Abstract

Three new 1H-indole derivatives, namely, 2-(bromomethyl)-3-methyl-1-(phenylsulfonyl)-1H-indole, C16H14BrNO2S, (I), 2-[(E)-2-(2-bromo-5-methoxyphenyl)ethenyl]-3-methyl-1-(phenylsulfonyl)-1H-indole, C24H20BrNO3S, (II), and 2-[(E)-2-(2-bromophenyl)ethenyl]-3-methyl-1-(phenylsulfonyl)-1H-indole, C23H18BrNO2S, (III), exhibit nearly orthogonal orientations of their indole ring systems and sulfonyl-bound phenyl rings. Such conformations are favourable for intermolecular bonding involving sets of slipped π–π interactions between the indole systems and mutual C—H...π hydrogen bonds, with the generation of two-dimensional monoperiodic patterns. The latter are found in all three structures, in the form of supramolecular columns with every pair of successive molecules related by inversion. The crystal packing of the compounds is additionally stabilized by weaker slipped π–π interactions between the outer phenyl rings (in II and III) and by weak C—H...O, C—H...Br and C—H...π hydrogen bonds. The structural significance of the different kinds of interactions agree with the results of a Hirshfeld surface analysis and the calculated interaction energies. In particular, the largest interaction energies (up to −60.8 kJ mol−1) are associated with pairing of antiparallel indole systems, while the energetics of weak hydrogen bonds and phenyl π–π interactions are comparable and account for 13–34 kJ mol−1.

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.