Hydrogenation of synthetic <i>cis</i>‐1,4‐polyisoprene and natural rubber catalyzed by [Ir(COD)py(PCy<sub>3</sub>)]PF<sub>6</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the presence of chlorinated solvents, the catalytic complex [Ir(COD)py(PCy3)]PF6 (where COD is 1,5‐cyclooctadiene and py is pyridine) was an active catalyst for the hydrogenation of synthetic cis‐1,4‐polyisoprene and natural rubber. Detailed kinetic and mechanistic studies for homogeneous hydrogenation were carried out through the monitoring of the amount of hydrogen consumed during the reaction. The final degree of olefin conversion, measured with a computer‐controlled gas‐uptake apparatus, was confirmed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and 1H‐NMR spectroscopy. Synthetic cis‐1,4‐polyisoprene was used as a model polymer for natural rubber without impurities to study the influence of the catalyst loading, polymer concentration, hydrogen pressure, and reaction temperature with a statistical design framework. The kinetic results for the hydrogenation of both synthetic cis‐1,4‐polyisoprene and natural rubber indicated that the hydrogenation rate exhibited a first‐order dependence on the catalyst concentration and hydrogen pressure. Because of impurities inside the natural rubber, the hydrogenation of natural rubber showed an inverse behavior dependence on the rubber concentration, whereas the hydrogenation rate of synthetic rubber, that is, cis‐1,4‐polyisoprene, remained constant when the rubber concentration increased. The hydrogenation rate was also dependent on the reaction temperature. The apparent activation energies for the hydrogenation of synthetic cis‐1,4‐polyisoprene and natural rubber were evaluated to be 79.8 and 75.6 kJ/mol, respectively. The mechanistic aspects of these catalytic processes were discussed on the basis of observed kinetic results. The addition of some acids showed an effect on the hydrogenation rate of both rubbers. The thermal properties of hydrogenated rubber samples were determined and indicated that hydrogenation increased the thermal stability of the hydrogenated rubber but did not affect the inherent glass‐transition temperature. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 100: 4219–4233, 2006
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".