsuno analysis has revealed that the reactions of 2 a-g (P=S) and Y-substituted phenyl diphenylphosphinates 1 a-g (P=O) with MOEt proceed through the same concerted mechanism, which indicates that the contrasting selectivity patterns are not due to a difference in reaction mechanism. The P=O compounds 1 a-g are approximately 80-fold more reactive than the P=S compounds 2 a-g toward the dissociated EtO(-) (regardless of the electronic nature of substituent Y) but are up to 3.1×10(3)-fold more reactive toward ion-paired LiOEt. The origin of the contrasting selectivity patterns is further discussed on the basis of competing electrostatic effects and solvational requirements as a function of anionic electric field strength and cation size (Eisenman's theory).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".