Talk:Vaska's complex

The balanced equation isn't balanced (for instance 6 Cls on the left give 2 on the right) 129.67.64.163 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The third reference needs clarification. As of now, I am unable to find that citation on JACS. Pdphan 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Try clicking on the doi? It works for me. --Rifleman 82 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change! Looks great now. Pdphan 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this compound useful for artificial blood?

This is suggested by the text but not explicitly discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.91 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You might check out Blood substitute. Vaska's complex attracted a lot of attention because it reversibly forms an adduct with O2, but other compounds that are simpler and look a little more like myoglobin also bind O₂. I think that the best systems are fluorocarbons that simply dissolve a lot of oxygen. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert A. Freitas Jr. suggested it as a possible haemoglobin substitute for aliens in Xenology. But even then, he mentions that there are simpler and more likely possibilities, and that the photosensitivity of Vaska's complex is an issue. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IUPAC name

I doubt that the claimed IUPAC name (SP-4-1)-carbonylchloridobis(triphenylphosphane)iridium(I) is correct. Ligand priority numbers should be: Cl (1), PPh₃ (2), CO (3); ligand in trans position relative to Cl (1) is CO (3), so the name should be (SP-4-3)-carbonylchloridobis(triphenylphosphane)iridium(I). Shouldn't?

(I think there might be some confusion from IUPAC IR-9.3.3.3 Square planar coordination systems (SP-4), Example 1 text: “… Priority number sequence: 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 …” which according to surrounding info and examples should read “… Priority number sequence: 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 …”. By the way, these are for [Mabcd] complexes. For [Ma₂bc] complexes, there are only three different priority numbers.)

​ —Mykhal (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Who was first?

Currently the article states that "The complex was first reported by J. W. DiLuzio and Lauri Vaska in 1961.", how ever aggording to these two references [1] and [2] it was first made by M. Angoletta in 1959. They refer to "Angoletta, M. Iridium carbonyl derivatives. III. Dicarbonylaminoiridium(I) halides. Gazz. Chim. Ital. 1959, 2359", which might be this. Unfortunately I don't have access to that (and don't understand Italian). But in this paper it is mentioned that Angoletta made the bromo analogue trans-IrBr(CO)(PPh3)2, so they might have made the chloro containing Vaska's complex too. Grounds for editing the article? --Nitraus (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I found a great historical review of Lauri Vaska and the history of his compound: FIFTY YEARS OF VASKA’S COMPOUND, Rein U. Kirss, Bull. Hist. Chem., Volume 38, Number 1 (2013)).

Kirss explained that Maria Angoletta probably did make the bromide first. But she thought that the chloride was a dicarbonyl, IrCl(CO)₂(PPh₃)₂. The dicarbonyl conforms with the bias for 18e rule and in fact does exist in when "Vaskas" is treated with CO. So, Vaska correctly formulated his compound. Also of course, he knew that it was something important, which she did not apparently know, because he published in a high impact journal. I read Angoletta's article in the (now dead) Italian journal, using Google translate. It is an interesting report focused on IrX(CO)₂(amine), but they mention, without understandiing, some of the earliest evidence for mixed valence linear chain compounds.

Summary: an Estonian-born professor and his Italian-derived student (presumably) Diluzio get most credit, but the Italian woman Maria Angoletta is not forgotten. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)