4.8 Article

On the Chalcogenophilicity of Mercury: Evidence for a Strong Hg-Se Bond in [TmBut]HgSePh and Its Relevance to the Toxicity of Mercury

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 132, 期 2, 页码 647-655

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja907523x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM046502]
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-0749674, CHE-0619638]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the reasons for the toxic effects of mercury has been attributed to its influence on the biochemical roles of selenium. For this reason, it is important to understand details pertaining to the nature of Hg-Se interactions and this has been achieved by comparison of a series of mercury chalcogenolate complexes that are supported by tris(2-mercapto-1-t-butyl-imidazolyl)hydroborato ligation, namely [Tm-But]HgEPh (E = S, Se, Te). In particular, X-ray diffraction studies on [Tm-But]HgEPh demonstrate that although the Hg-S bonds involving the [Tm-But] ligand are longer than the corresponding Cd-S bonds of [Tm-But]CdEPh, the Hg-EPh bonds are actually shorter than the corresponding Cd-EPh bonds, an observation which indicates that the apparent covalent radii of the metals in these compounds are dependent on the nature of the bonds. Furthermore, the difference in Hg-EPh and Cd-EPh bond lengths is a function of the chalcogen and increases in the sequence S (0.010 angstrom) < Se (0.035 angstrom) < Te (0.057 angstrom). This trend indicates that the chalcogenophilicity of mercury increases in the sequence S < Se < Te. Thus, while mercury is often described as being thiophilic, it is evident that it actually has a greater selenophilicity, a notion that is supported by the observation of facile selenolate transfer from zinc to mercury upon treatment of [Tm-But]HgSCH2C(O)N(H)Ph with [Tm-But]ZnSePh. The significant selenophilicity of mercury is in accord with the aforementioned proposal that one reason for the toxicity of mercury is associated with it reducing the bioavailability of selenium.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据