Abstract
The literature data on solubilities and water–solvent partition coefficients have been used to obtain properties or “Absolv descriptors” for zwitterionic α-aminoacids: glycine, α-alanine (α-aminopropanoic acid), α-aminobutanoic acid, norvaline (α-aminopentanoic acid), norleucine (α-aminohexanoic acid), valine (α-amino-3-methylbutanoic acid), leucine (α-amino-4-methylpentanoic acid), and α-phenylalanine. Together with equations that we have previously constructed, these descriptors can be used to estimate further solubilities and partition coefficients in a variety of organic solvents and in water–methanol and water–ethanol mixtures. It is shown that equations for neutral solutes are inadequate for the description of solubilities and partition coefficients for these α-aminoacids, and our equations developed for use with both neutral and ionic solutes must be used. The Absolv descriptors include those for hydrogen-bond acidity, A, and hydrogen-bond basicity, B. We find that both of these descriptors are far smaller in value than those for compounds that contain the corresponding ionic groups. Thus, A for α-alanine is 0.28, but A for the ethylammonium cation is 1.31; B for α-alanine is 0.83, and yet B for the acetate anion is no less than 2.93. The additional descriptors that we developed for equations that involve ions, J+ and J–, are very significant for the α-aminoacids, although numerically smaller than for ionic species such as EtNH3+ and CH3CO2–.
Introduction
The α-aminoacids are one of the most important series of compounds in the chemical and biological sciences, and there has been a very large number of experimental and theoretical studies on this series. Campen et al.1 have shown that there are some 517 distinct scales of aminoacid properties. Even so, there are notable omissions in α-aminoacid properties. The most common methods2−4 for the estimation of water–solvent partition coefficients only apply to the water–wet octanol system and not to any other water–solvent system. The EPI method for the estimation of solubility4 applies only to solubility in water and not to any other solvent. Most surprisingly, there are no estimations of the hydrogen-bond acidity or of the hydrogen-bond basicity of α-aminoacids. The hydrogen-bond acidity of glycine might be supposed to be close to that of the ethylammonium cation, and the corresponding hydrogen-bond basicity close to that of the acetate anion, but no information on these important hydrogen-bond properties is available.
It is our aim to use known physicochemical properties of zwitterionic α-aminoacids such as water–solvent partitions and solubilities in a range of solvents to obtain “descriptors” of these aminoacids. Together with equations that we have previously obtained, these descriptors can be used to estimate further partition coefficients in various water–solvent systems and further solubilities in various solvents. Crucially, these descriptors include the hydrogen-bond acidity and hydrogen-bond basicity so that it will then be possible to compare values for α-aminoacids with those for other species, both charged and uncharged.
Methods
Over the past few years, we have developed a system of properties or descriptors of solute molecules, known as Abraham descriptors or as Absolv descriptors,5 and have constructed a data base of these solute properties, now available in the public domain.6 In conjunction with this data base, we have assembled a complementary set of equations for physicochemical and biological properties of solutes, so that a combination of solute descriptors and equation coefficients can be used to predict various physicochemical and biological properties, as set out in a number of reviews.7−11 This work3−11 dealt only with neutral species, but was extended to cover charged solutes, specifically ions such as K+ and Cl– and ionic species, defined as protonated base cations and deprotonated acid anions,12−21 as recently reviewed.22 The total method, for neutral and ionic species, has already been applied to a number of systems.23−30 Although we had descriptors for a large number of charged species,22 we have not investigated the α-aminoacids that are electrically neutral but with an internal charge separation, that is, zwitterions. Our study on betaine, Me3N+CH2CO2–, showed31 that it could not be treated as a “neutral” molecule, but that it was essential to include ionic descriptors. Since our analysis of betaine was reasonably successful, we applied the same method to the α-aminoacids.
Our general method for the analysis of neutral solutes makes use of the two linear free energy relationships, eqs 1 and 2.
 |
1 |
 |
2 |
Equation 1 is used when the dependent variable, SP, refers to a property such as a water–solvent partition coefficient, as log P, for a series of solutes in a given system. Equation 2 is used when SP refers to a gas to system partition, as a log K value, where K is the gas to system partition coefficient.
The independent variables in eqs 1 and 2 are solute descriptors as follows:7−11E is the solute excess molar refractivity in units of (cm3 mol–1)/10, S is the solute dipolarity/polarizability, A and B are the overall or summation hydrogen-bond acidity and basicity, V is the McGowan characteristic volume in units of (cm3 mol–1)/100, and L is the logarithm of the gas–hexadecane partition coefficient, at 298 K. The coefficients in eqs 1 and 2 are obtained by multiple linear regression analysis and serve to characterize the system under consideration. In the case of ionic solutes, we could not use eq 2 and so only eq 1 is relevant. This equation can be extended to ionic solutes by incorporation of two new terms, as in eq 3. The j+J+ term refers to cations, and the j–J– term refers to anions. Cations have J– = 0, anions have J+ = 0 and neutral compounds have J– = J+ = 0, so that the equation coefficients c, e, s, a, b, and v are the same for neutral molecules, ions, and ionic species. Thus, for neutral molecules, eq 3 reverts to eq 1.
 |
3 |
To apply eqs 1 or 3 to a given α-aminoacid, values of the dependent variable, SP are needed. The most direct source is a directly determined water–solvent partition coefficient, P, as log P, although for many α-aminoacids, partition coefficients are restricted to the water–wet octanol system, Poct/w. Partition coefficients can also be obtained indirectly from solubilities, in mol dm–3, in water, Cw, and a given (usually dry) solvent, Cs, through eq 4.
 |
4 |
Then, if enough values of log P, direct or indirect, are available for a given α-aminoacid, they can be combined with the corresponding equations, eq 3, and the unknown descriptors calculated by solving the set of simultaneous equations. The Microsoft “Solver” add-on is particularly useful, and any set of simultaneous equations can be solved to give a “best-fit” solution. Coefficients in eq 3 for the ionic equations that we have obtained so far are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Coefficients in Equation 3 for Water–Solvent Partitions; SP = log P.
