research communications
N,N′-Bis(pyridin-4-ylmethyl)oxalamide benzene monosolvate: Hirshfeld surface analysis and computational study
aResearch Centre for Crystalline Materials, School of Science and Technology, Sunway University, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, and bDepartment of Chemistry, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom
*Correspondence e-mail: edwardt@sunway.edu.my
The 14H14N4O2·C6H6 [systematic name of the oxalamide molecule: N,N′-bis(pyridin-4-ylmethyl)ethanediamide], comprises a half molecule of each constituent as each is disposed about a centre of inversion. In the oxalamide molecule, the central C2N2O2 atoms are planar (r.m.s. deviation = 0.0006 Å). An intramolecular amide-N—H⋯O(amide) hydrogen bond is evident, which gives rise to an S(5) loop. Overall, the molecule adopts an antiperiplanar disposition of the pyridyl rings, and an orthogonal relationship is evident between the central plane and each terminal pyridyl ring [dihedral angle = 86.89 (3)°]. In the crystal, supramolecular layers parallel to (10) are generated owing the formation of amide-N—H⋯N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonds. The layers stack encompassing benzene molecules which provide the links between layers via methylene-C—H⋯π(benzene) and benzene-C—H⋯π(pyridyl) interactions. The specified contacts are indicated in an analysis of the calculated Hirshfeld surfaces. The energy of stabilization provided by the conventional hydrogen bonding (approximately 40 kJ mol−1; electrostatic forces) is just over double that by the C—H⋯π contacts (dispersion forces).
of the title 1:1 solvate, CKeywords: crystal structure; bis(4-pyridylmethyl)oxalamide; benzene solvate; hydrogen bonding; Hirshfeld surface analysis; computational chemistry.
CCDC reference: 1938031
1. Chemical context
With a combination of centrally located amide and terminal pyridyl functional groups, the isomeric molecules related to the title compound of the general formula (n-C5H4N)CH2N(H)C(=O)C(=O)N(H)CH2(C5H4N-n), for n = 2, 3 and 4, abbreviated as nLH2, have long attracted the attention of structural chemists and their structural chemistry has been reviewed very recently (Tiekink, 2017). Taking the 3LH2 species as an exemplar, its 1:1 with N,N′-dicarboxymethylurea, HO2CCH2N(H)C(=O)N(H)CH2CO2H, features two distinct supramolecular tapes sustained by N—H⋯O hydrogen bonding. The first of these arises from amide-N—H⋯O(amide) hydrogen bonding between the amide groups, on both sides of the 3LH2 molecule, through ten-membered amide synthons {⋯HNC2O}2 (Nguyen et al., 2001). Parallel tapes comprising N,N′-dicarboxymethylurea molecules, sustained by six-membered {⋯O⋯HNCNH} synthons, are also formed. The links between the tapes leading to a two-dimensional array are of the type hydroxy-O—H⋯N(pyridyl). Molecules of nLH2 also featured prominently in early, systematic studies of halogen bonding. An illustrative example is found in the 1:1 formed between 3LH2 and 1,4-di-iodobuta-1,3-diyne, I—C≡C—C≡C—C—I (Goroff et al., 2005). A two-dimensional array is also found in this whereby supramolecular tapes between 3LH2 molecules are formed as for the previous example and these are connected by N⋯I halogen bonding. In the crystals of both polymorphs of pure 3LH2 (Jotani et al., 2016), similar supramolecular tapes mediated by amide hydrogen bonding are formed. However, that this mode of supramolecular association is not all pervasive in the nLH2 systems is seen the structures of the two polymorphs of pure 4LH2 (Lee & Wang, 2007; Lee, 2010). In one of the polymorphs of this isomer, supramolecular dimers are formed via amide-N—H⋯O(amide) hydrogen bonding and these are linked into a two-dimensional array via amide-N–H⋯N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonds (Lee & Wang, 2007). In the second polymorph, all potential amide-N—H and pyridyl-N donors and acceptors associate via amide-N–H⋯N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonds to generate a two-dimensional array. In this context, and in the context of recent work on 4LH2 in co-crystals (Syed et al., 2016) and adducts of zinc 1,1-dithiolates (Arman et al., 2018; Tan, Chun et al., 2019), it was thought of interest to conduct a polymorph screen for 4LH2. From a series of crystallizations of 4LH2 taken in dimethylformamide and layered with benzene, o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene, toluene, pyridine and cyclohexane in separate experiments, only crystals of the title benzene solvate, (I), were isolated. Herein, the crystal and molecular structures of (I) are described along with a further evaluation of the supramolecular association via an analysis of the calculated Hirshfeld surfaces as well as a computational chemistry study.
2. Structural commentary
The title is the result of crystallization of 4LH2, taken in dimethylformaide, with benzene. The crystallographic comprises half a molecule each of 4LH2 and benzene, Fig. 1, each being disposed about a crystallographic centre of inversion. The central C2N2O2 plane is strictly planar with the r.m.s. deviation of the fitted atoms being 0.0006 Å; the C7 atoms lie 0.0020 (16) Å to either side of the plane. An intramolecular amide-N—H⋯O(amide)i hydrogen bond, occurring between the symmetry related amide groups, gives rise to an S(5) loop, Table 1; (i) 1 − x, 1 − y, − z. The also implies an antiperiplanar disposition of the pyridyl rings. The dihedral angle between the central plane and terminal pyridyl ring is 86.89 (3)°, indicating an orthogonal relationship.
(I)3. Supramolecular features
The geometric parameters characterizing the interatomic contacts identified in the crystal of (I) are given in Table 1. The key feature of the molecular packing is the formation of amide-N—H⋯N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonding. This generates a two-dimensional, rectangular grid lying parallel to (10), Fig. 2(a), with dimensions defined by O10⋯O10 and N8⋯N8 separations of 9.6770 (11) and 12.3255 (11) Å, respectively. The other notable contacts in the crystal are of the type C—H⋯π, Table 1. Thus, methylene-C7—H⋯π(benzene) and benzene-C11—H⋯π(pyridyl) interactions are formed. From symmetry, each benzene molecule forms four, i.e. two (as acceptor) and two (as donor), such interactions, Fig. 2(b). The side-on view of Fig. 2(b) shown in Fig. 2(c) indicates the amide-N—H and pyridyl-N project in all directions around the five-molecule aggregate. Indeed, it is the C—H⋯π interactions that connect the layers into a three-dimensional architecture, Fig. 2(d).
Upon removing the benzene molecules within a 2 × 2 × 2 set of unit cells, the packing was subjected to a calculation of solvent-accessible void space in Mercury (Macrae et al., 2006) with a probing radius of 1.2 Å. The results showed that the packing devoid of benzene comprises approximately 25.8% of the volume which is equivalent to 227.3 Å3 of void space, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
4. Hirshfeld surface analysis and computational study
To gain a better understanding of the nature of the intermolecular interactions identified in (I), the overall structure of (I) as well as the individual 4LH2 and benzene molecules were subjected to a Hirshfeld surface analysis using Crystal Explorer 17 (Turner et al., 2017) based on the procedures as described in the literature (Tan, Jotani et al., 2019).
The Hirshfeld surface mapped over dnorm map of 4LH2 displays several red spots, that range from intense to weak, which reflect the interactions identified in the crystal (Spackman & Jayatilaka, 2009). The intense red spots arise from amide-N—H⋯N(pyridyl) hydrogen bonds while the diminutive spots originate from methylene-C7—H7B⋯π(benzene) interactions, Fig. 4(a), with both indicative of contact distances shorter than the respective sum of the van der Waals radii. Reflecting the relatively long separation, the benzene-C11—H11⋯π(pyridyl) interaction is reflected as only a white spot as the contact distance is only just within the sum of van der Waals radii, as shown in Fig. 4(b).
The C—H⋯π interactions were subjected to electrostatic potential mapping for verification purposes. The result shows that the methylene-C7—H7B⋯π(benzene) contact is indeed electrostatic in nature as revealed by the distinct blue (i.e. electropositive) and red (i.e. electronegative) colour scheme on the surface of the contact points, Fig. 5(a). In contrast, the benzene-C11—H11⋯π(pyridyl) contact displays pale colouration around the contact zone suggesting that the interaction could be attributed to weak dispersion forces, Fig. 5(b).
The two-dimensional fingerprint plots were generated for overall (I) as well as its individual molecules to quantify the close contacts identified through the Hirshfeld surface analysis, see Fig. 6(a)–(e). As shown in the overall fingerprint plot in Fig. 6(a), (I) exhibits a bug-like profile with distinctive symmetrical spikes which are similar to those exhibited by the individual 4LH2 molecule, therefore indicating that the intermolecular interactions in (I) are mainly sustained by 4LH2 molecules. Decomposition of the overall fingerprint plots of (I) shows that the contacts are mainly dominated by H⋯H (45.1%; di + de ∼2.42 Å), H⋯C/C⋯H (26.6%; di + de ∼2.66 Å), H⋯O/O⋯H (14.4%; di + de ∼2.58 Å), H⋯N/N⋯H (13.1%; di + de ∼1.88 Å) and other contacts (0.8%). Except for the H⋯H contacts, to differing extents, the remaining major contacts are shorter than the corresponding sum of van der Waals radii for H⋯C (∼2.90 Å), H⋯O (∼2.72 Å) and H⋯N (∼2.75 Å).
The individual 4LH2 molecule exhibits at similar distribution of the major contacts compared to overall (I). However, some distinctions are observed on the external and internal contacts upon further delineation of the corresponding decomposed fingerprint plots. While the distribution is rather symmetric in overall (I), for 4LH2 these are either inclined towards the external or internal contacts presumably due to interaction with the solvent benzene molecule. For instance, the H⋯C/C⋯H contact in the individual 4LH2 molecule comprises 9.9% (internal)-H⋯C-(external) and 14.6% (internal)-C⋯H-(external) contacts as compared to 12.0 and 14.6% for the equivalent contacts in overall (I), Fig. 6(c). Similar observations pertain for the H⋯O/ O⋯H and H⋯N/ N⋯H interactions, Fig. 6(d)–(e).
As for the benzene molecule, an irregular fingerprint profile is noted with the distribution dominated by H⋯H (46.4%) and H⋯C/ C⋯H (41.9%) surface contacts. The latter are almost equally distributed between the internal and external contacts, i.e. 20.5% for (internal)-H⋯C-(external) and 21.4% for (internal)-C⋯H-(external) contacts. In addition, the solvent molecules are sustained in the molecular architecture through minor contributions from H⋯O (5.6%) and H⋯N (5.9%) contacts, respectively. These interactions are at distances of ∼2.52 Å (H⋯H), ∼2.92 Å (H⋯C/C⋯H), ∼2.98 Å (H⋯O) and ∼2.79 Å (H⋯N), which are greater than the corresponding sum of van der Waals radii, indicating the identified C—H⋯π(benzene and pyridyl) interactions can largely be considered as localized interactions.
5. Computational chemistry study
The calculation of interaction energy was performed using Crystal Explorer 17 based on the procedures as described previously (Tan, Jotani et al., 2019). As expected, the greatest interaction energy in the crystal of (I) is found for the amide-N—H⋯N(pyridyl) contact having a total energy (Eint) of −38.1 kJ mol−1, Table 2. This is followed by methylene-C7—H7B⋯π(benzene) and benzene-C11—H11⋯π(pyridyl) contacts with a very similar Eint values of −18.9 and −16.9 kJ mol−1, respectively, despite the dnorm contact distance being significantly greater for the latter. The calculation results reveal that the repulsion energy is greater in methylene-C7—H7B⋯π(benzene) compared with the benzene-C11—H11⋯π(pyridyl) contact, which contributes to the slight variation in their Eint values. In short, the N—H⋯N interaction is stabilized largely by electrostatic forces while the C—H⋯π interactions are stabilized largely by dispersion forces. Overall, the crystal of (I) is dominated by electrostatic forces that form a cross-shaped energy framework that encompasses the void space in the This framework is further stabilized by dispersion forces that co-exist within the void owing to the weaker interactions between the solvent molecules with the host, Fig. 7(a)–(c).
|
Calculations were also performed to compare the molecular packing similarity of (I) with the two polymorphic forms of 4LH2 available in the literature (Lee & Wang, 2007; Lee, 2010). Molecular clusters of (I), Form I and Form II containing 20 4LH2 molecules each were subjected to molecular packing analysis using Mercury (Macrae et al., 2006), with the geometric tolerances being set to 20% (i.e. only molecules within the 20% tolerance for both distances and angles were included in the calculation and molecules with a variation >20% were discarded); molecular inversions were enabled during calculation. The result shows that out of the 20 molecules in the cluster, only one 4LH2 molecule in each polymorph resembled the reference packing in (I) with an r.m.s. deviation of 0.587 and 0.403 Å, respectively, Fig. 8(a) and (b). The result clearly demonstrates the influence of solvent molecule upon the molecular packing in (I).
Finally, and referring to Fig. 9, (I) and the two polymorphic forms of 4LH2 exhibit a close similarity in the distribution of molecular contacts as judged from the percentage contribution of the corresponding contacts on the Hirshfeld surface. The maximum variation in the distribution of H⋯H, H⋯C/C⋯H, H⋯O/O⋯H and H⋯N/N⋯H contacts ranged from 7.1, 4.9, 2.2 and 3.8%, respectively among the three crystals.
6. Database survey
As mentioned in the Chemical Context, there are two polymorphs available for 4LH2 (Lee & Wang, 2007; Lee, 2010). In Form I (Lee & Wang, 2007), two independent molecules comprise the whereas in Form II (Lee, 2010), half a centrosymmetric molecule comprises the Selected geometric parameters for the polymorphs and (I) are given in Table 3. To a first approximation, the molecular structures present the same geometric features, i.e. a planar central region and an antiperiplanar relationship between the pyridyl rings. It is noted that the central C—C bond is relatively long, a consistent observation traced to the influence of electronegative carbonyl-O and amide-N substituents and confirmed by DFT calculations in the case of polymorphic 3LH2 (Jotani et al., 2016) and in the sulfur analogues of 3LH2, i.e. (n-C5H4N)CH2N(H)C(=S)C(=S)N(H)CH2(C5H4N-n), for n = 2, 3 and 4 (Zukerman-Schpector et al., 2015). The similarity between the four molecules of 4LH2 in its polymorphs and benzene solvate are highlighted in Fig. 10.
|
7. Synthesis and crystallization
The precursor, N,N′-bis(pyridin-4-ylmethyl)oxalamide, was prepared in accordance with the literature procedure (m.p. 486.3–487.6 K; lit. 486–487 K; Nguyen et al., 1998): it (0.0015 g) was dissolved in DMF (0.5 ml) and then carefully layered in different experiments with 2 ml of benzene, o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene, toluene, pyridine and cyclohexane. Among these solvent systems, only the DMF–benzene mixture resulted in colourless crystals of the benzene solvate, (I); m.p. 411.4–413.7 K. IR (cm−1): 3322 ν(N—H), 3141–2804 ν(C—H), 1696–1661 ν(C=O), 1563–1515 ν(C=C), 1414 ν(C—N), 794 δ(C=C).
8. Refinement
Crystal data, data collection and structure . The carbon-bound H atoms were placed in calculated positions (C—H = 0.95–0.99 Å) and were included in the in the riding-model approximation, with Uiso(H) set to 1.2Ueq(C). The nitrogen-bound H atom was located from difference-Fourier maps and refined with N—H = 0.88±0.01 Å, and with Uiso(H) set to 1.2Ueq(N).
details are summarized in Table 4
|
Supporting information
CCDC reference: 1938031
https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989019009551/hb7835sup1.cif
contains datablocks I, global. DOI:Structure factors: contains datablock I. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989019009551/hb7835Isup2.hkl
Supporting information file. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989019009551/hb7835Isup3.cml
Data collection: CrysAlis PRO (Rigaku OD, 2015); cell
CrysAlis PRO (Rigaku OD, 2015); data reduction: CrysAlis PRO (Rigaku OD, 2015); program(s) used to solve structure: SHELXT (Sheldrick, 2015a); program(s) used to refine structure: SHELXL2018 (Sheldrick, 2015b); molecular graphics: ORTEP-3 for Windows (Farrugia, 2012), OLEX2 (Dolomanov et al., 2009), Mercury (Macrae et al., 2006), DIAMOND (Brandenburg, 2006) and QMol (Gans & Shalloway, 2001); software used to prepare material for publication: publCIF (Westrip, 2010).C14H14N4O2·C6H6 | F(000) = 368 |
Mr = 348.40 | Dx = 1.313 Mg m−3 |
Monoclinic, P21/c | Cu Kα radiation, λ = 1.54184 Å |
a = 5.80832 (8) Å | Cell parameters from 5470 reflections |
b = 12.6437 (2) Å | θ = 3.7–76.1° |
c = 12.1803 (2) Å | µ = 0.71 mm−1 |
β = 99.942 (1)° | T = 100 K |
V = 881.07 (2) Å3 | Block, colourless |
Z = 2 | 0.27 × 0.22 × 0.16 mm |
Rigaku Oxford Diffraction SuperNova, Dual, Cu at zero, AtlasS2 diffractometer | 1838 independent reflections |
Radiation source: micro-focus sealed X-ray tube, SuperNova (Cu) X-ray Source | 1741 reflections with I > 2σ(I) |
Mirror monochromator | Rint = 0.018 |
Detector resolution: 5.2303 pixels mm-1 | θmax = 76.3°, θmin = 5.1° |
ω scans | h = −7→6 |
Absorption correction: multi-scan (CrysAlis PRO; Rigaku OD, 2015) | k = −15→15 |
Tmin = 0.917, Tmax = 1.000 | l = −14→15 |
7547 measured reflections |
Refinement on F2 | Primary atom site location: structure-invariant direct methods |
Least-squares matrix: full | Secondary atom site location: difference Fourier map |
R[F2 > 2σ(F2)] = 0.034 | Hydrogen site location: mixed |
wR(F2) = 0.092 | H atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement |
S = 1.03 | w = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.052P)2 + 0.2834P] where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3 |
1838 reflections | (Δ/σ)max < 0.001 |
121 parameters | Δρmax = 0.26 e Å−3 |
1 restraint | Δρmin = −0.22 e Å−3 |
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. |
x | y | z | Uiso*/Ueq | ||
O10 | 0.38046 (13) | 0.37705 (6) | 0.02822 (6) | 0.02248 (19) | |
N1 | 1.08230 (15) | 0.16191 (7) | 0.27845 (7) | 0.0201 (2) | |
N8 | 0.60308 (14) | 0.49128 (6) | 0.14611 (7) | 0.01478 (19) | |
H8N | 0.681 (2) | 0.5518 (8) | 0.1539 (10) | 0.018* | |
C2 | 0.90416 (19) | 0.16751 (8) | 0.33490 (9) | 0.0212 (2) | |
H2 | 0.886428 | 0.111791 | 0.385095 | 0.025* | |
C3 | 0.74433 (18) | 0.24969 (8) | 0.32443 (8) | 0.0182 (2) | |
H3 | 0.619613 | 0.249378 | 0.365660 | 0.022* | |
C4 | 0.76959 (16) | 0.33301 (7) | 0.25225 (8) | 0.0146 (2) | |
C5 | 0.95261 (17) | 0.32732 (8) | 0.19256 (8) | 0.0166 (2) | |
H5 | 0.974925 | 0.381952 | 0.141884 | 0.020* | |
C6 | 1.10251 (17) | 0.24105 (8) | 0.20768 (8) | 0.0179 (2) | |
H6 | 1.225774 | 0.237994 | 0.165662 | 0.022* | |
C7 | 0.60511 (16) | 0.42643 (8) | 0.24442 (8) | 0.0154 (2) | |
H7A | 0.444777 | 0.400031 | 0.244779 | 0.018* | |
H7B | 0.649954 | 0.471177 | 0.311395 | 0.018* | |
C9 | 0.49063 (16) | 0.46013 (7) | 0.04685 (8) | 0.0152 (2) | |
C11 | 0.4304 (2) | 0.59937 (9) | 0.45845 (8) | 0.0238 (2) | |
H11 | 0.382675 | 0.667329 | 0.429930 | 0.029* | |
C12 | 0.27389 (19) | 0.51554 (9) | 0.44356 (9) | 0.0244 (2) | |
H12 | 0.119021 | 0.526258 | 0.404969 | 0.029* | |
C13 | 0.3429 (2) | 0.41613 (9) | 0.48487 (9) | 0.0240 (2) | |
H13 | 0.235695 | 0.358784 | 0.474473 | 0.029* |
U11 | U22 | U33 | U12 | U13 | U23 | |
O10 | 0.0285 (4) | 0.0190 (4) | 0.0182 (4) | −0.0090 (3) | −0.0007 (3) | 0.0018 (3) |
N1 | 0.0205 (4) | 0.0181 (4) | 0.0208 (4) | 0.0028 (3) | 0.0012 (3) | 0.0003 (3) |
N8 | 0.0163 (4) | 0.0123 (4) | 0.0153 (4) | −0.0007 (3) | 0.0016 (3) | 0.0012 (3) |
C2 | 0.0249 (5) | 0.0181 (5) | 0.0202 (5) | 0.0010 (4) | 0.0027 (4) | 0.0047 (4) |
C3 | 0.0195 (5) | 0.0190 (5) | 0.0166 (5) | −0.0002 (4) | 0.0041 (4) | 0.0013 (4) |
C4 | 0.0152 (4) | 0.0151 (5) | 0.0126 (4) | −0.0010 (3) | −0.0007 (3) | −0.0016 (3) |
C5 | 0.0174 (5) | 0.0164 (5) | 0.0156 (5) | −0.0016 (4) | 0.0019 (4) | 0.0005 (3) |
C6 | 0.0168 (5) | 0.0191 (5) | 0.0177 (5) | −0.0001 (4) | 0.0024 (4) | −0.0019 (4) |
C7 | 0.0166 (4) | 0.0161 (5) | 0.0136 (4) | 0.0008 (3) | 0.0031 (3) | 0.0003 (3) |
C9 | 0.0146 (4) | 0.0148 (5) | 0.0161 (5) | 0.0011 (3) | 0.0025 (4) | 0.0012 (4) |
C11 | 0.0337 (6) | 0.0228 (5) | 0.0169 (5) | 0.0095 (4) | 0.0098 (4) | 0.0043 (4) |
C12 | 0.0201 (5) | 0.0372 (6) | 0.0164 (5) | 0.0070 (4) | 0.0050 (4) | 0.0025 (4) |
C13 | 0.0289 (6) | 0.0275 (6) | 0.0175 (5) | −0.0041 (4) | 0.0091 (4) | −0.0014 (4) |
O10—C9 | 1.2305 (12) | C5—C6 | 1.3879 (14) |
N1—C2 | 1.3394 (14) | C5—H5 | 0.9500 |
N1—C6 | 1.3391 (13) | C6—H6 | 0.9500 |
N8—C9 | 1.3307 (13) | C7—H7A | 0.9900 |
N8—C7 | 1.4496 (12) | C7—H7B | 0.9900 |
N8—H8N | 0.886 (8) | C9—C9i | 1.5406 (18) |
C2—C3 | 1.3845 (14) | C11—C12 | 1.3876 (17) |
C2—H2 | 0.9500 | C11—C13ii | 1.3911 (16) |
C3—C4 | 1.3961 (14) | C11—H11 | 0.9500 |
C3—H3 | 0.9500 | C12—C13 | 1.3871 (16) |
C4—C5 | 1.3895 (14) | C12—H12 | 0.9500 |
C4—C7 | 1.5118 (13) | C13—H13 | 0.9500 |
C2—N1—C6 | 116.89 (9) | N8—C7—C4 | 114.14 (8) |
C9—N8—C7 | 121.05 (8) | N8—C7—H7A | 108.7 |
C9—N8—H8N | 121.0 (8) | C4—C7—H7A | 108.7 |
C7—N8—H8N | 118.0 (8) | N8—C7—H7B | 108.7 |
N1—C2—C3 | 123.89 (9) | C4—C7—H7B | 108.7 |
N1—C2—H2 | 118.1 | H7A—C7—H7B | 107.6 |
C3—C2—H2 | 118.1 | O10—C9—N8 | 125.33 (9) |
C2—C3—C4 | 118.86 (9) | O10—C9—C9i | 121.53 (11) |
C2—C3—H3 | 120.6 | N8—C9—C9i | 113.14 (10) |
C4—C3—H3 | 120.6 | C12—C11—C13ii | 119.98 (10) |
C5—C4—C3 | 117.62 (9) | C12—C11—H11 | 120.0 |
C5—C4—C7 | 122.66 (9) | C13ii—C11—H11 | 120.0 |
C3—C4—C7 | 119.70 (9) | C13—C12—C11 | 120.20 (10) |
C4—C5—C6 | 119.36 (9) | C13—C12—H12 | 119.9 |
C4—C5—H5 | 120.3 | C11—C12—H12 | 119.9 |
C6—C5—H5 | 120.3 | C12—C13—C11ii | 119.82 (11) |
N1—C6—C5 | 123.37 (9) | C12—C13—H13 | 120.1 |
N1—C6—H6 | 118.3 | C11ii—C13—H13 | 120.1 |
C5—C6—H6 | 118.3 | ||
C6—N1—C2—C3 | −0.44 (15) | C9—N8—C7—C4 | 76.76 (11) |
N1—C2—C3—C4 | −0.91 (16) | C5—C4—C7—N8 | 19.14 (13) |
C2—C3—C4—C5 | 1.46 (14) | C3—C4—C7—N8 | −162.91 (8) |
C2—C3—C4—C7 | −176.60 (9) | C7—N8—C9—O10 | 0.23 (15) |
C3—C4—C5—C6 | −0.74 (14) | C7—N8—C9—C9i | −179.96 (9) |
C7—C4—C5—C6 | 177.26 (8) | C13ii—C11—C12—C13 | −0.13 (17) |
C2—N1—C6—C5 | 1.23 (15) | C11—C12—C13—C11ii | 0.13 (17) |
C4—C5—C6—N1 | −0.64 (15) |
Symmetry codes: (i) −x+1, −y+1, −z; (ii) −x+1, −y+1, −z+1. |
Cg1 is the centroid of the centrosymmetric (C11–C13,C11i–C13i) ring. Cg2 is the ring centroid of the (N1, C2–C5) ring. |
D—H···A | D—H | H···A | D···A | D—H···A |
N8—H8N···O10i | 0.89 (1) | 2.36 (1) | 2.7129 (11) | 104 (1) |
N8—H8N···N1iii | 0.89 (1) | 2.03 (1) | 2.8737 (12) | 159 (1) |
C7—H7B···Cg1 | 0.99 | 2.62 | 3.4037 (11) | 136 |
C11—H11···Cg2iv | 0.95 | 2.90 | 3.6361 (11) | 136 |
Symmetry codes: (i) −x+1, −y+1, −z; (iii) −x+2, y+1/2, −z+1/2; (iv) −x+1, y+1/2, −z+1/2. |
Close contact | Eelectrostatic | Epolarization | Edispersion | Eexchange-repulsion | Etotal | Symmetry operation |
N8—H8···N1 | -45.0 | -12.2 | -17.5 | 54.7 | -38.1 | -x + 2, y + 1/2, -z + 1/2 |
C7—H7B···Cg(benzene) | -10.1 | -2.1 | -23.7 | 22.6 | -18.9 | x, y, z |
C11—H11···Cg(pyridyl) | -5.2 | -1.1 | -15.3 | 4.4 | -16.9 | -x + 1, y + 1/2, -z + 1/2 |
Crystal | Z | central-C—C-central | C2N2O2/C5H4N | C2N2O2/C5H4N | Ref. |
Form I – molecule a | 2 | 1.541 (3) | 84.59 (6) & 80.33 (4) | 4.90 (6) | Lee & Wang (2007) |
Form I – molecule b | 1.541 (3) | 70.20 (5) & 68.01 (5) | 6.68 (6) | ||
Form II | 0.5 | 1.532 (2) | 74.78 (4) | 0 | Lee (2010) |
Benzene solvate (I) | 0.5 | 1.5406 (18) | 86.89 (3) | 0 | This work |
Footnotes
‡Additional correspondence author, e-mail: alant@sunway.edu.my.
Funding information
Crystallographic research at Sunway University is supported by Sunway University Sdn Bhd (grant No. STR-RCTR-RCCM-001–2019).
References
Arman, H. D., Poplaukhin, P. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2018). Z. Kristallogr. New Cryst. Struct. 233, 159–161. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Brandenburg, K. (2006). DIAMOND. Crystal Impact GbR, Bonn, Germany. Google Scholar
Dolomanov, O. V., Bourhis, L. J., Gildea, R. J., Howard, J. A. K. & Puschmann, H. (2009). J. Appl. Cryst. 42, 339–341. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Farrugia, L. J. (2012). J. Appl. Cryst. 45, 849–854. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gans, J. & Shalloway, D. (2001). J. Mol. Graph. Model. 19, 557–559. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Goroff, N. S., Curtis, S. M., Webb, J. A., Fowler, F. W. & Lauher, J. W. (2005). Org. Lett. 7, 1891–1893. Web of Science CSD CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Jotani, M. M., Zukerman-Schpector, J., Sousa Madureira, L., Poplaukhin, P., Arman, H. D., Miller, T. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2016). Z. Kristallogr. 231, 415–425. CAS Google Scholar
Lee, G.-H. (2010). Acta Cryst. C66, o241–o244. Web of Science CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lee, G.-H. & Wang, H.-T. (2007). Acta Cryst. C63, m216–m219. Web of Science CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Macrae, C. F., Edgington, P. R., McCabe, P., Pidcock, E., Shields, G. P., Taylor, R., Towler, M. & van de Streek, J. (2006). J. Appl. Cryst. 39, 453–457. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. L., Fowler, F. W. & Lauher, J. W. (2001). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 11057–11064. Web of Science CSD CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. L., Scott, A., Dinkelmeyer, B., Fowler, F. W. & Lauher, J. W. (1998). New J. Chem. 22, 129–135. CSD CrossRef Google Scholar
Rigaku OD (2015). CrysAlis PRO. Rigaku Oxford Diffraction, Yarnton, England. Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2015a). Acta Cryst. A71, 3–8. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2015b). Acta Cryst. C71, 3–8. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Spackman, M. A. & Jayatilaka, D. (2009). CrystEngComm, 11, 19–32. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Syed, S., Jotani, M. M., Halim, S. N. A. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2016). Acta Cryst. E72, 391–398. Web of Science CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Tan, S. L., Jotani, M. M. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2019). Acta Cryst. E75, 308–318. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Tan, Y. S., Chun, H. Z., Jotani, M. M. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2019). Z. Kristallogr. Cryst. Mater. 234, 165–175. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Tiekink, E. R. T. (2017). Multi-Component Crystals: Synthesis, Concepts, Function, edited by E. R. T. Tiekink & J. Schpector-Zukerman, pp. 289–319. De Gruyter: Singapore. Google Scholar
Turner, M. J., Mckinnon, J. J., Wolff, S. K., Grimwood, D. J., Spackman, P. R., Jayatilaka, D. & Spackman, M. A. (2017). Crystal Explorer 17. The University of Western Australia. Google Scholar
Westrip, S. P. (2010). J. Appl. Cryst. 43, 920–925. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zukerman-Schpector, J., Sousa Madureira, L., Poplaukhin, P., Arman, H. D., Miller, T. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2015). Z. Kristallogr. Cryst. Mater. 230, 531–541. CAS Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.