Kinetics and mechanism of acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of the diazo functional groups of 1-diazo-2-indanone and 2-diazo-1-indanone in aqueous solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rates of hydrolysis of 1-diazo-2-indanone and 2-diazo-1-indanone were measured in dilute aqueous perchloric acid solutions using both H2O and D2O as the solvent, and rates of hydrolysis of the latter substrate were measured in dilute aqueous (H2O only) formic acid buffer solutions as well. The data for 1-diazo-2-indanone gave the hydronium ion catalytic coefficient kH+ = 5.7 × 103 (mol/L)1 s1 and the isotope effect kH+/kD+ = 2.9. The normal direction (kH/kD > 1) of this isotope effect was taken as evidence for a reaction mechanism involving rate-determining hydron transfer from the hydronium ion to the substrate's diazo carbon atom; followed by rapid displacement of diazo nitrogen by a water molecule, giving the observed 1-hydroxy-2-indanone product. The data for 2-diazo-1-indanone, on the other hand, gave a hydronium ion catalytic coefficient two orders of magnitude greater than the value for 1-diazo-2-indanone (kH+ = 5.9 × 101 (mol/L)1 s1), and an isotope effect near unity (kH+/kD+ = 1.2). It is argued that this isotope effect represents a situation in which diazo carbon hydronation and displacement of diazo nitrogen are each partly rate determining, a conclusion supported by incipient saturation of buffer catalysis in the formic acid buffer solutions. The 100-fold difference in hydronium ion catalytic coefficients for the two substrates is rationalized in terms of differing electron densities on the diazo carbon atoms.Key words: diazo compound hydrolysis, solution kinetics, acid catalysis, solvent isotope effects, buffer catalysis saturation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".