Synthesis and electrochemical evaluation of 2‐substituted imidazolium salts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herein, we report the synthesis, electrochemical, and computational evaluation of six 2‐substituted imidazolium bromides and six 2‐substituted imidazolium triflates. All final compounds were obtained in 2 or fewer synthetic steps from inexpensive starting materials and display a single, irreversible electrochemical reduction. The reduction potentials span a range greater than 1 V depending on the electron withdrawing power of the 2‐substituent. Imidazolium bromides such as Bn2(H)ImBr reduce with E1/2 = −2.70 V vs Fc/Fc+, whereas the electron‐withdrawing Br‐containing analog Bn2(Br)ImBr reduces at only −1.58 V vs Fc/Fc+. The reduction potential of imidazolium bromides obeys a linear free energy relationship to σm Hammett constants, whereas imidazolium triflates correlate better with the σp Hammett constants. These results indicate that the stabilizing effect of the 2‐substituent is anion‐sensitive, changing from induction to resonance upon exchanging bromide for triflate. Predicted electron affinities from density functional theory–optimized structures of imidazolium cations and reduced species more closely match experimental data for the triflates, suggesting that a triflate anion does not electronically perturb the imidazolium core as much as a bromide. Taken together, these data highlight the dual modularity of imidazolium salts by changing both 2‐substituent and anion.
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 | 0.001 | 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".