Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Four water-soluble amine phenols have been prepared: tris(((2-hydroxy-5-sulfobenzyl)amino)ethyl)amine (H 6 TRNS), 1,1,1-tris(((2-hydroxy-5-sulfobenzyl)amino)methyl)ethane (H 6 TAMS), 1,2,3-tris((2-hydroxy-5-sulfobenzyl)amino)propane (H 6 TAPS), and cis, cis -1,3,5-tris((2-hydroxy-5-sulfobenzyl)amino)cyclohexane (H 6 TACS). Complex formation constants have been measured at 25 °C (μ = 0.16 M NaCl): log K [M(TRNS)] 3 - ([M(HTRNS)] 2 - ) M = Ga 28.55 (36.90), In 29.3 (34.9); log K [M(TAMS)] 3 - ([M(HTAMS)] 2 - ) M = Al 22.5 (29.3), Ga 31.83, In 28.49; log K [M(TAPS)] 3 - ([M(HTAPS)] 2 - ) M = Al 22.8 (29.0), Ga 31.54 (35.15), In 27.56 (31.93). The order of stability is Ga(III) > In(III) > Al(III) for H 6 TAMS and H 6 TAPS, while for H 6 TRNS it is Ga(III) ≈ In(III) > Al(III). The solution structures of the complexes have been probed by multinuclear NMR ( 1 H, 13 C, 27 Al, 71 Ga, 115 In) and UV spectroscopic studies, and these solution structures are compared with solid state structures for analogous complexes. The 1 H NMR spectrum in D 2 O establishes TAPS to be preorganized for metal ion binding. H 6 TACS exists in the wrong conformation for metal ion binding, and this results in slow complexation kinetics and relatively weaker binding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caravan et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: