Pyridinones Are Not Antioxidants As Shown by Kinetics of Free Radical Autoxidation, but They Prevent Radical Oxidations Catalyzed by Toxic Heavy Metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three 2-methyl-3-hydroxypyridinones, 1-methyl-, 1; 1-(4-methoxy)phenyl-, 2; and 1-(4-dimethylamino)phenyl-, 3, were discovered not to possess strong antioxidant properties contrary to literature reports. These pyridinones were not active chain-breaking antioxidants toward peroxyl radicals generated from styrene or methyl oleate initiated by azobis-2-methylpropylnitrile (AIBN) in solution compared to known phenolic antioxidants, 2,2,5,7,8-pentamethyl-6-hydroxychroman (PMHC) or 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methoxyphenyl (DBHA). Pyridinone 2 exhibited weak antioxidant activity in cumene, kinh = 1.3 × 10(3) M(-1) s(-1), compared to 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT), kinh = 4.3 × 10(3) M(-1) s(-1). The pyridinones were not active antioxidants during lipid peroxidation initiated by azobis-2-amidinopropane·2HCl (ABAP) in aqueous-lipid dispersions of 0.50 M sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles where 2 did not inhibit peroxidation of methyl oleate at pH 7.0 or 4.0, while BHT exhibited effective suppression of oxygen uptake. In addition, 2 did not exhibit any cooperative antioxidant effect in combination with Trolox during inhibited peroxidation of linoleic acid in micelles. Pyridinones were effective preventative antioxidants in aqueous-lipid dispersions against reactions initiated by heavy metal ions, notably copper; for example, 2 blocked peroxidation of linoleic acid initiated by Cu ions in SDS micelles. In particular, both 2 and 3 were active in preventing the rapid pro-oxidation effects, "spikes", of very rapid oxygen uptake when phenolic antioxidants PMHC or Trolox were added to peroxidations initiated by Cu(2+). A proposal is given to account for such pro-oxidant effects.
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".