| coefficients |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | c | e | s | a | b | v | j+ | j– |
| methanol | 0.276 | 0.334 | –0.714 | 0.243 | –3.320 | 3.549 | –2.609 | 3.027 |
| ethanol | 0.222 | 0.471 | –1.035 | 0.326 | –3.596 | 3.857 | –3.170 | 3.085 |
| propan-1-ol | 0.139 | 0.405 | –1.029 | 0.247 | –3.767 | 3.986 | –3.077 | 2.834 |
| butan-1-ol | 0.165 | 0.401 | –1.011 | 0.056 | –3.958 | 4.044 | –3.605 | 2.685 |
| hexan-1-ol | 0.115 | 0.492 | –1.164 | 0.054 | –3.971 | 4.131 | –3.100 | 2.940 |
| propan-2-ol | 0.099 | 0.344 | –1.049 | 0.406 | –3.827 | 4.033 | –3.896 | 2.889 |
| t-butanol | 0.211 | 0.171 | –0.947 | 0.331 | –4.085 | 4.109 | –4.455 | 2.953 |
| ethylene glycol | –0.270 | 0.578 | –0.511 | 0.715 | –2.619 | 2.729 | –1.300 | 2.363 |
| 1,2-propylene glycol | –0.149 | 0.754 | –0.966 | 0.684 | –3.134 | 3.247 | –1.381 | 3.057 |
| butan-1-ol, wet | 0.369 | 0.426 | –0.719 | 0.091 | –2.346 | 2.689 | –2.050 | 2.370 |
| octan-1-ol, wet | 0.088 | 0.562 | –1.054 | 0.034 | –3.460 | 3.814 | –3.023 | 2.580 |
| formamide | –0.171 | 0.070 | 0.308 | 0.589 | –3.152 | 2.432 | –3.152 | 2.432 |
| dimethylformamide | –0.305 | –0.058 | 0.343 | 0.358 | –4.865 | 4.486 | –3.605 | 0.415 |
| dimethylacetamide | –0.271 | 0.084 | 0.209 | 0.915 | –5.003 | 4.557 | 0.286 | |
| acetonitrile | 0.413 | 0.077 | 0.326 | –1.566 | –4.391 | 3.364 | –2.234 | 0.101 |
| nitromethane | 0.023 | –0.091 | 0.793 | –1.463 | –4.364 | 3.460 | –0.149 | |
| N-methylpyrrolidinone | 0.147 | 0.532 | 0.275 | 0.840 | –4.794 | 3.674 | –1.797 | 0.105 |
| dimethylsulfoxide | –0.194 | 0.327 | 0.791 | 1.260 | –4.540 | 3.361 | –3.387 | 0.132 |
| propylene carbonate | 0.004 | 0.168 | 0.504 | –1.283 | –4.407 | 3.424 | –1.989 | 0.341 |
| sulfolane | 0.000 | 0.147 | 0.601 | –0.318 | –4.541 | 3.290 | –1.200 | –0.792 |
| propanone | 0.313 | 0.312 | –0.121 | –0.608 | –4.753 | 3.942 | –2.288 | 0.078 |
| tetrahydrofuran | 0.223 | 0.363 | –0.384 | –0.238 | –4.932 | 4.450 | –2.278 | –2.132 |
| NPOEa | 0.121 | 0.600 | –0.459 | –2.246 | –3.879 | 3.574 | –2.314 | 0.350 |
| dichloromethane | 0.319 | 0.102 | –0.187 | –3.058 | –4.090 | 4.324 | –3.984 | 0.086 |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 0.183 | 0.294 | –0.134 | –2.801 | –4.291 | 4.180 | –3.429 | –0.025 |
| nitrobenzene | –0.152 | 0.525 | 0.081 | –2.332 | –4.494 | 4.187 | –3.373 | 0.777 |
| benzonitrile | 0.097 | 0.285 | 0.059 | –1.605 | –4.562 | 4.028 | –2.729 | 0.136 |
| chlorobenzene | 0.065 | 0.381 | –0.521 | –3.183 | –4.700 | 4.614 | –4.536 | –1.486 |
NPOE is o-nitrophenyloctylether.
Results
We first studied the homologous series of α-amino-n-carboxylic acids, because we thought that it is reasonable to expect that the various solute descriptors would vary regularly with the number of carbon atoms in the aminoacids, and that this would help in the assignment of descriptors.
Glycine
Values of directly determined water to (wet) octan-1-ol and water to (wet) butan-1-ol are available.2,32 We have the coefficients in eq 3 for partition into both of these solvents, see Table 1. There are a large number of recorded solubilities for glycine in water and various dry solvents, as given in Table 2(2,32−46) in terms of log C, where C is the molar solubility. There are some very large discrepancies among the recorded solubilities. For example, values of log C vary from −1.959 to −3.638 in solvent propan-1-ol and from −2.40 to −3.745 for in solvent propan-2-ol. In Table 2, we give the corresponding partition coefficients derived through eq 4, with log Cw taken as 0.49; Cw is the molar solubility in water at 298 K.32−39 The values of log P obtained through eq 4 are also in Table 2, and it is these values that we use to derive descriptors for glycine.
Table 2. Solubilities of Glycine in Water and Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| log P |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvent | log C | refs | obsa | taken | calc |
| water | 0.460 | (32) | |||
| water | 0.462 | (33, 34) | |||
| water | 0.522 | (35) | |||
| water | 0.522 | (36) | |||
| water | 0.460 | (37, 38) | |||
| water | 0.497 | (39) | |||
| methanol | –2.045 | (34) | –2.535 | –2.66 | –2.18 |
| methanol | –1.939 | (36) | –2.429 | ||
| methanol | –2.370 | (38) | –2.860 | ||
| methanol | –2.345 | (40) | –2.835 | ||
| ethanol | –2.400 | (34) | –2.890 | –3.31 | –3.15 |
| ethanol | –2.071 | (36) | –2.561 | ||
| ethanol | –3.409 | (38) | –3.899 | ||
| ethanol | –3.026 | (39) | –3.516 | ||
| ethanol | –3.188 | (40) | –3.678 | ||
| propan-1-ol | –1.959 | (34) | –2.449 | –3.30 | –3.34 |
| propan-1-ol | –2.826 | (39) | –3.316 | ||
| propan-1-ol | –3.638 | (40) | –4.128 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –4.824 | (36) | –5.314 | –3.55 | –3.89 |
| propan-2-ol | –2.400 | (34) | –2.890 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –3.030 | (39) | –3.520 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –3.745 | (34) | –4.235 | ||
| butan-1-ol | –4.018 | (38) | –4.508 | –4.45b | –3.78b |
| butan-1-ol | –3.921 | (40) | –4.411 | ||
| tert-butanol | –2.400 | (34) | –2.890 | –4.25 | –4.12 |
| tert-butanol | –4.886 | (35) | –5.376 | ||
| tert-butanol | –4.000 | (40) | –4.490 | ||
| ethylene glycol | –0.711 | (41) | –1.201 | –1.20 | –1.40 |
| ethylene glycol | –0.709 | (42) | –1.199 | ||
| DMSO | –1.338 | (41) | –1.828 | –1.83 | –1.34 |
| dioxane | –2.710 | (43) | –3.200 | –3.20 | |
| acetonitrile | –1.453 | (42) | –1.943 | –1.94 | –1.83 |
| propanone | –4.516 | (38) | –5.006 | –5.01b | –2.48b |
| formamide | –1.077 | (38) | –1.567 | –1.57 | –1.46 |
| dimethylformamide | –1.362 | (44) | –1.852 | –1.85 | –2.49 |
| 2-methoxyethanol | –0.627 | (45) | –1.117 | –1.12 | |
| 1,2-dimethoxyethane | –0.728 | (46) | –1.218 | –1.22 | |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –3.21c | –3.21 | –3.34 | |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (2, 32) | –1.81c | –1.81 | –1.76 | |
With log C in water taken as 0.490.
Not used in the calculations.
Direct determination.
In addition to solubilities in pure solvents, there are also available solubilities in aqueous methanol25,27,34,36 and aqueous ethanol,25,28−30,33,37,39 for which we have the coefficients in the ionic equation, eq 3, see Table 3. We combined the various solubilities to obtain log P values from methanol to water–methanol mixtures and from water to water–ethanol mixtures, using our selected log P values for partition to 100% methanol and 100% ethanol, for consistency. The log P values that we obtained are in Table 4.
Table 3. Coefficients in Equation 3 for Water–Methanol and Water–Ethanol Partitions, SP = log P; Composition of Mixtures Given as Volume %.
