Issue contents cross.png
Download PDF of article cross.png
Download CIF cross.png
3D view cross.png
Navigation cross.png
Highlighting cross.png
Dictionary of Crystallography reference
IUPAC Gold Book reference
more ...
Download citation cross.png
FormatBIBTeX
EndNote
RefMan
Refer
Medline
CIF
SGML
Plain Text
Text
cross.png
share
Previous article cross.png
Next article cross.png
Previous article cross.png
Issue contents cross.png
Download PDF of article cross.png
Download CIF cross.png
3D view cross.png
Navigation cross.png
Highlighting cross.png
Dictionary of Crystallography reference
IUPAC Gold Book reference
more ...
Download citation cross.png
FormatBIBTeX
EndNote
RefMan
Refer
Medline
CIF
SGML
Plain Text
Text
cross.png
share
Next article cross.png

metal-organic compounds\(\def\hfill{\hskip 5em}\def\hfil{\hskip 3em}\def\eqno#1{\hfil {#1}}\)

Journal logoSTRUCTURAL
CHEMISTRY
ISSN: 2053-2296
Volume 67| Part 5| May 2011| Pages m130-m133
doi:10.1107/S0108270111011048

μ-Acetato-μ-aqua-μ-hydroxido-bis­­[(1,10-phenanthroline)copper(II)] dinitrate monohydrate

CROSSMARK_Color_square_no_text.svg
Julian E. Abud,a Rosana P. Sartoris,a* Rafael Calvoa and Ricardo Baggiob*

aDepartamento de Física, Facultad de Bioquímica y Ciencias Biológicas and INTEC (CONICET–Universidad Nacional del Litoral), Ciudad Universitaria 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina, and bGerencia de Investigación y Aplicaciones, Centro Atómico Constituyentes, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Buenos Aires, Argentina
*Correspondence e-mail: rosanasartoris@gmail.com, baggio@cnea.gov.ar

(Received 15 February 2011; accepted 24 March 2011; online 13 April 2011)

The triply bridged title dinuclear copper(II) compound, [Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(C12H8N2)2(H2O)](NO3)2·H2O, (I)[link], consists of a [Cu2(μ2-CH3COO)(μ2-OH)(phen)2(μ2-OH2)]2+ cation (phen is 1,10-phenanthroline), two uncoordinated nitrate anions and one water mol­ecule. The title cation contains a distorted square-pyramidal arrangement around each metal centre with a CuN2O3 chromophore. In the dinuclear unit, both CuII ions are linked through a hydroxide bridge and a triatomic bridging carboxyl­ate group, and at the axial positions through a water mol­ecule. The phenanthroline groups in neighbouring dinuclear units inter­digitate along the [010] direction, generating several π–π contacts which give rise to planar arrays parallel to (001). These are in turn connected by hydrogen bonds involving the aqua and hydroxide groups as donors with the nitrate anions as acceptors. Comparisons are made with isostructural compounds having similar cationic units but different counter-ions; the role of hydrogen bonding in the overall three-dimensional structure and its ultimate effect on the cell dimensions are discussed.

Comment

Since the seminal work on copper acetate monohydrate reported by Bleaney & Bowers (1952[Bleaney, V. & Bowers, K. D. (1952). Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 214, 451-465.]), inter­est in magnetic dimeric (or dinuclear) compounds has been maintained for the past 60 years from different perspectives. This work has contributed to the field of mol­ecular magnetic materials (Kahn, 1993[Kahn, O. (1993). In Molecular Magnetism. New York: VCH.]) and to the understanding of correlations between exchange couplings and bond structure, and has helped in the design of new polynuclear mol­ecular magnets. The fact that weakly inter­acting AFM (antiferromagnetic) dimeric magnetic materials display Bose–Einstein condensation at relatively high temperature (T) triggered considerable research by the materials and physics communities (Giamarchi et al., 2008[Giamarchi, T., Rüegg, C. & Tchernyshyov, O. (2008). Nat. Phys. 4, 198-204.]). The discovery of high-Tc superconductors also stimulated inter­est in inter­acting quantum spin systems, providing information about elementary excitations, quantum phase transitions and critical phenomena. Many studies of dimeric materials have been reported in this context. Our inter­est in dimeric materials is directed towards the effects of weak inter­actions between mol­ecular units (Napolitano et al., 2008[Napolitano, L. M. B., Nascimento, O. R., Cabaleiro, S., Castro, J. & Calvo, R. (2008). Phys. Rev. B, 77, 214423.]; Perec et al., 2010[Perec, M., Baggio, R., Sartoris, R. P., Santana, R. C., Peña, O. & Calvo, R. (2010). Inorg. Chem. 49, 695-703.]). Since the stacking of phenanthroline rings is a potential source of weak inter­molecular exchange couplings, we have been looking for new compounds where dinuclear units are coupled by this type of inter­action. During our studies, the triply bridged dinuclear copper(II) title compound, μ-acetato-μ-aqua-μ-hydroxido-bis­[(1,10-phenanthroline)copper(II)] dinitrate monohydrate, (I)[link], was obtained (Figs. 1[link]–3[link][link]).

[Scheme 1]

The asymmetric unit of (I)[link] consists of a [Cu2(μ2-CH3COO)(μ2-OH)(phen)2(μ2-OH2)]2+ dinuclear cation (phen is 1,10-phenanthroline), two uncoordinated nitrate anions and one solvent water mol­ecule (Fig. 1[link]). The cation has a distorted square-pyramidal arrangement at each CuII ion, in such a way that the two pyramidal CuN2O3 chromophores share one edge. Both CuII ions are linked [Cu1⋯Cu2 = 2.9559 (5) Å] at two equatorial positions through a hydroxide bridge [Cu—O = 1.928 (2) and 1.919 (2) Å for atoms Cu1 and Cu2, respectively] and a triatomic carboxyl­ate bridge [Cu—O = 1.935 (2) and 1.940 (2) Å for atoms Cu1 and Cu2, respectively], and at the axial position through a water mol­ecule [Cu—O = 2.344 (2) and 2.332 (2) Å for atoms Cu1 and Cu2, respectively]. The coordination of each CuII centre is completed by an N,N′-chelating phen ligand [Cu—N = 2.007 (3) and 2.023 (2) Å for Cu1, and 1.994 (3) and 2.016 (2) Å for Cu2]; the resulting bond valencies for the two cations are 2.16 and 2.20, respectively (PLATON; Spek, 2009[Spek, A. L. (2009). Acta Cryst. D65, 148-155.]). The polyhedron around Cu1 is slightly more regular than that about Cu2, displaying clear differences in the (ideally equal) trans O—Cu—N basal angles [6.56 (16) versus 16.48 (18)°, respectively], the deviation from planarity in the basal plane [0.032 (2) Å for N2A versus 0.205 (2) Å for N1B], the departure of the apical axis from the vertical [8.22 (12) versus 20.4 (2)°] and (perhaps as a summary) their τ parameters [as defined by Addison et al. (1984[Addison, A. W., Rao, T. N., van Reedijk, J., Rijn, J. & Verschoor, G. C. (1984). J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. pp. 1349-1356.]) and calculated using PLATON; 0.11 versus 0.27].

The ligands are featureless: neither of the phen groups departs significantly from planarity [maximum deviations = 0.028 (3) Å for C2A and 0.037 (3) Å for C11B] and the C—O bonds in the acetate group display an almost perfect resonance [O1C C1C = 1.249 (4) Å and O2C C1C = 1.252 (4) Å].

{Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxyl­ate)} is a well known cluster and a search of the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD, Version 5.32 of 2011; Allen, 2002[Allen, F. H. (2002). Acta Cryst. B58, 380-388.]) revealed several structures incorporating the moiety [e.g. CSD refcodes CITLOH, CITLEX and YAFZUA01 (Youngme et al., 2008[Youngme, S., Phatchimkun, J., Wannarit, N., Chaichit, N., Meejoo, S., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2008). Polyhedron, 27, 304-318.]); YEMNIO and YEMNEK (Chailuecha et al., 2006[Chailuecha, C., Youngme, S., Pakawatchai, C., Chaichit, N., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2006). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 359, 4168-4178.]); DIXGEX (Chen et al., 2008[Chen, Y., Du, S.-C., Liu, Z.-F., Hong, H.-L. & Chen, J.-Z. (2008). Z. Kristallogr. New Cryst. Struct. 223, 92-94.]); JEJCIK (Christou et al., 1990[Christou, G., Perlepes, S. P., Folting, K., Huffman, J. C., Webb, R. J. & Hendrickson, D. N. (1990). Chem. Commun. pp. 746-747.]); OLOVOA (Chadjistamatis et al., 2003[Chadjistamatis, I., Terzis, A., Raptopoulou, C. P. & Perlepes, S. P. (2003). Inorg. Chem. Commun. 6, 1365-1371.]); QAHDUY (Sgarabotto et al., 1999[Sgarabotto, P., Bisceglie, F., Pelosi, G. & Abdel-Rahman, L. (1999). Polyhedron, 18, 2505-2510.]); YINJEL (Chen et al., 2007[Chen, L., Wang, X.-W., Chen, J.-Z. & Liu, J.-H. (2007). Z. Naturforsch. Teil B, 62, 1271-1276.]), to mention just a few]. A comparative analysis within this set shows coordination distances over modest ranges (Cu—Ohydroxy = 1.908–1.933 Å, Cu—Ocarboxylate = 1.925–1.993 Å and Cu—Owater = 2.321–2.415 Å), the values found for (I)[link] being within these ranges. On the other hand, the inter­cationic distance for (I)[link] appears distinctly shorter [Cu⋯Cu = 2.990–3.124 Å in the CSD versus Cu1⋯Cu2 = 2.9559 (5) Å in (I)[link]].

A view of the {Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxyl­ate)} clusters is provided in Fig. 4[link], presented as overlapping {Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxyl­ate)} clusters where only the Cu–(OH)–Cu bridge has been fitted, the remaining atoms having been omitted for clarity. It is obvious that a very reasonable match is observed for the carboxyl­ates, while a much larger spread is observed for the aqua bridge. This may have to do with the weaker binding of the Owater atom to the cations, as well as the hydrogen-bonding ability of water. This makes it prone to disrupting inter­actions and modifying the ideal geometry.

Regarding the packing arrangement, the way in which the dinuclear units aggregate into a three-dimensional supra­molecular structure can be described (for clarity) as a two-step process. The first step is achieved via the stacking of inter­woven dinuclear units to form two-dimensional structures parallel to (001) (Fig. 2[link]). The forces involved are several π–π inter­actions between the stacked phenanthroline groups, summarized in Table 2[link]. These inter­actions are not evenly distributed. Firstly, there are zones with additional stronger bonds (labelled `A' in Fig. 2[link], entries 1–3 in Table 2[link]) defining chains which run along the b-axis direction, and these chains are in turn connected by weaker/fewer links (zones labelled `B' in Fig. 2[link], entries 4–5 in Table 2[link]) to form a broad two-dimensional structure. Secondly, a number of hydrogen bonds are present involving the NO3− counter-ions as acceptors and the hydroxy/aqua (Table 1[link], entries 1–6) and the outermost phen C—H groups (Table 1[link], entries 7–9) as donors. Fig. 3[link] shows a packing view rotated by 90° compared with that presented in Fig. 2[link], where the planar arrays are seen in projection, and the hydrogen-bonding network can be clearly observed. It is apparent that the cohesion provided by these inter­actions is partly intraplanar (providing for the plane stability) and partly interplanar, assisting the plane-to-plane linkage.

More detailed comparisons can be made of the three-dimensional structure in (I)[link] with two isostructural analogues (mentioned earlier) which have the same phen ligand but different counter-anions (L), viz. L = BF4−, (II) (CITLOH; Youngme et al., 2008[Youngme, S., Phatchimkun, J., Wannarit, N., Chaichit, N., Meejoo, S., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2008). Polyhedron, 27, 304-318.]), and L = ClO4−, (III) (YEMNIO; Chailuecha et al., 2006[Chailuecha, C., Youngme, S., Pakawatchai, C., Chaichit, N., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2006). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 359, 4168-4178.]). Both structures share the same dinuclear unit as (I)[link] [mean square deviations of the fit of all non-H atoms = 0.075 (2) and 0.116 (2) Å, respectively] and are also inter­woven in analogous π-bonded layers, but differ in the remaining inter­actions aggregating the components into a three-dimensional structure. It is relevant to stress for the following discussion that this hydrogen-bonding system appears stronger and more clearly defined in (I)[link] than in either of the analogues (II) and (III), since the O-atom acceptors in the NO3− counter-ion of (I)[link] are fairly well defined, while those in the BF4− and ClO4− analogues, (II) and (III), appear heavily disordered.

Comparison of the cell dimensions for all three structures (Table 3[link]) yields information regarding the inter­actions governing the crystal packing and the way they operate [numbers in parentheses give the percentage differences from (I)[link]]. It can be seen that, along the c axis, there are negligible differences between the three structures, while significant differences are noted along a and b. This fact correlates with the disposition and structure of the packing `leitmotiv' shown in Fig. 2[link]. The c direction is, in principle, defined by the width of the planes and this is basically associated with the volume occupied by the dinuclear unit; counter-ions are lodged in the inter­molecular voids and, even though they provide inter­planar cohesion, they do not appear to affect the mean planar width. Thus, the `c'-axis length would be limited by the `bumping' of basically uncompressible planes. The remaining two directions, on the other hand, are contained in the plane, and along them the structure shows no significant cohesion forces able to oppose the strain introduced by any additional forces, e.g. hydrogen bonding. Thus, structure (I)[link], with stronger and better defined intraplanar hydrogen-bonding inter­actions than (II) and (III) (see above), presents a detectable shrinkage of the planes in both the a and b directions, a fact directly ascribable to the inter­nal hydrogen-bonding network and the flexibility of the π–π inter­actions to adapt to them. It is worth noting the highly hydro­philic character of both NO3− anions, in particular nitrate D, where atom O3D, for instance, accepts four hydrogen bonds of different type and strength.

Our structural results show promise in the search for new dinuclear materials with weak inter­actions between moieties. However, we have not yet overcome the problem of the specimens being too small for EPR (electron paramagnetic resonance) measurements, and are at present devoting our efforts to the growth of single crystals of adequate size and quality for this purpose.

[Figure 1]
Figure 1
A mol­ecular view of (I)[link], showing the atom-numbering scheme. Displacement ellipsoids are drawn at the 30% probability level and hydrogen bonds are shown as double dashed lines. [Symmetry codes: (i) x − 1, y, z; (ii) −x + [{3\over 2}], −y + 1, z − [{1\over 2}].]
[Figure 2]
Figure 2
A packing diagram for (I)[link], viewed along [001], showing how the dinuclear units are linked by π–π interactions into planes parallel to (001).
[Figure 3]
Figure 3
A packing diagram for (I)[link], viewed along [100] and rotated by 90° compared with the view in Fig. 2[link], showing the hydrogen-bonding inter­actions (dashed lines). The (001) sheets are shown in projection as vertical structures (marked by square brackets).
[Figure 4]
Figure 4
Comparison of the {Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxyl­ate)} cluster in (I)[link] (heavy lines) with examples from the literature. Structure codes a–j correspond to the following CSD refcodes and references: a = CITLOH, c = CITLEX and i = YAFZUA01 (Youngme et al., 2008[Youngme, S., Phatchimkun, J., Wannarit, N., Chaichit, N., Meejoo, S., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2008). Polyhedron, 27, 304-318.]); b = YEMNIO and h = YEMNEK (Chailuecha et al., 2006[Chailuecha, C., Youngme, S., Pakawatchai, C., Chaichit, N., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2006). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 359, 4168-4178.]); d = DIXGEX (Chen et al., 2008[Chen, Y., Du, S.-C., Liu, Z.-F., Hong, H.-L. & Chen, J.-Z. (2008). Z. Kristallogr. New Cryst. Struct. 223, 92-94.]); e = JEJCIK (Christou et al., 1990[Christou, G., Perlepes, S. P., Folting, K., Huffman, J. C., Webb, R. J. & Hendrickson, D. N. (1990). Chem. Commun. pp. 746-747.]); f = OLOVOA (Chadjistamatis et al., 2003[Chadjistamatis, I., Terzis, A., Raptopoulou, C. P. & Perlepes, S. P. (2003). Inorg. Chem. Commun. 6, 1365-1371.]); g = QAHDUY (Sgarabotto et al., 1999[Sgarabotto, P., Bisceglie, F., Pelosi, G. & Abdel-Rahman, L. (1999). Polyhedron, 18, 2505-2510.]); j = YINJEL (Chen et al., 2007[Chen, L., Wang, X.-W., Chen, J.-Z. & Liu, J.-H. (2007). Z. Naturforsch. Teil B, 62, 1271-1276.]).

