4.6 Article

Synthesis and radical scavenging activity of new phenolic hydrazone/hydrazide derivatives: Experimental and theoretical studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR STRUCTURE
卷 1249, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2021.131546

关键词

Hydrazone; Hydrazide; Antioxidant activity; DFT calculations; Radical scavenger

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrazone and hydrazone-hydrazide-based compounds are important classes of compounds with diverse pharmacological actions. In this study, a series of new phenolic hydrazone/hydrazide derivatives were synthesized and evaluated for their antiradical activity, with hydrazones found to be more reactive than hydrazone-hydrazides. Compound 4 was identified as the best radical scavenger among the studied compounds.
Hydrazone and hydrazone-hydrazide-based compounds represent important classes of compounds that continue to attract increasing interest due to their diverse pharmacological actions. In the present study, a series of new phenolic hydrazone/hydrazide derivatives (1-10) have been successfully synthesized and evaluated for their antiradical activity using experimental and theoretical methods. The hydrazones 1-5 were found to be significantly more reactive than their analogs hydrazone-hydrazide 6-10 via the main antiradical mechanism as well as toward DPPH and ABTS radicals. The NH group of the hydrazone is more reactive than the NH group of the hydrazide and the phenolic OH groups. The carbonyl group of the hydrazide plays a negative role in the antiradical activity of such molecules. Among the studied compounds, compound 4 was found to be the best radical scavenger with SC50 values (concentration causing 50% of DPPH or ABST scavenging) comparable to those of ascorbic acid and Trolox. These findings provide insights on the structure-activity relationship of hydrazone and hydrazone-hydrazide type compounds, as well as open up new perspectives for the development of novel potent antioxidants. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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