Coordination-directed one-dimensional coordination polymers generated from a new oxadiazole bridging ligand and HgX2 (X = Cl, Br and I)

Article abstract of DOI:10.1107/S0108270111016246

A new 1,3,4-oxadiazole bridging bent organic ligand, 2,5-bis-{5-methyl-2- [(4-pyridyl)meth-oxy]phenyl}-1,3,4-oxadiazole, C₂₈H ₂₄N₄O₃, L, has been used to create three novel one-dimensional isomorphic coordinatio

Full text of DOI:10.1107/S0108270111016246

metal-organic compounds
Acta Crystallographica Section C
Crystal Structure
Communications
are prevalent in biology and pharmacology, and also play a
key role in supramolecular recognition, replication and cat-
alysis (Albrecht, 2001). Recently, significant developments
have been made in artificial supramolecular architectures with
helicity via coordination (Giuseppone et al., 2006; Du et al.,
2009) or hydrogen-bonding interactions (Lee et al., 2007).
During the past decade, the design and construction of rigid
and flexible organic ligands bridged by 1,3,4-oxadiazole have
been pursued, due to their diversity in coordination chemistry
and model applications in functional materials (Jabbour et al.,
2002; Hughes & Bryce, 2005; Du et al., 2010). It is well known
that ꢁ–ꢁ interactions play an important role in determining
the arrangement of supramolecular compounds with these
ligands (Das et al., 2010).
ISSN 0108-2701
Coordination-directed one-dimen-
sional coordination polymers gener-
ated from a new oxadiazole bridging
ligand and HgX2 (X = Cl, Br and I)
Rui Yang, Jian-Ping Ma, Ru-Qi Huang and Yu-Bin Dong*
College of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Key Laboratory
of Molecular and Nano Probes, Engineering Research Center of Pesticide and
Medicine Intermediate Clean Production, Ministry of Education, Shandong Provincial
Key Laboratory of Clean Production of Fine Chemicals, Shandong Normal University,
Jinan 250014, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence e-mail: yubindong@sdnu.edu.cn
Received 25 March 2011
Accepted 28 April 2011
Online 13 May 2011
A new 1,3,4-oxadiazole bridging bent organic ligand, 2,5-bis{5-
methyl-2-[(4-pyridyl)methoxy]phenyl}-1,3,4-oxadiazole,
C28H24N4O3, L, has been used to create three novel one-
dimensional isomorphic coordination polymers, viz. catena-
poly[[[dichloridomercury(II)]-ꢀ-2,5-bis{5-methyl-2-[(4-pyrid-
yl)methoxy]phenyl}-1,3,4-oxadiazole] methanol monosolvate],
{[HgCl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH3OH}n, catena-poly[[[dibromido-
mercury(II)]-ꢀ-2,5-bis{5-methyl-2-[(4-pyridyl)methoxy]phenyl}-
1,3,4-oxadiazole] methanol monosolvate], {[HgBr2(C28H24-
N4O3)]ꢀCH3OH}n, and catena-poly[[[diiodidomercury(II)]-ꢀ-
2,5-bis{5-methyl-2-[(4-pyridyl)methoxy]phenyl}-1,3,4-oxadi-
azole] methanol monosolvate], {[HgI2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH3-
OH}n. The free L ligand itself adopts a cis conformation, with
the two terminal pyridine rings and the central oxadiazole ring
almost coplanar [dihedral angles = 5.994 (7) and 9.560 (6)ꢁ]. In
the HgII complexes, however, one of the flexible pyridylmethyl
arms of ligand L is markedly bent and helical chains are
obtained. The HgII atom lies in a distorted tetrahedral
geometry defined by two pyridine N-atom donors from two
L ligands and two halide ligands. The helical chains stack
together via interchain ꢁ–ꢁ interactions that expand the
dimensionality of the structure from one to two. The methanol
solvent molecules link to the complex polymers through O—
Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀN and O—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀO hydrogen bonds.
So far, various organic ligands have been used for molecular
helical building blocks, but 1,3,4-oxadiazole-based bent
organic ligands as a helical component have remained rare
until recently. Previously, a study of the AgI coordination
chemistry of 2,5-bis[3-(3-pyridylcarbonyl)phenyl]-1,3,4-oxadi-
azole (L4; Dong et al., 2006) found that L4 and AgI can be
employed as angular directional components to give rise to a
helical skeleton, which could be considered as an alternative
rational approach to accessing helical metal–organic polymers.
