addenda and errata
On the
of thiamine dichloride monohydrate (Vitamin B1)aSchulich Faculty of Chemistry, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 32000, and bDepartment of Chemistry, Xiamen University, Xiamen, People's Republic of China
*Correspondence e-mail: chr03fh@tx.technion.ac.il
To date the structures of only two polymorphs of thiamine dichloride monohydrate have been reported in the literature.
1. Comment
The et al., 2006). According to these authors, this is the third polymorphic form of this important biochemical to be identified and they note that `two different forms [were] reported previously' by Kraut & Reed (1962) and Suh et al. (1982); similar statements appear in their Abstract and elsewhere in their text. These statements about the number of polymorphs require careful examination. The reported cell dimensions summarized in Table 1 clearly fall into two groups – firstly Cambridge Structural Database (CSD, Version 1.8; Allen et al., 2002) refcodes THIAMC, THIAMC01 and THIAMC12, and then separately polymorph III (THIAMC13). In the first group, the values of a, b (unique) and unit-cell volume are very similar but the values of β and c differ, as do the assigned space groups. One immediately suspects that revised choices of β and c would give essentially the same unit cells and the same for all three members of the first group. This has been confirmed by transforming THIAMC12 to P21/c, as shown in Table 1. An alternative but equivalent method of demonstrating the equivalence of the group I structures is via the reduced cells, not reproduced here but given in the CSD. Suh et al. (1982, see p. 116) recognized that they and Kraut & Reed studied the same polymorph. For convenience, we designate the group I structure as the P21/n polymorph and the THIAMC13 structure as the P21/c polymorph; standard designations require knowledge of the thermodynamic relations between the polymorphs.
of a new polymorph of Vitamin B1 has recently been described (BalasubramanianWe note that the differences in cell dimensions for the various independent determinations are far larger than their reported standard uncertainties, suggesting unspecified systematic differences; dehydration (Te et al., 2003) does not appear to provide an explanation. Comparison of torsion angles (Table 2) provides some more information; it is not clear whether the differences in torsion angles for the three examples of group I are due to real structural differences. Te et al. (2003) describe the P21/n polymorph as `a nonstoichiometric solvate, a class of solvates where the water molecules occupy voids in a stable network that does not collapse after dehydration.'
|
|
References
Allen, F. H. (2002). Acta Cryst. B58, 380–388. Web of Science CSD CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Balasubramanian, T., Jebas, S. R., Thamotharan, S., Rheinwald, G. & Lang, A. G. (2006). Acta Cryst. E62, o290–o292. Web of Science CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Kraut, J. & Reed, H. J. (1962). Acta Cryst. 15, 747–757. CSD CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Suh, I.-H. & Kim, Y.-I. (1982). Rep. R. I. Chem. Spect. Chungnam, 3, 36–45. Google Scholar
Suh, I.-H., Kim, Y.-I., Yoon, M. J., Ku, Y. & Ahn, S. T. (1982). J. Korean Phys. Soc. 15, 114–121. CAS Google Scholar
Te, R. L., Griesser, U. J., Morris, K. B., Byrn, S. R. & Stowell, J. G. (2003). Cryst. Growth Design, 3, 997–1004. 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.