DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report (Posted 1/18)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report (Posted 1/18) FINAL REPORT Developing Quantum Chemical and Polyparameter Models for Predicting Environmentally Significant Parameters for New Munition Compounds SERDP Project ER-1734 MAY 2017 Dominic M. Di Toro Herbert E. Allen Stanley I. Sandler Dave Ta Fu Kuo Tifany L. Torralba–Sanchez Yuzhen Liang University of Delaware Newark, DE Ronald T. Checkai Roman G. Kuperman Michael Simini U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Geoffrey I. Sunahara Jalal Hawari Sabine G. Dodard National Research Council Canada, Biotechnology Research Institute Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. xxix KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................... xxxii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... xxxiii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. xxxiv 1 OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND .............................................................. 1 1.1 Overall Objective ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Abraham Polyparameter Model ................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Estimating Abraham Solute Parameters ........................................ 4 1.2.2 ABSOLV Estimates of Abraham Solute Parameters for Munitions Compounds .................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Quantum Chemical Estimates of Abraham Solute Parameters for Munitions Compounds ................................................................... 6 1.3 Bioconcentration Model for Plants ............................................................ 9 1.3.1 Plant-Water Partitioning ................................................................ 9 1.3.2 Plant-Cuticle Partitioning Model ................................................. 10 1.3.3 Plant Concentration Model .......................................................... 12 1.4 Bioconcentration Model for Oligochaetes ............................................... 13 1.4.1 Lipid-Water and Protein-Water Partitioning ............................... 14 1.4.2 Lipid–Water and Protein–Water pp–LFERs and Prediction of Oligochaete BCFs ........................................................................ 14 1.5 Bioconcentration Model for Fish ............................................................. 17 1.6 Model Performance and Applicability to Munitions Compounds ........... 20 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 24 2 EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF SOLVENT–WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND ABRAHAM PARAMETERS FOR MUNITION CONSTITUENTS ............................................................................................. 25 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 25 2.1.1 Polyparameter Linear Free Energy Relationships (pp-LFERs) ... 28 i 2.1.2 Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient ............................................ 29 2.2 Materials and Methods ............................................................................. 29 2.2.1 Materials ...................................................................................... 29 2.2.2 Selection of Solvent-Water Partitioning Systems ........................ 30 2.2.3 Experimental Methods ................................................................. 30 2.2.4 Determination of Abraham Solute Parameters ............................ 31 2.2.4.1 McGowan Characteristic Volume (V) .......................... 31 2.2.4.2 Excess Molar Refraction (E) ......................................... 31 2.2.4.3 Dipolarity/Polarizability (S), Hydrogen-Bond Acidity (A), and Hydrogen-Bond Basicity (B) ........................................ 32 2.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................ 32 2.3.1 Validation of Experiment Results ................................................ 32 2.3.2 Analysis of Experiment Results ................................................... 33 2.3.3 Correlation of Partition Coefficients ............................................ 36 2.3.4 Analysis of the Experimentally Derived Abraham Parameters ... 36 2.3.5 Comparison of Solvent-Water Partition Coefficients between Experimental Measurements and Model Predictions .................. 38 2.3.6 Comparison of Physico-Chemical Properties between Experimental Measurements and Model Predictions ......................................... 40 2.4 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................... 42 A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR: EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF SOLVENT–WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND ABRAHAM PARAMETERS FOR MUNITION CONSTITUENTS ................................... 48 3 QUANTUM CHEMICALLY ESTIMATED ABRAHAM SOLUTE PARAMETERS USING MULTIPLE SOLVENT-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND MOLECULAR POLARIZABILITY ................................................................ 61 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 61 3.2 Materials and Methods ............................................................................. 64 3.2.1 Data Compilation ......................................................................... 64 3.2.2 Estimating E ................................................................................. 65 3.2.3 Determining S, A, and B ............................................................... 66 3.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................ 67 3.3.1 Determining E Independently ...................................................... 67 3.3.2 Comparisons between ABSOLV and QCAP for Various Solvent-Water Systems ........................................................................................ 68 ii 3.3.3 Comparisons between ABSOLV and QCAP for Munition Constituents and Munition-like Compounds .................................................... 69 3.3.4 Adjusted Quantum Chemically Estimated Abraham Parameters (Adjusted QCAP).......................................................................................... 70 3.3.5 Comparison of QCAP and Adjusted QCAP ................................ 