Substituent effects in the Baeyer–Villiger reaction of acetophenones: a theoretical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports the first complete theoretical study of substituent effects on the mechanism of the Baeyer– Villiger (BV) reaction in non‐polar solvents taking into account the lowest‐energy mechanism that has been proposed for this rearrangement which is non‐ionic and fully concerted. The BV reaction of p‐substituted acetophenones, p‐XC6H4COCH3 (X = NO2, CN, H, CH3, OCH3), with performic (PFA) and trifluoroperacetic (TFPAA) acids, catalyzed by formic (FA) and trifluoroacetic (TFAA) acids, respectively, using the MPWB1K functional and the 6‐311G(d,p) and 6‐311++G(d,p) basis sets, are studied. Solvent effects are taken into account by means of the PCM continuum model using dichloromethane as solvent. Electron‐donating substituents on the aryl group have a relatively small activation effect on the first step, but a pronounced activation effect on the second to the point of being able to change the rate‐determining step (RDS) of the reaction, as observed in the case of p‐methoxyacetophenone with TFPAA acids. After analyzing the changes in Gibbs free energy of activation, geometrical parameters, and charge distributions of the transition states (TSs), explanations are provided for the two distinct effects that substituents on the ketone have on the kinetics of the addition and migration steps of the BV oxidation. The effect of the acid/peracid pair used is also discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".