Kinetic Solvent Effects on Proton and Hydrogen Atom Transfers from Phenols. Similarities and Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bimolecular rate constants for proton transfer from six phenols to the anthracene radical anion have been determined in up to eight solvents using electrochemical techniques. Effects of hydrogen bonding on measured rate constants were explored over as wide a range of phenolic hydrogen-bond donor (HBD) and solvent hydrogen-bond acceptor (HBA) activities as practical. The phenols' values ranged from 0.261 (2-MeO-phenol) to 0.728 (3,5-Cl(2)-phenol), and the solvents' values from 0.44 (MeCN) to 1.00 (HMPA), where and are Abraham's parameters describing relative HBD and HBA activities (J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1989, 699; 1990, 521). Rate constants for H-atom transfer (HAT) in HBA solvents, k(S), are extremely well correlated via log k(S) = log k(0) - 8.3 , where k(0) is the rate constant in a non-HBA solvent (Snelgrove et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 469). The same equation describes the general features of proton transfers (k(S) decreases as increases, slopes of plots of log k(S) against increase as increases). However, in some solvents, k(S) values deviate systematically from the least-squares log k(S) versus correlation line (e.g., in THF and MeCN, k(S) is always smaller and larger, respectively, than "expected"). These deviations are attributed to variations in the solvents' anion solvating abilities (THF and MeCN are poor and good anion solvators, respectively). Values of log k(S) for proton transfer, but not for HAT, give better correlations with Taft et al.'s (J. Org. Chem. 1983, 48, 2877) beta scale of solvent HBA activities than with . The beta scale, therefore, does not solely reflect solvents' HBA activities but also contains contributions from anion solvation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".