Exploring quantitative structure-property relationship models for environmental fate assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons

被引:0
|
作者
Ghosh, Sulekha [1 ]
Chhabria, Mahesh T. [1 ]
Roy, Kunal [2 ]
机构
[1] LM Coll Pharm, Dept Pharmaceut Chem, Ahmadabad 380009, Gujarat, India
[2] Jadavpur Univ, Dept Pharmaceut Technol, Drug Theoret & Cheminformat Lab, Kolkata 700032, India
关键词
Petroleum hydrocarbons; Quantitative structure-property relationship; OECD; Biodegradation half-life; Double cross-validation; Best subset selection; Partial least squares; PRIMARY AEROBIC BIODEGRADATION; DEGRADING BACTERIA; QSAR MODELS; OIL; VALIDATION; DEGRADATION; TEMPERATURE; PREDICTIONS; TOOL;
D O I
10.1007/s11356-022-23904-x
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The rate and extent of biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the different aquatic environments is an important element to address. The major avenue for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from the environment is thought to be biodegradation. The present study involves the development of predictive quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models for the primary biodegradation half-life of petroleum hydrocarbons that may be used to forecast the biodegradation half-life of untested petroleum hydrocarbons within the established models' applicability domain. These models use easily computable two-dimensional (2D) descriptors to investigate important structural characteristics needed for the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in freshwater (dataset 1), temperate seawater (dataset 2), and arctic seawater (dataset 3). All the developed models follow OECD guidelines. We have used double cross-validation, best subset selection, and partial least squares tools for model development. In addition, the small dataset modeler tool has been successfully used for the dataset with very few compounds (dataset 3 with 17 compounds), where dataset division was not possible. The resultant models are robust, predictive, and mechanistically interpretable based on both internal and external validation metrics (R-2 range of 0.605-0.959. Q((Loo))(2) range of 0.509-0.904, and Q(2) (F1) range of 0.526-0.959). The intelligent consensus predictor tool has been used for the improvement of the prediction quality for test set compounds which provided superior outcomes to those from individual partial least squares models based on several metrics (Q(F1)(2) = 0.808 and Q(F2)(2) = 0.805 for dataset 1 in freshwater). Molecular size and hydrophilic factor for freshwater, frequency of two carbon atoms at topological distance 4 for temperate seawater, and electronegative atom count relative to size for arctic seawater were found to be the most significant descriptors responsible for the regulation of biodegradation half-life of petroleum hydrocarbons.
引用
收藏
页码:26218 / 26233
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Quantitative structure-property relationship study on reductive dehalogenation of selected halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons in sediment slurries
    Zhao, HM
    Chen, JW
    Quan, X
    Yang, FL
    Peijnenburg, WJGM
    [J]. CHEMOSPHERE, 2001, 44 (07) : 1557 - 1563
  • [22] Quantitative Structure-Property Relationships for the Electronic Properties of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
    Nguyen, Lam H.
    Truong, Thanh N.
    [J]. ACS OMEGA, 2018, 3 (08): : 8913 - 8922
  • [23] Quantitative structure-activity and quantitative structure-property relationship approaches as alternative skin sensitization risk assessment methods
    Kim, Ji Yun
    Kim, Min Kook
    Kim, Kyu-Bong
    Kim, Hyung Sik
    Lee, Byung-Mu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART A-CURRENT ISSUES, 2019, 82 (07): : 447 - 472
  • [24] Global and local quantitative structure-property relationship models to predict the impact sensitivity of nitro compounds
    Fayet, Guillaume
    Rotureau, Patricia
    Prana, Vinca
    Adamo, Carlo
    [J]. PROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, 2012, 31 (03) : 291 - 303
  • [25] A quantitative structure-property relationship study of lithium cation basicities
    Tämm, K
    Fara, DC
    Katritzky, AR
    Burk, P
    Karelson, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A, 2004, 108 (21): : 4812 - 4818
  • [26] Quantitative structure-property relationship research of main group compounds
    Lei K.
    Wang Z.
    [J]. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed, 2006, 3 (172-173): : 172 - 173
  • [27] Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship Research of Main Group Compounds
    雷克林
    [J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology(Materials Science), 2006, (03) : 172 - 173
  • [28] Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship Modeling of Diverse Materials Properties
    Le, Tu
    Epa, V. Chandana
    Burden, Frank R.
    Winkler, David A.
    [J]. CHEMICAL REVIEWS, 2012, 112 (05) : 2889 - 2919
  • [29] Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship Approach in Formulation Development: an Overview
    Kulkarni, Ajit S.
    Kasabe, Amit J.
    Bhatia, Manish S.
    Bhatia, Neela M.
    Gaikwad, Vinod L.
    [J]. AAPS PHARMSCITECH, 2019, 20 (07)
  • [30] Quantitative structure-property relationship of distribution coefficients of organic compounds
    Liu, Y.
    Yu, X.
    Chen, J.
    [J]. SAR AND QSAR IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 2020, 31 (08) : 585 - 596