Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 15, pp 15111–15119 | Cite as

Repeatability of n-octanol/water partition coefficient values between liquid chromatography measurement methods

  • Parichehr Saranjampour
  • Kevin Armbrust
Research Article

Abstract

The n-octanol/water partition coefficient (KOW) is a physical/chemical property that is extensively used for regulatory and environmental risk and exposure assessments. The KOW value can estimate various chemical properties such as water solubility, bioavailability, and toxicity using quantitative structure-activity relationships which demands an accurate knowledge of this property. The present investigation aims to compare outcomes of three commonly cited methods of KOW measurement in the literature for six hydrophobic chemicals with insecticidal functions as well as highly volatile petroleum constituents. This measurement has been difficult to obtain for the selected pyrethroid insecticides, cypermethrin, and bifenthrin and is a novel measurement for the latter: polycyclic aromatic sulfur heterocycles, dibenzothiophene (DBT), and three of its alkyl derivatives except for DBT. The KOW values were obtained using two liquid chromatographic methods with isocratic and gradient programming, and the slow-stirring method following OECD 117 and 123 guidelines, respectively. The mean log KOW values of bifenthrin, cypermethrin, DBT, methyl-DBT, dimethyl-DBT, and diethyl-DBT were 8.4 ± 0.1, 6.0 ± 0.3, 4.8 ± 0.0, 5.4 ± 0.1, 6.0 ± 0.1, and 6.8 ± 0.0 using the HPLC method with gradient programing. The KOW values were significantly reproducible within a method, however, not between the methods. Results suggest assessing a chemical’s property and environmental risk and exposure solely based on the KOW value should be practiced with caution.

Keywords

Physical/chemical property Estimation n-octanol/water partition coefficient Pesticides Bifenthrin Cypermethrin Dibenzothiophenes Reproducibility 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1729_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (808 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 807 kb)
11356_2018_1729_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (188 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 188 kb)

References

  1. Abbott D et al. (2014) Determining the partitioning coefficient (n-octanol/water) of nine pyrethroids by the slow-stirring method following OECD guideline 123. In: 13th IUPAC international congress of pesticide chemistry, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Braumann T (1986) Determination of hydrophobic parameters by reversed-phase liquid chromatography: theory, experimental techniques, and application in studies on quantitative structure-activity relationships. J Chromatogr 373:191–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9673(00)80213-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2013) California Department of Pesticide Regulation. State of California. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov. Accessed 11 Dec 2016
  4. Caron G, Ermondi G (2016) Molecular descriptors for polarity: the need for going beyond polar surface area. Future Med Chem 8:2013–2016.  https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2016-0165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cimpan G, Irimie F, Gocan S, Claessens HA (1998) Role of stationary phase and eluent composition on the determination of log P values of N-hydroxyethylamide of aryloxyalkylen and pyridine carboxylic acids by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 714:247–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4347(98)00228-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Bruijn J, Busser F, Seinen W, Hermens J (1989) Determination of octanol/water partition coefficients for hydrophobic organic chemicals with the “slow-stirring” method. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:499–512.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620080607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dill K (1990) The meaning of hydrophobicity. Sci 250:297–298.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2218535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorsey JG, Khaledi MG (1993) Hydrophobicity estimations by reversed-phase liquid chromatography. Implications for biological partitioning processes. J Chromatogr 656:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giaginis C, Tsantili-Kakoulidou A (2007) Current state of the art in HPLC methodology for lipophilicity assessment of basic drugs. A review. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 31:79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10826070701665626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansch C, Leo A, Hoekman D (1995) Exploring QSAR—hydrophobic, electronic, and steric constants. American Chemical Society, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu W et al (2014) Separation of Cis- and trans-cypermethrin by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmu094
  12. Kerns EH, Di L, Petusky S, Kleintop T, Huryn D, McConnell O, Carter G (2003) Pharmaceutical profiling method for lipophilicity and integrity using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B 791:381–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-0232(03)00250-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lombardo F, Shalaeva MY, Tupper KA, Gao F, Abraham MH (2000) ElogPoct: a tool for lipophilicity determination in drug discovery. J Med Chem 43:2922–2928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michels JJ, Dorsey JG (1988) Retention in reversed-phase liquid chromatography: solvatochromic investigation of homologous alcohol-water binary mobile phases. J Chromatogr A 457:85–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(01)82057-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OECD 107 (1995) Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water) shake flask method OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  16. OECD 117 (2004) Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), HPLC method. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD 123 (2006) Partition coefficient (1-octanol/water): slow-stirring method. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  18. Pampanin DM, Sydnes MO (2013) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons a constituent of petroleum: presence and influence in the aquatic environment. In: Kutcherov V (ed) Hydrocarbon. InTech, pp 83–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.5772/48176
  19. Rhodes S, Farwell A, Mark Hewitt L, MacKinnon M, George Dixon D (2005) The effects of dimethylated and alkylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the embryonic development of the Japanese medaka. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 60:247–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ritter S, Hauthal W, Maurer G (1995) Octanol/water partition coefficients for environmentally important organic compounds. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2:153–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Røe Utvik TI (1999) Chemical characterisation of produced water from four offshore oil production platforms in the North Sea. Chemosphere 39:2593–2606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00171-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saranjampour P, Vebrosky EN, Armbrust KL (2017) Salinity impacts on water solubility and N-octanol/water partition coefficients of selected pesticides and oil constituents. Environ Toxicol Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3784
  23. Snyder LR, Dolan JW (1998) The linear-solvent-strength model of gradient elution. Adv Chromatogr 38:157–160Google Scholar
  24. Stenzel A, Goss K-U, Endo S (2013) Experimental determination of polyparameter linear free energy relationship (pp-LFER) substance descriptors for pesticides and other contaminants: new measurements and recommendations. Environ Sci Technol 47:14204–14214.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es404150e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tülp HC, Goss K-U, Schwarzenbach RP, Fenner K (2008) Experimental determination of LSER parameters for a set of 76 diverse pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Environ Sci Technol 42:2034–2040.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es702473f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Estimation programs Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 edn, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. US EPA (2006) Reregistration eligibility decision for cypermethrin case no. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, p 2130Google Scholar
  28. Valkó K (2004) Application of high-performance liquid chromatography based measurements of lipophilicity to model biological distribution. J Chromatogr A 1037:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2003.10.084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Valko K, Bevan C, Reynolds D (1997) Chromatographic hydrophobicity index by fast-gradient RP HPLC: a high-throughput alternative to log P log D. Anal Chem 69:2022–2029.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac961242d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vonk EC, Lewandowska K, Claessens HA, Kaliszan R, Cramers CA (2003) Quantitative structure-retention relationships in reversed-phase liquid chromatography using several stationary and mobile phases. J Sep Sci 26:777–792.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200301328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, College of the Coast and EnvironmentLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations