General solvent effect scale

Interestingly, the general solvent effect scale (SPP) is highly correlated with the polarizabihty (SP) and dipolarity (SdP) pure scales ... 

Another problem that has been tackled by multivariate statistical methods is the characterization of the solvation capability of organic solvents based on empirical parameters of solvent polarity (see Chapter 7). Since such empirical parameters of solvent polarity are derived from carefully selected, strongly solvent-dependent reference processes, they are molecular-microscopic parameters. The polarity of solvents thus defined cannot be described by macroscopic, bulk solvent characteristics such as relative permittivities, refractive indices, etc., or functions thereof. For the quantitative correlation of solvent-dependent processes with solvent polarities, a large variety of empirical parameters of solvent polarity have been introduced (see Chapter 7). While some solvent polarity parameters are defined to describe an individual, more specific solute/solvent interaetion, others do not separate specific solute/solvent interactions and are referred to as general solvent polarity scales. Consequently, single- and multi-parameter correlation equations have been developed for the description of all kinds of solvent effects, and the question arises as to how many empirical parameters are really necessary for the correlation analysis of solvent-dependent processes such as chemical equilibria, reaction rates, or absorption spectra. 

Spaziante and Gutmann [Sp 71] used the chemical shift of to follow the effect of solvation of the model CF3I by various donor solvents. Abbaud s generalized solvent polarity scale [Ab 77, Ab 79, Ka 77], developed for the characterization of aliphatic, aprotic, monofunctional solvents is also based on NMR measurements. The F NMR and ESR parameters were formed by Rolling [Ko 77] to reflect the polarity of aprotic solvents in donor-acceptor solvent-solute interactions. 

Several alternative attempts have been made to quantify Lewis-acid Lewis-base interaction. In view of the HSAB theory, the applicability of a scale which describes Lewis acidity with only one parameter will be unavoidably restricted to a narrow range of struchirally related Lewis bases. The use of more than one parameter results in relationships with a more general validity ". However, a quantitative prediction of the gas-phase stabilities of Lewis-acid Lewis-base complexes is still difficult. Hence the interpretation, not to mention the prediction, of solvent effects on Lewis-add Lewis-base interactions remains largely speculative. 

In this volume not all stress types are treated. Various aspects have been reviewed recently by various authors e.g. The effects of oxygen on recombinant protein expression by Konz et al. [2]. The Mechanisms by which bacterial cells respond to pH was considered in a Symposium in 1999 [3] and solvent effects were reviewed by de Bont in the article Solvent-tolerant bacteria in biocatalysis [4]. Therefore, these aspects are not considered in this volume. Influence of fluid dynamical stresses on micro-organism, animal and plant cells are in center of interest in this volume. In chapter 2, H.-J. Henzler discusses the quantitative evaluation of fluid dynamical stresses in various type of reactors with different methods based on investigations performed on laboratory an pilot plant scales. S. S. Yim and A. Shamlou give a general review on the effects of fluid dynamical and mechanical stresses on micro-organisms and bio-polymers in chapter 3. G. Ketzmer describes the effects of shear stress on adherent cells in chapter 4. Finally, in chapter 5, P. Kieran considers the influence of stress on plant cells. 

Because of the different effects of electrophilic solvation of the various negative charges (i.e. Cl- for Y, "OTs for Tots I" for Z, 0 for Ej), direct comparisons between the various scales should be done cautiously. A wide variety of correlations giving clear indications of trends, has been reported by Reichardt and Dimroth (1968), but the significance of a recent general survey of scales of solvent polarity is doubtful, because of the many parameters used in the correlations (Fowler et al., 1971). The multi-parameter approach has also been adopted and reviewed by Koppel and Palm (1972). 

The general SPP scale of solvent dipolarity/polarizability and the specific SB and SA scales of solvent HBA basicity and HBD acidity, respectively, are orthogonal to one another and they can be used in the correlation analysis of solvent effects in single- or, in combination with the others, in two- or three-parameter correlation equations, depending on the solvent-influenced process under consideration see also Section 7.7. Examples of the correlation analysis of a variety of other solvent-dependent processes by means of SPP, SB, and SA values, including those used for the introduction of other solvent polarity parameters, can be found in references [335-337, 340-342]. In particular, comparisons with Kamlet and Taft s n scale [340] and Winstein and Grunwald s Y scale [341] have been made. 

This approach to separating the different types of interactions contributing to a net solvent effect has elicited much interest. Tests of the ir, a, and p scales on other solvatochromic or related processes have been made, an alternative ir scale based on chemically different solvatochromic dyes has been proposed, and the contribution of solvent polarizability to it has been studied. Opinion is not unanimous, however, that the Kamlet-Taft system constitutes the best or ultimate extrathermodynamic approach to the study of solvent effects. There are two objections One of these is to the averaging process by which many model phenomena are combined to yield a single best-fit value. We encountered this problem in Section 7.2 when we considered alternative definitions of the Hammett substituent constant, and similar comments apply here Reichardt has discussed this in the context of the Kamlet-Taft parameters. The second objection is to the claim of generality for the parameters and the correlation equation we will return to this controversy later. 

Separation of Nucleophilic and Electrophilic Contributions to Solvation Effects. The discussion on the appropriate choice of m value for the N0Ts scale (equation 7) is part of a more general problem of dissecting the nucleophilic contributions (corresponding to the IN term in equation 5) and electrophilic contributions (included in the mY term in equation 5) to solvent effects. When a substrate reacts by a nucleophilically solvent assisted pathway, m decreases and l increases, often in a uniform manner (equation 12). Schadt et al. proposed (3) that an increase in nucleophilic assistance (increase in l) caused delocalization of positive charge, which led to a decrease in m. All of the deviations from the rates expected for SN1 (kc) reactivity were attributed to nucleophilic solvent assistance (3) Schadt et al. (3) assumed that m values for kc processes would be the same as for 2-adamantyl (II), and more recent data for 1-adamantyl (I), 1-adamantylmethylcarbinyl, and 1-bicyclo[2.2.2]octyl tosylates support this assumption (4, 53). 

The following treatment is based on the use of three different scales [i.e., (S), g2(S), and g3(S)] which have been determined empirically the polarity scale 7T, the a scale of solvent hydrogen bond donor (HBD) acidities (71), and the /3 scale of solvent hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA) basicities (72). To avoid possible pitfalls resulting from experimental errors or from specific solvent effects, the solvatochromic parameters have been arrived at by averaging multiple, s determined for each solvent with a variety of different indicators. Quite generally, the purpose of this study is the systematic correlation of solvent effects on diverse properties and reactivity parameters, XYZ, by means of expressions of the type. 

---