Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Tetraboronic acids 1 and 2 have four -B(OH)(2) groups oriented tetrahedrally by cores derived from tetraphenylmethane and tetraphenylsilane. Crystallization produces isostructural diamondoid networks held together by hydrogen bonding of the -B(OH)(2) groups, in accord with the tendency of simple arylboronic acids to form cyclic hydrogen-bonded dimers in the solid state. Five-fold interpenetration of the networks is observed, but 60% and 64% of the volumes of crystals of tetraboronic acids 1 and 2, respectively, remain available for the inclusion of disordered guests. Guests occupy two types of interconnected channels aligned with the a and b axes; those in crystals of tetraphenylmethane 1 measure approximately 5.9 x 5.9 A(2) and 5.2 x 8.6 A(2) in cross section at the narrowest points, whereas those in crystals of tetraphenylsilane 2 are approximately 6.4 x 6.4 A(2) and 6.4 x 9.0 A(2). These channels provide access to the interior and permit guests to be exchanged quantitatively without loss of crystallinity. Because the Si-C bonds at the core of tetraboronic acid 2 are longer (1.889(3) A) than the C-C bonds at the core of tetraboronic acid 1 (1.519(6) A), the resulting network is expanded rationally. By associating to form robust isostructural networks with predictable architectures and properties of porosity, compounds 1 and 2 underscore the usefulness of molecular tectonics as a strategy for making ordered materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fournier et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: