| Literature DB >> 28347035 |
Hayriye Yilmaz1,2, Bakhtiyor Rasulev3,4, Jerzy Leszczynski5.
Abstract
The knowledge of physico-chemical properties of carbon nanotubes, including behavior in organic solvents is very important for design, manufacturing and utilizing of their counterparts with improved properties. In the present study a quantitative structure-activity/property relationship (QSAR/QSPR) approach was applied to predict the dispersibility of single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) in various organic solvents. A number of additive descriptors and quantum-chemical descriptors were calculated and utilized to build QSAR models. The best predictability is shown by a 4-variable model. The model showed statistically good results (R²training = 0.797, Q² = 0.665, R²test = 0.807), with high internal and external correlation coefficients. Presence of the X0Av descriptor and its negative term suggest that small size solvents have better SWCNTs solubility. Mass weighted descriptor ATS6m also indicates that heavier solvents (and small in size) most probably are better solvents for SWCNTs. The presence of the Dipole Z descriptor indicates that higher polarizability of the solvent molecule increases the solubility. The developed model and contributed descriptors can help to understand the mechanism of the dispersion process and predictorganic solvents that improve the dispersibility of SWNTs.Entities:
Keywords: QSAR; dispersibility; organic solvent; single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs)
Year: 2015 PMID: 28347035 PMCID: PMC5312907 DOI: 10.3390/nano5020778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1The structures of 29 organic solvents for single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) derivatives.
List of 29 organic solvents used in the study, including corresponding names, experimental and calculated dispersibility of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) in organic solvents.
| No | Name | C (mg/mL) | LogC(exp) ** | LogC(cal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.5 | 0.544 | 0.317 | |
| 2 * | 1,3-Dimethyltetrahydro-2(1H)-pyrimidinone | 0.65 | −0.187 | −0.617 |
| 3 | 1-Butylpyrrolidin-2-one | 0.279 | −0.554 | −0.480 |
| 4 | 1-Benzylpyrrolidin-2-one | 0.18 | −0.745 | −0.566 |
| 5 * | 1-Methylpyrrolidin-2-one | 0.116 | −0.935 | −0.972 |
| 6 | 3-(2-Oxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)propanenitrile | 0.115 | −0.939 | −0.510 |
| 7 | 0.101 | −0.996 | −1.200 | |
| 8 | 0.092 | −1.036 | −1.241 | |
| 9 | 0.084 | −1.076 | −1.459 | |
| 10 | Dimethyl-imidazolidinone | 0.083 | −1.080 | −1.111 |
| 11 | Dimethylacetamide | 0.041 | −1.387 | −1.534 |
| 12 * | 0.039 | −1.409 | −1.126 | |
| 13 | 0.03 | −1.553 | −1.157 | |
| 14 | Dimethylformamide | 0.023 | −1.638 | −2.374 |
| 15 | Benzyl acetate | 0.0192 | −1.717 | −2.040 |
| 16 | Propionitrile | 0.015 | −1.824 | −1.850 |
| 17 | Acrylic acid | 0.0138 | −1.860 | −2.345 |
| 18 | 2,2'-thiodiethanol | 0.0136 | −1.866 | −2.100 |
| 19 * | Ethanolamine | 0.0133 | −1.876 | −1.424 |
| 20 * | Cyclopentanone | 0.0129 | −1.889 | −1.757 |
| 21 * | Chlorophenol | 0.012 | −1.921 | −2.064 |
| 22 | Acetone | 0.011 | −1.959 | −1.530 |
| 23 | Benzyl benzoate | 0.0109 | −1.963 | −2.160 |
| 24 | Isopropyl alcohol | 0.0105 | −1.979 | −2.038 |
| 25 * | Cyclohexanone | 0.0068 | −2.168 | −2.330 |
| 26 | Toluene | 0.005 | −2.301 | −2.056 |
| 27 | Triethyleneglycol | 0.0037 | −2.432 | −2.647 |
| 28 | Formamide | 3.00 ×10−4 | −3.523 | −2.374 |
| 29 | Benzyl alcohol | 2.79×10−4 | −3.554 | −3.007 |
Notes: * Test Set; ** Experimental data is taken from [29].
