Soft detoxification of chemical warfare agent simulants and pesticides under pressure.

The neutralisation of structurally varied chemical warfare agent simulants (blister and nerve agents) and pesticides (Paraoxon) with the assistance of high pressure is reported. Chloroethyl amines and sulfides (nitrogen and sulfur mustards), phosphonothioates (V-series nerve agents) and phosphates (pesticide) readily react with simple nucleophilic scavengers (alcohols, amines) at P > 14 000 bar.

Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents.

Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordination complex). This work highlights the shortcomings of these probes and recommends three replacement methods: (a) the theoretical comparison of the experimental and PCM-TD-DFT calculated transition energies ET(30) of B(30), (b) the semiempirical comparison of the experimental and McRae calculated ET(30), and, (c) for ionic liquids, the experimental comparison of ET(30) and ET(33) lying on the lower basicity of the betaine dye B(33) compared to B(30). These methods yield a new HBD parameter, α1, for 101 molecular solvents and 30 ionic liquids. The novelty is emblematic for water, with α1 = 1.54 instead of α (Kamlet-Taft) = 1.17. The solvent parameter α1 is not equivalent to the solute hydrogen-bond acidity parameter α2H, partly because of the self-association of HBD solvents.

Hydrogen-Bond Acceptance of Solvents: A 19F Solvatomagnetic ß1 Database to Replace Solvatochromic and Solvatovibrational Scales.

A variety of physicochemical properties and several hydrogen-bond donors have been used to define methods and to build scales aiming at measuring the hydrogen-bond acceptance of solvents. There is a great deal of confusion in these scales and methods. Solvatochromic, solvatocalorimetric, solvatovibrational, and 19F solvatomagnetic comparison methods are critically reviewed. Only two methods, the solvatomagnetic and the solvatocalorimetric ones, are able to yield reliable solvent hydrogen-bond acceptance scales. The solvatomagnetic ß1 scale defined from the 19F chemical shift of 4-fluorophenol is extended to many solvents including ionic liquids and green solvents. The results for about 240 hydrogen-bond acceptor solvents are organized in a numerical ß1 database. The comparison of ß1 with solvatochromic scales highlights their shortcomings, in particular for the important class of amphiprotic solvents. Therefore, the use of the 19F solvatomagnetic comparison method and of the solvatomagnetic ß1 scale is recommended in solvent effect studies.