Three‐dimensional networks in 5‐methylimidazolium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate and bis(5‐methylimidazolium) 3‐carboxylato‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate

The two title proton‐transfer compounds, 5‐methylimidazolium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate, C₄H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻, (I), and bis(5‐methylimidazolium) 3‐carboxylato‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate, 2C₄H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S²⁻, (II), are each organized into a three‐dimensional network by a combination of X—H...O (X = O, N or C) hydrogen bonds, and π–π and C—H...π interactions.     

Three salts from the reactions of cysteamine and cystamine with L‐(+)‐tartaric acid

Reaction between cysteamine (systematic name: 2‐aminoethanethiol, C₂H₇NS) and L‐(+)‐tartaric acid [systematic name: (2R,3R)‐2,3‐dihydroxybutanedioic acid, C₄H₆O₆] results in a mixture of cysteamine tartrate(1−) monohydrate, C₂H₈NS⁺·C₄H₅O₆⁻·H₂O, (I), and cystamine bis[tartrate(1−)] dihydrate, C₄H₁₄N₂S₂²⁺·2C₄H₅O₆⁻·2H₂O, (III). Cystamine [systematic name: 2,2′‐dithiobis(ethylamine), C₄H₁₂N₂S₂], reacts with L‐(+)‐tartaric acid to produce a mixture of cystamine tartrate(2−), C₄H₁₄N₂S₂²⁺·C₄H₄O₆²⁻, (II), and (III). In each crystal structure, the anions are linked by O—H...O hydrogen bonds that run parallel to the a axis. In addition, hydrogen bonding involving protonated amino groups in all three salts, and water molecules in (I) and (III), leads to extensive three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonding networks. All three salts crystallize in the orthorhombic space group P2₁2₁2₁.     

A solid‐state oxidation of 1,1,3,3‐tetramethylguanidinium 4‐methylbenzenesulfinate to 1,1,3,3‐tetramethylguanidinium 4‐methylbenzenesulfonate

The organic acid–base complex 1,1,3,3‐tetramethylguanidinium 4‐methylbenzenesulfonate, C₅H₁₄N₃⁺·C₇H₇O₃S⁻, was obtained from the corresponding 1,1,3,3‐tetramethylguanidinium 4‐methylbenzenesulfinate complex, C₅H₁₄N₃⁺·C₇H₇O₂S⁻, by solid‐state oxidation in air. Comparison of the two crystal structures reveals similar packing arrangements in the monoclinic space group P2₁/c, with centrosymmetric 2:2 tetramers being connected by four strong N—H...O=S hydrogen bonds between the imine N atoms of two 1,1,3,3‐tetramethylguanidinium bases and the O atoms of two acid molecules.     

Covalent‐assisted supramolecular synthesis: the effect of hydrogen bonding in cocrystals of 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid with isoniazid and its derivatized forms

A series of cocrystals of isoniazid and four of its derivatives have been produced with the cocrystal former 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid via a one‐pot covalent and supramolecular synthesis, namely 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid–isoniazid, C₆H₇N₃O·C₁₁H₁₄O₂, 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid–N′‐(propan‐2‐ylidene)isonicotinohydrazide, C₉H₁₁N₃O·C₁₁H₁₄O₂, 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid–N′‐(butan‐2‐ylidene)isonicotinohydrazide, C₁₀H₁₃N₃O·C₁₁H₁₄O₂, 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid–N′‐(diphenylmethylidene)isonicotinohydrazide, C₁₉H₁₅N₃O·C₁₁H₁₄O₂, and 4‐tert‐butylbenzoic acid–N′‐(4‐hydroxy‐4‐methylpentan‐2‐ylidene)isonicotinohydrazide, C₁₂H₁₇N₃O₂·C₁₁H₁₄O₂. The co‐former falls under the classification of a `generally regarded as safe' compound. The four derivatizing ketones used are propan‐2‐one, butan‐2‐one, benzophenone and 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylbutan‐2‐one. Hydrogen bonds involving the carboxylic acid occur consistently with the pyridine ring N atom of the isoniazid and all of its derivatives. The remaining hydrogen‐bonding sites on the isoniazid backbone vary based on the steric influences of the derivative group. These are contrasted in each of the molecular systems.     

Hydro­gen bonding in proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid with bicyclic heteroaromatic Lewis bases

The crystal structures of quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate trihydrate, C₉H₈N⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·3H₂O, (I), 8‐hydroxy­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate monohydrate, C₉H₈NO⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·H₂O, (II), 8‐amino­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate dihydrate, C₉H₉N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·2H₂O, (III), and 2‐carboxy­quinolinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonate quinolinium‐2‐carboxylate, C₁₀H₈NO₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·C₁₀H₇NO₂, (IV), four proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid with bicyclic heteroaromatic Lewis bases, reveal in each the presence of variously hydrogen‐bonded polymers. In only one of these compounds, viz. (II), is the protonated quinolinium group involved in a direct primary N⁺—H⋯O(sulfonate) hydrogen‐bonding interaction, while in the other hydrates, viz. (I) and (III), the water mol­ecules participate in the primary intermediate interaction. The quinaldic acid (quinoline‐2‐carboxylic acid) adduct, (IV), exhibits cation–cation and anion–adduct hydrogen bonding but no direct formal heteromolecular interaction other than a number of weak cation–anion and cation–adduct π–π stacking associations. In all other compounds, secondary interactions give rise to network polymer structures.     

A pair of diastereomeric 1:1 salts of (S)‐ and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid

The structures of diastereomeric pairs consisting of (S)‐ and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazine with (2S,3S)‐tartaric acid are both 1:1 salts, namely (S)‐2‐methylpiperazinium (2S,3S)‐tartrate dihydrate, C₅H₁₄N₂²⁺·C₄H₄O₆²⁻·2H₂O, (I), and (R)‐2‐methylpiperazinium (2S,3S)‐tartrate dihydrate, C₅H₁₄N₂²⁺·C₄H₄O₆²⁻·2H₂O, (II), which reveal the formation of well defined ammonium carboxylate salts linked via strong intermolecular hydrogen bonds. Unlike the situation in the more soluble salt (II), the alternating columns of tartrate and ammonium ions of the less soluble salt (I) are packed neatly in a grid around the a axis, which incorporates water molecules at regular intervals. The increased efficiency of packing for (I) is evident in its lower `packing coefficient', and the hydrogen‐bond contribution is stronger in the more soluble salt (II).     

The design of novel metronidazole benzoate structures: exploring stoichiometric diversity

The use of supramolecular synthons as a strategy to control crystalline structure is a crucial factor in developing new solid forms with physicochemical properties optimized by design. However, to achieve this objective, it is necessary to understand the intermolecular interactions in the context of crystal packing. The feasibility of a given synthon depends on its flexibility to combine the drug with a variety of coformers. In the present work, the imidazole–hydroxy synthon is investigated using as the target molecule benzoylmetronidazole [BZMD; systematic name 2‐(2‐methyl‐5‐nitro‐1H‐imidazol‐1‐yl)ethyl benzoate], whose imidazole group seems to be a suitable acceptor for hydrogen bonds. Thus, coformers with carboxylic acid and phenol groups were chosen. According to the availability of binding sites presented in the coformer, and considering the proposed synthon and hydrogen‐bond complementarity as major factors, different drug–coformer stoichiometric ratios were explored (1:1, 2:1 and 3:1). Thirteen new solid forms (two salts and eleven cocrystals) were produced, namely BZMD–benzoic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₇H₆O₂, BZMD–β‐naphthol (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₁₀H₈O, BZMD–4‐methoxybenzoic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₈H₈O₃, BZMD–3,5‐dinitrobenzoic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₇H₄N₂O₆, BZMD–3‐aminobenzoic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₇H₇NO₂, BZMD–salicylic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₇H₆O₃, BZMD–maleic acid (1/1) {as the salt 1‐[2‐(benzoyloxy)ethyl]‐2‐methyl‐5‐nitro‐1H‐imidazol‐3‐ium 3‐carboxyprop‐2‐enoate}, C₁₃H₁₄N₃O₄⁺·C₄H₃O₄^?, BZMD–isophthalic acid (1/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₈H₆O4, BZMD–resorcinol (2/1), 2C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₆H₆O₂, BZMD–fumaric acid (2/1), C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·0.5C₄H₄O₄, BZMD–malonic acid (2/1), 2C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₃H₂O₄, BZMD–2,6‐dihydroxybenzoic acid (1/1) {as the salt 1‐[2‐(benzoyloxy)ethyl]‐2‐methyl‐5‐nitro‐1H‐imidazol‐3‐ium 2,6‐dihydroxybenzoate}, C₁₃H₁₄N₃O₄⁺·C₇H₅O₄^?, and BZMD–3,5‐dihydroxybenzoic acid (3/1), 3C₁₃H₁₃N₃O₄·C₇H₆O₄, and their crystalline structures elucidated, confirming the robustness of the selected synthon.     

Supramolecular hydrogen‐bonding patterns in salts of the antifolate drugs trimethoprim and pyrimethamine

Nine salts of the antifolate drugs trimethoprim and pyrimethamine, namely, trimethoprimium [or 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(3,4,5‐trimethoxybenzyl)pyrimidin‐1‐ium] 2,5‐dichlorothiophene‐3‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPDCTPC, 1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅HCl₂O₂S⁻, ( I ), trimethoprimium 3‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate, (TMPBTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅H₂BrO₂S⁻·H₂O, ( II ), trimethoprimium 3‐chlorothiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPCTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₅H₂ClO₂S⁻·H₂O, ( III ), trimethoprimium 5‐methylthiophene‐2‐carboxylate monohydrate (TMPMTPC, 1:1:1), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₆H₅O₂S⁻·H₂O, ( IV ), trimethoprimium anthracene‐9‐carboxylate sesquihydrate (TMPAC, 2:2:3), C₁₄H₁₉N₄O₃⁺·C₁₅H₉O₂⁻·1.5H₂O, ( V ), pyrimethaminium [or 2,4‐diamino‐5‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐6‐ethylpyrimidin‐1‐ium] 2,5‐dichlorothiophene‐3‐carboxylate (PMNDCTPC, 1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₅HCl₂O₂S⁻, ( VI ), pyrimethaminium 5‐bromothiophene‐2‐carboxylate (PMNBTPC, 1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₅H₂BrO₂S⁻, ( VII ), pyrimethaminium anthracene‐9‐carboxylate ethanol monosolvate monohydrate (PMNAC, 1:1:1:1), C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₁₅H₉O₂⁻·C₂H₅OH·H₂O, ( VIII ), and bis(pyrimethaminium) naphthalene‐1,5‐disulfonate (PMNNSA, 2:1), 2C₁₂H₁₄ClN₄⁺·C₁₀H₆O₆S₂²⁻, ( IX ), have been prepared and characterized by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. In all the crystal structures, the pyrimidine N1 atom is protonated. In salts ( I )–( III ) and ( VI )–( IX ), the 2‐aminopyrimidinium cation interacts with the corresponding anion via a pair of N—H…O hydrogen bonds, generating the robust R₂²(8) supramolecular heterosynthon. In salt ( IV ), instead of forming the R₂²(8) heterosynthon, the carboxylate group bridges two pyrimidinium cations via N—H…O hydrogen bonds. In salt ( V ), one of the carboxylate O atoms bridges the N1—H group and a 2‐amino H atom of the pyrimidinium cation to form a smaller R₂¹(6) ring instead of the R₂²(8) ring. In salt ( IX ), the sulfonate O atoms mimic the role of carboxylate O atoms in forming an R₂²(8) ring motif. In salts ( II )–( IX ), the pyrimidinium cation forms base pairs via a pair of N—H…N hydrogen bonds, generating a ring motif [R₂²(8) homosynthon]. Compounds ( II ) and ( III ) are isomorphous. The quadruple DDAA (D = hydrogen‐bond donor and A = hydrogen‐bond acceptor) array is observed in ( I ). In salts ( II )–( IV ) and ( VI )–( IX ), quadruple DADA arrays are present. In salts ( VI ) and ( VII ), both DADA and DDAA arrays co‐exist. The crystal structures are further stabilized by π–π stacking interactions [in ( I ), ( V ) and ( VII )–( IX )], C—H…π interactions [in ( IV )–( V ) and ( VII )–( IX )], C—Br…π interactions [in ( II )] and C—Cl…π interactions [in ( I ), ( III ) and ( VI )]. Cl…O and Cl…Cl halogen‐bond interactions are present in ( I ) and ( VI ), with distances and angles of 3.0020 (18) and 3.5159 (16) Å, and 165.56 (10) and 154.81 (11)°, respectively.     

Disulfonated azo dyes: metal coordination and ion‐pair separation in twelve MII compounds of Ponceau Xylidine and Crystal Scarlet

The structures of seven divalent metal cation compounds of Ponceau Xylidine {PX; systematic name of dication: 4‐[2‐(3,4‐dimethylphenyl)hydrazin‐1‐ylidene]‐3‐oxo‐3,4‐dihydronaphthalene‐2,7‐disulfonate}, also known as Acid Red 26, CI 16150, and of five divalent metal cation compounds of Crystal Scarlet {CS; systematic name of dication: 8‐[2‐(naphthalen‐1‐yl)hydrazin‐1‐ylidene]‐7‐oxo‐7,8‐dihydronaphthalene‐1,3‐disulfonate}, also known as Acid Red 44, CI 16250, are presented. These are hexaaquamagnesium(II) PX dimethylformamide (DMF) monosolvate, [Mg(H₂O)₆](C₁₈H₁₄N₂O₇S₂)·C₃H₇NO, (I); heptaaquacalcium(II) PX 2.5‐hydrate, [Ca(H₂O)₇](C₁₈H₁₄N₂O₇S₂)·2.5H₂O, (II); catena‐poly[aqua(μ‐DMF)tris(DMF)bis(μ₃‐PX)distrontium(II)], [Sr(C₁₈H₁₄N₂O₇S₂)(C₃H₇NO)₂(H₂O)_0.5]_n, (III); the transition‐metal series hexaaquametal(II) PX DMF monosolvate, [M(H₂O)₆](C₁₈H₁₄N₂O₇S₂)·C₃H₇NO, where M (metal) = Co, (IV), Ni, (V), Cu, (VI), and Zn, (VII); heptaaquacalcium(II) CS monohydrate, [Ca(H₂O)₇](C₂₀H₁₃N₂O₇S₂)·H₂O, (VIII); octaaquastrontium(II) CS monohydrate, [Sr(H₂O)₈](C₂₀H₁₃N₂O₇S₂)·H₂O, (IX); catena‐poly[[triaqua(DMF)barium(II)]‐μ‐CS], [Ba(C₂₀H₁₃N₂O₇S₂)(C₃H₇NO)(H₂O)₃]_n, (X); tetrakis(DMF)(CS)copper(II) monohydrate, [Cu(C₂₀H₁₃N₂O₇S₂)(C₃H₇NO)₄]·H₂O, (XI); and catena‐poly[[[aquatris(DMF)zinc(III)]‐μ‐CS] diethyl ether hemisolvate], {[Zn(C₂₀H₁₃N₂O₇S₂)(C₃H₇NO)₃(H₂O)]·0.5C₄H₁₀O}_n, (XII). In all cases, the structures obtained were solvates with dimethylformamide (DMF) and/or water present. The disulfonated naphthalene‐based azo anions adopt hydrazone tautomeric forms. The structures of the Mg salt and of four transition‐metal forms (M = Co, Ni, Cu and Zn) of PX are found to form an isostructural series. All have solvent‐separated ion‐pair (SSIP) type structures and the formula [M(H₂O)₆][PX]·DMF. The Ca salt of PX also has an SSIP structure, but has a higher hydration state, [Ca(H₂O)₇][PX]·2.5H₂O. In contrast, the Sr salt of PX, [Sr(PX)(DMF)₂(H₂O)_0.5]_n forms a one‐dimensional coordination polymer. Both the Ca and the Sr salt of CS have an SSIP structure, namely [Ca(H₂O)₇][CS]·H₂O and [Sr(H₂O)₈][CS]·H₂O, whilst the heavier Ba analogue, [Ba(CS)(DMF)(H₂O)₃]_n, forms a one‐dimensional coordination polymer. Unlike PX, two CS structures containing transition metals are found to be coordination complexes, [Cu(CS)(DMF)₄]·H₂O and {[Zn(CS)(DMF)₃(H₂O)]·0.5Et₂O}_n. This suggests that CS is a better ligand than PX for transition metals. The Cu complex forms discrete molecules with Cu in a square‐pyramidal environment, whilst the Zn species is a one‐dimensional coordination polymer based on octahedral Zn centres.     

Eight new crystal structures of 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, 5‐carboxyuracil and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil: insights into the hydrogen‐bonded networks and the predominant conformations of the C5‐bound residues

In order to examine the preferred hydrogen‐bonding pattern of various uracil derivatives, namely 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, 5‐carboxyuracil and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil, and for a conformational study, crystallization experiments yielded eight different structures: 5‐(hydroxymethyl)uracil, C₅H₆N₂O₃, (I), 5‐carboxyuracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₃H₇NO, (II), 5‐carboxyuracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₂H₆OS, (III), 5‐carboxyuracil–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₄·C₄H₉NO, (IV), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₃S·C₃H₇NO, (V), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₅H₄N₂O₃S·C₂H₆OS, (VI), 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil–1,4‐dioxane (2/3), 2C₅H₄N₂O₃S·3C₆H₁₂O₃, (VII), and 5‐carboxy‐2‐thiouracil, C₁₀H₈N₄O₆S₂, (VIII). While the six solvated structures, i.e. (II)–(VII), contain intramolecular S(6) O—H…O hydrogen‐bond motifs between the carboxy and carbonyl groups, the usually favoured R₂²(8) pattern between two carboxy groups is formed in the solvent‐free structure, i.e. (VIII). Further R₂²(8) hydrogen‐bond motifs involving either two N—H…O or two N—H…S hydrogen bonds were observed in three crystal structures, namely (I), (IV) and (VIII). In all eight structures, the residue at the ring 5‐position shows a coplanar arrangement with respect to the pyrimidine ring which is in agreement with a search of the Cambridge Structural Database for six‐membered cyclic compounds containing a carboxy group. The search confirmed that coplanarity between the carboxy group and the cyclic residue is strongly favoured.     

6‐Propyl‐2‐thiouracil versus 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil: enhancing the hydrogen‐bonded synthon motif by replacement of a methylene group with an O atom

The understanding of intermolecular interactions is a key objective of crystal engineering in order to exploit the derived knowledge for the rational design of new molecular solids with tailored physical and chemical properties. The tools and theories of crystal engineering are indispensable for the rational design of (pharmaceutical) cocrystals. The results of cocrystallization experiments of the antithyroid drug 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracil (PTU) with 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine (DAPY), and of 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil (MOMTU) with DAPY and 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidine (TAPY), respectively, are reported. PTU and MOMTU show a high structural similarity and differ only in the replacement of a methylene group (–CH₂–) with an O atom in the side chain, thus introducing an additional hydrogen‐bond acceptor in MOMTU. Both molecules contain an ADA hydrogen‐bonding site (A = acceptor and D = donor), while the coformers DAPY and TAPY both show complementary DAD sites and therefore should be capable of forming a mixed ADA/DAD synthon with each other, i.e. N—H…O, N—H…N and N—H…S hydrogen bonds. The experiments yielded one solvated cocrystal salt of PTU with DAPY, four different solvates of MOMTU, one ionic cocrystal of MOMTU with DAPY and one cocrystal salt of MOMTU with TAPY, namely 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracilate–2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide–water (1/1/1/1) (the systematic name for 6‐propyl‐2‐thiouracilate is 6‐oxo‐4‐propyl‐2‐sulfanylidene‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydropyrimidin‐1‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₇H₉N₂OS⁻·C₄H₆N₄·C₄H₉NO·H₂O, (I), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₃H₇NO, (II), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₄H₉NO, (III), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–dimethyl sulfoxide (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₂H₆OS, (IV), 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil–1‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₆H₈N₂O₂S·C₅H₉NO, (V), 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate (the systematic name for 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate is 4‐methoxymethyl‐6‐oxo‐2‐sulfanylidene‐1,2,3,6‐tetrahydropyrimidin‐1‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₆H₇N₂O₂S⁻, (VI), and 2,4,6‐triaminopyrimidinium 6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracilate–6‐methoxymethyl‐2‐thiouracil (1/1), C₄H₈N₅⁺·C₆H₇N₂O₂S⁻·C₆H₈N₂O₂S, (VII). Whereas in (I) only an AA/DD hydrogen‐bonding interaction was formed, the structures of (VI) and (VII) both display the desired ADA/DAD synthon. Conformational studies on the side chains of PTU and MOMTU also revealed a significant deviation for cocrystals (VI) and (VII), leading to the desired enhancement of the hydrogen‐bond pattern within the crystal.     

Two salts of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid and 3‐aminopyridine

5‐Sulfosalicylic acid (5‐SSA) and 3‐aminopyridine (3‐APy) crystallize in the same solvent system, resulting in two kinds of 1:1 proton‐transfer organic adduct, namely 3‐aminopyridinium 3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate monohydrate, C₅H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·H₂O or 3‐APy·5‐SSA·H₂O, (I), and the anhydrous adduct, C₅H₇N₂⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻ or 3‐APy·5‐SSA, (II). Both compounds have extensively hydrogen‐bonded three‐dimensional layered polymer structures, with interlayer homo‐ and heterogeneous π–π interactions in (I) and (II), respectively.     

Structural diversity in imidazolidinone organocatalysts: a synchrotron and computational study

(S)‐1‐(Methylaminocarbonyl)‐3‐phenylpropanaminium chloride (S2·HCl), C₁₀H₁₅N₂O⁺·Cl⁻, crystallizes in the orthorhombic space group P2₁2₁2₁ with a single formula unit per asymmetric unit. (5R/S)‐5‐Benzyl‐2,2,3‐trimethyl‐4‐oxoimidazolidin‐1‐ium chloride (R3 and S3), C₁₃H₁₉N₂O⁺·Cl⁻, crystallize in the same space group as S2·HCl but contain three symmetry‐independent formula units. (R/S)‐5‐Benzyl‐2,2,3‐trimethyl‐4‐oxoimidazolidin‐1‐ium chloride monohydrate (R4 and S4), C₁₃H₁₉N₂O⁺·Cl⁻·H₂O, crystallize in the space group P2₁ with a single formula unit per asymmetric unit. Calculations at the B3LYP/6–31G(d,p) and B3LYP/6–311G(d,p) levels of the conformational energies of the cation in R3, S3, R4 and S4 indicate that the ideal gas‐phase global energy minimum conformation is not observed in the solid state. Rather, the effects of hydrogen‐bonding and van der Waals interactions in the crystal structure cause the molecules to adopt higher‐energy conformations, which correspond to local minima in the molecular potential energy surface.     

Four cytotoxic N4‐substituted thiosemicarbazones derived from 2‐hydroxynaphthalene‐1‐carboxaldehyde

The X‐ray crystal structures are reported of four novel and potentially O,N,S‐tridentate donor ligands that demonstrate antitumour activity. These ligands are 1‐[(4‐methyl­thio­semicarbazono)methyl]‐2‐naphthol, C₁₃H₁₃N₃OS, (III), 1‐[(4‐ethylthio­semicarbazono)­methyl]‐2‐naphthol, C₁₄H₁₅N₃OS, (IV), 1‐[(4‐phenyl­thio­semicarbazono)­methyl]‐2‐naphthol, C₁₈H₁₅N₃OS, (V), and 1‐[(4,4‐di­methyl­thio­semicarbazono)­methyl]‐2‐naphthol di­methyl sulfoxide solvate, C₁₄H₁₅N₃OS·C₂H₆OS, (VI). These chelators are N4‐substituted thio­semicarbazones, each based on the same parent aldehyde, namely 2‐­zhydroxynaphthalene‐1‐carboxaldehyde isonicotinoylhydrazone. Conformational variations within this series are discussed in relation to the optimum conformation for metal‐ion binding.     

One barbiturate and two solvated thiobarbiturates containing the triply hydrogen‐bonded ADA/DAD synthon,plus one ansolvate and three solvates of their coformer 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine

A path to new synthons for application in crystal engineering is the replacement of a strong hydrogen‐bond acceptor, like a C=O group, with a weaker acceptor, like a C=S group, in doubly or triply hydrogen‐bonded synthons. For instance, if the C=O group at the 2‐position of barbituric acid is changed into a C=S group, 2‐thiobarbituric acid is obtained. Each of the compounds comprises two ADA hydrogen‐bonding sites (D = donor and A = acceptor). We report the results of cocrystallization experiments of barbituric acid and 2‐thiobarbituric acid, respectively, with 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine, which contains a complementary DAD hydrogen‐bonding site and is therefore capable of forming an ADA/DAD synthon with barbituric acid and 2‐thiobarbituric acid. In addition, pure 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine was crystallized in order to study its preferred hydrogen‐bonding motifs. The experiments yielded one ansolvate of 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine (pyrimidine‐2,4‐diamine, DAPY), C₄H₆N₄, (I), three solvates of DAPY, namely 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–1,4‐dioxane (2/1), 2C₄H₆N₄·C₄H₈O₂, (II), 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/1), C₄H₆N₄·C₄H₉NO, (III), and 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine–1‐methylpyrrolidin‐2‐one (1/1), C₄H₆N₄·C₅H₉NO, (IV), one salt of barbituric acid, viz. 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium barbiturate (barbiturate is 2,4,6‐trioxopyrimidin‐5‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₄H₃N₂O₃⁻, (V), and two solvated salts of 2‐thiobarbituric acid, viz. 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 2‐thiobarbiturate–N,N‐dimethylformamide (1/2) (2‐thiobarbiturate is 4,6‐dioxo‐2‐sulfanylidenepyrimidin‐5‐ide), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₄H₃N₂O₂S⁻·2C₃H₇NO, (VI), and 2,4‐diaminopyrimidinium 2‐thiobarbiturate–N,N‐dimethylacetamide (1/2), C₄H₇N₄⁺·C₄H₃N₂O₂S⁻·2C₄H₉NO, (VII). The ADA/DAD synthon was succesfully formed in the salt of barbituric acid, i.e. (V), as well as in the salts of 2‐thiobarbituric acid, i.e. (VI) and (VII). In the crystal structures of 2,4‐diaminopyrimidine, i.e. (I)–(IV), R₂²(8) N—H…N hydrogen‐bond motifs are preferred and, in two structures, additional R₃²(8) patterns were observed.     

Three polymorphs of an inclusion compound of 2,2′‐(disulfanediyl)dibenzoic acid and trimethylamine

Polymorphism is the ability of a solid material to exist in more than one form or crystal structure and this is of interest in the fields of crystal engineering and solid‐state chemistry. 2,2′‐(Disulfanediyl)dibenzoic acid (also called 2,2′‐dithiosalicylic acid, DTSA) is able to form different hydrogen bonds using its carboxyl groups. The central bridging S atoms allow the two terminal arene rings to rotate freely to generate various hydrogen‐bonded linking modes. DTSA can act as a potential host molecule with suitable guest molecules to develop new inclusion compounds. We report here the crystal structures of three new polymorphs of the inclusion compound of DTSA and trimethylamine, namely trimethylazanium 2‐[(2‐carboxyphenyl)disulfanyl]benzoate 2,2′‐(disulfanediyl)dibenzoic acid monosolvate, C₃H₁₀N⁺·C₁₄H₉O₄S₂⁻·C₁₄H₁₀O₄S₂, (1), tetrakis(trimethylazanium) bis{2‐[(2‐carboxyphenyl)disulfanyl]benzoate} 2,2′‐(disulfanediyl)dibenzoate 2,2′‐(disulfanediyl)dibenzoic acid monosolvate, 4C₃H₁₀N⁺·2C₁₄H₉O₄S₂⁻·C₁₄H₈O₄S₂²⁻·C₁₄H₁₀O₄S₂, (2), and trimethylazanium 2‐[(2‐carboxyphenyl)disulfanyl]benzoate, C₃H₁₀N⁺·C₁₄H₉O₄S₂⁻, (3). In the three polymorphs, DTSA utilizes its carboxyl groups to form conventional O—H…O hydrogen bonds to generate different host lattices. The central N atoms of the guest amine molecules accept H atoms from DTSA molecules to give the corresponding cations, which act as counter‐ions to produce the stable crystal structures via N—H…O hydrogen bonding between the host acid and the guest molecule. It is noticeable that although these three compounds are composed of the same components, the final crystal structures are totally different due to the various configurations of the host acid, the number of guest molecules and the inducer (i.e. ancillary experimental acid).     

Hydrogen bonding in 1:1 proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid with 4‐X‐substituted anilines (X = F,Cl or Br)

The crystal structures of three proton‐transfer compounds of 5‐sulfosalicylic acid (3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxy­benzene­sulfonic acid) with 4‐X‐substituted anilines (X = F, Cl and Br), namely 4‐fluoro­anilinium 5‐sulfosalicylate (3‐carboxy‐4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate) monohydrate, C₆H₇FN⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·H₂O, (I), 4‐chloro­anilinium 5‐sulfosalicylate hemihydrate, C₆H₇ClN⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·0.5H₂O, (II), and 4‐bromo­anilinium 5‐sulfosalicylate monohydrate, C₆H₇BrN⁺·C₇H₅O₆S⁻·H₂O, (III), have been determined. The asymmetric unit in (II) contains two formula units. All three compounds have three‐dimensional hydrogen‐bonded polymeric structures in which both the water molecule and the carboxylic acid group are involved in structure extension. With both (II) and (III), which are structurally similar, the common cyclic (8) dimeric carboxylic acid association is present, whereas in (I), an unusual cyclic (8) association involving all three hetero‐species is found.     

Eight salt forms of sulfadiazine

Proton transfer to the sulfa drug sulfadiazine [systematic name: 4‐amino‐N‐(pyrimidin‐2‐yl)benzenesulfonamide] gave eight salt forms. These are the monohydrate and methanol hemisolvate forms of the chloride (2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium chloride monohydrate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·Cl⁻·H₂O, (I), and 2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium chloride methanol hemisolvate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·Cl⁻·0.5CH₃OH, (II)); a bromide monohydrate (2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium bromide monohydrate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·Br⁻·H₂O, (III)), which has a disordered water channel; a species containing the unusual tetraiodide dianion [bis(2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium) tetraiodide, 2C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·I₄²⁻, (IV)], where the [I₄]²⁻ ion is located at a crystallographic inversion centre; a tetrafluoroborate monohydrate (2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium tetrafluoroborate monohydrate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·BF₄⁻·H₂O, (V)); a nitrate (2‐{[(4‐azaniumylphenyl)sulfonyl]azanidyl}pyrimidin‐1‐ium nitrate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·NO₃⁻, (VI)); an ethanesulfonate {4‐[(pyrimidin‐2‐yl)sulfamoyl]anilinium ethanesulfonate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·C₂H₅SO₃⁻, (VII)}; and a dihydrate of the 4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate {4‐[(pyrimidin‐2‐yl)sulfamoyl]anilinium 4‐hydroxybenzenesulfonate dihydrate, C₁₀H₁₁N₄O₂S⁺·HOC₆H₄SO₃⁻·2H₂O, (VIII)}. All these structures feature alternate layers of cations and of anions where any solvent is associated with the anion layers. The two sulfonate salts are protonated at the aniline N atom and the amide N atom of sulfadiazine, a tautomeric form of the sulfadiazine cation that has not been crystallographically described before. All the other salt forms are instead protonated at the aniline group and on one N atom of the pyrimidine ring. Whilst all eight species are based upon hydrogen‐bonded centrosymetric dimers with graph set R₂²(8), the two sulfonate structures also differ in that these dimers do not link into one‐dimensional chains of cations through NH₃‐to‐SO₂ hydrogen‐bonding interactions, whilst the other six species do. The chloride methanol hemisolvate and the tetraiodide are isostructural and a packing analysis of the cation positions shows that the chloride monohydrate structure is also closely related to these.     

The CoIII—C bond in (1‐thia‐4,7‐diazacyclodecyl‐κ3N4,N7,C10)(1,4,7‐triazacyclononane‐κ3N1,N4,N7)cobalt(III) dithionate hydrate

In the title compound, [Co(C₆H₁₅N₃)(C₇H₁₅N₂S)]S₂O₆·H₂O, the Co—C bond distance is 1.9930 (13) Å, which is shorter than for related compounds with the linear 1,6‐di­amino‐3‐thia­hexan‐4‐ide anion in place of the macrocyclic 1‐thia‐4,7‐diazacyclo­decan‐8‐ide anion. The coordinated carbanion produces an elongation of 0.102 (7) Å of the Co—N bond to the 1,4,7‐tri­aza­cyclo­nonane N atom in the trans position. This relatively small trans influence is presumably a result of the tri­amine ligand forming strong bonds to the Co^III atom.     

Charge‐transfer complexes of N‐methyl‐, N‐iso­propyl‐, N‐butyl‐ and N‐iso­butyl­carbazole with 3,5‐di­nitro­benzoic acid

In the title four compounds, C₁₃H₁₁N·C₇H₄N₂O₆, (I), C₁₅H₁₅N·C₇H₄N₂O₆, (II), C₁₆H₁₇N·C₇H₄N₂O₆, (III), and C₁₆H₁₇N·C₇H₄N₂O₆, (IV), the donor and acceptor mol­ecules are stacked alternately to form one‐dimensional columns. In (I), the N‐methyl group of the donor is nearly eclipsed with respect to one of the nitro groups of the neighboring acceptor in a column, whereas the N‐iso­propyl, N‐butyl and N‐iso­butyl groups are in anti positions with respect to one of the nitro groups of the neighboring acceptor in compounds (II)–(IV).