Predicting Solubility Limits of Organic Solutes for a Wide Range of Solvents and Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solubility of organic molecules is crucial in organic synthesis and industrial chemistry, it is important in the design of many phase separation and purification units, and it controls the migration of many species into the environment. To decide which solvents and temperatures can be used in the design of new processes, trial and error is often used, as the choice is restricted by unknown solid solubility limits. Here we present a fast and convenient computational method for estimating the solubility of solid neutral organic molecules in water and many organic solvents for a broad range of temperatures. The model is developed by combining fundamental thermodynamic equations with machine learning models for solvation free energy, solvation enthalpy, Abraham solute parameters, and aqueous solid solubility at 298K. We provide free open-source and online tools for the prediction of solid solubility limits and a curated data collection (SolProp) that includes more than 5,000 experimental solid solubility values for validation of the model. The model predictions are accurate for aqueous systems and for a huge range of organic solvents up to 550K or higher. Methods to further improve solid solubility predictions by providing experimental data on the solute of interest in another solvent, or on the solute’s sublimation enthalpy, are also presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".