Study of aerobic oxidation of phenyl Pt<sup>II</sup> complexes (dpms)Pt<sup>II</sup>Ph(L) (dpms = di(2-pyridyl)methanesulfonate; L = water, methanol, or aniline)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidation of phenyl PtII complexes K[(dpms)PtIIPh2], 1, (dpms)PtIIPh(MeOH), 2, (dpms)PtIIPh(OH2), 3, and methyl PtII complex (dpms)PtIIMe(NH2Ph), 6, with O2 in aqueous or methanol solutions under ambient conditions leads to corresponding (dpms)PtIVR(X)OH complexes (R = X = Ph, 7; R = Ph, X = OH, 8; R = Ph, X = OMe, 9; R = Me, X = NHPh; 11; dpms = di(2-pyridyl)methanesulfonate). Complexes 7–9 could be isolated in high yield. Complex 11 as well as its phenyl analogue (dpms)PtIVPh(NHPh)OH, 10 can be prepared in high yield by oxidation of corresponding (dpms)PtIIR(NH2Ph) with H2O2 in methanol. Phenyl PtII complexes (dpms)PtIIPh(HX) derived from HX = aniline and DMSO, 4 and 5, respectively, are inert toward O2. The rate of oxidation of 1–5 with O2 decreases in the order 1 > 3 ~ 2 » 4, and 5 is unreactive. Methyl analogues are significantly more reactive compared with their phenyl counterparts. Proposed mechanism of oxidation with O2 includes formation of anionic species (dpms)PtIIR(X)– responsible for reaction with dioxygen. Attempts at C–O and C–N reductive elimination from phenyl PtIV complexes 7–10 do not lead to phenyl derivatives PhX at 80–100 °C, consistent with the results of the DFT estimates of corresponding activation barriers, ΔG0 exceeding 28 kcal/mol.Key words: platinum phenyl complexes, oxidation, dioxygen, aqueous solution, mechanism.
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".