MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067675499 · doi:10.1021/jp067061p

Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Sucrose Hydrolysis from Real-Time Enthalpy and Heat Capacity Measurements

2007· article· en· W2067675499 on OpenAlexaff
E. Tombari, G. Salvetti, C. Ferrari, G. P. Johari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryEnthalpyHydrolysisThermodynamicsArrhenius equationHydrogen bondKineticsReaction rate constantPhysical chemistryStandard enthalpy of reactionActivation energyMoleculeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a real time study of the enthalpy release and heat capacity during the course of HCl-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose to fructose and glucose. Measurements were performed during both isothermal conditions and during slow heating and then cooling at a controlled rate. The reaction rate constant of the first-order kinetics follows an Arrhenius relation with activation energy of 109.2 kJ/mol of sucrose. On hydrolysis, the enthalpy decreases by 14.4 kJ/mol of sucrose at 310 K, and the heat capacity, Cp, increases by 61 J mol-1 K-1 of sucrose in the solution. The enthalpy of hydrolysis decreases with increase in the temperature and DeltaCp on hydrolysis increases. The effects are attributed to change in the configurational and vibrational partition functions as one covalent bond in sucrose breaks to form two molecules, which then individually form additional hydrogen bonds and alter the water's structure in the solution. Cp of the solution increases with temperature less rapidly before sucrose hydrolysis than after it. This may reflect an increase in the configurational contribution to Cp as the hydrogen bond population changes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207