Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 305–312 | Cite as

Decomposition of reaction networks: the initial phase of the permanganate/oxalic acid reaction

Original Paper

Abstract

The determination of all chemical reaction networks composed of elementary reactions for a given net chemical reaction is one of the fundamental problems in chemistry, since the decomposition elucidates the reaction mechanism. It is essential in a wide range of applications: from the derivation of rate laws in physical chemistry to the design of large-scale reactors in process engineering where presence of unexpected side products can disturb operation. As an example we consider the well-known permanganate/oxalic acid reaction. We characterize all intermediate substances that can in principle act (auto-)catalytic, list all possible additional intermediate substances that would suffice to start the reaction without assuming presence of any autocatalyst. In particular, we propose for the first time a minimal network in which the well-known autocatalyst Mn2+ is produced. To derive our results we present an automatic method to determine whether a net chemical reaction can be explained by some reaction network with a given list of intermediate substances, how to generate all such networks, and how to suggest more intermediate substances if no network with the initially given substances exists.

Keywords

Reaction networks Elementary reactions Reaction mechanisms Network decomposition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10910_2010_9670_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (323 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 323 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    A.S. Tomlin, T. Túranyi, M. J. Pilling, Mathematical tools for the construction, investigation and reduction of combustion mechanism, in Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics, vol. 35 (Elsevier, 1997), pp. 293–437Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kovacs K.A., Vizvari B., Riedel M., Tóth J.: Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 6, 1236–1242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harcourt A.V., Esson W.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 156, 193–221 (1866)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simoyi R.H., De Kepper P., Epstein I.R., Kustin K.: Inorg. Chem. 25(4), 538–542 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pimienta V., Lavabre D., Levy G., Micheau J.C.: J. Phys. Chem. 98, 13294–13299 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kovács K.A., Groóf P., Burai L., Riedel M.: J. Phys. Chem. A 108, 11026–11031 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abel E.: Monatshefte für Chemie. 83(3), 695–709 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pimienta V., Lavabre D., Levy G., Micheau J.C.: J. Phys. Chem. 99, 14365–14371 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke B.L.: Cell Biochem. Biophys. 12(1), 237–253 (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Mathematische OptimierungOtto-von-Guericke Universität MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Zentrum MathematikTechnische Universität MünchenGarching bei MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations