Isotopic enrichment doesn’t normally fall under the molecular design
remit. However, a radically new approach
has been recently discovered and predictive modelling was very important in
showing that the method would indeed be feasible. Isotopic enrichment is typically carried out
in gas phase and if the elemental form is involatile it is necessary to prepare
a compound which can be more readily persuaded into the gas phase. So if you
want to enrich uranium you first make the relatively volatile hexafluoride
(fluorine is good because it’s only got one natural isotope) and then stick it
in a centrifuge and away you go.
The isotopic enrichment industry has been watching developments in
aqueous solubility prediction with great interest. As you’ll know aqueous solubility is a very
important physicochemical property and a key determinant of the efficiency with
which a drug is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. By focussing on aqueous solubility you can
get away from all the technological demands of working in gas phase. You can do this in your garage.
Most pharmaceutical researchers are familiar with the idea that aqueous
solublility decreases with molecular weight and there is large literature of
many seminal articles on the subject.
One consequence of this anti-correlation is that the average solubility
for compounds above a particular molecular weight cut off will always be lower
than the average solubility for the compounds with molecular weights below the
cut off. The selection of the optimal
cut off is a challenging problem and it was believed that the only option available
was to design compounds such that the masses of two isotopic forms straddled
the value of the molecular weight cut off.
Only recently has the seminal 1940 study of Bronshtein and Mercader, the
result of a short collaboration in Mexico City, come to light. In a nutshell, their study unequivocally
demonstrated that the cut off could be set to the centroid of the isotopic
masses for any compound. The math in the
article is truly formidable but the essence of the method is that
diagonalisation of the reduced mass tensor is NKVD-complete. Thus the cut off can be matched to compounds
which is much easier than having to design compounds to the bracket the cut
off.
Literature cited
Bronshtein and Mercader, Мисс Скарлетт с ледорубом в исследовании. Dokl Akad Nauk 1940, 7, 432-456 doi
4 comments:
Rumor has it the Neo-Trotskyists have also been using this method to enrich uranium.
Leon: I just don't get the point
Ramon: It will come into your head shortly.
Pete, have you done a principal components analysis of this approach?
I'm not sure what happens when you PCA a tensor. In any case it is not recommended because the metrics generated provide encouragement for LeanSixSigma Master Black Belts.
Post a Comment