2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1693(03)00317-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Co-ordination chemistry of the methylmercury(II) ion in aqueous solution: a thermodynamic investigation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
2
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, while mercury is typically regarded to be thiophilic and bind strongly to mercapto groups, it is evident that mercury possesses a greater selenophilicity relative to other metals. The enhanced preference for mercury to bind selenium is, nevertheless, in accord with the empirical classifications of Hg 2+ as a class (b)56 acceptor and as a soft57 Lewis acid 58…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Thus, while mercury is typically regarded to be thiophilic and bind strongly to mercapto groups, it is evident that mercury possesses a greater selenophilicity relative to other metals. The enhanced preference for mercury to bind selenium is, nevertheless, in accord with the empirical classifications of Hg 2+ as a class (b)56 acceptor and as a soft57 Lewis acid 58…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Table 2 lists the anionic initiators along their respective pK s and pK a values and the corresponding morphology of the polymer observed by SEM. The pK s and pK a values shown in Table 2 were obtained from reports published in the literature [20][21][22][23][24]. For certain anions whose pK s values were unavailable, estimations were made for their values.…”
Section: Classification Of Initiatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This figure illustrates that, depending on the requisite data quality objectives, errors from the Davies implementation in MINTEQA2 may be significant at ionic strengths in excess of 0.1 M (Butler, 1964;Butler and Cogley, 1998). Rabenstein et al, 1975Rabenstein et al, , 1978) (Ingman and Liam, 1974; + 0.07, 3 sd) (Tobias, 1978) (Erni, 1996) et al, 1998; 0.0 M, 25 C) These values contrast with equivalent 25 C 0.15 M NaClO 4 values reported by Alderighi et al (2003) using the stoichiometry given in equation (1):…”
Section: Estimation Of Activity Coefficientsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The numerical constant describing this formulation will equal that of equation (1) if the activity of water is assumed to remain constant at 1. Alternatively, Alderighi et al (2003; and references cited therein) maintain that specification of the CH 3 Hg þ ion is, in fact, a less rigorous convention representing the hydrated CH 3 HgOH 2 þ species.…”
Section: Estimation Of Activity Coefficientsmentioning
confidence: 99%