73 3.3.6 Comparisons between ABSOLV, QCAP, and Adjusted QCAP for Various Solvent-Water Systems .................................................. 73 3.3.7 Comparisons between ABSOLV, QCAP, and Adjusted QCAP for Munition Constituents and Munition-like Compounds ............... 74 3.3.8 Comparison of Adjusted QCAP and COSMOments ................... 75 3.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 77 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 78 B SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR: QUANTUM CHEMICAL ESTIMATED ABRAHAM SOLUTE PARAMETERS USING MULTIPLE SOLVENT-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND MOLECULAR POLARIZABILITY .......................................................................................... 85 C QUANTUM CHEMICAL ESTIMATED ABRAHAM SOLUTE PARAMETERS USING MULTIPLE SOLVENT-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS AND MOLECULAR POLARIZABILITY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION87 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 108 4 QUANTUM CHEMICALLY ESTIMATED ABRAHAM SOLUTE AND SYSTEM PARAMETERS FOR SOLVENT-WATER AND PLANT CUTICLE-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS ....................................................................... 109 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 109 4.2 Materials and Methods ........................................................................... 111 4.2.1 Partition Coefficient Data .......................................................... 111 4.2.2 Determination of System Parameters using Estimated Solute Parameters .................................................................................................... 111 4.3 Results and Discussion .......................................................................... 112 4.3.1 Analysis of the Refitted Models for Solvent-Water Systems .... 112 4.3.2 Comparison of the Original and Refitted Models for Solvent-Water Systems .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values: Volume II
    United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA 402-R-99-004B Environmental Protection August 1999 Agency UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd, VALUES Volume II: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Cadmium, Cesium, Chromium, Lead, Plutonium, Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium (3H), and Uranium UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd, VALUES Volume II: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Cadmium, Cesium, Chromium, Lead, Plutonium, Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium (3H), and Uranium August 1999 A Cooperative Effort By: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Office of Environmental Restoration U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 NOTICE The following two-volume report is intended solely as guidance to EPA and other environmental professionals. This document does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and cannot be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA may take action that is at variance with the information, policies, and procedures in this document and may change them at any time without public notice. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. ii FOREWORD Understanding the long-term behavior of contaminants in the subsurface is becoming increasingly more important as the nation addresses groundwater contamination. Groundwater contamination is a national concern as about 50 percent of the United States population receives its drinking water from groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry's Law Constants and Micellar Partitioning of Volatile Organic
    38 J. Chem. Eng. Data 2000, 45, 38-47 Henry’s Law Constants and Micellar Partitioning of Volatile Organic Compounds in Surfactant Solutions Leland M. Vane* and Eugene L. Giroux United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Partitioning of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into surfactant micelles affects the apparent vapor- liquid equilibrium of VOCs in surfactant solutions. This partitioning will complicate removal of VOCs from surfactant solutions by standard separation processes. Headspace experiments were performed to quantify the effect of four anionic surfactants and one nonionic surfactant on the Henry’s law constants of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, toluene, and tetrachloroethylene at temperatures ranging from 30 to 60 °C. Although the Henry’s law constant increased markedly with temperature for all solutions, the amount of VOC in micelles relative to that in the extramicellar region was comparatively insensitive to temperature. The effect of adding sodium chloride and isopropyl alcohol as cosolutes also was evaluated. Significant partitioning of VOCs into micelles was observed, with the micellar partitioning coefficient (tendency to partition from water into micelle) increasing according to the following series: trichloroethane < trichloroethylene < toluene < tetrachloroethylene. The addition of surfactant was capable of reversing the normal sequence observed in Henry’s law constants for these four VOCs. Introduction have long taken advantage of the high Hc values for these compounds. In the engineering field, the most common Vast quantities of organic solvents have been disposed method of dealing with chlorinated solvents dissolved in of in a manner which impacts human health and the groundwater is “pump & treat”swithdrawal of ground- environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Partition Coefficients in Mixed Surfactant Systems
    Partition coefficients in mixed surfactant systems Application of multicomponent surfactant solutions in separation processes Vom Promotionsausschuss der Technischen Universität Hamburg-Harburg zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor-Ingenieur genehmigte Dissertation von Tanja Mehling aus Lohr am Main 2013 Gutachter 1. Gutachterin: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Irina Smirnova 2. Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Gabriele Sadowski Prüfungsausschussvorsitzender Prof. Dr. Raimund Horn Tag der mündlichen Prüfung 20. Dezember 2013 ISBN 978-3-86247-433-2 URN urn:nbn:de:gbv:830-tubdok-12592 Danksagung Diese Arbeit entstand im Rahmen meiner Tätigkeit als wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Institut für Thermische Verfahrenstechnik an der TU Hamburg-Harburg. Diese Zeit wird mir immer in guter Erinnerung bleiben. Deshalb möchte ich ganz besonders Frau Professor Dr. Irina Smirnova für die unermüdliche Unterstützung danken. Vielen Dank für das entgegengebrachte Vertrauen, die stets offene Tür, die gute Atmosphäre und die angenehme Zusammenarbeit in Erlangen und in Hamburg. Frau Professor Dr. Gabriele Sadowski danke ich für das Interesse an der Arbeit und die Begutachtung der Dissertation, Herrn Professor Horn für die freundliche Übernahme des Prüfungsvorsitzes. Weiterhin geht mein Dank an das Nestlé Research Center, Lausanne, im Besonderen an Herrn Dr. Ulrich Bobe für die ausgezeichnete Zusammenarbeit und der Bereitstellung von LPC. Den Studenten, die im Rahmen ihrer Abschlussarbeit einen wertvollen Beitrag zu dieser Arbeit geleistet haben, möchte ich herzlichst danken. Für den außergewöhnlichen Einsatz und die angenehme Zusammenarbeit bedanke ich mich besonders bei Linda Kloß, Annette Zewuhn, Dierk Claus, Pierre Bräuer, Heike Mushardt, Zaineb Doggaz und Vanya Omaynikova. Für die freundliche Arbeitsatmosphäre, erfrischenden Kaffeepausen und hilfreichen Gespräche am Institut danke ich meinen Kollegen Carlos, Carsten, Christian, Mohammad, Krishan, Pavel, Raman, René und Sucre.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Distribution Coefficients from the Partition Coefficient and Pka Douglas C
    Estimation of Distribution Coefficients from the Partition Coefficient and pKa Douglas C. Scott* and Jeffrey W. Clymer he use of partition coefficients has received much atten- tion in the assessment of relative lipophilicity and hy- drophilicity of a compound. Recent advances in com- putational chemistry have enabled scientists to estimate Tpartition coefficients for neutral species very easily. For ioniz- able species, the distribution coefficient is a more relevant pa- rameter; however, less effort has been applied to its assessment. Knowledge of the distribution coefficient and pKa is important The authors discuss for the basic characterization of a compound (1), particularly the relationship when assessing the compound’s potential to penetrate biolog- between the partition ical or lipid barriers (2). In addition, the majority of compounds coefficient and the are passively absorbed and a large number of new chemical en- distribution coefficient tities fail in the development stages because of related phar- and relate the two with the use of equations. macokinetic reasons (3). Assessing a compound’s relative lipophilicity dictates a formulation strategy that will ensure ab- To accurately explain this relationship, the sorption or tissue penetration, which ultimately will lead to de- authors consider the partitioning of both the livery of the drug to the site of action. In recognition of the ionized and un-ionized species.The presence value of knowing the extent of a drug’s gastrointestinal per- of both species in the oil phase necessitates a meation along with other necessary parameters, FDA has is- dissociative equilibrium among these species sued guidance for a waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bio- such as that in the water phase.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Supplementary Material to the Paper “The Temperature and Pressure Dependence of Nickel Partitioning Between Olivine and Sili
    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL TO THE PAPER “THE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE DEPENDENCE OF NICKEL PARTITIONING BETWEEN OLIVINE AND SILICATE MELT” A. K. Matzen, M. B. Baker, J. R. Beckett, and E. M. Stolper. In this Supplement, we provide seven sections that expand and/or illustrate specific topics presented in the main text. The first section is a sample calculation using our preferred partitioning expression, equation (5), from the main text. Section 2 compares our fitted values of ∆ r HT ,P ∆ r ST ,P − ref ref and ref ref for equation (5) to those calculated using tabulated thermodynamic R R data. In Section 3, we present details of the mass-balance calculations used to evaluate the experiments from both this work and the literature, and in Section 4 we describe in detail the construction of the Filter-B dataset. Section 5 details the construction and fits of the regular solution partitioning models. Section 6 is a comparison of the results of this work and the Beattie-Jones family of models. Finally, Section 7 lists all of the references incorporated into our database on olivine-liquid Ni partitioning. 1. EXAMPLE CALCULATION USING OUR PREFERRED PARTITIONING EXPRESSION (EQUATION 5) FROM THE MAIN TEXT Although one of the simplest equations listed in the text, we think it useful to present a detailed accounting of how to use equation (5) along with the fitted parameters presented in Table 4 to ol /liq ol /liq ol liq predict DNi (where DNi = NiO /NiO , by wt.) given the temperature and compositions of the coexisting olivine and liquid. In our example calculation, we predict the partition coefficient for one of our 1.0 GPa experiments, Run 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating the Partition Coefficients of Organic Solvents in Octanol/Water and Octanol/Air
    Article Cite This: J. Chem. Inf. Model. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/jcim Calculating the Partition Coefficients of Organic Solvents in Octanol/ Water and Octanol/Air † ‡ § ∥ Miroslava A. Nedyalkova,*, Sergio Madurga, Marek Tobiszewski, and Vasil Simeonov † Inorganic Chemistry Department, Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sofia, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria ‡ Departament de Ciencià de Materials i Química Física and Institut de Química Teoricà i Computacional (IQTCUB), Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain § Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Gdansḱ University of Technology (GUT), 80-233 Gdansk,́ Poland ∥ Analytical Chemistry Department, Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sofia, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: Partition coefficients define how a solute is distributed between two immiscible phases at equilibrium. The experimental estimation of partition coefficients in a complex system can be an expensive, difficult, and time-consuming process. Here a computa- tional strategy to predict the distributions of a set of solutes in two relevant phase equilibria is presented. The octanol/water and octanol/air partition coefficients are predicted for a group of polar solvents using density functional theory (DFT) calculations in combination with a solvation model based on density (SMD) and are in excellent agreement with experimental data. Thus, the use of quantum-chemical calculations to predict partition coefficients from free energies should be a valuable alternative for unknown solvents. The obtained results indicate that the SMD continuum model in conjunction with any of the three DFT functionals (B3LYP, M06-2X, and M11) agrees with the observed experimental values. The highest correlation to experimental data for the octanol/water partition coefficients was reached by the M11 functional; for the octanol/air partition coefficient, the M06-2X functional yielded the best performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Raoult's Law – Partition Law
    BAE 820 Physical Principles of Environmental Systems Henry’s Law - Raoult's Law – Partition law Dr. Zifei Liu Biological and Agricultural Engineering Henry's law • At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. Pi = KHCi • Where Pi is the partial pressure of the gaseous solute above the solution, C is the i William Henry concentration of the dissolved gas and KH (1774-1836) is Henry’s constant with the dimensions of pressure divided by concentration. KH is different for each solute-solvent pair. Biological and Agricultural Engineering 2 Henry's law For a gas mixture, Henry's law helps to predict the amount of each gas which will go into solution. When a gas is in contact with the surface of a liquid, the amount of the gas which will go into solution is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas. An equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid. the solubility of gases generally decreases with increasing temperature. A simple rationale for Henry's law is that if the partial pressure of a gas is twice as high, then on the average twice as many molecules will hit the liquid surface in a given time interval, Biological and Agricultural Engineering 3 Air-water equilibrium Dissolution Pg or Cg Air (atm, Pa, mol/L, ppm, …) At equilibrium, Pg KH = Caq Water Caq (mol/L, mole ratio, ppm, …) Volatilization Biological and Agricultural Engineering 4 Various units of the Henry’s constant (gases in water at 25ºC) Form of K =P/C K =C /P K =P/x K =C /C equation H, pc aq H, cp aq H, px H, cc aq gas Units L∙atm/mol mol/(L∙atm) atm dimensionless -3 4 -2 O2 769 1.3×10 4.26×10 3.18×10 -4 4 -2 N2 1639 6.1×10 9.08×10 1.49×10 -2 3 CO2 29 3.4×10 1.63×10 0.832 Since all KH may be referred to as Henry's law constants, we must be quite careful to check the units, and note which version of the equation is being used.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
    Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards Prepared by Water Quality Division RG-194 June 2010 1 Contents Introduction................................................................................................. 12 Determining Water Quality Uses and Criteria........................................ 14 Classified Waters .......................................................................................................... 14 Unclassified Waters ...................................................................................................... 14 Presumed Aquatic Life Uses......................................................................................... 14 Assigned Aquatic Life Uses...................................................................................... 16 Evaluating Impacts on Water Quality...................................................... 20 General Information...................................................................................................... 20 Minimum and Seasonal Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen............................................... 21 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................ 21 Screening Process ..................................................................................................... 22 Additional Permit Limits .......................................................................................... 22 Edwards Aquifer ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation of the Water-Octanol Partition Coefficient of Cholesterol for SPC, TIP3P, and TIP4P Water
    Calculation of the water-octanol partition coefficient of cholesterol for SPC, TIP3P, and TIP4P water Cite as: J. Chem. Phys. 149, 224501 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054056 Submitted: 29 August 2018 . Accepted: 13 November 2018 . Published Online: 11 December 2018 Jorge R. Espinosa, Charlie R. Wand, Carlos Vega , Eduardo Sanz, and Daan Frenkel COLLECTIONS This paper was selected as an Editor’s Pick ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN Common microscopic structural origin for water’s thermodynamic and dynamic anomalies The Journal of Chemical Physics 149, 224502 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055908 Improved general-purpose five-point model for water: TIP5P/2018 The Journal of Chemical Physics 149, 224507 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5070137 Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water The Journal of Chemical Physics 79, 926 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.445869 J. Chem. Phys. 149, 224501 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054056 149, 224501 © 2018 Author(s). THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS 149, 224501 (2018) Calculation of the water-octanol partition coefficient of cholesterol for SPC, TIP3P, and TIP4P water Jorge R. Espinosa,1 Charlie R. Wand,2,3 Carlos Vega,1 Eduardo Sanz,1 and Daan Frenkel2 1Departamento de Quimica Fisica, Facultad de Ciencias Quimicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain 2Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom 3School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom (Received 29 August 2018; accepted 13 November 2018; published online 11 December 2018) We present a numerical study of the relative solubility of cholesterol in octanol and water.
    [Show full text]
  • And Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow) Data for Hydrophobic Organic Compounds: DDT and DDE As a Case Study
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Search for Reliable Aqueous Solubility (Sw) and Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow) Data for Hydrophobic Organic Compounds: DDT and DDE as a Case Study By James Pontolillo and Robert P. Eganhouse U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4201 Reston, Virginia 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Branch Chief U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Regional Research Branch of Information Services Eastern Region Box 25286, Federal Center U.S. Geological Survey Denver, CO 80225-0286 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Mail Stop 432 Reston, VA 20192 This report can be accessed at: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/wri01-4201/ CONTENTS Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Background..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SVOC Partitioning Between the Gas Phase and Settled Dust Indoors
    Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010) 3609e3620 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Atmospheric Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv Review SVOC partitioning between the gas phase and settled dust indoors Charles J. Weschler a,b,*, William W Nazaroff c a Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA b International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark c Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, USA article info abstract Article history: Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) are a major class of indoor pollutants. Understanding SVOC Received 17 February 2010 partitioning between the gas phase and settled dust is important for characterizing the fate of these Received in revised form species indoors and the pathways by which humans are exposed to them. Such knowledge also helps in 11 June 2010 crafting measurement programs for epidemiological studies designed to probe potential associations Accepted 14 June 2010 between exposure to these compounds and adverse health effects. In this paper, we analyze published data from nineteen studies that cumulatively report measurements of dustborne and airborne SVOCs in Keywords: more than a thousand buildings, mostly residences, in seven countries. In aggregate, measured median Exposure pathways fi Flame retardants data are reported in these studies for 66 different SVOCs whose octanol-air partition coef cients (Koa) fi Indoor environment span more than ve orders of magnitude. We use these data to test a simple equilibrium model for Octanol-air partitioning estimating the partitioning of an SVOC between the gas phase and settled dust indoors.
    [Show full text]
  • Logp—Making Sense of the Value Sanjivanjit K
    Application Note LogP—Making Sense of the Value Sanjivanjit K. Bhal Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc. Toronto, ON, Canada www.acdlabs.com Introduction The fact that water and many organic substances do not mix but form separate layers when combined together has far-reaching implications for chemistry, biology, and the environment. The partition coefficient (P) describes the propensity of a neutral (uncharged) compound to dissolve in an immiscible biphasic system of lipid (fats, oils, organic solvents) and water. In simple terms, it measures how much of a solute dissolves in the water portion versus an organic portion. Solutes that are predominantly dissolved in the water layer are called hydrophilic (water liking) and those predominantly dissolved in lipids are lipophilic (lipid liking). The partition coefficient is an important measurement of the physical nature of a substance and thereby a predictor of its behavior in different environments. The logP value provides indications on whether a substance will be absorbed by plants, animals, humans, or other living tissue; or be easily carried away and disseminated by water.1 As a result of its wide and varied applications, the partition coefficient is also referred to as Kow or Pow. The logP value is a constant defined in the following manner: LogP = log10 (Partition Coefficient) Partition Coefficient, P = [organic]/[aqueous] Where [ ] indicates the concentration of solute in the organic and aqueous partition. A negative value for logP means the compound has a higher affinity for the aqueous phase (it is more hydrophilic); when logP = 0 the compound is equally partitioned between the lipid and aqueous phases; a positive value for logP denotes a higher concentration in the lipid phase (i.e., the compound is more lipophilic).
    [Show full text]