PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16494387

Urea and urea nitrate decomposition pathways: a quantum chemistry study.

Abstract

Electronic structure calculations have been performed to investigate the initial steps in the gas-phase decomposition of urea and urea nitrate. The most favorable decomposition pathway for an isolated urea molecule leads to HNCO and NH3. Gaseous urea nitrate formed by the association of urea and HNO3 has two isomeric forms, both of which are acid-base complexes stabilized by the hydrogen-bonding interactions involving the acidic proton of HNO3 and either the O or N atoms of urea, with binding energies (D0(o), calculated at the G2M level with BSSE correction) of 13.7 and 8.3 kcal/mol, respectively, and with estimated standard enthalpies of formation (delta(f)H298(o) of -102.3 and -97.1 kcal/mol, respectively. Both isomers can undergo relatively facile double proton transfer within cyclic hydrogen-bonded structures. In both cases, HNO3 plays a catalytic role for the (1,3) H-shifts in urea by acting as a donor of the first and an acceptor of the second protons transferred in a relay fashion. The double proton transfer in the carbonyl/hydrogen bond complex mediates the keto-enol tautomerization of urea, and in the other complex the result is the breakdown of the urea part to the HNCO and NH3 fragments. The enolic form of urea is not expected to accumulate in significant quantities due to its very fast conversion back to H2NC(O)NH2 which is barrierless in the presence of HNO3. The HNO3-catalyzed breakdown of urea to HNCO and NH3 is predicted to be the most favorable decomposition pathway for gaseous urea nitrate. Thus, HNCO + NH3 + HNO3 and their association products (e.g., ammonium nitrate and isocyanate) are expected to be the major initial products of the urea nitrate decomposition. This prediction is consistent with the experimental T-jump/FTIR data [Hiyoshi et al. 12th Int. Detonation Symp., Aug 11-16, San Diego, CA, 2002].

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Igor V Tokmakov, Saman Alavi, Donald L Thompson. 2006-03-02. Urea and urea nitrate decomposition pathways: a quantum chemistry study.. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0564647

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