The goals of the present study were (a) to create positively charged organo‐uranyl complexes with general formula [UO
2(R)]
+ (eg, R═CH
3 and CH
2CH
3) by decarboxylation of [UO
2(O
2C─R)]
+ precursors and (b) to identify the pathways by which the complexes, if formed, dissociate by collisional activation or otherwise react when exposed to gas‐phase H
2O. Collision‐induced dissociation (CID) of both [UO
2(O
2C─CH
3)]
+ and [UO
2(O
2C─CH
2CH
3)]
+ causes H
+ transfer and elimination of a ketene to leave [UO
2(OH)]
+. However, CID of the alkoxides [UO
2(OCH
2CH
3)]
+ and [UO
2(OCH
2CH
2CH
3)]
+ produced [UO
2(CH
3)]
+ and [UO
2(CH
2CH
3)]
+, respectively. Isolation of [UO
2(CH
3)]
+ and [UO
2(CH
2CH
3)]
+ for reaction with H
2O caused formation of [UO
2(H
2O)]
+ by elimination of ·CH
3 and ·CH
2CH
3: Hydrolysis was not observed. CID of the acrylate and benzoate versions of the complexes, [UO
2(O
2C─CH═CH
2)]
+ and [UO
2(O
2C─C
6H
5)]
+, caused decarboxylation to leave [UO
2(CH═CH
2)]
+ and [UO
2(C
6H
5)]
+, respectively. These organometallic species do react with H
2O to produce [UO
2(OH)]
+, and loss of the respective radicals to leave [UO
2(H
2O)]
+ was not detected. Density functional theory calculations suggest that formation of [UO
2(OH)]
+, rather than the hydrated U
VO
2+, cation is energetically favored regardless of the precursor ion. However, for the [UO
2(CH
3)]
+ and [UO
2(CH
2CH
3)]
+ precursors, the transition state energy for proton transfer to generate [UO
2(OH)]
+ and the associated neutral alkanes is higher than the path involving direct elimination of the organic neutral to form [UO
2(H
2O)]
+. The situation is reversed for the [UO
2(CH═CH
2)]
+ and [UO
2(C
6H
5)]
+ precursors: The transition state for proton transfer is lower than the energy required for creation of [UO
2(H
2O)]
+ by elimination of CH═CH
2 or C
6H
5 radical.
相似文献