Equation (8) was written according to the model Equation (2) and partial solubility parameters obtained were; δ2d = 9.32 H, δ2p = 5.87 H, and δ2h = 2.89 H. The total PI3K phosphorylation solubility parameter, δ2T, was found to be 11.39 H. This δ2T value was agreeing with the values obtained from other methods ( Table 1). When the ‘B’ value,
obtained from Equation (8) was used in calculating mole fraction solubility of lornoxicam. The estimated solubility was higher than the experimental solubility i.e., high error ( Table 2). So there was a need to verify the proton donor-acceptor type of interaction. In order to improve the correlation, the four-Libraries parameter approach28 was adopted. This approach was based on the principle that the parameter δ2h does
not reflect the proton donor-acceptor characteristics of complex organic molecules. Therefore, δa proton donor and δb proton acceptor parameters were used to replace δh in the regression analysis, Equation (9) was proposed: equation(9) (logγ2)A=(δ1d−δ2d)2+(δ1p−δ2p)2+2(δ1a−δ2a)(δ1b−δ2b)where δ1a, δ1b, δ2a and δ2b are acid and base partial solubility parameters of solvent and solute, respectively. The expansion of Equation (9) gives an equation, which can be MEK inhibitor review used to predict solubility of a compound in various individual solvents, similar to Equation (7). This type of regression equation was obtained by processing the solubility parameters of the solvents. 14 In case of naphthalene, there was an improvement in the regression coefficient. 29 Since the relevant parameters for methyl acetate was not available in the literature, the remaining 26 solvents were considered for regression analysis and Equation (10) was obtained: equation(10) (logγ2)A=309.3216−68.0095δ1d+3.8024δ1d2−3.2473δ1p+0.2867δ1p2−0.0009δ1a−0.9331δ1b+0.1787δ1aδ1bn = 26, only s = 2.7023, R2 = 0.8352, F = 13.03, F= (7, 18, 0.01) = 3.85 Equation (10) was found to have better R2 value (0.84) and the standard error of ‘y’ estimate was less
compared to Equation (6). The signs of coefficients were agreeing with the standard format of Equation (2). From Equation (11), the partial solubility parameter values obtained were; δ2d = 9.01 H, δ2p = 6.25 H, δ2a = 5.31 H, and δ2b = 0.5 H. The δ2h value was calculated from δ2a and δ2b values and was found to be 2.30 H and δ2T was 11.2 H. This value was closer to the δ2T value obtained by other methods ( Table 1). Further four-parameter and Flory–Huggin’s size correction was combined as both involved statistical analysis only. The following regression Equation (11) was obtained: equation(11) B=296.8218−64.3966δ1d+3.5647δ1d2−2.7134δ1p+0.2511δ1p2−0.5651δ1a−0.9554δ1b+0.2923δ1abn = 26, s = 2.693, R2 = 0.9216, F = 30.2, F = (7, 18, 0.01) = 3.85 A perusal to Equation (11) indicated that the regression coefficient was superior by 2% (0.92) and the equation followed standard format. From Equation (11), the partial solubility parameters obtained were; δ2d = 9.03 H; δ2P = 5.40 H; δ2a = 3.27 H; δ2b = 1.93 H.
No related posts.