Reaction mass of dimethyl phosphonate and methyl hydrogenphosphonate and phosphonic acid

Partition coefficient

Link to relevant study record(s)

Reference

Reference 1

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

other information

Study period:

18 NOV 2022

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

results derived from a valid (Q)SAR model and falling into its applicability domain, with adequate and reliable documentation / justification

Justification for type of information:

1. SOFTWARE
OECD QSAR toolbox v4.5

2. MODEL (incl. version number)
KOWWIN v1.69

3. SMILES OR OTHER IDENTIFIERS USED AS INPUT FOR THE MODEL
multi-constituent substance with 3 constituents
1. COP(O)=O
2. OP(O)=O
3. COP(=O)OC

4. SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE (Q)SAR MODEL
Atom/fragment contribution values, used to estimate the log octanol-water partition coefficient (log P) of organic compounds, have been determined for 130 simple chemical substructures by a multiple linear regression of 1120 compounds with measured log P values. An additional 1231 compounds were used to determine 235 “correction factors” for various substructure orientations. The log P of a compound is estimated by simply summing all atom/fragment contribution values and correction factors occurring in a chemical structure. For the 2351 compound training set, the correlation coefficient (r²) for the estimated vs measured log P values is 0.98 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.22 and an absolute mean error (ME) of 0.16 log units. This atom fragment contribution (AFC) method was then tested on a separate validation set of 6055 measured log P values that were not used to derive the methodology and yielded an r² of 0.943, an SD of 0.408, and an ME of 0.31. The method is able to predict log P within f 0.8 log units for over 96% of the experimental dataset of 8406 compounds. Because of the simple atom/fragment methodology, “missing fragments” (a problem encountered in other methods) do not occur in the AFC method. Statistically, it is superior to other comprehensive estimation methods.

5. APPLICABILITY DOMAIN
The applicability domain is described by the range of the molecular weight of chemicals in the training set as well as the identification and number of instances of a given fragment in any single compound. Additionally, the applicability domain is extended by inclusion of substructures larger or more complex than "atoms" to improve log P values estimates; hence, correction factors were added to the AFC method. The correction factors are values derived from the differences between the log P estimates from atoms alone and the measured log P values. The correction factors have two main groupings: first, factors involving aromatic ring substituent positions and second, miscellaneous factors. In general, the correction factors are values for various steric interactions, hydrogen-bondings, and effects from polar functional substructures. Individual correction factors were selected through a tedious process of correlating the differences (between log P estimates from atom/fragments alone and measured log P values) with common substructures.
Currently there is no universally accepted definition of model domain. However, users may wish to consider the possibility that log P estimates are less accurate for compounds outside the MW range of the training set compounds, and/or that have more instances of a given fragment than the maximum for all training set compounds. It is also possible that a compound may have a functional group(s) or other structural features not represented in the training set, and for which no fragment coefficient was developed. These points should be taken into consideration when interpreting model results. The predicted substances (methyl hydrogen phosphonate and dimethyl hydrogen phosphate) fall into the MW range of the training set compounds. Thus, it is considered to be in the applicability domain of this model. However, phosphonic acid is an inorganic compound. Inorganic compounds are not included in the training data set for the methodology utilized in this program. Therefore, the predicted substance is outside the estimation domain.

Guideline:

other: REACH guidance on QSARs Chapter R.6

Version / remarks:

May 2008

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Software tool(s) used including version: OECD QSAR toolbox v4.5, EPI Suite v4.11
- Model(s) used: KOWWIN v1.69
- Model description:
Atom/Fragment Contribution (AFC (method)
KOWWIN uses a "fragment constant" methodology to predict log Kow. In a "fragment constant" method, a structure is divided into fragments (atom or larger functional groups) and coefficient values of each fragment or group are summed together to yield the log Kow estimate. KOWWIN’s methodology is known as an Atom/Fragment Contribution (AFC) method. Coefficients for individual fragments and groups were derived by multiple regression of 2447 reliably measured log Kow values. Correction factors were developed to be able to consider larger or more complex substructures than the fragments (“atoms”). log Kow = (fini) + (cjnj) + 0.229 (num = 2447, r2= 0.982, std. dev. = 0.217, mean error = 0.159) Where: 1)(fini) is the summation of fi (the coefficient for each atom/fragment) times ni (the number of times the atom/fragment occurs in the structure) 2)(cjnj) is the summation of cj (the coefficient for each correction factor) times nj (the number of times the correction factor occurs (or is applied) in the molecule).
[1]SMILES -- The only data required for KOWWIN to estimate log P is the chemical structure of the compound. The chemical structure is entered into the program as a SMILES notation.
[2]Fragments -- The structure is divided into fragments (atom or larger functional groups).
[3]Correction factors -- The correction factors were derived from a multiple linear regression that correlated differences between the experimental log Kow and the log Kow estimated by the initial equation [log Kow = (fini) + b; where b is the linear equation constant] with the correction factor descriptors.
- Justification of QSAR prediction: see field 'Justification for type of information'.

