z-logo
Premium
The Reaction of Ozone with the Hydroxide Ion: Mechanistic Considerations Based on Thermokinetic and Quantum Chemical Calculations and the Role of HO 4 − in Superoxide Dismutation
Author(s) -
Merényi Gábor,
Lind Johan,
Naumov Sergej,
von Sonntag Clemens
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
chemistry – a european journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.687
H-Index - 242
eISSN - 1521-3765
pISSN - 0947-6539
DOI - 10.1002/chem.200802539
Subject(s) - chemistry , adduct , singlet state , radical , reaction rate constant , ozone , reaction mechanism , electron transfer , triplet state , hydroxide , excited state , ground state , computational chemistry , photochemistry , kinetics , molecule , inorganic chemistry , organic chemistry , catalysis , physics , quantum mechanics , nuclear physics
The reaction of OH − with O 3 eventually leads to the formation of . OH radicals. In the original mechanistic concept (J. Staehelin, J. Hoigné, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1982 , 16 , 676–681), it was suggested that the first step occurred by O transfer: OH − +O 3 →HO 2 − +O 2 and that . OH was generated in the subsequent reaction(s) of HO 2 − with O 3 (the peroxone process). This mechanistic concept has now been revised on the basis of thermokinetic and quantum chemical calculations. A one‐step O transfer such as that mentioned above would require the release of O 2 in its excited singlet state ( 1 O 2 , O 2 ( 1 Δ g )); this state lies 95.5 kJ mol −1 above the triplet ground state ( 3 O 2 , O 2 ( 3 Σ g − )). The low experimental rate constant of 70  M −1  s −1 is not incompatible with such a reaction. However, according to our calculations, the reaction of OH − with O 3 to form an adduct (OH − +O 3 →HO 4 − ; Δ G =3.5 kJ mol −1 ) is a much better candidate for the rate‐determining step as compared with the significantly more endergonic O transfer (Δ G =26.7 kJ mol −1 ). Hence, we favor this reaction; all the more so as numerous precedents of similar ozone adduct formation are known in the literature. Three potential decay routes of the adduct HO 4 − have been probed: HO 4 − →HO 2 − + 1 O 2 is spin allowed, but markedly endergonic (Δ G =23.2 kJ mol −1 ). HO 4 − →HO 2 − + 3 O 2 is spin forbidden (Δ G =−73.3 kJ mol −1 ). The decay into radicals, HO 4 − →HO 2 . +O 2 .− , is spin allowed and less endergonic (Δ G =14.8 kJ mol −1 ) than HO 4 − →HO 2 − + 1 O 2 . It is thus HO 4 − →HO 2 . +O 2 .− by which HO 4 − decays. It is noted that a large contribution of the reverse of this reaction, HO 2 . +O 2 .− →HO 4 − , followed by HO 4 − →HO 2 − + 3 O 2 , now explains why the measured rate of the bimolecular decay of HO 2 . and O 2 .− into HO 2 − +O 2 ( k =1×10 8   M −1  s −1 ) is below diffusion controlled. Because k for the process HO 4 − →HO 2 . +O 2 .− is much larger than k for the reverse of OH − +O 3 →HO 4 − , the forward reaction OH − +O 3 →HO 4 − is practically irreversible.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom