Crystal Structures of Molecular Complexes 4-6
Single crystals of complexes
4-
6 could be obtained by recrystallization from appropriate solvents and their X-ray diffraction data are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1.
Summary of crystal data for 4, 5 and 6.
Table 1.
Summary of crystal data for 4, 5 and 6.
Parameter | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|
Formula | C24H24N2OS8Cl2 | C36H46N2S8Br2 | C30H44N2OS4Br2 |
Formula weight | 683.85 | 923.06 | 736.74 |
Crystal system | orthorhombic | triclinic | triclinic |
Space group | P2121211 | P-1 | P-1 |
a/Å | 12.138(3) | 7.4789(14) | 9.038(2) |
b/Å | 22.227(3) | 12.780(3) | 9.1628(15) |
c/Å | 10.840(3) | 22.099(4) | 25.728(14) |
α/degrees | 90 | 88.308(8) | 87.26(2) |
β/degrees | 90 | 80.2890(15) | 80.254(14) |
γ/degrees | 90 | 89.997(2) | 67.229(6) |
V/Å3 | 2925(1) | 2081.0(7) | 1935.8(12) |
Z | 4 | 3 | 3 |
D (calc)/gcm-3 | 1.553 | 1.567 | 1.896 |
No. of measured reflections | 3792 | 18475 | 6648 |
No. of independent reflections | 3792 | 8034 | 3707 |
No. of used reflections in refinement F>2σ | 26891 | 5986 | 2107 |
No. of parameters refined | 334 | 479 | 397 |
R | 0.035 | 0.101 | 0.095 |
RW | 0.037 | 0.088 | 0.080 |
The crystal structure of complex
4 is shown in
Figure 1 (left). Thus, the donors and anions form a similar mixed-stack arrangement in alternating DAD-DAD fashion with that observed in TTF•paraquat•2PF
6 complex [
2(b)]. The bond lengths of the central double bonds of TTF molecules are estimated to be 1.334–1.335 Å, indicating almost neutral states of the molecules without occurrence of electron transfer to acceptors. The interplanar distance for the TTF molecules is about 3.67 Å (
Figure 1, right), which is close to the value observed for neutral TTF (3.62 Å) and longer than those observed for the stacked TTF units in its complex with TCNQ (3.47 Å) [
5] and TTF•paraquat•2PF
6 complex (3.54 Å) [
2(b)], even though similar herringbone motifs are observed in the packing structures for these complexes. On the other hand, the interplanar distances of TTF and viologen molecules are about 3.41–3.46 Å, which are slightly shorter than those between the TTF molecules (3.67 Å). No close contacts appear to exist between viologens and chlorides, but the chloride anions, in turn, exist in the void of TTF and viologen molecules together with water molecules. On the whole, π–π intermolecular interaction is thought to play a significant role in the formation of complex
4. As expected, the room temperature conductivity of a single crystal of the complex was less than 10
–6 S cm
–1 and no intrinsic magnetic susceptibility was observed in the solid state, in spite of the observation of color change in the reaction between TTF and the viologen in the solution. This may be due to an insufficient charge-transfer between the donor/acceptor couple and/or the lost of paramagnetic spins in the solid state by singlet formation.
Figure 1.
Left: crystal structure of complex 4. Water molecules are removed for clarity. Right: side view of DDA and D arrangement with indication of interplanar distances.
Figure 1.
Left: crystal structure of complex 4. Water molecules are removed for clarity. Right: side view of DDA and D arrangement with indication of interplanar distances.
The crystal structure of the second complex
5, with a donor-to-acceptor ratio of 2:1, is shown in
Figure 2 (upper). As seen from the figure, quite different donor/acceptor molecule packing features are found in this complex, when compared to complex
4. Thus, no mixed-stack arrangement of DA molecules is observed but the bipyridiniums are stacked along the
b-axis with relatively close contacts between bromide anions, while the TTF molecules are sandwiched between heptyl chains. The bipyridinium moiety is almost planar, with a dihedral angle between two pyridiniums of 4.36º, and the bond lengths of the central double bonds of TTF molecules are estimated to be 1.33 Å, indicating almost neutral states of the molecules. There exists two kinds of short S-S contacts of 3.66 Å and 3.58 Å between the next neighbor TTF molecules as shown in
Figure 2 (lower), forming side-by-side and one-dimensional (1-D) tape-like structures also along the
b-axis. Close contact is found between a carbon atom of the outer double bond in a TTF molecule and the hydrogen atom attached to the
β–carbon of a heptyl group (3.07 Å), and in this context, CH/π [
6] and/or van der Waals interactions between TTF molecules and alkyl groups appears to play a significant roll in the formation of complex
5.
Figure 2.
Upper: crystal structure of complex 5. Lower: side-by-side arrangement of TTF molecules with indication of two kinds of short S-S contacts.
Figure 2.
Upper: crystal structure of complex 5. Lower: side-by-side arrangement of TTF molecules with indication of two kinds of short S-S contacts.
The crystal structure of complex 6, with a 1:1 donor-to-acceptor ratio, is illustrated in
Figure 3 (upper). Again, no mixed-stack arrangement of DA molecules is observed in the complex and TTF molecules are arranged close to the heptyl chains. The bipyridinium moiety is non-planar in this case, with a dihedral angle between two pyridiniums of 28.23º, forming columnar structures. Though the bond lengths of the central double bonds of TTF molecules are somewhat long, about 1.38 Å, they are assumed to remain almost neutral because of their proximity to alkyl chains. There exists no S-S contact between neighboring TTF molecules, but nonetheless they locate in slipped positions with regards to each other, thereby forming a 1-D tape-like structure (
Figure 3, lower).
Figure 3.
Upper: crystal structure of complex 6. Lower: 1-D arrangement of TTF molecules.
Figure 3.
Upper: crystal structure of complex 6. Lower: 1-D arrangement of TTF molecules.
Also in this case, a couple of close contacts are found between the carbon atoms of the outer double bond in a TTF molecule and the hydrogen atom attached to the β–carbon of a heptyl group (3.22 Å and 3.30 Å) and therefore, the formation of complex 6 is also regarded to be largely influenced by CH/π and/or van der Waals interactions between TTF molecules and alkyl groups.
Reflecting the structural features of complexes 5 and 6, the room temperature conductivity of a single crystal of each complex was less than 10–6 S cm–1 and at the same time, no intrinsic magnetic susceptibility was observed.
Thus, although the reasons are still not clear as to why these three complexes have different donor-to-acceptor ratios and different crystal structures, the fact that the molecular complexes like
5 or
6 are formed by CH/π and/or van der Waals interactions rather than CT interaction may give some clues toward understanding the preparation of supramolecular materials by crystal engineering [
7].