Type of method:

calculation method (fragments)

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Specific details on test material used for the study:

multi-constituent substance with 3 constituents
1. COP(O)=O
2. OP(O)=O
3. COP(=O)OC

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

>= -1.24 - <= -1.13

Remarks on result:

other: No details of temperature and pH

methyl hydrogen phosphonate

SMILES : COP(O)=O
CHEM :
MOL FOR: C1 H5 O3 P1
MOL WT : 96.02
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
TYPE | NUM | LOGKOW FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
Frag | 1 | -CH3 [aliphatic carbon] | 0.5473 | 0.5473
Frag | 1 | -O-P [aliphatic attach] |-0.0162 | -0.0162
Frag | 1 | O=P |-2.4239 | -2.4239
Frag | 1 | -OH [phosphorus attach] | 0.4750 | 0.4750
Const | | Equation Constant | | 0.2290

-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
Log Kow = -1.1888

Phosphonic acid

*********************************************************************
* WARNING - The entered structure is an INORGANIC Compound. *
* Very few inorganic compounds were included in the training data *
* set for the methodology utilized in this program. Therefore, *
* inorganic compounds are outside the estimation domain. *

*********************************************************************
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
TYPE | NUM | LOGKOW FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
Frag | 1 | O=P |-2.4239 | -2.4239
Frag | 2 | -OH [phosphorus attach] | 0.4750 | 0.9500
Const | | Equation Constant | | 0.2290
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
Log Kow = -1.2449

dimethyl hydrogen phosphate

SMILES : COP(=O)OC
CHEM :
MOL FOR: C2 H7 O3 P1
MOL WT : 110.05
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
TYPE | NUM | LOGKOW FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION | COEFF | VALUE
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------

Frag | 2 | -CH3 [aliphatic carbon] | 0.5473 | 1.0946
Frag | 2 | -O-P [aliphatic attach] |-0.0162 | -0.0324
Frag | 1 | O=P |-2.4239 | -2.4239
Const | | Equation Constant | | 0.2290
-------+-----+--------------------------------------------+---------+--------
Log Kow = -1.1327

 

Conclusions:

The partition coefficient of the test item has been determined as a range as it is a multi-constituent substance. The partition coefficient of test item is in the range of greater than -1.24 to less than -1.13 by US EPA software KOWWIN v1.69.

Executive summary:

The partition coefficient of the test item has been determined as a range as it is a multi-constituent substance. The partition coefficient of test item is in the range of greater than -1.24 to less than -1.13 by US EPA software KOWWIN v1.69.

Reference 2

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

not specified

Adequacy of study:

other information

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Data from handbook or collection of data

Principles of method if other than guideline:

secondary peer reviewed source, valid collection of data
not specified if measured or calculated

GLP compliance:

not specified

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

-1.2

no data on temperature or pH value

Reference 3

Endpoint:

partition coefficient

Type of information:

(Q)SAR

Adequacy of study:

other information

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other:

Justification for type of information:

QSAR prediction

Principles of method if other than guideline:

EPI Suite Calculation v 3.20
KOWWIN Program v 1.67

GLP compliance:

no

Partition coefficient type:

octanol-water

Type:

log Pow

Partition coefficient:

-1.13

no data on temperature and pH (calculation method)

TYPE	NUM	LOGKOW FRAGMENT DESCRIPTION	COEFF	VALUE
Frag	2	-CH3 [aliphaticcarbon]	0.5473	1.0946
Frag	2	-O-P [aliphaticattach]	-0.0162	-0.0324
Frag	1	O=P	-2.4239	-2.4239
Const		EquationConstant		0.2290
Log Kow    =    -1.1327

 

Executive summary:

The octanol-water partition coefficient of dimethyl phosphonate was calculated with EPI Suite (v3.20):

logPow = -1.13 (Currenta, 2008).

Description of key information

4.7.2 NIOSH, 2009: handbook data; dimethyl phosphonate; logPow: -1.2

4.7.2 KOWWIN, 2008: QSAR calculation; dimethyl phosphonate; logPow: -1.13

EPIWIN(KOWWIN v1.69): QSAR calculation; methyl hydrogen phosphate: -1.19; phosphonic acid: -1.24; dimethyl phosphonate: -1.13

 

As a key result, vapour pressure of the main constituent was selected.

Key value for chemical safety assessment

Log Kow (Log Pow):

-1.19