Hubbry Logo
Crystal polymorphismCrystal polymorphismMain
Open search
Crystal polymorphism
Community hub
Crystal polymorphism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Crystal polymorphism
Crystal polymorphism
Crystal polymorphism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In crystallography, polymorphism is the phenomenon where a compound or element can crystallize into more than one crystal structure.

The preceding definition has evolved over many years and is still under discussion today.[1][2][3] Discussion of the defining characteristics of polymorphism involves distinguishing among types of transitions and structural changes occurring in polymorphism versus those in other phenomena.

Overview

[edit]

Phase transitions (phase changes) that help describe polymorphism include polymorphic transitions as well as melting and vaporization transitions. According to IUPAC, a polymorphic transition is "A reversible transition of a solid crystalline phase at a certain temperature and pressure (the inversion point) to another phase of the same chemical composition with a different crystal structure."[4] Additionally, Walter McCrone described the phases in polymorphic matter as "different in crystal structure but identical in the liquid or vapor states." McCrone also defines a polymorph as "a crystalline phase of a given compound resulting from the possibility of at least two different arrangements of the molecules of that compound in the solid state."[5][6] These defining facts imply that polymorphism involves changes in physical properties but cannot include chemical change. Some early definitions do not make this distinction.

Eliminating chemical change from those changes permissible during a polymorphic transition delineates polymorphism. For example, isomerization can often lead to polymorphic transitions. However, tautomerism (dynamic isomerization) leads to chemical change, not polymorphism.[1] As well, allotropy of elements and polymorphism have been linked historically. However, allotropes of an element are not always polymorphs. A common example is the allotropes of carbon, which include graphite, diamond, and londsdaleite. While all three forms are allotropes, graphite is not a polymorph of diamond and londsdaleite. Isomerization and allotropy are only two of the phenomena linked to polymorphism. For additional information about identifying polymorphism and distinguishing it from other phenomena, see the review by Brog et al.[2]

It is also useful to note that materials with two polymorphic phases can be called dimorphic, those with three polymorphic phases, trimorphic, etc.[7]

Polymorphism is of practical relevance to pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, pigments, dyestuffs, foods, and explosives.

Detection

[edit]

Experimental methods

[edit]

Early records of the discovery of polymorphism credit Eilhard Mitscherlich and Jöns Jacob Berzelius for their studies of phosphates and arsenates in the early 1800s. The studies involved measuring the interfacial angles of the crystals to show that chemically identical salts could have two different forms. Mitscherlich originally called this discovery isomorphism.[8] The measurement of crystal density was also used by Wilhelm Ostwald and expressed in Ostwald's Ratio.[9]

The development of the microscope enhanced observations of polymorphism and aided Moritz Ludwig Frankenheim's studies in the 1830s. He was able to demonstrate methods to induce crystal phase changes and formally summarized his findings on the nature of polymorphism. Soon after, the more sophisticated polarized light microscope came into use, and it provided better visualization of crystalline phases allowing crystallographers to distinguish between different polymorphs. The hot stage was invented and fitted to a polarized light microscope by Otto Lehmann in about 1877. This invention helped crystallographers determine melting points and observe polymorphic transitions.[8]

While the use of hot stage microscopes continued throughout the 1900s, thermal methods also became commonly used to observe the heat flow that occurs during phase changes such as melting and polymorphic transitions. One such technique, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), continues to be used for determining the enthalpy of polymorphic transitions.[8]

In the 20th century, X-ray crystallography became commonly used for studying the crystal structure of polymorphs. Both single crystal x-ray diffraction and powder x-ray diffraction techniques are used to obtain measurements of the crystal unit cell. Each polymorph of a compound has a unique crystal structure. As a result, different polymorphs will produce different x-ray diffraction patterns.[8]

Vibrational spectroscopic methods came into use for investigating polymorphism in the second half of the twentieth century and have become more commonly used as optical, computer, and semiconductor technologies improved. These techniques include infrared (IR) spectroscopy, terahertz spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy. Mid-frequency IR and Raman spectroscopies are sensitive to changes in hydrogen bonding patterns. Such changes can subsequently be related to structural differences. Additionally, terahertz and low frequency Raman spectroscopies reveal vibrational modes resulting from intermolecular interactions in crystalline solids. Again, these vibrational modes are related to crystal structure and can be used to uncover differences in 3-dimensional structure among polymorphs.[10]

Computational methods

[edit]

Computational chemistry may be used in combination with vibrational spectroscopy techniques to understand the origins of vibrations within crystals.[10] The combination of techniques provides detailed information about crystal structures, similar to what can be achieved with x-ray crystallography. In addition to using computational methods for enhancing the understanding of spectroscopic data, the latest development in identifying polymorphism in crystals is the field of crystal structure prediction. This technique uses computational chemistry to model the formation of crystals and predict the existence of specific polymorphs of a compound before they have been observed experimentally by scientists.[11][12]

Beyond the experimental possibilities, computational methods have been employed to study atomistic changes in crystal structures at varying temperatures and under different atmospheres. In the case of porous materials, the presence of guest molecules can induce guest-specific structural phases.[13]

Examples

[edit]

Many compounds exhibit polymorphism. It has been claimed that "every compound has different polymorphic forms, and that, in general, the number of forms known for a given compound is proportional to the time and money spent in research on that compound."[14][5][15]

Organic compounds

[edit]

Benzamide

[edit]

The phenomenon was discovered in 1832 by Friedrich Wöhler and Justus von Liebig. They observed that the silky needles of freshly crystallized benzamide slowly converted to rhombic crystals.[16] Present-day analysis[17] identifies three polymorphs for benzamide: the least stable one, formed by flash cooling, is the orthorhombic form II. This type is followed by the monoclinic form III (observed by Wöhler/Liebig). The most stable form is monoclinic form I. The hydrogen bonding mechanisms are the same for all three phases; however, they differ strongly in their pi-pi interactions.

Maleic acid

[edit]

In 2006 a new polymorph of maleic acid was discovered, 124 years after the first crystal form was studied. Maleic acid is manufactured on an industrial scale in the chemical industry. It forms salt found in medicine. The new crystal type is produced when a co-crystal of caffeine and maleic acid (2:1) is dissolved in chloroform and when the solvent is allowed to evaporate slowly. Whereas form I has monoclinic space group P21/c, the new form has space group Pc. Both polymorphs consist of sheets of molecules connected through hydrogen bonding of the carboxylic acid groups: in form I, the sheets alternate with respect of the net dipole moment, while in form II, the sheets are oriented in the same direction.[18]

1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene

[edit]

After 125 years of study, 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene yielded a second polymorph. The usual form has the space group Pbca, but in 2004, a second polymorph was obtained in the space group Pca21 when the compound was crystallised in the presence of an additive, trisindane. This experiment shows that additives can induce the appearance of polymorphic forms.[19]

Other organic compounds

[edit]

Acridine has been obtained as eight polymorphs[20] and aripiprazole has nine.[21] The record for the largest number of well-characterised polymorphs is held by a compound known as ROY.[22][23] Glycine crystallizes as both monoclinic and hexagonal crystals. Polymorphism in organic compounds is often the result of conformational polymorphism.[24]

Inorganic matter

[edit]

Elements

[edit]

Elements including metals may exhibit polymorphism. Allotropy is the term used when describing elements having different forms and is used commonly in the field of metallurgy. Some (but not all) allotropes are also polymorphs. For example, iron has three allotropes that are also polymorphs. Alpha-iron, which exists at room temperature, has a bcc form. Above 910 degrees gamma-iron exists, which has a fcc form. Above 1390 degrees delta-iron exists with a bcc form.[25]

Another metallic example is tin, which has two allotropes that are also polymorphs. At room temperature, beta-tin exists as a white tetragonal form. When cooled below 13.2 degrees, alpha-tin forms which is gray in color and has a cubic diamond form.[25]

A classic example of a nonmetal that exhibits polymorphism is carbon. Carbon has many allotropes, including graphite, diamond, and londsdaleite. However, these are not all polymorphs of each other. Graphite is not a polymorph of diamond and londsdaleite, since it is chemically distinct, having sp2 hybridized bonding. Diamond and londsdaleite are chemically identical, both having sp3 hybridized bonding, and they differ only in their crystal structures, making them polymorphs. Additionally, graphite has two polymorphs, a hexagonal (alpha) form and a rhombohedral (beta) form.[25]

Binary metal oxides

[edit]

Polymorphism in binary metal oxides has attracted much attention because these materials are of significant economic value. One set of famous examples have the composition SiO2, which form many polymorphs. Important ones include: α-quartz, β-quartz, tridymite, cristobalite, moganite, coesite, and stishovite.[26] [27]

Metal oxides Phase Conditions of P and T Structure/Space Group
CrO2 α phase Ambient conditions Cl2-type Orthorhombic
RT and 12±3 GPa
Cr2O3 Corundum phase Ambient conditions Corundum-type Rhombohedral (R3c)
High pressure phase RT and 35 GPa Rh2O3-II type
Fe2O3 α phase Ambient conditions Corundum-type Rhombohedral (R3c)
β phase Below 773 K Body-centered cubic (Ia3)
γ phase Up to 933 K Cubic spinel structure (Fd3m)
ε phase -- Rhombic (Pna21)
Bi2O3 α phase Ambient conditions Monoclinic (P21/c)
β phase 603-923 K and 1 atm Tetragonal
γ phase 773-912 K or RT and 1 atm Body-centered cubic
δ phase 912-1097 K and 1 atm FCC (Fm3m)
In2O3 Bixbyite-type phase Ambient conditions Cubic (Ia3)
Corundum-type 15-25 GPa at 1273 K Corundum-type Hexagonal (R3c)
Rh2O3(II)-type 100 GPa and 1000 K Orthorhombic
Al2O3 α phase Ambient conditions Corundum-type Trigonal (R3c)
γ phase 773 K and 1 atm Cubic (Fd3m)
SnO2 α phase Ambient conditions Rutile-type Tetragonal (P42/mnm)
CaCl2-type phase 15 KBar at 1073 K Orthorhombic, CaCl2-type (Pnnm)
α-PbO2-type Above 18 KBar α-PbO2-type (Pbcn)
TiO2 Rutile Equilibrium phase Rutile-type Tetragonal
Anatase Metastable phase (Not stable)[28] Tetragonal (I41/amd)
Brookite Metastable phase (Not stable)[28] Orthorhombic (Pcab)
ZrO2 Monoclinic phase Ambient conditions Monoclinic (P21/c)
Tetragonal phase Above 1443 K Tetragonal (P42/nmc)
Fluorite-type phase Above 2643 K Cubic (Fm3m)
MoO3 α phase 553-673 K & 1 atm Orthorhombic (Pbnm)
β phase 553-673 K & 1 atm Monoclinic
h phase High-pressure and high-temperature phase Hexagonal (P6a/m or P6a)
MoO3-II 60 kbar and 973 K Monoclinic
WO3 ε phase Up to 220 K Monoclinic (Pc)
δ phase 220-300 K Triclinic (P1)
γ phase 300-623 K Monoclinic (P21/n)
β phase 623-900 K Orthorhombic (Pnma)
α phase Above 900 K Tetragonal (P4/ncc)

Other inorganic compounds

[edit]

A classical example of polymorphism is the pair of minerals calcite, which is rhombohedral, and aragonite, which is orthorhombic. Both are forms of calcium carbonate.[25] A third form of calcium carbonate is vaterite, which is hexagonal and relatively unstable.[29]

Calcite (on left) and Aragonite (on right), two forms of calcium carbonate. Note: the colors are from impurities.

β-HgS precipitates as a black solid when Hg(II) salts are treated with H2S. With gentle heating of the slurry, the black polymorph converts to the red form.[30]

Factors affecting polymorphism

[edit]

According to Ostwald's rule, usually less stable polymorphs crystallize before the stable form. The concept hinges on the idea that unstable polymorphs more closely resemble the state in solution, and thus are kinetically advantaged. The founding case of fibrous vs rhombic benzamide illustrates the case. Another example is provided by two polymorphs of titanium dioxide.[28] Nevertheless, there are known systems, such as metacetamol, where only narrow cooling rate favors obtaining metastable form II.[31]

Polymorphs have disparate stabilities. Some convert rapidly at room (or any) temperature. Most polymorphs of organic molecules only differ by a few kJ/mol in lattice energy. Approximately 50% of known polymorph pairs differ by less than 2 kJ/mol and stability differences of more than 10 kJ/mol are rare.[32] Polymorph stability may change upon temperature[33][34][35] or pressure.[36][37] Importantly, structural and thermodynamic stability are different. Thermodynamic stability may be studied using experimental or computational methods.[38][39]

Polymorphism is affected by the details of crystallisation. The solvent in all respects affects the nature of the polymorph, including concentration, other components of the solvent, i.e., species that inhibiting or promote certain growth patterns.[40] A decisive factor is often the temperature of the solvent from which crystallisation is carried out.[41]

Metastable polymorphs are not always reproducibly obtained, leading to cases of "disappearing polymorphs", with usually negative implications on law and business.[14][11][42]

In pharmaceuticals

[edit]

Approximately 37% or more of organic compounds exist as more than one polymorph.[43] The existence of polymorphs has legal implications as drugs receive regulatory approval and are granted patents for only a single polymorph. In a classic patent dispute, the GlaxoSmithKline defended its patent for the Type II polymorph of the active ingredient in Zantac against competitors while that of the Type I polymorph had already expired.[44] Polymorphism in drugs can also have direct medical implications since dissolution rates depend on the polymorph. The known cases up to 2015 are discussed in a review article by Bučar, Lancaster, and Bernstein.[11]

Dibenzoxazepines

[edit]

Clozapine exists in 4 forms compared to 60 forms for olanzapine.[45]

Posaconazole

[edit]

The original formulations licensed as Noxafil were formulated utilising form I of posaconazole. The discovery of polymorphs of posaconazole increased rapidly and resulted in much research in crystallography of posaconazole. A methanol solvate and a 1,4-dioxane co-crystal were added to the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD).[46]

Ritonavir

[edit]

The antiviral drug ritonavir exists as two polymorphs, which differ greatly in efficacy. Such issues were solved by reformulating the medicine into gelcaps and tablets, rather than the original capsules.[47]

Aspirin

[edit]

One polymorph ("Form I") of aspirin is common.[11] "Form II" was reported in 2005,[48][49] found after attempted co-crystallization of aspirin and levetiracetam from hot acetonitrile.

In form I, pairs of aspirin molecules form centrosymmetric dimers through the acetyl groups with the (acidic) methyl proton to carbonyl hydrogen bonds. In form II, each aspirin molecule forms the same hydrogen bonds, but with two neighbouring molecules instead of one. With respect to the hydrogen bonds formed by the carboxylic acid groups, both polymorphs form identical dimer structures. The aspirin polymorphs contain identical 2-dimensional sections and are therefore more precisely described as polytypes.[50]

Pure Form II aspirin could be prepared by seeding the batch with aspirin anhydrate in 15% weight.[11]

Paracetamol

[edit]

Paracetamol powder has poor compression properties, which poses difficulty in making tablets. A second polymorph was found with more suitable compressive properties.[51]

Cortisone acetate

[edit]

Cortisone acetate exists in at least five different polymorphs, four of which are unstable in water and change to a stable form.

Carbamazepine

[edit]

Carbamazepine, estrogen, paroxetine,[52] and chloramphenicol also show polymorphism.

Pyrazinamide

[edit]

Pyrazinamide has at least 4 polymorphs.[53] All of them transforms to stable α form at room temperature upon storage or mechanical treatment.[54] Recent studies prove that α form is thermodynamically stable at room temperature.[33][35]

Polytypism

[edit]

Polytypes are a special case of polymorphs, where multiple close-packed crystal structures differ in one dimension only. Polytypes have identical close-packed planes, but differ in the stacking sequence in the third dimension perpendicular to these planes. Silicon carbide (SiC) has more than 170 known polytypes, although most are rare. All the polytypes of SiC have virtually the same density and Gibbs free energy. The most common SiC polytypes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Some polytypes of SiC.[55]

Phase Structure Ramsdell notation Stacking sequence Comment
α-SiC hexagonal 2H AB wurtzite form
α-SiC hexagonal 4H ABCB
α-SiC hexagonal 6H ABCACB the most stable and common form
α-SiC rhombohedral 15R ABCACBCABACABCB
β-SiC face-centered cubic 3C ABC sphalerite or zinc blende form

A second group of materials with different polytypes are the transition metal dichalcogenides, layered materials such as molybdenum disulfide (MoS2). For these materials the polytypes have more distinct effects on material properties, e.g. for MoS2, the 1T polytype is metallic in character, while the 2H form is more semiconducting.[56] Another example is tantalum disulfide, where the common 1T as well as 2H polytypes occur, but also more complex 'mixed coordination' types such as 4Hb and 6R, where the trigonal prismatic and the octahedral geometry layers are mixed.[57] Here, the 1T polytype exhibits a charge density wave, with distinct influence on the conductivity as a function of temperature, while the 2H polytype exhibits superconductivity.

ZnS and CdI2 are also polytypical.[58] It has been suggested that this type of polymorphism is due to kinetics where screw dislocations rapidly reproduce partly disordered sequences in a periodic fashion.

Theory

[edit]
Solid phase transitions which transform reversibly without passing through the liquid or gaseous phases are called enantiotropic. In contrast, if the modifications are not convertible under these conditions, the system is monotropic. Experimental data are used to differentiate between enantiotropic and monotropic transitions and energy/temperature semi-quantitative diagrams can be drawn by applying several rules, principally the heat-of-transition rule, the heat-of-fusion rule and the density rule. These rules enable the deduction of the relative positions of the H and Gisobars in the E/T diagram. [1]

In terms of thermodynamics, two types of polymorphic behaviour are recognized. For a monotropic system, plots of the free energies of the various polymorphs against temperature do not cross before all polymorphs melt. As a result, any transition from one polymorph to another below the melting point will be irreversible. For an enantiotropic system, a plot of the free energy against temperature shows a crossing point before the various melting points.[59] It may also be possible to convert interchangeably between the two polymorphs by heating or cooling, or through physical contact with a lower energy polymorph.

A simple model of polymorphism is to model the Gibbs free energy of a ball-shaped crystal as . Here, the first term is the surface energy, and the second term is the volume energy. Both parameters . The function rises to a maximum before dropping, crossing zero at . In order to crystallize, a ball of crystal much overcome the energetic barrier to the part of the energy landscape.[60]

Figure 2

Now, suppose there are two kinds of crystals, with different energies and , and if they have the same shape as in Figure 2, then the two curves intersect at some . Then the system has three phases:

  • . Crystals tend to dissolve. Amorphous phase.
  • . Crystals tend to grow as form 1.
  • . Crystals tend to grow as form 2.

If the crystal is grown slowly, it could be kinetically stuck in form 1.

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Polymorphism.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Crystal polymorphism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Crystal polymorphism is the phenomenon in which a , whether an element or compound, can adopt more than one distinct crystalline , known as polymorphs, while sharing the same but differing in atomic or molecular arrangements within the lattice. These polymorphs arise from variations in intermolecular or interatomic interactions during , leading to unique configurations. Polymorphs often display markedly different physical and chemical properties, including , , , , and optical behavior, which stem directly from their structural differences. In the , this variability is particularly critical, as it can influence drug dissolution rates, , stability, and overall efficacy; for example, exhibits multiple polymorphs that affect its and formulation performance. A landmark case is , an inhibitor, where the of a more stable but less soluble Form II polymorph in 1998 contaminated production, causing failed dissolution tests, a global , and over $250 million in losses, ultimately requiring reformulation and enhanced screening protocols. Regulatory agencies like the FDA now mandate thorough polymorph characterization to mitigate such risks. Beyond pharmaceuticals, crystal polymorphism plays a pivotal role in , affecting mechanical strength, thermal conductivity, and processability in applications ranging from pigments and dyes to agrochemicals. Notable inorganic examples include the — with its tetrahedral lattice yielding exceptional hardness, and with layered hexagonal sheets enabling lubricity and electrical conductivity—illustrating how polymorphic forms can transform material utility. Organic polymers like poly() also demonstrate multiple forms (I, II, III, and I'), each with distinct mechanical properties influenced by conditions. Recent advances in computational prediction and , such as methods, aid in anticipating and controlling polymorphs to optimize industrial outcomes.

Fundamentals

Definition and Basic Concepts

Crystal polymorphism refers to the ability of a solid material, such as an element or compound, to exist in multiple crystalline phases that share the same but differ in the arrangement of molecules or atoms within the crystal lattice, resulting in distinct physical properties. These variations arise from differences in parameters, space groups, or molecular conformations, allowing the same substance to adopt diverse structural forms under specific conditions. Unlike amorphous solids, which lack long-range atomic order and exhibit isotropic properties without a defined lattice, polymorphs maintain crystalline order but vary in their internal architecture. Solvates and hydrates, often termed pseudopolymorphs, incorporate solvent molecules (or water) into the crystal structure, altering the composition beyond the pure compound, whereas true polymorphs contain only the base material without such inclusions. A fundamental distinction among polymorphs lies in their thermodynamic stability relationships, classified as monotropic or enantiotropic. In monotropic systems, one polymorph is thermodynamically across all temperatures and pressures, while others are metastable and may irreversibly transform to the stable form upon heating or other stimuli. Enantiotropic systems feature a transition temperature below the melting points of both forms, where one polymorph is at lower temperatures and the other at higher temperatures, enabling reversible interconversion; phase diagrams typically depict this with intersecting solubility or free energy curves to illustrate the stability crossover. Polymorphic forms exhibit significant variations in physical properties due to their structural differences, impacting applications in fields like pharmaceuticals and . For instance, denser polymorphs often display higher melting points and lower compared to less dense forms, as seen in acetaminophen, where the stable Form I has a lower (1.297 g/cm³) but greater thermodynamic stability than the metastable Form II ( 1.336 g/cm³). and dissolution rates can differ markedly, with metastable polymorphs generally dissolving faster, influencing ; mechanical properties such as hardness and compressibility also vary, affecting processing and formulation. These property disparities underscore the importance of identifying and controlling polymorphs to ensure consistent material performance.

Historical Development

The concept of crystal polymorphism traces its origins to the early , when German Eilhard Mitscherlich reported the first observations of dimorphism in inorganic salts such as and sodium arsenate while working in Jöns Jacob Berzelius's laboratory. These findings, presented in 1822, demonstrated that the same could yield crystals with distinct morphologies and properties, laying the groundwork for understanding polymorphic behavior beyond mere , which Mitscherlich had identified in 1819. Mitscherlich's work introduced the term "polymorphism" to , marking a pivotal shift in recognizing structural diversity in solids. In the , advancements in instrumentation revolutionized the study of polymorphism, particularly with the advent of diffraction techniques pioneered by in 1912 and developed by William Henry and William Lawrence Bragg shortly thereafter. These methods enabled precise elucidation of atomic arrangements in polymorphic forms, transitioning observations from morphological descriptions to structural insights, especially for inorganic materials in the early decades. By the mid-century, attention shifted to s, where microscopist Walter C. McCrone emphasized polymorphism's prevalence and implications in his 1965 assertion that every solid exists in multiple polymorphic forms, with the number known reflecting research effort invested. McCrone's 1969 collaboration with John Haleblian further highlighted pharmaceutical applications, underscoring how polymorphic variations affect drug solubility and bioavailability. Post-1950 developments accelerated with routine use of single-crystal diffraction for resolving organic polymorph structures, facilitating systematic studies in the 1970s and 1980s. The field gained critical urgency in the 1990s through high-profile cases like , an protease inhibitor launched by in 1996, where an unanticipated, more stable polymorph (Form II) emerged in manufacturing, rendering the original Form I less soluble and necessitating in 1998 at a cost exceeding $250 million. This incident spotlighted polymorphism's commercial risks, prompting regulatory emphasis on thorough screening. Recent milestones, extending to 2025, have integrated high-throughput experimental screening with computational prediction to map polymorphic landscapes proactively. Techniques like automated robots, developed in the , enable rapid discovery of elusive forms, while 2010s innovations in crystal structure prediction algorithms, such as those combining minimization with , have achieved reliable ranking of polymorph stability. By the late , AI-driven tools, including models trained on databases like the Structural Database, enhanced prediction accuracy for organic polymorphs, reducing reliance on trial-and-error and supporting pharmaceutical design. As of 2025, further advancements include AI-enhanced methods like ParetoCSP2 for superior prediction and Genarris 3.0 for generating close-packed structures, improving the reliability of computational screening.

Detection and Characterization

Experimental Methods

powder diffraction (XRPD) serves as a cornerstone technique for the identification and characterization of polymorphic phases in crystalline materials, generating unique diffraction patterns that reflect the distinct atomic arrangements within each form. By comparing these patterns to reference databases or known standards, researchers can unequivocally confirm the presence of specific polymorphs in bulk powders, even in mixtures. This non-destructive method is particularly valuable for routine screening in pharmaceutical development, where subtle peak shifts or intensity variations distinguish metastable from stable forms. For instance, XRPD has been instrumental in differentiating α- and γ-polymorphs of indomethacin through characteristic peak positions at low temperatures. Single-crystal X-ray complements XRPD by providing high-resolution atomic-level structural details of individual polymorphs, enabling the determination of parameters, space groups, and intermolecular interactions that underpin polymorphic diversity. This technique requires suitable single crystals but yields precise three-dimensional models essential for understanding structure-property relationships, such as differences arising from conformational variations. Studies on polymorphic forms of pharmaceuticals like acetaminophen have utilized single-crystal to resolve subtle packing motifs not discernible in . Quantitative phase analysis in complex samples often employs on XRPD patterns, a full-profile fitting method that refines structural models against the entire profile to accurately quantify polymorph proportions, achieving precisions down to a few percent in multi-phase systems. This approach has been widely adopted for polymorph quantification in cement clinkers and drug formulations, leveraging known crystal structures for reliable results. Thermal analysis techniques offer insights into the energetic and stability profiles of polymorphs. (DSC) measures heat flow associated with melting, solid-solid transitions, or desolvation events, revealing enantiotropic or monotropic relationships through endothermic or exothermic peaks at characteristic temperatures. For example, DSC has been used to establish differences in polymorphs of organic compounds by correlating transition enthalpies with thermodynamic stability. (TGA), often coupled with DSC, monitors mass changes to assess thermal stability and solvent content in solvates or hydrates, identifying or steps that differentiate polymorphic forms. These methods are rapid and require minimal sample, making them ideal for initial polymorph screening. Spectroscopic methods provide molecular-level fingerprints sensitive to vibrational and local environmental changes. Raman spectroscopy detects polymorph-specific lattice vibrations and intramolecular modes, with low-frequency regions particularly diagnostic for intermolecular interactions; it excels in mapping spatial distributions in heterogeneous samples via microscopy. Infrared (IR) spectroscopy, including Fourier-transform variants, identifies polymorphs through shifts in absorption bands due to altered hydrogen bonding or packing, offering complementary data to Raman for comprehensive characterization. Solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (ssNMR) probes local atomic environments and molecular conformations, distinguishing polymorphs via chemical shift differences in spectra; it is especially useful for amorphous-crystalline distinctions and quantification in low-concentration impurities. These techniques have been applied to various pharmaceuticals to resolve structural differences across polymorphic forms. Microscopic techniques visualize morphological and optical properties to support structural analyses. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) exploits and optical anisotropy to identify crystalline polymorphs, revealing extinction patterns and color effects under crossed polarizers that correlate with crystal symmetry. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) elucidates surface topology and habit variations, such as prismatic versus needle-like forms, which influence ; can add elemental mapping. Hot-stage microscopy integrates control to observe phase transformations, bridging thermal and optical data. These visual methods are essential for initial in polymorph screens, often preceding more definitive techniques like XRPD. Experimental findings from these methods can be validated computationally for structural refinement, though direct measurements remain primary.

Computational Methods

Crystal structure prediction (CSP) methods play a central role in identifying potential polymorphs by computationally exploring possible crystal packings. These approaches typically involve generating a large number of hypothetical structures and ranking them based on stability criteria, such as minimization using empirical force fields. In minimization, force fields approximate intermolecular interactions through parameterized potentials, allowing efficient evaluation of crystal stability without quantum mechanical calculations for the entire system. A seminal example is the work by et al., which introduced tailor-made force fields derived from dimer energies to enhance accuracy in predicting organic crystal structures. Software tools like the Polymorph Predictor module in the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) suite implement these force field-based methods to perform CSP for molecular systems, particularly in pharmaceutical applications where polymorph screening is critical. This tool generates and minimizes lattice energies for thousands of structures across common space groups, identifying low-energy polymorphs that may form under specific conditions. Additionally, Mercury, another tool from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC), aids in visualizing and comparing polymorphic structures. It includes features for molecular conformation analysis, such as the Molecule Overlay tool for calculating root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and the Mogul Geometry Check for comparing molecular fragments to the CSD, as well as the Hydrogen Bond Propensity (HBP) tool for evaluating hydrogen bond networks and their stability by comparing to patterns in the CSD. (DFT) calculations provide a more accurate assessment of polymorph stability by computing electronic structures under , which simulate infinite crystal lattices. These methods account for electron correlation and dispersion interactions, often using functionals like PBE with D3 corrections to evaluate relative energies between polymorphs. For instance, dispersion-corrected DFT has been applied to rank polymorph stabilities in organic molecules, with typical errors on the order of a few kJ/mol depending on the system. ensure that surface effects are minimized, allowing focus on bulk like lattice parameters and cohesive energies. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations complement static predictions by modeling dynamic processes, such as kinetic pathways and events leading to specific polymorphs. In , atomic trajectories are evolved over time using force fields or potentials to observe how supersaturated solutions or melts form crystalline nuclei, revealing barriers and pathways for polymorph selection. Recent advances, including constant MD, have enabled simulations of from solution, demonstrating two-step mechanisms where dense liquid intermediates precede crystal formation in systems like polymorphs of small organics. These simulations highlight how kinetic factors, such as interactions, influence which polymorph nucleates first. Machine learning (ML) approaches, particularly post-2020 neural networks, have accelerated polymorph screening by training on large crystal databases like the CSD to predict structures and properties rapidly. Graph neural networks and equivariant models learn from known crystal geometries to generate and rank hypothetical polymorphs, often achieving near-DFT accuracy for lattice energies while reducing computational cost by orders of magnitude. For example, models trained on CSD data can predict space groups and densities for organic molecules, enabling of polymorph landscapes in . These methods excel in handling diverse molecular flexibility, with applications in predicting stable forms for over 1,000 compounds. Validation of computational predictions involves comparing predicted structures against experimental ones using metrics like the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of atomic positions, typically after overlaying molecular clusters. In the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre's blind tests, a predicted structure is deemed a match if the heavy-atom RMSD is below 0.2 Å, with successful predictions often achieving RMSD values of 0.1 Å or less for rigid molecules. This metric quantifies geometric similarity, ensuring predicted polymorphs align closely with observed crystal packings and aiding in the refinement of simulation protocols.

Theoretical Aspects

Thermodynamic Principles

Crystal polymorphism is governed by thermodynamic principles that determine the relative stability of different crystal forms under specific conditions of and . The stable polymorph at a given and is the one with the lowest , as this minimizes the system's overall energy. The Gibbs free energy difference between two polymorphs, ΔG, dictates the direction of phase transitions and is expressed by the equation: ΔG=ΔH−TΔS\Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S where ΔH is the enthalpy change, T is the absolute temperature, and ΔS is the entropy change. A negative ΔG indicates that the transition to the lower-energy form is thermodynamically favorable, driving the system toward equilibrium. Polymorphic systems are classified as enantiotropic or monotropic based on the nature of their phase transitions. In enantiotropic systems, two polymorphs are stable in distinct temperature ranges at a fixed pressure, with a reversible solid-solid transition occurring at the transition temperature where their free energies are equal. For example, the phase diagram exhibits a crossing point in the Gibbs free energy versus temperature plot before the melting points, allowing interconversion by heating or cooling through this point. In contrast, monotropic systems feature one polymorph that is always stable across all accessible temperatures and pressures, while the other is metastable and undergoes only irreversible transformation to the stable form. This distinction arises from the absence of a stable equilibrium domain for the metastable polymorph in the phase diagram. Phase diagrams for polymorphic systems, typically plotted in pressure-temperature (P-T) space, delineate the stability regions of each form according to the Gibbs , which for a single-component system with two phases yields one degree of freedom (univariant equilibrium). The of the transition line between polymorphs in the P-T diagram is given by the Clapeyron equation: dPdT=ΔHTΔV\frac{dP}{dT} = \frac{\Delta H}{T \Delta V} where ΔH is the of transition and ΔV is the . This equation predicts how influences the transition temperature; a positive indicates that increasing favors the denser polymorph if ΔV is negative. The thermodynamic hierarchy of polymorphs also manifests in their solubility behavior. Higher-energy (metastable) polymorphs exhibit greater in solvents compared to the stable form, as their higher correlates with a higher . According to Ostwald's rule of stages, during from solution, less stable polymorphs nucleate and dissolve first due to their higher , facilitating the eventual formation of the phase as evolves. This sequential dissolution enhances the understanding of polymorphic interconversions in solution-mediated processes.

Kinetic Factors

Kinetic factors in crystal polymorphism govern the formation pathways and rates of different polymorphs, often leading to the emergence of metastable forms over thermodynamically stable ones due to barriers in and growth processes. These factors emphasize the time-dependent nature of , where the polymorph that nucleates first can dominate the outcome, independent of long-term stability. is the initial step in polymorph formation, described by (CNT), which posits that the formation of a critical nucleus requires overcoming a free energy barrier arising from the competition between interfacial energy costs and the bulk free energy gain from phase transformation. The height of this barrier, ΔG∗\Delta G^*, for a spherical nucleus is given by ΔG∗=16πγ33(ΔGv)2,\Delta G^* = \frac{16\pi \gamma^3}{3 (\Delta G_v)^2}, where γ\gamma is the interfacial energy between the nucleus and the surrounding phase, and ΔGv\Delta G_v is the volumetric free energy difference driving the transformation. In polymorphic systems, polymorphs with lower γ\gamma or higher ΔGv\Delta G_v exhibit faster nucleation rates, enabling kinetic selection during crystallization. For instance, in the nucleation of glycine polymorphs, the α\alpha-form's lower interfacial energy relative to the γ\gamma-form results in its preferential formation under certain conditions, as modeled by competitive kinetics in CNT frameworks. Supersaturation serves as the primary driving force for nucleation and growth in solution-based crystallization, directly influencing polymorph selection by modulating the nucleation rate. Higher supersaturation levels accelerate nucleation kinetics, favoring polymorphs with lower energy barriers, while lower levels promote slower growth of more stable forms. Cooling rates, which control supersaturation buildup, further impact this: rapid cooling generates high supersaturation, often yielding metastable polymorphs like form II of paracetamol, whereas slower cooling allows selective growth of the stable form I. In vanillin crystallization, elevated supersaturation in aqueous media selectively produces the metastable form II, highlighting how supersaturation thresholds dictate polymorphic outcomes. Solvent-mediated transformations enable interconversion between polymorphs in solution, where dissolution and recrystallization kinetics determine the pathway from metastable to forms. These processes are governed by the relative solubilities of polymorphs, with the less soluble (more ) form driving the transformation of the more soluble (metastable) one through or direct recrystallization. exploits this by introducing crystals of the desired polymorph to lower the barrier and accelerate its growth, suppressing unwanted forms; for example, seeding with α\alpha-form crystals of taltirelin initially nucleates the α\alpha-form but facilitates its transformation to the β\beta-form in media, controlling the final polymorphic composition. Metastable polymorphs persist due to kinetic trapping, where high activation barriers prevent transformation to the stable phase on practical timescales, effectively locking the system in a non-equilibrium state. This phenomenon is exemplified by Ostwald's step rule, which states that proceeds sequentially through metastable intermediates before reaching the stable form, as the phase closest in free energy to the parent phase nucleates first. In the of , the metastable form II appears initially under rapid conditions before converting to stable form I, illustrating how kinetic barriers sustain metastable states and influence industrial polymorph control. A related kinetic phenomenon is that of "disappearing polymorphs," where a previously reproducible polymorph becomes difficult or impossible to obtain under identical conditions, often due to the inadvertent seeding or contamination by a more stable form that dominates the crystallization process. This is frequently linked to Ostwald's rule of stages, where metastable forms nucleate first but can be overtaken by stable ones through kinetic competition or environmental factors. Notable examples include ritonidine hydrochloride, where Form 1 disappeared after the emergence of Form 2 due to contamination, and rotigotine, illustrating the challenges in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Recovering such polymorphs requires careful control of kinetic conditions, such as high supersaturation or rapid cooling, to avoid seeding by the stable form.

Influencing Factors

Structural and Molecular Influences

Crystal polymorphism arises from the ability of a to adopt different crystal structures, primarily dictated by intrinsic molecular properties that govern intermolecular interactions and packing efficiency. These structural and molecular features determine the feasibility and diversity of polymorphic forms by influencing the relative stabilities of potential lattices through variations in minima. Conformational flexibility plays a central role in enabling polymorphism, as molecules with rotatable bonds can adopt multiple spatial arrangements that lead to distinct packing motifs. For instance, in , the presence of a rotatable bond between the phenyl and rings allows for twisted and planar conformations, resulting in five polymorphs where the molecular orientation differs significantly between forms I and III. This flexibility contrasts with more rigid systems, where polymorphism is limited to packing variations rather than conformational changes. Hydrogen bonding patterns further modulate polymorphic outcomes by forming robust supramolecular synthons—recurring motifs of hydrogen-bonded units—that dictate the overall in organic crystals. These patterns can vary between polymorphs, leading to different network topologies that stabilize alternative forms; for example, shifts in donor-acceptor pairings can alter the dimensionality of the hydrogen-bonded framework from chains to sheets. Graph-set notation provides a systematic classification of these motifs, such as D (donor), A (acceptor), R (ring), and descriptors like R22(8) for cyclic dimers, enabling prediction and comparison of bonding hierarchies across polymorphs. Steric and electronic effects also profoundly influence polymorphism by modulating intermolecular interactions that contribute to . Steric hindrance from bulky substituents can favor looser packing arrangements, while electronic factors promote specific attractions like π-π stacking, where offset aromatic rings stabilize layered structures through dispersion forces overlapping with electrostatic contributions. Van der Waals interactions, encompassing both dispersion and repulsion, fine-tune these effects; for example, in aromatic systems, the balance between π-π attraction and steric Pauli repulsion determines slip-stacked geometries over eclipsed ones, impacting polymorphic stability. Crystal engineering principles exploit these molecular influences to control polymorphism, particularly through co-crystals that incorporate auxiliary molecules to direct packing via complementary interactions. By forming co-crystals, such as those of active pharmaceutical ingredients with carboxylic acids, engineers can suppress unwanted polymorphs and favor thermodynamically stable forms with tailored properties. bonding has emerged as a versatile motif in this context, where electron-deficient halogens (e.g., iodine) interact directionally with acceptors like oxygen or , offering predictability akin to bonds but with tunable strength, as demonstrated in co-crystals modulating mechanical elasticity. These intrinsic factors interact with external conditions to ultimately select observed polymorphs during .

Environmental and Processing Conditions

Temperature and pressure significantly influence polymorphic outcomes by altering the free energy landscape of crystal phases. Under extreme conditions, such as pressures exceeding 5 GPa and temperatures above 1400°C, graphite undergoes a direct transformation to diamond, the cubic polymorph of carbon, facilitated by coherent interfaces that minimize energy barriers during the phase change. This high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis exemplifies how elevated pressure stabilizes denser polymorphs over less compact forms like graphite. Additionally, barocaloric effects arise during pressure-induced polymorphic transitions, where adiabatic compression or decompression leads to substantial temperature changes; for instance, in certain hybrid materials, these effects span a wide temperature range, enabling efficient solid-state cooling with reversible phase shifts between polymorphs. Solvent choice plays a pivotal role in polymorphism through its impact on , rates, and phase transformations. Solvents with higher polarity and moments generally enhance the solubility of the metastable polymorph, accelerating solvent-mediated transitions to the stable form, as observed in sulfamerazine where (high solubility, moderate hydrogen bonding) promoted faster conversion from Form I to Form II compared to lower-solubility solvents. The dielectric constant of the solvent further modulates intermolecular interactions, influencing selectivity; polar aprotic solvents often favor specific polymorphs by stabilizing certain molecular conformations during . In antisolvent methods, adding a nonsolvent to a solution rapidly induces , enabling control over polymorphic selection—for example, in indomethacin , ternary solvent-antisolvent systems were optimized to preferentially yield the desired metastable form while scaling up batch processes. Processing techniques, including cooling rates and mechanical actions, dictate the kinetic pathway to polymorphism. Rapid cooling generates high , often trapping molecules in metastable polymorphs due to insufficient time for reorganization, whereas slow allows thermodynamic control, favoring stable phases through gradual and growth. Milling and grinding introduce that disrupts crystal lattices, inducing polymorphic transformations; in pharmaceutical compounds like and , ball milling has been shown to convert stable forms to metastable ones or amorphous states by creating defects and local heating, with outcomes depending on milling intensity and duration. Humidity and additives further modulate polymorphic behavior, particularly in hygroscopic materials. Exposure to can trigger transitions in moisture-sensitive crystals; for , high relative humidity (97% RH at 25°C) induces a shift from the δ to the more stable β polymorph, accompanied by morphological changes such as increased from 0.4 to 2.3 m²/g due to multi-nucleation facilitated by molecules acting as a "loosener." Impurities serve as habit modifiers and stability influencers, adsorbing onto crystal faces to alter growth rates and even invert polymorph stabilities; in , incorporation of impurities (≥3 mol%) stabilizes the otherwise metastable Form III over Form I by forming solid solutions that lower its free energy.

Examples in Materials

Organic Polymorphs

Organic polymorphs are widespread in pharmaceuticals and pigments owing to the conformational flexibility and weak intermolecular interactions of organic molecules, enabling diverse crystal packing motifs. Approximately one-third of organic compounds and up to 80% of pharmaceutical solids exhibit polymorphism, with some systems displaying 10 or more distinct forms that can profoundly influence material properties such as solubility and reactivity. This prevalence contrasts with inorganic polymorphs, which often involve ionic lattices and fewer variants due to stronger bonding. Benzamide serves as an archetypal example of organic crystal polymorphism, with four characterized forms: the stable orthorhombic Form I and metastable monoclinic Forms II, III, and IV. These polymorphs differ primarily in their hydrogen-bonding arrangements; Form I features infinite catemer chains of N-H···O bonds, while Forms II and III form centrosymmetric dimers that pack differently along the c-axis, leading to variations in lattice energies (e.g., Form I at -117.6 kJ/mol versus Form III at approximately -117.1 kJ/mol). Stability hierarchies can reverse under certain conditions, such as with or low levels of impurities like , where Form III becomes thermodynamically favored above 3 mol% impurity at ambient temperatures. Maleic acid demonstrates polymorphism among its anhydrous phases alongside a hemihydrate form, with the focus on two anhydrous polymorphs exhibiting distinct densities and packing efficiencies. Form I, the commercially dominant variant, has a density of 1.590 g/cm³ and crystallizes in the monoclinic space group P2₁/c with hydrogen-bonded layers, while the elusive Form II, discovered over a century later, possesses a higher predicted density of approximately 1.60 g/cm³ and a more compact structure involving twisted molecular arrangements. These density differences arise from variations in intermolecular O-H···O hydrogen bonding and van der Waals contacts, influencing mechanical properties. In 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (TNB), polymorphism manifests through subtle conformational changes, including planar and puckered ring geometries in different forms, which alter intermolecular nitro group interactions and π-stacking. The standard orthorhombic form features a planar ring with of 1.937 g/cm³, while additive-induced polymorphs, such as those with trisindane, adopt puckered conformations that modify close contacts and impact sensitivity; for instance, certain variants show reduced sensitivity due to disrupted nitro-nitro repulsions. These structural variations highlight how polymorphism can tune explosive performance in high-energy organic materials. Notable cases of structural diversity include derivatives like 9,10-diphenylanthracene, which exhibits three polymorphs (α, β, γ) differing in molecular tilt angles and herringbone versus eclipsed packing, affecting efficiency. The compound (5-methyl-2-[(2-nitrophenyl)azo]phenol) exemplifies extreme complexity, with 14 polymorphs reported as of 2024, each displaying unique colors from red-orange-yellow due to variations in intramolecular hydrogen bonding and torsion angles around the azo linkage; for example, the ON polymorph has a of 1.375 g/cm³, while Y has 1.320 g/cm³. These examples underscore the record-setting polymorphic richness possible in flexible organic molecules.

Inorganic Polymorphs

Inorganic polymorphs, or allotropes in the case of elements, exemplify crystal polymorphism through distinct structural arrangements that yield markedly different physical and chemical properties. Carbon provides a classic illustration, with featuring a tetrahedral sp³-hybridized network forming a cubic lattice, resulting in exceptional (Mohs scale 10) and thermal conductivity, while consists of stacked hexagonal sp²-hybridized layers enabling , electrical conductivity, and a Mohs of 1–2. Fullerenes, such as C₆₀, represent molecular allotropes with a closed-cage buckyball , exhibiting in organic solvents unlike the insoluble or , and unique like purple coloration in solution. These structural variations arise from bonding differences: 's three-dimensional covalent network versus 's two-dimensional layers and fullerenes' zero-dimensional curvature. Sulfur demonstrates polymorphism among non-carbon elements, with rhombic sulfur (α-sulfur) as the stable form below 95.5°C, adopting an orthorhombic crystal structure of S₈ crown-like rings and exhibiting a density of 2.07 g/cm³ and yellow color. Above this temperature, it transitions to monoclinic sulfur (β-sulfur), which has a needle-like morphology, lower density (1.96 g/cm³), and higher solubility in carbon disulfide, reverting to the rhombic form upon cooling below 96°C. Phosphorus allotropes contrast sharply: white phosphorus comprises discrete tetrahedral P₄ molecules in a cubic lattice, rendering it waxy, highly reactive with air, and toxic, whereas red phosphorus forms an amorphous polymeric network with reduced reactivity and stability for applications like matches. These differences highlight how polymorphism influences reactivity and handling safety in elemental systems. Binary metal oxides like (TiO₂) exhibit three main polymorphs: (tetragonal, stable at high temperatures), (tetragonal, metastable), and brookite (orthorhombic), each with distinct band gaps and surface areas affecting photocatalytic performance. , with a band gap of 3.2 eV, shows superior photocatalytic activity for and pollutant degradation compared to (3.0 eV), due to higher mobility and surface reactivity, while brookite offers intermediate activity enhanced in mixed phases. Zirconia (ZrO₂) displays temperature-driven transitions: monoclinic at , converting to tetragonal at approximately 1170°C and cubic above 2370°C, with the martensitic monoclinic-to-tetragonal shift causing volume contraction critical for thermal barrier coatings. These phase changes impact mechanical stability and ionic conductivity in ceramics. Silica (SiO₂) polymorphs include (hexagonal, stable below 870°C), (hexagonal, stable 870–1470°C), and (tetragonal, above 1470°C), all sharing tetrahedral SiO₄ units but differing in connectivity and density—quartz at 2.65 g/cm³ versus 's 2.33 g/cm³—leading to variations in and refractoriness for glassmaking. In perovskite structures, (CaTiO₃) undergoes pressure-induced polymorphism, transitioning from orthorhombic at ambient conditions to higher-symmetry forms like tetragonal or cubic under gigapascal pressures, with dissociation into CaO and CaTi₂O₅ possible above 50 GPa, influencing deep-Earth models. Overall, these inorganic polymorphs underscore how structural diversity drives applications, from diamond's abrasiveness to anatase's .

Applications in Pharmaceuticals

Key Drug Case Studies

One of the most notorious examples of polymorphism's impact in pharmaceuticals is the case of , an antiretroviral drug developed by in the 1990s for treatment. Initially marketed as Form I in soft gel capsules starting in 1996, the drug faced a crisis when a more stable Form II polymorph emerged during large-scale manufacturing in 1998, triggered by trace impurities and processing conditions. This transition drastically reduced —Form II exhibited approximately half the aqueous solubility of Form I—leading to decreased and inconsistent plasma levels in patients, which compromised therapeutic efficacy. The discovery prompted a voluntary recall of over 100 batches, halted production for a year, and necessitated reformulation with excipients to stabilize Form I, ultimately costing Abbott an estimated $250 million in losses and delaying treatment for patients. This incident highlighted the risks of late-appearing polymorphs and spurred industry-wide adoption of more rigorous solid-state screening protocols. In 2022, scientists at discovered a new Form III polymorph through melt crystallization studies, further underscoring the persistent challenges of identifying all possible forms even decades after initial approval. Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), a cornerstone analgesic, exemplifies how subtle polymorphic differences can influence stability and processing, though without the acute commercial fallout seen in ritonavir. The stable orthorhombic Form I, whose structure was determined in 1964, features hydrogen-bonded dimers forming infinite chains along the crystallographic axes. In 2005, researchers discovered metastable Form II, which differs in its hydrogen-bonding network, with catemers instead of dimers between layers, resulting in a denser packing and slightly higher density (1.40 g/cm³ vs. 1.37 g/cm³ for Form I). Form II is kinetically stable at low temperatures but converts to Form I under ambient conditions, posing challenges in isolation and characterization; early reports from the 1960s of a second form were later attributed to intergrowths of these domains rather than a pure polymorph. While both forms show similar dissolution rates, the presence of Form II domains in commercial aspirin can affect tableting and long-term stability, influencing product consistency. Paracetamol (acetaminophen), widely used as an and , demonstrates polymorphism's role in optimizing dissolution for better . The stable monoclinic Form I adopts a prismatic and is produced commercially via from aqueous or alcoholic solutions, exhibiting moderate (about 14 mg/mL at 25°C). In contrast, the metastable orthorhombic Form II, which forms needle-like crystals, has a higher dissolution rate—up to 25% faster in some media—due to its looser packing and altered hydrogen-bonding motifs, making it desirable for faster-onset formulations despite its tendency to convert to Form I upon seeding or storage. Discovery challenges arose from Form II's instability; it was first structurally characterized in 1998, but reproducible isolation requires careful control of cooling rates and solvent choice to avoid habit modification or phase transformation during processing. These differences have driven pharmaceutical efforts to selectively produce Form II for enhanced tablet disintegration without compromising overall stability. Carbamazepine, an for and , illustrates the complexity of managing multiple polymorphs prone to interconversion, complicating formulation and storage. It exists in at least four polymorphs (Forms I–IV), with Form III (monoclinic) being the most thermodynamically stable at , melting at 192–195°C and showing the lowest among them (about 0.17 mg/mL in ). However, Form III is highly susceptible to conversion to the dihydrate pseudopolymorph under humid conditions, which further reduces by limiting dissolution; this transformation was a key challenge in early development, as metastable Forms I and II (with higher solubilities of 0.25 mg/mL and 0.30 mg/mL, respectively) could inadvertently form during milling or and revert unpredictably. The polymorphs were systematically characterized in the early , revealing that Form III's stability order (III > I > IV > II) stems from its optimized hydrogen-bonding network, yet its conversion kinetics—accelerating above 40% relative humidity—necessitated moisture-barrier packaging and processing to maintain consistent therapeutic performance. Other drugs underscore polymorphism's broader implications for solubility and potency. , an , has multiple polymorphs including stable Form I (solubility <1 μg/mL at pH 7) and hydrated Form II, with transformations influenced by during crystallization; these differences affect oral , prompting development of amorphous dispersions to enhance absorption in low-solubility forms. Similarly, cortisone acetate, a for anti-inflammatory therapy, exhibits at least three polymorphs identified in the 1960s.

Regulatory and Development Implications

In the , regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EMA mandate comprehensive characterization of polymorphic forms under harmonized guidelines like ICH Q6A, which provides decision trees to determine whether acceptance criteria for polymorphs are necessary based on their impact on drug substance performance, stability, and . These guidelines require that new drug applications (NDAs) include specifications for the solid-state form of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, including identification and control of polymorphs if they influence dissolution, , or processing, to ensure consistency and safety throughout the drug lifecycle. Failure to address polymorphism adequately can delay approvals or lead to post-approval issues, as agencies evaluate risks to product quality during review. Polymorphic conversions pose significant risks, potentially causing —rapid release leading to —or reduced due to altered and dissolution rates. For instance, in pyrazinamide, the alpha to gamma polymorph shift, which occurs under certain temperature conditions, increases the gamma form's intrinsic dissolution rate, potentially accelerating drug release and affecting therapeutic control in treatment. Such transformations highlight the need for stability monitoring, as unintended conversions during storage or processing can compromise and , prompting regulators to require bridging studies in submissions. Manufacturing challenges arise during scale-up, where changes in crystallization conditions can induce unintended polymorphic forms, necessitating early-stage polymorph screening to identify stable forms and mitigate risks. This screening, often involving high-throughput experiments and computational modeling, is integrated into development workflows to ensure reproducibility from lab to commercial production, avoiding costly reformulations. Intellectual property strategies frequently involve polymorph patents to extend market exclusivity, as seen with substituted dibenzoxazepine compounds where specific crystalline forms are claimed to protect novel agents. However, the ritonavir case, where a more stable polymorph (Form II) emerged post-approval, sparking debates on —using secondary patents to prolong monopolies—has influenced regulatory scrutiny on patent validity and generic entry. These practices underscore tensions between innovation and access, with agencies like the EMA emphasizing that polymorph patents must demonstrate unexpected benefits. Recent advancements include the integration of and for crystal structure prediction and polymorph screening in , aiding in anticipating and controlling polymorphs to optimize industrial outcomes. These methods, leveraging molecular simulations, help identify high-risk transformations early, aligning with evolving guidelines on computational tools in .

Polytypism

Polytypism represents a specialized of crystal polymorphism characterized by variations in the stacking sequences of identical structural layers within layered crystals, while maintaining the same interlayer geometry. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in close-packed structures, where differences in layer arrangements—such as the cubic ABCABC... sequence versus the hexagonal ABAB... sequence—lead to distinct polytypes. Unlike broader polymorphic transformations that may involve changes in coordination or , polytypism preserves the local atomic environment but alters the long-range order along the stacking direction, often the c-axis in hexagonal lattices. The International Mineralogical Association and International Union of define polytypism as the occurrence of multiple crystal structures for the same arising solely from such stacking variations. A prominent example of polytypism occurs in (), a material where over 200 distinct polytypes have been documented. Key polytypes include the cubic 3C-SiC (zinc blende structure with ABC stacking), the hexagonal 4H-SiC (ABAC stacking), and 6H-SiC (ABCACB stacking), each exhibiting subtle differences in their bilayer repetition along the c-axis. These stacking variations arise during and can be influenced by temperature, pressure, and growth techniques like . In (ZnS), polytypism manifests in forms such as the hexagonal (2H polytype with ABAB stacking) and the cubic sphalerite (3C polytype with ABC stacking), which represent extreme cases where the polytypic relationship borders on full polymorphism due to their differing space groups. Additional polytypes in ZnS, including 4H and 6H, further illustrate the spectrum of stacking possibilities in this II-VI compound. The physical properties of polytypic crystals vary significantly with stacking sequence, impacting their technological utility. In , bandgap energies differ markedly across polytypes, ranging from approximately 2.2 eV in 3C- to 3.3 eV in 4H-, which influences optical and electronic device performance. Thermal conductivity also shows polytype dependence; for instance, calculations reveal higher values in hexagonal polytypes like 6H- compared to cubic 3C- due to differences in dispersion along the c-axis. Controlling polytype formation during epitaxial growth is essential for applications, as techniques such as substrate selection and growth rate modulation can favor specific stackings to optimize properties like carrier mobility and defect density. Polytypism is distinguished from general polymorphism as a case where differences are confined to the c-axis dimension, with no alterations in lateral layer structure, and it is commonly identified through selected-area patterns that reveal unique reflections corresponding to the stacking periodicity.

Pseudopolymorphism

Pseudopolymorphism refers to crystalline forms in which solvent molecules, such as or organic solvents, are incorporated into the lattice structure, forming solvates or hydrates that modify the overall crystal architecture while preserving the core molecular composition of the compound. These solvent inclusions typically occur in stoichiometric ratios, distinguishing pseudopolymorphs from true polymorphs, and can influence physical properties like and mechanical behavior without altering the chemical identity of the primary component. Common types of pseudopolymorphs include channel hydrates, where molecules occupy discrete channels within the lattice, and isolated-site hydrates, in which interacts solely with the host framework. For instance, monohydrate exemplifies a channel hydrate, with molecules residing in open channels that allow for relatively facile desolvation upon heating or exposure to low , often yielding an form. Stoichiometric solvates, by contrast, feature molecules integrated more rigidly into the lattice, requiring higher for removal, whereas non-stoichiometric variants exhibit variable content. Desolvation processes, such as of hydrates, frequently result in polymorphs that may be metastable, impacting in materials synthesis. A representative example is hydrochloride, where the marketed monohydrate (approximately 1.43 ) dehydrates to form I upon mild heating, further transforming to form II at higher temperatures; these forms display varying physical stability and dissolution profiles due to differences in hydrogen-bonding networks and lattice packing. The exhibits slower dissolution compared to the variants under certain conditions, highlighting how inclusion can modulate bioavailability-relevant properties like . Pseudopolymorphs are differentiated from true polymorphs primarily by compositional analysis: true polymorphs share identical elemental makeup and show no significant mass loss below thermal decomposition temperatures, whereas pseudopolymorphs exhibit distinct weight loss in (TGA) corresponding to solvent evaporation, often appearing as a step-wise decrease prior to any endothermic event in (DSC). This solvent-specific mass loss, typically 2-15% depending on the hydrate stoichiometry, confirms the presence of incorporated molecules and rules out mere conformational variations seen in solvent-free polymorphs. In pharmaceutical contexts, pseudopolymorphs pose challenges related to environmental sensitivity, such as in stoichiometric hydrates like theophylline monohydrate, where spontaneous water loss under ambient conditions leads to lattice collapse and reduced stability during storage or formulation. Deliquescence, the absorption of atmospheric moisture transforming forms into hydrates, further complicates handling and can alter dissolution kinetics unpredictably. Recent studies in the have explored coformer solvates—pseudopolymorphic forms involving and additional molecular coformers—to enhance stability, as seen in solvate cocrystals of carbazole-based compounds that exhibit controlled rotational dynamics and improved humidity resistance.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/crystal-polymorphism
  2. https://www.mt.com/us/en/home/applications/L1_AutoChem_Applications/L2_Crystallization/polymorphism.html
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9408954/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4479028/
  5. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14756360701425147
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022024822004729
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57479-1
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1818087614000245
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8104211_Polymorphism_of_paracetamol_Relative_stabilities_of_the_monoclinic_and_orthorhombic_phases_inferred_from_topological_pressure-temperature_and_temperature-volume_phase_diagrams
  10. https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and-technology/chemistry-biographies/eilhard-mitscherlich
  11. https://pureportal.spbu.ru/files/86540137/200_years_after_discovery_of_the_general_phenomena_of_crystal_chemistry_by_Eilhard_Mitscherlich.pdf
  12. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49752-0_1
  13. https://www.iucr.org/news/newsletter/etc/articles?issue=158542&result_138339_result_page=32
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5947716/
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022354915369562
  16. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau3338
  17. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c01330
  18. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.202510792
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12613321/
  20. https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/3659/polymorph-screening-in-pharmaceutical-development/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6204365/
  22. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.0c05344
  23. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.1c00854
  24. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cg0340502
  25. https://improvedpharma.com/polarized-light-microscopy/
  26. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp710575h
  27. https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/discover/blog/how-to-compare-polymorphic-structures-using-mercury/
  28. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/sc/c9sc05689k
  29. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06587-3
  30. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00795
  31. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1697
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373482/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809925002942
  34. https://journals.iucr.org/paper?aw5093
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30692-y
  36. https://www.sevenstarpharm.com/knowledgehub/fundamentals
  37. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:418058/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10220575/
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38985-y
  40. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.2c00141
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-020-00388-9
  42. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.4c00555
  43. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.8b00972
  44. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00648
  45. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/sc/d0sc02667k
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451929419303882
  47. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/anie.201811313
  48. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.4c01559
  49. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cg005540m
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9300464/
  51. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63068-z
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022354916308528
  53. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00716
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12300739/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378517302003800
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9814557/
  57. https://gexinonline.com/uploads/articles/article-crmc-104.pdf
  58. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/cp/c3cp44279a
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-021-00473-7
  60. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.5b01495
  61. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2006/cc/b513442k
  62. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/new-crystal-form-of-maleic-acid-observed/3002807.article
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14983460/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987018/
  65. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/13/6/861
  66. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/sc/d1sc06074k
  67. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Map%253A_Inorganic_Chemistry_%28Housecroft%29/14%253A_The_Group_14_Elements/14.04%253A_Allotropes_of_Carbon/14.4A%253A_Graphite_and_Diamond_-_Structure_and_Properties
  68. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/jgs2018-056
  69. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00091a023
  70. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_and_Websites_%28Inorganic_Chemistry%29/Descriptive_Chemistry/Elements_Organized_by_Group/Group_16%253A_The_Oxygen_Family/Z016_Chemistry_of_Sulfur_%28Z16%29
  71. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.200601572
  72. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Phosphorus
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04043
  74. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.5b04528
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359645423007899
  76. https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Geology/Mineralogy_%28Perkins_et_al.%29/06%253A_Igneous_Rocks_and_Silicate_Minerals/6.04%253A_Silicate_Minerals/6.4.02%253A_SiO2_Polymorphs
  77. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.3c02645
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213343722005954
  79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11474792/
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11867576_Ritonavir_An_Extraordinary_Example_of_Conformational_Polymorphism
  81. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/could-mechanochemistry-have-saved-abbott-laboratories-250-million/4019296.article
  82. https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/discover/blog/polymorphism-a-major-risk-that-pharma-companies-must-mitigate/
  83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200603373
  84. https://cen.acs.org/articles/83/web/2005/11/Aspirin-Polymorph-Found.html
  85. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.160.3823.76
  86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15627255/
  87. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cg500573e
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0731708505004991
  89. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cphc.200700261
  90. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.2c01072
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13875810/
  92. https://www.fda.gov/media/71375/download
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6331817/
  94. https://www.almacgroup.com/knowledge/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/02/API_Ensuring-Consistency-in-Polymorphic-Drug-Substances-and-Products_WhitePaper-1.pdf
  95. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5212169A/en
  96. https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=230
  97. https://jrasb.com/index.php/jrasb/article/view/747
  98. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/5335201
  99. https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos596a/spring06-01.htm
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4371928/
  101. https://www.nap.edu/read/13157/chapter/7
  102. https://sites.usc.edu/mjlab/files/2022/02/SiC.pdf
  103. https://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/doclib/hom/wurtzite.pdf
  104. https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/10150/194010/1/azu_etd_2616_sip1_m.pdf
  105. https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.10573
  106. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-022-01037-7
  107. https://presolar.physics.wustl.edu/Laboratory_for_Space_Sciences/Publications_2003_files/Daulton-GCA-03.pdf
  108. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/ce/c6ce01834c
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2974108/
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7601571/
  111. https://digital.wpi.edu/downloads/1544bq51w
  112. https://repository.gatech.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/6669092f-f496-493f-a147-38dba4473900/content
  113. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.cgd.8b00687
  114. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/ce/d0ce00261e
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12052923/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.