Monika Nendza, Verena Kosfeld, Christian Schlechtriem
{"title":"Consolidated octanol/water partition coefficients: combining multiple estimates from different methods to reduce uncertainties in log KOW","authors":"Monika Nendza, Verena Kosfeld, Christian Schlechtriem","doi":"10.1186/s12302-025-01072-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The octanol/water partition coefficient (<i>K</i><sub>OW</sub>) is a key parameter for assessing the fate and effects of chemicals. It is a metric of their hydrophobicity, related to uptake and accumulation in organisms and specific tissues, and distribution in water, soil and sediments. The log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> can be determined experimentally, more often it is calculated. Variability may be due to properties of the substances, different experimental methods, or different computational approaches with different domains of applicability. The objective of the present study is to derive coherent log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> estimates with known variability by (1) estimating multiple log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> values by different methods for diverse chemicals to exemplify their variabilities, (2) analysing the variabilities of log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> estimates by underlying methods and for different chemical classes, and (3) recommending approaches to obtain reliable and robust log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> estimates for hazard and risk assessment.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Comparative analyses were based on 231 case study chemicals representing diverse chemical classes, such as POPs, PCB, PAH, siloxanes, flame retardants, PFAS, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, etc. The variability of up to 36 log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> values per substance, determined experimentally or estimated by different computational approaches, is 1 log unit and more across the entire log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> range from <0 to >8. No systematic pattern is evident. Different methods for deriving log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> perform sometimes better and sometimes worse for different chemicals. None of the methods (experimental or computational) is consistently superior and any method can be the worst.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Iterative consensus modelling combines multiple estimates by a weight-of-evidence (WoE) or averaging approach for scientifically valid and reproducible log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> estimates with known variability. Consolidated log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub>, being the mean of at least 5 valid data obtained by different independent methods (experimental and computational), are a pragmatic way to deal with the variability and uncertainty of individual results. While this approach does not solve any of the problems about “correctly” determining log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub>, it does limit the bias due to individual erroneous estimates. Consolidated log <i>K</i><sub>OW</sub> are robust and reliable measures of hydrophobicity, with variability mostly within 0.2 log units.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":546,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12302-025-01072-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-025-01072-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The octanol/water partition coefficient (KOW) is a key parameter for assessing the fate and effects of chemicals. It is a metric of their hydrophobicity, related to uptake and accumulation in organisms and specific tissues, and distribution in water, soil and sediments. The log KOW can be determined experimentally, more often it is calculated. Variability may be due to properties of the substances, different experimental methods, or different computational approaches with different domains of applicability. The objective of the present study is to derive coherent log KOW estimates with known variability by (1) estimating multiple log KOW values by different methods for diverse chemicals to exemplify their variabilities, (2) analysing the variabilities of log KOW estimates by underlying methods and for different chemical classes, and (3) recommending approaches to obtain reliable and robust log KOW estimates for hazard and risk assessment.
Results
Comparative analyses were based on 231 case study chemicals representing diverse chemical classes, such as POPs, PCB, PAH, siloxanes, flame retardants, PFAS, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, surfactants, etc. The variability of up to 36 log KOW values per substance, determined experimentally or estimated by different computational approaches, is 1 log unit and more across the entire log KOW range from <0 to >8. No systematic pattern is evident. Different methods for deriving log KOW perform sometimes better and sometimes worse for different chemicals. None of the methods (experimental or computational) is consistently superior and any method can be the worst.
Conclusions
Iterative consensus modelling combines multiple estimates by a weight-of-evidence (WoE) or averaging approach for scientifically valid and reproducible log KOW estimates with known variability. Consolidated log KOW, being the mean of at least 5 valid data obtained by different independent methods (experimental and computational), are a pragmatic way to deal with the variability and uncertainty of individual results. While this approach does not solve any of the problems about “correctly” determining log KOW, it does limit the bias due to individual erroneous estimates. Consolidated log KOW are robust and reliable measures of hydrophobicity, with variability mostly within 0.2 log units.
期刊介绍:
ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation.
ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation.
ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation.
Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues.
Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.