INFLUENCE OF INTRAMOLECULAR DONOR-ACCEPTOR INTERACTIONS ON RADIOLYSIS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: EFFECTS IN ACETYLACETONE

S. I. Vlasov; Власов С. И.; A. V. Ponomarev; Пономарев А. В.; B. G. Ershov; Ершов Б. Г.

doi:10.31857/S2686953523600174

INFLUENCE OF INTRAMOLECULAR DONOR-ACCEPTOR INTERACTIONS ON RADIOLYSIS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: EFFECTS IN ACETYLACETONE

Авторлар: Vlasov S.I.¹, Ponomarev A.V.¹, Ershov B.G.¹
Мекемелер:
1. A.N. Frumkin Institute of Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences
Шығарылым: Том 510, № 1 (2023)
Беттер: 69-73
Бөлім: PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
URL: https://rjpbr.com/2686-9535/article/view/651977
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S2686953523600174
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YRXCAM
ID: 651977

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық

Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық

Рұқсат ақылы немесе тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация
Авторлар туралы
Әдебиет тізімі
Қосымша файлдар
Статистика

Аннотация

Using acetylacetone as an example, it was shown that the intramolecular hydrogen bond significantly affects the radiolytic transformations of organic compounds, suppressing the transfer of a proton from the primary radical cation to the molecule, and also contributing to the cleavage of the C–OH bond in the enol form. Due to these effects, the main heavy product of radiolysis at 295 K is 4-oxopent-2-en-2-yl acetate. Under boiling conditions (413 K), hydrogen bonds are eliminated, leading to the predominant formation of 4-hydroxy-2-pentanone, which is not detected at 295 K.

Негізгі сөздер

acetylacetone, tautomers, hydrogen bond, radiolysis, proton transfer, radical recombination

Әдебиет тізімі

Belova N.V., Oberhammer H., Trang N.H., Girichev G. V. // J. Org. Chem. 2014. V. 79. P. 5412–5419. https://doi.org/10.1021/jo402814c
Antonov I., Voronova K., Chen M.-W., Sztáray B., Hemberger P., Bodi A., Osborn D.L., Sheps L. // J. Phys. Chem. A. 2019. V. 123. P. 5472–5490. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.9b04640
Imatdinova D.N., Vlasov S.I., Ponomarev A.V. // Mendeleev Commun. 2021. V 31. P. 558–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mencom.2021.07.041
Howard D.L., Kjaergaard H.G., Huang J., Meuwly M. // J. Phys. Chem. A. 2015. V. 119. P. 7980–7990. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.5b01863
Curran H.J. // Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 2006. V. 38. P. 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/kin.20153
Ponomarev A.V., Kholodkova E.M. // Mendeleev Commun. 2018. V. 28. P. 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mencom.2018.07.011
Wang H., Bozzelli J.W. // ChemPhysChem. 2016. V. 17. P. 1983–1992. https://doi.org/10.1002/cphc.201600152
Yoon M.-C., Choi Y.S., Kim S.K. // J. Chem. Phys. 1999. V. 110. P. 11850–11855. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.479126
Messaadia L., El Dib G., Ferhati A., Chakir A. // Chem. Phys. Lett. 2015. V. 626. P. 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2015.02.032
Ji Y., Qin D., Zheng J., Shi Q., Wang J., Lin Q., Chen J., Gao Y., Li G., An T. // Sci. Total Environ. 2020. 720. 137610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137610
Ponomarev A.V., Ershov B.G. // Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020. V. 54. P. 5331–5344. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00545