Cation-Independent Electron Transfer between Ferricyanide and Ferrocyanide Ions in Aqueous Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron transfer between Fe(CN)(6)(3-) and Fe(CN)(6)(4-) in homogeneous aqueous solution with K(+) as the counterion normally proceeds almost exclusively by a K(+)-catalyzed pathway, but this can be suppressed, and the direct Fe(CN)(6)(3)(-)-Fe(CN)(6)(4-) electron transfer path exposed, by complexing the K(+) with crypt-2.2.2 or 18-crown-6. Fe((13)CN)(6)(4-)-NMR line broadening measurements using either crypt-2.2.2 or (with extrapolation to zero uncomplexed [K(+)]) 18-crown-6 gave consistent values for the rate constant and activation volume (k(0) = (2.4 +/- 0.1) x 10(2) L mol(-1) s(-1) and Delta V(0) = -11.3 +/- 0.3 cm(3) mol(-1), respectively, at 25 degrees C and ionic strength I = 0.2 mol L(-1)) for the uncatalyzed electron transfer path. These values conform well to predictions based on Marcus theory. When [K(+)] was controlled with 18-crown-6, the observed rate constant k(ex) was a linear function of uncomplexed [K(+)], giving k(K) = (4.3 +/- 0.1) x 10(4) L(2) mol(-2) s(-1) at 25 degrees C and I = 0.26 mol L(-1) for the K(+)-catalyzed pathway. When no complexing agent was present, k(ex) was roughly proportional to [K(+)](total), but the corresponding rate constant k(K)' (=k(ex)/[K(+)](total)) was about 60% larger than k(K), evidently because ion pairing by hydrated K(+) lowered the anion-anion repulsions. Ionic strength as such had only a small effect on k(0), k(K), and k(K)'. The rate constants commonly cited in the literature for the Fe(CN)(6)(3-/4-) self-exchange reaction are in fact k(K)'[K(+)](total) values for typical experimental [K(+)](total) levels.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".