Sequential Hydration Energies of the Sulfate Ion, from Determinations of the Equilibrium Constants for the Gas-Phase Reactions: SO<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<i><sub>n</sub></i><sup>2-</sup> = SO<sub>4</sub>(H<sub>2</sub>O)<i><sub>n</sub></i><sub>-</sub><sub>1</sub><sup>2-</sup> + H<sub>2</sub>O
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequential hydration energies of SO4(H2O)(n)2- were obtained from determinations of the equilibrium constants of the following reactions: SO4(H2O)(n)2- = SO4(H2O)(n-1)2- + H2O. The SO4(2-) ions were produced by electrospray and the equilibrium constants Kn,n-1 were determined with a reaction chamber attached to a mass spectrometer. Determinations of Kn,n-1 at different temperatures were used to obtain DeltaG0n,n-1, DeltaH0 n,n-1, and DeltaS0n,n-1 for n = 7 to 19. Interference of the charge separation reaction SO4(H2O)(n)2- = HSO4(H2O)(n-k)- + OH(H2O)(k-1)- at higher temperatures prevented determinations for n < 7. The DeltaS0n,n-1 values obtained are unusually low and this indicates very loose, disordered structures for the n > or = 7 hydrates. The DeltaH0n,n-1 values are compared with theoretical values DeltaEn,n-1, obtained by Wang, Nicholas, and Wang. Rate constant determinations of the dissociation reactions n,n - 1, obtained with the BIRD method by Wong and Williams, showed relatively lower rates for n = 6 and 12, which indicate that these hydrates are more stable. No discontinuities of the DeltaG0n,n-1 values indicating an unusually stable n = 12 hydrate were observed in the present work. Rate constants evaluated from the DeltaG0n,n-1 results also fail to indicate a lower rate for n = 12. An analysis of the conditions used in the two types of experiments indicates that the different results reflect the different energy distributions expected at the dissociation threshold. Higher internal energies prevail in the equilibrium measurements and allow the participation of more disordered transition states in the reaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".