Next Article in Journal
Predicting the Average Composition of an AlFeNiTiVZr-Cr Alloy with Machine Learning and X-ray Spectroscopy
Next Article in Special Issue
Boronation of Biomass-Derived Materials for Hydrogen Storage
Previous Article in Journal
Protective Effect of Biflavones from Platonia insignis Mart. against Ethidium Bromide-Induced Lethality in Staphylococcus aureus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antioxidant and UV-Blocking Functionalized Poly(Butylene Succinate) Films
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Compounds
Volume 3
Issue 1
10.3390/compounds3010017
compounds-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Abraham Solvation Parameter Model: Revised Predictive Expressions for Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane Based on Much Larger and Chemically Diverse Datasets

by
Amy Zhou
,
Laine Longacre
,
Ramya Motati
and
William E. Acree, Jr.
*
Department of Chemistry, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Compounds 2023, 3(1), 205-223; https://doi.org/10.3390/compounds3010017
Submission received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 14 February 2023 / Accepted: 15 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Compounds (2022–2023))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Updated Abraham model correlations are reported for the transfer of organic solutes and inorganic gases to a polydimethylsiloxane coating from both water and the gas phase based on published experimental data for more than 220 different compounds. The derived mathematical expressions back-calculate the observed partitioning behavior to within standard deviations of the residuals of 0.206 and 0.176 log units, respectively.

1. Introduction

Sample preparation is a vital part of analytical method development, particularly in the case of trace analysis. For complex unknown samples containing many chemical constituents, one often must isolate the analyte from all interferences that might be present. Preconcentration may also be needed as there is only a limited number of analytical techniques that have both the selectivity and sensitivity to permit accurate quantification at very low analyte concentrations. Classical separation methods such as liquid-liquid extraction and solid-phase extraction, which were once popular in analytical method development, have been replaced by microextraction methods that consume much smaller quantities of organic solvents. Considerable attention has been afforded in recent years to solvent (adsorbent) selection for use in microextraction devices as analyte partitioning between the unknown sample matrix and the device solvent controls the extraction efficiency. Currently, devices have been constructed using polymeric solvents/sorbents (e.g., polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), low-density polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, etc.) [1,2,3,4], ionic liquids [4,5,6] and deep eutectic solvents [7,8,9]. Mathematical expressions have been reported for predicting analyte partitioning in select polymeric materials [10,11,12,13] and ionic liquid solvents [14,15,16,17,18] to aid in the solvent selection process.
Our research in this area has been to develop Abraham model expressions [19,20,21,22,23] for describing solute transfer between two condensed phases:
log P = eeq 1 × E + seq 1 × S + aeq 1 × A + beq 1 × B + veq 1 × V + ceq 1
and solute transfer from the gas phase into a condensed phase:
log K = eeq 2 × E + seq 2 × S + aeq 2 × A + beq 2 × B + leq 2 × L + ceq 2
where the dependent solute properties on the left-hand side of Equations (1) and (2) are the logarithms of the water-to-organic coating partition coefficient, log P, and the logarithms of the gas-to-organic coating partition coefficient, log K. The uppercase and lowercase quantities on the right-hand side of both mathematical equations represent the solute descriptors (E, S, A, B, V and L) and complimentary solvent/coating properties (ceq 1, eeq 1, seq 1, aeq 1, beq 1, veq 1, ceq 2, eeq 2, seq 2, aeq 2, beq 2 and leq 2), respectively. Numerical values of a given solute remain the same for all partitioning processes; in other words, the solute descriptors for benzene would be independent of both the partitioning process, log P or log K, and the identity of the receiving organic solvent/coating. The solute descriptors encode valuable chemical information regarding the ability of the solute to interact with its solubilizing media, and are defined as follows: A and B refer to the respective overall hydrogen-bond donating and accepting capacities of the dissolved solute; E corresponds to the molar refraction of the given solute (in units of (cm3·mol−1)/10) in excess of that of a linear alkane having a comparable molecular size; L is the logarithm of the solute’s gas-to-hexadecane partition coefficient determined at 298.15 K; S represents a combination of the electrostatic polarity and polarizability of the solute; and V denotes the McGowan molecular volume of the solute (in units of (cm3·mol−1)/100) calculated from atomic sizes and chemical bond numbers. Numerical values of the complimentary solvent/coating properties in Equations (1) and (2) are determined by regressing measured log P and/or log K data for a series of solutes with known descriptor values in accordance with the respective solute property. Once determined, the lowercase alphabetical characters allow one to predict the specified property of additional solutes in the given organic solvent/coating, provided that the solute descriptors are known.
Abraham model correlations [20] have been reported for many partitioning processes that are used in commercial manufacturing processes and private analytical laboratories to isolate the desired chemical compound/analyte from unwanted impurities. There are still a large number of common organic solvents and solvent mixtures for which predictive expressions are not available. We have tried to address this issue by determining Abraham model log P and log K correlations for additional organic solvents based on measured solubility and partition coefficient data, and as the occasion arises we have also updated previously published correlations using much larger datasets. For example, we recently reported Abraham model predictive expressions for solute transfer into tert-butyl acetate based on our measured solubility data for 31 different crystalline nonelectrolyte organic compounds of varying polarity and hydrogen-bonding character [21]. As part of this study we also updated existing equations for both ethyl acetate and butyl acetate, which had been published 14 years earlier [24]. It is important to periodically update existing correlations using larger and more chemically diverse datasets. The chemical diversity, as reflected by the solute descriptor values, defines the area of predictive chemical space over which a derived Abraham correlation is valid. It is not good practice to utilize a mathematical expression to make predictions for those solutes whose descriptor values fall too far outside of the range of values used in determining the equation coefficients, nor should one use mathematical correlations to calculate solute descriptors of additional compounds, if the newly obtained descriptor values fall too far outside of the range of values that the correlations themselves were based upon. In the present communication we critically re-examine the ability of the Abraham solvation parameter model to describe solute transfer into PDMS after contradictory studies have appeared in the chemical literature.

2. Prior Abraham Model Studies Describing Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane

Several predictive expressions have been proposed for predicting chromatographic retention behavior on a PDMS stationary phase column, solute diffusion through PDMS membranes and partition/sorption coefficients in PDMS film coatings. However, we focus our attention in this communication on those studies pertaining to the Abraham solvation parameter model. First, Hierlemann and coworkers [25] used the Abraham model to describe mathematically:
log KPDMS-air = 0.18(0.13) − 0.05(0.18) E + 0.21(0.20) S + 0.99(0.23) A + 0.10(0.23) B + 0.84(0.03) L
(N = 32, R2 = 0.969; SE = 0.127; and F = 155)
the sorption coefficients of vapors of 32 organic compounds on a thickness-shear-mode polydimethylsiloxane-coated resonator. In terms of statistical information, the authors gave the number of experimental data points used in the regression analysis (N), the squared correlation coefficient (R2), the standard error for the correlation (SE), the Fisher F-statistical (F) and the standard errors in the calculated equation coefficients, which are given in parenthesis immediately following the respective coefficient. Equation (3) was found to back-calculate the observed log KPDMS-air values, that ranged from log KPDMS-air = 1.65 (propionaldehyde) to log KPDMS-air = 4.03 (decane), to within a standard error of SE = 0.127 log units. As an informational note, the authors also obtained Abraham model correlations for resonators coated with poly(methyloctylsiloxane), poly(methyl(cyanopropyl)siloxane), poly(methylphenylsiloxane), poly(methyl(2-carboxy(D-valinyl-tert-butylamide)propyl)siloxane, poly(methyl(isopropylcarboxylic acid)siloxane), poly(methylphenylsiloxane) and poly(methyl(aminopropyl)siloxane). In each case the Abraham model was found to provide a reasonably accurate mathematical description of the observed log KPDMS-air data. The largest calculated standard error, SE = 0.163, was for the poly(methyl(isopropylcarboxylic acid)siloxane) coating.
Second, Xia et al. [26] reported an Abraham model correlation for absorption from aqueous solution onto a PDMS membrane:
log PPDMS-water = 0.09(0.16) + 0.49(0.11) E − 1.11(0.12) S − 2.36(0.07) A − 3.78(0.14) B + 3.50(0.17) V
(N = 32, R2 = 0.995, and F = 1056)
based on limited experimental data for 32 aromatic compounds (naphthalene, biphenyl, 1-methylnaphthalene and 29 benzene derivatives). The authors did not provide a value of the standard error for their correlation. At the time that Equations (3) and (4) were published the solute descriptors were denoted using a different set of alphabetical characters. For the convenience of journal readers, we have converted the older symbolism used by both Hierlemann and coworkers [25] and Xia et al. [26] to the current set of alphabetical characters.
Third, Sprunger and coworkers [10] derived Abraham model correlations for both log PPDMS-water and log KPDMS-air:
log PPDMS-water (wet + dry) = 0.268(0.038) + 0.601(0.043) E − 1.416(0.073) S − 2.523(0.092) A − 4.107(0.084) B + 3.637(0.044) V
(N = 170, R2 = 0.993, Radj2 = 0.993, SD = 0.171, F = 4475.2)
log KPDMS-air (wet + dry) = −0.041(0.033) + 0.012(0.066) E + 0.543(0.096) S + 1.143(0.111) A + 0.578(0.105) B + 0.792(0.014) L
(N = 142, R2 = 0.995, Radj2 = 0.994, SD = 0.180, F = 4919.0)
that described experimental partition coefficient data for approximately 170 different inorganic and organic compounds to within standard deviations of the residuals of SD = 0.171 log units (Equation (5)) and SD = 0.180 log units (Equation (6)). The relevant statistical information includes not only the number of experimental data points, squared correlation coefficient, standard deviation and Fisher F-statistic, but also the adjusted squared correlation coefficient, Radj2. The much larger dataset used in determining Equations (5) and (6) resulted from the authors more thorough search of the published chemical literature, coupled with the decision to combine measured values based on “dry” and “wet” experimental methodologies into a single dataset.
The main difference between the two experimental methodologies is whether or not the PDMS phase was in direct contact with water as the values were being determined. From an experimental standpoint the direct measurement of log PPDMS-water values requires the aqueous and PDMS phases be in contact with one another, while log KPDMS-air values are generally measured in the absence of a water phase. It is possible to convert measured log PPDMS-water values to calculated log KPDMS-gas values and vice versa through Equation (7):
log PPDMS-water = log KPDMS-air − log Kw
The conversion requires knowledge of the logarithm of solute molecule’s gas-to-water partition coefficient, log Kw. For purposes of this discussion we will refer to the values obtained from Equation (7) as “calculated” experimental values in that they were not obtained directly from the experimental methodology. Sprunger and coworkers carefully denoted for each solute-PDMS data point whether the PDMS phase was “wet” or “dry” in their tabulation of log PPDMS-water and log KPDMS-air values. Separate log PPDMS-water and log KPDMS-air expressions were also reported where the “wet” and “dry” values were not combined. For predictive applications it was recommended that the separate “wet” and “dry” correlations be used. The combined “wet” and “dry” correlations, Equations (5) and (6), were offered as possibilities in the event that the descriptor values of the solute whose log PPDMS-water and/or log KPDMS-air one wished to predict fell far outside of the range of values used in generating the separate “wet” and “dry” correlations.
The three afore-mentioned studies suggest that the Abraham model does provide a reasonably accurate mathematical description of solute transfer into polydimethylsiloxane. A recent study by Zhu and Tao [11] calls into question these earlier observations in that their reported Abraham model correlation for log KPDMS-air:
log KPDMS-air = 1.524 + 0.660E − 0.006S + 0.896A + 0.369B + 0.452L
This is based on a training set containing 192 experimental values that had a very large root-mean-square-error of RMSE = 0.532 log units. The training set included values determined by both “wet” and “dry” experimental methodologies. Zhu and Tao did not provide in their paper or accompanying supporting information what numerical values were used for the Abraham model solute descriptors. The authors simply stated that “the optimized Abraham descriptors were calculated by PaDEL Descriptor (Version 2.21) [27]. An earlier paper co-authored by Zhu and coworkers [28] did include the numerical values; however, our private descriptor database did not contain many of the compounds so we were not able to properly ascertain the quality of the estimated values. It is entirely possible that bad estimates of the descriptor values for several compounds may have led to the rather poor Abraham model correlation and the large resulting RMSE value.
It is also possible that Zhu and Tao did not carefully curate their experimental log KPDMS-air database, and that incorrect values and/or values for other polymeric materials were included in their data analysis. For example, in glancing through the log KPDMS-air values used in the regression analyses, we found that values taken from a paper by Boscaini and coworkers [29] were often much larger than values determined by other independent researchers, e.g., log KPDMS-air = 3.28 [29] versus log KPDMS-air = 2.57 [30] for ethanol; log KPDMS-air = 3.90 [29] versus log KPDMS-air = 2.99 [31,32] versus log KPDMS-air = 3.37 [30] for 2-pentanone. In the case of multiple entries for a given solute, the authors simply averaged all numerical values.
We also noted in our search of the published literature that the earlier paper co-authored by Zhu and coworkers [28] did report an Abraham model correlation for log PPDMS-water:
log PPDMS-water = 0.943 + 0.493E − 0.570S − 3.444A − 0.901B + 2.311V
(N = 277, Radj2 = 0.764, RMSE = 0.812, F = 175)
based on 277 experimental values, as well as an Abraham model log KPDMS-air expression:
log KPDMS-air = 1.635 + 0.752S + 0.495L
(N = 200, Radj2 = 0.867, RMSE = 0.753; F = 644)
that contained only two of the five solute descriptors. The reason for the large RMSE in the latter equation is failure to include all five solute descriptors. Again, since this earlier study contained several compounds for which experimental-based solute descriptors are not available, we suspect that bad estimates of the descriptor values may have played a part in the poor descriptive ability of both Equations (9) and (10). Given the above concerns, we have re-examined the ability of the Abraham model to describe solute transfer into polydimethylsiloxane using a much larger dataset of experimental values. The results of our analysis are provided in the following pages.

3. Construction of Databases and Determination of Updated Abraham Model Correlations

We start our analysis with the combined database that Sprunger and coworkers [10] used in deriving Equations (5) and (6). The database listed the references from which each experimental value was taken and denoted whether the values were measured on a “wet” or “dry” PDMS phase. We add to the dataset the experimental log KPDMS-air data for 28 isoparrafinic compounds (methyl- and ethyl-branched alkanes) and for 31 alkyl-substituted benzene derivatives determined by Martos and coworkers [33] using a solid-phase microextraction fiber coated with PDMS. Values for cyclopentane, methylcyclopentane and methylcyclohexane were taken from the training data set used by Chao and coworkers [34] in developing empirical QSPR expressions for predicting water-to-DMSO partition coefficients. From the published compilations of Zhu and Tao [11] and Zhu et al. [28], we added those compounds for which we had experiment-based solute descriptors. The objectives of the current study are not only to ascertain if the Abraham model can describe solute transfer into polydimethylsiloxane, but also develop an updated Abraham model correlation that can be used to calculate solute descriptors for additional organic compounds from measured log PPMDS-water and log KPMDS-air data. The latter objective is not met by including compounds with questionable, estimated solute descriptors into the data analysis.
The measured log PPMDS-water data were converted to their “calculated” experimental log KPDMS-air counterpart using Equation (7) and log Kw values taken from our private database. Measured log KPDMS-air data were converted to “calculated” experimental log PPMDS-water values in similar fashion. In total, we were able to assemble 244 log PPMDS-water values and 229 log KPDMS-air values to use in updating the earlier Abraham model expressions of Sprunger and coworkers [10] for describing solute transfer into PMDS. The additional experimental data increases the databases used by Sprunger et al. by 43.5% and 61.3%, respectively, which is more than enough new values to merit revision of the earlier correlations. The two sets of experimental data are tabulated in Table 1 and Table 2, along with the descriptor values for all compounds considered in the current study. Given in the last column of both tables are the references from which the measured data were taken. If the values came from the Sprunger et al. database we referenced this paper [10] as the source of the experimental data in order to conserve journal space.
Analysis of the 244 log PPMDS-water values and 229 log KPDMS-air values given in Table 1 and Table 2 yielded the following two Abraham model expressions:
log PPDMS-water (wet + dry) = 0.306(0.042) + 0.572(0.048) E − 1.192(0.075) S − 2.619(0.103) A − 4.174(0.092) B + 3.472(0.041) V
(N = 244, R2 = 0.988, Radj2 = 0.988, SD = 0.206, SEE = 0.208, F = 4088)
log KPDMS-air (wet + dry) = −0.030(0.030) − 0.094(0.053) E + 0.505(0.072) S + 1.052(0.091) A + 0.476(0.084) B + 0.829(0.010) L
(N = 229, R2 = 0.994, Radj2 = 0.994, SD = 0.176, SEE = 0.178, F = 7282)
that described experimental partition coefficient data for slightly more than 220 different inorganic and organic compounds to within standard deviations of residuals of SD = 0.206 log units (Equation (11)) and SD = 0.176 log units (Equation (12)). The associated statistical information is given below the derived mathematical correlations, and also includes the standard error of estimate, SEE. The above regression analyses, as well as the following training set and test set analyses, were performed using the IBM SPSS software (Version 29.0.0.0, Armonk, US). Both derived equations provide a reasonably accurate mathematical description of the observed log PPMDS-water and log KPDMS-air data, as evidenced by the relatively small SD values and near unity values for R2 and Radj2.
The descriptive ability is further illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Except for pentan-3-one, most of the solute molecules, represented by the graphed points, fall near the drawn straight line, indicating a near-perfect back-calculation. It is observed that experimental log PPMDS-water and log KPDMS-air values differ significantly from those of pentan-2-one. We could not think of any reason for excluding the data for pentan-3-one from the regression other than its experimental values were out of line with those of other similar alkanones. The experimental value for pentan-3-one was measured on a PDMS membrane using a proton transfer reaction mass spectrometric method [29]. Experimental values determined by this particular methodology tended to be consistently larger than values measured using other techniques, as noted in the preceding section of this communication. Additional examples include log KPDMS-air = 3.923 [29] versus log KPDMS-air = 3.462 [33] for 1,2-dimethylbenzene; log KPDMS-air = 3.875 [29] versus log KPDMS-air = 3.320 [33] for 1,3-dimethylbenzene; and log KPDMS-air = 4.214 [29] versus log KPDMS-air = 3.702 [33] for propylbenzene. Large interlaboratory differences are not uncommon as the measurements are not trivial, particularly in the case of nonvolatile compounds and compounds having limited aqueous solubility. Figure 3 and Figure 4 depict the residual values for Equations (11) and (12), respectively.
The updated log KPDMS-air correlation reported in the current communication differs significantly from the recently published equation of Zhu and Tao [11] in terms of its descriptive ability. The root-mean-square error associated with the Zhu and Tao correlation was RMSE = 0.532 log units. Similar differences were observed between our updated log PPDMS-water correlation at the published equation of Zhu et al. [28], which had a RMSE value of RMSE = 0.812. The only explanation that we can offer at this time for why the correlations of Zhu and Tao [11] and Zhu et al. [28] had such a large RMSE is that the authors employed estimated solute descriptors, rather than experiment-based solute descriptors, in their database. We cannot eliminate the possibility that there may have been some bad numerical values of log KPDMS-air and log PPDMS-water included their analysis, as some of the values that we suspect may have been in error are for compounds for which we do not have experiment-based Abraham model solute descriptors. We also note that a careful examination of Equations (5), (6), (11) and (12) reveals that the new experimental data added to the datasets had very little effect on the calculated equation coefficients or the associated statistical information. The equation coefficients of the earlier and updated Abraham model correlations are identical, at least to within the combined standard uncertainties in the coefficients themselves.
In order to assess the predictive abilities of Equations (11) and (12) we split the log PPMDS-water and log KPDMS-air datasets in half by selecting every other value. The selected first, third, fifth, seventh and other odd numbered data points formed the training sets, while the remaining even numbered values became the test sets. Analysis of the experimental data in the training sets gave:
log PPDMS-water (wet + dry) = 0.356(0.059) + 0.657(0.072) E − 1.273(0.114) S − 2.550(0.167) A − 4.203(0.134) B + 3.401(0.056) V
(N = 122, R2 = 0.989, Radj2 = 0.988, SD = 0.201, SEE = 0.205, F = 1879)
log KPDMS-air (wet + dry) = −0.061(0.037) − 0.099(0.071) E + 0.417(0.098) S + 1.129(0.132) A + 0.476(0.113) B + 0.839(0.012) L
(N = 115, R2 = 0.995, Radj2 = 0.994, SD = 0.155, SEE = 0.159, F = 3799)
There is very little difference in the equation coefficients for the full dataset and the training set correlations, thus showing that the training set of compounds is a representative sample of the total dataset.
The training set correlations were then used to predict log PPDMS-water values of the 122 compounds in the test set and the log KPDMS-air values of the 114 compounds in the test set. For the predicted and experimental we found AAE (average absolute error) = 0.163 and AAE = 0.138, and AE (average error) = −0.023 and AE = −0.064, for Equations (13) and (14), respectively. The training and test computations were performed an additional three times by splitting the large log PPDMS-water and log KPDMS-air datasets into different combinations of experimental values. Very similar results were obtained each time.

4. Summary

Updated mathematical correlations based on the Abraham solvation parameter model have been shown to provide a reasonably accurate description/prediction of the observed log PPMDS-water and log KPDMS-air data for a chemically diverse set of slightly more than 220 organic solutes and inorganic gases in “dry” and “wet” PDMS. The updated equations were found to back-calculate the observed data to within a standard deviation of residuals of SD = 0.21 log units (or less). Equation coefficients for the updated correlations differ slightly from the earlier values reported by Sprunger and coworkers [10] and reaffirm of the applicability of the Abraham model to describe solute transfer into PDMS. The updated log KPDMS-air correlation reported in the current communication differ significantly from the recently published equation of Zhu and Tao [11] in terms of descriptive/predictive ability. The root-mean-square error associated with the correlation of Zhu and Tao is RMSE = 0.532 log units. Similarly, our updated log PPDMS-water correlation differs from that obtained by Zhu et al. [28] and also has a much better descriptive ability. The only possible explanation that we can offer at this time for the conflicting observations regarding predictive ability is that Zhu and coworkers [11,28] used estimated numerical values for the Abraham model solute descriptors, while we used experiment-based descriptor values determined from measured partition coefficient, molar solubility and chromatographic retention data. Our past experience in using group contribution [35,36,37,38] and machine learning methods [38,39] to estimate Abraham model solute descriptors is that the software programs can return estimated values that differ significantly from values determined from actual experimental data [20,40].
The updated PDMS correlations reported in the current communication provide us with two additional Abraham model equations for calculating experiment-based solute descriptors of additional organic compounds. The published literature contains log PPMDS-water and log KPDMS-air data for many organic compounds for which we do not have descriptor values. In fact, we excluded some of the log KPDMS-air data from the paper by Zhu and Tao [11], as well as some of the log PPDMS-water data from the paper by Zhu et al. [28], from our analyses because we did not have experiment-based descriptor values for the compounds. One of the objectives of the current study was to update the existing Abraham model correlations for PDMS so that we could use the updated correlations in planned later studies to calculate descriptor values for pesticides and other important environmental pollutants. As noted earlier, one should not use mathematical correlations to calculate solute descriptors of additional compounds if the newly obtained descriptor values fall too far outside of the range of values that the correlations themselves were based upon. Pesticides had solute descriptors that fell outside of the range of predictive chemical space for several of our existing correlations. We are gradually updating several of our existing Abraham model correlations to expand their predictive chemical space, and the PDMS was one of the solvents/coatings. Correlations for ethyl acetate and butyl acetate were recently updated as well [21].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, W.E.A.J.; formal data analysis, A.Z., L.L. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Amiri, A.; Ghaemi, F. Thermally stable carbon nanofibers functionalized with poly(dimethylsiloxane) for solid-phase microextraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons prior to GC analysis. Microchim. Acta 2016, 183, 1917–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Orazbayeva, D.; Koziel, J.A.; Trujillo-Rodriguez, M.J.; Anderson, J.L.; Kenessov, B. Polymeric ionic liquid sorbent coatings in headspace solid-phase microextraction: A green sample preparation technique for the determination of pesticides in soil. Microchem. J. 2020, 157, 104996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grant, S.; Schacht, V.J.; Escher, B.I.; Hawker, D.W.; Gaus, C. Experimental solubility approach to determine PDMS-water partition constants and PDMS activity coefficients. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3047–3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Poole, C.; Mester, Z.; Miro, M.; Pedersen-Bjergaard, S.; Pawliszyn, J. Extraction for analytical scale sample preparation (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 2016, 88, 649–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rykowska, I.; Ziemblinska, J.; Nowak, I. Modern approaches in dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) based on ionic liquids: A review. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 72, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sharifi, V.; Abbasi, A.; Nosrati, A. Application of hollow fiber liquid phase microextraction and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction techniques in analytical toxicology. J. Food Drug Anal. 2016, 24, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Makos, P.; Slupek, E.; Gebicki, J. Hydrophobic deep eutectic solvents in microextraction techniques-A review. Microchem. J. 2020, 152, 104384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Plastiras, O.-E.; Andreasidou, E.; Samanidou, V. Microextraction techniques with deep eutectic solvents. Molecules 2020, 25, 6026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Farajzadeh, M.A.; Afshar Mogaddam, M.R.; Aghanassab, M. Deep eutectic solvent-based dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 2576–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sprunger, L.; Proctor, A.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; Abraham, M.H. Characterization of the sorption of gaseous and organic solutes onto polydimethyl siloxane solid-phase microextraction surfaces using the Abraham model. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1175, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zhu, T.; Tao, C. Prediction models with multiple machine learning algorithms for POPs: The calculation of PDMS-air partition coefficient from molecular descriptor. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 423, 127037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Endo, S.; Hale, S.E.; Goss, K.-U.; Arp, H.P.H. Equilibrium partition coefficients of diverse polar and nonpolar organic compounds to polyoxymethylene (POM) passive sampling devices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 10124–10132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reppas-Chrysovitsinos, E.; Sobek, A.; MacLeod, M. Screening-level models to estimate partition ratios of organic chemicals between polymeric materials, air and water. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2016, 18, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Jiang, B.; Horton, M.Y.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; Abraham, M.H. Ion-specific equation coefficient version of the Abraham model for ionic liquid solvents: Determination of coefficients for tributylethylphosphonium, 1-butyl-1-methylmorpholinium, 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium and octyltriethylammonium cations. Phys. Chem. Liq. 2017, 55, 358–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stephens, T.W.; Chou, V.; Quay, A.N.; Shen, C.; Dabadge, N.; Tian, A.; Loera, M.; Willis, B.; Wilson, A.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; et al. Thermochemical investigations of solute transfer into ionic liquid solvents: Updated Abraham model equation coefficients for solute activity coefficient and partition coefficient predictions. Phys. Chem. Liq. 2014, 52, 488–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Poole, C.F.; Atapattu, S.N. Determination of physicochemical properties of ionic liquids by gas chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2021, 1644, 461964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Poole, C.F.; Poole, S.K. Ionic liquid stationary phases for gas chromatography. J. Sep. Sci. 2011, 34, 888–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Twu, P.; Zhao, Q.; Pitner, W.R.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; Baker, G.A.; Anderson, J.L. Evaluating the solvation properties of functionalized ionic liquids with varied cation/anion composition using the solvation parameter model. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 5311–5318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, K.; Shanmugam, N.; Xu, A.; Varadharajan, A.; Cai, S.K.; Huang, E.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Abraham model correlations for describing solute transfer into anisole based on measured activity coefficients and molar solubilities. Phys. Chem. Liq. 2022, 60, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sinha, S.; Yang, C.; Wu, E.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Abraham solvation parameter model: Examination of possible intramolecular hydrogen-bonding using calculated solute descriptors. Liquids 2022, 2, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Longacre, L.; Wu, E.; Yang, C.; Zhang, M.; Sinha, S.; Varadharajan, A.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Development of Abraham model correlations for solute transfer into the tert-butyl acetate mono-solvent and updated equations for both ethyl acetate and butyl acetate. Liquids 2022, 2, 258–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Varadharajan, A.; Sinha, S.; Xu, A.; Daniel, A.; Kim, K.; Shanmugam, N.; Wu, E.; Yang, C.; Zhang, M.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Development of Abraham model correlations for describing solute transfer into transcutol based on molar solubility ratios for pharmaceutical and other organic compounds. J. Solut. Chem. 2022, 52, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Daniel, A.; Kim, K.; Shanmugam, N.; Sinha, S.; Varadharajan, A.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Abraham model correlations for solute transfer into cyclopentanone. Phys. Chem. Liq. 2022, 60, 964–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sprunger, L.M.; Proctor, A.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; Abraham, M.H.; Benjelloun-Dakhama, N. Correlation and prediction of partition coefficient between the gas phase and water, and the solvents dry methyl acetate, dry and wet ethyl acetate, and dry and wet butyl acetate. Fluid Phase Equilibr. 2008, 270, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hierlemann, A.; Zellers, E.T.; Ricco, A.J. Use of linear solvation energy relationships for modeling responses from polymer-coated acoustic-wave vapor sensors. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 3458–3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Xia, X.R.; Baynes, R.E.; Monteiro-Riviere, N.A.; Riviere, J.E. A system coefficient approach for quantitative assessment of the solvent effects on membrane absorption from chemical mixtures. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2007, 18, 579–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yap, C.W. PaDEL-descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 1466–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zhu, T.; Chen, W.; Singh, R.P.; Chen, W.; Singh, R.P.; Cui, Y. Versatile in silico modeling of partition coefficients of organic compounds in polydimethylsiloxane using linear and nonlinear methods. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 399, 123012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boscaini, E.; Alexander, M.L.; Prazeller, P.; Märk, T.D. Investigation of fundamental physical properties of a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane using a proton transfer reaction mass spectrometer (PTRMS). Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2004, 239, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Isidorov, V.; Purzyńska, A.; Modzelewska, A.; Serowiecka, M. Distribution coefficients of aliphatic alcohols, carbonyl compounds and esters between air and Carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane fiber coating. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 560, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Isidorov, V.A.; Vinogorova, V.T. Experimental determination and calculation of distribution coefficients between air and fiber with polydimethylsiloxane coating for some groups of organic compounds. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1077, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nilsson, T.; Larsen, T.O.; Montanarella, L.; Madsen, J.Ø. Application of head-space solid-phase microextraction for the analysis of volatile metabolites emitted by Penicillium species. J. Microbiol. Methods 1996, 25, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martos, P.A.; Saraullo, A.; Pawliszyn, J. Estimation of air/coating distribution coefficients for solid phase microextraction using retention indexes from linear temperature-programmed capillary gas chromatography. application to the sampling and analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons in air. Anal. Chem. 1997, 69, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chao, K.-P.; Lu, Y.-T.; Yang, H.-W. Prediction of partition coefficients of organic compounds between SPME/PDMS and aqueous solution. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 2585–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ulrich, N.; Endo, S.; Brown, T.N.; Watanabe, N.; Bronner, G.; Abraham, M.H.; Goss, K.-U. UFZ-LSER Database v 3.2.1 [Internet], Leipzig, Germany, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ. 2017. Available online: http://www.ufz.de/lserd (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  36. Platts, J.A.; Butina, D.; Abraham, M.H.; Hersey, A. Estimation of molecular linear free energy relation descriptors using a group contribution approach. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Platts, J.A.; Abraham, M.H.; Butina, D.; Hersey, A. Estimation of molecular linear free energy relationship descriptors by a group contribution approach. 2. Prediction of partition coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chung, Y.; Vermeire, F.H.; Wu, H.; Walker, P.J.; Abraham, M.H.; Green, W.H. Group contribution and machine learning approaches to predict Abraham solute parameters, solvation free energy, and solvation enthalpy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2022, 62, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ulrich, N.; Ebert, A. Can deep learning algorithms enhance the prediction of solute descriptors for linear solvation energy relationship approaches? Fluid Phase Equilib. 2022, 555, 113349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sinha, S.; Varadharajan, A.; Xu, A.; Wu, E.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Determination of Abraham model solute descriptors for hippuric acid from measured molar solubilities in several organic mono-solvents of varying polarity and hydrogen-bonding ability. Phys. Chem. Liq. 2022, 60, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Compounds 03 00017 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparison of observed log PPDMS-water data versus back-calculated values based on Equation (11) for PDMS.
Figure 1. Comparison of observed log PPDMS-water data versus back-calculated values based on Equation (11) for PDMS.
Compounds 03 00017 g001
Compounds 03 00017 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of observed log KPDMS-air data versus back-calculated values based on Equation (12) for PDMS.
Figure 2. Comparison of observed log KPDMS-air data versus back-calculated values based on Equation (12) for PDMS.
Compounds 03 00017 g002
Compounds 03 00017 g003 550
Figure 3. Residual graph for the log PPDMS-water correlation, Equation (11), for PDMS.
Figure 3. Residual graph for the log PPDMS-water correlation, Equation (11), for PDMS.
Compounds 03 00017 g003
Compounds 03 00017 g004 550
Figure 4. Residual graph for the log KPDMS-air correlation, Equation (12), for PDMS.
Figure 4. Residual graph for the log KPDMS-air correlation, Equation (12), for PDMS.
Compounds 03 00017 g004
Table
Table 1. Experimental water-to-polydimethylsiloxane partition coefficient, log PPDMS-water (wet + dry), measured near 298 K, along with the Abraham model solute descriptors of compounds considered in the current study.
Table 1. Experimental water-to-polydimethylsiloxane partition coefficient, log PPDMS-water (wet + dry), measured near 298 K, along with the Abraham model solute descriptors of compounds considered in the current study.
SoluteESABVLog PRef.
Methane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.24951.160[10]
Ethane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.39041.710[10]
Propane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.53132.320[10]
Butane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.67222.930[10]
2-Methylpropane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.67222.880[10]
Pentane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.81313.470[10]
2,2-Dimethylpropane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.81313.230[10]
Hexane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.95404.040[10]
2-Methylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.95403.508[33]
3-Methylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.95403.515[33]
2,3-Dimethylbutane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.95403.373[33]
Heptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09494.610[10]
2,2-Dimethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09493.866[33]
2,3-Dimethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09494.116[33]
3,3-Dimethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09494.040[33]
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09493.991[33]
2-Methylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09494.009[33]
3-Methylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09494.047[33]
Octane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23585.282[33]
2,3-Dimethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.09493.954[33]
2-Methylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.412[33]
4-Methylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.436[33]
3-Methylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.503[33]
3,5-Dimethylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.897[33]
3,4-Dimethylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.970[33]
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.820[33]
2,5-Dimethylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.371[33]
2,2-Dimethylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.389[33]
2,3-Dimethylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.528[33]
2,4-Dimethylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.614[33]
3-Ethylhexane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.23584.452[33]
Nonane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37675.400[10]
3,3-Diethylpentane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.980[33]
2,5-Dimethylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.925[33]
3,3-Dimethylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.881[33]
2,3-Dimethylheptane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.837[33]
3-Methyloctane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.37674.824[33]
Decane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.51765.820[10]
2-Methylnonane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.51766.100[33]
Undecane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.65856.270[10]
Dodecane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.79946.820[10]
Tridecane0.0000.0000.0000.0001.94027.270[10]
Tetradecane0.0000.0000.0000.0002.08107.480[10]
Cyclopropane0.4080.2300.0000.0000.42271.430[10]
Cyclopentane0.2630.1000.0000.0000.70452.853[34]
Methylcyclopentane0.2250.1000.0000.0000.84543.132[34]
Cyclohexane0.3050.1000.0000.0000.84543.520[10]
Methylcyclohexane0.2440.0600.0000.0000.98633.668[34]
Ethene0.1070.1000.0000.0700.34741.343[10]
Propene0.1030.0800.0000.0700.48831.800[10]
1-Butene0.1000.0800.0000.0700.62922.310[10]
2-Methyl-1-propene0.1200.0800.0000.0800.62922.160[10]
1,3-Butadiene0.3200.2300.0000.1000.58621.780[10]
Trichloromethane0.4300.4900.1500.0200.61671.620[10]
Trichloromethane0.4300.4900.1500.0200.61671.710[10]
Tetrachloromethane0.4600.3800.0000.0000.73912.840[10]
1,1,1-Trichloroethane0.3700.4100.0000.0900.75762.750[10]
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5400.6300.1000.0800.88002.660[10]
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane0.6000.7600.1600.1200.88002.170[10]
1,2-Dichloropropane0.3700.6300.0000.1700.77612.100[10]
cis 1,2-Dichloroethene0.4360.6100.1100.0500.59221.840[11]
Trichloroethylene0.5240.3700.0800.0300.71462.240[10]
Trichloroethylene0.5240.3700.0800.0300.71462.410[10]
Tetrachloroethylene0.6390.4400.0000.0000.83703.270[10]
Dibromochloromethane0.7750.6800.1200.1000.72192.160[10]
Trifluoromethane−0.4300.1800.1100.0300.30260.600[10]
Propanone0.1790.7000.0400.4900.5470−0.670[10]
Butanone0.1660.7000.0000.5100.6879−0.320[10]
Pentan-2-one0.1430.6800.0000.5100.82880.410[10]
Pentan-3-one0.1540.6600.0000.5100.82881.290[11]
Hexan-2-one0.1360.6800.0000.5100.96970.860[10]
Hexan-3-one0.1360.6600.0000.5100.96970.980[10]
Heptan-2-one0.1230.6800.0000.5101.11061.350[10]
Cyclohexanone0.4030.8600.0000.5600.86110.070[10]
Acetophenone0.8181.0100.0000.4801.01401.040[10]
4-Chloroacetophenone0.9551.0900.0000.4401.13601.640[10]
Ethyl acetate0.1060.6200.0000.4500.74660.271[10]
Isobutyl acetate0.0520.5700.0000.4701.02841.660[10]
Phenyl acetate0.6611.1300.0000.5401.07260.860[10]
Methyl benzoate0.7330.8500.0000.4601.07261.650[10]
Ethyl benzoate0.6890.8500.0000.4601.21352.120[10]
Methyl 2-methylbenzoate0.7720.8700.0000.4301.21352.150[10]
Ethanol0.2460.4200.3700.4800.4491−1.410[10]
Propan-1-ol0.2360.4200.3700.4800.5900−1.160[10]
Propan-2-ol0.2120.3600.3300.5600.5900−1.210[10]
2-Butanol0.2170.3600.3300.5600.7309−0.630[10]
2-Methylpropan-1-ol0.2170.3900.3700.4800.7309−0.390[10]
3-Methyl-1-butanol0.1920.3900.3700.4800.8718−0.100[10]
Benzene0.6100.5200.0000.1400.71761.849[33]
Benzene0.6100.5200.0000.1400.71761.990[10]
Toluene0.6010.5200.0000.1400.85732.263[33]
Toluene0.6010.5200.0000.1400.85732.580[10]
Ethylbenzene0.6130.5100.0000.1500.99822.736[33]
1,2-Dimethylbenzene0.6630.5600.0000.1600.99822.802[33]
1,3-Dimethylbenzene0.6230.5200.0000.1600.99822.710[33]
1,4-Dimethylbenzene0.6130.5200.0000.1600.99822.808[33]
Propylbenzene0.6040.5000.0000.1501.13913.312[33]
1-Methyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6300.5100.0000.1801.13913.199[33]
Isopropylbenzene0.6020.4900.0000.1601.13913.250[10]
Isobutylbenzene0.5800.4700.0000.1501.28004.040[33]
sec-Butylbenzene0.6030.4800.0000.1601.28003.623[33]
1-Methyl-3-isopropylbenzene0.6210.4900.0000.1901.28003.516[33]
1-Methyl-3-propylbenzene0.6240.5000.0000.1801.28003.577[33]
1,2-Dimethyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6850.5600.0000.1901.28003.600[33]
1,3-Dimethyl-2-ethylbenzene0.7570.6000.0000.1901.28003.638[33]
1,2-Dimethyl-3-ethylbenzene0.7420.6100.0000.1901.28003.800[33]
(2-Methylbutyl)benzene0.6300.4800.0000.1701.42093.959[33]
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene0.6770.5600.0000.1901.13912.940[10]
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene0.6490.5200.0000.1901.13913.250[10]
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene0.7390.6000.0000.1901.28003.860[33]
1-tert-Butyl-2-methylbenzene0.6700.5700.0000.2201.42093.670[33]
Pentylbenzene0.5940.5100.0000.1501.42093.913[33]
1-tert-Butyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6400.5000.0000.2201.56184.200[33]
1,3,5-Triethylbenzene0.6720.5000.0000.1901.56184.268[33]
1,2,4-Triethylbenzene0.7140.5300.0000.2101.56184.211[33]
Styrene0.8490.6500.0000.1600.95522.860[10]
Chlorobenzene0.7180.6500.0000.0700.83882.400[10]
1,2-Dichlorobenzene0.8720.7800.0000.0400.96122.870[10]
1,3-Dichlorobenzene0.8470.7300.0000.0200.96123.290[10]
1,4-Dichlorobenzene0.8250.7500.0000.0200.96122.930[10]
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene1.0300.8600.0000.0001.08363.450[10]
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene0.9800.8100.0000.0001.08363.480[10]
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene0.9800.7300.0000.0001.08363.640[10]
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene1.1800.9200.0000.0001.20603.900[10]
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene1.1600.8500.0000.0001.20604.180[10]
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene1.1600.8600.0000.0001.20604.090[10]
Pentachlorobenzene1.3300.9600.0000.0001.32844.620[10]
Pentachlorobenzene1.3300.9600.0000.0001.32844.420[10]
Hexachlorobenzene1.4900.9900.0000.0001.45085.010[10]
2-Chlorotoluene0.7620.6500.0000.0700.97973.070[10]
4-Chlorotoluene0.7050.7400.0000.0500.97972.870[10]
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene1.0600.8500.0000.0001.22504.170[10]
Bromobenzene0.8820.7300.0000.0900.89142.510[10]
Iodobenzene1.1880.8200.0000.1200.97502.730[10]
Phenyl methyl ether0.7080.7500.0000.2900.91601.705[10]
4-Chloroanisole0.8380.8600.0000.2401.03802.370[10]
Aniline0.9550.9600.2600.4100.81620.010[10]
3,4-Dimethylaniline0.9600.9700.2000.4901.09801.070[10]
2-Chloroaniline1.0330.9200.2500.3100.93861.040[10]
4-Chloroaniline1.0601.1300.3000.3100.93860.840[10]
2,4-Dichloroaniline1.1401.1500.3000.2201.06101.690[10]
3,4-Dichloroaniline1.1601.2400.3500.2401.06101.390[10]
Nitrobenzene0.8711.1100.0000.2800.89061.210[10]
Phenol0.8050.8900.6000.3000.7751−0.530[10]
3-Methylphenol0.8220.8800.5700.3400.9160−0.030[10]
3,5-Dimethylphenol0.8200.8400.5700.3601.05690.420[10]
4-Ethylphenol0.8000.9000.5500.3601.05690.600[10]
3-Bromophenol1.0601.1500.7000.1600.95010.460[10]
2-Chlorophenol0.8530.8800.3200.3100.89750.560[10]
3-Chlorophenol0.9091.0600.6900.1500.89750.310[10]
Pentachlorophenol1.2170.8600.6100.0901.38702.650[10]
4-Fluorophenol0.6700.9700.6300.2300.7930−0.280[10]
Biphenyl1.3600.9900.0000.2601.32403.370[10]
Naphthalene1.3400.9200.0000.2001.08542.830[10]
1-Methylnaphthalene1.3370.9400.0000.2201.22633.260[10]
2-Methylnaphthalene1.3040.8100.0000.2501.22633.170[10]
1,2-Dimethylnaphthalene1.4310.9700.0000.2501.36723.470[10]
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene1.3470.8200.0000.2501.36723.590[10]
Acenaphthene1.6041.0500.0000.2201.25863.630[10]
Fluorene1.5881.0600.0000.2501.35653.720[10]
Phenanthrene2.0551.2900.0000.2601.45444.000[10]
Anthracene2.2901.3400.0000.2801.45443.840[10]
Fluoranthene2.3771.5500.0000.2401.58464.260[10]
Benz[a]anthracene2.9921.7000.0000.3301.82344.770[10]
Pyrene2.8081.7100.0000.2801.58464.320[10]
Chrysene3.0271.7300.0000.3301.82344.690[10]
Benzo[b]fluoranthene3.1941.8200.0000.4001.95365.160[10]
Benzo[k]fluoranthene3.1901.9100.0000.3301.95365.330[10]
Benzo[a]pyrene3.6251.9800.0000.4401.95365.240[10]
Benzo[ghi]perylene4.0731.9000.0000.4802.08385.500[10]
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene4.0002.0400.0000.4402.19246.200[10]
1-Methylphenanthrene2.0551.2500.0000.2601.59534.500[10]
Perylene3.2561.7600.0000.4001.95364.980[10]
Benzonitrile0.7421.1100.0000.3300.87111.040[10]
Dimethyl sulfide0.4040.4300.0000.2700.55390.820[10]
Helium0.0000.0000.0000.0000.06800.470[10]
Neon0.0000.0000.0000.0000.08500.580[10]
Argon0.0000.0000.0000.0000.19000.820[10]
Krypton0.0000.0000.0000.0000.24600.980[10]
Xenon0.0000.0000.0000.0000.32901.253[10]
Hydrogen0.0000.0000.0000.0000.10860.420[10]
Oxygen0.0000.0000.0000.0000.18301.150[10]
Nitrogen0.0000.0000.0000.0000.22220.850[10]
Nitrous Oxide0.0680.3500.0000.1000.28090.510[10]
Carbon Dioxide0.0000.2800.0500.1000.28090.240[10]
Tetrafluoromethane−0.580−0.2600.0000.0000.32031.570[10]
Sulfur hexafluoride−0.600−0.2000.0000.0000.46432.100[10]
Benzyl alcohol0.8030.8700.3300.5600.9160−0.350[10]
Phenethyl alcohol0.7840.8300.3000.6601.05690.120[10]
3-Methylbenzyl alcohol0.8150.9000.3300.5901.05690.170[10]
2-Chlorobiphenyl1.4801.0700.0000.2001.44663.970[10]
4,4′-Dichlorobiphenyl1.6401.1800.0000.1601.56904.590[10]
2,4,4′-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7601.3300.0000.1501.69144.700[10]
2,4,4′-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7601.3300.0000.1501.69145.030[10]
2,4′,6′-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1701.69145.000[10]
2,2′,4,5,5′-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0401.6100.0000.1301.93625.710[10]
2,2′,5,5′-Tetrachlorobiphenyl1.9001.4800.0000.1501.81385.300[10]
Limonene0.4880.2800.0000.2101.32304.140[10]
Hexafluoroethane−0.690−0.4100.0000.0000.49662.400[10]
Hydrogen sulfide0.3500.3100.1000.0700.27210.300[10]
Camphor0.5000.6900.0000.7101.31611.480[10]
Acridine2.5361.3200.0000.5801.41333.170[10]
2,3,3′,4,4′-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0401.5900.0000.1101.93625.890[10]
2,2′,3,4,4′,5′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1801.7400.0000.1102.05866.200[10]
2,3,3′,4,4′,5-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.2101.7200.0000.0902.05866.280[10]
2,2′,3,4,4′,5,5′-Heptachlorobiphenyl2.2901.8700.0000.0902.18106.400[10]
2,3′,4,4′,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0601.5900.0000.1101.93625.870[10]
Bromoform0.9740.6800.1500.0600.77451.870[10]
2,4,5-Trichloroaniline1.2401.1500.3000.1401.18342.080[10]
2,3,3′,5,6-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0501.6100.0000.1301.93625.710[10]
2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1801.7400.0000.1102.05866.160[10]
2,2′,4,4′,5,6′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1501.7400.0000.1102.05866.170[10]
2,2′,4,4′,6,6′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1201.7400.0000.1102.05866.030[10]
Propionaldehyde0.1960.6500.0000.4500.5470−0.867[10]
Butyraldehyde0.1870.6500.0000.4500.6879−0.289[10]
Pyridine0.6310.8400.0000.5200.6753−0.454[10]
Thiophene0.6870.5700.0000.1500.64111.748[10]
1,2-Dichloroethane0.4200.6400.1000.1100.63521.161[10]
Benzonitrile0.7421.1100.0000.3300.87110.859[10]
Diethyl ether0.0410.2500.0000.4500.73090.664[10]
Ethanethiol0.3920.4200.0000.2000.55391.115[10]
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl1.8901.4800.0000.1501.81385.340[10]
Linalool0.3980.5100.2000.6501.49031.490[11]
Acetophenone0.8181.0100.0000.4801.01391.040[11]
Myrcene0.4830.2900.0000.3201.38863.560[11]
3-Carene0.4920.2200.0000.1401.25744.520[11]
Terpinolene0.5640.2900.0000.2001.32304.370[11]
3-Chlorobiphenyl1.0511.0500.0000.1801.44664.190[28]
4-Chlorobiphenyl1.5001.0500.0000.1801.44664.190[28]
3,3′,4,4′-Tetrahchlorobiphenyl1.9401.4400.0000.1101.81385.640[28]
2,2′,5,5′-Tetrachlorobiphenyl1.9001.4800.0000.1501.81385.370[28]
Pentachlorophenol1.2200.9100.6600.0601.38712.650[28]
4-Chloroanisole0.8380.8600.0000.2101.02842.370[28]
2,4,6-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1701.69145.180[28]
2,2′,4-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1701.69144.850[28]
2,2′,3-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7501.3500.0000.1701.69145.120[28]
2,6-Dichlorobiphenyl1.6601.2200.0000.2001.56904.500[28]
2,4′,6-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1701.69145.120[28]
3,3′,4-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7901.3100.0000.1301.69145.270[28]
2,4′-DDT1.8501.7000.0000.2502.21805.820[28]
2,4′-DDE1.9001.5000.0000.1802.05265.940[28]
2,4′-DDD1.8001.7300.1000.2602.09565.080[28]
2,2′,3,3′,4,4′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1801.7400.0000.1102.05866.380[28]
2,2′,3,4′,5′-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0401.6100.0000.1301.93626.100[28]
Table
Table 2. Experimental gas-to-polydimethylsiloxane partition coefficient, log KPDMS-gas (wet + dry), measured near 298 K, along with the Abraham model solute descriptors of compounds considered in the current study.
Table 2. Experimental gas-to-polydimethylsiloxane partition coefficient, log KPDMS-gas (wet + dry), measured near 298 K, along with the Abraham model solute descriptors of compounds considered in the current study.
SoluteESABLlog KRef.
Methane0.0000.0000.0000.000−0.323−0.300[10]
Ethane0.0000.0000.0000.0000.4920.370[10]
Propane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 1.050 0.880 [10]
Butane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 1.615 1.410 [10]
2-Methylpropane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 1.409 1.180 [10]
Pentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 2.162 1.770 [10]
2,2-Dimethylpropane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 1.820 1.390 [10]
Hexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 2.668 2.200 [10]
3-Methylpentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 2.581 2.200 [31]
Heptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.173 2.650 [10]
2,4-Dimethylpentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 2.809 2.420 [33]
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 2.918 2.450 [33]
2-Methylhexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.001 2.590 [33]
Octane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.677 3.170 [33]
2,3-Dimethylpentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.016 2.610 [33]
2-Methylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.480 3.000 [33]
4-Methylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.483 3.030 [33]
3-Methylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.510 3.040 [33]
3,5-Dimethylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.826 3.290 [33]
3,4-Dimethylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.935 3.380 [33]
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.325 2.760 [33]
2,5-Dimethylhexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.308 2.770 [33]
2,2-Dimethylhexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.261 2.830 [33]
2,3-Dimethylhexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.451 2.990 [33]
3-Ethylhexane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.519 3.000 [33]
Nonane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.182 3.250 [10]
3,3-Diethylpentane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.065 3.420 [33]
2,5-Dimethylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.822 3.290 [33]
3,3-Dimethylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.833 3.320 [33]
2,3-Dimethylheptane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.925 3.380 [33]
2-Methyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.966 3.410 [33]
3-Methyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 3.998 3.460 [33]
Decane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.686 3.500 [10]
2,2-Dimethyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.225 3.640 [33]
3,3-Dimethyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.307 3.700 [33]
2,3-Dimethyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.401 3.790 [33]
2-Methylnonane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.453 3.830 [33]
3-Ethyloctane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.467 3.840 [33]
3-Methylnonane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 4.486 3.850 [33]
Undecane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 5.191 3.890 [10]
Dodecane0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 5.696 4.290 [10]
Cyclopropane0.4080.230 0.000 0.000 1.314 0.880 [10]
Cyclopentane0.2630.100 0.000 0.000 2.477 1.973 [34]
Methylcyclopentane0.2250.100 0.000 0.000 2.907 1.962 [34]
Cyclohexane0.3050.100 0.000 0.000 2.964 2.620 [10]
Methylcyclohexane0.2440.060 0.000 0.000 3.319 2.418 [34]
Alpha-pinene0.4380.200 0.000 0.140 4.256 3.650 [11]
Limonene0.5000.310 0.000 0.230 4.688 4.040 [10]
d-Limonene0.5000.310 0.000 0.230 4.688 4.010 [11]
gamma-Terpinene0.5220.290 0.000 0.220 4.840 4.140 [11]
Ethene0.1070.100 0.000 0.070 0.289 0.403 [10]
Propene0.1030.080 0.000 0.070 0.946 0.830 [10]
1-Butene0.1000.080 0.000 0.070 1.529 1.300 [10]
2-Methyl-1-propene0.1200.080 0.000 0.080 1.579 1.300 [10]
1,3-Butadiene0.3200.230 0.000 0.100 1.543 1.330 [10]
cis 2-Butene0.1400.080 0.000 0.050 1.737 1.460 [10]
trans 2-Butene0.1260.080 0.000 0.050 1.664 1.400 [10]
Trichloromethane0.4300.490 0.150 0.020 2.480 2.410 [10]
Trichloromethane0.4300.490 0.150 0.020 2.480 2.500 [10]
Tetrachloromethane0.4600.380 0.000 0.000 2.823 2.650 [10]
1,1,1-Trichloroethane0.3700.410 0.000 0.090 2.733 2.870 [10]
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5400.630 0.100 0.080 3.641 3.600 [10]
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane0.6000.760 0.160 0.120 3.803 3.980 [10]
1,2-Dichloropropane0.3700.630 0.000 0.170 2.836 3.070 [10]
cis 1,2-Dichloroethene0.4360.610 0.110 0.050 2.439 2.700 [11]
Trichloroethylene0.5240.370 0.080 0.030 2.997 2.560 [10]
Trichloroethylene0.5240.370 0.080 0.030 2.997 2.730 [10]
Tetrachloroethylene0.6390.440 0.000 0.000 3.584 3.200 [10]
Dibromochloromethane0.7750.680 0.120 0.100 3.304 3.440 [10]
Trifluoromethane−0.4300.180 0.110 0.030 −0.274 0.000 [10]
Propanone0.1790.700 0.040 0.490 1.696 2.160 [10]
Butanone0.1660.700 0.000 0.510 2.287 2.400 [10]
Pentan-2-one0.1430.680 0.000 0.510 2.755 2.990 [10]
Pentan-3-one0.1540.660 0.000 0.510 2.811 3.790 [11]
Hexan-2-one0.1360.680 0.000 0.510 3.286 3.270 [10]
Hexan-3-one0.1360.660 0.000 0.510 3.271 3.250 [10]
Heptan-2-one0.1230.680 0.000 0.510 3.760 3.600 [10]
Octan-3-one0.1170.660 0.000 0.510 4.264 3.910 [11]
Cyclohexanone0.4030.860 0.000 0.560 3.792 3.670 [10]
Acetophenone0.8181.010 0.000 0.480 4.501 4.400 [10]
4-Chloroacetophenone0.9551.090 0.000 0.440 5.404 4.860 [10]
Ethyl acetate0.1060.620 0.000 0.450 2.314 2.431 [10]
Isobutyl acetate0.0520.570 0.000 0.470 3.161 3.390 [10]
Phenyl acetate0.6611.130 0.000 0.540 4.414 4.120 [10]
Methyl benzoate0.7330.850 0.000 0.460 4.704 4.530 [10]
Ethyl benzoate0.6890.850 0.000 0.460 5.075 4.790 [10]
Ethanol0.2460.420 0.370 0.480 1.485 2.260 [10]
Propan-1-ol0.2360.420 0.370 0.480 2.031 2.400 [10]
Propan-2-ol0.2120.360 0.330 0.560 1.764 2.270 [10]
2-Butanol0.2170.360 0.330 0.560 2.338 2.760 [10]
2-Methylpropan-1-ol0.2170.390 0.370 0.480 2.413 2.910 [10]
Pentan-1-ol0.2190.420 0.370 0.480 3.106 3.347 [10]
3-Methyl-1-butanol0.1920.390 0.370 0.480 3.011 3.140 [10]
3-Octanol0.1760.360 0.330 0.560 4.290 4.060 [11]
Benzene0.6100.520 0.000 0.140 2.786 2.479 [33]
Toluene0.6010.520 0.000 0.140 3.325 2.913 [33]
Ethylbenzene0.6130.510 0.000 0.150 3.778 3.316 [33]
1,2-Dimethylbenzene0.6630.560 0.000 0.160 3.939 3.462 [33]
1,3-Dimethylbenzene0.6230.520 0.000 0.160 3.839 3.320 [33]
1,4-Dimethylbenzene0.6130.520 0.000 0.160 3.839 3.398 [33]
Propylbenzene0.6040.500 0.000 0.150 4.230 3.702 [33]
1-Methyl-3-ethylbenzene0.6300.510 0.000 0.180 4.275 3.680 [33]
1-Methyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6300.510 0.000 0.180 4.289 3.790 [33]
1-Methyl-2-ethylbenzene0.6800.550 0.000 0.180 4.346 3.820 [33]
Isopropylbenzene0.6020.490 0.000 0.160 4.084 3.690 [10]
Isobutylbenzene0.5800.470 0.000 0.150 4.500 3.920 [33]
sec-Butylbenzene0.6030.480 0.000 0.160 4.506 3.930 [33]
1-Methyl-3-isopropylbenzene0.6210.490 0.000 0.190 4.556 4.000 [33]
1-Methyl-4-isopropylbenzene0.6070.490 0.000 0.190 4.590 4.010 [33]
1-Methyl-2-isopropylbenzene0.6690.530 0.000 0.190 4.622 4.080 [33]
1-Methyl-3-propylbenzene0.6240.500 0.000 0.180 4.710 4.120 [33]
1-Methyl-2-propylbenzene0.6640.540 0.000 0.180 4.766 4.170 [33]
1,3-Dimethyl-5-ethylbenzene0.6530.520 0.000 0.190 4.760 4.180 [33]
1,4-Dimethyl-2-ethylbenzene0.6930.550 0.000 0.190 4.824 4.200 [33]
1,2-Dimethyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6850.560 0.000 0.190 4.873 4.240 [33]
1,3-Dimethyl-2-ethylbenzene0.7570.600 0.000 0.190 4.866 4.260 [33]
1,2-Dimethyl-3-ethylbenzene0.7420.610 0.000 0.190 4.946 4.300 [33]
(2-Methylbutyl)benzene0.6300.480 0.000 0.170 5.128 4.380 [33]
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene0.6770.560 0.000 0.190 4.441 3.570 [10]
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene0.6490.520 0.000 0.190 4.344 3.910 [10]
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene0.7390.600 0.000 0.190 5.029 4.390 [33]
1-tert-Butyl-2-methylbenzene0.6700.570 0.000 0.220 4.998 4.420 [33]
Pentylbenzene0.5940.510 0.000 0.150 5.230 4.540 [33]
1-tert-Butyl-4-ethylbenzene0.6400.500 0.000 0.220 5.450 4.640 [33]
1-tert-Butyl-3,5-dimethylbenzene0.6650.550 0.000 0.220 5.575 4.660 [33]
1,3,5-Triethylbenzene0.6720.500 0.000 0.190 5.510 4.830 [33]
1,2,4-Triethylbenzene0.7140.530 0.000 0.210 5.586 4.880 [33]
Hexylbenzene0.5910.500 0.000 0.150 5.720 4.950 [33]
Styrene0.849 0.650 0.000 0.160 3.856 3.770 [10]
Chlorobenzene0.718 0.650 0.000 0.070 3.657 3.220 [10]
1,2-Dichlorobenzene0.872 0.780 0.000 0.040 4.518 3.770 [10]
1,3-Dichlorobenzene0.847 0.730 0.000 0.020 4.410 4.010 [10]
1,4-Dichlorobenzene0.825 0.750 0.000 0.020 4.435 3.670 [10]
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene1.030 0.860 0.000 0.000 5.419 4.360 [10]
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene0.980 0.810 0.000 0.000 5.248 4.300 [10]
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene0.980 0.730 0.000 0.000 5.045 4.210 [10]
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene1.160 0.850 0.000 0.000 5.922 5.370 [10]
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene1.160 0.860 0.000 0.000 5.926 5.070 [10]
Pentachlorobenzene1.330 0.920 0.060 0.000 6.633 5.860 [10]
Pentachlorobenzene1.330 0.920 0.060 0.000 6.633 5.660 [10]
Hexachlorobenzene1.490 0.990 0.000 0.000 7.390 6.510 [10]
2-Chlorotoluene0.762 0.650 0.000 0.070 4.173 3.680 [10]
4-Chlorotoluene0.705 0.740 0.000 0.050 4.205 3.550 [10]
Bromobenzene0.882 0.730 0.000 0.090 4.041 3.580 [10]
Iodobenzene1.188 0.820 0.000 0.120 4.502 4.010 [10]
Phenyl methyl ether0.708 0.750 0.000 0.290 3.890 3.505 [10]
Aniline0.955 0.960 0.260 0.410 3.934 4.300 [10]
2-Chloroaniline1.033 0.920 0.250 0.310 4.674 4.640 [10]
4-Chloroaniline1.060 1.130 0.300 0.310 4.889 5.170 [10]
Nitrobenzene0.871 1.110 0.000 0.280 4.557 4.230 [10]
Phenol0.805 0.890 0.600 0.300 3.766 4.320 [10]
3-Methylphenol0.822 0.880 0.570 0.340 4.310 4.570 [10]
3,5-Dimethylphenol0.820 0.840 0.570 0.360 4.856 5.020 [10]
4-Ethylphenol0.800 0.900 0.550 0.360 4.737 5.100 [10]
2-Chlorophenol0.853 0.880 0.320 0.310 4.178 3.900 [10]
3-Chlorophenol0.909 1.060 0.690 0.150 4.773 5.160 [10]
4-Fluorophenol0.670 0.970 0.630 0.230 3.844 4.260 [10]
Biphenyl1.360 0.990 0.000 0.260 6.014 5.320 [10]
Naphthalene 1.340 0.920 0.000 0.200 5.161 4.560 [10]
1-Methylnaphthalene1.337 0.940 0.000 0.220 5.802 5.050 [10]
2-Methylnaphthalene1.304 0.810 0.000 0.250 5.617 5.000 [10]
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene1.347 0.820 0.000 0.250 6.146 5.520 [10]
Acenaphthene1.604 1.050 0.000 0.220 6.469 5.990 [10]
Fluorene1.588 1.060 0.000 0.250 6.922 6.180 [10]
Phenanthrene2.055 1.290 0.000 0.260 7.632 6.800 [10]
Anthracene2.290 1.340 0.000 0.280 7.568 6.870 [10]
Fluoranthene2.377 1.550 0.000 0.240 8.827 7.700 [10]
Pyrene2.808 1.710 0.000 0.280 8.833 7.820 [10]
Chrysene3.027 1.730 0.000 0.330 10.334 9.480 [10]
Benzo[a]pyrene3.625 1.980 0.000 0.440 11.736 10.780 [10]
Perylene3.256 1.760 0.000 0.400 12.053 10.720 [10]
Benz[a]anthracene2.992 1.700 0.000 0.350 10.291 9.360 [10]
Benzo[ghi]perylene4.073 1.900 0.000 0.450 13.447 12.080 [10]
Benzonitrile0.742 1.110 0.000 0.330 4.039 4.130 [10]
Dimethyl sulfide0.404 0.430 0.000 0.270 2.037 1.960 [10]
Helium0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −1.741 −1.550 [10]
Neon0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −1.575 −1.380 [10]
Argon0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −0.688 −0.650 [10]
Krypton0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −0.211 −0.230 [10]
Xenon0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.378 0.283 [10]
Hydrogen0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −1.200 −1.300 [10]
Oxygen0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −0.723 −0.360 [10]
Nitrogen0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −0.978 −0.950 [10]
Nitrous Oxide0.068 0.350 0.000 0.100 0.164 0.280 [10]
Carbon Dioxide0.000 0.280 0.050 0.100 0.058 0.160 [10]
Tetrafluoromethane−0.580 −0.260 0.000 0.000 −0.817 −0.720 [10]
Sulfur hexafluoride−0.600 −0.200 0.000 0.000 −0.120 −0.120 [10]
Benzyl alcohol0.803 0.870 0.330 0.560 4.221 4.510 [10]
Phenethyl alcohol0.784 0.830 0.300 0.660 4.628 5.100 [10]
2,4,4′-Trichlorobiphenyl1.760 1.330 0.000 0.150 7.904 6.800 [10]
2,2′,4,5,5′-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.040 1.610 0.000 0.130 8.868 8.140 [10]
2,2′,5,5′-Tetrachlorobiphenyl1.900 1.480 0.000 0.150 8.144 7.500 [10]
Hydrogen sulfide0.350 0.310 0.100 0.070 0.723 0.700 [10]
Camphor0.500 0.690 0.000 0.710 5.084 4.630 [10]
2,2′,3,4,4′,5′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.180 1.740 0.000 0.110 9.772 8.630 [10]
2,3,3′,4,4′,5-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.210 1.720 0.000 0.090 10.200 9.180 [10]
2,2′,3,4,4′,5,5′-Heptachlorobiphenyl2.290 1.870 0.000 0.090 10.415 9.440 [10]
2,3′,4,4′,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.060 1.590 0.000 0.110 9.396 8.360 [10]
Bromoform0.974 0.680 0.150 0.060 3.784 3.430 [10]
2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.180 1.740 0.000 0.110 9.587 8.378 [10]
2,2′,4,4′,6,6′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.120 1.740 0.000 0.110 8.715 8.360 [10]
Propionaldehyde0.196 0.650 0.000 0.450 1.815 1.653 [10]
Butyraldehyde0.187 0.650 0.000 0.450 2.270 2.041 [10]
Pyridine0.631 0.840 0.000 0.520 3.022 2.986 [10]
Thiophene0.687 0.570 0.000 0.150 2.819 2.778 [10]
1,2-Dichloroethane0.420 0.640 0.100 0.110 2.573 2.431 [10]
Benzonitrile0.742 1.110 0.000 0.330 4.039 3.949 [10]
Diethyl ether0.041 0.250 0.000 0.450 2.015 1.954 [10]
Ethanethiol0.392 0.420 0.000 0.200 2.079 1.955 [10]
Linalool0.398 0.510 0.200 0.650 4.975 4.580 [11]
Acetophenone0.818 1.010 0.000 0.480 4.501 4.400 [11]
Myrcene0.483 0.290 0.000 0.320 4.513 3.930 [11]
3-Carene0.492 0.220 0.000 0.140 4.679 3.940 [11]
Terpinolene0.564 0.290 0.000 0.200 5.029 4.250 [11]
3-Bromophenol1.0601.1300.7000.1605.1445.620[10]
3-Chlorobiphenyl1.0511.0500.0000.1806.6676.190[28]
4-Chlorobiphenyl1.5001.0500.0000.1806.7186.210[28]
3,3′,4,4′-Tetrahchlorobiphenyl1.9401.4400.0000.1109.2058.290[28]
2,2′,5,5′-Tetrachlorobiphenyl1.9001.4800.0000.1508.1447.560[28]
Pentachlorophenol1.2200.9100.6600.0606.8056.310[28]
Diphenylamine1.4701.1300.3100.3197.0947.030[28]
2,4,6-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1707.2866.840[28]
2,2′,4-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1707.5216.640[28]
2,2′,3-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7501.3500.0000.1707.6477.030[28]
2,6-Dichlorobiphenyl1.6601.2200.0000.2006.7656.060[28]
2,4′,6-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7401.3500.0000.1707.6677.050[28]
3,3′,4-Trichlorobiphenyl1.7901.3100.0000.1308.3927.630[28]
2,2′,3,3′,4,4′-Hexachlorobiphenyl2.1801.7400.0000.1109.9579.020[28]
2,2′,3,4′,5′-Pentachlorobiphenyl2.0401.6100.0000.1309.0338.340[28]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, A.; Longacre, L.; Motati, R.; Acree, W.E., Jr. Abraham Solvation Parameter Model: Revised Predictive Expressions for Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane Based on Much Larger and Chemically Diverse Datasets. Compounds 2023, 3, 205-223. https://doi.org/10.3390/compounds3010017

AMA Style

Zhou A, Longacre L, Motati R, Acree WE Jr. Abraham Solvation Parameter Model: Revised Predictive Expressions for Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane Based on Much Larger and Chemically Diverse Datasets. Compounds. 2023; 3(1):205-223. https://doi.org/10.3390/compounds3010017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Amy, Laine Longacre, Ramya Motati, and William E. Acree, Jr. 2023. "Abraham Solvation Parameter Model: Revised Predictive Expressions for Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane Based on Much Larger and Chemically Diverse Datasets" Compounds 3, no. 1: 205-223. https://doi.org/10.3390/compounds3010017

APA Style

Zhou, A., Longacre, L., Motati, R., & Acree, W. E., Jr. (2023). Abraham Solvation Parameter Model: Revised Predictive Expressions for Solute Transfer into Polydimethylsiloxane Based on Much Larger and Chemically Diverse Datasets. Compounds, 3(1), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.3390/compounds3010017

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop