Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan 20;132(2):647-55.
doi: 10.1021/ja907523x.

On the chalcogenophilicity of mercury: evidence for a strong Hg-Se bond in [Tm(Bu(t))]HgSePh and its relevance to the toxicity of mercury

Jonathan G Melnick  1 , Kevin Yurkerwich, Gerard Parkin
Affiliations

On the chalcogenophilicity of mercury: evidence for a strong Hg-Se bond in [Tm(Bu(t))]HgSePh and its relevance to the toxicity of mercury

Jonathan G Melnick et al. J Am Chem Soc. .

Abstract

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(Bu(t))]HgEPh (E = S, Se, Te). In particular, X-ray diffraction studies on [Tm(Bu(t))]HgEPh demonstrate that although the Hg-S bonds involving the [Tm(Bu(t))] ligand are longer than the corresponding Cd-S bonds of [Tm(Bu(t))]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 A) < Se (0.035 A) < Te (0.057 A). 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(Bu(t))]HgSCH(2)C(O)N(H)Ph with [Tm(Bu(t))]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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Molecular structure of [TmBut]HgSPh.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Molecular structure of [TmBut]HgSePh.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Molecular structure of [TmBu]HgTePh.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Variation of M–S bond lengths involving the [TmBut] ligand.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Variation of M–EPh bond lengths.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Relative M–EPh bond lengths and the values predicted on the basis of the covalent radii of S, Se, Te.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Molecular structure of [TmBut]HgSCH2C(O)N(H)Ph.
Scheme 1
Scheme 1
Scheme 2
Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Scheme 3
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Clarkson TW, Magos L. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36:609–662. - PubMed
    2. Mutter J, Naumann J, Guethlin C. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37:537–549. - PubMed
    3. Clarkson TW. Env Health Persp Suppl. 2002;110:11–23. - PMC - PubMed
    4. Clarkson TW. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 1997;34:369–403. - PubMed
    5. Langford NJ, Ferner RE. J Human Hypertension. 1999;13:651–656. - PubMed
    6. Boening DW. Chemosphere. 2000;40:1335–1351. - PubMed
    7. Magos L. Metal Ions in Biological Systems. 1997;34:321–370. - PubMed
    8. Hutchison AR, Atwood DA. J Chem Crystallogr. 2003;33:631–645.
    9. Alessio L, Campagna M, Lucchini R. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:779–787. - PubMed
    10. Clarkson TW, Vyas JB, Ballatorl N. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:757–764. - PubMed
    11. Risher JF, De Rosa CT. J Env Health. 2007;70:9–16. - PubMed
    12. Onyido I, Norris AR, Buncel E. Chem Rev. 2004;104:5911–5929. - PubMed
    13. Ozuah PO. Curr Probl Pediatr. 2000;30:91–99. - PubMed
    1. Tai HC, Lim C. J Phys Chem A. 2006;110:452–462. - PubMed
    1. Rooney JPK. Toxicology. 2007;234:145–156. - PubMed
    2. Guzzi G, La Porta CAM. Toxicology. 2008;244:1–12. - PubMed
    1. Prince RC, Gailer J, Gunson DE, Turner RJ, George GN, Pickering IJ. J Inorg Biochem. 2007;101:1891–1893. - PubMed
    2. Gailer J. Coord Chem Rev. 2007;251:234–254.
    3. Gailer J. Appl Organometal Chem. 2002;16:701–707.
    4. Cuvin-Aralar MLA, Furness RW. Ecotoxicol Env Safety. 1991;21:348–364. - PubMed
    5. Yang DY, Chen YW, Gunn JM, Belzile N. Selenium and mercury in organisms: Interactions and mechanisms. Environ Rev. 2008;16:71–92.
    6. Ikemoto T, Kunito T, Tanaka H, Baba N, Miyazaki N, Tanabe S. Arch Environ Cont Toxicol. 2004;47:402–413. - PubMed
    7. Magos L, Webb M, Clarkson TW. Crit Rev Toxicol. 1980;8:1–42. - PubMed
    8. Soldin OP, O'Mara DM, Aschner M. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008;126:1–12. - PMC - PubMed
    9. Whanger PD. J Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis. 1992;6:209–221. - PubMed
    10. Kaur P, Evje L, Aschner M, Syversen T. Toxicol Vitro. 2009;23:378–385. - PubMed
    11. Peterson SA, Ralston NVC, Peck DV, Van Sickle J, Robertson JD, Spate VL, Morris JS. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:3919–3925. - PubMed
    12. Seppänen K, Soininen P, Salonen JT, Lötjönen S, Laatikainen R. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2004;101:117–132. - PubMed
    13. Ralston NVC, Ralston CR, Blackwell JL, III, Raymond LJ. Neurotoxicology. 2008;29:802–811. - PubMed
    1. Köhrle J. Biochimie. 1999;81:527–533. - PubMed
    2. Reddy CC, Massaro EJ. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1983;3:431–436. - PubMed
    3. Frost DV, Lish PM. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1975;15:259–284. - PubMed

Publication types