Professional Documents
Culture Documents
[3] T h e o r y o f P r o t e i n S o l u b i l i t y
By TSUTOMU ARAKAWA and SERGE N. TIMASHEFF
Introduction
The crystallization of proteins is determined both by their solubility,
i.e., an equilibrium thermodynamic factor, and by kinetic factors which
control nucleation and growth. For crystallization, a protein solution is
first brought to a point of supersaturation, a thermodynamically metasta-
ble state. Once crystallization starts, the system moves toward equilib-
rium until it reaches that state. The protein concentration at equilibrium,
i.e., protein solubility, is a complex function of a number of factors, such
as the physical and chemical natures of the proteins themselves, and
environmental parameters (i.e., pH, temperature, the nature of the salt or
organic solvent, and its concentration). The size of the crystal depends as
well on the degree of supersaturation and on the kinetic pathway of nucle-
ation and growth.
Protein crystals have been grown from a variety of solvent systems
(e.g., see Blundell and Johnsonl). Most prominent among the precipitants
used has been (NH4)zSO4, because of both its high solubility in water and
its strong salting-out properties. Salts, however, affect protein solubility
in broadly different ways. Almost all salts, at low concentration, have a
general salting-in effect on proteins, and some salts maintain this salting-
in property even at high concentrations. Organic solvents, such as ethanol
and acetone, have been used for protein crystallization. Most organic
solvents, however, have a strong preference for contact with hydrophobic
regions and tend to induce protein denaturation. Thus, their use is limited
to relatively low concentrations. Recently, two organic compounds,
hexylene glycol (2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol, MPD) 2 and polyethylene gly-
col, 3 have been identified as good protein crystallizing agents. They are
very strong protein precipitants 2,4 and do not denature proteins at the
f= c - p + 2 (I)
f= c - p (la)
0 !
n
u v
0.75
0.50 o=~
pK'~
O.4 ~aLMgSO~
0.25
0 U I
0.75 / " -
~-' 0.50 o= C pH 4
= C" 0. 4 ~t.MgSO4
--/
0.25
.~, 0 I
9
o 1.00
0.75
pns
0.50 =C" 0.19sat.MgSO~
0.25
0 I
It
0.75 ~ " " "
0.50
0.25
/ I
=C'
pna
O.7 sat.Mo~50~
0 0 2.0 3.0
M~ N i n l ml of suspension
FIG. 1. Solubility curves of chymotrypsinogen fractions in various solvents. B, C, and C'
correspond to the fractions.~7
~9j. T. Edsall, in "'Proteins, Amino Acids and Peptides" (E. J. Cohn and J. T. Edsall, eds.),
p. 576. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, Princeton, New Jersey, 1943.
2o R. M. Herriott, V. Desreux, and J. H. Northrop, J. Gen. Physiol. 24, 213 (1940).
zJ j. M. Treece, R. S. Sheinson, and T. L. McMeekin, Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 108, 99
(1964).
[31 PROTEIN SOLUBILITY 53
1 I I I I
>-
N-
- - 1.0
_1
gg 100% B .&
E
...I o
o o
mo_
" 0.5 o~- _ , 75% B - ::)5/. A
z~
I,d 5OO,o B - OO,o A
' O--O
N-
O
tr"
100% A
o_ 0 I I I I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 30
TOTAL PROTEIN ( g / l O O c m ~)
Fro. 2. Solubilities/3-1actoglobulins A and B and their mixtures in 0.00625 M NaCI as a
function of the total amount of protein present. 2~
Electrostatic Theory
1 = ~ . CiZ?
1.0
"6
E
ac
eNa2S04
" ;\\ \
\ ........
~,, tMt~ ~ oc~
\.
=__
= ~ ~l'~l 14,'20',J 4
o
where 1 is the ionic strength and k is the Boltzmann constant. This equa-
tion is simply an expression of the Debye-Hekel electrostatic theory for a
small ion. According to Eq. (5), protein solubility increases with the
square root of the ionic strength. At Z = 0, i.e., at the isoelectric point,
the protein solubility should also be increased by addition of salt, since,
although the average net charge Z is equal to zero, 2 2 is not zero. As
shown in Fig. 3,25 at low salt concentration all salts have a salting-in effect
on proteins, the logarithm of the protein solubility being proportional to
k/l-, in the limit as 1 ~ 0. Equation (5) also suggests that protein solubility
should have a minimum at the isoelectric point at low ionic strength. This
is usually observed.