Experimental

All chemicals were purchased from Sigma and were used as received. A solution of sodium acetate, NaCH3COO (4 mM, 0.328 g), in water (40 ml) was prepared and its pH adjusted to 3.5–4 with a 10% solution of HNO3. Under continuous agitation, equimolar quantities of 1,10-phenanthroline and copper nitrate were added to this solution. After complete dissolution, the pH was adjusted to 4.5–5 with a 1 N solution of NaOH and 10% HNO3, and the solution was then filtered and left to evaporate at room temperature. Small crystals of (I)[link] suitable for X-ray diffraction were obtained after approximately three weeks.

Crystal data

  • [Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(C12H8N2)2(H2O)](NO3)2·H2O

  • Mr = 723.59

  • Orthorhombic, P 21 21 21

  • a = 8.15051 (15) Å

  • b = 17.4091 (3) Å

  • c = 19.7447 (4) Å

  • V = 2801.63 (9) Å3

  • Z = 4

  • Mo Kα radiation

  • μ = 1.59 mm−1

  • T = 292 K

  • 0.35 × 0.20 × 0.15 mm
Data collection

  • Oxford Gemini CCD S Ultra diffractometer

  • Absorption correction: multi-scan (CrysAlis PRO; Oxford Diffraction, 2009[Oxford Diffraction (2009). CrysAlis PRO. Oxford Diffraction Ltd, Yarnton, Oxfordshire, England.]) Tmin = 0.54, Tmax = 0.73

  • 16045 measured reflections

  • 5135 independent reflections

  • 3791 reflections with I > 2σ(I)

  • Rint = 0.029
Refinement

  • R[F2 > 2σ(F2)] = 0.029

  • wR(F2) = 0.054

  • S = 0.91

  • 5135 reflections

  • 422 parameters

  • 7 restraints

  • H atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement

  • Δρmax = 0.26 e Å−3

  • Δρmin = −0.25 e Å−3

  • Absolute structure: Flack (1983[Flack, H. D. (1983). Acta Cryst. A39, 876-881.]), with 1687 Friedel pairs

  • Flack parameter: 0.001 (9)

Table 1
Hydrogen-bond geometry (Å, °)

D—H⋯A D—H H⋯A D⋯A D—H⋯A
O1—H1⋯O3Di 0.83 (3) 2.28 (3) 3.107 (4) 174 (3)
O1W—H1WA⋯O2D 0.84 (4) 2.21 (3) 2.943 (5) 145 (3)
O1W—H1WA⋯O3D 0.84 (4) 2.22 (3) 2.994 (5) 153 (3)
O1W—H1WB⋯O2E 0.84 (4) 1.91 (3) 2.745 (4) 171 (3)
O2W—H2WA⋯O1D 0.87 (4) 2.05 (3) 2.881 (6) 161 (6)
O2W—H2WB⋯O3Eii 0.87 (4) 1.99 (2) 2.835 (6) 164 (7)
C5A—H5A⋯O3Diii 0.93 2.52 3.408 (5) 160
C5B—H5B⋯O3Div 0.93 2.52 3.402 (5) 158
C6B—H6B⋯O3Ev 0.93 2.51 3.359 (6) 152
Symmetry codes: (i) x-1, y, z; (ii) [-x+{\script{3\over 2}}, -y+1, z-{\script{1\over 2}}]; (iii) [-x+1, y-{\script{1\over 2}}, -z+{\script{1\over 2}}]; (iv) [-x+1, y+{\script{1\over 2}}, -z+{\script{1\over 2}}]; (v) [x-{\script{1\over 2}}, -y+{\script{3\over 2}}, -z+1].

Table 2
π–π contacts (Å, °) for (I)[link]

Centroid codes are as defined in Fig. 1[link]. c.c.d. is the centroid–centroid distance, d.a. is the dihedral angle between rings and p.c.d. is the (mean) perpendicular distance from the centroid to the opposite plane (for details, see Janiak 2000[Janiak, C. (2000). J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. pp. 3885-3898.]).
Group 1/group 2 c.c.d. (Å) d.a. (°) p.c.d. (Å)
Cg1⋯Cg2i 3.533 (2) 1.87 (17) 3.37 (2)
Cg5⋯Cg6i 3.614 (2) 2.29 (17) 3.35 (3)
Cg1⋯Cg4i 4.093 (2) 3.06 (17) 3.37 (4)
Cg2⋯Cg3ii 3.628 (2) 1.32 (17) 3.35 (2)
Cg3⋯Cg6i 3.578 (2) 1.68 (17) 3.39 (2)
Cg4⋯Cg5iii 4.070 (2) 3.16 (17) 3.33 (2)
Symmetry codes: (i) −x, −[{1\over 2}] + y, [{1\over 2}] − z; (ii) 1 − x, [{1\over 2}] + y, [{1\over 2}] − z; (iii) −x, [{1\over 2}] + y, [{1\over 2}] − z.

Table 3
Comparison of the unit-cell parameters for (I)[link], (II) and (III)

Percentage values refer to differences from compound (I)[link] reported herein.
Compound a (Å) b (Å) c (Å)
(I)[link]a 8.1505 (2) 17.4091 (3) 19.7447 (4)
(II)b 8.3452 (2) (2.38%) 17.7730 (2) (2.21%) 19.8477 (2) (0.52%)
(III)c 8.3526 (5) (2.48%) 17.8236 (12) (2.38%) 19.9074 (13) (0.82%)
References: (a) this work; (b) Youngme et al. (2008[Youngme, S., Phatchimkun, J., Wannarit, N., Chaichit, N., Meejoo, S., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2008). Polyhedron, 27, 304-318.]); (c) Chailuecha et al. (2006[Chailuecha, C., Youngme, S., Pakawatchai, C., Chaichit, N., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2006). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 359, 4168-4178.]).

Even though the geometry of the counter-ions allowed the groups to be initially inter­preted as either acetate or nitrate, the final bond lengths and the lack of methyl H atoms in the difference maps confirmed nitrate as the correct assignment. All H atoms could be found in a difference Fourier map. Those attached to C atoms were placed in calculated positions, with phen C—H = 0.93 Å and methyl C—H = 0.96 Å, and allowed to ride. Those attached to O atoms were further refined with restrained O—H distances of 0.85 (1) Å and H⋯H distances of 1.35 (1) Å. The isotropic displacement parameter of the hydroxy H atom was refined. In all other cases, displacement parameters were taken as Uiso(H) = 1.5Ueq(C,O) for methyl groups and water molecules, and as Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(C) otherwise.

Data collection: CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009[Oxford Diffraction (2009). CrysAlis PRO. Oxford Diffraction Ltd, Yarnton, Oxfordshire, England.]); cell refinement: CrysAlis PRO; data reduction: CrysAlis PRO; program(s) used to solve structure: SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 2008[Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112-122.]); program(s) used to refine structure: SHELXL97 (Sheldrick, 2008[Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112-122.]); molecular graphics: SHELXTL (Sheldrick, 2008[Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112-122.]); software used to prepare material for publication: SHELXL97 and PLATON (Spek, 2009[Spek, A. L. (2009). Acta Cryst. D65, 148-155.]).

Supporting information

Crystal structure: contains datablocks I, global. DOI: 10.1107/S0108270111011048/gg3255sup1.cif

Structure factors: contains datablock I. DOI: 10.1107/S0108270111011048/gg3255Isup2.hkl


Comment top

Since the seminal work on copper acetate monohydrate reported by Bleaney & Bowers (1952), interest in magnetic dimeric (or dinuclear) compounds has been maintained for the past 60 years, from different perspectives. This work has contributed to the field of molecular magnetic materials (Kahn, 1993), to the understanding of correlations between exchange couplings and bond structure, and helped in the design of new polynuclear molecular magnets. The fact that weakly interacting AFM dimeric magnetic materials display Bose–Einstein condensation at relatively high T [T = temperature?] triggered considerable research by the materials and physics community (Giamarchi et al., 2008). The discovery of high-T superconductors also stimulated interest in interacting quantum spin systems providing information about elementary excitations, quantum phase transitions and critical phenomena. Many studies of dimeric materials have been reported in this context. Our interest in dimeric materials is directed towards the effects of weak interactions between molecular units (Napolitano et al., 2008; Perec et al., 2010). Since the stacking of phenanthroline rings is a potential source of weak intermolecular exchange couplings we have been looking for new compounds where dinuclear units are coupled by this type of interaction. During our study the triply bridged dinuclear copper(II) title compound, [Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(H2O)(C12H8N2)2] .2NO3.H2O, (I), was obtained (Figs. 1–3).

