PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12470050

Pd(0) and Pt(0) metallocryptands encapsulating a spinning mercurous dimer.

Abstract

The deep-red, air-stable complexes [Pt(2)Hg(2)(P(2)phen)(3)](PF(6))(2), 1, or [Pd(2)Hg(2)(P(2)phen)(3)](PF(6))(2), 2, (P(2)phen is 2,9-bis(diphenylphosphino)-1,10-phenanthroline) are most conveniently prepared by the stoichiometric reaction of either Pt(dba)(2) or Pd(2)(dba)(3).CHCl(3) (dba is dibenzylideneacetone) with P(2)phen and a single drop of elemental mercury in refluxing dichloromethane under an atmosphere of nitrogen. The (31)P[(1)H] NMR spectrum (CD(3)CN) of 1 shows a single sharp resonance at 43.1 ppm for the phosphorus atoms of the P(2)phen ligand with both (195)Pt ((1)J(P-Pt) = 4350 Hz) and (199)Hg ((2)J(P-Hg) = 620 Hz) satellites indicating the Hg(2)(2+) unit is dynamic. Compound 2 has a similar resonance at 44.9 ppm with (199)Hg satellites ((2)J(P-Hg) = 638 Hz). The (199)Hg NMR (CD(2)Cl(2), vs Hg(OAc)(2)) spectrum of 2 shows a heptet pattern at 833 ppm while for 1 a heptet superimposed on a doublet of heptets is observed at 770.8 ppm. The (195)Pt NMR spectrum of 1 displays a quartet at -3071 ppm with (199)Hg satellites and a (1)J(Pt-Hg) value of 1602 Hz. Characterization of 1 and of 2(BF(4)(2) by single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies confirms the metallocryptand structure consisting of three phosphine-imine ligands forming a D(3) symmetric cage with a Hg(2)(2+) ion in its center coordinated to two phenanthroline rings with the Hg-Hg bond (1, 2.7362(6); 2(BF(4)(2), 2.6881(4) A) oriented perpendicular to the vector between the trigonally coordinated Pt(0) or Pd(0) atoms on each end. The Pt-Hg separations in 1 average 2.8143(6) A while in 2(BF(4)(2) the average Pd-Hg separation is 2.7698(5) A. Excitation into the low energy excitation bands of 1 (475 nm) and 2 (430 nm) produces weak emissions centered at 593 nm with shoulders at 530 and 654 nm in 1 and centered at 524 nm with a shoulder at 545 nm in 2.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vincent J Catalano, Mark A Malwitz, Bruce C Noll. 2002-12-16. Pd(0) and Pt(0) metallocryptands encapsulating a spinning mercurous dimer.. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic020439n

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↗