Kirkwood, 26 assuming simple models for the dipolar ion, has given
expressions for the activity coefficient of dipolar ions in dilute salt solu-
tions. All the equations derived have essentially the form:
log j;- = - K ! (6)
where)'; is the activity coefficient of the dipolar ion 27 and K is a constant
which depends on the dielectric constant of the medium and on either the
25 A. A. Green, J. Biol. Chem. 95, 47 (1932).
~_6j. G. Kirkwood, in "Proteins, A m i n o Acids and Peptides'" (E. J. Cohn and J. T. Edsall,
eds.), p. 276. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, Princeton, New Jersey, 1943.
27 Note that in this c a s e , ~ includes the free energy of the s o l v e n t - d i p o l a r ion interaction and
hence is different in definition from 3'2.
56 CRYSTALLIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CRYSTALS [3]
~,0 I I ! I I
B
E 1.6
o
0
0
0 o~ ~:, POOLED
1.2
)-
I.- / ~ ~ a A
_1
flD 0.8
.J
0
01
z 0.4
G
o
n
0
0
0
_J XO
-1.6 i ~ 1 I 1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
CONCENTRATION NoCl (#M)
FIG. 4. Solubilities of/3-1actoglobulins plotted as a function o f ionic strength (,u.).21
dipole moment or the square of the dipole moment of the dipolar ion,
depending on the model used. Again assuming a solvent independent
activity of the crystal state, and treating a protein as a dipolar ion, we find
ln(s2/Sz.w) = ( K / R T ) I (7)
In this case, the logarithm of the protein solubility is proportional to the
first power of the ionic strength, rather than its square root. The solubility
of/3-1actoglobulin, shown in Fig. 4, aj was found to increase in this manner
when measured near its isoelectric point at low NaCI concentrations, a
result which possibly reflects the fact that /3-1actoglobulin has a large
dipole moment. 28
Small dipolar ions, such as glycine and alanine, should also have a
salting-in effect because of electrostatic interactions with proteins. In
ko MgS04
10 Na3 Citrate \
NazS04~ ' c ~ ~ \
%'~ \ (NH4)2S04
>,
F,
:3
\
-6
(.0
"s
t::
JE:
"Z"
0
--I
-10
I
0 2 4 6 8
Ionic Strength
FIG. 5. T h e solubility of carboxyhemoglobin at 25 and pH 6.6 in concentrated solutions
of various electrolytes. >
Hydrophobic Interactions
General. In his analysis of the transfer free energy of nonpolar hydro-
carbons and nonpolar amino acid side chains from water to organic sol-
vents, as well as of protein-protein and protein-ligand interactions,
Kauzmann 3j concluded that the highly unfavorable free energy of interac-
tion between nonpolar groups and water is one of the most important
factors involved in the stabilization of protein structure and in protein
interactions in aqueous solution. When a protein molecule becomes incor-
porated from solution into the solid phase, a certain amount of water is
removed from the points of contact which contain nonpolar side chains,
as well as polar ones. Therefore, hydrophobic interactions should contrib-
ute to the difference between the chemical potentials of the protein in
aqueous solution and in the solid phase, i.e., to protein solubility.
Cavity Theory. The concept of hydrophobic interactions is based es-
sentially on the uniqueness of water. Sinanoglu and Abdulnur ~,~ have
proposed that this uniqueness is expressed by the value of the surface
tension of water, which is much larger than that of most organic solvents.
Interpreting the enhanced stability of the DNA double helix in water
relative to many organic solvents in terms of the solvophobic theory
which they had developed, they proposed that a major contribution to the
stability stems from AGe, the free energy required to form a cavity in the
solvent for accommodating the solute molecule. This parameter is given
by the product of the surface area of the cavity, A, and the surface tension
of the solvent, or, i.e., AGc = trA. Although rigorously the surface tension
of the solvent should be corrected for curvature, 32 this correction is small
and its planar value can be used for comparing solvents.
Most inorganic salts increase the surface tension of water. This sug-
gests that their addition should affect hydrophobic interactions between
protein molecules in aqueous solution. Melander and Horvath t2 have ex-
tended the cavity theory to protein solubility in aqueous salt solutions.
The free energy change AG of transfer of a protein from water to aqueous
salt solution is
AG = AG~ + AG~ (l l )
Although the first term is not valid at large values of m3, it manifests the
salting-in effect as described above, while the second term indicates a
decrease in solubility with increasing salt concentration. A very important
conclusion from this analysis is that the first term does not depend on the
nature of the salt, while the second term is strongly dependent on it, since
the molal surface tension increments of salts differ greatly. According to
Eq. (14), protein solubility should decrease at high salt concentrations at
which the second term becomes dominant. Finally, Melander and Hor-
vath ~2 concluded that the molal surface tension increment of salts can be
used as a measure of salting-out effectiveness, just like the iyotropic
n u m b e r determined empirically. It has to be mentioned, however, that
CaCI2, MgCI2, and BaCI2, which have a value of (Oo/Om3)comparable with
or even higher than that of NazSO4, are known not to decrease signifi-
cantly protein solubility. In addition, this theory cannot be extended read-
ily to other additives such as polyethylene glycol, which is one of the
[3] PROTEIN SOLUBILITY 61
Theory
P h a s e S e p a r a t i o n . The preferential interaction pattern of a protein
with solvent components is a measure of the activity of the protein and
hence its solubility, in a given solvent system. Although the system usu-
ally consists of four components, water (component l), protein (compo-
nent 2), additive (component 3), and buffer constituents, the last can be
neglected usually due to their low concentration, reducing the system to a
three-component one. In a three-component system, the preferential in-
teraction of component 3 with the protein can be expressed either as the
binding of that component to the protein, (Om3/Om2)T,~ I,~3, or as the per-
turbation of the chemical potential of the protein by the co-solvent, (0/~2/
Om3)r.e.,,2. The experimental methods for measuring preferential interac-
tions and the theoretical analysis of the data have been presented in detail
previously in this series. 34,35Since the preferential binding and the chemi-
cal potential change are related by a negative sign, a positive value of
(Ol~2/Om3)T.e.,n2, i.e., an increase in the activity of the protein, is accompa-
nied by a preferential exclusion of the co-solvent from the protein surface,
i.e., by preferential hydration. When the preferential hydration is large,
addition of component 3 may induce a phase separation, resulting in the
formation of a crystalline or amorphous protein precipitate. The phase
separation can be described by a phase isotherm, similar to that devel-
oped by Flory 36 for synthetic polymers to describe changes in their solu-
bility induced by a change in temperature or by addition of a co-solvent,
and separation upon heating of aqueous solutions of polyvinyl alcohol-
acetate copolymers. 37
In terms of preferential interaction parameters, the phase isotherm of
aqueous protein solutions may be expressed as 5
-(t~1 - ~ ) / R T V I = (C2/M~){1
_ + ( Vm/2RTM2)Cz[(OIX2 ~e~/Om~_)'r.p.,,,3
+ (Om3/Om2)T,~l,~3(Otx2/Om3)T,l, m2] + O(C~)} (15)
where/x~ and/x~ are the chemical potentials of water in the real solution
and in the standard state, respectively. Vt is the molar volume of water,
C2 is the protein concentration in grams per ml, Vm is the volume (ml) of
solution containing 1000 g of water, and/x~ ~is the excess chemical poten-
tial of the protein. As is evident from Eq. (15), the dependence of/xj on C2
is a function of the preferential protein-solvent interaction parameter as
shown by Flory 36 for synthetic polymers. When (/x~ - / x ~ ) is negative, the
solution is stable, the protein is completely miscible with water, and no
phase separation occurs. A positive value means instability of the system,
leading to separation into two phases, a solution phase rich in water and a
crystalline or amorphous phase rich in protein. This phase isotherm does
not give any information on the compositions of the two phases. Since the
first interaction term in the parentheses of Eq. (15) is positive, its contri-
bution is to decrease the chemical potential of water,/xj. The second term
is always negative or zero, the signs of (Ol~2/Om3)T.l,m, and (Om3/Om2)r4,1.~o3
being always opposite. The condition of phase separation, i.e.,/x~ > / x l ,
requires that the solvent interaction term be large enough to o v e r c o m e the
contribution of the protein self-interaction term. When the preferential
interaction is that of preferential hydration, component 3 is preferentially
excluded from the protein and the separated solid phase should contain
less component 3 than the solution. On the other hand, for a preferential
co-solvent binding system, the solid phase should be enriched with re-
spect to c o m p o n e n t 3.
