| Literature DB >> 30875716 |
Quan-De Wang1, Mao-Mao Sun2, Jin-Hu Liang3.
Abstract
The reaction of alkenes with hydroxyl (OH) radical is of great importance to atmospheric and combustion chemistry. This work used a combined ab initio/transition state theory (TST) method to study the reaction mechanisms and kinetics for hydrogen abstraction reactions by OH radical on C₄⁻C₆ alkenes. The elementary abstraction reactions involved were divided into 10 reaction classes depending upon the type of carbon atoms in the reaction center. Geometry optimization was performed by using DFT M06-2X functional with the 6-311+G(d,p) basis set. The energies were computed at the high-level CCSD(T)/CBS level of theory. Linear correlation for the computed reaction barriers and enthalpies between M06-2X/6-311+G(d,p) and CCSD(T)/CBS methods were found. It was shown that the C=C double bond in long alkenes not only affected the related allylic reaction site, but also exhibited a large influence on the reaction sites nearby the allylic site due to steric effects. TST in conjunction with tunneling effects were employed to determine high-pressure limit rate constants of these abstraction reactions and the computed overall rate constants were compared with the available literature data.Entities:
Keywords: abstraction reactions; reaction mechanism; transition state theory
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30875716 PMCID: PMC6471405 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20061275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Optimized transition state (TS) structures for the 10 prototype reactions at the M06-2X/6-311+G(d,p) level.
Computed reaction barriers and enthalpies for the prototype reactions in kcal/mol. a
| RC | Prototype Reaction | CCSD(T)-MP2/CBS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ΔE |
| ||
| RC1- | CH2=CHCH2CH3 → •HC=CHCH2CH3 | 4.53 (4.35) | −7.58 (−7.69) |
| 6.01 (6.32) b | |||
| RC1- | CH2=CHCH2CH3 → •HC=CHCH2CH3 | 4.98 (4.78) | −7.10 (−7.23) |
| 6.04 b | |||
| RC2 | CH2=CHCH2CH3 → CH2=C•CH2CH3 | 2.96 (2.78) | −10.99 (−11.13) |
| 3.90 (3.79) b | |||
| RC3 | CH2=CHCH2CH3 → CH2=CHCH•CH3 | 0.27 (0.09) | −34.08 (−34.17) |
| −0.01 (−0.41) b | |||
| RC4 | CH2=CHCH2CH3 → CH2=CHCH2CH2• | 1.43 (1.27) | −17.57 (−17.52) |
| 2.27 (2.40) b | |||
| RC5 | CH3CH=CHCH3 → CH3CH=CHCH2• | 1.40 | −31.33 |
| RC6 | CH2=CHCH2CH2CH3 → CH=CHCH2CH•CH3 | −0.71 | −20.52 |
| RC7 | CH2=CHCH2CH2CH3 → CH=CHCH2CH2CH2• | 1.98 | −17.98 |
| RC8 | H2C=CHCH(CH3)2 → H2C=CHC•(CH3)2 | −0.59 | −35.59 |
| RC9 | CH2=CH(CH2)2CH2CH3 → CH2=CH(CH2)2CH•CH3 | 0.68 | −20.45 |
| RC10 | CH2=CHCH2CH=CH2 → CH2=CHCH•CH=CH2 | 0.19 | −42.10 |
a The values in the brackets for reaction class (RC)1 to RC4 represent the results at the CCSD(T)/CBS level and all energies include zero-point vibrational energies (ZPVEs); b the values outside and inside the parentheses are the results obtained by Sun et al. [20] and Vasu et al. [9].
Figure 2Linear correlation of the computed reaction barriers and enthalpies between CCSD(T)-MP2/CBS and M06-2X/6-311+G(d,p) methods.
Figure 3PESs of the abstraction reactions of the 10 prototype reactions at the CCSD(T)-MP2/CBS level.
Figure 4Comparisons of the calculated rate constants of some reactions.
Figure 5Predicted overall rate constants for some alkenes compared with experiments.
Figure 6Predicted reaction rate constants for the studied reaction classes.