MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386306650 · doi:10.1021/acs.organomet.3c00340

Poisonous Truth about the Mercury Drop Test: The Effect of Elemental Mercury on Pd(0) and Pd(II)ArX Intermediates

2023· article· en· W4386306650 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian C. Chagunda, Tiago Fisher, Makenna Schierling, J. Scott McIndoe

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganometallics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCatalytic Cross-Coupling Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMercury (programming language)ChemistryElemental mercuryCatalysisHomogeneousPalladiumTransmetalationDrop (telecommunication)Heterogeneous catalysisEnvironmental chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mercury drop test is a widely used method often regarded as decisive for discriminating between homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis in organometallic systems. However, recent research has highlighted the limitations of this test due to the intrinsic reactivity of some organometallic compounds toward elemental mercury. In this study, we used real-time mass spectrometry to investigate the effect of elemental mercury on L n Pd 0 and Pd II ArX intermediates common in palladium-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions. Our findings demonstrate that mercury can interact with both species through redox-transmetallation and amalgamation processes, leading to inhibition of catalytic activity, which would often be misinterpreted as evidence for heterogeneous catalysis. This result further calls into question the widely held assumption that mercury reacts selectively with heterogeneous catalytic species. Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the results provided by the mercury drop test and incorporate alternative comprehensive kinetic analysis of the catalyst.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganometallicsSame topicCatalytic Cross-Coupling ReactionsFrench-language works237,207