Chemical Potential Change. An alternate way of expressing the effect
of p r o t e i n - s o l v e n t interactions on the solubility of a protein is through
the change in the chemical potential of the protein that is induced by the
addition of component 3. Since the preferential interaction measurements
are performed on protein solutions, the parameter (Ol~2/Om3)T.l,,u2 refers to
dissolved protein. Integration of this parameter with regard to m3 gives
the transfer free energy of the protein from water to an aqueous solution
of c o m p o n e n t 3, i.e.,/x2 - /X2.w38
_ ....._ din3
A/-/-2 = //.2 - /d,2.w= f~~(0/x,/0mOT.p
_ (16)
3s Since all the preferential interaction measurements are obtained at infinite dilution, the
parameters derived from them should correspond to the same conditions; therefore. Pe is
the standard chemical potential of the protein, p.2. For simplicity, however, the super-
script will not be used.
[3] PROTEIN SOLUBILITY 63
and
= -- fo ('/
~'3 \Om3/T,e,m 2 ~ 'f0 e l m 3 \Om3lT, P,m2
dm3
where Ag~~eis the change in the protein chemical potential due to electro-
static interactions and A/z~pe is that due to interactions with the specific
solvent. Since the salting-out constant K~ is defined as the salting-out
effectiveness at high co-solvent concentrations, and A/z~le is significant
only at low co-solvent concentrations, Ks may be expressed simply by
mr(ST)
0
0
c= SA
(3.
:3 Se
(/3
r-
G)
tl.
/
Total Protein
FIG. 6. Model calculation of protein concentration in the supernatant as a function of
total protein for a system in equilibrium.
the solution phase can be expressed as SA(1 + K). Let us assume that the
addition of c o m p o n e n t 3 alters K, SA, and SB, and that the transfer free
energies of A and B from water to the mixed solvent can be expressed by
AI~IA = am3 and A/x~, = cm3, and by A/x~ = bin3 and A/z~ = dm3. Designat-
ing the p a r a m e t e r s in water by the subscript w, we may write
S n = SA, w exp[(1/RT)(AtxSA - A/.~X)] = SA,w e x p [ ( c / R T - a/RT)m3]
= SA.w exp[(c' -- a')m3] (23)
and similarly
SB = SB,w exp[(d' - b')m3] (23a)
K/Kw = exp(-b'm3)/exp(-a'm3) (24)
If the chemical potential of the solid phase does not change, i.e., c' = d' =-
0,
(I/K)(SR/SA) = (I/Kw)(SB.w/SA.w)
This relation indicates that, if form A precipitates in the absence of the
additive, i.e., if SB,w/SA.w > Kw, that form should also be the one to
precipitate at any concentration of the aditive. Then, the solubility in the
presence of the additive b e c o m e s
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 I 2 3 4
m3
FIG. 7. M o d e l c a l c u l a t i o n o f p r o t e i n s o l u b i l i t y (ST) as a f u n c t i o n o f c o - s o l v e n t c o n c e n t r a -
tion for a s y s t e m in e q u i l i b r i u m . T h e p a r a m e t e r s u s e d are SA.w = 10 4, Kw = 10 2, a ' = 2, a n d
b' = - 2 .
