Single-crystal-to-single-crystal reactivity: Gray, rather than black or white

Crystal Growth and Design

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 2817-2823

  Halasz, Ivan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR FESTKÖRPERFORSCHUNG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTAL LATTICES;

SOLID STATE REACTIONS;

EID: 78650331653     PISSN: 15287483     EISSN: 15287505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/cg100338t     Document Type: Review

References (112)

1. (a) For some of the pioneering reports on SCSC reactivity, see: (a) Parkinson, G. M.; Thomas, J. M.; Williams, J. O.; Goringe, M. J.; Hobbs, L. W. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1976, 836-838.
2. (b) Duesler, E. N.; Wiegers, K. E.; Curtin, D. Y.; Paul, I. C. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1980, 59, 289-298.
3. (c) Iguchi, M.; Nakanishi, H.; Hasegawa, M. J. Polym. Sci., A-1 1968, 6, 1055-1057.
4. (d) Nakanishi, H.; Jones, W.; Thomas, J. M. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1980, 71, 44-48.
5. (e) Enkelmann, V.; Wegner, G.; Novak, K.; Wagener, K. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 10390-10391.
6. SCSC reactivity is readily extended to solid-state phase transformations, since a solid state transformation can be considered as the simplest solid-state reaction where the reactant molecules and product molecules are the same. Thus, one speaks of solid-state phase transformations that proceed in an SCSC manner.
7. (a) Friščić, T.; MacGillivray, L. R. Z. Kristallogr. 2005, 220, 351-363.
8. (b) Barbour, L. J. Aust. J. Chem. 2006, 59, 595-596.
9. SCSC reactivity was often observed in porous materials during gas or solvent uptake and release: (a) Lee, E. Y.; Suh, M. P. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 2798-2801.
10. (b) Wu, C. D.; Lin, W. B. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 1958-1961.
11. (c) Choi, H. J.; Suh, M. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 15844-15851.
12. (d) Vittal, J. J. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2007, 251, 1781-1795.
13. (e) Ohmori, O.; Kawano, M.; Fujita, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 16292-16293.
14. (f) Deiters, E.; Bulach, V.; Hosseini, M. W. Chem. Commun. 2005, 3906-3908.
15. (g) Halder, G. J.; Kepert, C. J. Aust. J. Chem. 2006, 59, 597-604.
16. (h) Gurunatha, K. L.; Mohapatra, S.; Suchetan, P. A.; Maji, T. K. Cryst. Growth Des. 2009, 9, 3844-3847.
17. (i) Chandler, B. D.; Enright, G. D.; Udachin, K. A.; Pawsey, S.; Ripmeester, J. A.; Cramb, D. T.; Shimizu, G. K. H. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 229-235. But it was observed also for nonporous organic solids:
18. (j) Tian, J.; Thallapally, P. K.; Dalgarno, S. J.; Atwood, J. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 13216-13217.
19. (k) Ripmeester, J. A.; Enright, G. D.; Ratcliffe, C. I.; Udachin, K. A.; Moudrakovski, I. L. Chem. Commun. 2006, 4986-4996.
20. (l) Atwood, J. L.; Barbour, L. J.; Jerga, A.; Schottel, B. L. Science 2002, 298, 1000-1002.
21. (a) Nakanishi, H.; Suzuki, Y.; Suzuki, F.; Hasegawa, M. J. Polym. Sci., A-1 1969, 7, 743-752.
22. (b) Nakanishi, H.; Suzuki, Y.; Suzuki, F.; Hasegawa, M. J. Polym. Sci., A-1 1969, 7, 753-766.
23. (c) Nakanishi, H.; Parkinson, G. M.; Jones, W.; Thomas, J. M.; Hasegawa, M. Isr. J. Chem. 1979, 18, 261-265.
24. (d) Nakanishi, H.; Jones,W.; Thomas, J. M.; Hasegawa, M.; Rees,W. L. Proc. R. Soc. London, A 1980, 369, 307-325.
25. (e) Hasegawa, M. Pure Appl. Chem. 1986, 58, 1179-1188.
26. (f) Lauher, J. W.; Fowler, F. W.; Goroff, N. S. Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 1215-1229.
27. Garcia-Garibay, M. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8945-8947.
28. (a) Jones, W.; Nakanishi, H.; Theocharis, C. R.; Thomas, J. M. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1980, 610-611.
29. (b) Kim, J. H.; Hubig, S. M.; Lindeman, S. V.; Kochi, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 87-95.
30. (c) Nakanishi, H.; Jones, W.; Thomas, J. M.; Hursthouse, M. B.; Motevalli, M. J. Phys. Chem. 1981, 85, 3636-3642.
31. See for example: (a) Trzop, E.; Turowska-Tyrk, I. Acta Crystallogr. 2008, B64, 375-382.
32. (b) Turowska-Tyrk, I.; Bakowicz, J.; Scheffer, J. R. Acta Crystallogr. 2007, B63, 933-940.
33. (b) Turowska-Tyrk, I.; Labecka, I.; Scheffer, J. R.; Xia, W. Pol. J. Chem. 2007, 81, 813-824.
34. (a) Kaupp, G. Top. Curr. Chem. 2005, 254, 95-183.
35. (b) Scheffer, J. R.; Xia, W. Top. Curr. Chem. 2005, 254, 233-262.
36. (c) Green, B. S; Lahav, M.; Rabinovich, D. Acc. Chem. Res. 1979, 12, 191-197.
37. (d) Friščić, T.; MacGillivray, L. R. In Making Crystals by Design; Braga, D.,Grepioni, F., Eds. Wiley-VCH: 2007; pp 176-192.
38. (e) Friščić, T.; MacGillivray, L. R. Croat. Chem. Acta 2006, 79, 327-333.
39. Kohlschütter, V. Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 1918, 105, 1-25.
40. Lotgering, F. K. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1959, 9, 113-123.
41. This was first observed with inorganic crystals, but it has afterwards been shown also to be valid for organic crystals. (a) Kohlschütter, H. W. Ann. Chem. 1930, 482, 75-107.
42. (b) Morawetz, H.; Jakabhazy, S. Z.; Lando, J. B.; Shafer, J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1963, 49, 789-793.
43. The term epitaxy is used when referring to the oriented growth of a crystalline solid phase on some crystalline substrate where the exposed surface of the substrate determines the lattice orientation of the growing phase, but it has mostly been used for growth of the solid phase from melt or vapor and has scarcely been used in describing oriented growth of a solid within a solid. Epitaxy, however, seems to have the same meaning as topotaxy.
44. (a) Schmidt, G. M. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 1971, 27, 647-678.
45. (b) Morawetz, H. Science 1966, 152, 705-711.
46. Kawano, M.; Fujita, M. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2007, 251, 2592-2605.
47. (a) Keating, A. E.; Garcia-Garibay, M. A. In Molecular and Supramolecular Photochemistry; Ramamurthy, V., Schanze, K., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1998; Vol. 2, pp 195-248.
48. (b) MacGillivray, L. R.; Papaefstathiou, G. S.; Frišč ić, T.; Hamilton, T. D.; Bučar, D.-K.; Chu, Q.; Varshney, D. B.; Georgiev, I. G. Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 280-291.
49. (c) Zimmerman, H. E.; Nesterov, E. E. Acc. Chem. Res. 2002, 35, 77-85.
50. (d) Paul, I. C.; Curtin, D. Y. Acc. Chem. Res. 1973, 6, 217-225.
51. (e) Desiraju, G. R. Solid State Ionics 1997, 101, 839-842.
52. (f) Thomas, J. M. Pure Appl. Chem. 1979, 51, 1065-1082.
53. (g) Cohen, M. D. Tetrahedron 1987, 43, 1211-1224.
54. (h) Cohen, M. D. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1975, 14, 386-393.
55. (i) Vittal, J. J. Chem. Commun. 2008, 42, 5277-5288.
56. An excellent account of topotaxy in inorganic systems is given in: (j) Figlarz, M.; Gerand, B.; Delahayevidal, A.; Dumont, B.; Harb, F.; Coucou,A.; Fievet, F. Solid State Ionics 1990, 43, 143-170.
57. (a) Bučar, D.-K.; MacGillivray, L. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 32-33.
58. (b) Takahashi, S.; Miura, H.; Kasai, H.; Okada, S.; Oikawa, H.; Nakanishi, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 10944-10945.
59. (c) Miura, H.; Takahashi, S.; Kasai, H.; Okada, S.; Yase, K.; Oikawa, H.; Nakanishi, H. Cryst. Growth Des. 2010, 10, 510-517.
60. It can be argued that to have a perfect polycrystal all possible orientations must be represented with exactly the same mass of material. Since there is infinitely many of them, perfect polycrystals would consequently need to be infinitely big. Within the here used definition of a perfect polycrystal, this is neglected and it is assumed that the number of crystallites is just large enough. The distinguishing feature between a perfect single crystal and a perfect polycrystal is that a perfect polycrystal consists of a large number of crystals while a perfect single crystal consists exclusively of one. Note also that making distinctions between a large number of crystals and just one immediately brings us to the sorites paradox. For the role of defects in solid-state reactions, see: (a) Cohen, M. D.; Ludmer, Z.; Thomas, J. M.; Williams, J. O. Proc. R. Soc. London, A 1971, 324, 459-468.
61. (b) Braun, H.-G.; Wegner, G. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1983, 96, 121-139.
62. (c) Thomas, J. M.; Williams, J. O. Prog. Solid State Chem. 1971, 6, 119-154.
63. (d) Ramachandra Swamy, H.; Guru Row, T. N.; Ramamurthy, V.; Venkatesan, K.; Rao, C. N. R. Curr. Sci. 1982, 51, 381-386.
64. (e) Ramdas, S.; Jones, W.; Thomas, J. M.; Desvergne, J.-P. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1978, 57, 468-470.
65. (a) Authier, A.; Malgrange, C. Acta Crystallogr. 1998, A54, 806-819.
66. (b) Darwin, C. G. Philos. Mag. 1922, 43, 800-829.
67. (c) Bragg, W. L.; Darwin, C. G.; James, R. W. Philos. Mag. 1926, 1, 897-922.
68. Single crystal diffraction experiments can estimate a crystal's mosaicity based on an angular range of crystal rotation around a diffractometer axis through which a certain reflection is observed on the detector. There are two usual ways of describing the extent of preferred orientation of a polycrystalline sample,: the semiempirical March-Dollase modeling (a) March, A. Z. Kristallogr. 1932, 81, 285-297.
69. (b) Dollase, W. A. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1986, 19, 267-272.
70. (c) Zolotoyabko, E. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 513-518.
71. the empirical modeling with spherical harmonic functions (Järvinen, M. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1993, 26, 525-531.). The approaches for single crystals and polycrystals operate on opposing parts of the A-B line of Figure 1 and are not compatible. It has also been demonstrated how the preferred orientation of crystallites in a polycrystalline sample can be used in solving the problem of intensity partition due to reflection overlap in a powder diffraction pattern and obtaining a single-crystallike diffraction data set.
72. Wessels, T.; Baerlocher, C.; McCusker, L. B. Science 1999, 284, 477-479.).
73. (a) Enright, G. D.; Brouwer, E. B.; Udachin, K. A.; Ratcliffe, C. I.; Ripmeester, J. A. Acta Crystallogr. 2002, B58, 1032-1035.
74. See also: (b) Stilinovič, V.; Kaitner, B. Acta Crystallogr. 2010, A66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0108767310013814.
75. Reacting molecules with bulky substitutents seem to be more prone to exhibiting SCSC reactivity: Marubayashi, N.; Ogawa, T.; Hamasaki, T.; Hirayama, N. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1997, 2, 1309-1314. This is expected if we consider that formation of a new bond will have less of an effect on the overall crystal if this is just a small part of the molecule. That is, if the overall change is small, its influence on the surrounding molecules will correspondingly be small. Consider the changes protein crystals can endure, e.g. introduction of heavy atoms or exchange of substrates at the active sites in enzymes by soaking. All these changes in protein crystals are of an SCSC kind. Protein crystals can be very flexible, maybe because only just a tiny bit in them is actually changing and, with all the water in crystals, the molecules have a lot of freedom. For an account on free space accessible to molecules and the influence of solid-state reactivity.
76. see: Gavezzotti, A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 5220-5225.
77. Luty, T.; Eckhardt, C. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 2441-2452.
78. (a) McBride, J. M.; Segmuller, B. E.; Hollingsworth, M. D.; Mills, D. E.; Weber, B. A. Science 1986, 234, 830-835.
79. (b) Kaupp, G. In Making Crystals by Design; Braga, D., Grepioni, F., Eds.; Wiley-VCH; 2007; pp 87-148.
80. (c) McBride, J. M. Acc. Chem. Res. 1983, 16, 304-312.
81. (a) Eckhardt, C. J.; Luty, T.; Peachey, N. M. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1998, 313, 25-38.
82. (b) Dunitz, J. D. Pure Appl. Chem. 1991, 63, 177-185.
83. (a) Kaupp, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1992, 31, 592-595.
84. (b) Kaupp, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1992, 31, 595-598.
85. (c) Kaupp, G. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2002, 6, 131-138.
86. (d) Koshima, H.; Ide, Y.; Ojima, N. Cryst. Growth Des. 2008, 7, 2058-2060.
87. Coppens, P.; Benedict, J.; Messerschmidt, M.; Novozhilova, I.; Graber, T.; Chen, Y.-S.; Voronotsov, I.; Scheins, S.; Zheng, S.-L. Acta Crystallogr. 2010, A66, 179-188.
88. Fattah, J.; Twyman, J. M.; Heyes, S. J.; Watkin, D. J.; Edwards, A. J.; Prout, K.; Dobson, C. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 5636-5650.
89. (a) Varshney, D. B.; Papaefstathiou, G. S.; MacGillivray, L. R. Chem. Commun. 2002, 1964-1965.
90. (b) Enkelmann, V.; Wegner, G.; Novak, K.; Wagener, K. B. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1994, 240, 121-126.
91. (c) Enkelmann, V. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1998, 313, 15-23.
92. (d) Novak, K.; Enkelmann, V.;Wegner, G.;Wagener, K. B. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1993, 32, 1614-1616.
93. Braun, H.-G.; Wegner, G. Makromol. Chem. 1983, 184, 1103-1119.
94. Mnyukh, Y. Fundamentals of Solid State Phase Transformations, Ferromagnetism and Ferroelectricity; Authorhouse: 2001.
95. Mnyukh, Y. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1979, 52, 201-218.
96. Coles, S. J.; Gelbrich, T.; Griesser, U. J.; Hursthouse,M. B.; Pitak, M.; Threlfall, T. Cryst. Growth Des. 2009, 9, 4610-4612.
97. (a) Desiraju, G. R.; Paul, I. C.; Curtin, D. Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 1594-1601.
98. (b) Meyer, W.; Lieser, G.; Wegner, G. Makromol. Chem. 1977, 178, 631-634.
99. See, for example: Xue, D.-X.; Zhang, W.-X.; Chen, X.-M.; Wang, H.-Z. Chem. Commun. 2008, 1551-1553.
100. Some reports of SCSC reactivity state that the crystal has cracked but remained in one piece upon reaction/transformation (e.g. Bardelang, D.; Udachin, K. A.; Anedda, R.; Moudrakovski, I.; Leek, M. D.; Ripmeester, J. A.; Ratcliffe, C. I. Chem. Commun. 2008, 4927-4929. ).
101. Such reports show that formation (growth) of daughter domains was topotactic (epitaxial), thus retaining the mosaicity of the final crystal sufficiently low to allow for a single-crystal-diffraction data set to be collected. The mother crystal actually disintegrated while daughter domains grew with closely similar orientations. Formation of twin domains upon SCSC reaction is also an option. Such cases also give evidence formultiple nucleation sites, such as, for example, in the solid-state UV-photolysis of dimeric p-bromonitrosobenzene ( Halasz, I.; Meštrović, E.; Čičak,H.; Mihalić, Z.; Vančik, H. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 8461-8467).
102. 1 space group. The daughter crystal showed pronounced mosaicity, and it was observed by refinement of the Flack parameter, x, that an inversion twin had formed. The portions of the crystal belonging to opposite chiralities were found to be equal (x = 0.50(2)). This observation can be explained by many nucleation sites where the chirality of the daughter phase starting to grow at a particular nucleation site was chosen possibly at randomwhile all daughter domains had to grow with approximately similar orientations for the crystal to retain its behavior as a single crystal in a diffraction experiment. Explanations for the topotactic (epitaxial) growth in this case potentially lie in the network of supramolecular interactions, which remains unchanged upon reaction. The network of interactions already present in themother crystal could have thus determined the least-energy path for growth of daughter domains and served as sort of a template for their orientations. For thorough accounts of twinning in topotactic reactions, see: Gougoutas, J. Z.; Lessinger, L. J. Solid State Chem. 1975, 12, 51-62.
103. Gougoutas, J. Z. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 127-132. Thorough account of epitaxial growth in solid-state phase transformations is given by Mnyukh.32
104. Volkringer, C.; Popov, D.; Loiseau, T.; Guillou, N.; Ferey, G.; Haouas, M.; Taulelle, F.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Burghammer, M.; Riekel, C. Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 760-764.
105. Pecharsky,V.K.; Zavalij, P. Y. Fundamentals of Power Diffraction and Structural Characterisation ofMaterials; Springer: New York, 2005.
106. This whole discussion has a bit of a philosophical spirit in it. Saying that a crystal had broken is not easy, since this term does not have clear-cut boundaries. How big would a crack need to be to declare that the crystal had broken? How small is the crack allowed to be, without declaring the crystal as cracked, when even the tiniest misalignment of two domains in a crystal could be declared a crack? Which method should we use to find potential cracks? It is clear that if we just take a more sensitive method, a crack previously unnoticed could be found. The situation is the same with many terms mentioned here, including the terms single crystal, polycrystal, SCSC reaction/transformation, and even crystal (Desiraju, G. R. Nature 2003, 423, 485.).
107. These terms are vague, and there is most probably no way to avoid the vagueness. But additionally, many terms in chemistry are also inherently vague (e.g. homogeneous and heterogeneous). For instance, a description of vagueness of the term polymorphism is given in: Desiraju, G. R. Cryst. Growth Des. 2008, 8, 3-5.
108. Since vagueness probably cannot be avoided, our wish here is to point this out so that we are aware of it in the course or our reasoning. The reader is referred to a recent book: van Deemter,K. Not Exactly: in Praise of Vagueness; Oxford University Press: New York, 2010.
109. Khan, M.; Enkelmann, V.; Brunklaus, G. CrystEngComm 2009, 11, 1001-1005.
110. (a) Shalaev, E. Y.; Zografi, G. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 1996, 9, 729-738.
111. (b) Kim, J. H.; Jaung, J. Y.; Jeong, S. H. Opt. Mater. 2002, 21, 395-400.
112. This has been more valid in the last two decades, possibly because of the drastic increase in availability of diffraction methods then in the advent of interest in solid state reactivity in the 1960s and 1970s.