Transforming Dense [CuL2] into a Microporous Framework
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 121, No. 17, 1999 4185
method and for the determination of composition and the
synthesis of the empty form as described above, is identical in
these two instances. It is likely that surface adsorption of guest
material occurs, followed by capillary condensation, dissolution
of the guest, and recrystallization, especially for guests that are
rather high boiling. However, this seems less certain for low-
boiling guests, especially light hydrocarbons in which the host
is essentially insoluble. If the process is seen as the reaction of
a gas with a disorganized surface (e.g., such as also takes place
for ice to give clathrates), the concepts of phase rebuilding14
might be more appropriate. Kaupp14 discusses various possibili-
ties for gas-surface reactions involving enclathration in light
of information gained from application of scanning microscopy.
Comparison with Other Classes of Inclusion Compounds.
The host framework is built up of metal-chelate building blocks
connected to each other by secondary coordination bonds. From
this viewpoint, the hosts are intermediate between Werner
hosts18 with their pure van der Waals interactions and typical
coordination polymers such as the host complexes with 4,4′-
dipyridyl19 or cyanide20 ligands. It is peculiar in that despite
the simplicity of the CuL2 building blocks, the mode of their
assembly is far from obvious (Figure 3 (bottom)). The “4 × 2”
mode of assembly (coordination by four strong intramolecular
and two weak intermolecular ligands, all with a single neutral
building block) is worthy of investigation as a new strategy for
the assembly of novel open frameworks. Note that coordination
polymers based on chelated Cu(II) centers have been described
elsewhere,21 and although no open channel frameworks were
observed among them, these systems exemplify possible direc-
tions in such design.
Figure 6. Characterization of the channel shape. The diameter of the
inscribed sphere centered at (0, 0, z/c) versus z/c for the host
frameworks: 1, â-[CuL2]‚2/3C6H6; 2, urea; 3, thiourea; 4, Werner
clathrate Mg(4-MePy)4(NCS)2. All are trigonal (hexagonal), with the
channel along the z-axis; c parameters are between 10.6 and 12.6 Å.
thiourea26 and that of the connected large cages typical of the
trigonal Werner clathrates22c (Figure 6).26 This results in two
qualitatively different types of inclusions: inherent nonstoichio-
metric ones such as classic inclusions of urea with hydrocarbons,
and inclusions with compositions near the maximum structural
stoichiometry. As one can see from Table 3, the â-[CuL2] lattice
is capable of some “adjusting” to a certain guest within a small
range. Comparison of the data for â-[CuL2] and the inclusions
with X-C6H5 (X ) H, F, Cl, Br, I) shows that elongation of
the guest in one dimension results in a slight expansion of the
framework at constant (maximum) stoichiometry. However,
when the substituent is larger (bromo- or iodobenzene), the guest
content drops sharply and the cell parameters of the framework
tend to approach those of the empty lattice.
Regarding symmetry, the â-[CuL2] framework belongs to a
very large group of trigonal (hexagonal) inclusion lattices, many
of which have the same space group and similar unit cell
dimensions and channel sizes. They may be found among the
Werner clathrates,22 porphyrin-based frameworks,23 Dianin’s
compound clathrates,24 alicyclic diols,2c “trigonal-symmetry”
organic hosts,25 etc.
There is however a difference between nonstoichiometric
inclusions of urea and â-[CuL2]. In urea inclusions guest species
are tightly packed, resulting in the appearance of an independent
crystallographic period for the guest subsystem which does not
coincide with the respective unit cell period of the urea host
framework.27a This was attributed to the thermodynamic and
kinetic instability of the empty urea framework.28 During
experiments with the â-[CuL2] inclusions we did not observe
extra reflections in the powder diffraction patterns that could
be assigned to independent “guest” periodicity. Most likely, the
void space in our nonstoichiometric compounds is filled with
disordered species, and if so, their inclusion into â-[CuL2]
resembles the sorption inside capillary tubes rather than the
formation of densely packed supramolecular architectures.
The void space in the material is intermediate in character
between that of true channel inclusions such as urea and
(18) (a) Lipkowski, J. In Inclusion Compounds; Atwood, J. L., Davies,
J. E. D., MacNicol, D. D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, 1984; Vol. 1,
pp 59-103. (b) Hanotier, J.; Radzitzki, P. Ibid. pp 105-134. (c) Lipkowski,
J. In ComprehensiVe Supramolecular Chemistry; MacNicol, D. D., Toda,
F., Bishop, R., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, 1996; Vol. 6, pp 691-714.
(19) (a) Robson, R.; Abrahams, B. F.; Batten, S. R.; Gable, R. W.;
Hoskins, B. F.; Liu, J. In Supramolecular Architecture; Bein, T., Ed.; ACS
Symposium Series 499; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC,
1992; pp 256-273. (b) Fujita, M.; Kwon, Y. J.; Washizu, S.; Ogura, K. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 1151-1152 and refs 2-4 therein. (c) Zaworotko,
M. J. Chem. Soc. ReV. 1994, 23, 283-288. (d) Subramanian, S.; Zaworotko,
M. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 2127-2129.
(20) Iwamoto, T. In ComprehensiVe Supramolecular Chemistry; Mac-
Nicol, D. D.; Toda, F.; Bishop, R., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, 1996; Vol. 6,
pp 643-690.
(21) (a) Saalfrank, R. W.; Danion, D.; Hampel, F.; Hassa, J.; Struck,
O.; Toupet, L. Chem. Ber. 1994, 127, 1283-1286. (b) Saalfrank, R. W.;
Struck, O. Chem. Mater. 1994, 6, 1432-1436. (c) Saalfrank, R. W.; Harbig,
R.; Struck, O.; Peters, E.-M.; Peters, K.; Schnering, H. G. Z. Naturforsch.
B 1996, 51, 399-408 (in German). (d) Saalfrank, R. W.; Harbig, R.; Struck,
O.; Hampel, F.; Peters, E.-M.; Peters, K.; Schnering, H. G. Z. Naturforsch.
B 1997, 52, 125-134 (in German).
(22) Pervukhina, N. V.; Podberezskaya, N. V.; Davydova, I. V.; Kislykh,
N. V.; Dyadin, Yu. A. J. Inclusion Phenom. 1992, 13, 9-16. (b) Lipkowski,
J.; Soldatov, D. V.; Kislykh, N. V.; Pervukhina, N. V.; Dyadin, Yu. A. J.
Inclusion Phenom. 1994, 17, 305-316. (c) Lipkowski, J.; Soldatov, D. V.
J. Inclusion Phenom. 1994, 18, 317-329.
(23) Krupitsky, H.; Stein, Z.; Goldberg, I. J. Inclusion Phenom. 1994,
18, 177-192.
(24) (a) Ref 11b, 15. (b) Abriel, W.; Bois, A.; Zakrzewski, M.; White,
M. A. Can. J. Chem. 1990, 68, 1352-1356.
(25) (a) Gerdil, R. In ComprehensiVe Supramolecular Chemistry; Mac-
Nicol, D. D., Toda, F., Bishop, R., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, 1996; Vol. 6,
pp 240, 243-252. (b) Allegra, G.; Farina, M.; Immirzi, A.; Colombo, A.;
Rossi, U.; Broggi, R.; Natta, G. J. Chem. Soc. B 1967, 1020-1028. (c)
Freer, A. A.; MacNicol, D. D.; Mallinson, P. R.; Vallance, I. Tetrahedron
Lett. 1992, 33, 261-264.
(26) For channel geometry in urea and thiourea see also: (a) George,
A. R.; Harris, K. D. M. J. Mol. Graphics 1995, 13, 138-141. For Figure
3 X-ray data on clathrates of urea with n-hexadecane,27a thiourea with
adamantane,27b and [Mg(4-MePy)4(NCS)2] with 4-MePy and water 22c were
used.
(27) (a) Harris, K. D. M.; Thomas, J. M. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans.
1990, 86, 2985-2996. (b) Gopal, R.; Robertson, B. E.; Rutherford, J. S.
Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C 1989, 45, 257-259.
(28) (a) Belosludov, V. R.; Lavrentiev, M. Yu.; Dyadin, Yu. A. J.
Inclusion Phenom. 1991, 10, 399-422. (b) Dyadin, Yu. A.; Bondaryuk, I.
V.; Aladko, L. S. J. Struct. Chem. 1995, 36, 995-1045.