4.0 Article

Describing hydrogen-bonded structures; topology graphs, nodal symbols and connectivity tables, exemplified by five polymorphs of each of sulfathiazole and sulfapyridine

期刊

CHEMISTRY CENTRAL JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13065-014-0076-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Southampton
  2. Leverhulme Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Structural systematics is the comparison of sets of chemically related crystal structures with the aim to establish and describe relevant similarities and relationships. An important topic in this context is the comparison of hydrogen-bonded structures (HBSs) and their representation by suitable descriptors. Results: Three different description methods for HBSs are proposed, a graphical representation, a symbolic representation and connectivity tables. The most comprehensive description is provided by a modified graph of the underlying net topology of an HBS which contains information on the multiplicity of links, the directionality and chemical connectivity of hydrogen bonds and on symmetry relations. By contrast, the alternative symbolic representation is restricted to essential properties of an HBS, i.e. its dimensionality, topology type and selected connectivity characteristics of nodes. A comparison of their connectivity tables readily identifies differences and similarities between crystal structures with respect to the intermolecular interaction modes adopted by their functional groups. The application of these methods to the known polymorphs of sulfathiazole and sulfapyridine is demonstrated and it is shown that they enable the rationalisation of previously reported and intricate relationships. Conclusions: The proposed methods facilitate the comprehensive description of the most important relevant aspects of an HBS, including its chemical connectivity, net topology and symmetry characteristics, and they represent a new way to recognise similarities and relationships in organic crystal structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据