| coefficients |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | c | e | s | a | b | v | j+ | j– |
| methanol | 0.276 | 0.334 | –0.714 | 0.243 | –3.320 | 3.549 | –2.609 | 3.027 |
| 95% | 0.270 | 0.278 | –0.520 | 0.230 | –3.368 | 3.365 | –2.661 | 2.909 |
| 90% | 0.258 | 0.250 | –0.452 | 0.229 | –3.206 | 3.175 | –2.629 | 2.707 |
| 80% | 0.172 | 0.197 | –0.319 | 0.241 | –2.912 | 2.842 | –2.540 | 2.421 |
| 70% | 0.098 | 0.192 | –0.260 | 0.266 | –2.558 | 2.474 | –2.267 | 2.164 |
| 60% | 0.053 | 0.207 | –0.238 | 0.272 | –2.157 | 2.073 | –1.978 | 1.872 |
| 50% | 0.023 | 0.223 | –0.222 | 0.264 | –1.747 | 1.662 | –1.588 | 1.569 |
| 40% | 0.020 | 0.222 | –0.205 | 0.218 | –1.329 | 1.259 | –1.329 | 1.259 |
| 30% | 0.016 | 0.187 | –0.172 | 0.165 | –0.953 | 0.898 | –0.823 | 0.930 |
| 20% | 0.022 | 0.142 | –0.138 | 0.088 | –0.574 | 0.559 | –0.465 | 0.599 |
| 10% | 0.012 | 0.072 | –0.081 | 0.026 | –0.249 | 0.266 | –0.185 | 0.287 |
| ethanol | 0.222 | 0.471 | –1.035 | 0.326 | –3.596 | 3.857 | –3.170 | 3.085 |
| 96% | 0.238 | 0.353 | –0.833 | 0.297 | –3.533 | 3.724 | –3.020 | 2.970 |
| 95% | 0.239 | 0.328 | –0.795 | 0.294 | –3.514 | 3.697 | –2.985 | 2.943 |
| 90% | 0.243 | 0.213 | –0.575 | 0.262 | –3.450 | 3.545 | –2.794 | 2.837 |
| 80% | 0.172 | 0.175 | –0.465 | 0.260 | –3.212 | 3.323 | –2.466 | 2.722 |
| 70% | 0.063 | 0.085 | –0.368 | 0.311 | –2.936 | 3.102 | –2.203 | 2.550 |
| 60% | –0.040 | 0.138 | –0.335 | 0.293 | –2.675 | 2.812 | –1.858 | 2.394 |
| 50% | –0.142 | 0.124 | –0.252 | 0.251 | –2.275 | 2.415 | –1.569 | 2.051 |
| 40% | –0.221 | 0.131 | –0.159 | 0.171 | –1.809 | 1.918 | –1.271 | 1.676 |
| 30% | –0.269 | 0.107 | –0.098 | 0.133 | –1.316 | 1.414 | –0.941 | 1.290 |
| 20% | –0.252 | 0.042 | –0.040 | 0.096 | –0.823 | 0.916 | –0.677 | 0.851 |
| 10% | –0.173 | –0.023 | –0.001 | 0.065 | –0.372 | 0.454 | –0.412 | 0.401 |
Table 4. Values of log P for Glycine from Water to Water–Methanol and Water–Ethanol Mixtures.
| methanol (%) | obs | calc | ethanol (%) | obs | calc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | –2.925 | –2.750 | |||
| 95 | –2.177 | –1.999 | 95 | –2.856 | –2.670 |
| 90 | –1.973 | –1.902 | 90 | –2.538 | –2.218 |
| 80 | –1.631 | –1.723 | 80 | –2.009 | –1.865 |
| 70 | –1.404 | –1.525 | 70 | –1.594 | –1.612 |
| 60 | –1.150 | –1.355 | 60 | –1.259 | –1.437 |
| 50 | –0.967 | –1.130 | 50 | –0.980 | –1.233 |
| 40 | –0.710 | –0.962 | 40 | –0.739 | –0.997 |
| 30 | –0.461 | –0.645 | 30 | –0.522 | –0.770 |
| 20 | –0.300 | –0.400 | 20 | –0.324 | –0.551 |
| 10 | –0.125 | –0.185 | 10 | –0.148 | –0.322 |
There were a number of solvents, 2-methoxyethanol, dioxane, and 1,2-dimethoxyethane, for which we had coefficients only for neutral species. However, we were still left with log P values for 35 solvents or solvent mixtures. The log P values for water to propanone and water to butan-1-ol (and hence the corresponding solubilities) were quite out of line, and so we were left with 33 values. We obtained a value of E = 0.476 for the neutral species NH2CH2CO2H from a refractive index calculated by the ChemSketch program.3 Judging from our results on base cations and acid anions, we can take E for the zwitterionic species as that for the neutral species. Similarly, we take V = 0.5646 for the neutral species as that for the zwitterion. Then, we have five descriptors, S, A, B, J+, and J– to obtain from 33 simultaneous equations. The descriptors in Table 5 yield a standard deviation SD = 0.241 log units between observed and calculated log P values. The number of data points used is N. In view of the large discrepancies in the solubilities of glycine, the SD value is as small as could reasonably be expected. The calculated log P values for the water–methanol and water–ethanol mixtures are in Table 4, and the calculated log P values for the organic solvents are in Table 2. We also used exactly the same 33 equations to obtain descriptors through the neutral eq 1, that is with j+ and j– taken as zero. The SD now rises considerably to 0.348 log units, see Table 5.
Table 5. Solute Descriptors Obtained from Equation 3.
| descriptors | E | S | A | B | V | J+ | J– | N | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glycine | 0.476 | 2.12 | 0.27 | 0.72 | 0.5646 | 0.5854 | 0.2483 | 33 | 0.241 |
| α-alanine | 0.460 | 2.58 | 0.28 | 0.83 | 0.7055 | 0.6226 | 0.4186 | 30 | 0.206 |
| α-aminobuta | 0.455 | 2.63 | 0.28 | 0.94 | 0.8464 | 0.5170 | 0.3871 | 17 | 0.180 |
| norvalineb | 0.454 | 2.20 | 0.33 | 0.92 | 0.9873 | 0.5106 | 0.2001 | 27 | 0.138 |
| norleucinec | 0.449 | 2.10 | 0.32d | 0.96 | 1.1282 | 0.5227 | 0.2356 | 17 | 0.155 |
| valine | 0.439 | 2.38 | 0.32d | 0.95 | 0.9873 | 0.5804 | 0.2897 | 27 | 0.204 |
| leucine | 0.438 | 2.61 | 0.32d | 0.96 | 1.1282 | 0.3397 | 0.1336 | 13 | 0.074 |
| α-phenylalanine | 1.150 | 2.48 | 0.77 | 1.70 | 1.3133 | 0.1907 | 0.5312 | 30 | 0.144 |
| glycine | 0.476 | 1.92 | 0.19 | 1.05 | 0.5646 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0.348 |
| α-alanine | 0.460 | 2.14 | 0.30 | 1.09 | 0.7055 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 0.345 |
| α-aminobutanoic | 0.455 | 2.18 | 0.49 | 1.14 | 0.8464 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0.331 |
| norvaline | 0.454 | 2.05 | 0.34 | 1.20 | 0.9873 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0.214 |
| α-phenylalanine | 1.150 | 1.58 | 1.00 | 1.65 | 1.3133 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0.330 |
α-Aminobutanoic acid.
α-Aminopentanoic acid.
α-Aminohexanoic acid.
Value of A fixed.
α-Alanine (α-Aminopropanoic Acid)
For α-alanine, there is also a substantial data available. As for glycine, water to (wet) octan-1-ol and water to (wet) butan-1-ol partition coefficients are known.2,32 The solubilities of l-α-alanine and dl-α-alanine in water are almost the same, with log Cw = 0.260.34−37,39,44−48 Solubilities are also known in organic solvents,34−36,38,39,41−48 water–methanol mixtures33,36 and water–ethanol mixtures.33,36,37 We used log Cw = 0.260 to convert solubilities into values of log P through eq 4, see Tables 6 and 7. We obtained E = 0.460 and V = 0.7055 as for glycine and then had five descriptors to obtain from 30 simultaneous equations. The best-fit descriptors are in Table 5. Together with the corresponding equations for log P, these yield the calculated log P values in Tables 6 and 7. The descriptors in Table 5 give SD = 0.206 log units between observed and calculated log P values. If the neutral equation, eq 1 is used, the SD is considerably increased to 0.345 log units, see Table 5.
Table 6. Solubilities of α-Alanine in Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| log P |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | log C | refs | obs | taken | calc |
| methanol | –1.921 | (34) | –2.181 | –2.30 | –1.95 |
| methanol | –3.119 | (37) | –3.379 | ||
| methanol | –2.045 | (36) | –2.305 | ||
| ethanol | –2.700 | (34) | –2.960 | –2.96 | –3.06 |
| ethanol | –2.301 | (36) | –2.561 | ||
| ethanol | –2.694 | (39) | –2.954 | ||
| propan-1-ol | –2.700 | (34) | –2.960 | –3.56 | –3.31 |
| propan-1-ol | –2.588 | (39) | –2.848 | ||
| propan-1-ol | –3.297 | (47) | –3.557 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –2.400 | (34) | –2.660 | –3.86 | –3.88 |
| propan-2-ol | –2.523 | (36) | –2.783 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –2.458 | (39) | –2.718 | ||
| propan-2-ol | –3.607 | (44) | –3.867 | ||
| tert-butanol | –2.401 | (34) | –2.660 | –2.94a | –4.09a |
| tert-butanol | –2.680 | (35) | –2.940 | ||
| ethylene glycol | –0.824 | (44) | –1.076 | –1.08 | –1.19 |
| ethylene glycol | –0.816 | (42) | –1.084 | ||
| ethylene glycol | –0.814 | (41) | –1.074 | ||
| DMSO | –1.339 | (41) | –1.599 | –1.12 | –1.10 |
| DMSO | –0.859 | (48) | –1.119 | ||
| dioxane | –3.873 | (43) | –4.133 | –4.13 | |
| acetonitrile | –1.443 | (42) | –1.693 | –1.69 | –1.77 |
| dimethylformamide | –1.319 | (44) | –1.579 | –1.58a | –2.29a |
| 2-methoxyethanol | –0.678 | (45) | –0.938 | –0.94 | |
| 1,2-dimethoxyethane | –0.833 | (46) | –1.093 | –1.09 | |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –2.96 | –2.96 | –3.35 | |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (32) | –1.60 | –1.60 | –1.65 | |
Not used in the calculations.
Table 7. Values of log P for α-Alanine from Water to Water–Methanol and Water–Ethanol Mixtures.
| methanol (%) | obs | calc | ethanol (%) | obs | calc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | –2.58 | –2.61 | |||
| 95 | –2.16 | –1.74 | 95 | –2.50 | –2.51 |
| 90 | –2.01 | –1.66 | 90 | –2.14 | –1.98 |
| 80 | –1.67 | –1.47 | 80 | –1.60 | –1.59 |
| 70 | –1.33 | –1.29 | 70 | –1.25 | –1.31 |
| 60 | –1.01 | –1.17 | 60 | –0.99 | –1.15 |
| 50 | –0.74 | –0.98 | 50 | –0.78 | –0.97 |
| 40 | –0.52 | –0.86 | 40 | –0.59 | –0.76 |
| 30 | –0.35 | –0.58 | 30 | –0.39 | –0.58 |
| 20 | –0.22 | –0.36 | 20 | –0.20 | –0.41 |
| 10 | –0.12 | –0.17 | 10 | –0.05 | –0.24 |
α-Aminobutanoic Acid
There is less data for α-aminobutanoic acid, but log P values into wet octan-1-ol2 and wet butan-1-ol are available,32 and solubilities in water,45,46,49,50 organic solvents,41,42,44,45 and water–ethanol37 mixtures have been determined for dl-α-aminobutanoic acid. Values of log C and derived values of log P are in Table 8, the latter using a value of 0.333 for log Cw for water. There are 17 values of log P, for which we have the corresponding equation coefficients. We take E = 0.455 and V = 0.8464, obtained as for glycine and α-alanine. If we omit the value for dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), we are left with a set of 17 simultaneous equations. These yield the descriptors given in Table 5 and the calculated values of log P, as shown in Table 8. The observed and calculated log P values yield SD = 0.180 log units. If the set of 17 simultaneous equations is solved using the neutral equations, the SD rises to 0.331 log units, with the descriptors given in Table 5.
Table 8. Solubilities of dl-α-Aminobutanoic Acid in Water and Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| log P |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | log C | refs | obs | taken | calc |
| ethanol | –2.507 | (37) | –2.84 | –2.84 | –2.73 |
| ethylene glycol | –0.584 | (42) | –0.92 | –0.93 | –1.06 |
| ethylene glycol | –0.604 | (44) | –0.94 | ||
| ethylene glycol | –0.606 | (41) | –0.94 | ||
| DMSO | –1.171 | (41) | –1.50 | –1.50a | –0.74a |
| acetonitrile | –1.284 | (42) | –1.62 | –1.62 | –1.53 |
| dimethylformamide | –1.372 | (44) | –1.71 | –1.71 | –1.81 |
| 2-methoxyethanol | –0.664 | (45) | –1.00 | –1.00 | |
| ethanol | |||||
| 96% | (37) | –2.48 | –2.48 | –2.29 | |
| 95% | (37) | –2.37 | –2.37 | –2.20 | |
| 90% | (37) | –1.99 | –1.99 | –1.69 | |
| 80% | (37) | –1.43 | –1.43 | –1.33 | |
| 70% | (37) | –1.07 | –1.07 | –1.07 | |
| 60% | (37) | –0.84 | –0.84 | –0.95 | |
| 50% | (37) | –0.66 | –0.66 | –0.79 | |
| 40% | (37) | –0.50 | –0.50 | –0.62 | |
| 30% | (37) | –0.36 | –0.36 | –0.47 | |
| 20% | (37) | –0.22 | –0.22 | –0.33 | |
| 10% | (37) | –0.09 | –0.09 | –0.19 | |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –2.53 | –2.53 | –3.01 | |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (32) | –1.34 | –1.34 | –1.28 | |
Not used in the calculations.
Norvaline (α-Aminopentanoic Acid)
Values of log P from water to wet butan-1-ol and wet octan-1-ol are known for norvaline,2,32 and solubilities of dl-norvaline are available in water, log Cw = −0.168,44,45 and in a limited number of organic solvents,41,42,44−46 as shown in Table 9. Wang et al.51 have determined solubilities of l-norvaline in methanol, ethanol, and their aqueous mixture but not in water itself. Klimov and Deshcherevsky52 determined that log Cw = −0.153 for l-norvaline, and we obtain values of log P using log Cw = −0.168 and −0.153 for dl-norvaline and l-norvaline, respectively, see Table 9. We take E = 0.454 and V = 0.9873; if the datum in DMSO is neglected, we have 27 equations and derive the remaining descriptors, see Table 5, with an SD of 0.138 log units. If the neutral equations are used to obtain descriptors, the SD rises to 0.214 log units, see Table 5.
Table 9. Solubilities of Norvaline in Water and Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| log P |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | isomer | log C | refs | obs | calc |
| water | dl | –0.166 | (44) | ||
| water | dl | –0.169 | (45) | ||
| ethylene glycol | dl | –0.811 | (42) | –0.643 | –0.812 |
| DMSO | dl | –1.334 | (41) | –1.166a | –0.483a |
| acetonitrile | dl | –1.348 | (42) | –1.180 | –1.207 |
| dimethylformamide | dl | –1.520 | (44) | –1.352 | –1.298 |
| 2-methoxyethanol | dl | –0.836 | (45) | –0.668 | |
| 1,2-dimethoxyethane | dl | –1.014 | (46) | –0.846 | |
| water | l | –0.153 | (52) | ||
| ethanol | l | (51) | –2.359 | –2.253 | |
| 96% | l | (51) | –2.135 | –1.885 | |
| 95% | l | (51) | –2.069 | –1.809 | |
| 80% | l | (51) | –1.265 | –1.097 | |
| 70% | l | (51) | –0.979 | –0.879 | |
| 60% | l | (51) | –0.801 | –0.789 | |
| 50% | l | (51) | –0.656 | –0.671 | |
| 40% | l | (51) | –0.525 | –0.551 | |
| 30% | l | (51) | –0.396 | –0.438 | |
| 20% | l | (51) | –0.268 | –0.324 | |
| 10% | l | (51) | –0.138 | –0.192 | |
| methanol | l | (51) | –1.447 | –1.364 | |
| 95% | l | (51) | –1.327 | –1.249 | |
| 90% | l | (51) | –1.196 | –1.187 | |
| 80% | l | (51) | –0.972 | –1.070 | |
| 70% | l | (51) | –0.808 | –0.955 | |
| 60% | l | (51) | –0.684 | –0.878 | |
| 50% | l | (51) | –0.580 | –0.755 | |
| 40% | l | (51) | –0.479 | –0.677 | |
| 30% | l | (51) | –0.374 | –0.455 | |
| 20% | l | (51) | –0.261 | –0.286 | |
| 10% | l | (51) | –0.139 | –0.130 | |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –2.11 | –2.43 | ||
| butan-1-ol, wet | (32) | –0.98 | –1.09 | ||
Not used.
