organic compounds
energy of the conjugate system) can be explained by taking
into account a combination of two factors: (i) steric hindrances
between the H and O atoms of the amide groups and the
nearest H atoms of the aromatic ring; (ii) the establishment in
the crystal of intermolecular hydrogen bonds between the
Table 1
Selected torsion angles ( ).
ꢁ
N1ÐC4ÐC5ÐC6
C4ÐN1ÐC3ÐC2
156.09 (13)
65.2 (2)
N1ÐC3ÐC2ÐO1
� 152.04 (17)
amide groups of adjacent molecules. Similar values in the 20±
ꢁ
Table 2
Hydrogen-bonding geometry (A, ).
3
0 interval for the internal rotation angle have been found for
Ê
ꢁ
different model compounds of aromatic polyamides (Blake &
Small, 1972; Palmer & Brisse, 1980; Harkema & Gaymans,
DÐHÁ Á ÁA
DÐH
HÁ Á ÁA
2.08
DÁ Á ÁA
DÐHÁ Á ÁA
1
977) and poly(ester amide)s (Cesari et al., 1976). The mole-
i
N1ÐH1Á Á ÁO3
0.86
2.868 (2)
152
cular packing (Fig. 2) is characterized by the establishment of
hydrogen bonds along a single direction. A standard geometry
is found between the hydrogen-bonded molecules, which are
not shifted along the molecular axis direction. A twofold screw
axis parallel to the b axis relates the non-hydrogen-bonded
molecules of the unit cell. The aromatic rings of these two
molecules adopt a disposition close to perpendicular, with a
Symmetry codes: (i) x;1 y;z.
Re®nement
2
Re®nement on F
2
H-atom parameters constrained
2 2 2
2
R[F > 2ꢄ(F )] = 0.069
wR(F ) = 0.175
S = 1.491
o
w = 1/[ꢄ(F ) + (0.1P) ]
2 2
2
where P = (F
o c
+ 2F )/3
(Á/ꢄ)max < 0.001
Ê
distance of 5.13 A between the centers of the two rings. This
Ê
� 3
� 3
1172 re¯ections
102 parameters
Áꢅmax = 0.31 e A
Áꢅmin = � 0.29 e AÊ
geometry is in agreement with recent calculations on benzene
dimers (Chipot et al., 1996) that show the T-shaped disposition
to be more stable than the stacked one. In the same sense, a
T-shaped disposition of aromatic rings seems to be preferred
in proteins (Hunter et al., 1991).
H atoms were placed in calculated positions and re®ned riding on
Ê
the atom to which they are attached (NÐH = 0.86 A and CÐH =
Ê
.93±0.97 A), with a ®xed isotropic displacement parameter.
0
Data collection: CAD-4 Software (Kiers, 1994); cell re®nement:
CAD-4 Software; data reduction: local program; program(s) used to
solve structure: SHELXS97 (Sheldrick, 1997); program(s) used to
re®ne structure: SHELXL97 (Sheldrick, 1997); molecular graphics:
ORTEPII (Johnson, 1976).
Experimental
The title compound was synthesized by the reaction of a solution of
glycine methyl ester hydrochloride (0.02 mol) and triethylamine
This research was supported through CICYT grant MAT97/
013.
1
(0.04 mol) in chloroform (30 ml) with a solution of terephthaloyl
chloride (0.01 mol) in chloroform (20 ml), which was added slowly
while maintaining the temperature at 273 K. After 2 h at room
temperature, the solution was evaporated yielding a yellow powder
that was recrystallized from water (yield 75%, m.p. 435 K). Colorless
prismatic crystals were obtained by vapor diffusion (293 K) of a 91:9
Supplementary data for this paper are available from the IUCr electronic
archives (Reference: DE1152). Services for accessing these data are
described at the back of the journal.
References
�
1
(
v/v) water/2-propanol solution (concentration 3.6 mg ml ) against
00% water used as precipitant.
Blake, C. C. F. & Small, R. W. H. (1972). Acta Cryst. B28, 2201±2206.
Cesari, M., Perego, G. & Melis, A. (1976). Eur. Polym. J. 12, 585±590.
Chipot, C., Jaffe, R., Maigret, B., Pearlman, D. A. & Kollman, P. A. (1996). J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 11217±11224.
Crick, F. H. C. & Rich, A. (1955). Nature (London), 176, 780±781.
Harkema, S. & Gaymans, R. J. (1977). Acta Cryst. B33, 3609±3611.
Hunter, C. A., Singh, J., Thornton, J. M. (1991). J. Mol. Biol. 218, 837±850.
Johnson, C. K. (1976). ORTEPII. Report ORNL-5138. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Tennessee, USA.
Kiers, C. (1994). CAD-4 Software. UNIX Version. Enraf±Nonius, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Palmer, A. & Brisse, F. (1980). Acta Cryst. B36, 1447±1452.
Paredes, N., Rodr õ guez-Gal a n, A. & Puiggal Âõ , J. (1998). J. Polym. Sci. Polym.
Chem. Ed. 36, 1271±1282.
Paredes, N., Rodr Âõ guez-Gal a n, A., Puiggal Âõ , J. & Peraire, C. (1998). J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 69, 1537±1549.
Sheldrick, G. M. (1997). SHELXS97 and SHELXL97. University of G oÈ tt-
ingen, Germany.
Urp Âõ , L., Rodr Âõ guez-Gal a n, A. & Puiggal õ , J. (1998a). Macromol. Chem. Phys.
199, 1167±1173.
Urp Âõ , L., Rodr Âõ guez-Gal a n, A. & Puiggal Âõ , J. (1998b). J. Chem. Crystallogr. 28,
605±610.
1
Crystal data
�
3
C
14
H
16
N O
2 6
D
x
= 1.363 Mg m
M
r
= 308.29
Monoclinic, P2
Cu Kꢁradiation
1
/a
Cell parameters from 20
re¯ections
Ê
a = 8.9889 (10) A
Ê
b = 4.977 (2) A
ꢁ
ꢂ= 8±35
Ê
� 1
c = 16.790 (4) A
ꢀ
ꢃ= 0.916 mm
T = 293 (2) K
ꢁ
3
= 90.900 (10)
Ê
V = 751.1 (4) A
Z = 2
Prism, colourless
0.20 Â 0.10 Â 0.05 mm
Data collection
ꢁ
Enraf±Nonius CAD-4 diffract-
ometer
ꢂmax = 65.77
h = � 10 ! 10
!
scans
k = 0 ! 5
2
1
1
237 measured re¯ections
172 independent re¯ections
029 re¯ections with I > 2ꢄ(I)
l = � 19 ! 19
3 standard re¯ections
frequency: 60 min
intensity decay: 0.5%
Urp Âõ , L., Rodr õ guez-Gal a n, A. & Puiggal õ , J. (1999). J. Chem. Crystallogr. 29,
1055±1059.
Rint = 0.031
ꢀ
Acta Cryst. (2001). C57, 172±173
Elaine Armelin et al.
14 16 2
C H N O
6
173