Solvent-Mediated Reversible Structural Transformation of Mercury

Subscriber access provided by Columbia University Libraries

Article

Solvent-Mediated Reversible Structural Transformation of Mercury Iodide Coordination Polymers: Role of Halide Anions Pradhumna Mahat Chhetri, Xiang-Kai Yang, and Jhy-Der Chen Cryst. Growth Des., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.7b00742 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Aug 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on August 11, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Crystal Growth & Design is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Crystal Growth & Design

Solvent-Mediated Reversible Structural Transformation of Mercury Iodide Coordination Polymers: Role of Halide Anions

Pradhumna Mahat Chhetri, Xiang-Kai Yang and Jhy-Der Chen* Department of Chemistry, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, R.O.C.

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 38

ABSTRACT Solvothermal

reactions

of

HgX2

with

2,2’-(1,2-phenylene)-bis(N-pyridin-3-yl)acetamide, L, in ethanol afforded [Hg(L)X2]n (X = Cl, 1; Br, 2; I, 3), which are isostructural 1D zigzag chains, while layering reactions of a ethanoic solution of L with a methanoic solution and an acetonitrile solution of HgI2, respectively, gave 1D helical chains [Hg(L)I2⋅MeOH]n, 4, and [Hg(L)I2⋅MeCN]n, 5. In marked contrast to 1 and 2, the iodide-containing 3 is able to exhibit reversible structural transformation with 4 and 5 by adsorption and desorption of methanol and acetonitrile, suggesting the importance of N-H---X and Hg---X interactions in the evaluation of structural transformation. Moreover, complexes 4 and 5 exhibit reversible crystal to crystal transformation triggered by solvent exchange. Complexes 3 - 5 represent a unique example that the solvents show significant effect on folding and unfolding of the HgI2 single-stranded helical coordination polymers.

2


Page 3 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


INTRODUCTION The investigation in the rational design and synthesis of novel coordination polymers (CPs) continue to be an intense area of research activity during recent years as it extends the range of potential applications in the areas such as magnetism, luminescence, catalysis and gas storage and sensing.1-3 Much effort has been devoted to the construction of CPs with helical structures to mimic the biological helices,4 because many DNA and proteins possess specific ordered structure such as right-handed double helix and single α-helix. One of the most intriguing features of CPs is the versatile structures that lead to structural transformation by the influence of various internal and external factors

such

as

heat,

light,

mechanochemical

energy,

solvation/desolvation, and association and dissociation of some chemical species to the center metal by changing coordination number and counteranion.5-7 Despite some recent progress, the ability to predict and control the structural transformation remains an elusive goal, and much more work is required for elucidating the details of such interesting phenomena. A lot of coordination compounds have been reported either in reversible or irreversible structural transformation,8,9 however, less mercury compounds have been explored for such property. Mahmoudi et. al.

reported

that

the

dimeric

[Hg2(µ-bpdb)I4]

(bpdb

=

1,4-bis(2-pyridyl)-2,3-diaza-1,3-butadiene) polymerized on heating to form irreversibly a 2D coordination polymer [Hg2(µ-bpdb)(µ-I)2I2]n.10 Mobin et. al. prepared 1D polymeric chain [(Cl)Hg(µ-Cl)2(hep-H)]n (hep-H

=

2-(2-hydroxyethyl)pyridine)

which

can

be

reversibly

transformed to a 2D network as a function of the temperature11 and Hou 3



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

et al. have shown that the 2D [Hg3(µ-quinoxaline)2(µ-SCN)6]n can be reversibly transformed to the 3D [Hg(µ-quinoxaline)(µ-CN)2]n by a solid state anion replacement.12 We have recently reported two pairs of 1D Hg(II) supramolecular isomers involving 1D helical and sinusoidal chains by using the flexible N,N′-di(3-pyridyl)adipoamide ligand which were able to carry out irreversible structural transformation under simple heating or hydrothermal condition.13 Mercury is a soft base and has good affinity with N and S rather than other metal ions in the same group in periodic table. Variety in structures can be observed by the influence of the halide anions even it is difficult to predict which anions give the similar or different structures.14-20 Sometimes HgCl2 and HgBr2 play the same structural role but HgI2 is different,21-23 while in other cases HgBr2 and HgI2 play the same role but HgCl2 is distinct.21,22,24,25 The structural diversity of the Hg(II) halide complexes depends on the identity of the spacer ligand17 and experimental conditions such as temperature and solvents as well.19 The flexible bis-pyridyl-bis-amide (bpba) ligands which possess different -(CH2)n- skeletons have been used as the spacer to construct various coordination polymers during recent years. Structures of different dimensions with or without participation of auxiliary polycarboxylate ligands have been investigated.26 Two amide groups (-NH-CO-) present in them, which play important roles as the abundant potential hydrogen bond sites. To investigate the structure-directing role of the bpba ligand based on the rigid angular ditopic group in the formation of helical, mercury halide-containing coordination polymers that may or may not be affected by the halide ions to construct the structure as well as to impact its properties, we have replaced the flexible –(CH2)n- skeleton of the bpba ligand with the 1,2-phenyl-bis(methylene) group (-CH2-Ph-CH2-) to 4


Page 4 of 38

Page 5 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


prepare

2,2’-(1,2-phenylene)-bis(N-pyridin-3-yl)acetamide (L), which

were reacted with the Hg(II) halide salts. Herein, we report the synthesis, structures and structural transformation of five Hg(II) coordination polymers containing L. The effect of the halide anion on the structural transformation is also discussed.

Experimental section General Procedures. Elemental analyses were performed on a PE 2400 series II CHNS/O or an elementar Vario EL-III analyzer. The 1H NMR spectrum was recorded on a Bruker Avance II 400 MHz FT-NMR. IR spectra (KBr disk) were obtained from a JASCO FT/IR-460 plus spectrometer. Powder X-ray diffraction was carried out using a Bruker D2 PHASER diffractometer with CuKα (λα = 1.54 Å) radiation. Emission spectra were recorded on a Hitachi F-4500 spectrometer. Materials. The reagent 1,2-phenylenediacetic acid was purchased from ACROS

Co..

3-Aminopyridine,

pyridine,

tripenylphosphite

and

mercury(II) halide salts were purchased from Alfa Aesar Co.. Synthesis of L. 3-Aminopyridine (1.88 g, 20 mmol) solution in 10 ml pyridine was mixed with 25 ml pyridine solution of 1,2-phenyldiacetic acid (1.94 g, 10 mmol) and was made a homogenous mixture by stirring for 20 mins. Triphenyl phosphite (6.2 g, 20 mmol) was added and stirred gently for 2 h. The mixture was then refluxed for 24 h. After air cooling to room temperature, it was washed with deionized water several times to get a pure form of L. Yield: 2.95 g (85 %). Anal calcd for C20H18N4O2 (MW = 346.38): C, 69.34; N, 16.17; H, 5.23 %. Found: C, 70.27; N, 15.9; H, 4.55 %. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6, δ): 10.38(s, 2H); 8.72(d, 2H); 8.23(d, 2H); 7.99 (d, 2H); 7.29-7.33(m, 4H); 7.23-7.21(m, 2H); 3.83 (s, 4H), 5



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure S1. IR (KBr disk, cm-1): 3309(w), 3253(w), 3226(m), 3172(m), 3114(m), 3069(w), 2979(m), 2860(m), 1694(m), 1669(s), 1607(s), 1553(s), 1483(s), 1411(m), 1353(m), 1288(m), 1240(m), 1213(m), 1188(m), 1147(m), 1104(w), 1048(w), 1027(w), 957(w), 885(w), 805(m), 753(m), 718(m), 700(m), 625(w), 578(w), 543(w). Figure S2. Synthesis of [Hg(L)Cl2] n, 1. Mercury(II) chloride (0.027 g, 0.10 mmol), L (0.035 g. 0.10 mmol) and 7 mL of ethanol were sealed in a 23 mL Teflon-lined stainless steel autoclave, which was then heated under autogenous pressure at 120 o C for 48 h followed by slow cooling at a rate of 2 °C h-1 to RT. Slow cooling of the reaction system afforded needle shape colorless crystals suitable for single-crystal X-ray diffraction. Yield: 0.037 g (60 %). Anal calcd for 1, C20H18Cl2HgN4O2 (MW = 617.87): C, 38.87; N, 9.06; H, 2.94 %. Found: C, 38.26; N, 8.86; H, 2.94 %. IR (cm-1): 3343(s), 3182(m), 3123(m), 3070(s), 3045(m), 2916(m), 2360(m), 1706(s), 1664(s), 1598(s), 1585(s), 1537(s), 1482(s), 1455(s), 1426(s), 1411(s), 1363(s), 1344(s), 1324(s), 12969s), 1280(s), 1244(s), 1210(s), 1196(s), 1185(s), 1166(s), 1124(s), 1102(s), 1048(s), 1026(m), 971(m), 958(m), 939(m), 919(m), 861(m), 806(s), 758(s), 732(m), 401(s), 634(m), 620(m), 570(m), 554(m), 492(w), 458(w),420(w). An alternative method for 1: A 20 ml ethanoic solution of L (0.069 g, 0.20 mmol) was prepared and 20 ml ethereal solution of HgCl2 (0.054 g, 0.20 mmol) was layered down slowly without disturbance on top. After 3 weeks, needle shape colorless crystals of 1 were generated. Yield: Yield: 0.094 g (76 %). The structure of this product obtained by layering has been verified by using powder X-ray pattern as the one prepared by using solvothermal reaction, Figure S3. 6


Page 6 of 38

Page 7 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Synthesis of [Hg(L)Br2]n, 2. Prepared as described for 1, except that HgBr2 (0.036 g, 0.10 mmol) and L (0.035 g. 0.10 mmol) were used. Yield: 0.037 g (52 %). Anal calcd for C20H18Br2HgN4O2 (MW = 706.77): C, 33.99; N, 7.93; H, 2.57 %. Found: C, 34.17; N, 7.99; H, 2.6 %. IR (cm-1): 3452(s), 3438(s), 3349(s), 3239(s), 3115(s), 3066(s), 2915(s), 1960(w), 1916(w), 1822(w), 1707(s), 1683(s), 1680(s), 1598(s), 1584(s), 1535(s), 1481(s), 1448(s), 1428(s), 1425(s), 1361(s), 1341(s), 1323(s), 1285(s), 1279(s), 1244(s), 1208(s), 1194(s), 1185(s), 1166(s), 1123(s), 1100(s), 1046(s), 1026(s), 970(s), 958(s), 939(m), 916(m), 874(w), 861(w), 805(s), 757(s), 730(s), 700(s), 671(s), 632(s), 607(s), 569(s), 552(s), 514(m), 506(m), 492(w), 458(w), 410(w). An alternative method for 2: A 20 ml ethanoic solution of L (0.069 g, 0.20 mmol) was prepared and 20 ml methanoic solution of HgBr2 (0.072 g, 0.20 mmol) was layered down slowly without disturbance on top. After 3 weeks, needle shape colorless crystals of 2 were generated. Yield: 0.024 g (34 %). The structure of this product obtained by layering has been verified by using powder X-ray pattern as the one prepared by using solvothermal reaction, Figure S4. Synthesis of [Hg(L)I2]n, 3. Prepared as described for 1, except that HgI2 (0.045 g, 0.10 mmol) and L (0.035 g, 0.10 mmol) were used. Yield: 0.056 g (70 %).

Anal calcd for C20H18HgI2N4O2 (MW = 800.77): C, 29.997; N,

6.997; H, 2.266 %. Found: C, 30.348; N, 7.028; H, 2.322 %. IR (cm-1): 3356(s), 3237(m), 3175(m), 3119(m), 3055(m), 2909(m), 1958(w), 1915(w), 1817(w), 1711(s), 1654(s), 1597(m), 1582(s), 1535(s), 1481(s), 1455(m), 1422(s), 1362(m), 1341(m), 1322(m), 1294(s), 1277(m), 1244(m), 1208(m), 1194(m), 1183(m), 1166(m), 1122(m), 1099(m), 1045(m), 1025(m), 968(m), 958(m), 939(m), 914(m), 899(w), 860(w), 7



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

805(m), 784(w), 756(m), 730(m), 701(m), 630(m), 595(w), 570(m), 559(m), 551(m), 513(w), 492(w), 457(w), 410(w). Synthesis of [Hg(L)I2.MeOH] n, 4. A 20 ml methanoic solution of HgI2 (0.091 g, 0.20 mmol) was prepared and layered on top of 20 ml ethanoic solution of L (0.069 g, 0.20 mmol). After three weeks, colorless column-shaped crystals of 4 were generated. Yield: 0.11 g (66 %). Anal calcd for C21H22HgI2N4O3 (MW = 832.81): C, 30.29; N, 6.73; H, 2.66 %. Found: C, 30.03; N, 6.78; H, 2.61 %. IR (cm-1): 3900(w), 3851(w), 3836(w), 3799(w), 3748(w), 3733(w), 3709(w), 3688(w), 3647(w), 3585(w), 3355(w), 3242(m), 3183(m), 3130(m), 3101(m), 3068(m), 2923(m), 2350(w), 1917(w), 1667(s), 1603(s), 1541(s), 1481(s), 1455(m), 1415(s), 1341(s), 1325(m), 1288(s), 1244(m), 1194(m), 1180(m), 1124(m), 1101(w), 1051(m), 1023(m), 961(m), 939(m), 909(m), 878(m), 807(m), 772(m), 727(m), 698(m), 643(m), 632(m), 575(m), 516(m), 458(w), 446(w), 432(w), 410(w) . Synthesis of [Hg(L)I2.MeCN] n, 5. A 20 ml acetonitrile solution of HgI2 (0.091 g, 0.20 mmol) was prepared and layered on top of 20 ml ethanoic solution of L (0.069 g, 0.20 mmol). After one week, colorless column-shaped crystals of 5 were generated. Yield: 0.11 g (65 %). Anal calcd for C22H21HgI2N5O2 (MW = 841.83): C, 31.38; N, 8.31; H, 2.51%. Found: C, 31.32; N, 8.20; H, 2.27 %. IR (cm-1): 3326(w), 3237(w), 3179(w), 3124(w), 3062(w), 2924(w), 2295(w), 2262(w), 1923(w), 1702(m), 1660(s), 1604(m), 1543(s), 1482(s), 1411(s), 1346(s), 1310(w), 1295(m), 1244(w), 1194(m), 1155(m), 1122(w), 1099(w), 1049(w), 968(w), 805(m), 779(w), 731(m), 700(m), 633(w), 573(w), 515(w), 408(w). 8


Page 8 of 38

Page 9 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


X-ray crystallography. The diffraction data for complexes 1 – 5 were collected on a Bruker AXS SMART APEX II CCD diffractometer at 22 oC, which was equipped with a graphite-monochromated MoKα (λα = 0.71073 Å) radiation.27 Data reduction was performed by use of well-established computational procedures.28 The structure factors were obtained after Lorentz and polarization, followed by empirical absorption correction based on “multi-scan”. The positions of some of the heavier atoms were located by the direct or Patterson method and the remaining atoms were found in a series of alternating difference Fourier maps and least-square refinements. The hydrogen atoms were added by using the HADD command in SHELXTL. Basic information pertaining to crystal parameters and structure refinement is summarized in Table 1. Selected bond distances and angles are listed in Table 2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Crystal structures of 1 – 3. Isomorphous crystals of 1 - 3 conform to the monoclinic crystal system and space group P21/c. Figure 1a depicts a representative drawing showing the coordination environment about the metal ion. The Hg(II) ion is in a distorted tetrahedral geometry (τ4 = 0.67, 1; 0.69, 2; 0.73, 3),29,30 which is coordinated with two pyridyl nitrogen atoms and two halide anions. The X-Hg-X (X = Cl, 1; Br, 2; I, 3) bond angle is much greater than the corresponding N-Hg-N bond angle, and the X-Hg-X angle of 3 is significantly smaller than those of 1 and 2, while the Hg-N distances in 1 – 3 are similar. Moreover, while the Hg-Cl distances are significantly shorter than the corresponding Hg-N distances and the Hg-Br and Hg-N distances are similar, the Hg-I distances are significantly larger. The X-Hg-X angles in 1 – 3 that are much greater than the tetrahedral value indicate that halide anion is a better donor towards Hg(II) than nitrogen atom of the pyridyl ring, and the wider 9



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

X-Hg-X angles in the sequence from X = I to X = Cl can be ascribed to the increase in s-orbital character of the hybrid orbital used by mercury ion in the Hg-X bond.31 Complexes 1 - 3 show zigzag 1D linear chains having N-H---O hydrogen bonds between amine hydrogen atoms and carbonyl oxygen atoms within a chain, Figure 1b. Another amine hydrogen atom in the same ligand is involved in the N-H---X hydrogen bond with the halide ion from adjacent chain. Besides, short contacts between mercury and halide ions are also observed within different layers and the distance between these two atoms is less than sum of van der Waals radii of respective atoms, Figure 1c. Details of N-H---O, N-H---X and Hg---X interactions are listed in Table 3. A series of double C-H---π interactions resulting from methylene hydrogen atoms to the centroids of the phenyl rings and from the pyridyl hydrogen atoms to the centroids of pyridyl rings can be observed in 1 – 3. Moreover, the C-H---π interactions resulting from the pyridyl hydrogen atoms to the centroids of pyridyl rings form a continuous fashion like face-to-edge and edge-to-face, Figure 1d. Table S1 shows the C-H---π π distances. The typical cutoff distance for H---π distance is 3.05 Å on the basis of Pauling’s value for the half thickness of a phenyl ring (1.85 Å)32 and the van der Waals radius of H (1.20 Å).33 As shown in Table 3, the H---Cl (2.62 Å), H---Br (2.78 Å) and H---I (3.03 Å) distances of the N-H---X (X = Cl, 1; Br, 2 and I, 3) hydrogen bonds are shorter than their corresponding van der Waals contacts which are 2.95, 3.05 and 3.18 Å (van der Waals radius for H = 1.20, Cl = 1.75, Br = 1.85, I = 1.98 and Hg = 1.98 Å),34 and the differences are 0.33, 0.27 and 0.15 Å, respectively, indicating much weaker N-H---I hydrogen 10


