MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396883708 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2023-0175

First-principles study of solvent polarity effects in the Menshutkin reaction

2024· article· en· W4396883708 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Etika Dessi Susanti, Febdian Rusydi, Mohd Sukor Su’ait, Azizan Ahmad, Wun Fui Mark-Lee, Ira Puspitasari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysis and Oxidation Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPolarity (international relations)SolventComputational chemistrySolvent effectsSolvent polarityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quaternary ammonium salts (QASs) have been used as antimicrobial agents, surfactants, and ionic liquids in electrical double-layer capacitors, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, and dye-sensitized solar cells. It is well known that solvents and reactants strongly affect the Menshutkin reaction. However, QASs are potentially harmful to humans and the environment. To address these issues, we report the effects of solvent polarity on the thermochemistry of two selected Menshutkin reactions, (1) trimethylamine and 1-iodopropane yielded propyltrimethylammonium, and (2) methylacetamide and 1-iodopropane yielded acetylpropylmethylammonium. We systematically constructed possible QAS unique conformers within the first-principles framework in solvents that have three various polarities: toluene, acetonitrile, and water. The polar solvent shifted both reactions toward exergonic and decreased the Gibbs free activation energy. In addition, the polar solvent changed the favorable reaction for the acetylpropylmethylammonium formation only due to an intramolecular hydrogen bond. Therefore, we suggest that selecting high solvent polarity should be considered to address the potential health and environmental effect.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCatalysis and Oxidation ReactionsFrench-language works237,207