F o r the case where (SA,w/SB,w) < l/Kw, i.e., where A is the solid-forming
species in water, the equation has a solution only when d' < c'. Let us
[3] PROTEIN SOLUBILITY 67
take an example: let SA,w = l0 -4, SB,w = 10 -7, gw = e -8, and (d' - c') =
- 0 . 1 . The solution of Eq. (27) gives m3 = 10.9, for the solvent composition
at which both species will coexist in the solid state. Below m3 = 10.9, A is
the solid phase-forming species, above this, it is B. Letting SA be indepen-
dent of m3, i.e., setting a' = c' = 0, b' = 1.1, d' = - 0 . 1 , both K and S~
increase with greater m3. The resulting solubility dependence on m3 is
depicted by curve i of Fig. 8, where the dotted lines represent hypotheti-
cal solubilities of A and B in the regions where the other species precipi-
tates first. There is an inflection at m3 = 10.9, below which ST increases
due to the increase of K and hence the equilibrium concentration of B,
and above which the increase in ST is mainly due to the increase of SB. Let
us take a second example in which all species, both dispersed and solid,
interact favorably with component 3. Using the same values of Sa.w, SB,w,
and Kw as in the above, and the values of the interaction parameters listed
in the legend of Fig. 8, the calculation results in curve 2. The solubility
m3
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
80 ~ , i ~ /' ' '
\ \\ / A/e
zo \\ // zo
60 \ // I
50 \\\/// / I o_
o_ J-
,,, 40 m
1-
30 ~ 2
20 1.0
I0
0 I I ] I
8 9 10 II 12 13
m3
FIG. 8. Model calculations of protein solubility as a function of co-solvent concentration
for a system in equilibrium. The curves are calculated as described in the text using the
following values of the parameters: solid line 1, a' = 0, c' - 0, b' = -1.1, and d' = -0.1;
solid line 2, a ' - -0,7, c' = -0.5, b' = -0.9, and d' = - 1.0. Dashed lines are hypothetical
solubilities of the more soluble form in the presence of the less soluble form in the solid
phase.
68 CRYSTALLIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CRYSTALS [3]
TABLE I
PREFERENTIAL INTERACTION PARAMETERS AND CALCULATED SOLUBILITIES
OF PROTEINS IN AQUEOUS SALT SYSTEMSa
Concen- (dlx2/Om3)r,e,m2
tration (OgffOg2)r,,l.~3 (Om3/Om,.)r,~,,~3 ( cal/mol protein ~ Csat
Salt (M) pH (g/g) (tool/tool) \ tool salt / Ks (g/ml)
Lysozyme
Acetate 0.5 4.7 0.684 -+ 0.147 -5.14 11,400 8.5 0.30
Acetate I 4.7 0.478 --+ 0.075 -7.55 8,500 6.3 0.25
NaCI 1 4.5 0.424 --- 0.106 -6.20 6,800 5.1 0.45
a F r o m A r a k a w a and T i m a s h e f f . t3
b F r o m A r a k a w a a n d Timasheff. 39
c fl-Lactoglobulin.
Particular Systems
Salts. Salts such as NaCI, CH3COONa, and NazSO4 are known as
good salting-out agents. The results of preferential interaction measure-
ments given in Table 113 show that at high concentration they are strongly
excluded from the protein. Since the preferential hydration, (Og~/
Og2)r,,l,~3, is greater than 0.2-0.4 g/g, there is little binding of these salts
to the protein. Phase isotherms calculated with Eq. (15) and the assump-
0.20 I
0.15
0.10
0.05
i#}
o
>
I--
~k n,-
I
-0.05
-0.10
$e
-0.15
,.6
-0.20
Figure 10 gives the results of calculations for each of the two terms and
their summation. The details are given in the figure legend. It is evident
that at low salt concentrations, the electrostatic term is predominant, the
protein solubility increasing with addition of salt. At high concentrations,
the second term becomes dominant, leading to a sharp decrease in the
protein solubility. Typical values of K~ calculated with Eq. (22) are given
in Table I. Their magnitudes are considerably higher than those deter-
mined experimentally. The relative effectiveness is, however, in good
agreement with the order of salts as protein precipitants. The high values
of K~ could stem from the assumption that the chemical potential of the
protein in the solid phase is unchanged by the addition of salt, the com-
plete definition of K~ being
IO
3
Xl
tO
B+5
O
-10
-20
I 2 :5
m3
FIG. 10. Calculation of protein solubility as a function of salt c o n c e n t r a t i o n . The salting-
in term w a s calculated for a m o n o v a l e n t salt with Z = 5 (A), 10 (B), and 15 (C). T h e salting-
out t e r m w a s calculated a s s u m i n g A/x, = rn3(OtxCam3)r.e.,,,2 with (iJtz2/Om3)T.p.,,,2 = 20,000 (1),
15,000 (2), and 10,000 (3), at 20 . The s u m m a t i o n of the t w o t e r m s is given for t w o situations:
(A + 3) and (B + 3). This calculation w a s carried out for a 1 : 1 salt and a = 25 x 10 ~ cm,
setting I = m3, A = 0.645, B = 3.31 x 107 at 20 .
which indicates that MgCI2 should act as a salting-out salt at those condi-
tions. In fact protein solutions in MgCI2 show either turbidity or precipita-
tion when their pH is lowered.
2-Methyl-2,4-pentanediol (MPD). MPD is another solvent known for
its protein crystallizing properties. At pH 5.8, it is strongly excluded from
ribonuclease, as shown in Table II by the measured preferential interac-
tion parameters. 5 Phase isotherms calculated with these values indicate
that the protein solubilities should be close to 50 and 15 mg/ml at 40 and
50% MPD, respectively, agreeing with the observed crystallization of the
enzyme from aqueous MPD solutions. 2
The effect of MPD on solubility may also be described by Eq. (21). In
this case, the first term expresses the variation of electrostatic interac-
tions between buffer ions and protein charges and dipoles in the presence
of MPD, mainly through the effect of MPD on the dielectric constant of
72 CRYSTALLIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CRYSTALS [3]
T A B L E 11
PREFERENTIAL INTERACTION PARAMETERS AND CALCULATED SOLUBILITIES
OF RNASE A IN AQUEOUS M P D SYSTEMS AT PH 5.8 5
( Otl,2/Om3)T,P,m2
MPD (OgJOgz)r, vq,~3 ( cal/mol_ proteir~] C~a~
(%) (g/g) \ mol M P D / K~ (g/ml)
the medium. If this term is neglected, K~ can be calculated with Eq. (22),
just as in salt systems. The resulting values, listed in Table I1, are compa-
rable to those of CH3COONa and NaCI obtained with lysozyme, which
has a molecular weight similar to that of RNase.
Preferential interactions may also be expressed formally in terms of
binding isotherms. F o r a system in which the co-solvent binding is very
low and its exclusion increases linearly with its concentration, such as
aqueous MPD, preferential interaction may be expressed by
6
O
5
4 I /
,0
b 3 2 /
x // :o -2 ,,7
2
0 -I
I
0
0 ~ 40% 50% 55% 0
fl t f I
5 I0
MPD, m 3
FIG. I I. Calculation of the free energy of transfer and the solubility change of RNase in
the MPD system. Sold line (1) was calculated assuming no change in the chemical potential
of the solid phase. The dashed line (2) was calculated assuming that the protein in the solid
phase is also preferentially hydrated, with protein-solvent contacts reduced by 6.9% from
the liquid phase. The solubility scales on the right-hand ordinate refer to curves 1 and 2,
respectively.
tein and solvent in the solid phase. Assuming that in the solid phase such
contacts exist, but at a level somewhat below that in solution, i.e., keep-
ing the change in the chemical potential of the protein crystal explicit,
where An and Ah are the differences in the numbers of MPD binding sites
and extents of hydration between proteins in solution and in the solid.