Page 10 of 38

Page 11 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


bonds. Moreover, while the Hg---Cl distances of 3.4637(5) and 3.4224(5) Å and Hg---Br distances of 3.7051(7) Å are shorter than their corresponding van der Waals contacts of 3.73 and 3.83 Å, respectively, the Hg---I distance of 4.1134(10) Å is outside its upper limit of 3.96 Å, indicating the absence of Hg---I interaction. For the qualitative assessment of the relative strength of various hydrogen bonds, hydrogen bond distances can be evaluated in a common scale by using normalized distance function [RHX = d(H---X)/(rH + rX)] suggested by Lommerse et al. on the basis of van der Waals radii, rH and rX, which takes account of the different sizes of the halogen atoms.35,36 Accordingly, the normalized distances RHX (Å) for H---X contacts in 1 - 3 are calculated as 0.888, 0.911 and 0.953, respectively, indicating that the normalized distance of 3 is greater which also reflects a weaker hydrogen bond as compared to 1 and 2. Crystal structures of 4 and 5. Crystals of both 4 and 5 conform to the monoclinic space group Cc. Figure 2a depicts a representative drawing showing the coordination environment about the metal ion. The Hg(II) ion adopts a distorted tetrahedral geometry (τ4 = 0.79 for 4 and 0.80 for 5), which is coordinated with two pyridyl nitrogen atoms and two chloride anions, forming a 1D helical chain, Figure 2b. A span of complete helical chain is 14.27 and 13.58 Å, respectively, for 4 and 5, involving two mercury atoms and one L ligand. The 1D helical chains of 4 are connected by two kinds of hydrogen bonds. In the first case the methanol molecules act like bridging ligands for O-H---O [H---O = 1.92 Å, ∠O-H---O = 179.4o] hydrogen bonds linking the amide oxygen atoms and N-H---O [O---H = 2.03 Å; ∠N-H---O = 155.6o] hydrogen bonds originating from the amine hydrogen atoms. In another case the interchain N-H---O [H---O = 2.02 Å; ∠N-H---O = 166.6o] hydrogen 11



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

bonds between amide oxygen and amine hydrogen atoms can be shown, Figure 2c. In marked contrast, the helical chains of 5 are interlinked through only interchain N-H---O [H---O = 1.93 Å; ∠N-H---O = 179.2o] hydrogen bonds, and the acetonitrile molecules interact with the amine hydrogen atoms through N-H---N [H---N = 2.20 Å; ∠N-H---N = 148.0o] hydrogen bonds, Figure 2d. Ligand conformation. In the case of bpba ligands with the flexible -(CH2)n- skeleton, the ligand conformation is determined by the C-C-C-C torsion angle as well as the orientations of C=O and N-H groups:26 (a) The A and G conformations are given when the C-C-C-C torsion angle (θ) is 180 ≥ θ > 90o and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 90o, respectively, where A stands for ‘anti’ while G for ‘gauche’ conformation. (b) If orientation of C=O or N–H group is on the same direction, the conformation is said to be ‘cis’ and if it is on the opposite direction, arrangement is assigned as ‘trans’. (c) Because of the differences in the orientations of the pyridyl nitrogen atom and amide oxygen atom, three more conformations anti-anti, syn-anti and syn-syn are also given. In the L ligand, the flexible -(CH2)n- skeleton has been replaced by the more rigid 1,2-phenyl-bis(methylene) group (-CH2-Ph-CH2-). Only rules (b) and (c) are used to define the conformation. Accordingly, the conformations of L are cis syn-anti in 1 – 3 and trans anti-anti in 4 and 5, respectively. Table S2 lists the ligand conformations and corresponding angles of complexes 1 - 5. Structural transformation. Complexes 1 – 5 provide a unique opportunity to investigate the structural transformations due to solvent adsorption/desorption and exchange in the Hg(II) halide coordination polymer containing L. To confirm the transformations in 1 - 5, we first 12


Page 12 of 38

Page 13 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


checked their purities by measuring their powder X-ray diffraction patterns. Figure S5 - Figure S9 show that the powder patterns of these five complexes match quite well with those simulated from single-crystal X-ray data, indicating the bulk purities of these complexes. Isostructural crystals of zigzag 1 - 3 without solvent association were synthesized by using solvothermal process. Attempts to prepare crystals through layer diffusion at room temperature afforded only HgI2 helical coordination polymers 4 and 5, while layering reactions of HgCl2 and HgBr2 with L resulted in 1 and 2, respectively, as prepared by using the solvothermal reactions. Getting two different types of structures individually from two processes in the case of HgI2 arises an optimism of structural transformation. To investigate the structural transformation, crystals of 3 were first kept separately in variable solvents (relative polarity range 0.3 to 1.0) such as water, methanol, 1-propanol, acetonitrile and methylene chloride. In methanol and 1-propanol, crystals of 3 dissolved, while in other solvents, the crystals remained. Moreover, only methanol and acetonitrile were able to alter crystal structures which were structurally characterized as 4 and 5, while water, 1-propanol and methylene chloride have no effect on 3 as verified by the powder X-ray patterns, Figure S10. These experiments enlightened and inspired to repeat the processes for 1 and 2 but structures are stable especially towards methanol and acetonitrile along with other solvents, Figure S11 and Figure S12. The reversible structural transformations observed in 3 - 5 are depicted in Figure 3, vide infra. Reversible transformations by solvent desorption/adsorption. The thermal gravimetric analyses (TGA) of 4 and 5 were investigated to 13



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

determine temperature ranges for the solvent removal. The TGA curve of 4, Figure S13, shows a total weight loss of 4.0 % in 90 - 140 oC, presumably due to the removal of the cocrystallized methanol solvent (calcd 3.8 %), while that of 5, Figure S14, displays a total weight loss of 5.0 % in 90 - 132 oC, corresponding to the removal of the cocrystallized CH3CN solvent (calcd 4.8 %). Accordingly, complexes 4 and 5 were heated at 150 oC to confirm the solvent removal in the following de-solvation reactions. Crystals of 3 were kept in methanol, which dissolved into solvent and after two weeks the solvent slowly evaporated on expose in air to generate crystals of 4 which were confirmed by the powder XRD pattern, Figure 4, and unit cell of the crystal. Crystals of 4 were then heated at 150 o

C for 2 h to remove crystalized methanol solvents to afford the original 3.

These efforts justified reversible structural transformation between 3 and 4. This process was repeated by starting with 4 in the reversed process to verify the reversibility of 4 individually where the matched powder XRD patterns with 3 conform the reversibility of 3 and 4, Figure 5. Similarly, the powder pattern of 5 after heated at 150 oC for 2 h matched with that of 3 which can re-absorb acetonitrile solvent to retain its structure back corroborated the reversible crystal to crystal transformation between 3 and 5, Figure 6. Reversed process was also performed starting with 3, which, on solvation with acetonitrile afforded 5 and on de-solvation recovered 3, established the reversible transformation, Figure 7. Reversible transformation by solvent exchange. Unlike previous transformation where the solvation and de-solvation were performed, the structural transformations between 4 and 5 can be carried out by solvent exchange. On the other hand, the transformation between 4 and 5 can also 14


Page 14 of 38

Page 15 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


be proceeded by de-solvation followed by the solvation with appropriate solvents. In these occasions, crystals of 4 and 5 were kept in acetonitrile and methanol, respectively, without dissolution for three weeks, which were then verified by the powder X-ray patterns. Figures 8 and 9 confirm the reversible crystal-to-crystal transformation due to solvent exchange between 4 and 5. Based on the reversible transformations observed for 3, 4 and 5, these complexes can be regarded as a unique example that the solvents show significant effect on folding and unfolding of the HgI2 single-stranded helical coordination polymers. Hirshfeld Surface Analysis. Hirshfeld surface analysis was carried out on CrystalExplorer 3.1 by importing crystal CIF file,37 which explores the intermolecular interactions in the crystal structure based on the electron densities of the spherical atoms.38 Color codes are used to predict the strength of the interactions by mapping the dnorm functions onto the Hirshfeld surface, where the red regions represent the shorter contacts and negative dnorm values and blue regions represent longer contacts and positive dnorm values, while the white regions indicate the contacts close in length to the van der Waals limit.38,39 The 3D dnorm surfaces can be resolved into 2D fingerprint plots which show the contributions of the intermolecular interactions. This tool is efficient to confirm the hydrogen bonding and atom-atom interaction around Hirshfeld Surface within a given compound as well as to compare interaction in isomorphous crystals.40-42 Exploration on full fingerprint plots of 1 – 3 by using Hirshfeld surface analysis show similar patterns for strong interaction such as 15



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

N-H---O, N-H---X and H---pi interactions, Figure S15. However, the difference noticed among these complexes is the distance of closest and effective interaction in di and de for the N-H---X and Hg---X interactions. As shown in Figure 10, we notice the de and di distances mapped for N-H---X and Hg---X interactions in 3 are different from those in 1 and 2 and the Hg---X distance of 3 is much longer than 4 Å (de + di). These much weaker N-H---I and Hg---I interactions can be one of the factors that assists 3 for structural transformation. Roles of halide anion and noncovalent interactions. A notable question is why the reversible structural transformation was observed for the HgI2 complexes, but not for the HgCl2 and HgBr2 ones. For complexes 1 – 3, the forces involved in maximizing the Hg-N bond strengths are of the same magnitude, i.e., the Hg-N distances in complexes 1 – 3 are about the same. However, the fact that the X-Hg-X angle of 3 is significantly smaller than those of 1 and 2 suggests that the identity of the halide atom is one of the main structure-determining factors. As shown in Table 3 and verified by the Hirshfeld Surface Analysis, the low electronegativity and large size of iodide anion inevitably affect the N-H---X and Hg---X distances. The weaker N-H---I hydrogen bond and absence of the Hg---I interaction in 3 facilitate the amide carbonyl group to rotate freely to change the ligand configuration through the folding/unfolding process (adjacent Hg-Hg distance from 9.98 to 14.27 Å) and convert reversibly intra-chain N-H---O to inter-chain N-H---O hydrogen bonds during the structural transformation in the presence of effective methanol and acetonitrile solvents, Figure 11. The methanol and acetonitrile solvents that mediate the structural transformation interact with the amide groups of the L ligands through the N-H---O and O-H---O hydrogen bonds in 4 and N-H---N hydrogen 16


Page 16 of 38

Page 17 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


bonds in 5, respectively. The effect of the halogen atoms on the structural diversity has been reported. It has been shown that the structures of organic crystals of chloro and bromo compounds in a halogen series generally show similar packing whereas the iodo derivatives are usually different. The chloride and bromide anions which play the same structural effect can most probably be ascribed to their similar polarizations.43-44 In the series of Zn(II) complexes with N,N′-di(4-pyridyl)adipoamide ligands, the chloro and bromo complexes form double-stranded helical chains, whereas the iodo

one

shows

sinusoidal

chains,

suggesting

that

the

structure-determining factors are the size and electronegativity of the halide anion.45 Emission properties. Figure S16 shows emission spectra of L in the solution and solid states. Accordingly, the L ligand exhibits emission at 318 nm upon excitations at 295 nm in the solid state, while emissions at 398, 359, 360 and 358 nm upon excitations at 325, 305, 310 and 308 nm were observed in MeOH, EtOH, DMF and DMSO, respectively. The emission spectra of L are solvent dependent, which suggests that a polar excited state capable of forming exciplex with different solvents is involved in the emission.46 However, no detectable levels of emission intensity can be found for 1 – 5, which may be ascribed to the fast non-radiative decay of the absorbed light by the complex in the solid state.47

CONCLUSIONS In summary, five Hg(II) CPs with the new L ligand have been synthesized and structural characterized, in which the HgI2 complexes 3 17



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 18 of 38

5 show reversible structural transformations induced by the solvent adsorption/desorption and exchange. Although 1 - 3 are isostructural, only the iodide-containing 3 is able to transform into varied structures. Methanol

and

acetonitrile

solvents

assist

reversible

structural

transformation due to their ability in exchanging intra-chain N-H---O hydrogen bonds in 3 and inter-chain N-H---O hydrogen bonds in 4 and 5. The larger size and smaller electronegativity of the iodide anion that result in weaker N-H---I hydrogen bond and absence of the Hg---I interaction facilitate the rotation of the amide carbonyl group and lead to the structural transformation, while the stronger N-H---X (X = Cl and Br) and Hg---X interactions in 1 and 2 limit such rotation and thus make the transformation inaccessible.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

Supporting information The supporting information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: xxxx. NMR and IR spectra (Figure S1 and Figure S2). Powder X-ray patterns (Figure S3 – Figure S12). TGA curves (Figure S13 –Figure S14). Fingerprint plots (Figure S15). Normalized emission

spectra

(Figure

S16).

C-H---π distances (Table S1).

Corresponding angles and conformations (Table S2).

Accession Codes CCDC

Nos.

1551073-1551077

contain

the

supplementary

crystallographic data for these paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via

www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif,

[email protected],

or

by

contacting

or

by

The

emailing Cambridge

Crystallographic Data Centre, 12,Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: +44 1223 336033. 18


Page 19 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author *E-mail: [email protected] (JDC)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China for support.

REFERENCES (1) Tiekink, E. R. T.; Vittal, J. J. Frontiers in Crystal Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., England, 2006. (2) Batten, S. R.; Neville, S. M.; Turner, D. R. Coordination Polymers: Design, Analysis and Application, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 2009. (3) Li, J.-R.; Sculley, J.; Zhou, H.-C. Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 869-932. (4) Constable, E. C. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 1637-1651. (5) Ke, S.-Y.; Wang, C.-C. CrystEngComm 2015, 17, 8776-8785 (6) Zeng, M.-H.; Hu, S.; Chen, Q.; Xie, G.; Shuai, Q.; Gao, S.-L.; Tang, L.-Y. Inorg. Chem. 2009, 48, 7070-7079 (7) Tripathi, S.; Srirambalaji, R.; Patra, S.; Anantharaman, G. CrystEngComm 2015, 17, 8876–8887 (8) Vittal, J. J. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2007, 251, 1781-1795. (9) Kole, G. K.; Vittal, J. J. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 1755-1775. (10) Mahmoudi, G.; Morsali, A. Cryst. Growth Des. 2008, 8, 391-394 (11) Mobin, S. M.; Srivastava, A. K.; Mathur, P.; Lahiri, G. K. Dalton Trans. 2010, 39, 8698-8705 (12) Hou, Y.; Masoomi, M. Y.; Bagheri, M.; Morsali, A.; Joo, S. W. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 81356-81361. 19



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(13) Thapa, K. B.; Hsu, Y.-F.; Lin, H.-C.; Chen, J.-D. CrystEngComm 2015, 17, 7574–7582 (14) Morsali, A.; Yaser Masoomi, M. Y. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2009, 253, 1882-1905. (15) Mahmoudi, G.; Khandar, A.A.; Zareba, J.K.; Bialek, M.J.; Gargari, M.S.; Abedi, M.; Barandika, G.; Derveer, D. V.; Mague, J.; Masoumi, A. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2015, 429, 1-14. (16) Ma, T.; Wang, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, F. Acta Cryst. 2012, E68, m367. (17) Masoumi, A.; Gargari, M. S.; Mahmoudi, g.; Miroslaw, B.; Therien, B.; Abedi, M.; Hazendonk, P. J. Mol. Struct. 2015, 1088, 64- 69. (18) Pansanel, J.; Jouaiti, A.; Ferlay, S.; Hosseini, M. W.; Planeix, J.-M.; Kyritsakas, N. New J. Chem. 2006, 30, 71-76. (19) Mahmoudi, G.; Khandar, A.A.; White, J.; Mitoraj, M. P.; Jena, H.S.; Vooort, P.V.D.; Qureshi, N. Kirillov, A.M.; Robeyns, K.; Safin, D.A. CrystEngComm 2017, 19, 3017-3025. (20) Yuan, Z.-Z.; Luo, F.; Song, Y.-M.; Sun, G.-M.; Tian, X.-Z.; Huang, H.-Z.; Zhu, Y.; Feng, X.-F.; Luo, M.-B.; Liu, S.-J.; Xu, W.-Y. Dalton Trans., 2012, 41, 12670-12673. (21) Rana, L. K.; Sharma, S.; Hundal, G. Cryst. Growth Des. 2016, 16, 92-107 (22) Mahmoudi, G.; Bauz, A.; Gurbanov, A. V.; Zubkov, F.I.; Maniukiewicz, W.; Rodriguez-Dieguez, A.; Lopez-Torres, E.; Frontera, A. CrystEngComm 2016, 18, 9056-9066. (23)

Wang, H.; Wang, P.; Huang, C.; Chang, L.; Wu, J.; Hou, H.; Fan,

Y. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2011, 378, 326-332 (24) Hsu, W.; Li, Y.-S.; He, H.-Y.; Chen, K.-T.; Wu, H.-S.; Proserpio, D. M.; Chen, J.-D.; and Wang, J.-C. CrystEngComm 2014, 16, 7385-7388. (25) Hsu, W.; Yang, X.-K.; Chhetri, P. M.; Chen, J.-D. Polymers 2016, 8, 20


Page 20 of 38

Page 21 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


137 (26) Thapa, K. B.; Chen, J.-D. CrystEngComm 2015, 17, 4611-4626. (27) Bruker AXS, APEX2, V2008.6; SAD ABS V2008/1; SAINT+ V7.60A; SHELXTL V6.14; Bruker AXS Inc.: Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2008. (28) Sheldrick, G. M. Acta Crystallogr. 2008, A64, 112. (29) Yang, L.; Powell, D. R.; Houser, R. P. Dalton Trans. 2007, 955–964 (30) Okuniewski, A.; Rosiak, D.; Chojnacki, J.; Becker, B. Polyhedron 2015, 90, 47–57. (31) Persson, I.; Sandström, M.; Goggin, P. L.; Mosset, A. J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. 1985, 1597-1604. (32) Malone, J. F.; Murray, C, M.; Charlton, M. H.; Docherty, R.; Lavery, A. J. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1997, 93, 3429-3436. (33) Bondi, A. J. Phys. Chem. 1964, 68, 441-451. (34) Batsanov, S. S. Inorg. Mater. 2001, 37, 871-885. (35) Lommerse, J. P. M.; Stone, A. J.; Taylor, R.; Allen, F. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3108-3116. (36) Brammer, L.; Bruton, E. A.; Sherwood, P. Cryst. Growth Des, 2001, 1, 277-290. (37) Wolff, S. K; Grimwood, D. J.; McKinnon, J. J.; Turner, M. J.; Jayatilaka, D.; Spackman, M. A. University of Western Australia, 2012. (38) McKinnon, J. J.; Jayatilaka, D.; Spackman, M. A. Chem. Commun. 2007, 3814 - 1816. (39) Spackman, M. A.; Jayatilaka, D. CrystEngComm 2009, 11, 19 - 32. (40) Martin, A. D.; Britton, J.; Easun, T. L.; Blake, A. J.; Lewis, W.; Schroder, M. Cryst. Growth Des. 2015, 15, 1697−1706. (41) Guzman-Percastegui, E.; Alvarado-Rodríguez, J. G.; Cruz-Borbolla, J.; Andrade-Lopez, N.; Vazquez-García, R. A.; Nava-Galindo, R. N.; Pandiyan, T. Cryst. Growth Des. 2014, 14, 3742−3757. 21



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(42) Mahmoudi, G.; Zangrando, E.; Bauza, A.; Maniukiewicz,W.; Carballo,R.; Gurbanov, A. V.; Frontera, A. CrystEngComm 2017, 19, 3322-3330. (43) Dey, A.; Jetti, R. K. R.; Boese, R.; Desiraju, G. R. CrystEngComm 2003, 5, 248-252. (44) Saha, B. K.; Jetti, R. K. R.; Reddy, L. S.; Aitipamula, S.; Nangia, A. Cryst. Growth Des. 2005, 5, 887-899. (45) Hsu, Y.-F.; Hsu, W.; Wu, C.-J.; Cheng, P.-C.; Yeh, C.-W.; Chang, W.-J.; Chen, J.-D.; Wang, J.-C. CrystEngComm 2010, 12, 702-710. (46) Singh, D.; Ghosh, S. K.; Baruah, J. B. J. Heterocyclic Chem. 2010, 47, 199 – 206. (47) Turro, N. J. Modern Molecular Photochemistry, University Science Books, California, 1991.

22


Page 22 of 38

Page 23 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48


Table 1. Crystal data for complexes 1 – 5. Compound

1

2

3

4

5

Formula Fw Crystal System Space Group a, Å b, Å c, Å α, o β, o ϒ, o V, Å 3 Dcal, g cm-3 F(000) Z µ(Mo Kα), mm-1 Range(2θ) for data collection, deg Reflections Collected

C20H18Cl2HgN4O2 617.87 Monoclinic P21/c 12.025(2) 18.959(3) 9.1192(16) 90 97.886(10) 90 2059.4(6) 1.993 1184 4 7.758 4.99 to 56.70 18247 5042 [R(int) = 0.0853] 5042 / 0 / 270 1.002 R1 = 0.0522, wR2 = 0.1189 R1 = 0.0850,

C20H18Br2HgN4O2 706.79 Monoclinic P21/c 12.0882(4) 19.3558(6) 9.0541(2) 90 96.876(2) 90 2103.21(11) 2.232 1328 4 11.142 3.99 to 56.66 20743 5229 [R(int) = 0.0509] 5229 / 0 / 262 1.025 R1 = 0.0388, wR2 = 0.0752 R1 = 0.0695,

C20H18HgI2N4O2 800.77 Monoclinic P21/c 12.3425(5) 20.0881(9) 8.9811(4) 90 95.840(3) 90 2215.19(17) 2.401 1472 4 9.759 3.31 to 56.67 21883 5489 [R(int) = 0.0811] 5489 / 0 / 262 1.002 R1 = 0.0610, wR2 = 0.1168 R1 = 0.1346,

C21H22HgI2N4O3 832.81 Monoclinic Cc 14.2815(2) 18.5108(3) 9.6452(1) 90 98.846(1) 90 2519.49(6) 2.196 1544 4 8.588 3.63 to 56.69 21850 5465 [R(int) = 0.0287] 5465 / 2 / 281 1.071 R1 = 0.0242, wR2= 0.0555 R1 = 0.0264, wR2=0.0564

C22 H21HgI2N5O2 841.83 Monoclinic Cc 13.5788(1) 19.9068(2) 9.4786(1) 90 94.716(1) 90 2553.49(4) 2.19 1560 4 8.473 3.64 to 56.65 22720 5639 [R(int) = 0.0288] 5639 / 2 / 290 1.002 R1 = 0.0227, wR2 = 0.0482 R1 = 0.0251, wR2 = 0.0490

Independent reflections Data/restraints/parameters Quality-of-fit indicatorc Final R indices [I>2σ(I)]a,b R indices (all data)

wR2 = 0.1364 wR2 = 0.0839 wR2 =0.1429 R1 = Σ||Fo| – |Fc|| / Σ|Fo|. bwR2 = [Σw(Fo2 – Fc2)2 / Σw(Fo2)2]1/2. w = 1 / [σ2(Fo2) + (ap)2 + (bp)], p = [max(Fo2 or 0) + 2(Fc2)] / 3. a = 0.0660, b = 0, 1; a = 0.0343, b = 0.8730, 2; a = 0.0602, b = 0, 3; a = 0.0217, b = 0.5779, 4; a = 0.0107, b = 0, 5. c quality−of−fit = [Σw(|Fo2| – |Fc2|)2 / Nobserved – Nparameters )]1/2.

23



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 24 of 38

Table 2. Selected bond distances (Å) and angles (˚) for complexes 1 – 5. Hg-N(1) Hg-N(4A) Hg-X(1) Hg-X(2) ∠N(1)-Hg-N(4A) ∠N(1)-Hg-X(1) ∠N(1)-Hg-X(2) ∠N(4A)-Hg-X(1) ∠N(4A)-Hg-X(2) ∠X(1)-Hg-X(2)

1 2.4628(4) 2.4653(4) 2.3685(4) 2.3529(4) 88.950(3) 91.815(5) 109.152(5) 96.835(5) 96.835(3) 155.496(5)

2 2.4756(1) 2.4581(1) 2.4745(1) 2.4624(1) 88.874(0) 92.751(1) 108.032(1) 98.305(0) 97.685(1) 153.927(1)

3 2.5181(81) 2.473(103) 2.6212(9) 2.6227(8) 87.6(3) 96.3(2) 106.7(2) 100.5(2) 100.3(2) 149.44(3)

4 2.4204(68) 2.4287(56) 2.6417(8) 2.6317(6) 90.4(2) 104.15(13) 101.77(14) 100.61(14) 104.98(15) 143.13(2)

24


5 2.4528(53) 2.3966(42) 2.6678(6) 2.6465(5) 96.51(15) 101.39(11) 102.12(12) 102.29(12) 104.16(11) 142.037(19)

Page 25 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Table 3: N-H---O, N-H---X and Hg---X bond distances (Å) and angles (˚) for complexes 1 – 3. Hg---X

N-H---O

∠N-H---O

N---O

N-H---X

∠N-H---X

N---X

1

2.05

166.9

2.8984(4)

2.62

175.8

3.4751(5)

3.4637(5), 3.4224(5)

2

2.04

168.5

2.892(5)

2.78

175.6

3.634(4)

3.7051(7)

3

2.04

172.4

2.90(1)

3.03

171.2

3.878(9)

4.1134(10)

25



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 26 of 38

Captions Figure 1. (a) A representative drawing showing coordination environment about the Hg(II) ion for 1 – 3. Symmetry transformations used to generate equivalent atoms: (A) x, -y + 3/2, z – 1/2. (b) 1D zigzag chain showing intra-chain N-H---O hydrogen bonds. (c) A drawing showing the Hg---X (bright green) interaction, N-H---X (turquoise) hydrogen bonds and N-H---O (red) hydrogen bonds. (d) A drawing showing the C-H---π interactions. Figure 2. (a) A representative drawing showing the coordination environment about the Hg(II) ion for 4 and 5. Symmetry transformations used to generate equivalent atoms: (A) x + 1, y, z for 4 and x-1, y, z for 5. (b) 1D Helical chain for 4 and 5. (c) A drawing showing the inter-chain hydrogen bonding in 4; red dashed

lines

represent

N-H---O

(from

methanol)

and

O-H---O=C hydrogen bonds and green dashed lines represent N-H---O=C hydrogen bonds. (d) A drawing showing inter-chain hydrogen bonding in 5; red dashed lines represent N-H---O=C hydrogen bonds and blue dashed lines represent N-H---N-C hydrogen bonds. Figure 3. A scheme showing the reversible structural transformations in 3 - 5. Red bar represents the carbonyl group and blue bar represents N-H group of L. Red dashed line represents N-H---O=C hydrogen bond and blue dashed line denotes O-H---O=C and N-H---O (from methanol) hydrogen bonds in 4 and N-H---N hydrogen bond in 5. Figure 4. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 3 and 4, starting from 3. (a) Simulation of 3, (b) as 26


Page 27 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


synthesized, (c) crystals of 3 in MeOH, (d) simulation of 4 and (e) 3 heated at 150 oC after adsorption of MeOH. Figure 5. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 3 and 4, starting from 4. (a) Simulation of 4, (b) as synthesized, (c) crystals of 4 heated at 150 oC, (d) simulation of 3 and (e) adsorption of MeOH by 4 after heated at 150 oC. Figure 6. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 3 and 5, starting from 5. (a) Simulation of 5, (b) as synthesized, (c) crystals of 5 heated at 150 oC, (d) simulation of 3 and (e) adsorption of CH3CN by 5 after heated at 150 oC. Figure 7. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 3 and 5, starting from 3. (a) Simulation of 3, (b) as synthesized, (c) crystals of 3 in CH3CN, (d) simulation of 5 and (e) 3 heated at 150 oC after adsorption of CH3CN. Figure 8. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 4 and 5, starting from 5. (a) Simulation of 5, (b) as synthesized, (c) crystals of 5 in MeOH and (d) simulation of 4. Figure 9. Powder XRD patterns showing structural transformation between 4 and 5, starting from 4. (a) Simulation of 4, (b) as synthesized, (c) crystals of 4 in MeCN and (d) simulation of 5. Figure 10. Full fingerprints of (a) 1, (b) 2 and (c) 3 and fingerprint plots of (d) Hg---Cl, (e) Hg---Br and (f) Hg---I contacts. Figure 11. Change in ligand conformation from cis syn-anti to trans anti-anti during the structural transformation.

27



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1

(d) 28


Page 28 of 38

Page 29 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2

29



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure 3

30


Page 30 of 38

Page 31 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Figure 4

31



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure 5

32


Page 32 of 38

Page 33 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Figure 6

33



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure 7

34


Page 34 of 38

Page 35 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Figure 8

35



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure 9

36


Page 36 of 38

Page 37 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Figure 10

37



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Figure 11 38


Page 38 of 38

Solvent-Mediated Reversible Structural Transformation of Mercury

Recommend Documents