Journal of Solution Chemistry

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 887–900 | Cite as

Kamlet–Taft Solvatochromic Parameters for 25 Glycol Ether Solvents and Glycol Ether Aqueous Solutions

  • Anthony F. Lagalante
  • Christian Wood
  • Adam M. Clarke
  • Thomas J. Bruno


The Kamlet–Taft parameters for 25 glycol ethers and their aqueous solutions were measured. Values for the three Kamlet–Taft parameters: the hydrogen-bond donor ability, hydrogen-bond acceptor ability, and the dipolarity/polarizability, as well as the index of refraction, were determined for each pure glycol ether and each aqueous glycol solution. A correlation matrix between other known solvent parameters and the measured Kamlet–Taft values revealed only one correlation, suggesting that the three measured Kamlet–Taft parameters for the glycol ethers are independent solvent descriptors. Last, trends in the measured Kamlet–Taft values were related to functional group modifications to the basic glycol ether structure.

Glycol ethers Kamlet–Taft solvatochromic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. W. Taft and M. Kamlet. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 98, 2886 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. J. Kamlet and R. W. Taft, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 98, 377 (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. J. Kamlet, J. L. Abboud, and R. W. Taft, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 99, 6027 (1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. H. Abraham, H. S. Chadha, G. S. Whiting, and R. C. Mitchell, J. Pharm. Sci. 83, 1085 (1994).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. J. Kamlet, M. H. Abraham, R. M. Doherty, and R. W. Taft, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106, 464 (1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. J. Kamlet, R. M. Doherty, M. H. Abraham, Y. Marcus, and R. W. Taft, J. Phys. Chem. 92, 5244 (1988).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. J. Kamlet, R. M. Doherty, P. W. Carr, D. Mackay, M. H. Abraham, and R. W. Taft, Environ. Sci. Technol. 22, 503 (1988).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. D. Weckwerth and P. W. Carr, Anal. Chem. 70, 1404 (1998).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. F. Lagalante and T. J. Bruno, J. Phys. Chem, B102, 907 (1998).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Tech. Note 1297, 1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Macneil, D. Turner, and R. Palelu, Phys. Chem. Liq. 27, 225 (1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. H. Abraham, G. S. Whiting, R. M. Doherty, and W. J. Shuely, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. p. 1451 (1990).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. D'Angelo, A. Fuccello, G. Onori, and A. Santucci, Progr. Colloid Polym. Sci. 93, 325 (1993).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Laurence, P. Nicolet, M. T. Dalati, J.-L. M. Abboud, and R. Notarío, J. Phys Chem. 98, 5807 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. J. Kamlet, P. W. Carr, R. W. Taft, and M. H. Abraham, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103, 6062 (1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. D. Purohit and R. J. Sengwa, J. Mol. Liq. 47, 53 (1990).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Donate, personal communication, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony F. Lagalante
  • Christian Wood
  • Adam M. Clarke
  • Thomas J. Bruno

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations