X-ray structures, thermal stabilities and kinetics of guest desolvation of complexes of three fluorenone-derived host compounds with the polar aprotic guest solvent, tetramethylurea

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4881266/v1

The wheel-and-axle host compounds 9,9¢-(1,4-phenylene)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H1), 9,9¢-(ethyne-1,2-diyl)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H2) and 9,9¢-(biphenyl-4,4¢-diyl)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H3) each formed complexes with tetramethylurea (TMU), a polar aprotic organic solvent, with host:guest ratios of 1:2. Single crystal X-ray diffraction revealed that these complexes crystallized in the monoclinic space group P2₁/c, their analyses being performed in P2₁/c for H1×2(TMU) and in the alternative setting P2₁/n for both H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU). Furthermore, these inclusion compounds are stabilized by both classical and non-classical hydrogen bonds between the host and guest molecules. Hirshfeld surface analyses demonstrated that the percentage of interatomic (host)H···O(guest) interactions ranged between 7.3 and 10.3%, while thermal analyses showed that the relative thermal stabilities of these complexes were high, with the onset temperatures for the guest release event, T_on, being 83.1 (H1·2(TMU)), 81.1 (H2·2(TMU)) and 90.3 °C (H3·2(TMU)). Moreover, the calculated mass loss percentages, after heating each complex in a controlled manner to release the guest species, correlated closely with those expected for these 1:2 host:guest inclusion complexes. Finally, determination of the activation energies for complex desolvation yielded 148.7 ± 5.4, 128.6 ± 10.8 and 149.4 ± 0.8 kJ·mol^‒1 for H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) respectively. A single guest desolvation mechanism was at work in the first and last of these complexes, while this mechanism in H2·2(TMU) changed during this process. The H1·2(TMU) inclusion complex has been reported previously, and the results obtained in that work are also compared with those from the present investigation.

Host-guest

Supramolecular

Tetramethylurea

Fluorenone-derived

Activation energy

Supramolecular chemistry is a branch of chemistry that, in part, involves the formation of supramolecules consisting of an organized and complex unit that is formed from two or more different species that are held together by intermolecular forces [1]. These supramolecules consist of an equilibrated structure that involves a comparable balance between both enthalpy and entropy [2]. Numerous processes are involved in the formation of supramolecular complexes, such as self-assembly, molecular recognition and crystal engineering [3]. Self-assembly is the independent organization, by means of non-covalent interactions, of molecular components that produce structures that can exist at any scale. The structure of the assembly is dependent upon the molecular structures, as molecules will tend to form molecular assemblies in conformations that have enhanced thermodynamic stabilities [4]. Crystal engineering has been defined by Desiraju as “the understanding of intermolecular interactions in the context of crystal packing and in the utilization of such understanding in the design of new solids with desired physical and chemical properties” [5]. If one considers crystalline complexes as the supramolecular equivalent to molecules, then crystal engineering is the supramolecular equivalent to organic synthesis [6]. What, in essence, all this equates to is simply how important are the features, characteristics and structures of the building blocks that form the crystal phase [7].

The kinetics of guest desolvation from inclusion compounds have been examined over the years in order to build an understanding of the mechanism thereof, as well as to evaluate such factors as rate constants and activation energies [8]. This process may be monitored by measuring the change in mass loss as a function of time [9]. Early work by Coats and Redfern investigated the use of thermogravimetric experiments for the determination of kinetic data [10]. This work was then expanded upon by Ozawa [11] and Flynn [12], who developed a method for calculating the activation energy of the guest desolvation process from an inclusion complex using different heating rates and recording the temperatures at which specific fixed mass losses were attained across these various heating rates. Numerous examples of activation energies of guest loss from host-guest inclusion compounds have subsequently been reported in literature [13–15].

The wheel-and-axle compounds 9,9′-(1,4-phenylene)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H1), 9,9′-(ethyne-1,2-diyl)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H2) and 9,9′-(biphenyl-4,4′-diyl)bis(fluoren-9-ol) (H3) (Scheme1) have been demonstrated to be efficient host species for the organic solvents tetrahydrofuran, diethyl ether, 1,4-dioxane and morpholine; these host compounds were designed and synthesized by Weber and co-workers [16–18]. In the present investigation, H1‒H3 were crystallized from the polar aprotic solvent tetramethylurea (TMU) and complexes were formed in each instance. We note that the TMU-containing inclusion compound with H1 has been reported previously [19] and, in that work, was described the crystal structure of this complex together with the results obtained from Hirshfeld surface analyses, thermal experiments and lattice energy considerations. In the present work, these characteristics of the TMU-containing complex with H1 obtained in our laboratories are compared with the reported results and, furthermore, these features are also revealed for the novel complexes of TMU with H2 and H3; our findings are now reported.

2.1. Materials

All chemicals/solvents were purchased from Sigma Aldrich, South Africa, and were used without further purification.

2.2. Synthesis of host compounds H1‒H3

Host compounds H1‒H3 were synthesized according to a previous report [16].

2.3. Preparation of the single solvent host-guest inclusion complexes

The complexes of TMU with H1, H2 and H3 were prepared by adding 15 mmol of the guest solvent to 0.04 g (0.09 mmol for H1, 0.10 mmol for H2 and 0.78 mmol for H3) of the host compound in glass vials. To ensure complete dissolution of the host species within TMU, 15 drops of chloroform were added to the vials with H1 and H2, while 30 drops of acetonitrile were required for those with H3, whereafter mild heat was applied. The vials were stored in a refrigerator set to 5°C, whereafter crystals formed in the solutions. These were isolated by vacuum filtration, washed with petroleum (PET) ether (b.p. 40‒60°C) and analysed by means of ¹H NMR spectroscopy. Successful complexation was confirmed when both the host and guest resonance signals were observed on the proton NMR spectra. The relative integrals of appropriate host and guest resonance signals were then compared in order to determine the host:guest (H:G) ratios. Relevant ¹H NMR spectra are provided in the Supporting Information (SI, Figures S1a‒c).

2.4. Analytical instrumentation

2.4.1 NMR Spectroscopy

The ¹H NMR experiments were carried out by means of a Bruker Ultrashield Plus 400 MHz spectrometer with CDCl₃ (for experiments involving H1 and H2) and DMSO-d₆ (H3) as the deuterated solvents. The spectra were analysed using TopSpin 4.3.0 software.

2.4.2 Single crystal X-ray diffraction analyses

The complexes H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) were analysed using a Bruker D8 VENTURE single crystal diffractometer and graphite-monochromated MoKα-radiation (λ = 0.71073 Å). The crystals were maintained at 173(2) K with nitrogen vapour supplied by an Oxford Cryostream-800 (Oxford Cryosystems, U.K.). The data-collections were controlled using APEX3/v2019.1-0 (Bruker) software; ω- and ϕ-scans of width 1.0° were employed. Data reductions were carried out by means of SAINT v8.40A (Bruker) [20]. SADABS (2016/2) [21] was implemented as the multi-scan method for the absorption corrections. The structures were solved using direct methods, with refinement by full-matrix least-squares using programs in the SHELX suite [22]. Version 4.0 [23] of X-Seed (for supramolecular crystallography) was employed as the graphical user interface [24]. Generally, non-hydrogen atoms were refined anisotropically, with all hydrogen atoms located in difference Fourier syntheses and placed in idealised positions in a riding model with isotropic displacement parameters in the range 1.2‒1.5 times those of their parent atoms. All four methyl groups of the guest molecule in H1·2(TMU) were disordered over two positions. Following their isotropic refinement, they were modelled using the co-ordinates of their respective predicted ‘split’ positions as initial locations, and all eight components of disorder were treated isotropically in subsequent least-squares refinements. Due to the disorder, a chemically insignificant residual difference electron density peak of height 1.26 eÅ^‒3 appeared at ~ 0.5 Å from one of the disorder components (C23B, SI, Figure S2) and the R₁-factor for the structure is accordingly relatively high.

