Abstract

AbstractThe application of organic crystal in different photoelectric device has different demand on the crystal structure and morphology, while the self‐assembly of different materials into crystals with a desired morphology remains a challenge. Herein, using three binary halogen‐bonded cocrystals involving a nonplanar halogen accepter molecule tetra(4‐pyridyl)‐tetrathiafulvalene (TTF(py)4), co‐crystallized with halogen donor aryl iodides C6F6‐xIx (x = 2,3, 1,3,5‐trifluoro‐2,4,6‐triiodobenzene (IFB), meta‐1,3‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene (mdIFB) or para‐1,3‐diiodotetrafluorobenzene (pdIFB)), are reported. TTF(py)4‐IFB cocrystals are formed primarily via N···I halogen bonds and F···H hydrogen bonds, while TTF(py)4‐mdIFB cocrystals and TTF(py)4‐pdIFB cocrystals are formed primarily via π–π Interactions, N···I halogen bonds and F···H hydrogen bonds, homogeneous π–π interactions are dominant in TTF(py)4‐mdIFB, while heterogeneous π–π interactions are dominant in TTF(py)4‐pdIFB. Through predicted morphology based on the attachment energy (Eatt) theory, especially π–π interaction, the influence of intermolecular interactions on crystal morphology is analyzed. The study demonstrates that the π–π interaction plays an important role in regulating the crystal structure and morphology, the work provides a deeper understanding of π–π interactions in nonplanar binary halogen‐bonded cocrystals.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.