As part of our systematic investigation of self-assembly based
on bent ligands of this type, we have synthesized a new 1,3,4-
oxadiazole bridging bent ligand, 2,5-bis{5-methyl-2-[(4-pyri-
dyl)methoxy]phenyl}-1,3,4-oxadiazole, L or (I), and three
novel metal–organic frameworks with the same architectures
and topologies, [(HgLCl2)ꢀCH3OH]n, (II), [(HgLBr2)ꢀCH3-
OH]n, (III), and [(HgLI2)ꢀCH3OH]n, (IV), the structures of
which we report here.
Comment
Self-assembly of organic ligands and inorganic metal ions is
one of the most efficient and widely utilized approaches
towards the construction of metal–organic coordination
polymers or supramolecular complexes (Braga et al., 2003;
Kitagawa et al., 2004; Long & Yaghi, 2009; Ma et al., 2010).
Helical assemblies constructed from chiral or achiral reagents
m176 # 2011 International Union of Crystallography
doi:10.1107/S0108270111016246
Acta Cryst. (2011). C67, m176–m180

metal-organic compounds
angles between the planes of the pyridine and oxadiazole rings
of 5.994 (7) and 9.560 (6)ꢁ. Compared with L4 (Dong et al.,
2006), the methylene group in (I) is more flexible than the
carbonyl group in L4, making (I) more attractive for the
design of novel supramolecular complexes.
The isomorphous compounds (II), (III) and (IV) crystallize
in the triclinic space group P1, with one HgII atom, one L
ligand, two halide ligands and one methanol solvent molecule
in the asymmetric unit. The HgII atom is coordinated by two
pyridine N atoms [N3 and N4i; symmetry code: (i) x, y, z + 1]
from two different ligands and two halide ligands in a distorted
tetrahedral geometry (Fig. 2, and Tables 1, 3 and 5). The
coordination behaviour of the HgII atom is similar to that
observed in Hg{2,5-bis(3-pyridyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole}I2 (Dong et
al., 2003), namely a distorted tetrahedral environment
consisting of two N-atom donors from two oxadiazole bridging
ligands and two coordinated iodide counter-ions. The dihedral
angle between the two terminal pyridine ring planes changes
from 14.121 (6)ꢁ in free ligand (I) to 86.818 (2)ꢁ in (II), clearly
as a result of coordination to HgII and interactions with the
methanol solvent molecule. Additionally, the planes of the two
pyridyl rings are rotated relative to that of the oxadiazole ring,
with dihedral angles of 87.324 (2) and 7.169 (2)ꢁ compared
with those given above for (I). The free methanol molecules
are fixed in the framework via O—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀN and O—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀO
hydrogen bonds involving an oxadiazole N atom and an ether
O atom of the ligand (Tables 2, 4 and 6).
Figure 1
The molecular structure of (I), with displacement ellipsoids drawn at the
30% probability level.
Compound (I) (Fig. 1) crystallizes in the monoclinic space
group P21/n with a single independent molecule in the asym-
metric unit. The two terminal pyridylmethyl groups adopt a cis
conformation with respect to the central bridging oxadiazole
group. The two terminal pyridine rings and the central
oxadiazole ring of (I) are almost coplanar, with dihedral
In the extended structure of (II), the complexes are joined
to form a one-dimensional chain running parallel to the c axis
(Fig. 3). The bending of the ligand and its coordination at the
HgII centre result in the chain adopting a helical twist. In our
previous study (Dong et al., 2003), 2,5-bis(3-pyridyl)-1,3,4-
oxadiazole (L6) is also coordinated to an HgII centre to form a
single helical chain. The two pyridyl groups in L6 are not
coplanar, although the dihedral angle between them is only
12ꢁ, while the two terminal pyridine planes in (I) are nearly
coplanar. Compared with the short and rigid bidentate groups
in L6, the two terminal pyridylmethyl groups of L rotate freely
because of the ether O atoms. The length and the coordinating
orientation of the ligand are the primary points of difference
between the two helical chains. In Hg(L6)I2, the intrachain
Figure 2
The molecular structure of (II), with displacement ellipsoids drawn at the
30% probability level. Hydrogen bonds are shown as dashed lines.
Compounds (III) and (IV) are isostructural with (II). [Symmetry codes:
(i) x, y, z + 1; (ii) x, y, z ꢃ 1.]
˚
Hgꢀ ꢀ ꢀHg contact is 8.867 (3) A and the shortest interpolymer
˚
Hgꢀ ꢀ ꢀHg distance is 5.537 (3) A, with no bonding interactions
observed between the different chains. In (II), the intrachain
Figure 3
The extended structure of a helical chain and the intramolecular hydrogen bonding (dashed lines) in (II).
ꢂ
Acta Cryst. (2011). C67, m176–m180
Yang et al.
C28H24N4O3, [Hg2Cl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O, and Br and I analogues m177

metal-organic compounds
–C6H4), 7.25–7.28 (d, 2H, –C6H4), 5.30 (s, 4H, –CH2), 2.31 (s, 6H,
–CH3). Elemental analysis calculated for C28H24N4O3: C 72.40, H
5.21, N 12.06%; found: C 72.11, H 5.08, N 12.00%.
A solution of HgCl2 (5.42 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH3OH (5 ml) was
layered on to a solution of (I) (9.28 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH2Cl2
(8 ml). The system was left for about a week at room temperature and
colourless crystals of (II) were obtained (yield 9.33 mg, 60%). IR
(KBr pellet, ꢂ, cmꢃ1): 3356 (m), 1611 (s), 1535 (s), 1513 (w), 1449 (m),
1425 (w), 1384 (w), 1290 (m), 1268 (s), 1217 (w), 1155 (w), 1062 (m),
1046 (m), 1011 (m), 810 (s), 757 (w), 623 (w), 546 (w).
A solution of HgBr2 (7.21 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH3OH (5 ml) was
layered on to a solution of (I) (9.28 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH2Cl2 (8 ml).
The system was left for about two weeks at room temperature and
colourless crystals of (III) were obtained (yield 7.01 mg, 41%). IR
(KBr pellet, ꢂ, cmꢃ1): 3349 (m), 1612 (s), 1562 (w), 1535 (m), 1512 (s),
1449 (m), 1424 (w), 1385 (m), 1289 (m), 1267 (s), 1217 (w), 1155 (w),
1062 (m), 1046 (s), 1011 (s), 890 (w), 810 (w), 757 (s), 624 (w), 546 (w).
A solution of HgI2 (5.42 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH3OH (5 ml) was
layered on to a solution of (I) (9.28 mg, 0.020 mmol) in CH2Cl2
(8 ml). The system was left for about 3 d at room temperature and
colourless crystals of (IV) were obtained (yield 7.41 mg, 39%). IR
(KBr pellet, ꢂ, cmꢃ1): 3442 (m), 1613 (s), 1536 (m), 1512 (s), 1450 (m),
1426 (m), 1384 (s), 1290 (w), 1268 (m), 1217 (s), 1156 (m), 1062 (w),
1047 (m), 1011 (m), 810 (m), 757 (w), 624 (w), 546 (w).
Figure 4
The two-dimensional sheet in (II), constructed by ꢁ–ꢁ stacking
interactions (green and purple dashed lines in the electronic version of
the paper). Some H atoms and the methanol solvent molecules have been
omitted.
˚
Hgꢀ ꢀ ꢀHg contact is 13.066 (3) A and, because of interchain
ꢁ–ꢁ interactions (see below), the shortest interpolymer
˚
Hgꢀ ꢀ ꢀHg distance is 4.454 (2) A.
The helical chains in (II) are arranged side by side along the
a axis (Fig. 4), where they interact via interchain ꢁ–ꢁ contacts
between the oxadiazole rings [centroid–centroid distance
˚
3.328 (2) A], and between the oxadiazole ring on one chain
and a pyridine ring on an adjacent chain [centroid–centroid
Compound (I)
˚
distance = 3.502 (1) A]. The result is that a novel two-
dimensional sheet is generated in the ac plane.
Crystal data
3
˚
C28H24N4O3
Mr = 464.51
Monoclinic, P21=n
V = 2369.4 (14) A
Z = 4
In summary, three new compounds with a common helical
chain motif have been successfully obtained based on the new
1,3,4-oxadiazole bridging bent organic ligand (I) and HgX2
(X = Cl, Br or I). The helices assemble through interchain ꢁ–ꢁ
interactions. This study demonstrates that the combination of
divergent organic ligands with different metal nodes repre-
sents a very useful synthetic route to metal–organic helicates,
and that ꢁ–ꢁ interactions play an important role in
constructing high-dimensional supramolecular compounds.
Mo Kꢅ radiation
ꢀ = 0.09 mmꢃ1
T = 298 K
˚
˚
a = 12.479 (4) A
b = 11.452 (4) A
˚
c = 16.776 (6) A
0.30 ꢄ 0.22 ꢄ 0.17 mm
ꢄ = 98.766 (6)ꢁ
Data collection
Bruker SMART CCD area-detector
diffractometer
12163 measured reflections
4420 independent reflections
2887 reflections with I > 2ꢆ(I)
Rint = 0.032
Refinement
R[F2 > 2ꢆ(F2)] = 0.053
wR(F2) = 0.141
S = 1.02
318 parameters
H-atom parameteꢃrs3 constrained
Experimental
˚
Áꢇmax = 0.17 e A
For the preparation of (I), 2,5-bis(2-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)-1,3,4-
oxadiazole (1.03 g, 4.0 mmol), potassium iodide (0.35 g, 2.0 mmol)
and potassium carbonate (5.52 g, 40.0 mmol) were combined in dry
dimethylformamide (20 ml) with stirring at ambient temperature,
after which 4-(chloromethyl)pyridine hydrochloride (1.32 g, 8.0 mmol)
was added to the suspension. The mixture was stirred for 18 h at room
temperature (monitored by thin-layer chromatography), and then
water (100 ml) was added. The precipitate which formed was sepa-
rated by filtration, washed several times with water, and purified on a
silica-gel column using tetrahydrofuran as the eluent to afford (I) as a
white crystalline solid (yield 0.95 g, 51%). A solution of (I) (9.28 mg,
0.020 mmol) in CH2Cl2 (10 ml) was left for about 2 d at room
temperature after which time colourless crystals were obtained (yield
6.01 mg, 65%; m.p. 455–457 K). IR (KBr pellet, ꢂ, cmꢃ1): 3425 (m),
3052 (w), 2920 (w), 1605 (m), 1561 (w), 1515 (s), 1451 (m), 1420 (m),
1386 (m), 1333 (w), 1296 (s), 1268 (s), 1158 (w), 1090 (w), 1061 (m),
993 (w), 887 (w), 812 (m), 786 (w), 757 (w), 683 (w), 610 (w), 549 (w),
ꢃ3
˚
4420 reflections
Áꢇmin = ꢃ0.17 e A
Compound (II)
Crystal data
[Hg2Cl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O
ꢈ = 99.318 (3)ꢁ
V = 1450.5 (5) A
Z = 2
3
˚
Mr = 768.04
Triclinic, P1
˚
a = 8.8422 (18) A
Mo Kꢅ radiation
ꢀ = 5.53 mmꢃ1
T = 298 K
0.16 ꢄ 0.14 ꢄ 0.08 mm
˚
b = 12.927 (3) A
˚
c = 13.066 (3) A
ꢅ = 95.232 (3)ꢁ
ꢄ = 97.758 (3)ꢁ
Data collection
Bruker SMART CCD area-detector
diffractometer
Absorption correction: multi-scan
(SADABS; Bruker, 2003)
Tmin = 0.472, Tmax = 0.666
7519 measured reflections
5294 independent reflections
4319 reflections with I > 2ꢆ(I)
Rint = 0.036
1
488 (w); H NMR (300 MHz, DMSO, 298 K, TMS): ꢃ 8.50 (d, 4H,
–C5H4N), 7.75 (s, 2H, –C6H4), 7.54 (d, 4H, –C5H4N), 7.43–7.46 (d, 2H,
ꢂ
m178 Yang et al. C28H24N4O3, [Hg2Cl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O, and Br and I analogues
Acta Cryst. (2011). C67, m176–m180

metal-organic compounds
Table 1
Selected geometric parameters (A, ) for (II).
Table 5
Selected geometric parameters (A, ) for (IV).
ꢁ
ꢁ
˚
˚
Cl1—Hg1
Cl2—Hg1
2.352 (2)
2.348 (2)
Hg1—N3
Hg1—N4i
2.416 (6)
2.441 (6)
I1—Hg1
I2—Hg1
2.6482 (7)
2.6440 (9)
Hg1—N3
Hg1—N4i
2.427 (6)
2.429 (6)
Cl2—Hg1—Cl1
Cl2—Hg1—N3
Cl1—Hg1—N3
149.21 (10)
97.36 (15)
102.37 (15)
Cl2—Hg1—N4i
Cl1—Hg1—N4i
N3—Hg1—N4i
105.22 (16)
98.30 (16)
89.80 (19)
N3—Hg1—N4i
N3—Hg1—I2
N4i—Hg1—I2
90.0 (2)
98.62 (15)
108.08 (14)
N3—Hg1—I1
N4i—Hg1—I1
I2—Hg1—I1
105.39 (14)
100.77 (14)
142.20 (3)
Symmetry code: (i) x; y; z þ 1.
Symmetry code: (i) x; y; z þ 1.
Table 2
Hydrogen-bond geometry (A, ) for (II).
Table 6
Hydrogen-bond geometry (A, ) for (IV).
ꢁ
˚
ꢁ
˚
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—H
Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
Dꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—H
Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
Dꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀN1
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀO3
0.82
0.82
2.05
2.45
2.862 (8)
2.856 (7)
174
112
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀN1
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀO3
0.82
0.82
2.08
2.36
2.878 (9)
2.855 (8)
164
119
Refinement
Refinement
R[F2 > 2ꢆ(F2)] = 0.048
wR(F2) = 0.127
S = 1.02
363 parameters
H-atom parameteꢃrs3 constrained
R[F2 > 2ꢆ(F2)] = 0.052
wR(F2) = 0.129
S = 1.00
363 parameters
H-atom parameteꢃrs3 constrained
˚
Áꢇmax = 2.73 e A
Áꢇmin = ꢃ3.43 e A
˚
Áꢇmax = 1.71 e A
ꢃ3
˚
5274 reflections
ꢃ3
˚
5294 reflections
Áꢇmin = ꢃ2.51 e A
Compound (IV)
Compound (III)
Crystal data
Crystal data
[Hg2I2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O
ꢈ = 97.271 (4)ꢁ
V = 1525.4 (7) A
Z = 2
Mo Kꢅ radiation
ꢀ = 7.11 mmꢃ1
T = 298 K
3
˚
ꢈ = 98.902 (2)ꢁ
V = 1441.5 (3) A
Z = 2
Mo Kꢅ radiation
ꢀ = 8.15 mmꢃ1
T = 123 K
Mr = 950.94
Triclinic, P1
[Hg2Br2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O
3
˚
Mr = 856.96
Triclinic, P1
˚
a = 9.046 (3) A
b = 13.153 (4) A
˚
c = 13.213 (4) A
˚
˚
a = 8.8247 (12) A
b = 12.9673 (18) A
˚
c = 13.0197 (18) A
ꢅ = 95.747 (2)ꢁ
ꢄ = 99.101 (2)ꢁ
˚
ꢅ = 95.975 (4)ꢁ
ꢄ = 99.503 (4)ꢁ
0.21 ꢄ 0.10 ꢄ 0.04 mm
0.40 ꢄ 0.28 ꢄ 0.10 mm
Data collection
Data collection
Bruker SMART CCD area-detector
diffractometer
Absorption correction: multi-scan
(SADABS; Bruker, 2003)
Tmin = 0.317, Tmax = 0.764
8032 measured reflections
5543 independent reflections
4328 reflections with I > 2ꢆ(I)
Rint = 0.036
Bruker SMART CCD area-detector
diffractometer
Absorption correction: multi-scan
(SADABS; Bruker, 2003)
Tmin = 0.139, Tmax = 0.496
7538 measured reflections
5274 independent reflections
4754 reflections with I > 2ꢆ(I)
Rint = 0.036
Refinement
R[F2 > 2ꢆ(F2)] = 0.046
wR(F2) = 0.107
S = 1.01
363 parameters
H-atom parameteꢃrs3 constrained
Table 3
Selected geometric parameters (A, ) for (III).
˚
Áꢇmax = 1.29 e A
ꢁ
˚
ꢃ3
˚
5543 reflections
Áꢇmin = ꢃ1.03 e A
Br1—Hg1
Br2—Hg1
2.4914 (7)
2.4844 (8)
Hg1—N3
Hg1—N4i
2.405 (5)
2.415 (5)
H atoms attached to anisotropically refined atoms were placed in
geometrically idealized positions and included as riding atoms with
˚
the following constraints: for (I), (II) and (IV), C—H = 0.93 A and
˚
Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(C) (aromatic), C—H = 0.96 A and Uiso(H) =
˚
1.5Ueq(C) (methyl), and C—H = 0.97 A and Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(C)
N3—Hg1—N4i
N3—Hg1—Br2
N4i—Hg1—Br2
89.01 (17)
97.87 (14)
108.12 (13)
N3—Hg1—Br1
N4i—Hg1—Br1
Br2—Hg1—Br1
104.29 (13)
99.03 (13)
145.07 (3)
˚
Symmetry code: (i) x; y; z þ 1.
(methylene). For (II) and (IV), O—H = 0.82 A and Uiso(H) =
˚
1.5Ueq(O) (methanol). For (III), C—H = 0.95 A and Uiso(H) =
˚
1.2Ueq(C) (aromatic), C—H = 0.98 A and Uiso(H) = 1.5Ueq(C)
˚
(methyl), C—H = 0.99 A and Uiso(H) = 1.2Ueq(C) (methylene), and
˚
O—H = 0.84 A and Uiso(H) = 1.5Ueq(O) (methanol). In (II), the
Table 4
Hydrogen-bond geometry (A, ) for (III).
ꢁ
˚
maximum and minimum residual electron-density peaks are 1.24 and
˚
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—H
Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
Dꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
D—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀA
1.14 A, respectively, from atom Hg1. In (III), these peaks are 0.88 and
˚
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀN1
O4—H4Aꢀ ꢀ ꢀO3
0.84
0.84
2.04
2.34
2.865 (7)
2.818 (6)
167
116
0.86 A, respectively, from atom Hg1, and in (IV), they are 1.00 and
˚
1.64 A, respectively, from atom Hg1.
ꢂ
Acta Cryst. (2011). C67, m176–m180
Yang et al.
C28H24N4O3, [Hg2Cl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O, and Br and I analogues m179

metal-organic compounds
Bruker (2003). SADABS, SAINT and SMART. Bruker AXS Inc., Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Das, A., Jana, A. D., Seth, S. K., Dey, B., Choudhury, S. R., Kar, T.,
Mukhopadhyay, S., Singh, N. J., Hwang, I.-C. & Kim, K. S. (2010). J. Phys.
Chem. B, 114, 4166–4170.
Dong, Y.-B., Cheng, J.-Y., Ma, J.-P., Wang, H.-Y., Huang, R.-Q., Guo, D.-S. &
Smith, M. D. (2003). Solid State Sci. 5, 1177–1186.
Dong, Y.-B., Sun, T., Ma, J.-P., Zhao, X.-X. & Huang, R.-Q. (2006). Inorg.
Chem. 26, 10613–10628.
For all compounds, data collection: SMART (Bruker, 2003); cell
refinement: SMART; data reduction: SAINT (Bruker, 2003);
program(s) used to solve structure: SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 2008);
program(s) used to refine structure: SHELXL97 (Sheldrick, 2008);
molecular graphics: SHELXTL (Sheldrick, 2008); software used to
prepare material for publication: SHELXTL.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant Nos. 21072118 and 20871076)
and Shangdong Natural Science Foundation (grant No.
JQ200803).
Du, M., Wang, Q., Li, C.-P., Zhao, X.-J. & Ribas, J. (2010). Cryst. Growth Des.
10, 3285–3296.
Du, M., Zhang, Z.-H., Guo, W. & Fu, X.-J. (2009). Cryst. Growth Des. 4, 1655–
1657.
Giuseppone, N., Schmitt, J.-L. & Lehn, J.-M. (2006). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128,
16748–16763.
Hughes, G. & Bryce, M. R. (2005). J. Mater. Chem. 15, 94–107.
Jabbour, G. E., Wang, J. F. & Peyghambarian, N. (2002). Appl. Phys. Lett. 80,
2026–2028.
Kitagawa, S., Kitaura, R. & Noro, S.-I. (2004). Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 43, 2334–
2375.
Supplementary data for this paper are available from the IUCr electronic
archives (Reference: SQ3288). Services for accessing these data are
described at the back of the journal.
Lee, H. Y., Park, J., Lah, M. S. & Hong, J.-I. (2007). Chem. Commun. pp. 5013–
5015.
Long, J. R. & Yaghi, O. M. (2009). Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 1213–1214.
Ma, Z.-B., Hopson, R., Cai, C., Han, S. & Moulton, B. (2010). Cryst. Growth
Des. 10, 2376–2381.
References
Albrecht, M. (2001). Chem. Rev. 101, 3457–3498.
Braga, D., Maini, L., Polito, M., Tagliavini, E. & Grepioni, F. (2003). Coord.
Chem. Rev. 246, 53–71.
Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112–122.
ꢂ
m180 Yang et al. C28H24N4O3, [Hg2Cl2(C28H24N4O3)]ꢀCH4O, and Br and I analogues
Acta Cryst. (2011). C67, m176–m180