Norleucine (α-Aminohexanoic Acid)
Values of log P from water to wet butan-1-ol and wet octan-1-ol are known for norleucine,2 and solubilities are available for dl-norleucine in water–ethanol mixtures38 and in a few organic solvents,38 as set out in Table 10. We took E = 0.449 and V = 1.1282, calculated as before. Then, using log Cw = −1.062, we obtained the given log P (obs) values. The log P value for propanone was considerably out of line, but the remaining log P values yielded 17 simultaneous equations from which we could calculate the descriptors shown in Table 5. The set of equations and calculated solute descriptors yield observed and calculated values of log P with SD = 0.153 log units.
Table 10. Solubilities of dl-Norleucine in Water and Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| log P |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | log C | refs | obs | calc |
| water | –1.062 | (38) | ||
| formamide | –1.762 | (38) | –0.70 | –0.72 |
| propanone | –4.101 | (38) | –3.04a | –1.26a |
| methanol | –2.068 | (38) | –1.01 | –0.90 |
| butan-1-ol | –3.474 | (38) | –2.41 | –2.33 |
| ethanol | –2.982 | (38) | –1.92 | –1.73 |
| 96% | –2.663 | (38) | –1.60 | –1.40 |
| 95% | –2.593 | (38) | –1.53 | –1.33 |
| 90% | –1.888 | (38) | –0.83 | –0.96 |
| 80% | –1.671 | (38) | –0.61 | –0.69 |
| 70% | –1.563 | (38) | –0.50 | –0.50 |
| 60% | –1.504 | (38) | –0.44 | –0.44 |
| 50% | –1.450 | (38) | –0.39 | –0.38 |
| 40% | –1.378 | (38) | –0.32 | –0.32 |
| 30% | –1.279 | (38) | –0.22 | –0.26 |
| 20% | –1.165 | (38) | –0.10 | –0.21 |
| 10% | –1.162 | (38) | –0.10 | –0.14 |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –1.54 | –1.92 | |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (2, 32) | –0.51 | –0.76 | |
Not used.
Valine (α-Amino-3-methylbutanoic Acid)
log P values for partition to wet octan-1-ol (−2.26) and to wet butan-1-ol (−1.14) are known,2,32 and solubilities are available in water, organic solvents,34,35,37,43 water–methanol,34,36,45 and water–ethanol mixtures.37,53 The solubilities of l-valine and dl-valine differ somewhat. In water, values of log C are −0.122,35,36,43 and −0.243.37 However, log P values to water–ethanol mixtures as calculated from solubilities of l-valine and dl-valine in water and water–ethanol mixtures37,53 are essentially the same for both isomers, as expected. In Table 11 are given values of log P as obtained from solubilities of l-valine in water and organic solvents or from solubilities of dl-valine in water and organic solvents. The total of log P values is in Table 11. We took E = 0.439 and V = 0.9873, as before, and used 27 simultaneous equations to obtain the descriptors given in Table 5; the value of A = 0.32 was fixed by comparison to other aminoacids. For the 27 observed and calculated values of log P in Table 11, SD = 0.204 log units.
Table 11. Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K for Valine at 298 K.
| log P |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| solvents | refs | obs | calc |
| methanol | (34) | –1.63 | –1.50 |
| propan-1-ol | (34) | –2.40 | –2.67 |
| propan-2-ol | (34) | –3.53 | –3.21 |
| tert-butanol | (35) | –3.58 | –3.43 |
| dioxane | (43) | –2.48 | |
| ethanol | (37) | –2.65 | –2.48 |
| 96% | (37) | –2.27 | –2.08 |
| 95% | (37) | –2.18 | –2.00 |
| 90% | (37, 53) | –1.81 | –1.54 |
| 80% | (37, 53) | –1.30 | –1.20 |
| 70% | (37, 53) | –0.99 | –0.96 |
| 60% | (37, 53) | –0.81 | –0.84 |
| 50% | (37, 53) | –0.67 | –0.71 |
| 40% | (37, 53) | –0.55 | –0.57 |
| 30% | (37, 53) | –0.40 | –0.44 |
| 20% | (37, 53) | –0.25 | –0.33 |
| 10% | (37, 53) | –0.10 | –0.19 |
| methanol | |||
| 90% | (34) | –1.28 | –1.30 |
| 80% | (34, 45) | –1.05 | –1.17 |
| 60% | (34, 45) | –0.71 | –0.95 |
| 50% | (34) | –0.59 | –0.82 |
| 40% | (34, 36, 45) | –0.46 | –0.74 |
| 30% | (34, 36) | –0.36 | –0.49 |
| 20% | (34, 36, 45) | –0.21 | –0.31 |
| 10% | (34, 36) | –0.11 | –0.14 |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –2.26 | –2.69 |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (2, 32) | –1.14 | –1.61 |
Leucine (α-Amino-4-methylpentanoic Acid)
Dey and Lahiri36 report solubilities of l-leucine in water, water–methanol, water–ethanol, and water-propan-2-ol mixtures. The derived log P values for water to pure solvents are in Table 12. Cohn et al.37 also determined solubilities of l-leucine in water–ethanol mixtures, but the value of log P from water to ethanol is −2.13, as compared to that of −1.54 by Dey and Larhiri.36 Pal et al.35 listed similar data in water-tert–butanol mixtures, and the log P value from water to tert-butanol itself is in Table 12. Also given2,32 are log P values from water to wet octan-1-ol and wet butan-1-ol. Gekko54 has determined solubilities in water–methanol mixtures, and his values in water and pure methanol lead to a log P value of −1.05, as compared to the value of −1.48 from Dey and Lahiri.36
Table 12. Solubilities of Leucine in Water and Organic Solvents, as log C, and Water–Solvent Partition Coefficients, as log P, at 298 K.
| solvents | refs | obs | calc |
|---|---|---|---|
| methanol | (36) | –1.48 | |
| methanol | (54) | –1.05 | –0.94 |
| 90% methanol | (54) | –0.79 | –0.69 |
| 80% methanol | (54) | –0.55 | –0.55 |
| 70 % methanol | (54) | –0.49 | –0.49 |
| 60% methanol | (54) | –0.47 | –0.49 |
| 50% methanol | (54) | –0.37 | –0.46 |
| 40% methanol | (54) | –0.35 | –0.45 |
| 30% methanol | (54) | –0.29 | –0.33 |
| 20% methanol | (54) | –0.18 | –0.23 |
| 10% methanol | (54) | –0.13 | –0.11 |
| ethanol | (37) | –2.13 | –1.83 |
| ethanol | (36) | –1.54 | |
| propan-2-ola | (36) | –1.63 | –2.33 |
| tert-butanola | (35) | –1.65 | –2.40 |
| octan-1-ol, wet | (2) | –2.06 | –2.03 |
| butan-1-ol, wet | (2, 32) | –0.74 | 0.88 |
Not used.
The derived log P values in Table 12 for partition from water to methanol and ethanol are very inconsistent. In addition, those for partition into propan-2-ol and tert-butanol are far out of line by comparison with those for the other α-aminoacids. The only way that we could assign descriptors to leucine was on the basis of the already obtained descriptors for the other α-aminoacids listed in Table 5. The suggested descriptors for leucine are in Table 5 and lead to the calculated log P values in Table 12. Clearly, more data on leucine are needed.
Phenylalanine
Solubilities have been determined for both l-phenylalanine and dl-phenylalanine. In water, at 298 K, values of log Cw are −0.762 for l-phenylalanine33−36,54,55 and −1.065 for dl-phenylalanine.56−59 We use the values of log Cw = −0.762 and −1.065 to convert solubilities of l-phenylalanine33,54 and dl-phenylalanine40 in solvents to the corresponding log P values; details are in Table 13. Gomaa60 has determined solubilities of phenylalanine in several solvents. There is no indication of which isomer was used, but we have simply calculated log P values from the given solubilities in solvents and in water, see Table 13. There should be no difference in the log P values for l-phenylalanine and dl-phenylalanine for transfer to a given solvent. Also included in Table 13 are recent determinations of solubilities and hence log P values in dimethylsulfoxide,61 methanol,62 and ethanol.63 Where necessary, we have averaged the various values. Also, given2 are experimental values of log P for partition into wet octan-1-ol and wet butan-1-ol.
Table 13. Partition Coefficients for either l-Phenylalanine or dl-Phenylalanine, as log P, at 298 K.
| solvents | obs | refs | taken | calc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| methanol | –1.040 | (40) | –0.950 | –0.796 |
| methanol | –0.893 | (33) | ||
| methanol | –0.844 | (54) | ||
| methanol | –0.919 | (60) | ||
| methanol | –1.053 | (62) | ||
| ethanol | –1.830 | (40) | –1.887 | –1.534 |
| ethanol | –1.934 | (33) | ||
| ethanol | –1.891 | (60) | ||
| ethanol | –1.895 | (62) | ||
| propan-1-ol | –2.250 | (40) | –2.093 | –2.007 |
| propan-1-ol | –1.936 | (33) | ||
| butan-1-ol | –2.360 | (40) | –2.360 | –2.517 |
| propan-2-ol | –2.440 | (40) | –2.338 | –2.213 |
| propan-2-ol | –2.236 | (33) | ||
| tert-butanol | –2.790 | (40) | –2.515 | –2.515 |
| tert-butanol | –2.240 | (33) | ||
| 90% ethanol | –1.089 | (33) | –1.089 | –0.972 |
| 80% ethanol | –0.499 | (54) | –0.499 | –0.700 |
| 70% ethanol | –0.536 | (33) | –0.536 | –0.495 |
| 60% ethanol | –0.336 | (54) | –0.336 | –0.424 |
| 50% ethanol | –0.311 | (33) | –0.311 | –0.337 |
| 40% ethanol | –0.267 | (54) | –0.267 | –0.242 |
| 30% ethanol | –0.240 | (33) | –0.240 | –0.161 |
| 20% ethanol | –0.157 | (54) | –0.157 | –0.102 |
| 10% ethanol | –0.080 | (33) | –0.080 | –0.054 |
| 90% methanol | –0.679 | (33) | –0.679 | –0.743 |
| 80% methanol | –0.499 | (54) | –0.499 | –0.623 |
| 70% methanol | –0.390 | (33) | –0.390 | –0.504 |
| 60% methanol | –0.336 | (54) | –0.336 | –0.417 |
| 50% methanol | –0.311 | (33) | –0.311 | –0.324 |
| 40% methanol | –0.267 | (54) | –0.267 | –0.256 |
| 30% methanol | –0.240 | (33) | –0.240 | –0.172 |
| 20% methanol | –0.157 | (54) | –0.157 | –0.101 |
| 10% methanol | –0.080 | (33) | –0.080 | –0.043 |
| octan-1-ol, wet | –1.630 | (2) | –1.630 | –1.930 |
| butan-1-ol, wet | –0.580 | (2) | –0.580 | –0.443 |
| dimethylformamide | –1.793 | (60) | –1.793 | –2.092 |
| acetonitrile | –3.457 | (60) | –3.457 | –3.315 |
| dimethylsulfoxide | –1.299 | (60) | –1.000 | –0.766 |
| dimethylsulfoxide | –1.000 | (61) | ||
| propanone | –2.132a | (60) | –3.394 |
Not used.
We calculated E = 1.15 in the same way as for glycine, and we took V = 1.3133 the same as the corresponding neutral species. We have data for 30 solvents, including aprotic solvents, and derive the descriptors in Table 5 with an SD of 0.144 log units as between observed (taken) and calculated log P values. If the analysis is carried out with the neutral equations, SD rises to 0.330 log units.
Discussion
There are a number of other zwitterionic α-aminoacids to those in Table 5 for which solubility data are available. The latter invariably refer only to hydroxylic solvents and water–solvent mixtures. In these cases, the set of simultaneous equations for a given aminoacid can still be solved, but there then exists numerous solutions that have nearly the same statistical quality, so that no definite set of descriptors can be obtained. Unless data in a number of aprotic solvents such as dimethylsulfoxide, dimethylformamide, acetonitrile, and also propylene carbonate are available, it is difficult to use our method of simultaneous equations to determine descriptors. Exceptions are norleucine, valine, and leucine that are structurally so close to other α-aminoacids, Table 5, that it is possible to estimate some of their descriptors.
One complication is that many α-aminoacids exist as optical isomers (especially as the l- or dl-forms). Although the l- and d-isomers will have the same solubilities, the dl-form may have different solubilities to the l- and d-forms. Then, application of eq 4 requires that log Cs and log Cw refer to the same isomer. Of course any value of log P obtained through eq 4 or directly determined will be the same for an l- or dl-isomer.
An objective of this work was to establish if the properties of α-aminoacids could reasonably be estimated using our simple equation for neutral species, eq 1, or whether the more complicated “ionic” equation, eq 3 should be used. For the five α-aminoacids in Table 5 for which we have reliable descriptors, the average SD as between observed and calculated values of log P is 0.182 log units, which suggests that we can predict further values of log P to about 0.20 log units. Once a given value of log P has been estimated through a combination of descriptors and equation coefficients, the corresponding value of log Cs can be obtained from log Cw, eq 4. If the neutral equation eq 1 is used, the average SD for the five α-aminoacids rises to 0.314 log units. However, we expect that the SD from an equation with five descriptors will be larger than the SD from an equation with seven descriptors. We, therefore, carried out a multiple linear regression of the 33 log P values for glycine against the five solvent descriptors E, S, A, B, and V and found that the Fisher F-statistic was 172.2. For a regression against the seven solvent descriptors E, S, A, B, V, J+, and J–, we found that F = 206.0, so that even when taking into account the extra two descriptors, the equation with J+ and J– is preferred. We conclude that use of eq 3 with the J+ and J– descriptors is necessary for the analysis of partition and solubility of α-aminoacids by our method.
In the solution of a set of simultaneous equations for a given solute, the solute descriptors are all determined in the same analysis, so that the individual errors in the descriptors are not obtained. However, the overall errors in the analyses, Table 5, are larger than the errors we usually find with neutral compounds for which we have estimated descriptor errors to be around 0.02 units. We suggest that descriptor errors for the α-aminoacids could be 0.03–0.04 units. The obtained descriptors for α-aminoacids, Table 5, are of some interest, especially in that the α-aminoacids appear to have remarkably small values of the hydrogen-bond descriptors A and B. It is useful to compare some of the α-aminoacid descriptors with those for other charged species, as shown in Table 14, with α-alanine as an example. There are some very notable differences between the α-alanine descriptors and those for charged species that might be suitable models. Both α-alanine and the ethylammonium cation contain the C-NH3+ group, and yet A is only 0.28 for α-alanine as against 1.31 for the cation. α-Alanine, betaine, and the acetate ion all contain the C-CO2– group, and yet B values are 0.83, 2.00, and 2.93, respectively. The hydrogen-bond acidity and hydrogen-bond basicity of α-alanine are far less than expected by comparison to these particular charged species. Alagona et al.63 have used the Monte Carlo simulation to show that glycine has an intramolecular hydrogen bond and a quantum mechanics, molecular mechanics simulation by Tuňón et al.64 yields a similar result. The existence of an intramolecular hydrogen bond would at least partially explain the relatively small values of A and B for the α-aminoacids. It is interesting that betaine, which would not be expected to have an intramolecular bond, has a much larger value of B than have the α-aminoacids. Tsai et al.65 have suggested that zwiterionic α-aminoacids are far less hydrophilic than expected from the presence of two charged groups; the small values of A and B would certainly lead to this result. α-Phenylalanine has substantially larger values of A and B than the other aminoacids in Table 14. Possibly, the presence of the phenyl group interrupts the intramolecular bond that reduces the values of A and B in the other α-aminoacids. This interruption results in a B-value just short of that in betaine, which can have no intramolecular bond.
Table 14. Solute Descriptors for Aminoacids and Other Species.
| descriptors | E | S | A | B | V | J+ | J– |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glycine | 0.476 | 2.12 | 0.27 | 0.72 | 0.5646 | 0.5854 | 0.2483 |
| α-alanine | 0.460 | 2.58 | 0.28 | 0.83 | 0.7055 | 0.6226 | 0.4186 |
| α-aminobutanoic acid | 0.455 | 2.63 | 0.28 | 0.94 | 0.8464 | 0.5170 | 0.3871 |
| norvaline | 0.454 | 2.20 | 0.33 | 0.92 | 0.9873 | 0.5106 | 0.2001 |
| norleucine | 0.449 | 2.10 | 0.32 | 0.96 | 1.1282 | 0.5227 | 0.2356 |
| valine | 0.439 | 2.38 | 0.32 | 0.95 | 0.9873 | 0.5804 | 0.2897 |
| leucine | 0.438 | 2.61 | 0.32 | 0.96 | 1.1282 | 0.3397 | 0.1336 |
| α-phenylalanine | 1.150 | 2.48 | 0.77 | 1.70 | 1.3133 | 0.1907 | 0.5312 |
| betaine | 0.315 | 1.57 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.9873 | –0.3240 | 0.8760 |
| ethylammonium cation | 0.086 | 2.50 | 1.31 | 0.00 | 0.5117 | 0.7680 | 0.0000 |
| acetate anion | 0.415 | 2.19 | 0.00 | 2.93 | 0.4433 | 0.0000 | 2.0750 |
| ethylamine | 0.236 | 0.35 | 0.16 | 0.61 | 0.4902 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| acetic acid | 0.265 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.44 | 0.4648 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
As we have shown, above, the ionic descriptors J+ and J– are very significant for the α-aminoacids, although they are numerically smaller than those for the ionic species EtNH3+ and MeCO2–. This parallels the situation with the descriptors A and B and suggests again that the charged groups in the α-aminoacids cannot be compared directly with those in typical anionic and cationic species.
A feature of the log P values for the α-aminoacids is that the observed log P is more negative than calculated in mixtures with a high proportion of alcohols and the observed log P is more positive than calculated in mixtures with a high proportion of water. It is worth pointing out that these differences are quite small. For the glycine/methanol/water system, the errors between observed and calculated log P are −0.18 log units (95% methanol) and + 0.06 log units (10% methanol), see Table 4. For methanol itself, observed values of log P range from −2.43 to −2.86, a difference of 0.43 log units, and for ethanol itself, observed values range from −2.56 to −3.90, a difference of no less than 1.34 log units (Table 2). In view of the errors in observed values, we just note the (rather small) variation of log P with alcohol/water content.
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
References
- Campen A.; Williams R. M.; Brown C. J.; Meng J.; Uversky V. N.; Dunker A. K. TOP-IDP Scale: a new amino acid scale measuring propensity for intrinsic disorder. Protein Pept. Lett. 2008, 15, 956–963. 10.2174/092986608785849164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- BioLoom; BioByte Corp: CA, 1995-2015.
- Advanced Chemistry Development, Ontario, Canada, 1996-2010. [Google Scholar]
- EPI Suite TM.
- ADME Suite 5.0; Advanced Chemistry Development: Ontario, Canada, 1994-2010.
- 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]; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ: Leipzig, Germany. http://www.ufz.de/lserd, 2017.
- Abraham M. H. Scales of hydrogen bonding: their construction and application to physicochemical and biochemical processes. Chem. Soc. Revs 1993, 22, 73–83. 10.1039/cs9932200073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Ibrahim A.; Zissimos A. M. The determination of sets of solute descriptors from chromatographic measurements. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1037, 29–47. 10.1016/j.chroma.2003.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Poole C. F.; Atapattu S. N.; Poole S. K.; Bell A. K. Determination of solute descriptors by chromatographic methods. Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 652, 32–53. 10.1016/j.aca.2009.04.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Poole C. F.; Ariyasena T. C.; Lenca N. Estimation of the environmental properties of compounds from chromatographic measurements and the solvation parameter model. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1317, 85–104. 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.05.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke E. D.; Mallon L.. The Determination of Abraham Descriptors and Their Application to Crop Protection Research. In Modern Methods in Crop Protection Research; Jeschke P., Krämer W., Schirmer U., Witschel M., Eds.; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Equations for the transfer of neutral molecules and ionic species from water to organic phases. J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 1006–1015. 10.1021/jo902388n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Solute descriptors for phenoxide anions and their use to establish correlations of rates of reaction of anions with iodomethane. J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 3021–3026. 10.1021/jo100292j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. The transfer of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species from water to ethylene glycol and to propylene carbonate; descriptors for pyridinium cations. New J. Chem. 2010, 34, 2298–2305. 10.1039/c0nj00222d. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. The transfer of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species from water to wet octanol. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 13182–13188. 10.1039/c0cp00695e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. The transfer of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species from water to benzonitrile; comparison with nitrobenzene. Thermochim. Acta 2011, 526, 22–28. 10.1016/j.tca.2011.08.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Saifullah M.; Ye S.; Grubbs L. M.; De La Rosa N. E.; Acree W. E. Jr.; Abraham M. H. Abraham model correlations for the transfer of neutral molecules to tetrahydrofuran and to 1,4-dioxane and for transfer of ions to tetrahydrofuran. J. Solution Chem. 2011, 40, 2082–2094. 10.1007/s10953-011-9776-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Hydrogen bond descriptors and other properties of ion pairs. New J. Chem. 2011, 35, 1740–1750. 10.1039/c1nj20324j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stephens T. W.; De La Rosa N. E.; Saifullah M.; Ye S.; Chou V.; Quay A. N.; Acree W. E. Jr.; Abraham M. H. Abraham model correlations for transfer of neutral molecules and ions to sulfolane. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2011, 309, 30–35. 10.1016/j.fluid.2011.06.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Equations for the partition of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species from water to water-ethanol mixtures. J. Solution Chem. 2012, 41, 730–740. 10.1007/s10953-012-9822-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Equations for the partition of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species from water to water-methanol mixtures. J. Solution Chem. 2016, 45, 861–874. 10.1007/s10953-016-0479-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Descriptors for ions and ion-pairs for use in linear free energy relationships. J. Chromatogr. A 2016, 1430, 2–14. 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H. The permeation of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species through membranes: brain permeation as an example. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 100, 1690–1701. 10.1002/jps.22404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K.; Chen M.; Scriba G. K. E.; Abraham M. H.; Fahr A.; Lui X. Linear free energy analysis of retention factors in cerasome electrokinetic chromatography intended for predicting skin permeation. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 100, 3105–3113. 10.1002/jps.22549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Austin R. P. The effect of ionized species on microsomal binding. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 47, 202–205. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2011.10.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K.; Chen M.; Scriba G. K. E.; Abraham M. H.; Fahr A.; Lui X. Human skin permeation of neutral species and ionic species: extended linear free-energy relationship analysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 101, 2034–2044. 10.1002/jps.23086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr.; Fahr A.; Lui X. Analysis of immobilized artificial membrane retention factors for both neutral and ionic species. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1298, 44–49. 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H. Human Intestinal Absorption – Neutral Molecules and Ionic Species. J. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 103, 1956–1966. 10.1002/jps.24024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K.; Fahr A.; Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr.; Tobin D. J.; Liu X. Comparison of lipid membrane-water partitioning with various organic solvent-water partitions of neutral species and ionic species: uniqueness of cerasome as a model for the stratum corneum in partition processes. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 494, 1–8. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K.; Abraham M. H.; Liu X. An equation for the prediction of human skin permeability of neutral molecules, ions and ionic species. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 521, 259–266. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.02.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Acree W. E. Jr. Analysis of the solubility of betaine; calculation of descriptors and physicochemical properties. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2015, 387, 1–4. 10.1016/j.fluid.2014.11.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gude M. T.; Meuwissen H. H. J.; van der Wielen L. A. M.; Luyben K. C. A. M. Partition coefficients and solubilities of α-aminoacids in aqueous 1-butanol solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 4700–4712. 10.1021/ie960031w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Needham T. E., Jr. Ph.D. Thesis; University of Rhode Island, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Needham T. E. Jr.; Paruta A. N.; Gerraughty R. J. Solubility of aminoacids in pure solvent systems. J. Pharm. Sci. 1971, 60, 565–567. 10.1002/jps.2600600410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pal A.; Dey B. P.; Lahiri S. C. Studies on the dissociation constants and solubilities of amino acids in t-butanol + water mixtures. Indian J. Chem. 1986, 25A, 322–329. [Google Scholar]
- Dey B. P.; Lahiri S. C. Solubilities of aminio acids in different mixed solvents. Indian J. Chem. 1986, 25A, 136–140. [Google Scholar]
- Cohn E. J.; McMeekin T. L.; Edsall J. T.; Weare J. H. Studies in the physical chemistry of amino acids, peptides and related substances. II The solubility of amino acids in water and in alcohol-water mixtures. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1934, 56, 2270–2282. 10.1021/ja01326a019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- McMeekin T. L.; Cohn E. J.; Weare J. H. Studies in the physical chemistry of amino acids, peptides and related substances. VII. A comparison of the solubility of amino acids, peptides and their derivatives. J. Am. Chem. Soc 1936, 58, 2173–2181. 10.1021/ja01302a026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ferreira L. A.; Macedo E. A.; Pinho S. P. Solubility of amino acids and diglycine in aqueous-alkanol solutions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59, 3117–3124. 10.1016/j.ces.2004.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Abraham M. H.; Grellier P. L. Substitution at saturated carbon. Part XIX. The effect of alcohols and water on the free energy of solutes and on the free energy of transition states in SN and SE reactions. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1975, 1856–1863. 10.1039/p29750001856. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mahali K.; Roy S.; Dolui B. K. Solubility and solvation thermodynamics of a series of homologous a-aminoacids in nonaqueous binary mixtures of ethylene glycol and dimethylsulfoxide. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2015, 60, 1233–1241. 10.1021/je5007899. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mahali K.; Roy S.; Dolui B. K. Solvation thermodynamics of a series of homologous a-aminoacids in non-aqueous binary mixtures of protic ethylene glycol and dipolar acetonitrile. J. Solution Chem. 2013, 42, 1096–1110. 10.1007/s10953-013-0005-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Majumder K.; Majumder K.; Larhiri S. C. Solubilities of amino acids in dioxane + water mixtures and the determination of transfer free energies of interaction of amino acid from water to aqueous-organic mixtures. Z. Phys. Chem. 2000, 214, 285. 10.1524/zpch.2000.214.3.285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mahali K.; Roy S.; Dolui B. K. Thermodynamic solvation of a series of a-aminoacids in non-aqueous mixture of ethylene-glycol and N,N-dimethylformamide. J. Biophys. Chem. 2011, 2, 185–193. 10.4236/jbpc.2011.23022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mahali K.; Roy S.; Dolui B. K. Chemical transfer energies of a series of homologous a-amino acids in quasi-aprotic 2-methoxyethanol-water mixtures. J. Solution Chem. 2016, 45, 574–590. 10.1007/s10953-016-0456-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mahali K.; Roy S.; Dolui B. K. Thermodynamic solvation of a series of homologous a-amino acids in aqueous mixtures of 1,2-dimethoxyethane. J. Solution Chem. 2013, 42, 1096–1110. 10.1007/s10953-013-0005-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Orella C. J.; Kirwan D. J. Correlation of amino acid solubilities in aqueous aliphatic alcohol solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1991, 30, 1040–1045. 10.1021/ie00053a028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Roy S.; Mahali K.; Mondal S.; Dolui B. K. Thermodynamics of DL-alanine solvation in water-dimethylsulfoxide mixtures at 298.15 K. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. A 2015, 89, 654–662. 10.1134/S0036024415040226. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharyya A.; Bhattacharya S. K. Chemical transfer energies of some homologous amino acids and the −CH2- group in aqueous DMF: solvent effect on hydrophobic hydration and three dimensional solvent structure. J. Solution Chem. 2013, 42, 2149–2167. 10.1007/s10953-013-0103-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sinha R.; Kundu K. K. Transfer energetics of a series of homologous a-amino acids and hence of −CH2- group – a possible probe for the solvent effect on hydrophobic hydration and the three-dimensional-structuredness of aqueous cosolvents. J. Mol. Liq. 2004, 111, 151–159. 10.1016/j.molliq.2003.12.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wang Y.; Liu Y.; Shi P.; Du S.; Liu Y.; Han D.; Sun P.; Sun M.; Xu S.; Gong J. Uncover the effect of solvent and temperature on solid-liquid behavior of L-norvaline. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 243, 273–284. 10.1016/j.molliq.2017.07.103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Klimov A. I.; Deshcherevsky V. I. Study of solubilities on nonpolar amino acids in light and heavy water in connection with the thermostability of proteins. Biofizika 1971, 16, 556–560. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dunn M. S.; Ross F. J. Quantitative investigations of amino acids and peptides. IV. The solubilities of the amino acids in water-ethyl alcohol mixtures. J. Biol. Chem. 1938, 125, 309–332. [Google Scholar]
- Gekko K. Mechanism of polyol-induced protein stabilization: solubility of amino acids and diglycine in aqueous polyol solutions. J. Biochem. 1981, 90, 1633–1641. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a133638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nozaki Y.; Tanford C. The solubility of amino acids and two glycine peptides in aqueous ethanol and dioxane solutions. J. Biol. Chem. 1971, 246, 2211–2217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dalton J. B.; Schmidt C. L. A. The solubilities of certain amino acids in water, the densities of their solutions at twenty five degrees, and the calculated heats of solution and partial molal volumes. J. Biol. Chem. 1933, 103, 549–576. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn M. S.; Ross F. J.; Read L. S. The solubility of the amino acids in water. J. Biol. Chem. 1933, 103, 579–595. [Google Scholar]
- Jelińska-Kazimierczuk M.; Szydlowski J. Isotope effect on the solubility of amino acids in water. J. Solution Chem. 1996, 25, 1175–1184. 10.1007/BF00972645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tseng H.-C.; Lee C.-Y.; Weng W.-L.; Shiah I.-M. Solubilities of ajmino acids in water at various pH values under 298.15 K. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2009, 285, 90–95. 10.1016/j.fluid.2009.07.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gomaa E. A. Molal solubility. Dissociation, association and solvation parameters for saturated phenylalanine solutions in various solvents at 298.15 K. Am. J. Biochem. 2012, 2, 25–28. 10.5923/j.ajb.20120203.02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hossain A.; Roy S.; Ghosh S.; Mondal S.; Dolui B. K. Solubility of DL-serine and DL-phenylalanine in aqueous mixtures of dimethylsulfoxide and solvation thermodynamics. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 69839–69847. 10.1039/C5RA12403D. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Imran S.; Hossain A.; Mahali K.; Roy A. S.; Guin P. S.; Roy S. Role of solubility and solvation thermodynamics on the stability of L-phenylalanine in aqueous methanol and ethanol solutions. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 265, 693–700. 10.1016/j.molliq.2018.07.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Alagona G.; Giho C.; Kollman P. A. Monte Carlo simulation studies of the solvation of ions. 2. Glycine zwitterion. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 1988, 166, 385–392. 10.1016/0166-1280(88)80466-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tuňón I.; Silla E.; Millot C.; Martins-Costa M. T. C.; Ruiz-Lopez M. F. intramolecular proton transfer of glycine in aqueous solution using quantum mechanics-molecular mechanics simulations. J. Phys. Chem A 1998, 102, 8673–8678. 10.1021/jp982162b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tsai R.-S.; Testa B.; Tayer N. E.; Carrupt P.-A. Structure-lipophilicity relationships of zwitterionic amino acids. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1991, 1797–1802. 10.1039/P29910001797. [DOI] [Google Scholar]