1-iodo-5,5-dimethyl-imidazolidine-2,4-dione | 89323-85-3

• 分子结构分类: 有机化合物 - 有机杂环化合物 - 唑烷类
• 英文名称: 1-iodo-5,5-dimethyl-imidazolidine-2,4-dione
• 英文别名: 1-Jod-5,5-dimethyl-imidazolidin-2,4-dion；N-iodo-5,5-di-methylhydantoin；1-iodo-5,5-dimethylimidazolidine-2,4-dione
• CAS: 89323-85-3
• 化学式: C₅H₇IN₂O₂
• 分子量: 254.027
• InChiKey: PIQMAODRDVXZOM-UHFFFAOYSA-N

计算性质

• 辛醇/水分配系数(LogP)：
  0.4
• 重原子数：
  10
• 可旋转键数：
  0
• 环数：
  1.0
• sp3杂化的碳原子比例：
  0.6
• 拓扑面积：
  49.4
• 氢给体数：
  1
• 氢受体数：
  2

反应信息

• 作为反应物：
  描述：

  1-iodo-5,5-dimethyl-imidazolidine-2,4-dione 、 乙位萘乙醚 生成 2-乙氧基-1-碘萘
  参考文献：
  名称：

  A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats

  摘要：

  AbstractA split‐sample design is used to evaluate the convergent validity of three response formats used in conjoint analysis experiments. We investigate whether recoding rating data to rankings and choose‐one formats, and recoding ranking data to choose one, result in structural models and welfare estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from estimates based on ranking or choose‐one questions. Our results indicate that convergent validity of ratings, ranks, and choose one is not established. In addition, we find that people frequently use ‘ties’ in responses to rating questions, and that the option not to choose any of the alternatives (‘opt‐out’) affects some preference estimates.

  DOI：

  10.1111/0002-9092.00168
• 作为产物：
  描述：

  alkaline earth salt of/the/ methylsulfuric acid 在 silver nitrate 作用下， 生成 1-iodo-5,5-dimethyl-imidazolidine-2,4-dione
  参考文献：
  名称：

  A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats

  摘要：

  AbstractA split‐sample design is used to evaluate the convergent validity of three response formats used in conjoint analysis experiments. We investigate whether recoding rating data to rankings and choose‐one formats, and recoding ranking data to choose one, result in structural models and welfare estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from estimates based on ranking or choose‐one questions. Our results indicate that convergent validity of ratings, ranks, and choose one is not established. In addition, we find that people frequently use ‘ties’ in responses to rating questions, and that the option not to choose any of the alternatives (‘opt‐out’) affects some preference estimates.

  DOI：

  10.1111/0002-9092.00168