1994
DOI: 10.1021/j100060a017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrochemical Behavior and EPR of Radical Anions of Perfluoroalkyl-Substituted Olefins

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
(4 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2 The E 1/2 (0/À) value for trans-C 2 (CF 3 ) 2 (C 2 F 5 ) 2 is 60 mV more positive than for C 2 (CF 3 ) 4 , suggesting that for these two olefins the C 2 F 5 group is more electron withdrawing than the CF 3 group. 33 In contrast, the E 1/2 (0/À) values for 7,24-C 70 (R F ) 2 , with R F ¼ CF 3 or C 2 F 5 , only differed by 10 mV, which is within the uncertainty of the measurements, suggesting that C 2 F 5 is not more electron withdrawing than CF 3 , at least not for a large substrate such as C 70 . 34 Furthermore, the cathodic peak potentials (note: not reversible E 1/2 values) for three p-C 6 H 4 (CN)(R F ) derivatives were the same to within AE10 mV for R F ¼ n-C 4 F 9 , n-C 6 F 13 and n-C 8 F 17 , suggesting no difference in electron-withdrawing ability for these R F groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…2 The E 1/2 (0/À) value for trans-C 2 (CF 3 ) 2 (C 2 F 5 ) 2 is 60 mV more positive than for C 2 (CF 3 ) 4 , suggesting that for these two olefins the C 2 F 5 group is more electron withdrawing than the CF 3 group. 33 In contrast, the E 1/2 (0/À) values for 7,24-C 70 (R F ) 2 , with R F ¼ CF 3 or C 2 F 5 , only differed by 10 mV, which is within the uncertainty of the measurements, suggesting that C 2 F 5 is not more electron withdrawing than CF 3 , at least not for a large substrate such as C 70 . 34 Furthermore, the cathodic peak potentials (note: not reversible E 1/2 values) for three p-C 6 H 4 (CN)(R F ) derivatives were the same to within AE10 mV for R F ¼ n-C 4 F 9 , n-C 6 F 13 and n-C 8 F 17 , suggesting no difference in electron-withdrawing ability for these R F groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…For example, 1,1,2,2-tetra(trifluoromethyl) ethylene (TTFME) has a reduction potential of −0.61 V vs. SCE (−0.37 V vs. SHE, or 4.1 V below vacuum) in acetonitrile. 20 To evaluate the feasibility that the residual -bonds in GF may be responsible for the electron transfer, we calculated the electron affinity of graphene fluoride containing an ethylene moiety. This was done with nanometer-sized graphene fluoride fragments of various sizes (ESI, e.g., Figure S6) until the calculated electron affinity remains invariant with increasing size.…”
Section: Graphite Monofluoride (Gf) Can Undergo Reductive Defluorinatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, PFOS can be reduced by elemental iron, Fe(0), in water under hightemperature and high-pressure conditions (e.g., 350°C, 20 MPa) [175]. Unsaturated per-and poly-fluoroorganics (i.e., those containing aromatic, benzylic, olefinic, and tertiary functional groups) will readily reductively defluorinate [176][177][178][179][180][181]. Fluoroorganics containing only secondary and primary C-F bonds are difficult to defluorinate due to low reduction potentials (E < -2.7 V) [182,183].…”
Section: Pfox Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%