Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The formylarylmercury(II) complex [Hg{C6H(CHO)‐6‐(OMe)3‐2,3,4}2] reacts with 4‐butylaniline (1:2) to give [Hg{C6H(CH=NC6H4C4H9‐4′)‐6‐(OMe) 3‐2,3,4}2] (1) by a condensation reaction. This complex reacts with Me4‐N[AuCl4] (1:1) to give [Hg{C6H(CH=NC6H4C4H9‐4′)‐6‐(OMe) 3‐2,3,4}Cl] (2) and the monoarylgold(III) compound cis‐ C6H4‐nBu‐4′)‐6‐(OMe)3‐2,3,4}Cl2] (3). This complex reacts with PPh3 (1:1) to give the adduct cis‐[Au{C6H(CH=NC6H4‐n, Bu‐4′)‐6‐(OMe)3‐2,3,4}Cl2(PPh3)] (4) and with AgClO4 (1:1) in acetone to give the ketonyl complex cis‐[ C6H4‐nBu‐4′)‐6‐ (OMe)3‐2,3,4}‐{CH2C(O)Me}Cl] (5). cis‐Me4N[Au(C6H4NO2‐2)2Cl 2] react with [Hg{C6H3(N=NC6H4OMe‐4′)‐2‐(OMe)‐5}Cl] and Me4NCl (1:1:1) to give cis‐[ C6H4OMe‐4′)‐2‐ (OMe)‐5}(C6H4NO2‐2)2] (6): Similarly, cis‐Me4N‐[Au(C6H4CF3‐2)2 Cl2] (7), obtained by treating [Hg(C6H4CF3‐2)2] with Me4N[AuCl4] and Me4NCl (1:1:1), reacts with [Hg(C6H4CH2NMe2‐2)Cl] and Me4NCl (1:1:1) to give the triarylgold(III) complex cis‐[ Me2‐2)(C6H4CF3‐2)2] (8). This complex can also be obtained by treating cis‐[ Me2‐2)Cl2] with [Hg(C6H4CF3‐2)2] and Me4NCl (1:1:1). The crystal structure of 3 reveals the presence of two independent molecules, in one of which the butylphenyl group is disordered. The geometry at the gold atom is square planar; distortions may be attributed to the narrow bite angle and steric repulsion between a chloride ligand and the ortho‐methoxy group. The greater trans influence of the aryl ligand causes a great difference in Au–Cl bond lengths.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vicente et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: