Search for: All records

Hydrate formation is often unavoidable during crystallization, leading to performance degradation of pharmaceuticals and energetics. In some cases, water molecules trapped within crystal lattices can be substituted for hydrogen peroxide, improving the solubility of drugs and detonation performance of explosives. The present work compares hydrates and hydrogen peroxide solvates in two ways: (1) analyzing structural motifs present in crystal structures accessed from the Cambridge Structural Database and (2) developing potential energy surfaces for water and hydrogen peroxide interacting with functional groups of interest at geometries relevant to the solid state. By elucidating fundamental differences in local interactions that can be formed with molecules of hydrogen peroxide and/or water, the analyses presented here provide a foundation for the design and selection of candidate molecules for the formation of hydrogen peroxide solvates. 

Abstract The crystal structures of the charge‐transfer (CT) cocrystals formed by the π‐electron acceptor 1,3,4,5,7,8‐hexafluoro‐11,11,12,12‐tetracyanonaphtho‐2,6‐quinodimethane (F₆TNAP) with the planar π‐electron‐donor molecules triphenylene (TP), benzo[b]benzo[4,5]thieno[2,3‐d]thiophene (BTBT), benzo[1,2‐b:4,5‐b′]dithiophene (BDT), pyrene (PY), anthracene (ANT), and carbazole (CBZ) have been determined using single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction (SCXRD), along with those of two polymorphs of F₆TNAP. All six cocrystals exhibit 1:1 donor/acceptor stoichiometry and adopt mixed‐stacking motifs. Cocrystals based on BTBT and CBZ π‐electron donor molecules exhibit brickwork packing, while the other four CT cocrystals show herringbone‐type crystal packing. Infrared spectroscopy, molecular geometries determined by SCXRD, and electronic structure calculations indicate that the extent of ground‐state CT in each cocrystal is small. Density functional theory calculations predict large conduction bandwidths and, consequently, low effective masses for electrons for all six CT cocrystals, while the TP‐, BDT‐, and PY‐based cocrystals are also predicted to have large valence bandwidths and low effective masses for holes. Charge‐carrier mobility values are obtained from space‐charge limited current (SCLC) measurements and field‐effect transistor measurements, with values exceeding 1 cm²V⁻¹s¹being estimated from SCLC measurements for BTBT:F₆TNAP and CBZ:F₆TNAP cocrystals.