Alkali Metal Ion Catalysis and Inhibition in Nucleophilic Displacement Reactions at Phosphorus Centers: Ethyl and Methyl Paraoxon and Ethyl and Methyl Parathion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the ethanolysis of the P=O and P=S compounds ethyl and methyl paraoxon (1a and 1b) and ethyl and methyl parathion (2a and 2b). Plots of spectrophotometrically measured rate constants, kobsd versus [MOEt], the alkali ethoxide concentration, show distinct upward and downward curvatures, pointing to the importance of ion-pairing phenomena and a differential reactivity of free ions and ion pairs. Three types of reactivity and selectivity patterns have been discerned: (1) For the P=O compounds 1a and 1b, LiOEt > NaOEt > KOEt > EtO-; (2) for the P=S compound 2a, KOEt > EtO- > NaOEt > LiOEt; (3) for P=S, 2b, 18C6-crown-complexed KOEt > KOEt = EtO(-) > NaOEt > LiOEt. These selectivity patterns are characteristic of both catalysis and inhibition by alkali-metal cations depending on the nature of the electrophilic center, P=O vs P=S, and the metal cation. Ground-state (GS) vs transition-state (TS) stabilization energies shed light on the catalytic and inhibitory tendencies. The unprecedented catalytic behavior of crowned-K(+) for the reaction of 2b is noteworthy. Modeling reveals an extreme steric interaction for the reaction of 2a with crowned-K(+), which is responsible for the absence of catalysis in this system. Overall, P=O exhibits greater reactivity than P=S, increasing from 50- to 60-fold with free EtO(-) and up to 2000-fold with LiOEt, reflecting an intrinsic P=O vs P=S reactivity difference (thio effect). The origin of reactivity and selectivity differences in these systems is discussed on the basis of competing electrostatic effects and solvational requirements as 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".