Correlation matrix for physicochemical, 2D-3D descriptors and LogC(cal) used in the study.
| Descriptor | SRW09 | Dipole | piPC05 | Ram | X0Av | ATS6m | LogC(cal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRW09 | 1 | ||||||
| Dipole Z | −0.004 | 1 | |||||
| piPC05 | −0.002 | 0.009 | 1 | ||||
| Ram | 0.567 | 0.068 | 0.631 | 1 | |||
| X0Av | 0.053 | −0.112 | −0.275 | 0.075 | 1 | ||
| ATS6m | 0.427 | 0.118 | 0.532 | 0.545 | 0.042 | 1 | |
| LogC(cal) | 0.706 | 0.377 | −0.037 | 0.530 | 0.159 | 0.276 | 1 |
Descriptor names and statistical values for the developed models (statistics are shown for split sets into training (22 compounds) and test (7)).
| No. | Descriptors | Training Set | Test Set | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| SDEP | Spress |
|
|
| Δ | ||
| SRW09 | 22 | 0.548 | 0.453 | 24.249 | 0.674 | 0.690 | 7 | 0.830 | 0.773 | 0.112 | |
| SRW09, Dipole | 22 | 0.679 | 0.573 | 20.080 | 0.595 | 0.626 | 7 | 0.786 | 0.717 | 0.137 | |
| Ram,piPC05, Dipole | 22 | 0.736 | 0.601 | 16.687 | 0.575 | 0.621 | 7 | 0.813 | 0.751 | 0.122 | |
| ATS6m,SRW09, X0Av, Dipole | 22 | 0.797 | 0.666 | 16.722 | 0.527 | 0.585 | 7 | 0.807 | 0.744 | 0.125 | |
| X3A,ATS6m, SRW09, X0Av, Dipole | 22 | 0.817 | 0.632 | 14.366 | 0.552 | 0.633 | 7 | 0.736 | 0.702 | 0.162 | |
Figure 2Comparison of the regression coefficients (R2) for the training and test set.
The descriptor values for organic solvents.
| No. | SRW09 | Dipole | piPC05 | Ram | X0Av | ATS6m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 702 | 2.225 | 30 | 3 | 0.632 | 6.731 |
| 2 | 0 | −0.166 | 10 | 1 | 0.576 | 0.000 |
| 3 | 684 | 1.312 | 78 | 3 | 0.582 | 7.343 |
| 4 | 684 | 0.459 | 14 | 2 | 0.660 | 6.580 |
| 5 | 504 | 0.515 | 4 | 1 | 0.588 | 0.000 |
| 6 | 684 | 1.110 | 18 | 2 | 0.584 | 6.472 |
| 7 | 684 | −1.214 | 8 | 2 | 0.648 | 2.583 |
| 8 | 684 | −0.743 | 18 | 2 | 0.673 | 7.406 |
| 9 | 684 | −1.345 | 10 | 2 | 0.595 | 2.215 |
| 10 | 504 | −0.006 | 4 | 1 | 0.554 | 0.000 |
| 11 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 2 | 0.726 | 0.000 |
| 12 | 0 | 2.665 | 12 | 1 | 0.621 | 3.566 |
| 13 | 684 | −0.590 | 22 | 2 | 0.681 | 7.797 |
| 14 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 0 | 0.521 | 0.000 |
| 15 | 0 | 1.192 | 63 | 2 | 0.583 | 6.898 |
| 16 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 0 | 0.649 | 0.000 |
| 17 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 1 | 0.528 | 0.000 |
| 18 | 0 | 0.001 | 2 | 0 | 0.707 | 5.869 |
| 19 | 0 | 0.887 | 0 | 0 | 0.610 | 0.000 |
| 20 | 504 | 0.454 | 4 | 1 | 0.623 | 0.000 |
| 21 | 0 | 0.000 | 52 | 2 | 0.611 | 0.703 |
| 22 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 1 | 0.727 | 0.000 |
| 23 | 0 | −0.763 | 132 | 3 | 0.550 | 7.631 |
| 24 | 0 | −1.142 | 0 | 1 | 0.756 | 0.000 |
| 25 | 0 | 1.892 | 10 | 1 | 0.635 | 0.000 |
| 26 | 0 | 0.000 | 44 | 1 | 0.627 | 1.401 |
| 27 | 0 | 0.000 | 5 | 0 | 0.595 | 6.923 |
| 28 | 0 | 0.000 | 0 | 0 | 0.521 | 0.000 |
| 29 | 0 | −0.973 | 50 | 1 | 0.568 | 3.508 |
Figure 3Self-returning walk of the 9th order of molecules 1 and 4.
Figure 4A plot of observed and predicted LogCmax values for the entire set (29 compounds) calculated by the 4-variable model.