New Insights into the Bromination Reaction for a Series of Alkenes A Computational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ab initio calculations were carried out for the reaction of Br2 with ethene, propene, isobutene, fluoroethene, chloroethene, (E)-1,2-difluoroethene, and (E)-1,2-dichloroethene. For ethene the calculations were also carried out for the reaction with 2Br2. Geometries were optimized at the HF, MP2, and B3LYP levels using the 6-31G(d) and 6-31+G(d) basis sets where for Br both the standard 6-31G and the Binning-Curtiss bromine basis sets were used. Energies were also calculated at the G3MP2 and G3MP2B3 levels. For a single Br2 one mechanism involves a perpendicular attack by Br2 to the C=C bond, and a second mechanism consists of sidewise attack by Br2. Alkenes can react with 2Br2 via several mechanisms, all leading to the dibromo product. The most likely pathway for the reaction of ethene and 2Br2 involves a trans addition of a Br atom from Br3- to one of the bromonium ion carbons. Activation energies, free energies, and enthalpies of activation along with thermodynamic properties (DeltaE, DeltaH, and DeltaG) for each reaction were calculated. We have found that the reaction of ethene with 2Br2 is favored over reaction with only Br2. There is excellent agreement between the calculated free energies of activation for the reaction of ethene and 2Br2 and experimental values in nonpolar aprotic solvents. However, the free energies of activation for the reaction with a single Br2 agrees well with the experimental results for polar protic solvents only when the reaction is mediated by a solvent molecule. A kinetic expression is proposed that accounts for the difference between bromination of alkenes in protic and nonprotic solvents. Some previously unknown heats of formation are reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".