A Holistic View of Water Environments in Molecular Crystals

Abstract

Hydrates are common solid forms that can significantly affect a compound’s stability, physicochemical properties, and commercial viability. Despite their importance in pharmaceutical development, hydrate structures, their relationship to material properties, and their propensity for formation remain poorly understood. In 2003, Gillon et al. introduced a simple yet powerful framework for the structural classification of hydrates based on the hydrogen-bonding environment of crystalline water molecules. This framework categorizes water molecules according to the number of hydrogen-bond donor (D) and acceptor (A) interactions in which they participate, giving rise to eight distinct environments. In the original study, the DDA environment, where water donates two hydrogen bonds and accepts one, was reported as the most common. The statistical distribution of these environments in the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) has since provided a useful benchmark for the qualitative assessment of hydrate structures. Here, we revisit Gillon’s water environment classification using a substantially expanded data set comprising 13,881 hydrate entries from the CSD and provide updated statistics on hydrate structures. Our analysis confirms that the DDA environment remains the most prevalent, followed by DDAA and DD, while the remaining environments occur less frequently. Extending beyond the original work, we quantify the energetics associated with each environment and demonstrate that the four-hydrogen-bond DDAA environment is energetically the most favorable, followed by environments involving three, two, and one hydrogen bonds, respectively. We further show that water-mediated intermolecular interactions contribute up to 40% of the total lattice interaction energy in the hydrate structures, highlighting the surprisingly large influence of this small solvent molecule on crystal stability. Despite its superior energetic stability, the DDAA environment is not the most frequently observed experimentally. This apparent discrepancy arises because the hydrogen-bonding capability and topology of the main component in the hydrate constrains the maximum hydrogen-bonding environment that water can achieve. Overall, this work provides a comprehensive analysis of hydrate structures and energetics across the CSD. The resulting insights offer a valuable framework for the qualitative assessment of newly discovered hydrate forms and for evaluating whether their structures conform to established crystallographic trends.