The Unusual Reaction of Semiquinone Radicals with Molecular Oxygen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydroquinones (benzene-1,4-diols) are naturally occurring chain-breaking antioxidants, whose reactions with peroxyl radicals yield 1,4-semiquinone radicals. Unlike the 1,2-semiquinone radicals derived from catechols (benzene-1,2-diols), the 1,4-semiquinone radicals do not always trap another peroxyl radical, and instead the stoichiometric factor of hydroquinones varies widely between 0 and 2 as a function of ring-substitution and reaction conditions. This variable antioxidant behavior has been attributed to the competing reaction of the 1,4-semiquinone radical with molecular oxygen. Herein we report the results of experiments and theoretical calculations focused on understanding this key reaction. Our experiments, which include detailed kinetic and mechanistic investigations by laser flash photolysis and inhibited autoxidation studies, and our theoretical calculations, which include detailed studies of the reactions of both 1,4-semiquinones and 1,2-semiquinones with O2, provide many important insights. They show that the reaction of O2 with 2,5-di-tert-butyl-1,4-semiquinone radical (used as model compound) has a rate constant of 2.4 +/- 0.9 x 10(5) M-1 s-1 in acetonitrile and as high as 2.0 +/- 0.9 x 10(6) M-1 s-1 in chlorobenzene, i.e., similar to that previously reported in water at pH approximately 7. These results, considered alongside our theoretical calculations, suggest that the reaction occurs by an unusual hydrogen atom abstraction mechanism, taking place in a two-step process consisting first of addition of O2 to the semiquinone radical and second an intramolecular H-atom transfer concerted with elimination of hydroperoxyl to yield the quinone. This reaction appears to be much more facile for 1,4-semiquinones than for their 1,2-isomers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".