The mechanisms of hydrolysis of alkyl <i>N</i>-alkylthioncarbamate esters at 100 °C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrolysis of ethyl N-ethylthioncarbamate (ETE) at 100 °C was studied in the range of 7 mol/L HCl to 4 mol/L NaOH. The pHrate profile showed that the hydrolysis occurred through specific acid catalysis at pH < 2, spontaneous hydrolysis at pH 26.5, and specific basic catalysis at pH > 6.5. The Hammett acidity plot and the excess acidity plot against X were linear. The BunnettOlsen plot gave a negative slope indicating that the conjugate acid was less hydrated than the neutral substrate. It was concluded that the acid hydrolysis occurred by an A1 mechanism. The neutral species hydrolyzed with general base catalysis shown by the Brønsted plot with β = 0.48 ± 0.04. Water acted as a general base catalyst with (pseudo-)first-order rate constant, kN = 3.06 × 107 s1. At pH > 6.5 the rate constants increased, reaching a plateau at high basicity. The basic hydrolysis rate constant of ethyl N,N-diethylthioncarbamate, which must react by a BAc2 mechanism, increased linearly at 13 mol/L NaOH with a second-order rate constant, k2 = 2.3 × 104 (mol/L)1 s1, which was 10 times slower than that expected for ETE. Experiments of ETE in 0.6 mol/L NaOH with an excess of ethylamine led to the formation of diethyl thiourea, presenting strong evidence that the basic hydrolysis occurred by the E1cb mechanism. In the rate-determining step, the E1cb mechanism involved the elimination of ethoxide ion from the thioncarbamate anion, producing an isothiocyanate intermediate that decomposed rapidly to form ethylamine, ethanol, and COS.Key words: alkylthioncarbamate esters, ethyl N-ethylthioncarbamate, ethyl N,N-diethylthioncarbamate, hydrolysis, 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".