Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The gold(I) compounds [Se(AuPPh 3 ) 2 ] and [Se{Au 2 (μ-dppf)}] (dppf = 1,1‘-bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene) react with 1 and 2 equiv of [Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 OEt 2 ] to give the mixed gold(I)−gold(III) derivatives [Se(AuPPh 3 ) 2 {Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 } n ] and [Se{Au 2 (μ-dppf)}{Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 } n ] ( n = 1, 2). The reaction of [Se(AuPPh 3 ) 2 ] with [Au(C 6 F 5 ) 2 Cl] 2 affords the complex [{Se(AuPPh 3 )} 2 {μ-Au(C 6 F 5 ) 2 } 2 ]. The crystal structures of [Se{Au 2 (μ-dppf)}{Au(C 6 F 5 ) 3 }] and [{Se(AuPPh 3 )} 2 {μ-Au(C 6 F 5 ) 2 } 2 ] have been characterized by X-ray diffraction studies. They show dissimilar Au(I)···Au(III) distances, indicating the presence of weak interactions. Quasi-relativistic pseudopotential calculations on [Se(AuPH 3 ) 2 (AuR 3 )], [Se(AuPH 3 )(AuR 3 ) 2 ] - (R = −H, −CH 3 ), and [{Se(AuPH 3 )} 2 {Au(CH 3 ) 2 } 2 ] models have been performed at Hartree−Fock and second-order Møller−Plesset perturbation theory levels. There is a good agreement between experimental and theoretical geometries at the MP2 level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Canales et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: