research communications
3,3-Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-(4-methylbenzoyl)thiourea:
Hirshfeld surface analysis and computational studyaResearch Centre for Crystalline Materials, School of Science and Technology, Sunway University, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, and bDepartment of Physics, Bhavan's Sheth R. A. College of Science, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380001, India
*Correspondence e-mail: edwardt@sunway.edu.my
In the title tri-substituted thiourea derivative, C13H18N2O3S, the thione-S and carbonyl-O atoms lie, to a first approximation, to the same side of the molecule [the S—C—N—C torsion angle is −49.3 (2)°]. The CN2S plane is almost planar (r.m.s. deviation = 0.018 Å) with the hydroxyethyl groups lying to either side of this plane. One hydroxyethyl group is orientated towards the thioamide functionality enabling the formation of an intramolecular N—H⋯O hydrogen bond leading to an S(7) loop. The dihedral angle [72.12 (9)°] between the planes through the CN2S atoms and the 4-tolyl ring indicates the molecule is twisted. The experimental molecular structure is close to the gas-phase, geometry-optimized structure calculated by DFT methods. In the molecular packing, hydroxyl-O—H⋯O(hydroxyl) and hydroxyl-O—H⋯S(thione) hydrogen bonds lead to the formation of a supramolecular layer in the ab plane; no directional interactions are found between layers. The influence of the specified supramolecular interactions is apparent in the calculated Hirshfeld surfaces and these are shown to be attractive in non-covalent interaction plots; the interaction energies point to the important stabilization provided by directional O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds.
Keywords: crystal structure; thiourea; hydrogen bonding; Hirshfeld surface analysis; computational chemistry.
CCDC reference: 1919878
1. Chemical context
The amine-H atoms in thiourea, H2NC(=S)NH2, can be systematically replaced to generate up to tetra-functionalized molecules, i.e. R1(R2)NC(=S)N(R3)R4 for R1–4 = alkyl/aryl. The present study concerns a tri-substituted example, i.e. an N,N′-di(alkyl/aryl)-N′-benzoylthiourea derivative, notable for having a carbonyl group connected to the thiourea framework. Thiourea molecules are of interest in themselves and as ligands for metal ions (Saeed et al., 2014). The free molecules, including benzoyl derivatives, are well-known to exhibit various biological properties, for example, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-viral activities as well as cytotoxicity (Hallur et al., 2006; Cunha et al., 2007; Saeed et al., 2010; Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Gunasekaran, Ng et al., 2012). The combination of hard (oxygen) and soft (sulfur) donor atoms along with nitrogen suggests that benzoylthioureas can function as versatile ligands to metals. Indeed, a variety of coordination modes have been observed such as monodentate-S for the neutral ligand (Saeed et al., 2014; Gunasekaran, Ng et al., 2012). When deprotonated, a common mode of coordination is O-,S- with considerable delocalization of π-electron density over the ensuing six-membered chelate ring (Saeed et al., 2014). While the motivations for preparing metal complexes of benzoylthioureas are varied, e.g. for anion recognition and as catalysts (Saeed et al., 2014; Zhang & Schreiner, 2009; Nishikawa, 2018), there is continuing interest in exploring their biological potential as coordination of these ligands to metals generally enhances their biological efficacy, such as anti-cancer (Peng et al., 2016; Barolli et al., 2017; Jeyalakshmi et al., 2019), anti-microbial (Gemili et al., 2017; Binzet et al., 2018; Saeed et al., 2018) and anti-mycobacterium tuberculosis (Plutín et al., 2016) activities. The present study was motivated by these applications and by previous structural studies (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Selvakumaran & Karvembu, et al., 2011; Selvakumaran, Ng et al., 2011) and the known catalytic applications of their cobalt complexes (Gunasekaran, Jerome et al., 2012). Herein, the synthesis, spectroscopic characterization and X-ray crystallographic investigation of the title compound, 4-MePhC(=O)N(H)C(=S)N(CH2CH2OH)2, (I), are described, along with an analysis of the calculated Hirshfeld surfaces, non-covalent interaction plots as well as a computational chemistry study.
2. Structural commentary
The title compound, (I), is illustrated in Fig. 1, and selected interatomic parameters are given in Table 1. The structure features a tri-substituted thiourea molecule with one N atom bearing a benzoyl residue and the other, carrying two hydroxyethyl groups. The thione-S and carbonyl-O atoms lie to the same side of the molecule but are only approximately syn as the S1—C1—N2—C6 torsion angle is −49.3 (2)°; the O3—C6—N2—C1 torsion angle is −6.8 (3)°. The hydroxyethyl groups lie to either side of the CN2S plane (r.m.s. deviation = 0.018 Å). The O1-hydroxyethyl group is folded toward the thioamide part of the molecule, an orientation that allows for the formation of an intramolecular N2—H⋯O1 hydrogen bond that closes an S(7) loop, Table 2. Overall, the molecule is twisted as seen in the dihedral angle of 72.12 (9)° between the CN2S atoms and the terminal aryl ring. The C1—N1 bond length is considerably shorter than the C1—N2 bond, which suggests some delocalization of π-electron density over the S1—C1—N1 atoms that does not extend over the C1—N1—C6 atoms, consistent with the large twist about the C1—N2 bond (see above). The bond angles subtended at the C1 and C6 atoms follow the expected trends in that those involving the formally doubly bonded atoms are wider, by approximately 10°, compared with the other angles, Table 1.
|
3. Gas-phase theoretical structure
Compound (I) was subjected to gas-phase geometry optimization by long-range corrected wB97XD density functional with Grimme's D2 dispersion model (Chai & Head-Gordon, 2008) coupled with Pople's 6-311+G(d,p) basis set (Petersson et al., 1988) as implemented in Gaussian16 (Frisch et al., 2016) in order to compare the optimized molecule with the experimental structure. The results of the optimization show that the local minimum structure in the gas-phase was located as confirmed through a frequency analysis with zero imaginary frequency. The superimposition of the experimental and theoretical structures (Macrae et al., 2006), Fig. 2, indicates that there are minor differences between the molecules in either phase, with the r.m.s. deviation between them being 0.014 Å. Salient geometric data for the gas-phase structure are included in Table 1 and correlate very well with the experimental results. The major differences between the experimental and geometry-optimized structures relates to differences in the (i) O3—C6—N2—C1 torsion angles, which deviates further, by approximately 10°, from the anti-disposition in the optimized structure, and (ii) N1—C2—C3—O1 and N1—C4—C5—O2 torsion angles, which are disparate, by about 12°, in the experimental structure but are symmetric, i.e. ±69°, in the optimized structure.
4. Supramolecular features
In the crystal of (I), the O1-hydroxyl group acts as a hydrogen-bond donor to the O2-hydroxy group, which in turn functions as a donor to the S1-atom, Table 2. The O—H⋯O hydrogen bonding is propagated by 21 symmetry to generate helical chains along the b-axis direction. The O—H⋯S hydrogen bonding serves to connect translationally related chains along the a-axis direction and these contacts are reinforced by phenyl-C—H⋯O(carbonyl) interactions. In this way, a supramolecular layer in the ab plane is formed, Fig. 3(a). Layers stack along the c-axis direction without directional interactions between them, Fig. 3(b).
5. Hirshfeld surface analysis
The calculations of the Hirshfeld surfaces and the two-dimensional fingerprint plots (overall and delineated) for (I) were performed using Crystal Explorer 17 (Turner et al., 2017) and published protocols (Tan et al., 2019).
The Hirshfeld surface mapped over electrostatic potential in Fig. 4, shows different potentials surrounding the key functional groups. Thus, the donors and acceptors of conventional O—H⋯O and O—H⋯S hydrogen bonds and C—H⋯O contacts appear as blue and red regions, respectively, corresponding to positive and negative potential. The Hirshfeld surface mapped over dnorm in Fig. 5 also gives the usual indications of these intermolecular interactions through the appearance of bright-red spots near participating atoms. In addition, short interatomic contacts between the hydroxyl-H atom, and carbonyl-C6 and hydroxyl-O2 atoms, and between the ethyl-C5 and hydroxyl-H1O atoms, Table 3, are either characterized as faint-red spots or merged within the bright-red spots corresponding to the conventional hydrogen bonds in Fig. 5.
|
The intermolecular contacts in the crystal of (I) were further analysed using an enrichment ratio (ER) descriptor, which is derived from the analysis of the Hirshfeld surface (Jelsch et al., 2014). The ER relates the propensity of pair of chemical species to form a specific interaction in a crystal. The enrichment ratio, ER(X, Y), for a pair of elements (X, Y) is defined as the ratio between proportion of actual contacts in the crystal to the theoretical proportion of random contacts. This ratio is greater than unity for a pair of elements having a high likelihood to form contacts in a crystal, while it is less than one for a pair which tends to avoid contacts with each other. A listing of ER values for (I) is given in Table 4. The enrichment ratios greater than unity for the atom pairs (O, H) and (S, H), Table 4, are consistent with the high propensity for the formation of the O—H⋯O and O—H⋯S hydrogen bonds in the crystal. It is also evident that the value greater than unity for (C, H) arises from the C⋯H/H⋯C contacts.
|
The overall fingerprint plots for (I) and those delineated into H⋯H, O⋯H/H⋯O, C⋯H/H⋯C and S⋯H/H⋯S contacts are illustrated in Fig. 6(a)–(e), respectively. A summary of the percentage contributions from the various contacts in the crystal are given in Table 5. The contribution from H⋯H contacts are reflected in the middle of the scattered point and cover the greatest area in the plot, and make the most significant contribution (52.5%) to the total Hirshfeld surface, Fig. 6(b) and has an ER value of 0.92, i.e. close to unity. The contribution from O⋯H/H⋯O contacts is viewed as long spikes at de + di ∼1.8 Å, with points scattered around different regions in the delineated fingerprint plot, Fig. 6(c). In the fingerprint delineated into C⋯H/H⋯C contacts in Fig. 6(d), a pair of small tips at de + di < 2.8 Å is the result of short interatomic contacts, Table 3, including an interlayer contact (H13A⋯O1). The percentage contribution from S⋯H/H⋯S contacts (13.1%) reflect the presence of O—H⋯S hydrogen bonds and are apparent through the appearance of asymmetric spikes at de + di ∼2.1 Å in Fig. 6(e).
|
6. Computational chemistry
The intermolecular O—H⋯O, O—H⋯S and C—H⋯O interactions occurring between the respective pairs of molecules were subjected to energy calculations by DFT-wB97XD/aug-cc-pVTZ (Woon & Dunning, 1993) for the evaluation of the strength of these interactions. With reference to the BSSE corrected interaction energies (EBSSEint) listed in Table 6, the O—H⋯O hydrogen bond has the greatest interaction energy, followed by C—H⋯O and O—H⋯S. Unexpectedly, the C—H⋯O interaction has an energy approximately 3–4 kcal mol−1 more stable than the O—H⋯S interaction despite phenyl-C—H being a weak hydrogen-bond donor and thione-S a weak acceptor, and that such interactions are known to be dispersive in nature (Bhattacharyya et al., 2013). The donor–acceptor interactions were also evaluated by a natural bond orbital (NBO) population analysis (Reed et al., 1988), which revealed that the net NBO charge for H8⋯O3 is 0.8 compared to 0.6 for H2O⋯S1, thereby confirming the relative strength of these interactions.
|
To complement the results of the calculations on the interaction energies, the dimeric structures were subjected to further analysis by NCIPLOT (Johnson et al., 2010). The analysis provides a convenient visualization index on the strength of any existing non-covalent interactions through a red–blue–green colour scheme on the isosurface, i.e. red is indicative of a strong repulsive interaction, blue is indicative of strong attractive interaction while green is indicative of a weak interaction (Contreras-García et al., 2011). The results, illustrated in Fig. 7, reveal that the O—H⋯O interaction is clearly strong and attractive, while both O—H⋯S and C—H⋯O are considered weak interactions.
As the molecular packing is governed directionally by hydrogen bonding between molecules, the energy frameworks were simulated (Turner et al., 2017) in order to compare the topology of these intermolecular interactions. A detailed analysis of the energy frameworks shown in Fig. 8 reveals the crystal of (I) is mainly stabilized by electrostatic and dispersive forces. The total electrostatic energy (Eelectrostatic) of all pairwise interactions sums to −36.11 kcal mol−1, while the total dispersion energy term (Edispersion) computes to −43.83 kcal mol−1.
7. Database survey
The 2CH2OH)2, (II), has been reported twice (Koch et al., 1995; Cornejo et al., 2005; refcodes ZAJWAI and ZAJWAI01, respectively). The conformation of this molecule and that of (I) are very similar and the geometric parameters describing chemically equivalent parameters are generally within experimental errors. The most important conformational difference is seen in the pair of N1—C2—C3—O1 [73.7 (2)°] and N1—C4—C5—O1 [–53.9 (2)°] torsion angles, which span a range of approximately 20° in (II) cf. approximately 12° in (I). The molecular packing in (II) also features O—H⋯O hydrogen and O—H⋯S hydrogen bonding, as for (I), leading to a supramolecular layer; the intramolecular amine-N—H⋯·O(hydroxy) hydrogen bond persists. However, in the case of (II), there are directional interactions between layers, i.e. of the type phenyl-C—H⋯π(phenyl), to sustain a three-dimensional architecture. The other closely related structure is that of 4-MePhC(=O)N(H)C(=S)N(Me)CH2CH2OH) (Jamaludin et al., 2016; refcode GADBOF). Here, the intramolecular amine-N—H⋯O(hydroxy) hydrogen bond is also found and the most prominent feature of the molecular packing is the formation of supramolecular helical chains mediated by hydroxy-O—H⋯O(carbonyl) hydrogen bonds.
of the parent compound, PhC(=O)N(H)C(=S)N(CH8. Synthesis and crystallization
All chemicals and solvents were used as purchased without purification. The reactions were carried out under ambient conditions. The melting point was measured using a Hanon MP-450 melting point apparatus. The CHN elemental analysis was performed on a LECO TruSpec Micro analyser under helium atmosphere with glycine being used as the standard. The IR spectrum was measured on a Bruker Vertex 70v FT–IR spectrophotometer from 4000 to 400 cm−1. The 1H and 13C{1H} spectra were recorded in DMSO-d6 solutions on a Bruker Ascend 400 MHz NMR spectrometer with chemical shifts relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS). The optical absorption spectra were measured on 10 and 100 µM ethanol:acetonitrile (1:1) solutions in the range 190–1100 nm on a double-beam Shimadzu UV 3600 Plus UV–vis spectrophotometer. The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was performed on a Perkin Elmer STA 6000 Simultaneous Thermogravimetric Analyzer in the range of 35–900°C under a nitrogen atmosphere at a flow rate of 10°C min−1. The experimental powder X-ray diffraction pattern was measured on a Rigaku MiniFlex diffractometer with Cu Kα1 radiation (λ = 1.54056 Å) in the 2θ range of 5–70° and a step size of 0.02°. The experimental PXRD patterns were compared to the simulated PXRD patterns calculated from the using the Rigaku PDXL structure analysis software package. The patterns matched indicating that the reported is representative of the bulk material.
Synthesis of (I): An excess of thionyl chloride (Merck) was mixed with 4-methylbenzoic acid (Merck, 1 mmol) and the resulting solution was refluxed until a pale-yellow solution was obtained. The excess thionyl chloride was removed on a water bath, leaving only 4-methylbenzoyl chloride, which is a yellow, viscous liquid. Ammonium thiocyanate (Fisher, 1 mmol) was added into an acetone (30 ml) solution of 4-methylbenzoyl chloride (1 mmol). The solution turned yellow after stirring for 2 h. The white precipitate (ammonium chloride) was isolated upon filtration and to the yellow filtrate, bis(hydroxyethyl)amine (Acros, 1 mmol) was carefully added followed by stirring for 1 h. Upon the addition of dichloromethane (50 ml), a yellow precipitate was obtained, which was collected by filtration. Recrystallization from its hot acetone solution yielded colourless blocks after slow evaporation. White solid, yield 56%, m.p. 400.3–402.1 K. Elemental analysis: C13H18N2O3S, found (calculated): C 55.59 (55.30), H 6.57 (6.43), N 9.79 (9.92). IR (ATR; cm−1): 3312 (br, νOH), 3158 (br, νNH), 3061 (w, νCHaro), 2955–2881 (w, νCH), 1686 (s, νC=O), 1539 (s, νC=C), 1250 (s, νC—N), 1054 (s, νC=S), 747 (s, δCH). UV (ethanol:acetonitrile; 5ml:5ml): λmax nm (assignment; log ∊) 354.4 (n→π*; 4.34), 294.0 (n→π*; 4.98), 246.4 (π→π*; 5.17), 202.6 (σ→π*; 5.17). 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6; see Fig. 1 for the numbering scheme): δ 10.78 (1H, br, s, NH), 7.76 (2H, d, 2-phenyl, 3JHH = 7.72 Hz), 7.31 (2H, d, 3-phenyl, 3JHH = 7.6 Hz), 5.66 (1H, br, s, OH), 4.87 (1H, t, OH, 3JOH–H = 5.00 Hz), 3.98 (2H, overlapping t, CH2–C2, 3JHH = 6.24 Hz, 3JHH = 6.08 Hz), 3.76 (2H, m, CH2–C3), 3.70 (4H, m, CH2–C4, C5), 2.37 (3H, s, CH3). 13C{1H} NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 180.63 (C1), 163.78 (C6), 141.88 (C7), 130.13 (C10), 128.47 (C9, C11), 127.28 (C8, C12), 58.58 (C5), 56.95 (C3), 54.42 (C4), 54.29 (C2), 20.42 (C13).
The pyrolytic processes for (I) was resolved into four main stages. The first stage involves the liberation of H2O between 135 and 165°C, which corresponds to approximate 6% of the weight for (I). The second stage between 160 and 240°C is attributed to the loss of a 4-methylbenzaldehyde fragment, corresponding to 45% weight loss. Subsequently, the remaining fragments undergo further to result in the liberation of ethanol (31% weight) and ammonia (17–18%) in the range 230 to 300°C and 300°C onward, respectively. Compound (I) decomposed at temperatures beyond 700°C.
9. Refinement
Crystal data, data collection and structure . Carbon-bound H atoms were placed in calculated positions (C—H = 0.93–0.97 Å) and were included in the in the riding-model approximation, with Uiso(H) set to 1.2–1.5Ueq(C). The O- and N-bound H atoms were located from a difference map and refined with O—H and N—H = 0.84±0.01 and 0.88±0.01 Å, respectively, and with Uiso(H) = 1.5Ueq(O) and 1.2Ueq(N).
details are summarized in Table 7Supporting information
CCDC reference: 1919878
https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989019012581/hb7854sup1.cif
contains datablocks I, global. DOI:Structure factors: contains datablock I. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2056989019012581/hb7854Isup2.hkl
Data collection: SMART (Bruker, 2008); cell
SMART (Bruker, 2008); data reduction: SAINT (Bruker, 2008); program(s) used to solve structure: SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 2008); program(s) used to refine structure: SHELXL2014/7 (Sheldrick, 2015); molecular graphics: ORTEP-3 for Windows (Farrugia, 2012), DIAMOND (Brandenburg, 2006); software used to prepare material for publication: publCIF (Westrip, 2010).C13H18N2O3S | F(000) = 600 |
Mr = 282.35 | Dx = 1.287 Mg m−3 |
Monoclinic, P21/c | Mo Kα radiation, λ = 0.71073 Å |
a = 7.4051 (10) Å | Cell parameters from 2509 reflections |
b = 10.6213 (15) Å | θ = 2.2–22.9° |
c = 18.569 (3) Å | µ = 0.23 mm−1 |
β = 94.117 (2)° | T = 293 K |
V = 1456.7 (4) Å3 | Prism, colourless |
Z = 4 | 0.12 × 0.09 × 0.08 mm |
Bruker SMART APEX diffractometer | 3339 independent reflections |
Radiation source: fine-focus sealed tube | 2263 reflections with I > 2σ(I) |
Graphite monochromator | Rint = 0.051 |
φ and ω scans | θmax = 27.5°, θmin = 2.2° |
Absorption correction: multi-scan (SADABS; Sheldrick, 1996) | h = −9→9 |
Tmin = 0.655, Tmax = 0.746 | k = −13→13 |
18125 measured reflections | l = −24→24 |
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)] = 0.039 | Hydrogen site location: mixed |
wR(F2) = 0.098 | H atoms treated by a mixture of independent and constrained refinement |
S = 1.03 | w = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0374P)2 + 0.2262P] where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3 |
3339 reflections | (Δ/σ)max < 0.001 |
182 parameters | Δρmax = 0.17 e Å−3 |
3 restraints | Δρmin = −0.20 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 | ||
S1 | 0.32019 (6) | 0.58997 (5) | 0.40517 (3) | 0.05150 (16) | |
O1 | 0.20850 (18) | 0.31841 (13) | 0.20234 (8) | 0.0600 (4) | |
H1O | 0.239 (3) | 0.2473 (13) | 0.1888 (13) | 0.090* | |
O2 | −0.27874 (16) | 0.58125 (13) | 0.35097 (7) | 0.0534 (4) | |
H2O | −0.3778 (19) | 0.585 (2) | 0.3699 (11) | 0.080* | |
O3 | 0.37968 (18) | 0.75187 (12) | 0.26514 (8) | 0.0602 (4) | |
N1 | 0.06795 (17) | 0.47500 (13) | 0.31953 (7) | 0.0382 (3) | |
N2 | 0.31599 (19) | 0.54248 (13) | 0.26306 (8) | 0.0402 (3) | |
H2N | 0.304 (2) | 0.4767 (12) | 0.2356 (8) | 0.048* | |
C1 | 0.2270 (2) | 0.53452 (15) | 0.32668 (9) | 0.0380 (4) | |
C2 | −0.0239 (2) | 0.44158 (17) | 0.24885 (10) | 0.0448 (4) | |
H2A | 0.0053 | 0.5045 | 0.2137 | 0.054* | |
H2B | −0.1537 | 0.4438 | 0.2528 | 0.054* | |
C3 | 0.0273 (2) | 0.31392 (18) | 0.22177 (11) | 0.0524 (5) | |
H3A | 0.0155 | 0.2513 | 0.2592 | 0.063* | |
H3B | −0.0526 | 0.2907 | 0.1802 | 0.063* | |
C4 | −0.0291 (2) | 0.44025 (17) | 0.38245 (10) | 0.0456 (4) | |
H4A | 0.0583 | 0.4179 | 0.4218 | 0.055* | |
H4B | −0.1024 | 0.3664 | 0.3707 | 0.055* | |
C5 | −0.1497 (2) | 0.54346 (19) | 0.40748 (10) | 0.0497 (5) | |
H5A | −0.2125 | 0.5138 | 0.4483 | 0.060* | |
H5B | −0.0762 | 0.6153 | 0.4232 | 0.060* | |
C6 | 0.3952 (2) | 0.64952 (16) | 0.23710 (9) | 0.0405 (4) | |
C7 | 0.4941 (2) | 0.63211 (16) | 0.17111 (9) | 0.0393 (4) | |
C8 | 0.5608 (2) | 0.51755 (17) | 0.14953 (9) | 0.0449 (4) | |
H8 | 0.5419 | 0.4455 | 0.1764 | 0.054* | |
C9 | 0.6557 (3) | 0.5097 (2) | 0.08809 (10) | 0.0562 (5) | |
H9 | 0.7011 | 0.4322 | 0.0747 | 0.067* | |
C10 | 0.6843 (3) | 0.6145 (2) | 0.04626 (10) | 0.0584 (5) | |
C11 | 0.6157 (3) | 0.7282 (2) | 0.06798 (11) | 0.0631 (6) | |
H11 | 0.6320 | 0.7999 | 0.0404 | 0.076* | |
C12 | 0.5241 (3) | 0.73742 (18) | 0.12945 (11) | 0.0557 (5) | |
H12 | 0.4815 | 0.8154 | 0.1434 | 0.067* | |
C13 | 0.7870 (4) | 0.6055 (3) | −0.02119 (12) | 0.0919 (9) | |
H13A | 0.7224 | 0.6506 | −0.0598 | 0.138* | |
H13B | 0.7983 | 0.5187 | −0.0346 | 0.138* | |
H13C | 0.9052 | 0.6416 | −0.0120 | 0.138* |
U11 | U22 | U33 | U12 | U13 | U23 | |
S1 | 0.0407 (3) | 0.0703 (4) | 0.0435 (3) | −0.0051 (2) | 0.00312 (19) | −0.0119 (2) |
O1 | 0.0472 (8) | 0.0542 (9) | 0.0806 (10) | −0.0075 (7) | 0.0181 (7) | −0.0248 (7) |
O2 | 0.0382 (7) | 0.0691 (9) | 0.0540 (8) | 0.0084 (6) | 0.0118 (6) | 0.0126 (7) |
O3 | 0.0621 (9) | 0.0393 (8) | 0.0818 (10) | −0.0049 (6) | 0.0227 (7) | −0.0135 (7) |
N1 | 0.0332 (7) | 0.0397 (8) | 0.0423 (8) | −0.0014 (6) | 0.0059 (6) | −0.0025 (6) |
N2 | 0.0438 (8) | 0.0378 (8) | 0.0399 (8) | −0.0097 (7) | 0.0093 (6) | −0.0063 (6) |
C1 | 0.0357 (9) | 0.0356 (9) | 0.0432 (10) | 0.0024 (7) | 0.0054 (7) | −0.0012 (7) |
C2 | 0.0370 (9) | 0.0481 (11) | 0.0487 (10) | −0.0027 (8) | −0.0003 (8) | −0.0064 (8) |
C3 | 0.0458 (11) | 0.0512 (12) | 0.0613 (12) | −0.0102 (9) | 0.0114 (9) | −0.0150 (9) |
C4 | 0.0400 (10) | 0.0482 (11) | 0.0491 (11) | −0.0029 (8) | 0.0068 (8) | 0.0090 (8) |
C5 | 0.0430 (10) | 0.0635 (12) | 0.0435 (10) | −0.0005 (9) | 0.0097 (8) | 0.0033 (9) |
C6 | 0.0346 (9) | 0.0376 (10) | 0.0491 (10) | −0.0020 (7) | 0.0019 (8) | −0.0023 (8) |
C7 | 0.0356 (9) | 0.0400 (10) | 0.0419 (9) | −0.0061 (7) | −0.0003 (7) | 0.0023 (7) |
C8 | 0.0481 (10) | 0.0430 (10) | 0.0443 (10) | −0.0006 (8) | 0.0073 (8) | 0.0073 (8) |
C9 | 0.0598 (13) | 0.0569 (13) | 0.0530 (12) | 0.0013 (10) | 0.0121 (10) | −0.0038 (10) |
C10 | 0.0558 (12) | 0.0773 (16) | 0.0425 (11) | −0.0167 (11) | 0.0067 (9) | 0.0046 (10) |
C11 | 0.0703 (14) | 0.0617 (14) | 0.0577 (13) | −0.0171 (11) | 0.0080 (11) | 0.0206 (11) |
C12 | 0.0600 (12) | 0.0422 (11) | 0.0653 (13) | −0.0075 (9) | 0.0076 (10) | 0.0085 (9) |
C13 | 0.0952 (19) | 0.126 (2) | 0.0581 (14) | −0.0220 (17) | 0.0303 (14) | 0.0050 (14) |
S1—C1 | 1.6744 (17) | C4—H4B | 0.9700 |
O1—C3 | 1.415 (2) | C5—H5A | 0.9700 |
O1—H1O | 0.832 (9) | C5—H5B | 0.9700 |
O2—C5 | 1.425 (2) | C6—C7 | 1.483 (2) |
O2—H2O | 0.836 (9) | C7—C8 | 1.383 (2) |
O3—C6 | 1.214 (2) | C7—C12 | 1.387 (2) |
N1—C1 | 1.335 (2) | C8—C9 | 1.384 (2) |
N1—C4 | 1.462 (2) | C8—H8 | 0.9300 |
N1—C2 | 1.477 (2) | C9—C10 | 1.382 (3) |
N2—C6 | 1.382 (2) | C9—H9 | 0.9300 |
N2—C1 | 1.396 (2) | C10—C11 | 1.382 (3) |
N2—H2N | 0.866 (9) | C10—C13 | 1.514 (3) |
C2—C3 | 1.504 (2) | C11—C12 | 1.373 (3) |
C2—H2A | 0.9700 | C11—H11 | 0.9300 |
C2—H2B | 0.9700 | C12—H12 | 0.9300 |
C3—H3A | 0.9700 | C13—H13A | 0.9600 |
C3—H3B | 0.9700 | C13—H13B | 0.9600 |
C4—C5 | 1.508 (3) | C13—H13C | 0.9600 |
C4—H4A | 0.9700 | ||
C3—O1—H1O | 109.1 (18) | C4—C5—H5A | 109.4 |
C5—O2—H2O | 105.3 (16) | O2—C5—H5B | 109.4 |
C1—N1—C4 | 121.39 (14) | C4—C5—H5B | 109.4 |
C1—N1—C2 | 123.27 (14) | H5A—C5—H5B | 108.0 |
C4—N1—C2 | 115.33 (13) | O3—C6—N2 | 122.09 (17) |
C6—N2—C1 | 125.67 (14) | O3—C6—C7 | 122.23 (16) |
C6—N2—H2N | 119.0 (12) | N2—C6—C7 | 115.64 (15) |
C1—N2—H2N | 114.6 (12) | C8—C7—C12 | 118.21 (17) |
N1—C1—N2 | 114.30 (14) | C8—C7—C6 | 123.83 (16) |
N1—C1—S1 | 123.97 (13) | C12—C7—C6 | 117.95 (16) |
N2—C1—S1 | 121.67 (12) | C7—C8—C9 | 120.32 (17) |
N1—C2—C3 | 113.76 (15) | C7—C8—H8 | 119.8 |
N1—C2—H2A | 108.8 | C9—C8—H8 | 119.8 |
C3—C2—H2A | 108.8 | C10—C9—C8 | 121.45 (19) |
N1—C2—H2B | 108.8 | C10—C9—H9 | 119.3 |
C3—C2—H2B | 108.8 | C8—C9—H9 | 119.3 |
H2A—C2—H2B | 107.7 | C11—C10—C9 | 117.76 (18) |
O1—C3—C2 | 108.71 (15) | C11—C10—C13 | 120.9 (2) |
O1—C3—H3A | 109.9 | C9—C10—C13 | 121.4 (2) |
C2—C3—H3A | 109.9 | C12—C11—C10 | 121.24 (19) |
O1—C3—H3B | 109.9 | C12—C11—H11 | 119.4 |
C2—C3—H3B | 109.9 | C10—C11—H11 | 119.4 |
H3A—C3—H3B | 108.3 | C11—C12—C7 | 121.01 (19) |
N1—C4—C5 | 113.48 (14) | C11—C12—H12 | 119.5 |
N1—C4—H4A | 108.9 | C7—C12—H12 | 119.5 |
C5—C4—H4A | 108.9 | C10—C13—H13A | 109.5 |
N1—C4—H4B | 108.9 | C10—C13—H13B | 109.5 |
C5—C4—H4B | 108.9 | H13A—C13—H13B | 109.5 |
H4A—C4—H4B | 107.7 | C10—C13—H13C | 109.5 |
O2—C5—C4 | 111.00 (15) | H13A—C13—H13C | 109.5 |
O2—C5—H5A | 109.4 | H13B—C13—H13C | 109.5 |
C4—N1—C1—N2 | 169.93 (14) | O3—C6—C7—C8 | 160.25 (17) |
C2—N1—C1—N2 | −11.1 (2) | N2—C6—C7—C8 | −22.1 (2) |
C4—N1—C1—S1 | −7.3 (2) | O3—C6—C7—C12 | −18.5 (3) |
C2—N1—C1—S1 | 171.63 (12) | N2—C6—C7—C12 | 159.18 (16) |
C6—N2—C1—N1 | 133.37 (17) | C12—C7—C8—C9 | 0.3 (3) |
C6—N2—C1—S1 | −49.3 (2) | C6—C7—C8—C9 | −178.41 (16) |
C1—N1—C2—C3 | 89.8 (2) | C7—C8—C9—C10 | −0.9 (3) |
C4—N1—C2—C3 | −91.18 (18) | C8—C9—C10—C11 | 0.4 (3) |
N1—C2—C3—O1 | −70.1 (2) | C8—C9—C10—C13 | −179.6 (2) |
C1—N1—C4—C5 | 86.72 (19) | C9—C10—C11—C12 | 0.7 (3) |
C2—N1—C4—C5 | −92.28 (18) | C13—C10—C11—C12 | −179.3 (2) |
N1—C4—C5—O2 | 57.5 (2) | C10—C11—C12—C7 | −1.3 (3) |
C1—N2—C6—O3 | −6.8 (3) | C8—C7—C12—C11 | 0.7 (3) |
C1—N2—C6—C7 | 175.48 (15) | C6—C7—C12—C11 | 179.56 (18) |
D—H···A | D—H | H···A | D···A | D—H···A |
N2—H2N···O1 | 0.87 (1) | 1.91 (1) | 2.728 (2) | 157 (1) |
O1—H1O···O2i | 0.83 (2) | 1.94 (2) | 2.769 (2) | 172 (2) |
O2—H2O···S1ii | 0.84 (2) | 2.38 (2) | 3.2049 (14) | 171 (2) |
C8—H8···O3iii | 0.93 | 2.38 | 3.251 (2) | 156 |
Symmetry codes: (i) −x, y−1/2, −z+1/2; (ii) x−1, y, z; (iii) −x+1, y−1/2, −z+1/2. |
Parameter | X-ray | Theory |
C1—S1 | 1.6744 (17) | 1.671 |
C1—N1 | 1.335 (2) | 1.368 |
C1—N2 | 1.396 (2) | 1.404 |
C6—O3 | 1.214 (2) | 1.220 |
C6—N2 | 1.382 (2) | 1.396 |
S1—C1—N1 | 123.97 (13) | 124.2 |
S1—C1—N2 | 121.67 (12) | 122.2 |
N1—C1—N2 | 114.30 (14) | 113.5 |
O3—C6—N2 | 122.09 (17) | 123.3 |
O3—C6—C7 | 122.23 (16) | 122.0 |
N2—C6—C7 | 115.64 (15) | 114.7 |
S1—C1—N2—C6 | -49.3 (2) | -43.5 |
S1—C1—N1—C2 | 171.63 (12) | 167.1 |
S1—C1—N1—C4 | -7.3 (2) | -7.6 |
O3—C6—N2—C1 | -6.8 (3) | -18.2 |
O3—C6—C7—C8 | 160.25 (17) | 156.2 |
N1—C2—C3—O1 | -70.1 (2) | -69.2 |
N1—C4—C5—O2 | 57.5 (2) | 69.0 |
The interatomic distances are calculated in Crystal Explorer 17 (Turner et al., 2017) whereby the X—H bond lengths are adjusted to their neutron values. |
Contact | Distance | Symmetry operation |
H1O···H2O | 2.26 | -x, -1/2 + y, -1/2 - z |
C3···O3 | 3.112 (2) | -x, -1/2 + y, 1/2 - z |
H2B···O3 | 2.58 | -x, -1/2 + y, 1/2 - z |
H3B···O3 | 2.69 | -x, -1/2 + y, 1/2 - z |
C5···H1O | 2.73 | -x, -1/2 + y, 1/2 - z |
H13A···O1 | 2.67 | 1 - x, 1 - y, -z |
C6···O2 | 3.177 (2) | 1 + x, y, z |
C8···H2B | 2.78 | 1 + x, y, z |
Contact | Percentage contribution |
H···H | 52.5 |
C···H/H···C | 16.2 |
O···H/H···O | 15.0 |
S···H/H···S | 13.1 |
N···H/H···N | 1.5 |
C···C | 0.3 |
C···O/O···C | 0.8 |
N···O/O···N | 0.1 |
O···O | 0.3 |
C···N/N···C | 0.2 |
Contact | Etot |
O1—H1O···O2 | -14.52 |
O2—H2O···S1 | -6.27 |
C8—H8···O3 | -9.65 |
Funding information
Crystallographic research at Sunway University is supported by Sunway University Sdn Bhd (grant No. STR-RCTR-RCCM-001-2019).
References
Barolli, J. P., Maia, P. I. S., Colina-Vegas, L., Moreira, J., Plutin, A. M., Mocelo, R., Deflon, V. M., Cominetti, M. R., Camargo-Mathias, M. I. & Batista, A. A. (2017). Polyhedron, 126, 33–41. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, S., Bhattacherjee, A., Shirhatti, P. R. & Wategaonkar, S. (2013). J. Phys. Chem. A, 117, 8238–8250. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Binzet, G., Gumus, I., Dogen, A., Flörke, U., Kulcu, N. & Arslan, H. (2018). J. Mol. Struct. 1161, 519–529. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Brandenburg, K. (2006). DIAMOND. Crystal Impact GbR, Bonn, Germany. Google Scholar
Bruker (2008). SMART and SAINT. Bruker AXS Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Google Scholar
Chai, J. D. & Head-Gordon, M. (2008). Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 6615–6620. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Contreras-García, J., Johnson, E. R., Keinan, S., Chaudret, R., Piquemal, J. P., Beratan, D. N. & Yang, W. (2011). J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 625–632. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Cornejo, J. A., Ayala, K., Richter, R., Böhlig, H., Hennig, L. & Beyer, L. (2005). Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 631, 3040–3045. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Cunha, S., Macedo, F. C., Costa, G. A. N., Rodrigues, M. T., Verde, R. B. V., de Souza Neta, L. C., Vencato, I., Lariucci, C. & Sá, F. P. (2007). Monatsh. Chem. 138, 511–516. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Farrugia, L. J. (2012). J. Appl. Cryst. 45, 849–854. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Frisch, M. J., et al. (2016). Gaussian 16, Revision A. 03. Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford CT, USA. Google Scholar
Gemili, M., Sari, H., Ulger, M., Sahin, E. & Nural, Y. (2017). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 463, 88–96. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Gunasekaran, N., Jerome, P., Ng, S. W., Tiekink, E. R. T. & Karvembu, R. (2012). J. Molec. Catal. A: Chem. 353–354, 156–162. Google Scholar
Gunasekaran, N., Ng, S. W., Tiekink, E. R. T. & Karvembu, R. (2012). Polyhedron, 34, 41–45. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Gunasekaran, N., Vadivel, V., Halcovitch, N. R. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2017). Chem. Data Coll. 9-10, 263–276. Google Scholar
Hallur, G., Jimeno, A., Dalrymple, S., Zhu, T., Jung, M. K., Hidalgo, M., Isaacs, J. T., Sukumar, S., Hamel, E. & Khan, S. R. (2006). J. Med. Chem. 49, 2357–2360. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Jamaludin, N. S., Halim, S. N. A. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2016). IUCrData, 1, x152457. Google Scholar
Jelsch, C., Ejsmont, K. & Huder, L. (2014). IUCrJ, 1, 119–128. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Jeyalakshmi, K., Haribabu, J., Balachandran, C., Narmatha, E., Bhuvanesh, N. S. P., Aoki, S., Awale, S. & Karvembu, R. (2019). New J. Chem. 43, 3188–3198. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Johnson, E. R., Keinan, S., Mori-Sánchez, P., Contreras-García, J., Cohen, A. J. & Yang, W. (2010). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 6498–6506. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Koch, K. R., Sacht, C. & Bourne, S. (1995). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 232, 109–115. CSD CrossRef CAS Web of Science 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
Nishikawa, T. (2018). Tetrahedron Lett. 59, 216–223. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Peng, B., Gao, Z., Li, X., Li, T., Chen, G., Zhou, M. & Zhang, J. (2016). J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 21, 903–916. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Petersson, G. A., Bennett, A., Tensfeldt, T. G., Al–Laham, M. A., Shirley, W. A. & Mantzaris, J. (1988). J. Chem. Phys. 89, 2193–2218. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Plutín, A. M., Alvarez, A., Mocelo, R., Ramos, R., Castellano, E. E., da Silva, M. M., Colina-Vegas, L., Pavan, F. R. & Batista, A. A. (2016). Inorg. Chem. Commun. 63, 74–80. Google Scholar
Reed, A. E., Curtiss, L. A. & Weinhold, F. (1988). Chem. Rev. 88, 899–926. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Saeed, A., Flörke, U. & Erben, M. F. (2014). J. Sulfur Chem. 35, 318–355. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Saeed, A., Larik, F. A., Jabeen, F., Mehfooz, H., Ghumro, S. A., El-Seedi, H. R., Ali, M., Channar, P. A. & Ashraf, H. (2018). Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 88, 541–550. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Saeed, S., Rashid, N., Jones, P. G., Ali, M. & Hussain, R. (2010). Eur. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1323–1331. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Selvakumaran, N., Karvembu, R., Ng, S. W. & Tiekink, E. R. T. (2011). Acta Cryst. E67, o602. Web of Science CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Selvakumaran, N., Ng, S. W., Tiekink, E. R. T. & Karvembu, R. (2011). Inorg. Chim. Acta, 376, 278–284. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (1996). SADABS. University of Göttingen, Germany. Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112–122. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2015). Acta Cryst. C71, 3–8. Web of Science 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
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
Woon, D. E. & Dunning, T. H. Jr (1993). J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1358–1371. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. & Schreiner, P. R. (2009). Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 1187–1198. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Zhang, Z.-J., Zeng, Y., Jiang, Z.-Y., Shu, B.-S., Sethuraman, V. & Zhong, G.-H. (2018). Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 1736–1746. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed 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.