INTRODUCTION:

Partition coefficient and log P:

The partition coefficient is the ratio of concentrations of un-ionized compound

between the two solutions. To measure the partition coefficient of ionizable solutes,
the pH of the aqueous phase is adjusted such that the predominant form of the
compound is un-ionized. The logarithm to the base 10 ratio of the concentrations of
the un-ionized solute in the solvents is called log P:

LogP = concentrationofsoluteinoctanol (non-aqueous)

Concentration of solute in water (aqueous)

In the context of pharmacokinetics (what the body does to a drug), the distribution
has a strong influence on ADME properties (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism,
and Excretion) of the drug. Hence the hydrophobicity of a compound (as measured
by its distribution coefficient) is a major determinant of how drug-like it is. More
specifically, in order for a drug to be orally absorbed, it normally must first pass
through lipid bilayers in the intestinal epithelium (a process known as transcellular
transport). For efficient transport, the drug must be hydrophobic enough to partition
into the lipid bilayer, but not so hydrophobic, that once it is in the bilayer, it will not
partition out again. Likewise, hydrophobicity plays a major role in determining
where drugs are distributed within the body after adsorption and as a consequence
how rapidly they are metabolized and excreted.
Determination of partition coefficient:

1) Shake-flask method

In order to determine a partition coefficient, equilibrium between all interaction of

components of the system must be achieved, and the concentrations of the substances
dissolved in the two phases must be determined. A study of the literature on this
subject indicates that several different techniques can be used to solve this problem,
i.e. the thorough mixing of the two phases followed by their separation in order to
determine the equilibrium concentration for the substance being examined.

2) HPLC method

HPLC is performed on analytical columns packed with a commercially available

solid phase containing long hydrocarbon chains (e.g. C8, C18) chemically bound
onto silica. Chemicals injected onto such a column move along it at different rates
because of the different degrees of partitioning between the mobile phase and the
hydrocarbon stationary phase. Mixtures of chemicals are eluted in order of their
hydrophobicity, with water-soluble chemicals eluted first and oil-soluble chemicals
last, in proportion to their hydrocarbon-water partition coefficient. This enables the
relationship between the retention time on such a (reverse phase) column and the n-
octanol/water partition coefficient to be established.

Chromatography

Definition:

Chromatography is a sophisticated method of separating mixtures of two or more

compounds. The separation is accomplished by the distribution of the mixture
between two phases: one that is stationary and one that is moving. Chromatography
works on the principle that different compounds will have different solubilities and
adsorption to the two phases between which they are to be partitioned.

Thin layer chromatography:

Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) is a solid-liquid technique in which the two
phases are a solid (stationary phase) and a liquid (moving phase). Solids most
commonly used in chromatography are silica gel (SiO2 x H2O) and alumina (Al2O3
x H2O). Both of these adsorbents are polar, but alumina is more so. Silica is also
acidic. Alumina is available in neutral, basic, or acidic forms. Thin Layer
Chromatography (TLC) is a sensitive, fast, simple and inexpensive analytical
technique. It is a micro technique; as little as 10-9g of material can be detected,
although the sample size is from 1 to 100x10-6 g. TLC involves spotting the sample
to be analyzed near one end of a sheet of glass or plastic that is coated with a thin
layer of an adsorbent. The sheet, which can be size of a microscope slide, is placed
on end in a covered jar containing a shallow layer of solvent. As the solvent rises by
capillary action up through the adsorbent, differential partitioning occurs between the
components of the mixture dissolved in the solvent the stationary adsorbent phase.
The more strongly a given component of a mixture is adsorbed onto the stationary
phase, the less time it will spend in the mobile phase and the more slowly it will
migrate up the plate. The following are some common uses of Thin-Layer
Chromatography:
1. To determine the number of components in a mixture.
2. To determine the identity of two substances.
3. To monitor the progress of a reaction.
4. To determine the effectiveness of a purification.
5. To determine the appropriate conditions for a column chromatographic separation.
6. To monitor column chromatography.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Chau My Du, Klara Valko, Chris Bevan, Derek Reynolds and Michael H.

Abraham have reported a procedure for estimation of octanol – water partition

coefficient from isocratic RP-HPLC and hydrogen gone acidity term.

The linear solvation equation approach has been used to describe the octanol/water
lipophilicity scale (logPoct) and the isocratic retention factors (log k) obtained using
reversed phase HPLC with acetonitrile. Both the octanol/water partition coefficients
and the RP-HPLC retention data obtained from the literature, showed good
correlation with the molecular descriptors such as size, excess molar refractivity, H-
bond acidity/basicity, and polarity/dipolarity. However, the impact of the H-bond
acidity term was very different on the two lipophilicity scales.
The H-bond acidity term was not significant in describing the octanol/water
lipophilicity, while the H-bond acidity of the molecules decreased significantly their
RP-HPLC retention. As the other terms had very similar impact on the two
lipophilicity scales, it made it possible to convert one scale to the other by
incorporating only the H-bond acidity of the compounds as is shown by the equation
below, where A is the compound H-bond acidity.
Using the simpler hydrogen bond donor counts (HBC) also helped to align the two
lipophilicity scales to each other.

The validity of the above equations was tested using a test set of 41 drug compounds
with our measured data. The log Poct values were estimated from isocratic RP-HPLC
retention data with the H-bond acidity term and counts, with an error of 0.284 and
0.325 log unit, respectively.
Renxiao Wang, Ying Gao And Luhua Lai in the year 1999 has reported procedure
for calculation of partition coefficient by atom-additive method. A new atom-
additive method was reported for calculating octanol/water partition
Coefficient (log P) of organic compounds. The method, XLOGP v2.0, gave
log P values by summing the contributions of component atoms and correction
factors. Altogether 90 atom types are used to classify carbon; nitrogen,
oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus and halogen atoms, and 10 correction factors were
used for some special substructures. The contributions of each atom type and
correction factor are derived by multivariate regression analysis of 1853
organic compounds with known experimental log P values. The correlation
coefficient (r) for fitting the whole set is 0.973 and the standard deviation (s)
was 0.349 log units. Calculation procedures demonstrates that their method
gave much better results than other atom-additive approaches and was at least
comparable to fragmental approaches. Because of the simple methodology, the
'missing fragment' problem does not occur in their method

Calculation Procedures

1} Hansch p-Method

The original hydrophobic substituent constant, p, introduced by Fujira et al. (f) is

defined as:

px = log Pow (PhX) -log Pow (PhH)

Where Pow (PhX) is the partition coefficient of an aromatic derivative and Pow
(PhH) that of the parent compound.
(e.g. pCl = log Pow (C6H5Cl) -log Pow (C6H6) = 2,84 - 2,13 = 0,71).
According to its definition the p-method is applicable predominantly for aromatic
substitution. p-values for a large number of substituents have been tabulated (b)(c)
(d). They are used for the calculation of log Pow for aromatic molecules or
substructures.

2} Rekker Method

According to Rekker (g) the log Pow value is calculated as follows:

logPow =åaif j +å (interaction terms) ij

Where fi represents the different molecular fragment constants and ai the frequency
of their occurrence in the molecule under investigation. The correction terms can be
expressed as an integral multiple of one single constant Cm (so-called 'magic
constant'). The fragment constants fi and Cm were determined from a list of 1054
experimental Pow values (825 compounds) using multiple regression analysis (c)(h).
The determination of the interaction terms is carried out according to set rules
described in the literature (e)(h)(i).

Claire Barzantia, Rebecca Evansa, Jérémy Fouqueta, Léonard

Gouzina and Nicola M. Howarth has reported the log P with the help of
potentiometric method.

W. E. Hammers, G. lmeurs and C. L. De Ligny have reported

Correlation between liquid chromatographic capacity ratio data on lichorosorb RP-18
and partition coefficients in the octanol-water system.
Retention data of methylbenzenes, n-alkyl benzenes, fused arenes, polyphenyls,
Chlorobenzenes, -anilines and -phenols and some polar monosubstituted benzenes
have been measured on LiChrosorb RP-18, using methanol-water mixtures as eluents
at 25’C. The important effect of solute activity coefficients in water on capacity ratio
(k) data, holding for water as eluent, and on partition coefficients in the octanol-
water system (PO) was shown. The log k-log I’, correlation is improved by using
(1inearIy extrapolated) log X- values in water, instead of those in methanol-water
mixtures. At similar log Pact values the log k values of the polar benzenes were
slightly higher than those of the lipophilic compounds_ Consequently, two log k-log
Pa, regression equations were proposed. Steric and intramolecular electronic effects
on the values for log P, of halogenated anilines and phenols were described
quantitatively. The results cast doubt on the reliability of Rekker’sf-method for the
prediction of log PO, values of highly substituted aromatic compounds.
 SCOPE AND PLAN OF WORK:
The partition coefficient i.e. the solubility of the drug in octanol and water
remains an important physico chemical parameter, which determines the absorption
in the body and thus influences the therapeutic response of that drug. It helps in the
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship studies. This re-asserted us to come out
with simple techniques like TLC to calculate the logP for the drugs. In the present
work we made an attempt to determine logP values through the regular TLC.

The plan of work is divided into following stages:

Stage-1
The drugs were procured from the both in-house and outside for estimating
the logP values by TLC.

Stage-2
Thin layer chromatogram was developed by using octanol and water as
mobile phase solvents separately.

Stage-3
The detection of the spots was done and the Rf values were calculated under
both octanol and water.

Stage-4
LogP values for the drugs were also calculated using the computational tools
like ACD and VCC, so that we can compare and contrast the results.
 EXPERIMENTAL WORK:

Materials:

1. Silica gel precoated alumina plates (Merck)

2. Beaker (Borosil)
3. Petridish (Borosil)
4. Methanol (Ranchem)
5. Acetic acid (sd fine)
6. Capillary tubes
7. Fusion tubes
8. U.V. chamber
9. Iodine chamber
10.Hot air oven
11.Octanol
12.List of drugs procured for the study
 Albendazole
 Amodiaquine
 Atenolol
 Chloramphenicol
 Captopril
 Chlorpropamide
 Dextromethorphan
 Domperidone
 Diclofenac
 Ibuprofen
 Indomethacin
 Methocarbamol
 Mebendazole
 Nimesulide
 Naproxen
 Paracetamol
 Terbutaline
 Bromhexine
 Chlorpheniramine
 Carbidopa
 Aspirin
 Sulphadiazine
 Phenylbutazone
 Tolbutamide
 Ranitidine
 Theophylline
Methods:

Thin Layer Chromatography

Activation of plates

Aluminum plates which are precoated with silica gel GF were cut into
dimensions of 10 × 1.5 cm. These plates were kept for activation in hot air oven for
about 2 hour at 60 °C.

Preparation of drugs for spotting

About 10-15 mg of the drug was dissolved in organic solvent like methanol or
acetic acid in fusion tubes.

Saturation of chamber

Two beakers were taken and 15 ml of water and octanol were poured into
them respectively and kept for saturation by covering both with petri dishes.

Spotting of the drug

2 to 5 µ l of the drug sample was spotted with the aid of capillary

maintaining the spot size of about 0.3 cm. For weak solutions several applications
were made and each spot was allowed to dry before applying another volume of
solution to the same spot.
Development of chromatogram

The solvent were allowed to evaporate and transferred to the previously

prepared developing chamber; this preparation was done about 30 mins. before
insertion of the plate. It was lined with filter paper dipping into the developing
solvent so as to maintain an atmosphere saturated with the solvent vapour in
the tank, which prevents the edging effect.

The solvent were allowed to raise above ¾th the whole plate length and then
allowed to dry using heat or current of air as appropriate.

The spot were detected and the distance traveled by the solute and solvent
was calculated from which retention factor in water and octanol were calculated.

Different values like R f (o /w), Rf (w/o), logRf (o), logRf (w), logRf (o)/ logRf (w) and
logRf (w) / logRf (o) were calculated and tabulated to find out which is the most
appropriate one to consider in the determination of partition coefficient for the drugs.

Calculation of logP by computational tools

The logP values for the same drugs were calculated by using the
computational tools from ACD Labs. and online calculation was carried out using
VCC software.

Detection:

Examining the plate under ultraviolet light or in iodine chamber did the
detection of the compounds. The sensitivity of detection was thus related to the
absorptivity of the substance at that wavelength.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

octanol water
DRUGS Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Rf o/w Rf w/o STRUCTURES
Solute Solvent Solute Solvent
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
 octanol water
DRUGS Rf o/w Rf w/o STRUCTURES H
N
O
O
Albendazole 1.39 8 0.7 8 1.985 0.503 NH CH3
H3C
S N
Cl N

NH

Amodiaquine 3.9 8 1.3 8 3 0.33

HO

H3C N

H3C
CH3

HN CH3

Atenolol 0.2 8 0.25 8 0.8 1.25

CH3
O

OH
O NH
OH
O

O
Captopril 1.4 8 3.8 8 0.36 2.71 N

HS CH3
O

Cl OH
Chlorambucil 6.2 8 3.4 8 1.82 0.54 N

Cl
O
NH
O
S NH
O
Chlorpropamide 4.3 8 3.9 8 1.102 0.906 CH3

Cl
O
H3C

Dextromethorpha
1 8 0.2 8 5 0.2
n N
CH3

Cl OH
Diclofenac 6.8 8 3.2 8 2.125 0.470 NH

Cl
O
N
N N NH

Domperidone 1.76 8 2.10 8 0.8376 1.1938 N

H
O

Cl
 octanol water
CH3

DRUGS Rf o/w Rf w/o STRUCTURES O N O

Gatifloxacin 2.3 8 5 8 0.46 2.173

HN N OH
O
H3C F
CH3

Ibuprofen 6.8 8 4.1 8 1.658 0.602 O

H3C HO
O

N O
Cl CH3
Indomethacin 5.7 8 3.14 8 1.815 0.550 H3C
O

OH
O
H
N O

Mebendazole 2.00 8 0.49 8 4.098 0.244

N
NH CH3

O
O NH2

O CH3
O
Methocarbamol 1.4 8 6.1 8 0.223 4.470 O
HO

CH3
O
Naproxen 6.4 8 3.3 8 1.939 0.515
H3C OH
O
O
CH3
S
HN
O
O
Nimesulide 6.9 8 4.8 8 1.443 0.692

+
- N
O O
CH3

Br N

Bromhexine 4.7 8 0.8 8 5.87 0.170

NH2
Br
H3C CH3
N

Chlorpheniramine 3.6 8 1.5 8 2.4 0.4166

N
Cl
 octanol water
O

DRUGS Rf o/w Rf w/o STRUCTURES

OH
Aspirin 4.3 8 6 8 0.716 1.395
O

H3C O

HN N
O S O
Sulphadiazine 0.8 8 1.9 8 0.421 2.375

NH2

N
O
N
Phenylbutazone 4 8 1.3 8 3.076 0.325
O

CH3
O
NH
O
S NH
O

Tolbutamide 6.5 8 1.6 8 4.062 0.246

H3C CH3

O
NH +
N
O S -

Ranitidine 5.3 8 2 8 2.65 0.377 NH

O

H3C N
CH3
CH3
O
H
H3C N N

Theophylline 3.3 8 4.1 8 0.804 1.242

N
O N

H3C
 octanol water
O
H3C
OH
DRUGS Rf o/w Rf w/o STRUCTURES
NH NH2
Carbidopa 3.4 8 7.1 8 0.4788 2.088

OH
OH

LogRf (w) / Reported ACD VCC

LogRf (o) /
DRUGS LogRf LogRf (o) Log P
(drug
(w)
bank)
Albendazole 0.7184 1.3920 3.299 3.07 3.625

Amodiaquine 0.3953 2.5293 4.123 3.79 4.72

Atenolol 1.0643 0.9395 1.256 0.84 1.395

Captopril 2.3411 0.4271 0.546 0.27 1.35

Chlorambucil 0.2976 3.3599 3.655 3.10 3.7

Chlorpropamide 0.8641 1.1573 2.653 2.30 2.7

Dextromethorphan 1.7740 0.5637 4.323 3.96 4.6

Diclofenac 0.1771 0.5644 4.218 4.06 4.9

Domperidone 2.6521 0.3770 2.527 4.50 3.75

Gatifloxacin 0.1046 2.7592 1.02 1.21 1.5

Ibuprofen 0.2428 4.1178 3.481 3.91 3.715

Indomethacin 0.3624 2.7592 3.655 3.10 4.17

Mebendazole 0.4956 2.0176 3.291 2.83 3.27

Methocarbamol 0.2520 3.9687 0.118 0.55 1.19

Naproxen 0.4667 2.1424 3.313 3.00 3.47

Nimesulide 0.2808 3.560 3.38 3.79 3.39

Bromhexine 0.0969 10.3199 5.17 5.08 5.42

Chlorpheniramine 0.4759 2.1011 3.45 3.39 3.74

Aspirin 2.1585 0.4634 1.426 1.19 1.75

Sulphadiazine 1.6017 0.6243 1.883 0.14 1.45

Phenylbutazone 0.3814 2.6217 4.5 3.16 3.07

Tolbutamide 0.1289 7.7577 2.765 2.34 2.58

Ranitidine 0.2970 3.3672 1.93 1.62 2.19

Theophylline 1.3244 0.7550 0.773 0.17 0.32

Carbidopa 7.1731 0.1393 0.494 0.11 0.54

Graph of all the parameters calculated
 12

10

8
logP

0
i a ol e

bi ne
N bam l e

l b az e
P h u l p A s i ne

R tam ne
e e

D o de

do p i n

p h h i de
D hlo ora top l

om o an

N r ol
hl ro s n

eo itid e
C h y ne
et m l

ho d i n
tro ro bu l

o e

pa
G eri ac

M eb tha n

ira ine

yl i a i n
C hl p o

m p a ci
ex rp m ri

To b u t zi n
At ui n

C B ime oxe

T h an i d
ifl n

M me ofe

r o
In Ibu xac
C C a nol

et en c

en had pi r

ar l l i
u o
h i
D icl rph

p i
p fen
a t do

do
od d a z

m
ca a z

or m ul
en ex
q

ap
Am en
b
Al

S
drugs

LogRf (o) / LogRf (w) LogRf (w) / LogRf (o)

Rf o/w (obtained) Reported Log P (drug bank)

The graph was plotted for the various parameters like LogRf(o)/LogRf(w),
LogRf(w)/LogRf(o), Rfo/w and Reported LogP of respective drugs which are analysed.
The graph indicates that the Rfo/w values showed better resemblance with the reported
LogP values when compared to other calculated parameters.

Thus Rfo/w can be taken for the comparison with other standard values of LogP
obtained from ACD, VCC and Reported values.

Reported logP values vs. Rfo/w obtained from developed TLC method
 7
6
5
4
logP

3
2
1
0

m e
ph h ide
N ro l
hl r s n
do pr in
om of n

ho da in

N bam e

y l ia n
m pa c il
ia le

G erid ac

R am e
x e

To uta ine
en e

ex rp m il

D orp e

pa
C hl p l

M ebe tha n

C hyl e
ap o

Th an ide
Ph lph s e

bi e
C Ca olo

ira in
C B im e x e
D icl ha

r l

en ad piri
D hlo ora topr

ut n
iflo n
At uin

h id

M m e ofe

p in
in
In u ac

c a zo

ar lin
od az o

et n c
tro ro bu

p en

lb z o
at o

or om ul

do
en ex

eo itid
b z
et m
q

A
Am end

Ib
b
Al

Su
drugs

Reported Log P (drug bank) Rf o/w (obtained)

The above graph indicates that the reported values are quite closer to the Rfo/w values.
Hence, it indicates that developed method for determining partition coefficient
has good correlation with the reported experimental values. This suggests that
the developed TLC method will also be useful in calculating logP value for a
drug in the drug development process.

Graph of reported logP values vs. ACD computationally calculated logP values
 logP
A
l

D
D
D
D
D
D
A b en D
m d
od a
ia zol
A qu e
t in
C C a en o e
C h
D hl lor pto lol
ex o r a p
tro pr mb ril
m op uc
et am il
ho i
D d
D ic rp e
om lo ha
f n
G p er en a
at id c
ifl o
o n
In Ibu xa e
d o p ci
M m ro n
M eb et fe
et e h a n
ho nd c
ca az in
r o
N ba le
N p m a
drugs

C B im ro ol
h l r e xe
VËgReported Log P (dr

o r o su n
ph mh lid
e n ex e
ira in
Su m e
Ph lp A s in
en h a p i e
ìV

y di rin
To lbu azi
lb taz ne
u o
R tam ne
Th an id
eo itid e
p
C hy ine
ar ll
bi in
better with the ACD values, as both the values were very close for most of the drugs.

do e
As ACD claims that they are the leaders in the world for calculating logP values, the
above graph also indicated the same. The reported logP values were correlating

pa
 Reported logP values vs. VCC computationally calculated logP values

6
5
4
logP

3
2
1
0

m e
en ex e
do pr in

hl r es en
N pro ol
om lo an

ho d in

N bamle

y l ia in
et m l

G erid ac
ia ole

R am e
e e

iflo ne

lb z o e
D o e
tro ro bu l

M eb th n

pa
C hlo apt lol

eo itid e
C hy l e
Ph lp As ine

bi e
m pa c i
ex rp m ri

ira in
ph h lid

ut n
At uin

h id

To buta z in
M m e ofe

Th an id
p in
r o

ar lin
In Ibu x ac

en had pir
et en ac
D hlo ra op

D ic rph
p fen

x
C C no

at o

do
ca az
od az

or om u
q
d
Am en

a
im
b
Al

C B

Su
drugs

Reported Log P (drug bank) VCC

From the above graph it was found that the reported logP values were also
correlating better with the VCC online calculated logP values, as both the values
were very close for most of the drugs.

The consolidated graph of reported logP values vs. ACD, VCC, Rfo/w calculated
logP values
 7
6
5
4
logP

3
2
1
0

m e
ph h ide
N ro l
hl r s n
do pr in
om of n

ho da in

N bam e

y l ia n
m pa c il
ia le

G erid ac

R am e
x e

To uta ine
en e

ex rp m il

D orp e

pa
C hl p l

M ebe tha n

C hyl e
ap o

Th an ide
Ph lph s e

bi e
C Ca olo

ira in
C B im e x e
D icl ha

r l

en ad piri
D hlo ora topr

ut n
iflo n
At uin

h id

M m e ofe

p in
in
In u ac

c a zo

ar lin
od az o

et n c
tro ro bu

p en

lb z o
at o

or om ul

do
en ex

eo itid
b z
et m
q

A
Am end

Ib
b
Al

Su
drugs

Reported Log P (drug bank) VCC ACD Rf o/w (obtained)

The consolidated graph between reported logP values vs. ACD, VCC and Rfo/w
indicates that, all these values were correlating with each other except in few cases.

Among them it is quite clear that ACD computational values were very much
correlating when compared to the VCC online calculated values. The VCC online
calculated values were better correlating when compared to the developed method.

Since, the new developed method values were correlating quite closer to the reported
values we have opinion that this simple TLC method can be further improved to get
still even better results.

In an attempt to establish the reason for this correlation we would like to plot a scale
shown below. We assume that the reason for such correlation through the developed
TLC method may because of the importance of partition coefficient in development
of chromatograph who’s relative migration varies depending upon the structure of
that particular drug. Since, we developed a chromatogram through a distance of 10
cm, the division of respective values multiplied by 10 is giving the values of partition
coefficient.

-10 0 +10

Water solubility Octanol solubility

The above scale like a pH scale indicates the solubility of drug in water towards
negative side and in octanol towards positive side with respect to partition
coefficient. Drug if more soluble in octanol will travel towards positive side on an
above scale and if it is soluble in water will travel towards negative side. As
retardation factor refers to the distance traveled by drug in octanol and water the
above scale resembles the TLC plate of length 10 cm. Retardation factor of drug in
octanol-water if more indicates the partitioning will be more and thus solubility of
corresponding drug will be obviously more in octanol.

Drug having more solubility in water will travel towards negative side, which
results in low retardation factor and less partitioning.

Since, there are many disadvantages with shake flask method as it requires
development of the separate estimation procedure either titrimetric or
spectrophotometric methods. If the method requires titration, then accuracy of the
result will be under question mark due to various factors, which affect the accuracy
of the result. Where as in HPLC method, instrumentation especially columns and
solvents are the major cost effective factors which affects one not to go for HPLC
method, specially for academicians.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

Owing to the importance of determination of degree of hydrophobicity or partition

coefficient in the drug design and development process in the area of drug discovery,
in this present work attempt was made to develop a novel, simple and a convenient
method to determine the logP values.

The new method was developed with the aid of TLC. The thin layer chromatogram
was developed using octanol and water as a mobile phase on 10 cm length TLC
plate. The appropriate way to calculate the logP values through the TLC was found
to be taking the value of Rf o/w directly, as it was matching better with the reported
logP values. In order to evaluate the developed method we calculated logP values
computationally by using ACD and VCC. Even though the present method values
were quite less occurate when compared to the ACD and VCC, it is convenient and
easy experimental method which can be as an alternative to shake flask and HPLC
methods as both these methods suffer from many disadvantages specially need of
sophisticated instruments and lack of accuracy.

In conclusion, we have developed an easy and convenient experimental method to

determine the logP values for the drugs. This method can be used as a valuable
alternative at under graduate or postgraduate level as a substitute for calculating logP
values for drugs in the laboratory. The values can also useful in QSAR studies.

REFERENCES:
1. A.H. Beckett and J.B. Stenlake. Text Book of Practical Pharmaceutical

Chemistry 4th ed. Part-II, CBS, New Delhi, 2005,115-127.

2. Rang, H.P.; Dale, M.M.; Ritter, J.M.; Moore, P.K. Pharmacology 5th ed.

Elsevier science, London, 2003, 91-96.

3. Reynaldo César Castells J. Chrom. A., 2004, 1(2), 1037.

4. Claire Barzanti, Rebecca Evans, Jérémy Fouquet, Léonard Gouzin and Nicola

M. Howarth Tetrahedron Letters., 2007, 48, 19, 3337-3341.

5. María F. Mazzobre , María V. Román, Ariel Feo Mourelle and Horacio R.

Corti, Carbohydrate Research, 2005, 340, 6, 1207-1211.

6. Renxiao Wang, Ying Gao and Luhua Lai, Perspectives In Drug Discovery and

design., 2000, 19, 47-66.

7. W.E. Hammers, G.J Meurs and C.L. De Ligny , J. Chrom., 1982, 247, 1-13.

8. S. Ravi Sankar, Text Book Of Pharmaceutical Analysis 3rd ed. Rx, Tiruneveli

2001, 14.1-14.12.

9. R.F. Rekker and H.M. de.Kort, Euro J. Med. Chem., 1979, 14, 479.

10. A.Leo, C.Hansch and D.Elkins, Partition Coefficients and their Uses. Chem.

Rev., 1971, 71, 525.

11. Indian Pharmacopoeia. 1996, I-II.

12. Ashutosh Kar, Medicinal Chemistry, 3rd ed. New age international, New Delhi,

2005.

13.www.acdlabs/chemsketch.com

14.www.drugbank.com

15.www.vcc/logPcalculator.com