4.6 Article

Formation of 6-Methyl-1,4-dihydronaphthalene in the Reaction of the p-Toly Radical with 1,3-Butadiene under Single-Collision Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 118, 期 51, 页码 12111-12119

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp509990u

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences at the University of Hawaii [DE-FG02-03ER15411]
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research at Emory University [FA9550-12-1-0472]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-FG02-03ER15411] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crossed molecular beam reactions of p-tolyl (C7H7) plus 1,3-butadiene (C4H6), p-tolyl (C7H7) plus 1,3-butadiene-d(6) (C4D6), and p-tolyl-d(7) (C7D7) plus 1,3-butadiene (C4H6) were carried out under single-collision conditions at collision energies of about 55 kJ mol(-1). 6-Methyl-1,4-dihydronaphthalene was identified as the major reaction product formed at fractions of about 94% with the monocyclic isomer (trans-1-p-tolyl-1,3-butadiene) contributing only about 6%. The reaction is initiated by barrierless addition of the p-tolyl radical to the terminal carbon atom of the 1,3-butadiene via a van der Waals complex. The collision complex isomerizes via cyclization to a bicyclic intermediate, which then ejects a hydrogen atom from the bridging carbon to form 6-methyl-1,4-dihydronaphthalene through a tight exit transition state located about 27 kJ mol(-1) above the separated products. This is the dominant channel under the present experimental conditions. Alternatively, the collision complex can also undergo hydrogen ejection to form trans-1-p-tolyl-1,3-butadiene; this is a minor contributor to the present experiment. The de facto barrierless formation of a methyl-substituted aromatic hydrocarbons by dehydrogenation via a single event represents an important step in the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their partially hydrogenated analogues in combustion flames and the interstellar medium.

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