The molecule consists of a [Cu2(µ2-CH3COO-κ2-O',O")(µ2-OH)(µ2-OH2)(phen)2]2+ dinuclear cation (phen = 1,10-phenanthroline), two uncoordinated L- anions (L = NO3) and one water molecule of crystallization (Fig. 1). It contains a distorted square-pyramidal arrangement at each copper(II) ion, in such a way that the two pyramidal CuN2O3 chromophores share one edge. Both CuII ions are linked [Cu1···Cu2 2.9559 (5) Å] at two equatorial positions through a hydroxo bridge [Cu—Ohydroxo 1.928 (2), 1.919 (2) Å for Cu1, Cu2, respectively], a triatomic carboxylato bridge [Cu—Ocarboxylato 1.935 (2), 1.940 (2) Å for Cu1, Cu2, respectively], and at the axial position through a water molecule [Cu—Owater 2.344 (2), 2.332 (2) Å for Cu1, Cu2, respectively]. The coordination of each copper centre is completed by a chelating phen-N,N' [Cu—Nphen 2.007 (3), 2.023 (2) Å and 1.994 (3), 2.016 (2) Å, [for Cu1 and Cu2 ?], respectively]; the resulting bond valency for both cations is 2.16, 2.20 as calculated using PLATON (Spek, 2009). The polyhedron around Cu1 is slightly more regular than the Cu2 one, displaying clear differences in the (ideally equal) trans O—Cu—N basal angles [6.62 (16)° versus 16.48 (18)°, respectively], the deviation from planarity in the basal plane [0.032 (2) Å for N2A versus 0.205 (2) Å for N1B], the departure of the apical axis from the vertical [8.22 (12) versus. 20.4 (2)°], and (perhaps as a summary) their τ parameters (as defined in Addison et al., 1984, and calculated with the program PLATON): 0.11 versus 0.27.

The ligands are basically featureless; none of the phen groups depart significantly from planarity [maximum deviations 0.028 (3) Å for C2A; 0.037 (3) Å for C11B] and the C—O bonds in the acetato group display an almost perfect resonance [O1C ≐ C1C 1.249 (4); O2C ≐ C1C 1.252 (4) Å].

Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxylate) is a well known cluster and a search in the v5.32 (2011) version of the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD; Allen, 2002) revealed several structures incorporating the moiety [e.g. CITLOH, CITLEX and YAFZUA01 (Youngme et al., 2008); YEMNIO and YEMNEK (Chailuecha et al., 2006); DIXGEX (Chen et al., 2008); JEJCIK (Christou et al., 1990); OLOVOA (Chadjistamatis et al., 2003); QAHDUY (Sgarabotto et al., 1999); YINJEL (Chen et al., 2007) etc., just to mention a few]. The comparative analysis within this set discloses coordination distances in a modest spread (Cu—Ohydroxo 1.908–1.933 Å; Cu—Ocarboxylato 1.925–1.993 Å; Cu—Owater 2.321–2.415 Å) showing the values found for (I) to be within these ranges; the intercationic distance for (I), instead, appears distinctly shorter [Cu···Cu range 2.990–3.124 Å, versus Cu1···Cu2 2.9559 (5) Å in (I)].

A view of the Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxylate) clusters is provided in Fig. 4 and presented as overlapping Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxylate) clusters, where only the Cu–(OH)–Cu bridge has been fitted, the remaining atoms omitted for clarity: it is obvious that a very reasonable match is observed for the carboxylates, while a much larger spread is observed for the aqua bridge. This may have to do with the weaker binding of the Owater to the cations as well as the hydrogen-bonding ability of water. This makes it prone to disrupting interactions and modifying the ideal geometry.

Regarding the packing arrangement, the way in which the dinuclear units aggregate into a three-dimensional supramolecular structure is describable (for clarity) as a two-step process. The first step is achieved via the stacking of interweaved dinuclear units to form two-dimensional structures parallel to (001) (Fig. 2). The forces involved are several π···π interactions between the stacked phenanthroline groups, as summarized in Table 2. These interactions are not evenly distributed, but there are zones with additional stronger bonds (labelled `A' in Fig. 2, entries 1–3 in Table 2) defining chains which run along the b-axis direction; these chains are in turn connected by weaker/fewer links (zones labelled `B', entries 4–5 in Table 2) to form a broad two-dimensional structure. Secondly, a number of hydrogen bonds involving the hydroxido/aqueous groups as donors and the O atoms of the NO3- counterions as acceptors are present (Table 1). Fig. 3 shows a packing view rotated by 90° [compared] to that presented in Fig. 2, where the planar arrays are seen in projection, and the hydrogen-bonding network can be clearly observed. It is apparent that the cohesion provided by these interactions is partly `intra'-planar (providing for the plane stability) as well as `inter'-planar, assisting the plane-to-plane linkage.

More detailed comparisons can be made of the three-dimensional structure in (I) with two isostructural analogues (already considered earlier) which have the same phenanthroline ligand but different L counteranions, viz. L = BF4-, (II) (CITLOH, Youngme et al., 2008), and L = ClO4-, (III) (YEMNIO, Chailuecha et al., 2006). Both structures share the same dinuclear unit as (I) [mean square deviations 0.075 (2), and 0.116 (2) Å, respectively] and are also interweaved in analogous π-bonded layers, but differing in the remaining interactions aggregating into a three-dimensional structure. It is relevant to stress for the following discussion that this hydrogen-bonding system appears stronger and more clearly defined in (I) than in either of the (II), (III) analogues, since the O-atom acceptors in the NO3- counterions (I) are fairly well behaved while those in the BF4- (II) and ClO4- (III) analogues appear heavily disordered.

Comparison of the cell dimensions for all three structures (Table 3) yields information regarding the interactions governing the crystal packing and the way they operate [figures in brackets give the percentage differences with (I)]. It can be seen that along the c axis there are negligible differences between all three structures, while significant differences are noted along a and b. This fact correlates with the disposition and structure of the packing `leitmotiv' shown in Fig 2. The c direction is, in principle, defined by the width of the planes and this is basically associated with the volume occupied by the dinuclear unit; counterions lodge at the intermolecular voids and even if they provide interplanar cohesion, they do not appear to affect the mean planar width. Thus, the `c'-axis length would be limited by the `bumping' of basically uncompressible planes. The remaining two directions, on the other hand, are contained in the plane and along them the structure shows no significant cohesion forces able to oppose the strain introduced by any additional forces, e.g. hydrogen bonding. Thus, structure (I), with stronger and better defined `intra'-planar hydrogen-bonding interactions than (II) and (III) (see above) presents a detectable `shrinkage' of the planes in both the a and b directions, a fact directly ascribable to the internal hydrogen-bonding network and the flexibility of π···π interactions to adapt to them. It is worth noting the highly hydrophilic character of both NO3 - anions, in particular nitrate D, where O3D, for instance, accepts four hydrogen bonds of different types and strength.

Our structural results show promise in the search for new dinuclear materials with weak interactions between moieties; however, we have not yet overcome the problem of the specimens being too small for EPR measurements, and are at present devoted to the growth of single crystals of adequate size and quality.

Related literature top

For related literature, see: Addison et al. (1984); Allen (2002); Bleaney & Bowers (1952); Chadjistamatis et al. (2003); Chailuecha et al. (2006); Chen et al. (2007, 2008); Christou et al. (1990); Giamarchi et al. (2008); Kahn (1993); Napolitano et al. (2008); Perec et al. (2010); Sgarabotto et al. (1999); Spek (2009); Youngme et al. (2008).

Experimental top

All chemicals were purchased from Sigma and used as received. A solution of sodium acetate NaCH3COO (4 mM, 0.328 g) in 40 ml of water was prepared and its pH adjusted to 3.5–4 with a 10% solution of HNO3. Under continuous agitation, equimolar quantities of 1,10-phenanthroline and copper nitrate were added to this solution; after complete dissolution its pH was adjusted to 4.5–5 with 1 N solution of NaOH and 10% HNO3. This solution was filtered and left to evaporate at room temperature. Small crystals suitable for X-ray diffraction were obtained after circa 3 weeks.

Refinement top

Even if the geometry of the counterions allowed the groups to be initially interpreted either as acetate or nitrate, final bond lengths as well as the lack of methyl H atoms in the difference maps confirmed NO3 with the correct assignment. All the H atoms could be found in a difference Fourier map. Those attached to C were placed at calculated positions (C—H 0.93 Å, CH3 0.96 Å) and allowed to ride. Those attached to O were further refined with restrained O—H 0.85 Å and H···H 1.35 Å distances. In all cases displacement factors were taken as U(H)isot = 1.2/1.5U(host)equiv.

Computing details top

Data collection: CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009); cell refinement: CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009); data reduction: CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009); program(s) used to solve structure: SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 2008); program(s) used to refine structure: SHELXL97 (Sheldrick, 2008); molecular graphics: SHELXTL (Sheldrick, 2008); software used to prepare material for publication: SHELXL97, PLATON (Spek, 2009).

Figures top
[Figure 1] Fig. 1. Molecular view of (I) with displacement ellipsoids drawn at the 30% level. Hydrogen bonds are shown as double broken lines. Symmetry codes: (i) x - 1, y, z; (ii) -x + 3/2, -y + 1, z - 1/2.
[Figure 2] Fig. 2. Packing diagram of (I) viewed along [001], showing how the dinuclear units are linked by π···π bonding into planes parallel to (001).
[Figure 3] Fig. 3. Packing diagram of (I), viewed along [100] and rotated by 90° to the view in Fig. 2 showing the hydrogen-bonding interactions. The (001) sheets are shown in projection as vertical structures (marked by square brackets).
[Figure 4] Fig. 4. Comparison of the Cu2(OH)(H2O)(carboxylate) group in (I) (heavy lining) with similar ones from the literature, (the structure code (s) and within brackets the CSD RefCode(s) and Reference are stated). a, c, i: (CITLOH; CITLEX; YAFZUA01; Youngme et al., 2008); b, h: (YEMNIO; YEMNEK; Chailuecha et al., 2006); d: (DIXGEX; Chen et al., 2008); e: (JEJCIK; Christou et al., 1990; f: (OLOVOA; Chadjistamatis et al., 2003); g: (QAHDUY; Sgarabotto et al., 1999); j: (YINJEL; Chen et al., 2007).
µ-Acetato-µ-aqua-µ-hydroxido-bis[(1,10-phenanthroline)copper(II)] dinitrate monohydrate top
Crystal data top
[Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(C12H8N2)2(H2O)](NO3)2·H2OF(000) = 1472
Mr = 723.59Dx = 1.716 Mg m−3
Orthorhombic, P212121Mo Kα radiation, λ = 0.71073 Å
Hall symbol: P 2ac 2abCell parameters from 7244 reflections
a = 8.15051 (15) Åθ = 4.1–25.6°
b = 17.4091 (3) ŵ = 1.59 mm−1
c = 19.7447 (4) ÅT = 292 K
V = 2801.63 (9) Å3Block, blue
Z = 40.35 × 0.20 × 0.15 mm
Data collection top
Oxford Diffraction Gemini CCD S Ultra
diffractometer		5135 independent reflections
Radiation source: fine-focus sealed tube3791 reflections with I > 2σ(I)
Graphite monochromatorRint = 0.029
ω scans, thick slicesθmax = 26.3°, θmin = 2.6°
Absorption correction: multi-scan
(CrysAlis PRO; Oxford Diffraction, 2009)		h = −10→9
Tmin = 0.54, Tmax = 0.73k = −21→21
16045 measured reflectionsl = −23→24
Refinement top
Refinement on F2Secondary atom site location: difference Fourier map
Least-squares matrix: fullHydrogen site location: inferred from neighbouring sites
R[F2 > 2σ(F2)] = 0.029H atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement
wR(F2) = 0.054 w = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0274P)2]
where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3
S = 0.91(Δ/σ)max = 0.001
5135 reflectionsΔρmax = 0.26 e Å−3
422 parametersΔρmin = −0.25 e Å−3
7 restraintsAbsolute structure: Flack, 1983. 1687 Friedel pairs measured
Primary atom site location: structure-invariant direct methodsAbsolute structure parameter: 0.001 (9)
Crystal data top
[Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(C12H8N2)2(H2O)](NO3)2·H2OV = 2801.63 (9) Å3
Mr = 723.59Z = 4
Orthorhombic, P212121Mo Kα radiation
a = 8.15051 (15) ŵ = 1.59 mm−1
b = 17.4091 (3) ÅT = 292 K
c = 19.7447 (4) Å0.35 × 0.20 × 0.15 mm
Data collection top
Oxford Diffraction Gemini CCD S Ultra
diffractometer		5135 independent reflections
Absorption correction: multi-scan
(CrysAlis PRO; Oxford Diffraction, 2009)		3791 reflections with I > 2σ(I)
Tmin = 0.54, Tmax = 0.73Rint = 0.029
16045 measured reflections
Refinement top
R[F2 > 2σ(F2)] = 0.029H atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement
wR(F2) = 0.054Δρmax = 0.26 e Å−3
S = 0.91Δρmin = −0.25 e Å−3
5135 reflectionsAbsolute structure: Flack, 1983. 1687 Friedel pairs measured
422 parametersAbsolute structure parameter: 0.001 (9)
7 restraints
Special details top

Geometry. All esds (except the esd in the dihedral angle between two l.s. planes) are estimated using the full covariance matrix. The cell esds are taken into account individually in the estimation of esds in distances, angles and torsion angles; correlations between esds in cell parameters are only used when they are defined by crystal symmetry. An approximate (isotropic) treatment of cell esds is used for estimating esds involving l.s. planes.

Fractional atomic coordinates and isotropic or equivalent isotropic displacement parameters (Å2) top
xyzUiso*/Ueq
Cu10.09622 (5)0.532730 (19)0.181451 (18)0.03940 (11)
Cu20.04714 (5)0.695859 (19)0.217691 (18)0.03840 (11)
O1−0.0627 (3)0.59866 (10)0.22448 (11)0.0387 (5)
H1−0.153 (2)0.5978 (16)0.2049 (13)0.030 (9)*
N1A0.1297 (3)0.46454 (14)0.26321 (12)0.0403 (6)
N2A0.2467 (4)0.45533 (14)0.13881 (14)0.0433 (7)
C1A0.0727 (4)0.47228 (18)0.32564 (16)0.0530 (8)
H1A0.01020.51530.33640.064*
C2A0.1043 (6)0.4170 (2)0.37637 (18)0.0646 (11)
H2A0.06260.42300.41990.078*
C3A0.1962 (5)0.3551 (2)0.3602 (2)0.0640 (12)
H3A0.21670.31830.39330.077*
C4A0.2615 (5)0.34476 (18)0.29565 (19)0.0492 (9)
C5A0.3601 (5)0.28082 (18)0.2737 (3)0.0645 (12)
H5A0.38300.24130.30400.077*
C6A0.4197 (5)0.27719 (18)0.2102 (2)0.0661 (11)
H6A0.48370.23530.19790.079*
C7A0.3879 (5)0.33519 (17)0.16159 (19)0.0507 (9)
C8A0.4440 (5)0.3360 (2)0.0950 (2)0.0682 (11)
H8A0.51090.29650.07940.082*
C9A0.4018 (5)0.3939 (2)0.0528 (2)0.0641 (11)
H9A0.43950.39420.00830.077*
C10A0.3023 (4)0.45284 (19)0.07600 (19)0.0551 (9)
H10A0.27360.49210.04630.066*
C11A0.2883 (4)0.39749 (17)0.18166 (19)0.0413 (8)
C12A0.2256 (4)0.40279 (16)0.24843 (19)0.0420 (9)
N1B0.1693 (3)0.79646 (14)0.22013 (14)0.0415 (6)
N2B0.0001 (3)0.72297 (13)0.31385 (13)0.0374 (6)
C1B0.2522 (5)0.83158 (18)0.1721 (2)0.0519 (9)
H1B0.25770.80870.12960.062*
C2B0.3319 (5)0.9013 (2)0.1818 (2)0.0623 (10)
H2B0.39250.92380.14710.075*
C3B0.3189 (5)0.9362 (2)0.2439 (2)0.0566 (11)
H3B0.36750.98390.25060.068*
C4B0.2345 (4)0.90151 (17)0.29681 (18)0.0458 (9)
C5B0.2111 (5)0.9323 (2)0.3632 (2)0.0584 (11)
H5B0.25790.97960.37380.070*
C6B0.1252 (5)0.8959 (2)0.4102 (2)0.0622 (11)
H6B0.11350.91830.45270.075*
C7B0.0494 (5)0.82292 (18)0.39747 (16)0.0470 (9)
C8B−0.0457 (5)0.78212 (19)0.44369 (16)0.0547 (9)
H8B−0.06180.80100.48720.066*
C9B−0.1150 (5)0.71428 (19)0.42458 (16)0.0527 (9)
H9B−0.17930.68670.45490.063*
C10B−0.0888 (5)0.68649 (18)0.35924 (15)0.0464 (8)
H10B−0.13640.63990.34720.056*
C11B0.0699 (4)0.79070 (16)0.33261 (15)0.0393 (8)
C12B0.1608 (4)0.83026 (16)0.28255 (18)0.0400 (8)
O1C0.0622 (3)0.57733 (12)0.09282 (10)0.0496 (6)
O2C0.0325 (3)0.70113 (11)0.11975 (10)0.0485 (6)
C1C0.0387 (5)0.6464 (2)0.07864 (17)0.0484 (9)
C2C0.0125 (6)0.6669 (2)0.00525 (17)0.0838 (16)
H2CA0.09000.6395−0.02220.126*
H2CB0.02780.7211−0.00080.126*
H2CC−0.09690.6531−0.00800.126*
N1D0.5583 (6)0.62141 (19)0.0885 (2)0.0694 (10)
O1D0.6265 (8)0.5984 (3)0.0407 (2)0.168 (2)
O2D0.4321 (5)0.6575 (2)0.0863 (2)0.1437 (17)
O3D0.6074 (5)0.60806 (17)0.14612 (18)0.0964 (11)
N1E0.4211 (5)0.5970 (2)0.38412 (17)0.0704 (10)
O1E0.3242 (6)0.6491 (2)0.38830 (19)0.1283 (15)
O2E0.4594 (5)0.57261 (18)0.33056 (16)0.1121 (13)
O3E0.4739 (7)0.5703 (3)0.4343 (2)0.185 (2)
O1W0.2877 (3)0.62337 (13)0.21961 (13)0.0465 (5)
H1WA0.365 (3)0.6326 (19)0.1926 (12)0.070*
H1WB0.331 (4)0.609 (2)0.2563 (9)0.070*
O2W0.6949 (5)0.4782 (3)−0.0556 (2)0.1205 (12)
H2WA0.697 (7)0.512 (3)−0.023 (3)0.181*
H2WB0.798 (2)0.472 (4)−0.063 (3)0.181*
Atomic displacement parameters (Å2) top
U11U22U33U12U13U23
Cu10.0451 (2)0.03186 (19)0.0412 (2)0.00363 (18)0.00070 (19)0.00110 (16)
Cu20.0461 (3)0.0317 (2)0.0375 (2)0.00065 (19)0.00004 (18)0.00016 (16)
O10.0360 (15)0.0397 (12)0.0404 (13)−0.0002 (10)0.0018 (12)−0.0036 (9)
N1A0.0398 (16)0.0349 (14)0.0462 (17)−0.0043 (14)−0.0058 (12)0.0033 (12)
N2A0.0482 (18)0.0333 (15)0.0483 (17)0.0039 (14)−0.0027 (14)−0.0022 (13)
C1A0.060 (2)0.053 (2)0.046 (2)−0.004 (2)−0.0040 (19)0.0058 (17)
C2A0.082 (3)0.061 (2)0.050 (2)−0.015 (3)−0.006 (2)0.0122 (18)
C3A0.068 (3)0.051 (3)0.073 (3)−0.021 (2)−0.034 (2)0.025 (2)
C4A0.045 (2)0.042 (2)0.060 (3)−0.0103 (17)−0.0183 (19)0.0061 (17)
C5A0.063 (3)0.0284 (18)0.102 (3)−0.0005 (17)−0.037 (3)0.007 (2)
C6A0.057 (3)0.038 (2)0.104 (3)0.0094 (18)−0.034 (3)−0.015 (2)
C7A0.043 (2)0.0311 (17)0.078 (3)−0.0005 (16)−0.016 (2)−0.0119 (17)
C8A0.053 (3)0.056 (2)0.096 (3)0.009 (2)0.002 (2)−0.035 (2)
C9A0.059 (3)0.056 (2)0.077 (3)0.003 (2)0.020 (2)−0.020 (2)
C10A0.059 (2)0.045 (2)0.062 (3)0.0027 (18)0.0057 (19)−0.0059 (18)
C11A0.0328 (19)0.0343 (18)0.057 (2)−0.0064 (15)−0.0125 (19)−0.0070 (17)
C12A0.037 (2)0.0248 (18)0.064 (2)−0.0085 (16)−0.0166 (18)0.0026 (15)
N1B0.0458 (16)0.0342 (14)0.0446 (16)−0.0001 (12)−0.0023 (14)0.0089 (15)
N2B0.0418 (16)0.0300 (13)0.0403 (14)0.0051 (11)−0.0039 (13)0.0023 (12)
C1B0.052 (2)0.047 (2)0.056 (2)0.0092 (17)0.005 (2)0.0053 (17)
C2B0.044 (2)0.057 (2)0.086 (3)−0.0016 (18)−0.005 (2)0.024 (2)
C3B0.046 (2)0.0313 (19)0.093 (3)0.0042 (17)−0.010 (2)0.007 (2)
C4B0.035 (2)0.0362 (19)0.066 (3)0.0065 (16)−0.0145 (17)0.0028 (17)
C5B0.053 (3)0.040 (2)0.083 (3)0.0015 (19)−0.022 (2)−0.016 (2)
C6B0.067 (3)0.055 (2)0.065 (3)0.010 (2)−0.022 (2)−0.021 (2)
C7B0.049 (2)0.045 (2)0.047 (2)0.0154 (18)−0.0167 (19)−0.0050 (15)
C8B0.070 (3)0.056 (2)0.0381 (19)0.024 (2)−0.0118 (19)−0.0042 (16)
C9B0.064 (3)0.056 (2)0.0383 (19)0.0179 (19)0.0061 (18)0.0078 (16)
C10B0.050 (2)0.0412 (19)0.0481 (19)0.0131 (19)−0.0031 (17)0.0048 (15)
C11B0.041 (2)0.0325 (16)0.0447 (19)0.0117 (15)−0.0156 (16)−0.0012 (14)
C12B0.0408 (19)0.0292 (16)0.050 (2)0.0067 (14)−0.0091 (18)−0.0018 (16)
O1C0.0681 (18)0.0401 (13)0.0404 (13)0.0073 (13)−0.0013 (12)0.0015 (9)
O2C0.0723 (17)0.0350 (11)0.0381 (12)0.0057 (13)−0.0045 (11)0.0026 (10)
C1C0.051 (2)0.055 (2)0.039 (2)0.0018 (19)0.0025 (18)0.0013 (17)
C2C0.142 (5)0.074 (3)0.036 (2)0.010 (3)−0.003 (2)0.0054 (17)
N1D0.080 (3)0.064 (2)0.064 (2)0.000 (2)0.005 (2)0.0021 (18)
O1D0.215 (5)0.189 (4)0.099 (3)0.018 (4)0.066 (4)−0.036 (3)
O2D0.081 (3)0.167 (4)0.183 (4)0.041 (3)0.011 (3)0.081 (3)
O3D0.108 (3)0.079 (2)0.102 (2)0.017 (2)−0.018 (2)−0.0126 (17)
N1E0.084 (3)0.083 (2)0.044 (2)0.023 (2)−0.018 (2)−0.0060 (18)
O1E0.148 (4)0.121 (3)0.116 (3)0.058 (3)0.019 (3)0.004 (2)
O2E0.159 (4)0.114 (2)0.063 (2)0.066 (2)−0.015 (2)−0.0183 (17)
O3E0.217 (6)0.259 (5)0.080 (3)0.132 (4)−0.057 (3)−0.019 (3)
O1W0.0427 (14)0.0495 (13)0.0474 (14)−0.0005 (11)0.0012 (12)0.0018 (12)
O2W0.123 (3)0.134 (3)0.104 (3)0.010 (2)−0.009 (2)0.017 (2)
Geometric parameters (Å, º) top
Cu1—O11.928 (2)N2B—C11B1.361 (4)
Cu1—O1C1.935 (2)C1B—C2B1.391 (5)
Cu1—N2A2.007 (3)C1B—H1B0.9300
Cu1—N1A2.022 (2)C2B—C3B1.372 (5)
Cu1—O1W2.344 (2)C2B—H2B0.9300
Cu2—O11.919 (2)C3B—C4B1.389 (5)
Cu2—O2C1.940 (2)C3B—H3B0.9300
Cu2—N2B1.994 (3)C4B—C12B1.407 (4)
Cu2—N1B2.015 (2)C4B—C5B1.429 (5)
Cu2—O1W2.332 (2)C5B—C6B1.324 (5)
O1—H10.83 (3)C5B—H5B0.9300
N1A—C1A1.324 (4)C6B—C7B1.435 (5)
N1A—C12A1.360 (4)C6B—H6B0.9300
N2A—C10A1.321 (4)C7B—C8B1.392 (5)
N2A—C11A1.358 (4)C7B—C11B1.408 (4)
C1A—C2A1.413 (4)C8B—C9B1.362 (5)
C1A—H1A0.9300C8B—H8B0.9300
C2A—C3A1.349 (6)C9B—C10B1.394 (4)
C2A—H2A0.9300C9B—H9B0.9300
C3A—C4A1.394 (5)C10B—H10B0.9300
C3A—H3A0.9300C11B—C12B1.414 (4)
C4A—C12A1.406 (4)O1C—C1C1.249 (4)
C4A—C5A1.440 (5)O2C—C1C1.253 (4)
C5A—C6A1.346 (5)C1C—C2C1.508 (4)
C5A—H5A0.9300C2C—H2CA0.9600
C6A—C7A1.418 (5)C2C—H2CB0.9600
C6A—H6A0.9300C2C—H2CC0.9600
C7A—C8A1.393 (5)N1D—O1D1.166 (5)
C7A—C11A1.412 (4)N1D—O2D1.206 (5)
C8A—C9A1.352 (5)N1D—O3D1.229 (4)
C8A—H8A0.9300N1E—O3E1.176 (4)
C9A—C10A1.386 (5)N1E—O2E1.182 (4)
C9A—H9A0.9300N1E—O1E1.205 (4)
C10A—H10A0.9300O1W—H1WA0.84 (4)
C11A—C12A1.417 (5)O1W—H1WB0.84 (4)
N1B—C1B1.315 (4)O2W—H2WA0.87 (4)
N1B—C12B1.367 (4)O2W—H2WB0.87 (4)
N2B—C10B1.316 (4)
O1—Cu1—O1C93.62 (9)C1B—N1B—Cu2129.8 (2)
O1—Cu1—N2A174.29 (10)C12B—N1B—Cu2111.7 (2)
O1C—Cu1—N2A88.72 (10)C10B—N2B—C11B117.6 (3)
O1—Cu1—N1A95.08 (10)C10B—N2B—Cu2129.8 (2)
O1C—Cu1—N1A167.71 (10)C11B—N2B—Cu2112.6 (2)
N2A—Cu1—N1A81.85 (11)N1B—C1B—C2B123.1 (4)
O1—Cu1—O1W84.55 (8)N1B—C1B—H1B118.4
O1C—Cu1—O1W96.67 (9)C2B—C1B—H1B118.4
N2A—Cu1—O1W100.36 (10)C3B—C2B—C1B118.2 (4)
N1A—Cu1—O1W92.79 (9)C3B—C2B—H2B120.9
O1—Cu2—O2C94.74 (9)C1B—C2B—H2B120.9
O1—Cu2—N2B93.00 (9)C2B—C3B—C4B121.3 (3)
O2C—Cu2—N2B157.88 (9)C2B—C3B—H3B119.4
O1—Cu2—N1B174.35 (10)C4B—C3B—H3B119.4
O2C—Cu2—N1B90.76 (10)C3B—C4B—C12B116.3 (3)
N2B—Cu2—N1B82.33 (10)C3B—C4B—C5B126.4 (3)
O1—Cu2—O1W85.07 (8)C12B—C4B—C5B117.3 (3)
O2C—Cu2—O1W95.37 (9)C6B—C5B—C4B122.2 (3)
N2B—Cu2—O1W105.93 (9)C6B—C5B—H5B118.9
N1B—Cu2—O1W93.12 (9)C4B—C5B—H5B118.9
Cu2—O1—Cu1100.41 (10)C5B—C6B—C7B122.0 (3)
Cu2—O1—H1113 (2)C5B—C6B—H6B119.0
Cu1—O1—H1112 (2)C7B—C6B—H6B119.0
C1A—N1A—C12A118.8 (3)C8B—C7B—C11B117.3 (3)
C1A—N1A—Cu1129.5 (2)C8B—C7B—C6B125.2 (3)
C12A—N1A—Cu1111.7 (2)C11B—C7B—C6B117.4 (3)
C10A—N2A—C11A118.3 (3)C9B—C8B—C7B119.4 (3)
C10A—N2A—Cu1128.7 (2)C9B—C8B—H8B120.3
C11A—N2A—Cu1112.9 (2)C7B—C8B—H8B120.3
N1A—C1A—C2A121.8 (3)C8B—C9B—C10B119.6 (3)
N1A—C1A—H1A119.1C8B—C9B—H9B120.2
C2A—C1A—H1A119.1C10B—C9B—H9B120.2
C3A—C2A—C1A118.5 (4)N2B—C10B—C9B123.2 (3)
C3A—C2A—H2A120.7N2B—C10B—H10B118.4
C1A—C2A—H2A120.7C9B—C10B—H10B118.4
C2A—C3A—C4A122.1 (3)N2B—C11B—C7B122.9 (3)
C2A—C3A—H3A118.9N2B—C11B—C12B116.8 (3)
C4A—C3A—H3A118.9C7B—C11B—C12B120.3 (3)
C3A—C4A—C12A115.7 (3)N1B—C12B—C4B122.6 (3)
C3A—C4A—C5A126.1 (4)N1B—C12B—C11B116.6 (3)
C12A—C4A—C5A118.2 (4)C4B—C12B—C11B120.9 (3)
C6A—C5A—C4A121.2 (3)C1C—O1C—Cu1127.7 (2)
C6A—C5A—H5A119.4C1C—O2C—Cu2127.4 (2)
C4A—C5A—H5A119.4O1C—C1C—O2C126.4 (3)
C5A—C6A—C7A122.1 (3)O1C—C1C—C2C117.7 (3)
C5A—C6A—H6A118.9O2C—C1C—C2C115.9 (3)
C7A—C6A—H6A118.9C1C—C2C—H2CA109.4
C8A—C7A—C11A116.5 (3)C1C—C2C—H2CB109.5
C8A—C7A—C6A126.0 (4)H2CA—C2C—H2CB109.5
C11A—C7A—C6A117.5 (4)C1C—C2C—H2CC109.5
C9A—C8A—C7A120.4 (3)H2CA—C2C—H2CC109.5
C9A—C8A—H8A119.8H2CB—C2C—H2CC109.5
C7A—C8A—H8A119.8O1D—N1D—O2D123.9 (5)
C8A—C9A—C10A119.8 (4)O1D—N1D—O3D122.0 (5)
C8A—C9A—H9A120.1O2D—N1D—O3D114.1 (4)
C10A—C9A—H9A120.1O3E—N1E—O2E121.0 (4)
N2A—C10A—C9A122.4 (3)O3E—N1E—O1E118.7 (4)
N2A—C10A—H10A118.8O2E—N1E—O1E120.3 (4)
C9A—C10A—H10A118.8Cu2—O1W—Cu178.42 (7)
N2A—C11A—C7A122.6 (3)Cu2—O1W—H1WA121 (2)
N2A—C11A—C12A116.2 (3)Cu1—O1W—H1WA115 (2)
C7A—C11A—C12A121.2 (3)Cu2—O1W—H1WB122 (2)
N1A—C12A—C4A123.0 (3)Cu1—O1W—H1WB111 (2)
N1A—C12A—C11A117.3 (3)H1WA—O1W—H1WB107 (3)
C4A—C12A—C11A119.7 (3)H2WA—O2W—H2WB102 (3)
C1B—N1B—C12B118.4 (3)
Hydrogen-bond geometry (Å, º) top
D—H···AD—HH···AD···AD—H···A
O1—H1···O3Di0.83 (3)2.28 (3)3.107 (4)174 (3)
O1W—H1WA···O2D0.84 (4)2.21 (3)2.943 (5)145 (3)
O1W—H1WA···O3D0.84 (4)2.22 (3)2.994 (5)153 (3)
O1W—H1WB···O2E0.84 (4)1.91 (3)2.745 (4)171 (3)
O2W—H2WA···O1D0.87 (4)2.05 (3)2.881 (6)161 (6)
O2W—H2WB···O3Eii0.87 (4)1.99 (2)2.835 (6)164 (7)
C5A—H5A···O3Diii0.932.523.408 (5)160
C5B—H5B···O3Div0.932.523.402 (5)158
C6B—H6B···O3Ev0.932.513.359 (6)152
Symmetry codes: (i) x−1, y, z; (ii) −x+3/2, −y+1, z−1/2; (iii) −x+1, y−1/2, −z+1/2; (iv) −x+1, y+1/2, −z+1/2; (v) x−1/2, −y+3/2, −z+1.

Experimental details

Crystal data
Chemical formula[Cu2(C2H3O2)(OH)(C12H8N2)2(H2O)](NO3)2·H2O
Mr723.59
Crystal system, space groupOrthorhombic, P212121
Temperature (K)292
a, b, c (Å)8.15051 (15), 17.4091 (3), 19.7447 (4)
V (Å3)2801.63 (9)
Z4
Radiation typeMo Kα
µ (mm−1)1.59
Crystal size (mm)0.35 × 0.20 × 0.15
Data collection
DiffractometerOxford Diffraction Gemini CCD S Ultra
diffractometer
Absorption correctionMulti-scan
(CrysAlis PRO; Oxford Diffraction, 2009)
Tmin, Tmax0.54, 0.73
No. of measured, independent and
observed [I > 2σ(I)] reflections		16045, 5135, 3791
Rint0.029
(sin θ/λ)max (Å−1)0.623
Refinement
R[F2 > 2σ(F2)], wR(F2), S 0.029, 0.054, 0.91
No. of reflections5135
No. of parameters422
No. of restraints7
H-atom treatmentH atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement
Δρmax, Δρmin (e Å−3)0.26, −0.25
Absolute structureFlack, 1983. 1687 Friedel pairs measured
Absolute structure parameter0.001 (9)

Computer programs: CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009), CrysAlis PRO (Oxford Diffraction, 2009), SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 2008), SHELXL97 (Sheldrick, 2008), SHELXTL (Sheldrick, 2008), SHELXL97, PLATON (Spek, 2009).

Hydrogen-bond geometry (Å, º) top
D—H···AD—HH···AD···AD—H···A
O1—H1···O3Di0.83 (3)2.28 (3)3.107 (4)174 (3)
O1W—H1WA···O2D0.84 (4)2.21 (3)2.943 (5)145 (3)
O1W—H1WA···O3D0.84 (4)2.22 (3)2.994 (5)153 (3)
O1W—H1WB···O2E0.84 (4)1.91 (3)2.745 (4)171 (3)
O2W—H2WA···O1D0.87 (4)2.05 (3)2.881 (6)161 (6)
O2W—H2WB···O3Eii0.87 (4)1.99 (2)2.835 (6)164 (7)
C5A—H5A···O3Diii0.932.523.408 (5)160
C5B—H5B···O3Div0.932.523.402 (5)158
C6B—H6B···O3Ev0.932.513.359 (6)152
Symmetry codes: (i) x−1, y, z; (ii) −x+3/2, −y+1, z−1/2; (iii) −x+1, y−1/2, −z+1/2; (iv) −x+1, y+1/2, −z+1/2; (v) x−1/2, −y+3/2, −z+1.
Table 2. π-π contacts (Å, °) for (1) top
Group_1/Group_2ccd(Å)da(°)pcd(Å)
Cg1···Cg2i3.533 (2)1.87 (17)3.37 (2)
Cg5···Cg6i3.614 (2)2.29 (17)3.35 (3)
Cg1···Cg4i4.093 (2)3.06 (17)3.37 (5)
Cg2···Cg3ii3.628 (2)1.32 (17)3.35 (2)
Cg3···Cg6i3.578 (2)1.68 (17)3.39 (2)
Cg4···Cg5iii4.070 (2)3.16 (17)3.33 (2)
Symmetry codes: (i) = -x,-1/2+y,1/2-z; (ii) = 1-x,1/2+y,1/2-z; (iii) = -x,1/2+y,1/2-z;

Centroid code: as in Fig. 1.

ccd: centroid-to-centroid distance; da: dihedral angle between rings; pcd: (mean) centroid to opposite plane distance. (For details, see Janiak 2000)
Table 3. Comparison of cell parameters for I, II and III. top
Compounda (Å)b (Å)c (Å)
I *8.1505 (2)17.4091 (3)19.7447 (4)
II **8.3452 (2) (2.38%)17.7730 (2) (2.21%)19.8477 (2) (0.52%)
III ***8.3526 (5) (2.48%)17.8236 (12) (2.38%)19.9074 (13) (0.82%)
Percent values refer to differences with compound I herein reported

* This work ;** Youngme et al., 2008; *** Chailuecha et al., 2006.
 

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge ANPCyT (project No. PME 01113) for the purchase of the CCD diffractometer and the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) for providing a free-of-charge licence to the Cambridge Strcutural Database (Allen, 2002[Allen, F. H. (2002). Acta Cryst. B58, 380-388.]). This work was also supported by CAI+D and UNL. RC is a member of the research staff of CONICET.

References

First citationAddison, A. W., Rao, T. N., van Reedijk, J., Rijn, J. & Verschoor, G. C. (1984). J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. pp. 1349–1356.  CSD CrossRef Web of Science Google Scholar
 First citationAllen, F. H. (2002). Acta Cryst. B58, 380–388.  Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
 First citationBleaney, V. & Bowers, K. D. (1952). Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 214, 451–465.  CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
 First citationChadjistamatis, I., Terzis, A., Raptopoulou, C. P. & Perlepes, S. P. (2003). Inorg. Chem. Commun. 6, 1365–1371.  CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
 First citationChailuecha, C., Youngme, S., Pakawatchai, C., Chaichit, N., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2006). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 359, 4168–4178.  Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
 First citationChen, Y., Du, S.-C., Liu, Z.-F., Hong, H.-L. & Chen, J.-Z. (2008). Z. Kristallogr. New Cryst. Struct. 223, 92–94.  CAS Google Scholar
 First citationChen, L., Wang, X.-W., Chen, J.-Z. & Liu, J.-H. (2007). Z. Naturforsch. Teil B, 62, 1271–1276.  CAS Google Scholar
 First citationChristou, G., Perlepes, S. P., Folting, K., Huffman, J. C., Webb, R. J. & Hendrickson, D. N. (1990). Chem. Commun. pp. 746–747.  CrossRef Google Scholar
 First citationFlack, H. D. (1983). Acta Cryst. A39, 876–881.  CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
 First citationGiamarchi, T., Rüegg, C. & Tchernyshyov, O. (2008). Nat. Phys. 4, 198–204.  CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
 First citationJaniak, C. (2000). J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. pp. 3885–3898.  Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
 First citationKahn, O. (1993). In Molecular Magnetism. New York: VCH.  Google Scholar
 First citationNapolitano, L. M. B., Nascimento, O. R., Cabaleiro, S., Castro, J. & Calvo, R. (2008). Phys. Rev. B, 77, 214423.  CrossRef Google Scholar
 First citationOxford Diffraction (2009). CrysAlis PRO. Oxford Diffraction Ltd, Yarnton, Oxfordshire, England.  Google Scholar
 First citationPerec, M., Baggio, R., Sartoris, R. P., Santana, R. C., Peña, O. & Calvo, R. (2010). Inorg. Chem. 49, 695–703.  Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
 First citationSgarabotto, P., Bisceglie, F., Pelosi, G. & Abdel-Rahman, L. (1999). Polyhedron, 18, 2505–2510.  CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
 First citationSheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112–122.  Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
 First citationSpek, A. L. (2009). Acta Cryst. D65, 148–155.  Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
 First citationYoungme, S., Phatchimkun, J., Wannarit, N., Chaichit, N., Meejoo, S., van Albada, G. A. & Reedijk, J. (2008). Polyhedron, 27, 304–318.  Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.

Journal logoSTRUCTURAL
CHEMISTRY
ISSN: 2053-2296
Volume 67| Part 5| May 2011| Pages m130-m133
doi:10.1107/S0108270111011048
Follow Acta Cryst. C
Sign up for e-alerts
E-alerts
Follow Acta Cryst. on Twitter
Twitter
Follow us on facebook
Facebook
Sign up for RSS feeds
RSS