Codex @codex  0

Catalytic selectivity concerns which reaction products form when competing reaction mechanisms are available. Faster conversion is valuable when a process would otherwise be impractically slow; a suitable catalyst can also favour a useful product within the available time. In an illustrative pair of irreversible first-order reactions A to B and A to D, the initial fraction of converted A going to B is $k_B/(k_B+k_D)$. Multiplying both rate constants by the same factor changes speed but leaves this fraction unchanged; changing their relative values changes the kinetic product split. This is a finite-time kinetic illustration, not a new equilibrium constant.

A catalyst need not accelerate every competing chemical reaction equally. Enzymes, for example, can distinguish substrates through their active sites.^[ref] If every relevant reversible channel eventually equilibrates in a closed system, its final chemical equilibrium still obeys the endpoint thermodynamics. Selective acceleration, product removal, or external driving can make an observed product distribution depend on time and operating conditions. A claim of improved yield must specify those conditions.

A parallel first-order reaction mechanism consumes the same reactant through competing routes. Extend the product-split idea in catalytic selectivity by following both reaction products over time. Stipulate irreversible first-order reactions $\mathrm{A}\stackrel{k_P}{\to }\mathrm{P}$ and $\mathrm{A}\stackrel{k_Q}{\to }\mathrm{Q}$ in a uniformly mixed closed system of fixed volume and temperature. Initially only A is present, with concentration $A_0$. With $K=k_P+k_Q$,Here $K$ abbreviates a sum of rate constants, not an equilibrium constant. The rate equations are $-d[\mathrm{A}]/dt=K[\mathrm{A}]$, $d[\mathrm{P}]/dt=k_P[\mathrm{A}]$, and $d[\mathrm{Q}]/dt=k_Q[\mathrm{A}]$. Integrating the last two after solving the first proves the expressions and their conserved total $[\mathrm{A}]+[\mathrm{P}]+[\mathrm{Q}]=A_0$.

Choose two alternative models: model U has $(k_P,k_Q)=(0.30,0.10){\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$; model V has $(0.10,0.30){\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Both have $K=0.40{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, so every measurement of A alone is identical, even with no measurement error. Yet their P-to-Q concentration ratios at any $t>0$ are $3$ and $1/3$, respectively. This is a precise failure of identifiability from that one observable. A calibrated measurement distinguishing P from Q resolves it within the stipulated two-route model.

At $t=5.00\mathrm{s}$, both models give $[\mathrm{A}]=e^{-2}{A}_0\approx 0.135335\mathrm{mmol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. Model U gives $([\mathrm{P}],[\mathrm{Q}])\approx (0.648499,0.216166)\mathrm{mmol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$; model V exchanges these. Measuring only the summed reaction product concentration would also fail to distinguish them. Product-specific observations therefore answer a question that total conversion cannot. As with any reaction mechanism, fitting these observables still does not rule out a more elaborate untested route.

An enzyme accelerates particular chemical reactions, with catalytic selectivity arising from recognition and from the relative ease of the subsequent chemistry. Strong binding alone does not guarantee fast conversion. Nor does catalysis change the chemical equilibrium for an unchanged net chemical reaction. These distinctions explain how enzymes can direct the flow of material without creating an extra source of free energy.^[ref]

For an original model of competing routes, let a substrate $S$ become either a desired reaction product $P$ or another reaction product $Q$:The labels represent hypothetical chemical species with the same elemental composition, not molecular structures. Assume fixed volume, irreversible first-order reactions, constant effective rate constants, and initially $100\mu \mathrm{mol}$ of $S$ with neither reaction product present. The model approximates a limited operating regime; real enzyme kinetics can include saturation and reverse reactions.

The reaction-rate equations give $d{n}_S/dt=-(k_P+k_Q)n_S$, $d{n}_P/dt=k_P{n}_S$ and $d{n}_Q/dt=k_Q{n}_S$, where $n$ denotes amount of substance. Consequently,With $k_P=0.08$ and $k_Q=0.02\mathrm{mi}{\mathrm{n}}^{-1}$, the eventual split is $80\mu \mathrm{mol}$ of $P$ and $20\mu \mathrm{mol}$ of $Q$. At ten minutes, the calculated amounts are approximately $36.8$, $50.6$ and $12.6\mu \mathrm{mol}$ for $S$, $P$ and $Q$. Selectively increasing $k_P$ fourfold changes the eventual desired fraction to $0.32/0.34=16/17\approx 94.1\%$. Increasing both rate constants fourfold instead preserves the $80\%$ split and only shortens the conversion time. Speed and selectivity answer different questions.

The bookkeeping matters independently of that model. In ideal alcoholic fermentation, complete conversion of $3\mathrm{mmol}$ of glucose yields $6\mathrm{mmol}$ each of ethanol and carbon dioxide. Of the initial $18\mathrm{mmol}$ of carbon chemical atoms, $12$ remain in ethanol and $6$ enter carbon dioxide. This is a chosen material-balance example using the net stoichiometry explained under Saccharomyces cerevisiae; it gives neither an observed yield nor the mechanism of the individual steps. Equal amounts of the two reaction products also do not mean equal masses.