Synthesis and Solution Studies of the Complexes of Trivalent Lanthanides with the Tetraazamacrocycle TETA-(PO)<sub>2</sub>
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new potentially multidentate hexaprotic ligand H(6)[TETA-(PO)(2)] has been prepared by reaction of ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid (EDDA), paraformaldehyde, and phosphinic acid; its coordination properties with three lanthanide ions (La(3+), Gd(3+), and Lu(3+)) have been explored. The structures of the complexes were studied in aqueous solution by potentiometric pH titrations and by (31)P NMR spectroscopy. Four acidity constants were determined potentiometrically in the range 2.5 < pH < 14. The four measured pK(a) values can be divided into two groups, and within each group the initial deprotonation was found to have little effect on the second. Variable temperature (31)P and (31)P[(1)H] EXSY NMR spectra showed that, for [Lu(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-), the two phosphorus atoms exist in different chemical environments and undergo an exchange process which is very fast on the NMR time scale at room temperature. This result is consistent with one of the phosphinate residues coordinating the metal ion and exchanging with a free analogue. In the case of [La(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-), only one temperature invariant signal is observed in (31)P NMR spectra; it corresponds to both phosphinate residues remaining uncoordinated to La(3+). The stability of [Ln(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-) has an order of La(3+) > Gd(3+) > Lu(3+). The coordination of one phosphinate residue to Lu(3+) brings the metal ion closer to the plane of four nitrogens and farther from the four carboxylate arms, resulting in [Lu(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-) having a lower stability than the corresponding La(3+) and Gd(3+) complexes. A pM-pH distribution diagram showed that introducing two phosphinate groups into TETA renders [Gd(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-) more stable than [Gd(TETA)](-). The selectivity factor of the ligand for Gd(3+) vs Ca(2+), Zn(2+), and Cu(2+) has been calculated, and the hydration number for [Dy(TETA-(PO)(2))](3-) has been measured by (17)O NMR spectroscopy to be zero.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".