Effect of modification of the electrophilic center on the α effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on a nucleophilic study of esters R-C(=X)-Y-Ar in which the electrophilic center has been modified by replacing O by S in the leaving group or carbonyl center: 4-nitrophenyl acetate (1), S-4-nitrophenyl thioacetate (2), 4-nitrophenyl benzoate (3), and O-4-nitrophenyl thionobenzoate (4). The studies include O and S nucleophiles as well as α nucleophiles in H2O at 25.0 ± 0.1 °C. The sulfur nucleophile (4-chlorothiophenoxide, 4-ClPhS) exhibits significant enhanced reactivity for the reactions with thiol and thione esters 2 and 4 compared with their oxygen analogues 1 and 3. On the contrary, the common nucleophile OH is much less reactive towards 2 and 4 compared with 1 and 3. The effect of changing both the electrophilic center and the nucleofugic center on the reactivity of the other oxygen nucleophiles is not so significant: 4-chlorophenoxide (4-ClPhO) is four to six times more reactive in the reactions with thiol and thione esters 2 and 4 compared with their oxygen analogues 1 and 3. The α effects exhibited by butan-2,3-dione monoximate (Ox) and HOO are strongly dependent on the nature of the electrophilic center of the substrates, indicating that the difference in the ground-state solvation energy cannot be fully responsible for the α effect. Our results clearly emphasize the strong dependence of the α effect on the substrate structure, notably, the nature of the electrophilic center. The impact of change in the nucleofuge (1→2) and the electrophilic center (3→4) on reactivity indicates that α nucleophiles will need to be “purpose built” for decontamination and nucleophilic degradation of specific biocides.Key words: α effect, nucleophilicity, nucleofuge effect, electrophilicity, polarizability.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".