2.4.3 Thermal analysis

Thermogravimetry (TG) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) experiments were carried out on each of the three inclusion compounds. The solids were first recovered from their solutions by means of vacuum filtration, washed with PET ether and patted dry in folded filter paper prior to these analyses. The instrument was a Perkin Elmer Simultaneous Thermal Analyzer (STA) 6000, and data were analysed by means of Pyris Series data software. Samples were placed in ceramic pans with an empty pan serving as the reference. The purge gas was high purity nitrogen, and samples were heated from approximately 40 to 350°C at a heating rate of 10°C·min^‒1.

2.4.4 Kinetics of guest release

The activation energy of the guest release process was subsequently investigated for each of the three complexes. This was achieved by means of the method of Ozawa [11], and Flynn and Wall [12], which employed thermogravimetric analysis to measure the mass loss experienced by each complex as a function of different heating rates [13]. In more detail, the method involved heating each of the inclusion complexes at different heating rates (β), and the temperatures at which certain fixed mass loss percentages (α) (of the overall mass loss) were achieved were then recorded. Thereafter, ln(β/β_o) was plotted against 1000 K/T, according to the equation

ln(β/β_o) = ‒ \(\:\frac{E{}_{a}}{RT}\) + lnA

where β_o is the standard state used to remove units from the logarithmic calculation (1°C·min^‒1), E_a is activation energy, T is the absolute temperature (K) and A is a pre-exponential factor of the Arrhenius equation. The negative gradient from the resultant plots was then multiplied by ‒R (where R = 8.314 J·mol^‒1·K^‒1), which furnished the activation energy (E_a) at each mass loss percentage. The heating rates (β) employed for each of the complexes were 2, 4, 10, 16 and 32°C·min^‒1, while the fixed mass losses that were selected were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of the total mass loss. The samples were prepared for these analyses in the same fashion as for the usual thermal analysis experiments.

2.5 Software

The interactions from SCXRD analyses between host and host, host and guest, and guest and guest molecules, were investigated using program Mercury 2022 1.0 [25]. This program, in addition, enabled the construction of unit cell, host-guest packing and void diagrams. In the latter instance, the guest molecules were deleted from the packing calculation and the spaces which resulted in this way were analysed by means of a probe with a radius of 1.2 Å. These void diagrams served to determine the guest accommodation type, whether in infinite channels or in discrete cages. Moreover, the non-covalent host‧‧‧guest interactions that were present in the complexes were examined and quantified using program CrystalExplorer 21 [26, 27]. A three-dimensional Hirshfeld surface was generated around the guest molecule and the surroundings outside of this surface were then explored. These surfaces were translated into two-dimensional fingerprint plots in which de and di are the distances to the nearest atom outside and inside the guest surfaces, respectively.

3.1. Formation of the inclusion compounds

Host compounds H1‒H3 were each crystallized from TMU, and after ¹H NMR analyses on the so-formed crystals, it was revealed that complexes were successfully formed in each instance. The host:guest (H:G) ratio of each of the complexes was consistently 1:2. This ratio was also obtained by the research group of de Vries et al for the TMU-containing complex with H1 [19].

3.2. Single crystal X-ray diffraction (SCXRD) analyses

The crystal structures of the three complexes produced in this work were analysed by SCXRD. Table 1 contains the relevant crystallographic parameters pertaining to these analyses. These inclusion compounds crystallized in the monoclinic space group P2₁/c, and their analyses were performed in P2₁/c for H1×2(TMU) and in the alternative setting P2₁/n for both H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU). The structure of H1×2(TMU) reported by de Vries et al [19] crystallized in the same crystal system and space group as that in our own laboratory. However, their SCXRD analysis was carried out at 183 K and, in an attempt to improve upon their data (they reported a high wR2 factor, 0.2020), we conducted this experiment for H1×2(TMU) at a significantly lower temperature of 100 K (Table 1). However, the results that we obtained closely mimicked those of de Vries and colleagues (wR2, 0.2064), and the crystal structure shared very similar characteristics with respect to, for example, the disorder in the methyl groups of the TMU molecule over two positions, as well as other structural parameters (including the R₁-factor and the goodness of fit, S).

Figures 1a‒c illustrate the unit cell with the host-guest packing motif in each complex (left) and the guest accommodation type (right). From Figures 1a and b, the guest molecules in H1·2(TMU) and H2·2(TMU) are located in infinite, unidirectional channels which are parallel to the a-axis, while in H3·2(TMU), four guest molecules are observed in an X-shaped cavity, best visualized along the c-axis (Figure 1c, bottom).

Table 1 Relevant crystallographic data for H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU).

	H1·2(TMU)	H2·2(TMU)	H3·2(TMU)
Chemical formula	C₃₂H₂₂O₂·2(C₅H₁₂N₂O)	C₂₈H₁₈O₂·2(C₅H₁₂N₂O)	C₃₈H₂₆O₂·2(C₅H₁₂N₂O)
Host:guest ratio	1:2	1:2	1:2
Molecular mass (g·mol^‒1)	670.83	618.75	746.92
Temperature (K)	100	100	100
μ (Mo-Kα)/mm^‒1	0.080	0.083	0.079
Crystal system	monoclinic	monoclinic	monoclinic
Space group	P2₁/c	P2₁/n	P2₁/n
a/Å	8.4265(14)	9.6788(4)	16.488(3)
b/Å	12.7725(18)	9.6842(4)	15.810(2)
c/Å	16.920(2)	17.4175(6)	16.997(3)
alpa/°	90	90	90
beta/°	99.772(6)	94.330(1)	115.189(5)
gamma/°	90	90	90
Volume/Å³	1794.6(4)	1627.91(11)	4009.4(11)
Z	2	2	4
F(000)	716	660	1592
Restraints	8	0	0
Nref	4454	4035	9974
Npar	234	212	513
R₁ [I > 2σ(I)]	0.0855	0.0405	0.0411
wR₂ [I > 2σ(I)]	0.2064	0.1003	0.0977
S	1.053	1.036	1.038
θ min‒max/°	2.0‒28.3	2.3‒28.3	1.9‒28.4
Tot. data	38477	33552	109008
Unique data	4454	4035	9974
Observed data [I > 2σ(I)]	3534	3489	8249
R_int	0.066	0.0405	0.0411
Completeness	0.996	0.995	0.997
Min. resd. dens. (e/Å³)	‒0.92	‒0.25	‒0.37
Max. resd. dens. (e/Å³)	1.26	0.37	0.34
CCDC number	2358396	2358402	2358403

In each complex, the guest molecules are retained in the crystals by means of classical (host)O‒H···O(guest) hydrogen bonding interactions. These are illustrated in Figures 2a‒c (for H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU)). More specifically, Figures 2a and c are stereoviews of these interactions for clarity; in the complex H1·2(TMU) (Figure 2a) the host molecule is located on a centre of inversion and interacts with two inversion-related TMU molecules through identical hydrogen bonds in which each methyl group of the guest species is disordered over two positions, as discussed earlier (two views are provided, one showing only the major disorder guest component (left) and the other, both guest disorder components (right)), while in the complex H3·2(TMU) (Figure 2c), no disorder is present and the two guest molecules are not inversion related. However, once more, the two TMU molecules are related by inversion in H2·2(TMU) (Figure 2b) (the host molecule is, again, positioned on a centre of inversion), and no disorder is evident here either.

Table 2 summarises these classical hydrogen bonding parameters.

Table 2 Host···guest classical hydrogen bonding parameters in the three complexes.

Complex	H···O/Å	O···O/Å	∠DHA/°
H1·2(TMU)	1.88	2.719(3)	174
H2·2(TMU)	1.82	2.661(1)	174
H3·2(TMU)	1.91	2.709(1)	160
	1.95	2.672(2)	144

Owing to the two guest molecules being related by inversion in their respective unit cells in the H1 and H2 complexes, these hydrogen bond parameters are identical (1.88, 2.719(3) Å, 174° and 1.82, 2.661(1) Å, 174°, respectively), while these parameters are unique to each of the two crystallographically independent TMU molecules in H3·2(TMU) (1.91, 2.709(1) Å, 160° and 1.95, 2.672(2) Å, 144°). de Vries and coworkers also reported this host···guest classical hydrogen bond in the H1·2(TMU) complex [19], and with very similar bond parameters (1.81, 2.72(1) Å, 178°) as reported in the present work, but with somewhat lower precision in the O···O distance).

Not only are classical bonds of this type present in these complexes, but so too are non-classical (host)C‒H···O(guest) and (guest)C‒H···O(host) interactions, one in H1·2(TMU) and two and three in H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU), respectively. These interactions, their parameters being summarised in Table 3, range from 2.45 to 2.67 Å (H···A) and 3.260(2) to 3.478(2) Å (C···O), with the associated ∠DHA angles between 133 and 157°. It is interesting to note that three of the non-classical hydrogen bonds are of the (guest)C‒H···O(host) type. Figures 3a‒c are depictions of these interactions (note that the classical hydrogen bonds between the host and guest molecules have been repeated in these figures).

Table 3 Host···guest and guest···host non-classical hydrogen bond parameters in the three complexes.

Complex	H···O/Å	C···O/Å	∠DHA/°
H1·2(TMU)	2.46^a	3.350(3)	157
H2·2(TMU)	2.57^a	3.326(1)	137
	2.50^b	3.415(2)	156
H3·2(TMU)	2.67^a	3.260(2)	153
	2.55^b	3.273(2)	133
	2.58^b	3.478(2)	152

^a(Host)C‒H···O(guest).

^b(Guest)C‒H···(host).

In addition to intermolecular hydrogen bonding, intramolecular non-classical (guest)C‒H···N(guest) hydrogen bonds are also present but their angles are, understandably, low (2.34‒2.53 Å (H···N), 2.722(7)‒2.907(2) Å (C···N), 102‒105°).

Additionally, the H1·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) complexes have two C‒H(guest)···π(host) interactions (Figures 4a and c) through the guest methyl hydrogen atoms, which further facilitate guest retention in their complexes. Applicable distances in H1·2(TMU) measure 2.95 and 2.68 Å (H···π), 3.926(7) and 3.649(10) Å (C‒H···π), with associated angles of 172 and 169°, respectively, while these parameters in H3·2(TMU) are 2.75 and 2.78 Å, 3.7233(17) and 3.7016(18) Å, and 170 and 158°. The complex H2·2(TMU) has only one contact of this type (2.75, 3.4246(13) Å and 127°) (Figure 4b).

Finally, a single (guest)C‒H···C_Ar(host) interaction was also identified in H2·2(TMU) (Figure 5), measuring 2.88 Å (127°).

After quantification of the (host)H···O(guest) interatomic interactions, the percentages that were obtained were, in H1·2(TMU), 7.3% for the complex with the set of disorder guest components 1 (major) and 10.3% for that with the set of disorder guest components 2 (minor), in H2·2(TMU), 8.4%, and in H3·2(TMU), 7.9%, respectively. These were all therefore reasonably comparable. The Hirshfeld surface investigation carried out by de Vries et al [19]showed that the percentage of the (host)H···O(guest) interactions that they calculated was 9%, which is the average of the two values found in the present work (7.3 and 10.3%, since we considered each disorder guest component independently).

3.3. Thermal analyses

Thermal analyses were carried out on each of H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) in order to investigate their relative thermal stabilities. The resultant curves (overlaid TG (red) and DTG (olive green)) are provided in Figures 7a‒c, while Table 4 summarises the more relevant data from these curves. These plots indicate that for all three complexes, their respective enclathrated TMU contents escaped from the crystals in a single step. The T_on values (the onset temperature of the guest release event which also serves as a measure of the relative thermal stability of the complex) were extremely similar (83.1 and 81.1 °C) for the TMU complexes with H1 and H2 (Figure 7a and b), while this temperature for H3·2(TMU) was significantly higher, 90.3 °C (Figure 7c). T_end,the temperature at which the last of the guest has been released, which is unrelated to T_on, decreased in the order H1·2(TMU) > H3·2(TMU) > H2·2(TMU). In the report of de Vries et al [19], the T_onwas 99 °C for H1·2(TMU), which is significantly different to the 83.1 °C that was measured in our laboratories; the reason for this anomaly may be that their heating rate differed from 10 °C·min^‒1(this rate was not unambiguously stated in that work).

Table 4 Thermal data for the three complexes.

Complex	T_on^a/°C	T_end^b/°C	Measured mass loss/%	Calculated mass loss/%
H1·2(TMU)	83.1	161.1	35.7	34.7
H2·2(TMU)	81.1	151.9	37.1	37.6
H3·2(TMU)	90.3	160.0	31.2	31.1

^aT_onis the onset temperature for the guest release process.

^bT_end is the temperature indicating the end of the guest release event.

The expected mass losses correlated closely with those that were determined experimentally, thus confirming the 1:2 H:G ratios as obtained from ¹H NMR spectroscopy. Interestingly, the percentage TMU released upon heating H1·2(TMU) at 10 °C·min^‒1was significantly closer (35.7%) to the theoretical loss calculated (34.7%) compared with the work of de Vries and colleagues (30.0%) [19].

3.4. Kinetics of the guest release event

The TG curves of the complexes of H1, H2 and H3 with TMU at the various heating rates are provided in Figures 8a‒c. The final experiment with the H2·2(TMU) complex, at 32 °C·min^‒1, was carried out in triplicate since the curve appeared to be an outlier; however, this was not the case since the same result was obtained each time (the curves for these repeated TGs and the plots used to determine E_a have been deposited in the SI, Figures S3 and S4, with associated values in Tables S4 and 5). The average total mass losses calculated for the complexes with H1, H2 and H3 were 35.8, 36.7 and 31.2%, respectively. The plots of ln(β/β_o) against 1000/T for each of the complexes H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) are illustrated in Figures 9a‒c. These were obtained by considering mass losses of 10 to 90% (α) of the total mass loss, in increments of 10% each time. The activation energies for each of the complexes were then calculated from the slopes of these plots (SI, Tables S1‒S3).

The average activation energy (E_a) of desolvation was calculated to be 148.7 ± 5.4, 128.6 ± 10.8 and 149.4 ± 0.8 kJ·mol^‒1for H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU), respectively. In Figures 9a and c, the lines are all parallel, which indicate that there is a single mechanism at work for the desolvation of the guest species from the complex [8]. The lines obtained for H2·2(TMU) (Figure 9b), however, do not all appear to be parallel (largely as a result of the line at 90% mass loss, as discussed earlier) and, therefore, the mechanism of guest release, quite plausibly, varies as a function of the extent of desolvation. Since the host compounds are not identical, comparisons of these energies are not valid.

The three fluorenone-derived host compounds H1, H2 and H3 were all found to be effective at enclathrating TMU, and H:G ratios were consistently 1:2. SCXRD showed that these inclusion compounds crystallize in the monoclinic space group P2₁/c (their analyses were performed in P2₁/c for H1⋅2(TMU) and P2₁/n for both H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU)). The TMU molecules in H1·2(TMU) and H2·2(TMU) are situated in unidirectional channels, while in H3·2(TMU), these are located in an X-shaped cavity, with four guest molecules in each one. In each complex are, additionally, observed (guest)C‒H···π(host) as well as classical and non-classical hydrogen bonding interactions, which assist in the stabilization of these complexes. Hirshfeld surfaces were employed to quantify the (host)H···O(guest) interatomic interactions in the three complexes, and percentages calculated range between 7.3 and 10.3%. All of the complexes have high thermal stabilities (T_on > 80°C), and the expected mass losses correlate closely with those measured upon releasing the guests from the crystals by the application of heat. A consideration of the kinetics of the guest release event shows that the activation energies for the desolvation of H1·2(TMU), H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) range from 128.6 to 149.4 kJ·mol^‒1. The complexes H2·2(TMU) and H3·2(TMU) are novel, and no data as furnished here for these clathrates can be found in the literature. However, H1·2(TMU) has previously been reported, and while the X-ray structure of H1·2(TMU) from that worked agreed closely with our findings, distinct differences were observed in both the T_on and the percentage of guest release in thermal experiments. Overall, this investigation has provided insights into the various supramolecular aspects of these TMU-containing inclusion compounds, as well as their relative thermal stabilities and the novel investigation into the kinetics of their guest desolvation events, while applicable comparisons of the results obtained here were made with that of a previous report on the H1·2(TMU) inclusion compound.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Author Contribution

D.W.M.: Conceptualization; Visualization; Methodology; Writing – original draftB.B.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Visualization; Editing original draftE.C.H.: Data curation; Formal analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support is acknowledged from the Nelson Mandela University and the National Research Foundation (NRF). MRC thanks the University of Cape Town for access to research facilities.

Ariga K.; Kunitake T. Supramolecular Chemistry – Fundamentals and Applications; 2006.
Varshey, D.B.; Sander, J.R.G.; Friščić, T.; MacGillivray, L. R. Supramolecular Interactions. Supramol. Chem. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470661345.smc003.
Steed, J.W; Atwood, J. L. Supramolecular Chemistry, Second Edi.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: United Kingdom, 2009.
Llndoyand, I; Atkinson, I. . Self-Assembly in Supramolecular Systems; 2000.
Desiraju, G.R. Crystal Engineering. The Design of Organic Solids; Elsevier: Amsterdam; 1989.
Mukherjee, A. Building upon Supramolecular Synthons: Some Aspects of Crystal Engineering. Cryst. Growth Des. 2015, 15 (6), 3076–3085. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.5b00242.
Soldatov, D.V; Terekhova, I.S. Supermolecular Chemistry and Crystal Engineering. Supramol Chem 2005, 46, 1–8.
Nassimbeni, L.R.; Sykes, N.M. Inclusion Compounds: Structure, Kinetics and Selectivity. Crystallogr. Rev. 2022, 28 (2–3), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0889311X.2022.2067849.
Nassimbeni, L.R. Physicochemical Aspects of Host - Guest Compounds. Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36 (8), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar0201153.
Coats, A. W.; Redfern, J. P. Thermogravimetric Analysis: A Review. Analyst 1963, 88 (906).
Ozawa, T.A New Method of Analyzing Thermogravimetric Data. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1965, 38 (11), 1881–1186. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal8120648.
Flynn, J.H.; Wall, L.A. A Quick, Direct Method for the Determination of Activation Energy from Thermogravimetric Data. J. Polym. Sci., Part B Polym. Lett. 1966, 4 (5), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1988.0133.
Barton, B.; Caira, M.R.; McCleland, C.W.; Taljaard, B. Synthesis of N,N′-Bis(9-Phenylxanthen-9-Yl)Ethylenediamine and an Investigation of Its Host-Guest Inclusion Potential. J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2 2000, No. 4, 865–869. https://doi.org/10.1039/a907232b.
Amombo Noa, F.M.; Bourne, S.A.; Nassimbeni, L.R. Halogen Bonding in Host-Guest Compounds: Structures and Kinetics of Enclathration and Desolvation. Cryst. Growth Des. 2015, 15 (7), 3271–3279. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.5b00402.
Sykes, N.M.; Su, H.; Bourne, S.A.; Nassimbeni, L.R. Enclathration by a Halogenated Host: Structures, Polymorphism, Kinetics, and Guest Exchange. Cryst. Growth Des. 2021, 21 (11), 6465–6472. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.1c00911.
Weber, E.; Nitsche, S.; Wierig, A.; Csöregh, I. Inclusion Compounds of Diol Hosts Featuring Two 9-Hydroxy-9-Fluorenyl or Analogous Groups Attached to Linear Spacer Units. European J. Org. Chem. 2002, No. 5, 856–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0690(200203)2002:5<856::AID-EJOC856>3.0.CO;2-R.
Caira, M.R.; Le Roex, T.; Nassimbeni, L.R.; Ripmeester, J.A.; Weber, E. Inclusion by a Fluorenyl Host with Volatile Guests: Structures, Thermal Stability and Kinetics. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2 (16), 2299–2304. https://doi.org/10.1039/b400721b.
Le Roex, T.; Nassimbeni, L.R.; Weber, E. Clathrates with Mixed Guests. Chem. Commun. 2007, No. 11, 1124–1126. https://doi.org/10.1039/b618782j.
de Vries, E.J.C.; Nassimbeni, L. R.; Weber, E. Inclusion of Amides by a Fluorenyl Diol Host. J. Incl. Phenom. Macrocycl. Chem. 2009, 63 (3–4), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10847-008-9508-3.
Bruker, U. APEX3 V2019.1-0, SAINT V8.40A; Bruker AXS Inc.: Madison (WI), USA, 2019.
Krause, L.; Herbst-Irmer, R.; Sheldrick, G. M.; Stalke, D. Comparison of Silver and Molybdenum Microfocus X-Ray Sources for Single-Crystal Structure Determination. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48 (1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576714022985.
Sheldrick, G. M. A Short History of SHELX. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A Found. Crystallogr. 2008, 64 (1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108767307043930.
Barbour, L.J. X-Seed 4: Updates to a Program for Small-Molecule Supramolecular Crystallography. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2020, 53, 1141–1146. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576720007438.
Barbour, L.J. X-Seed - A Software Tool for Supramolecular Crystallography. J. Supramol. Chem. 2001, 1 (4–6), 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-7862(02)00030-8.
MacRae, C.F.; Sovago, I.; Cottrell, S.J.; Galek, P.T.A.; McCabe, P.; Pidcock, E.; Platings, M.; Shields, G.P.; Stevens, J.S.; Towler, M.; Wood, P. A. Mercury 4.0: From Visualization to Analysis, Design and Prediction. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2020, 53, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576719014092.
Spackman, M.A.; Jayatilaka, D. Hirshfeld Surface Analysis. CrystEngComm 2009, 11 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1039/b818330a.
Wolff, S.K.; Grimwood, D.J.; McKinnon, J.J.; Jayatilaka, D.; Spackman, M.A. CrystalExplorer 17.5; University of Western Australia: Perth, Australia, 2007. Https://Crystalexplorer.Net/.

Scheme 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

No competing interests reported.

TABLEOFCONTENTSENTRY.docx
SIFinal.docx
scheme1.png
Scheme 1 Structures of host compounds H1‒H3and the guest molecule TMU.

X-ray structures, thermal stabilities and kinetics of guest desolvation of complexes of three fluorenone-derived host compounds with the polar aprotic guest solvent, tetramethylurea

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXPERIMENTAL

2.1. Materials

2.2. Synthesis of host compounds H1‒H3

2.3. Preparation of the single solvent host-guest inclusion complexes

2.4. Analytical instrumentation

2.4.1 NMR Spectroscopy

2.4.2 Single crystal X-ray diffraction analyses

2.4.3 Thermal analysis

2.4.4 Kinetics of guest release

2.5 Software

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4. CONCLUSIONS

Declarations

Author Contribution

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

References

Scheme

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1