4.8 Article

Prediction Models on pKa and Base-Catalyzed Hydrolysis Kinetics of Parabens: Experimental and Quantum Chemical Studies

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 6022-6031

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c06891

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFE0110700, 2018YFC1801604]
  2. Supercomputing Center of Dalian University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study experimentally measured the pK(a) and k(B) values of six parabens, established quantitative structure-activity relationship models to fill the data gaps, and estimated the base-catalyzed hydrolysis half-lives range.
Parabens for which the molecules contain hydrolytic and ionizable groups, are emerging pollutants due to their ubiquity in the environment. However, lack of pK(a) and second-order base-catalyzed hydrolysis kinetics (k(B)) values limits their environmental persistence assessment. Herein, six parabens were selected as reference compounds for which the pK(a) and k(B) values were measured experimentally. A semiempirical quantum chemical (QC) method was selected to calculate pK(a) of the parabens, and density functional theory (DFT) methods were selected to calculate k(B) for neutral and anionic forms of the parabens, by comparing the QC-calculated and determined values. Combining the QC-calculated and experimental pK(a) and k(B) values, quantitative structure-activity relationships with determination coefficients (R-2) being 0.947 and 0.842 for the pK(a) and k(B) models, respectively, were developed, which were validated and could be employed to efficiently fill the k(B) and pK(a) data gaps of parabens within applicability domains. The base-catalyzed hydrolysis half-lives were estimated to range from 6 h to 1.52 x 10(6) years (pH 7-9, 25 degrees C), further necessitating the in silico models due to the tedious and onerous experimental determination, and the huge number of hydrolyzable and ionizable chemicals that may be released into the environment.

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

4.8
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