organic compounds
Figure 7
A view of the packing of the molecules in the unit cell of the LT form of (I), viewed along the a axis. H atoms have been omitted for clarity. Molecules
1
labelled with an asterisk (*), hash (#), ampersand (&), plus sign (+) or dollar sign ($) are at the symmetry positions (ꢂx + 1, ꢂy + 1, ꢂz + 1), (ꢂx + 1, y + ,
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
ꢂz + ), (x, ꢂy + , z + ), (ꢂx + 1, y ꢂ , ꢂz + ) or (x, ꢂy + , z + ), respectively.
˚
the contacts are too weak and may not be considered as
significant C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ interactions. Comparison of the values
between polymorphs, for corresponding contacts, suggests that
they are stronger in the LT polymorph. The packing motifs,
molecular conformations and mutual orientations of the
molecules are very similar in the two structures. Nevertheless,
the LT polymorph appears to have a more efficient packing
than the RT one, as suggested by the volume allocated per
interactions (Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀCg distances in the range 2.83–2.97 A, with
ꢁ
angles at H of 130–137 ) stabilizing the supramolecular
structure. In the case of the LT form, there are ten potential
˚
C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ interactions (Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀCg distances of 2.69–2.97 A and
ꢁ
angles at H of 126–144 , of which eight have angles at H
ꢁ
greater than 139 ) which stabilize the packing. This is the
converse of the situation for the HT and LT forms of m-
quinquephenyl presented here, where the impact of C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ
interactions on the supramolecular structures is minimal
compared with the p-isomer. Also, apart from the change in
torsion angles for the outer phenyl rings in molecule LTB, the
molecular geometry is virtually unaffected. These differences
may help to understand the effect of isomerization on some of
the physical properties of the polyphenyls, such as melting
points, or enthalpies of formation or vaporization.
3
˚
molecule in the LT structure (approximately 10 A less). This
fact is obviously reflected in macroscopic terms by the slight
differences in the values for the densities, of 1.233 (calculated)
ꢂ3
and 1.209 Mg m (measured) (Rabideau et al., 1993) in the
LT and RT structures, respectively. Roughly speaking, for
organic compounds, the linear thermal expansion coefficient is
ꢂ1
less than 0.0001 K , which would give a density of about
ꢂ3
1.19 Mg m for the LT polymorph at room temperature,
Due to the simplicity of the elemental composition of
polyphenyls, the only possible stabilization mechanism of their
supramolecular structures is through the contribution of weak
C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ and/or ꢀ–ꢀ interactions, thus making them good
models for the study of the impact of these interactions on
molecular geometry, packing or molecular motion constraints,
parameters that will be reflected in their physical properties.
As far as the p-polyphenyls are concerned, the phase change
from low to high temperature leads to a reduction in the
interactions and the molecular motion becomes less
constrained. This may explain the high heat capacity of these
compounds, which makes them good candidates for use as
coolants. The molecular motion, symmetry and higher number
of C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ interactions which the p-oligomers establish in
relation to the m-oligomers may explain the higher melting
points of the former. Despite that, our comparative analysis of
two m-quinquephenyl polymorphs has highlighted the role of
weak close contacts on cell volume and densities.
considering the temperature difference of 140 K between the
measurements. The differences found in the densities may be
attributed mainly to the thermal expansion of the compound,
drawing attention to the role that entropy may play in the
formation of the polymorphs.
This kind of polymorphism contrasts with that shown by the
homologous p-quinquephenyl. The phase transitions in
p-polyphenyls are well established for the case of p-terphenyl
and p-quaterphenyl. Those transitions are accompanied by a
change in the crystal structure (space group P1 before the
transition and space group P2 /n after the phase transition)
1
associated with an energy change (heat of transition), and
therefore a change in the absolute heat capacity of the
compound, at the temperature of transition. The structure of
the parent p-quinquephenyl has not been determined at low
temperatures, but Saito et al. (2000) have suggested, based on
the measurement of heat capacity excess with temperature,
that the parent p-quinquephenyl would have a twist phase
transition at about 264 K, similar to what is observed in the
p-polyphenyls (n = 3, 4). In the case of p-quaterphenyl, on the
basis of the available structural data [p-quaterphenyl at 283–
Experimental
m-Quinquephenyl was synthesized using the Suzuki–Miyaura aryl
cross-coupling method by adapting the procedure described in the
literature (Miyaura & Suzuki, 1995; Liu et al., 2006). The compound
was synthesized by the reaction of a mixture of 1,3-dibromobenzene
303 K (R = 0.045; Delugeard et al., 1976) and p-quaterphenyl
at 110 K (R = 0.104; Baudour et al., 1978)], it appears that the
individual molecules have significantly different conforma-
tions in the high-temperature phase (virtually planar and
centrosymmetric) and low-temperature phase (nonplanar and
noncentrosymmetric). Furthermore, they each have entirely
different supramolecular structures. In the case of the HT
form, there are four potential but very weak C—Hꢀ ꢀ ꢀꢀ
(3 mmol), 3-boronic acid (11 mmol), Pd(OAc)
2
(0.1 mmol) and
K
CO (15 mmol) in distilled water (15 ml), toluene (30 ml) and
2 3
ethanol (10 ml). The mixture was stirred under a nitrogen atmos-
phere for approximately 10 h at 350 K. The product was purified by
recrystallization from methanol and by sublimation under reduced
pressure (<10 Pa). The purity of the compound was checked by gas
ꢄ
Acta Cryst. (2012). C68, o492–o497
Gomes et al.
30
C H22 o495