Reaction of ruthenium(II) complexes with 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH<sup>•</sup>) and hydroxyl radicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction of the complexes trans-[RuII(NO+)(NH3)4L] and [RuII(NO+)HEDTA] with 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•) and hydroxyl (OH•) radicals has been investigated at 25.0 ± 0.1 °C using spectroscopic (UV-vis and electron paramagnetic resonance) and electrochemical techniques (differential pulse voltammetry and cyclic voltammetry). The redox potential of RuIII/RuII for the ruthenium nitrosyl complexes was determined and is in the range of +2.2 V (L = HEDTA) to +2.6 V (L = isn) versus the normal hydrogen electrode . The trans-[RuII(NO+)(NH3)4L]3+ and [RuII(NO+)HEDTA] complexes do not react with the DPPH• radical in aqueous solution at pH = 3.0. However, the corresponding aquo species, trans-[RuII(H2O)(NH3)4L]2+ and [RuII(H2O)HEDTA]+, respectively, react quantitatively, resulting in metal center oxidation. The trans-[RuII(NO+)(NH3)4L]3+ and [RuII(NO+)HEDTA] complexes react with OH• through a complicated pathway that leads to metal center oxidation followed by a series of secondary reactions. In addition to acting as NO donors, after their reduction, these ruthenium(II) nitrosyl complexes exhibit, through their generated aquo species, a radical scavenging ability, which is important for better understanding the already proven biological activity of these ruthenium nitrosyls in vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".