The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Quantitative Scale of Oxophilicity and Thiophilicity
Abstract
Oxophilicity and thiophilicity are widely used concepts with no quantitative definition. In this paper, a simple, generic scale is developed that solves issues with reference states and system dependencies and captures empirically known tendencies toward oxygen. This enables a detailed analysis of the fundamental causes of oxophilicity. Notably, the notion that oxophilicity relates to Lewis acid hardness is invalid. Rather, oxophilicity correlates only modestly and inversely with absolute hardness and more strongly with electronegativity and effective nuclear charge. Since oxygen is highly electronegative, ionic bonding is stronger to metals of low electronegativity. Left-side d-block elements with low effective nuclear charges and electronegativities are thus highly oxophilic, and the f-block elements, not because of their hardness, which is normal, but as a result of the small ionization energies of their outermost valence electrons, can easily transfer electrons to fulfill the electron demands of oxygen. Consistent with empirical experience, the most oxophilic elements are found in the left part of the d block, the lanthanides, and the actinides. The d-block elements differ substantially in oxophilicity, quantifying their different uses in a wide range of chemical reactions; thus, the use of mixed oxo- and thiophilic (i.e., "mesophilic") surfaces and catalysts as a design principle can explain the success of many recent applications. The proposed scale may therefore help to rationalize and improve chemical reactions more effectively than current qualitative considerations of oxophilicity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
(2014) · doi:10.1201/b17118 · Cited by 57,706
Pearson, R. G. (1963) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00905a001 · Cited by 10,475
Cited by
Strategies for design of electrocatalysts for hydrogen evolution under alkaline conditions
Wang, X., Zheng, Y., Sheng, W., Xu, Z. J., Jaroniec, M., & Qiao, S.-Z. (2020) · Materials Today · doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2019.12.003 · Cited by 533
Linker functionalized metal-organic frameworks
Ali Akbar Razavi, S., & Morsali, A. (2019) · Coordination Chemistry Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2019.213023 · Cited by 341
Deacy, A. C., Kilpatrick, A. F. R., Regoutz, A., & Williams, C. K. (2020) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s41557-020-0450-3 · Cited by 325
Barile, C. J., Slotcavage, D. J., Hou, J., Strand, M. T., Hernandez, T. S., & McGehee, M. D. (2017) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2017.06.001 · Cited by 282
Highly selective urea electrooxidation coupled with efficient hydrogen evolution
Zhan, G., Hu, L., Li, H., Dai, J., Zhao, L., Zheng, Q., Zou, X., Shi, Y., Wang, J., Hou, W., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50343-8 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Kepp, K. P.
- Venue
- Inorganic Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-08-31
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 9461-9470
- ISSN
- 0020-1669 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-510X
- OpenAlex
- W2508584043
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Quantitative Scale of Oxophilicity and Thiophilicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01702
- The paper
- Kepp, K. P. (2016). A Quantitative Scale of Oxophilicity and Thiophilicity. Inorganic Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01702
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.