Relation between the characteristic molecular volume and hydrophobicity of nonpolar molecules
Introduction
The hydrophobic effect is being intensively studied using both theoretical and experimental methods [1], [2], [3]. One of the important questions is how the structure of a molecule relates to its hydrophobicity.
Thermodynamic functions of hydration of solute A ΔhydrfA (f = G, H, S) are greatly influenced by the hydrophobic effect. Their experimental values are a good starting point to analyze this phenomenon using various models of hydration. Alternatively, one can study hydration of idealized objects such as hard particles in computer simulations. The energy of hydration of a hard particle is the cavitation energy of water. Using Monte-Carlo methods [4] and information theory approaches [5], it was shown that the Gibbs free energy of hydration of relatively small hard spherical particles is proportional to the volume of a particle (for molarity-based standard states). The study of hydration of non-spherical hard particles with different shape [6] also showed that the Gibbs free energy of hydration is primarily governed only by the volume of a particle.
Real solutes behave very differently from hard particles. A plot of the Gibbs free energies of hydration versus molecular or molar volumes of real solutes cannot be approximated by a single curve [7]: different classes of nonpolar solutes (e.g. alkanes, arenes, and noble gases) lie on different straight lines with different slopes and intercepts. This is because real solutes engage in different degrees of intermolecular interactions with water. For solutes without the ability of hydrogen-bonding or donor–acceptor bonding, these interactions are called nonspecific interactions. Their energy is dependent on solute structure.
The question of whether and how intermolecular interactions influence the hydrophobicity of real molecules has not been answered. It is necessary to analyze the values of ΔhydrfA using some extrathermodynamic model in order to distinguish the effects caused by the hydrophobic effect from those caused by nonspecific interactions. In the present work, we report a thermodynamic analysis of experimental Gibbs free energies of hydration for a number of nonpolar compounds to investigate how does the hydrophobic effect depends on molecular structure and shape.
Section snippets
Methodology
Recently, we suggested [8] that a dramatic difference between magnitudes of the Gibbs free energy of hydration of nonpolar solutes and their Gibbs free energy of solvation in ‘regular’ solvents can be expressed in terms of the Gibbs energy of the hydrophobic effect, Δh.e.GA. The Gibbs free energy of hydration can be considered as the sum of the Gibbs energy of the hydrophobic effect and the Gibbs nonspecific hydration energy, Δhydr(nonsp)GA. Here and below the energies are at T = 298 K; the molar
Experimental
The Gibbs free energies of solvation are related to measurable limiting activity coefficients of solute A in solvent S, , through the equation: , where is the saturated vapor pressure of pure A in bar. We measured γA/S at 298 K using gas chromatographic head space analysis (Chromatec Crystall-2000M chromatograph, quartz glass column with an HP-5 stationary phase). Design of the automatic electropneumatic dosing system used for head space sampling has been
Results and discussion
Results of calculation are presented in table 3. The Gibbs free energies of hydration were taken from the literature or calculated from the literature values of aqueous solubilities or limiting activity coefficients [12], [13], [18], [19], [20]. The Gibbs free energies of solvation in hexadecane in most cases were also calculated from the literature data on gas-hexadecane distributions [15]. The systematic errors in experimental energies of solvation in nonaqueous solvents, judging on the basis
Conclusion
Cyclic and acyclic hydrocarbons with double, triple and single C–C bonds, π-conjugated compounds and aromatic rings, their halogen derivatives as well as noble gases and simple inorganic substances follow a single linear dependence of the Gibbs hydrophobic effect energy on their characteristic molecular volume. We can conclude that for all compounds studied, the differences in their structures and shapes do not significantly affect their hydrophobicity. Molecular volume is a main factor
Acknowledgements
This work was conducted as a part of the Federal target program “Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia in 2009–2013”, project P2059.
References (24)
- et al.
Chemosphere
(1995) - et al.
J. Mol. Liq.
(2008) - et al.
Fluid Phase Equilib.
(1997) - et al.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
(2000) Chem. Rev.
(2007)- et al.
Angew. Chem. (Int. Ed. Engl.)
(1993) Nature
(2005)- et al.
J. Chem. Phys.
(1997) - et al.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
(1996) - et al.
J. Phys. Chem. B
(2007)
Russ. J. Phys. Chem. A
Chromatographia
Cited by (15)
Compensation relationship in thermodynamics of solvation and vaporization: Features and applications. II. Hydrogen-bonded systems
2023, Journal of Molecular LiquidsBenzalkonium ion sorption to peat and clays: Relative contributions of ion exchange and van der Waals interactions
2020, ChemosphereCitation Excerpt :ΔionicG will therefore, vary depending on the valency of the cation and the surface potential of the sorbent. The ΔhydrophobicG is best described by the solute’s free energy of hydration—defined from the ideal gas reference state (Abraham and Blandamer, 2002; Sedov and Solomonov, 2012a, 2010; Solomonov and Sedov, 2008; Teppen and Aggarwal, 2007). If the hydration energy of the sorbate is known, ΔionicG can be obtained by subtracting the hydration energy from the free energy change of sorption.
Absorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by a highly absorptive polymeric medium
2018, ChemosphereCitation Excerpt :Leo et al. (1976) first showed that for non-polar compounds, molecular volume is the main intrinsic driver of hydrophobicity. More recently, the importance of molecular structure and shape of cyclic compounds including some PAHs on hydrophobicity was studied by Sedov and Solomonov (2010). Using thermodynamic models, the authors showed that molecular structure and shape do not significantly affect the hydrophobicity of aromatic compounds and that molecular volume is the main factor that determines compound hydrophobicity.
Tert-Butyl chloride as a probe of the solvophobic effects
2014, Fluid Phase EquilibriaCitation Excerpt :The typical manifestations of the solvophobic effects are low solubility of apolar solutes, low entropy and large heat capacity change upon dissolution, micellization of amphiphilic compounds. In our earlier works [1–4], we investigated the impact of these effects on the thermodynamic functions of solvation in various solvents. We have shown that the relationship of magnitudes of the Gibbs free energy and enthalpy of solvation is useful for qualitative identification and quantitative description of the solvophobic effects.
Thermodynamics of solvation in propylene glycol and methyl cellosolve
2014, Journal of Chemical ThermodynamicsEnthalpies and Gibbs free energies of solvation in ethylene glycol at 298K: Influence of the solvophobic effect
2013, Fluid Phase EquilibriaCitation Excerpt :Calculated values of the Gibbs free energies of the solvophobic effect in EG and the data that have been used to calculate them are given in Table 3. The magnitude of the slope of this correlation (6.91) is between those for similar correlations in methanolic (5.17) [21] and formamide solutions (8.88) [28], and is much lower than that in aqueous solutions (22.0) [30]. The intercepts have very close values for EG, formamide, and water, while for methanol it almost equals zero.