Free Energies of Proton-Coupled Electron Transfer Reagents and Their Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an update and revision to our 2010 review on the topic of proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) reagent thermochemistry. Over the past decade, the data and thermochemical formalisms presented in that review have been of value to multiple fields. Concurrently, there have been advances in the thermochemical cycles and experimental methods used to measure these values. This Review (i) summarizes those advancements, (ii) corrects systematic errors in our prior review that shifted many of the absolute values in the tabulated data, (iii) provides updated tables of thermochemical values, and (iv) discusses new conclusions and opportunities from the assembled data and associated techniques. We advocate for updated thermochemical cycles that provide greater clarity and reduce experimental barriers to the calculation and measurement of Gibbs free energies for the conversion of X to XH n in PCET reactions. In particular, we demonstrate the utility and generality of reporting potentials of hydrogenation, E °(V vs H 2 ), in almost any solvent and how these values are connected to more widely reported bond dissociation free energies (BDFEs). The tabulated data demonstrate that E °(V vs H 2 ) and BDFEs are generally insensitive to the nature of the solvent and, in some cases, even to the phase (gas versus solution). This Review also presents introductions to several emerging fields in PCET thermochemistry to give readers windows into the diversity of research being performed. Some of the next frontiers in this rapidly growing field are coordination-induced bond weakening, PCET in novel solvent environments, and reactions at material interfaces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".