1989
DOI: 10.1016/0026-265x(89)90043-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the stability constants of uranyl association complexes with chloride, fluoride, bromide, and sulfate anions in solutions of constant ionic strength

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…High actinide halide BDEs, BDE­[An–X] (An = U, Np, Pu; X = F, Cl, Br), have been demonstrated by the ability of bare An + ions to abstract halogens from halogenated hydrocarbons. , A particular area of interest is complexes that comprise the actinyls, AnO 2 2+ , bound to one or more halide: AnO 2 X n (2‑ n )+ . , One motivation for studying such simple complexes is that the effective electron donation of halides to the actinide metal center affects the axial actinide-oxygen bonds, generally weakening them. Uranyls, both U VI (unless otherwise specified the oxidation states hereafter are An VI ) and U V , have been shown to form various halide complexes in condensed and gas phases, , including as representative examples UO 2 X 3 – (X = F, Cl, Br, I), ,, UO 2 F n (2‑ n )+ ( n = 1–4), UO 2 Br 4 2– , U V O 2 X (X = Cl, I), and UO 2 X 2 (X = Cl, Br) . It has been established that the complexation affinities of uranyl by halides decreases in the order F – > Cl – > Br – . The reported synthesis of neptunyl and plutonyl halide complexes is substantially more limited and has focused primarily on the more highly Lewis basic fluoride and chloride ligands. , Among the reported neptunyl halide complexes are NpO 2 F 2 , Np V O 2 F, , Np V O 2 F 2 – , and NpO 2 Cl 4 2– .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…High actinide halide BDEs, BDE­[An–X] (An = U, Np, Pu; X = F, Cl, Br), have been demonstrated by the ability of bare An + ions to abstract halogens from halogenated hydrocarbons. , A particular area of interest is complexes that comprise the actinyls, AnO 2 2+ , bound to one or more halide: AnO 2 X n (2‑ n )+ . , One motivation for studying such simple complexes is that the effective electron donation of halides to the actinide metal center affects the axial actinide-oxygen bonds, generally weakening them. Uranyls, both U VI (unless otherwise specified the oxidation states hereafter are An VI ) and U V , have been shown to form various halide complexes in condensed and gas phases, , including as representative examples UO 2 X 3 – (X = F, Cl, Br, I), ,, UO 2 F n (2‑ n )+ ( n = 1–4), UO 2 Br 4 2– , U V O 2 X (X = Cl, I), and UO 2 X 2 (X = Cl, Br) . It has been established that the complexation affinities of uranyl by halides decreases in the order F – > Cl – > Br – . The reported synthesis of neptunyl and plutonyl halide complexes is substantially more limited and has focused primarily on the more highly Lewis basic fluoride and chloride ligands. , Among the reported neptunyl halide complexes are NpO 2 F 2 , Np V O 2 F, , Np V O 2 F 2 – , and NpO 2 Cl 4 2– .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 It has been established that the complexation affinities of uranyl by halides decreases in the order F − > Cl − > Br − . 26 The reported synthesis of neptunyl and plutonyl halide complexes is substantially more limited and has focused primarily on the more highly Lewis basic fluoride and chloride ligands. 27,28 .…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By fitting the PARAFAC normalized speciation data by least-square parameter optimization (fmincon, Matlab) of symbolically solved complex equilibria (symbolic toolbox, Matlab), we received fitted extinction coefficients ε and complex stability constants β 1 for both ligand samples. We can see that for the first complex stability constant β 1 , chloride ions form a 10 times’ weaker complex than with bromide, 2.0 M –1 (Soderholm/NEA-Database: 1.5 m –1 at I = 5.3 m –1 ) compared to 20 M –1 (Razik: 65 m –1 at I = 0.05 M –1 ), respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%