4.4 Article

Evaluation of some functionalized imidazoles and 1,2,4-triazoles as antioxidant additives for industrial lubricating oils and correlating the results with the structures of additives using empirical AM1 calculations

期刊

JOURNAL OF SAUDI CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 443-449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jscs.2011.09.010

关键词

Imidazole; Triazole; Thiols; Lubricating oils; Industrial oils; Turbine oils; Autoxidation; Antioxidant additives; Empirical AM1 calculations; QSAR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functionalized 4,5-diphenyl-imidazoles, 4,5-diphenyl-1,2,4-triazoles and 5-(o-hydroxyphenyl)-4-phenyl-1,2,4-triazoles at the 2-position with thiol, thiomethyl and thiobenzyl groups, have been tested as antioxidant additives for lubricating oils. Whereas the thiomethyl groups in such compounds increased the antioxidant property than the thiol group, the corresponding thiobenzyl groups did the reverse. The results can be explained, based on correlating the electron donating and withdrawing abilities of the substituents with the oxidation stability. The triazoles carrying a phenolic hydroxyl group have more antioxidant power than those without such a group. The imidazoles gave the oils more oxidation stabilities than the two types of triazoles with the same functionalities. The 4,5-diphenyl-2-thiomethyl-imidazole (2), as an additive, has the highest antioxidant property, reaching the level of standard one when its concentration is 1.0% wt. instead of the 0.8% wt. of the standard. The correlation of the antioxidant character of the heterocyclic additives with their structures has been investigated using the semiempirical gas phase AM1 calculations for the studied heterocycles. The relative stability of the imidazoles 1 and 3 compared to 2 were in the order 2 > 1 > 3. Similarly, the relative stability of the triazoles are in the same order where 5 > 4 > 6 and 8 > 7 > 9. (C) 2011 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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

4.4
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