4.6 Article

Reactions of the hydroperoxide anion with dimethyl methylphosphonate in an ion trap mass spectrometer: evidence for a gas phase alpha-effect

期刊

ORGANIC & BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY
卷 6, 期 13, 页码 2316-2326

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b803734e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gas phase degradation reactions of the chemical warfare agent (CWA) simulant, dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP), with the hydroperoxide anion (HOO(-)) were investigated using a modified quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer. The HOO(-) anion reacts readily with neutral DMMP forming two significant product ions at m/z 109 and m/z 123. The major reaction pathways correspond to (i) the nucleophilic substitution at carbon to form [CH(3)P(O)(OCH(3))O](-) (m/z 109) in a highly exothermic process and (ii) exothermic proton transfer. The branching ratios of the two reaction pathways, 89% and 11% respectively, indicate that the former reaction is significantly faster than the latter. This is in contrast to the trend for the methoxide anion with DMMP, where proton transfer dominates. The difference in the observed reactivities of the HOO(-) and CH(3)O(-) anions can be considered as evidence for an a-effect in the gas phase and is supported by electronic structure calculations at the B3LYP/aug-cc-pVTZ//B3LYP/6-31+G(d) level of theory that indicate the S(N)2(carbon) process has an activation energy 7.8 kJ mol(-1) lower for HOO(-) as compared to CH(3)O(-). A similar alpha-effect was calculated for nucleophilic addition-elimination at phosphorus, but this process an important step in the perhydrolysis degradation of CWAs in solution - was not observed to occur with DMMP in the gas phase. A theoretical investigation revealed that all processes are energetically accessible with negative activation energies. However, comparison of the relative Arrhenius pre-exponential factors indicate that substitution at phosphorus is not kinetically competitive with respect to the S(N)2(carbon) and deprotonation processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据