An unexpected challenge: ionizable compounds in the REACH chemical space

  • Antonio FrancoEmail author
  • Andrea Ferranti
  • Claus Davidsen
  • Stefan Trapp



About 143,000 industrial chemicals have been pre-registered at the European Chemical Agency for registration according to REACH. The tools, models, and regressions employed for the chemical safety assessment of the registered compounds have limited applicability domains. Thus, it is an important question which fraction of the pre-registered compounds falls into these applicability domains.


A random sample of 1,510 compounds out of the ∼117,000 chemicals pre-registered at the European Chemicals Agency and due to registration by 2010 and 2013 was analyzed to investigate the physico-chemical domain of REACH substances. The chemical structure was identified from the CAS number, and the software ACD/Labs was used to calculate dissociation constant(s) (pK a), octanol–water partition coefficient (log P) and vapor pressure of the neutral molecule.


Four hundred ninety-one (33%) of the 1,510 compounds are mostly ionized at pH 7 (i.e., acids pK a < 7, bases pK a > 7). Twenty-seven percent of compounds are acids with pK a < 12, 14% bases with pK a > 2, and 8% ampholytes or zwitterionics. Almost half of the ionizable compounds (267 out of 1,510 compounds or 18%) with pK a between 2 and 12 are even multivalent. There is a high occurrence of hydrophilic chemicals (30% with log P < 1), but super-lipophilic chemicals are frequent as well (10% with log P > 6). Most chemicals are non- or semi-volatile: the vapor pressure is <1 Pa for 65% and >100 Pa only for 13%.


This preliminary characterization of the REACH chemical space helps to identify most urgent gaps of existing in silico tools that are going to be applied in the context of REACH. These data may also be used to select representative sets of test chemicals for the development of new QSARs and models.


Dissociation constant Ionization Lipophilicity log Kow pKa REACH 



This work received financial support from the European Union 6th Framework Program of Research, Thematic Priority 6 (Global change and ecosystems), contract number GOCE 037017, project OSIRIS. Support for this work was also provided through a Ph.D. grant of the Technical University of Denmark for Antonio Franco.


  1. Barndt G, Bohn B, Köhler E (1989) Biologische und chemische Gütebestimmung von Flieβgewässern. VDG Vereinigung Deutscher Gewässerschutz, Bonn, Germany, 2nd ed., p. 79.Google Scholar
  2. ECHA European Chemical Agency (2009a) ECHA publishes an updated list of pre-registered substances. Press ECHA/PR/09/03. (accessed 14 July 2009)
  3. ECHA European Chemical Agency (2009b) REACH guidance documents. (accessed 14 July 2009)
  4. ECHA European Chemical Agency (2009c) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Endpoint specific guidance Chapter R.7a, p. 173. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  5. EMA European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinical Products for Human Use CHMP (2006) Guideline on the environmental risk assessment of medicinical products for human use. (accessed 15 January 2010)
  6. Franco A, Trapp S (2009) A multimedia activity model for ionizable compounds—validation study with 2, 4-D, aniline and trimethoprim. Environ Toxicol Chem (accepted). doi: 10.1002/etc.115 Google Scholar
  7. Franco A, Fu W, Trapp S (2009) Soil pH and sorption of ionizable chemicals: effects and modeling advance. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fu W, Franco A, Trapp S (2009) Methods for estimating the bioconcentration factor (BCF) of ionizable organic chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1372–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kishino T, Kobayashi K (1995) Relation between toxicity and accumulation of chlorophenols at various pH, and their absorption mechanism in fish. Water Res 29:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kishino T, Kobayashi K (1996) Acute toxicity and structure-activity relationships of chlorophenols in fish. Water Res 30:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manallack DT (2007) The pKa distribution of drugs: application to drug discovery. Perspectives in Medicinal Chemistry 1:25–38Google Scholar
  12. Nakamura Y, Yamamoto H, Sekizawa J, Kondo T, Hirai N, Tatarazako N (2008) The effects of pH on fluoxetine in Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes): acute toxicity in fish larvae and bioaccumulation in juvenile fish. Chemosphere 70:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Trapp S, Schwartz S (2000) Proposals to overcome limitations in the EU chemical risk assessment scheme. Chemosphere 41:965–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Trapp S, Horobin RW (2005) A predictive model for the selective accumulation of chemicals in tumor cells. Eur Biophys J 34:959–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yu H, Kühne R, Ebert RU, Schüürmann G (2009) Comparative analysis of different models to predict pK a values. Proceedings of the 12th EuCheMS International Conference on Chemistry and the Environment, 14–17 June 2009, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  16. Zarfl C, Matthies M, Klasmeier J (2008) A mechanistical model for the uptake of sulfonamides by bacteria. Chemosphere 70:753–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Ferranti
    • 1
  • Claus Davidsen
    • 1
  • Stefan Trapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations