hypervalent_iodine

I’m not familiar with the reaction in a hands on sense, but the obvious thing to do would be to use a bigger flask.

I believe a strain is a particular genetic variant of a microorganism. Sort of like how different breeds of dogs, which can look different and act differently, etc., are all just sub-types of the same species.

Yep, that's correct. I would forget the 3H2O you have drawn above the arrow, though. You don't have water participating formally in the reaction. It's fine to write NaOH(aq), or to just indicate the concentration (e.g. 2M NaOH).

! Moderator Note Or you could just let the 7 year old thread die a natural death. You were advertising your book, whether for purchase or download. Both are against the rules. In any case, this is locked.

SFN does have a daily digest email, which I think is a summary of the day’s activities (though I believe only the things that you have participated in). We used to have a more comprehensive one a few upgrades ago, which I guess got eaten up at some point.

We've had discussions about this before. I'm of the opinion that members having that information could lead to issues, particularly with those prone to taking things personally. If you feel like someone is using the rep system to target you, please let staff know and we will investigate. As for your particular situation, I don't really see too much of a case for an abuse of the system at the moment. You received a couple of -'ve rep points today, which I reversed, and a few the other day that another member countered. Otherwise, it's been fairly sporadic.

Tony2018 has been banned as a sock puppet of YuanshenHao

! Moderator Note The OP has been banned as a sock puppet, so we will leave this here.

The R2 value is a measure of how well your data points fit the trend line. A higher correlation coefficient is better, as it tells you that your result is more precise (even if the numbers you calculate are the same).

Perhaps you’d like to revisit the mod note that was posted in this thread earlier?

This has been upgraded to a ban. _______________________________________ Also banned is waitforufo. Phi for All had a much better farewell message than I could come up with, so I will leave that here. There’s only so much of the bald face lying we are prepared tolerate for the sake of not being accused of censorship. We are well passed that point now, and so staff decided it was time for a permanent ban. _______________________________________ forex has now been banned as well, for constantly reopening closed topics.

! Moderator Note Alex_Krycek, and OP, if you don’t intend to back up your claims with evidence or any sort of backable science, your posts do not belong here and are considered hijacking (since this isn’t your thread). I am removing not his thread to the trash.

Anecdotes =/= evidence. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to prove what you’re saying?

We don’t do people’s homework for them, but we are willing to assist you in doing it yourself. Where are you stuck so that we can help?

! Moderator Note Last time I checked, telepathy was not considered to be accepted science. Accordingly, I have moved this thread to Speculations.

One thing I would say looking at it again is that you would probably have the water leaving as a separate step, giving a carbocation which equilibriums between that and the double bonded structure you draw in the next structure. I don’t believe that it is a concerted process, so drawing it that way would be more correct. When I did this at uni, it didn’t matter overly if I did it your way or the one I’ve mentioned, except if I was drawing it out in an exam for final year Organic. Better to be safe though.

Yep, that all looks great.

Alright, I can understand if you are testing mixtures derived from natural sources, etc., or natural product isolates, that mass/volume is more appropriate. The instances I was coming across that led me to ask my question were fully characterised and purified compounds, however. In those cases, why is it not the default to use molarity? I have been using molarity myself when determining Ki's, or MIC's, but I am routinely asked what this translates to in ug/mL by my colleagues in the biological sciences as a comparison to other compounds we work with. I don't see mass/volume as a useful comparison in these cases, as surely it is misleading? Worded another way, if compound A is a stronger inhibitor per mole than compound B, but a worse inhibitor per gram, should compound A not still be considered the stronger inhibitor of the two?

A good first step would be to look up the journal article referenced, and see if there might be any hints. I would also look at the supporting information document.

The idea of it (or indeed, any food) raising the body's 'alkaline levels' is total nonsense.

! Moderator Note We don't give medical advice here. If you are concerned about any symptoms you are experiencing, please consult a doctor.

Ah, great. I didn't realise that they had explicitly told you that you were making the acetal, which is what I was hinting towards. A couple of things. In part i), your mechanism is mostly good except for the last step. I don't like the way you've drawn the arrow from A- to the proton attached to the positively charged oxygen, as you've drawn it through another carbon making it look as though the arrow is actually a bond. My second issue with this bit is that it is somewhat incomplete. You haven't drawn an arrow that would show the breaking of the H-O+ bond (i.e. movement of electrons in the bond onto the oxygen). For part ii)., I am happy that you have used the correct OH group in this section, however I don't know why you've redrawn the hemiacetal. Surely the question wants the arrow pushing on the boxed structure, otherwise why would the have reaction arrows coming away from it? My second issue is the next structure: the arrow pushing doesn't make sense. The ethereal oxygen in the hemiacetal is nucleophilic, so it is unlikely that it would be willing to accept any electrons in the way you have drawn. In the proceeding structure you have also drawn this without the water molecule, but nowhere in the previous step have you indicated that this has happened. I think you have gotten a bit confused in this section. Some questions to help you along in part ii: Why did you form the water molecule in the first step after formation of the hemiacetal? Are water groups good leaving groups or bad leaving groups? Oh, also, the fact that there are two secondary OH groups is irrelevant here. More important is the stereochemistry of the two OH groups that have reacted. Why do you think the reaction would have given the product shown and not the product corresponding to the other secondary OH?

I have a question about units. In reading papers around the development of new drug compounds (specifically antifungals), I've noticed that many seem to express and compare values such as IC50's in units of mass / volume (e.g. ug / mL) instead of molarity. I have also found this to be the case when I attend group meetings over in the biology labs I work in. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as surely it's more appropriate to compare inhibitory activities of different molecules on a per mole basis rather than per gram. Does anyone know if there's a reason for this, or is it just some sort of historical carryover?

I would believe that, though I think you ought to look at the conditions and what sort of functional groups are involved a bit, as your reasoning implies an incomplete answer. What sort of products do you expect to get out of this (i.e. what functional group(s))? Could you also attach a snapshot of the entire question?

My previous suggestions still apply. Let me know how you go.