Elucidation of the Electron Transfer Reduction Mechanism of Anthracene Endoperoxides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The homogeneous and heterogeneous reductions of the endoperoxides 9,10-diphenyl-9,10-epidioxyanthracene (DPA-O2) and 9,10-dimethyl-9,10-epidioxyanthracene (DMA-O2) were investigated, and they were found to undergo a dissociative electron-transfer reduction of the O-O bond to yield a distonic radical anion, with no evidence for C-O bond dissociation. A number of thermochemical parameters for each were determined using Savéant's model for dissociative electron transfer (ET), including E degrees, DeltaG(o)++, and bond dissociation energies. The products of the ET are dependent on the mode of reduction, namely heterogeneous or homogeneous, and on the electrode potential or standard potential of the homogeneous donor, respectively. The dissociative reduction of DMA-O2 under heterogeneous and homogeneous conditions yields the corresponding 9,10-dihydroxyanthracene DMA-(OH)2, quantitatively, in an overall two-electron process. In the case of DPA-O2, ET reduction also yields the corresponding 9,10-dihydroxyanthracene DPA-(OH)2 from reduction of the distonic radical anion, but in competition with this reduction, an O-neophyl-type rearrangement occurs that generates a carbon radical with a minimum rate constant of 5.9 x 10(10) s(-1). In the presence of a sufficiently reducing medium, the carbon-centered radical is reduced (E degrees = -0.85 V vs SCE) and ultimately yields 9-phenoxy-10-phenyl anthracene (PPA). The observation of this product is remarkable. In the heterogeneous ET, the yield of DPA-(OH)2/PPA is 97:3 and allows an estimate of the rate constant for ET to the distonic radical anion. In homogeneous reductions, the O-neophyl rearrangement is quantitative, but the yield of PPA depends on the redox properties of the donor. A unified mechanism of reduction of DPA-O2 is presented to account for these observations.
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".