Curve 2 of Fig. l I shows the results of such a calculation for the ribonu-
clease in aqueous MPD systems for a 6.9% decrease in contacts, i.e., An
= 2.76 and Ah = 8.28. This gives a solubility change, S J S z , w , within a
reasonable range, i.e., 0.025 around 50% MPD. Thus, the protein in the
solid phase should contain within its domain 7 mol of MPD (0.06 g/g) and
860 mol of water (1. I g/g) per mole of protein.
P o l y e t h y l e n e G l y c o l . The same treatment as for MPD may be used for
the aqueous polyethylene glycol (PEG) system in order to estimate its
74 CRYSTALLIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CRYSTALS [3]
T A B L E 111
PREFERENTIAL INTERACTION PARAMETERS OF PROTEINS IN AQUEOUS
POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL SYSTEMS
Cohesive Force. Salts, glycerol, sugars, and amino acids have a strong
cohesive effect on water through ion-dipole and dipole-dipole interac-
tions. They will, therefore, favor contacts with water over those with the
protein surface. This should result in their exclusion from the protein
surface. There have been many attempts to interpret the widely different
effects of salts on protein solubility in terms of various macroscopic phys-
ical properties of aqueous salt solutions. Surface tension seems to be the
most useful property, since it is a measure of the ability of a substance to
migrate from the water-air interface into bulk water. A similar macro-
scopic property of aqueous salt solutions is the internal pressure, defined
as (V~ - ~)//3, where V~ is the molar volume of the pure "liquid" salt, ~?~
is the partial molar volume of the salt in water at infinite dilution, and/3 is
the compressibility of water. As is evident from this definition, this ex-
presses the ability of salts to bind water and thereby to contract its vol-
ume. In fact, this property has been proposed by Robinson and Jencks 42
as a likely explanation of the salting-out effectiveness of salts on the
model peptide component ATGEE. Since certain sugars 43 and amino
acids 44 increase the surface tension of water, it is possible that the cohe-
sive force is the source of the preferential exclusion not only for salts but
also for these substances. This rule, however, is not universal, since for
some substances this correlation between the macroscopic property of
their aqueous solutions and their preferential interactions and, hence,
salting-out effectivenesses does not hold. Typical examples of such ex-
ceptions are divalent cation salt, such as MgCI2, BaCI2, and CaCb_. They
have large surface tension increments and internal pressures, just as
Na2SO4. These large values could be expected from their high charge
density and/or relatively small ion size. Robinson and Jencks 42 have pro-
posed that divalent cations form hydrates and can bind to amide groups
on proteins through hydrogen bonds by the same mechanism as GuHCI
and urea. Since this interaction is not electrostatic, the binding constant
may be low, requiring high salt concentrations. This may be the reason
why these salts exhibit different interactions from those for Na2SO4. In-
deed, when the affinity of the divalent cations to proteins was lowered by
inducing a net positive charge on the protein, preferential hydration was
observed in agreement with their large cohesive force (see Table 1).
The converse situation is found with glycerol45 and betaine, 44 which
have negative surface tension increments. This is not unexpected, since
their polar part would tend to go into water whereas their nonpolar part
4z D. R. Robinson and W. P. Jencks, J. A m . Chem. Sot'. 87, 2470 (1975).
43 E. Landt, Ztschr. Ver. Dtsch. Zuekerind. Techn. T. Bd. 81, 119 (1931).
44 j. R. Pappenheimer, M. P. Lepie, and J. W y m a n , J. A m . Chem. Soc. 58, 1851 (1936).
45 "International Critical T a b l e , " Vol. 2. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1928.
76 CRYSTALLIZATION AND TREATMENT OF CRYSTALS [3]
I. Introduction 78
II. Nucleation 80
A. Qualitative Discussion 80
B. Quantitative Theoretical Model 81
C. Experimental Results 89
III. Postnucleation Growth 101
A. Qualitative Discussion 101
B. Determination of Protein Concentration near the Surface
of a Growing Crystal 102
C. Calculation of the Growth Rate, the Average A t t a c h m e n t Coefficient,
and the D i m e r Dissociation Constant k~ 104
D. Effect of an Acoustic Field on Crystallization 107
IV. C e s s a t i o n of Growth 108
V. S u m m a r y and Discussion II0