4.7 Article

Predicting the end point potential break values: A case of potentiometric titration of lipophilic anions with cetylpyridinium chloride

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105758

关键词

Cetylpyridinium; End point; Lipophilicity; Potential break; Potentiometry; Titration

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine [GR-0119U100232, GR-0120U100431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the applicability of cetylpyridinium chloride for potentiometric titration of lipophilic anions, developing a reasonable QSPR model to estimate potential break values near the end point.
The applicability of cetylpyridinium chloride for potentiometric titration of lipophilic anions has been studied. The specially developed cetylpyridinium-selective plasticized electrode has been used for the investigation of the mechanism of interaction between the cetylpyridinium cation and lipophilic anions, which obviously goes through the association reaction resulting in the formation of water-insoluble precipitates. The investigated 54 anions were placed in the selectivity row that strongly correlates with lipophilicity. Additionally, an attempt has been made to find a simple and reliable descriptor suitable for prediction of the value of the end point potential break and thus indicating the applicability of the described potentiometric method for determination of untested lipophilic anions of interest. It has been established that despite being well known lipophilicity estimators, molar weight, octanol-water distribution coefficient logP, logarithm of solubility logS, and hydrophilicity-lipophilicity index can not be separately used for directly predicting the end point potential break values. However, simultaneous analysis of the above descriptors by using the multiple linear regression technique has resulted in the development of a reasonable QSPR model for the estimation of the potential break values near the end point.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据