A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods
Abstract Background Surfactants are widely used across the globe both in industrial and consumer products. The n-octanol/water partition ratio or coefficient (log K ow) and n-octanol/water distribution coefficient (log D) are key parameters in environmental risk assessment of chemicals as they are o...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SpringerOpen
2019-01-01
|
Series: | Environmental Sciences Europe |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-018-0176-7 |
id |
doaj-848f61233c4e41adb30729be571132d0 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-848f61233c4e41adb30729be571132d02020-11-24T21:29:18ZengSpringerOpenEnvironmental Sciences Europe2190-47072190-47152019-01-0131111810.1186/s12302-018-0176-7A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methodsGeoff Hodges0Charles Eadsforth1Bart Bossuyt2Alain Bouvy3Marie-Helene Enrici4Marc Geurts5Matthias Kotthoff6Eleanor Michie7Dennis Miller8Josef Müller9Gunter Oetter10Jayne Roberts11Diederik Schowanek12Ping Sun13Joachim Venzmer14Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, UnileverCVE Consultancy LimitedHuntsman EuropeCEFICSolvayAkzo Nobel NVFraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IMESalford City CouncilClariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbHFraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IMEBASF SESafety and Environmental Assurance Centre, UnileverProcter & GambleProcter & GambleEvonik Nutrition and Care GmbHAbstract Background Surfactants are widely used across the globe both in industrial and consumer products. The n-octanol/water partition ratio or coefficient (log K ow) and n-octanol/water distribution coefficient (log D) are key parameters in environmental risk assessment of chemicals as they are often used to estimate the environmental fate and bioavailability and thus exposure and toxicity of a compound. Determining log K ow data for surfactants is a technical challenge due to their amphiphilic properties. Currently several existing experimental OECD methods (e.g. slow-stirring, HPLC, solubility ratio) and QSPR models are available for log K ow/D measurement or prediction. However, there are concerns that these methods have not been fully validated for surfactants and may not be applicable due to the specific phase behaviour of surfactants. Results The current methods were evaluated for the four surfactant classes (non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric). The solubility ratio approach, based on comparative n-octanol and water solubility measurements, did not generate robust or accurate data. The HPLC method generates consistently higher log K ow values than the slow-stirring method for non-ionics, but this positive bias could be removed using reference surfactants with log K ow values determined using the slow-stirring method. The slow-stirring method is the most widely applicable experimental method for generating log K ow/D data for all the surface-active test compounds. Generally, QSPR-predicted log K ow/D values do not correlate well with experimental values, apart for the group of non-ionic surfactants. Relatively, large differences in predicted log K ow/D values were observed when comparing various QSPR models, which were most noticeable for the ionised surfactants. Conclusions The slow-stirring method is the most widely applicable experimental method for generating log K ow/D data for all the four surfactant classes. A weight of evidence approach is considered appropriate for non-ionic surfactants using experimental and model predications. However, it is more difficult to apply this approach to ionisable surfactants. Recommendations are made for the preferred existing QSPR predictive methods for determination of log K ow/D values for the surfactant classes. Investigation of newer alternative experimental log K ow methods as well as more biologically relevant and methodologically defensible alternative methods for describing partitioning of surfactants are recommended.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-018-0176-7SurfactantsLog K ow/DExperimental methodsPredictive (QSPR) models |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Geoff Hodges Charles Eadsforth Bart Bossuyt Alain Bouvy Marie-Helene Enrici Marc Geurts Matthias Kotthoff Eleanor Michie Dennis Miller Josef Müller Gunter Oetter Jayne Roberts Diederik Schowanek Ping Sun Joachim Venzmer |
spellingShingle |
Geoff Hodges Charles Eadsforth Bart Bossuyt Alain Bouvy Marie-Helene Enrici Marc Geurts Matthias Kotthoff Eleanor Michie Dennis Miller Josef Müller Gunter Oetter Jayne Roberts Diederik Schowanek Ping Sun Joachim Venzmer A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods Environmental Sciences Europe Surfactants Log K ow/D Experimental methods Predictive (QSPR) models |
author_facet |
Geoff Hodges Charles Eadsforth Bart Bossuyt Alain Bouvy Marie-Helene Enrici Marc Geurts Matthias Kotthoff Eleanor Michie Dennis Miller Josef Müller Gunter Oetter Jayne Roberts Diederik Schowanek Ping Sun Joachim Venzmer |
author_sort |
Geoff Hodges |
title |
A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
title_short |
A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
title_full |
A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
title_fullStr |
A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparison of log K ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
title_sort |
comparison of log k ow (n-octanol–water partition coefficient) values for non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric surfactants determined using predictions and experimental methods |
publisher |
SpringerOpen |
series |
Environmental Sciences Europe |
issn |
2190-4707 2190-4715 |
publishDate |
2019-01-01 |
description |
Abstract Background Surfactants are widely used across the globe both in industrial and consumer products. The n-octanol/water partition ratio or coefficient (log K ow) and n-octanol/water distribution coefficient (log D) are key parameters in environmental risk assessment of chemicals as they are often used to estimate the environmental fate and bioavailability and thus exposure and toxicity of a compound. Determining log K ow data for surfactants is a technical challenge due to their amphiphilic properties. Currently several existing experimental OECD methods (e.g. slow-stirring, HPLC, solubility ratio) and QSPR models are available for log K ow/D measurement or prediction. However, there are concerns that these methods have not been fully validated for surfactants and may not be applicable due to the specific phase behaviour of surfactants. Results The current methods were evaluated for the four surfactant classes (non-ionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric). The solubility ratio approach, based on comparative n-octanol and water solubility measurements, did not generate robust or accurate data. The HPLC method generates consistently higher log K ow values than the slow-stirring method for non-ionics, but this positive bias could be removed using reference surfactants with log K ow values determined using the slow-stirring method. The slow-stirring method is the most widely applicable experimental method for generating log K ow/D data for all the surface-active test compounds. Generally, QSPR-predicted log K ow/D values do not correlate well with experimental values, apart for the group of non-ionic surfactants. Relatively, large differences in predicted log K ow/D values were observed when comparing various QSPR models, which were most noticeable for the ionised surfactants. Conclusions The slow-stirring method is the most widely applicable experimental method for generating log K ow/D data for all the four surfactant classes. A weight of evidence approach is considered appropriate for non-ionic surfactants using experimental and model predications. However, it is more difficult to apply this approach to ionisable surfactants. Recommendations are made for the preferred existing QSPR predictive methods for determination of log K ow/D values for the surfactant classes. Investigation of newer alternative experimental log K ow methods as well as more biologically relevant and methodologically defensible alternative methods for describing partitioning of surfactants are recommended. |
topic |
Surfactants Log K ow/D Experimental methods Predictive (QSPR) models |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-018-0176-7 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT geoffhodges acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT charleseadsforth acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT bartbossuyt acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT alainbouvy acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT marieheleneenrici acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT marcgeurts acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT matthiaskotthoff acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT eleanormichie acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT dennismiller acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT josefmuller acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT gunteroetter acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT jayneroberts acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT diederikschowanek acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT pingsun acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT joachimvenzmer acomparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT geoffhodges comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT charleseadsforth comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT bartbossuyt comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT alainbouvy comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT marieheleneenrici comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT marcgeurts comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT matthiaskotthoff comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT eleanormichie comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT dennismiller comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT josefmuller comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT gunteroetter comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT jayneroberts comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT diederikschowanek comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT pingsun comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods AT joachimvenzmer comparisonoflogkownoctanolwaterpartitioncoefficientvaluesfornonionicanioniccationicandamphotericsurfactantsdeterminedusingpredictionsandexperimentalmethods |
_version_ |
1725966271811420160 |