Henry's Law Constants

https://www.henrys-law.org, https://henry.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de

Rolf Sander

Atmospheric Chemistry Division

Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry
Mainz, Germany

Errata

Contact, Imprint, Acknowledgements

When referring to the compilation of Henry's Law Constants, please cite this publication:

R. Sander: Compilation of Henry's law constants (version 5.0.0) for water as solvent, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10901-12440 (2023), doi:10.5194/acp-23-10901-2023

The publication from 2023 replaces that from 2015, which is now obsolete. Please do not cite the old paper anymore.

Notes

ID Notetext

1) A detailed temperature dependence with more than one parameter is available in the original publication. Here, only the temperature dependence at 298.15 K according to the Van 't Hoff equation is presented.

2) Clever et al. (2014) recommend the data from Rettich et al. (2000).

3) The vapor pressure for water from Wagner & Pruss (1993) was used to calculate H_s.

4) The data from Millero et al. (2002a) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −130.91527 +6700.13828/T +17.04690 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

5) Almost the same data were also published in Millero et al. (2002b).

6) The data from Millero et al. (2002b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −118.73105 +6163.97787/T +15.22401 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

7) Almost the same data were also published in Millero et al. (2002a).

8) The data from Rettich et al. (2000) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −179.13838 +8707.18054/T +24.33474 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

9) The data from Sherwood et al. (1991) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −197.67387 +9515.06056/T +27.11192 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

10) The data from Rettich et al. (1981) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −178.21341 +8672.23429/T +24.19307 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

11) Measured at high temperature and extrapolated to T^⊖ = 298.15 K.

12) Value at T = 293 K.

13) Value at T = 273 K.

14) Value at T = 310 K.

15) The data from Murray & Riley (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −180.22045 +8760.48709/T +24.49284 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

16) The data from Shoor et al. (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −91.44799 +4548.67245/T +11.38821 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

17) The data from Carpenter (1966) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −130.04480 +6687.45946/T +16.90116 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

18) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −167.89318 +8254.03507/T +22.62745 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

19) The data from Winkler (1891b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −155.30339 +7638.79978/T +20.77949 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

20) Calculated using machine learning matrix completion methods (MCMs).

21) Several references are given in the list of Henry's law constants but not assigned to specific species.

22) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −161.84251 +7966.66725/T +21.73409 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

23) The partial pressure of water vapor (needed to convert some Henry's law constants) was calculated using the formula given by Buck (1981). The quantities A and α from Dean & Lange (1999) were assumed to be identical.

24) Value at "room temperature".

25) Clever et al. (2014) recommend the data from Battino (1981).

26) Battino (1981) concludes that ozone aqueous chemistry needs further clarification. Data from Roth & Sullivan (1981) are recommended, in spite of limitations and assumptions of the data.

27) Roth & Sullivan (1981) found that H_s depends on the concentration of OH⁻.

28) Value at T = 291 K.

29) Value given here as quoted by Durham et al. (1981).

30) Lide & Frederikse (1995) present an unusually low value for the Henry solubility of ozone. They refer to Battino (1981) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

31) Parker (1992) assumes that the free energy of solvation of atomic hydrogen is equal to that of He because of a similar van der Waals radius.

32) Roduner & Bartels (1992) say that the free energy of solvation ∆G^H_solv (and therefore Henry's law constant) of atomic hydrogen is approximated well by that of molecular hydrogen. However, they apparently do not give a value for ∆G^H_solv.

33) Fitting the temperature dependence dlnH/d(1/T) produced a low correlation coefficient (r² < 0.9). The data should be treated with caution.

34) Data digitized from Figs. 2 and 3 in Schmidt (1979).

35) The data from Gordon et al. (1977) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −158.94920 +6959.70647/T +21.73458 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

36) The data from Crozier & Yamamoto (1974) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −129.44064 +5676.53837/T +17.30987 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

37) The data presented for hydrogen in Table II of Shoor et al. (1969) appear to be incorrect and are not reproduced here.

38) Value at T = 303 K.

39) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −94.36497 +4110.24200/T +12.07744 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

40) The data from Braun (1900) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 171.59401 −6856.00582/T −28.14731 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

41) The data from Winkler (1891a) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −103.47262 +4506.63665/T +13.44162 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

42) Fitting the temperature dependence dlnH/d(1/T) produced a very low correlation coefficient (r² < 0.5). The data should be treated with caution.

43) The paper by Bunsen (1855a) was written in German. English versions with the same data were published by Bunsen (1855b) and Bunsen (1855c).

44) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −98.78030 +4298.14801/T +12.74131 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

45) Young (1981a) recommend the data from Muccitelli & Wen (1978).

46) The data from Muccitelli & Wen (1978) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −103.10990 +4676.42222/T +13.28297 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

47) The free energy of solution was calculated based on electrochemical reduction potentials and related free energies.

48) Calculated from correlation between the polarizabilities and solubilities of stable gases. The temperature dependence is an estimate of the upper limit.

49) Jacob (1986) assumed the temperature dependence to be the same as for water.

50) In the abstract, Schwartz (1984) gives a range of 9.9 mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.0×10¹ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹. The mean value of this range (2.0×10¹ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹) has been used by Lelieveld & Crutzen (1991), Pandis & Seinfeld (1989), and Jacob (1986).

51) The value of H_s^⊖ was taken from Schwartz (1984).

52) Erratum for page 264 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): the second value from their Ref. [10] refers to 291.15 K, not 281.15 K.

53) This value is a correction of the solubility published by Lind & Kok (1986).

54) This value was measured at low pH. It is superseded by a later publication of the same group (Lind & Kok, 1994).

55) Pandis & Seinfeld (1989) cite an incorrect value from Lind & Kok (1986); see erratum by Lind & Kok (1994).

56) The data from Rettich et al. (1984) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −187.67959 +8903.42739/T +25.60079 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

57) The data from Murray et al. (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −174.95304 +8370.23274/T +23.67882 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

58) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −193.68170 +9249.62932/T +26.45116 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

59) Value at T = 311 K.

60) The data from Braun (1900) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 291.66358 −11637.68204/T −46.44139 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

61) The data from Winkler (1891b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −164.15163 +7906.86992/T +22.05400 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

62) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −163.64571 +7887.30463/T +21.97696 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

63) Tsuji et al. (1990) provide effective Henry's law constants at several pH values. Here, only the value at pH = 5.8 is shown for the (acidic) S compounds and the value at pH = 8.6 for the alkaline N compounds.

64) Value given here as quoted by Betterton (1992).

65) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 206.08554 −7165.21087/T −32.18391 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

66) Bone et al. (1983) give Carter et al. (1968) as the source. However, no data were found in that reference.

67) There is a typo in Sander et al. (2011): the value for A should be −10.19 not 10.19.

68) Modarresi et al. (2007) use different descriptors for their calculations. They conclude that a genetic algorithm/radial basis function network (GA/RBFN) is the best QSPR model. Only these results are shown here.

69) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2019) for HN₃. The correct parameter for the temperature dependence is A = −10.19 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

70) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2015) for HN₃. The correct parameter for the temperature dependence is A = −10.19 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

71) Solubility in sea water.

72) The data from Weiss & Price (1980) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −180.63595 +9824.19445/T +24.46109 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

73) Value at T = 296 K.

74) The data from Roth (1897) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −125.18003 +7706.84677/T +15.96500 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

75) Value given here as quoted by Gabel & Schultz (1973).

76) Value given here as quoted by Sy & Hasbrouck (1964).

77) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 94 % difference.

78) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2006) are inconsistent, with 94 % difference.

79) A minus sign is missing in the fitting parameter presented by Young (1981b). It should be −62.8086, not 62.8086.

80) Value at T = 297 K.

81) Value at T = 288 K.

82) The data from Winkler (1901) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −184.00016 +8924.35015/T +25.13228 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

83) The data from Loomis (1928) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −223.88348 +10620.38567/T +31.13458 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

84) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −160.19226 +7888.02751/T +21.56401 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

85) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2019) for NO. The correct parameters for the temperature dependence are A = −163.86, B = 8234, C = 22.816 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

86) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2015) for NO. The correct parameters for the temperature dependence are A = −163.86, B = 8234, C = 22.816 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

87) The fitting parameters A, B, C, and D in Table I of Wilhelm et al. (1977) do not reproduce the data in their Table III.

88) Value at T = 295 K.

89) Pandis & Seinfeld (1989) refer to Schwartz (1984) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

90) Value obtained by estimating the diffusion coefficient for NO₃ to be D = 1.0×10⁻⁵ cm²/s.

91) Jacob (1986) assumes that NO₃ has the same Henry's law constant as HNO₃.

92) Seinfeld & Pandis (1997) probably refer to the incorrect value given by Pandis & Seinfeld (1989).

93) Calculated from the solvation free energy.

94) Calculated from the solvation free energy.

95) Calculated from the solvation free energy.

96) This value was extrapolated from data at T = 230 K and T = 273 K.

97) Robinson et al. (1997) applied an empirical correlation between Henry's law solubilities and boiling points from Schwartz & White (1981).

98) Estimate based on the relation between boiling points and Henry's law constants for other nitrogen oxides from Schwartz & White (1981).

99) Fast, irreversible hydrolysis is assumed, which is equivalent to an infinite effective Henry's law constant.

100) Calculated based on the method by Meylan & Howard (1991).

101) Lelieveld & Crutzen (1991) assume the temperature dependence to be the same as for a(H⁺)a(NO₃⁻)/p(HNO₃) in Schwartz & White (1981).

102) H_s′ = 2.6×10⁷×exp(8700 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

103) H_s′ = 2.4×10⁷×exp(8700 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

104) Pandis & Seinfeld (1989) refer to Schwartz (1984) as the source, but it is probably from Schwartz & White (1981).

105) The value is incorrect. See erratum by Brimblecombe & Clegg (1989).

106) Möller & Mauersberger (1992) assumed the solubility of HNO₄ to be comparable to that of HNO₃.

107) H_s′ = 9.4×10¹×exp(7400 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

108) The data from Dean et al. (1973) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −164.49948 +8213.51377/T +21.97071 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

109) The data from Ashton et al. (1968) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −279.22002 +13536.61908/T +38.97390 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

110) The data from Dean et al. (1973) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −318.29914 +15733.16113/T +44.55314 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

111) The value presented here appears to be the total solubility of chlorine (i.e., the sum of Cl₂ and HOCl) at a partial pressure of p(Cl₂) = 101325 Pa. This is different from Henry's law constant, which is defined at extrapolation to infinite dilution.

112)

Young (1983) recommends values calculated from Table 1 of Adams & Edmonds (1937). Thus, the data refer to effective values that take into account the hydrolysis in the aqueous phase:

H_s,eff = ([Cl₂]+[HOCl])/p(Cl₂).

In addition, the values apply to a partial pressure of p(Cl₂) = 101325 Pa, and not to infinite dilution.

113) The same experimental data were also published by Whitney & Vivian (1941b).

114) The data from Yakovkin (1900) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −122.31284 +7690.41706/T +15.63950 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

115) Leaist (1986) converted the total solubility of chlorine in pure water from Adams & Edmonds (1937) to an intrinsic Henry's law constant.

116) Adams & Edmonds (1937) re-analyzed the data from Yakovkin (1900) and Arkadiev (1918), considering deviations from the perfect gas law. They calculated the total solubility of chlorine (i.e., the sum of Cl₂ and HOCl) at several partial pressures of Cl₂. This is different from Henry's law constant, which is defined at extrapolation to infinite dilution.

117) Arkadiev (1918) re-analyzed the measurements of Yakovkin (1900). In addition to the data between 15 ^°C and 83.4 ^°C, he also analyzed the experimental results at 0 ^°C and obtained a dimensionless Henry solubility of H_s^cc = 4.115 at that temperature.

118) The value of ∆H^° listed in Table 2 of Bartlett & Margerum (1999) is incorrect. The correct value can be found in the text on page 3411.

119) Wilhelm et al. (1977) present a fitting function for Cl₂ based on four papers which are cited in the footnotes of Table I. However, Bunsen (1855b) and Bunsen (1855c) do not contain any data for Cl₂, and the data from Whitney & Vivian (1941a) and Whitney & Vivian (1941b) are inconsistent with the fitting function.

120) Calculated from the free energy of solution by Schwarz & Dodson (1984).

121) H_s′ = 2.0×10⁷ mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

122) H_s′ = 2.0×10⁷×exp(9000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

123) H_s′ = 2.0×10⁷×exp(9000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

124) H_s′ = 2.0×10⁷×exp(9000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

125) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 9.16422 +45.14231/T −1.92852 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

126) Pandis & Seinfeld (1989) refer to Marsh & McElroy (1985) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

127) This value was extrapolated from data at T = 215 K and T = 263 K.

128) Value at pH = 6.5.

129) Value at T = 200 K.

130) Secoy & Cady (1941) measured the gas-aqueous equilibrium constant p(Cl₂O) / c(HOCl)² but not the intrinsic Henry's law constant of Cl₂O.

131) Ourisson & Kastner (1939) measured the gas-aqueous equilibrium constant p(Cl₂O) / c(HOCl)² but not the intrinsic Henry's law constant of Cl₂O.

132) The data from this work were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 1680.49916 −69933.18232/T −254.37224 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

133) The gas-aqueous equilibrium constant p(Cl₂O) / c(HOCl)² was combined with the temperature-dependent aqueous-phase hydration constant c(HOCl)² / c(Cl₂O) from Roth (1929) in order to calculate the intrinsic Henry's law constant of Cl₂O.

134) Data for the equilibrium between gaseous Cl₂O and aqueous HOCl were taken from Secoy & Cady (1941).

135) Data for the equilibrium between gaseous Cl₂O and aqueous HOCl were taken from Ourisson & Kastner (1939).

136) Value at T = 277 K.

137) The recommended value from Wilhelm et al. (1977) appears to be dubious as it refers to Secoy & Cady (1941), who do not provide a value for the intrinsic Henry's law constant of Cl₂O.

138) Young (1983) cites data from Secoy & Cady (1941). However, that paper only describes the equilibrium between gas-phase Cl₂O and aqueous-phase HOCl. A Henry's law constant of Cl₂O is not provided. In addition, the values given by Young (1983) are not extrapolated to infinite dilution but to 1 atm partial pressure of Cl₂O. It is not explained how the nonlinear pressure dependence was extrapolated to 1 atm.

139) Wilhelm et al. (1977) cite Secoy & Cady (1941) as the source for their value. However, that paper only describes the equilibrium between gas-phase Cl₂O and aqueous-phase HOCl. A Henry's law constant of Cl₂O is not provided.

140) Even though Haller & Northgraves (1955) have been cited several times as the source of the ClO₂ solubility data, they did not perform any measurements. They took the data from the 1952 edition of the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology which apparently reproduced data from Holst (1944).

141) Derived as a fitting parameter used in numerical modeling.

142) Robinson et al. (1997) assumed that the entropy of vaporization is the same for HOCl and ClNO₃ according to Trouton's rule. On their page 3592, they mention a value of 7 M atm⁻¹ at 250 K. However, checking their Fig. 9 and applying the temperature-dependence equation from their Table 3, it seems that the value of 7 M atm⁻¹ refers to 298 K, not 250 K.

143) Dubik et al. (1987) measured the solubility in concentrated salt solutions (natural brines).

144) Value given here as quoted by McCoy et al. (1990).

145) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −148.75647 +9709.80909/T +19.53408 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

146) H_s′ = 8.2×10⁹×exp(10000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

147) H_s′ = 1.3×10¹⁰×exp(10000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

148) H_s′ = 7.0×10⁹×exp(10000 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

149) Chameides & Stelson (1992) give a value of H_s′ = 7.1×10⁹×exp(6100 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa). They refer to Jacob (1986) and Chameides (1984) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

150) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −60.28319 +2830.41888/T +8.66642 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

151) The value is from Table 1 of the paper. However, J. Geophys. Res. forgot to print the tables, and I received them directly from the author.

152) The value presented for HOBr is incorrect. A corrected version was later published by Burkholder et al. (2019).

153) Fickert (1998) extracted a value from wetted-wall flow tube experiments. However, it was later discovered that under the experimental conditions no evaluation of H_s is possible (John Crowley, personal communication, 1999).

154) Value at T = 275 K.

155) Value at T = 290 K.

156) Calculated using data from Wagman et al. (1982) and the aqueous-phase equilibrium Cl₂ + Br₂ ↔ 2 BrCl from Wang et al. (1994).

157) Thompson & Zafiriou (1983) quote a paper as the source that gives only the solubility but not the Henry's law constant.

158) Calculated from the free energy of solution by Schwarz & Bielski (1986).

159) H_s′ = 2.5×10¹⁰×exp(9800 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

160) H_s′ = 2.1×10¹⁰×exp(9800 K (1/T−1/T^⊖)) mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

161) Saiz-Lopez et al. (2014) refer to Saiz-Lopez et al. (2008) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

162) It is unclear to which isomer the value of the Henry's law constant refers to.

163) Assumed to be infinity by analogy with INO₃.

164) Thompson & Zafiriou (1983) assume that H_s^cp(HOI) is between 4.4×10⁻¹ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ and 4.4×10² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

165) Badia et al. (2019) assume that INO₂ has the same Henry's law constant as BrNO₂.

166) Data taken from the AGRITOX database file agritox-20210608.zip.

167) Fogg & Young (1988) provide two different fitting functions: one for T < 283.2 K and one for T > 283.2 K. At T=283.2 K, the functions have different values and different slopes. Here, only the function that is valid at T^⊖ is used.

168) The data from Clarke & Glew (1971) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −133.37136 +7422.07661/T +17.82904 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

169) The data from Schoenfeld (1855) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 98.96597 −3021.26835/T −16.78226 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

170) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −122.57010 +6962.28325/T +16.20245 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

171) The parameter fit for the temperature dependence is incorrect. A corrected version was later presented by Iliuta & Larachi (2007).

172) The data from Clarke & Glew (1971) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −152.96041 +8324.82476/T +20.73127 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

173) Obtained with D₂O as solvent.

174) Value at T = 353 K.

175) The data from Schoenfeld (1855) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 265.79705 −9132.19789/T −42.02056 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

176) Value given here as quoted by Rodríguez-Sevilla et al. (2002).

177) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 153.05812 −4328.02756/T −25.05388 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

178) Marti et al. (1997) give partial pressures of H₂SO₄ over a concentrated solution (e.g., 2.6×10⁻⁹ Pa for 54.1 wt % at 298 K). Extrapolating this to dilute solutions can only be considered an order-of-magnitude approximation for H_s.

179) Ayers et al. (1980) give partial pressures of H₂SO₄ over concentrated solutions at high temperatures. Extrapolating this to dilute solutions can only be considered an order-of-magnitude approximation for H_s.

180) Gmitro & Vermeulen (1964) give partial pressures of H₂SO₄ over a concentrated solution (e.g., 10⁻⁷ mmHg for 70 wt % at 298 K). Extrapolating this to dilute solutions can only be considered an order-of-magnitude approximation for H_s.

181) Clegg et al. (1998) estimate a Henry's law constant of 5×10¹¹ atm⁻¹ at 303.15 K for the reaction H₂SO₄(g) ↔ 2 H⁺(aq) + SO₄²⁻(aq) but do not give a definition for it. Probably it is defined as x²(H⁺)×x(SO₄²⁻)/p(H₂SO₄), where x is the aqueous-phase mixing ratio.

182) The data from Bullister et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −281.50766 +14256.40525/T +38.73678 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

183) The data presented for SF6 in Table II of Shoor et al. (1969) appear to be incorrect and are not reproduced here.

184) The data from Ashton et al. (1968) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −431.90658 +20715.82000/T +61.33843 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

185) Value from the validation set for checking whether the model is satisfactory for compounds that are absent from the training set.

186) Experimental value, extracted from HENRYWIN.

187) Estimation based on the quotient between vapor pressure and water solubility, extracted from HENRYWIN.

188) The data presented for helium in Table II of Shoor et al. (1969) appear to be incorrect and are not reproduced here.

189) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −267.15065 +11439.94089/T +37.95959 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

190) The data from Lannung (1930) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 84.35043 −4135.59197/T −14.55881 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

191) Calculated employing molecular force field models for the solutes from Warr et al. (2015).

192) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −153.15223 +6434.36189/T +20.89911 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

193) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −171.85043 +7492.69092/T +23.58992 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

194) The data from Lannung (1930) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −40.06112 +1267.73110/T +4.12884 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

195) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −150.94721 +6639.96124/T +20.42364 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

196) The data from Rettich et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −178.55187 +8674.64248/T +24.26767 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

197) The data from Murray & Riley (1970) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −151.84298 +7548.16030/T +20.24095 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

198) The data from Shoor et al. (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −177.19955 +8740.51940/T +23.99126 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

199) The data from Ashton et al. (1968) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −160.52018 +7898.04854/T +21.56101 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

200) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −159.49592 +7859.85746/T +21.39866 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

201) The data from Lannung (1930) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −183.19283 +8856.80100/T +24.97251 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

202) Calculated employing molecular force field models for the solutes from Vrabec et al. (2001).

203) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −143.77232 +7158.59744/T +19.05403 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

204) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −153.87929 +7855.39229/T +20.51280 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

205) Two series of measurements with considerably different results are presented by von Antropoff (1910) for krypton.

206) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −220.92116 +10903.79526/T +30.49407 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

207) The value b for Xe given by Himmelblau (1960) in their Table III is incorrect. Most likely, only a minus sign is missing.

208) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −165.83837 +8808.67298/T +22.15203 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

209) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −199.40166 +10306.12546/T +27.18850 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

210) The data from Lewis et al. (1987) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 5.04319 +1555.05365/T −3.42757 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

211) Calculated employing molecular force field models for the solutes from Mick et al. (2016).

212) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −240.66150 +12686.97424/T +33.12170 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

213) The data from Sisi et al. (1971) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −81.82317 +4954.47991/T +10.19919 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

214) Solubility in natural sea water. Measurements at different salinities were also performed but only at a fixed temperature of 296.15 K.

215) Temperature dependence calculated using linear free energy relationships (LFERs).

216) Petersen et al. (1998) give the invalid unit "mol L⁻¹ ppm⁻¹". Here, it is assumed that "ppm" is used as a synonym for "10⁻⁶ atm".

217) Shon et al. (2005) refer to Petersen et al. (1998) as the source, but a different value is listed there.

218) Value at T = 333 K.

219) Calculated using linear free energy relationships (LFERs).

220) More than one reference is given as the source of this value.

221) Hedgecock et al. (2005) refer to Hedgecock & Pirrone (2004) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

222) Clever & Young (1987) recommend the data from Rettich et al. (1981).

223) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −133.87698 +6629.95765/T +17.62619 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

224) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −206.41149 +10058.76380/T +28.34414 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

225) The data from Shoor et al. (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −201.05778 +9920.37989/T +27.48020 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

226) The same value was also published in McAuliffe (1963).

227) The same value was also published in McAuliffe (1966).

228) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −195.92029 +9624.35229/T +26.74970 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

229) The data from Winkler (1901) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −203.15923 +9951.76163/T +27.82682 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

230) Yao et al. (2002) compared two QSPR methods and found that radial basis function networks (RBFNs) are better than multiple linear regression. In their paper, they provide neither a definition nor the unit of their Henry's law constants. Comparing the values with those that they cite from Yaws (1999), it is assumed that they use the variant H_v^px and the unit atm.

231) English & Carroll (2001) provide several calculations. Here, the preferred value with explicit inclusion of hydrogen bonding parameters from a neural network is shown.

232) Value from the training dataset.

233) Calculated with a principal component analysis (PCA); see Suzuki et al. (1992) for details.

234) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −185.72813 +9197.97398/T +25.21142 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

235) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −109.51425 +6313.03500/T +13.60482 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

236) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −215.51412 +10861.99481/T +29.50131 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

237) The data from Winkler (1901) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −277.60384 +13887.90744/T +38.63047 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

238) Value given here as quoted by Gharagheizi et al. (2010).

239) Calculated using linear free energy relationships (LFERs).

240) Calculated using SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry (SPARC).

241) Calculated using COSMOtherm.

242) Temperature is not specified.

243) Value from the training dataset.

244) Calculated using the GROMHE model.

245) Calculated using the SPARC approach.

246) Calculated using the HENRYWIN method.

247) Calculated using a combination of a group contribution method and neural networks.

248) Modarresi et al. (2005) use different descriptors for the QSPR models. They conclude that their "COSA" method and the artificial neural network (ANN) are best. However, as COSA is not ideal for hydrocarbons with low solubility, only results obtained with ANN are shown here.

249) Yaffe et al. (2003) present QSPR results calculated with the fuzzy ARTMAP (FAM) and with the back-propagation (BK-Pr) method. They conclude that FAM is better. Only the FAM results are shown here.

250) Value from the training set.

251) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −249.13774 +12672.58538/T +34.34947 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

252) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −275.67876 +14048.75424/T +38.16040 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

253) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −257.69125 +13189.22406/T +35.51020 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

254) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 14 % difference.

255) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 14 % difference.

256) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 14 % difference.

257) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2006) are inconsistent, with 14 % difference.

258) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −257.40538 +13425.82613/T +35.27659 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

259) Value given here as quoted by Dupeux et al. (2022).

260) Calculated using the COSMO-RS method.

261) Value from the validation dataset.

262) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

263) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

264) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

265) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2006) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

266) Fogg & Sangster (2003) cite an incorrect fitting function from Hayduk (1986).

267) The fitting function and the data in the table on page 34 of Hayduk (1986) are inconsistent by a factor of about 3. A comparison with the original measurements by Wetlaufer et al. (1964) shows that the data in the table are correct. Refitting the data suggests that the third fitting parameter should be 52.4651, not 53.4651.

268) Value from the test set.

269) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 15 % difference.

270) The data from Jou & Mather (2000) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −400.37981 +20169.55756/T +56.35268 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

271) The paper by Jou & Mather (2000) also contains high-temperature data. However, only data up to 373.2 K were used here to calculate the temperature dependence.

272) Value from the validation dataset.

273) Value from the test set.

274) The data from Shoor et al. (1969) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −311.59165 +15699.27950/T +43.32185 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

275) Value from the test dataset.

276) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

277) Apparently, the values in Table 2 of Park et al. (1997) show log₁₀(K_aw) and not K_aw as their figure caption states.

278) Extrapolated from data measured between 40 ^°C and 80 ^°C.

279) Data are taken from the report by Howe et al. (1987).

280) Value from the training set.

281) In their Table 8, Staudinger & Roberts (1996) incorrectly cite a value given by Ashworth et al. (1988).

282) The same data were also published in Hansen et al. (1995).

283) Hansen et al. (1993) found that the solubility of 2-methylhexane increases with temperature.

284) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

285) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −670.95016 +33188.34884/T +95.95544 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

286) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 21 % difference.

287) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −792.29207 +38089.33796/T +114.36659 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

288) Data taken from the supplement.

289) Calculated using the EPI Suite (v4.0) method.

290) Calculated using the SPARC (v4.2) method.

291) Calculated using the COSMOtherm (v2.1) method.

292) Calculated using the ABSOLV (ADMEBoxes v4.1) method.

293) Mackay et al. (2006a) list a vapor pressure p, a solubility c, and a Henry's law constant calculated as p/c. However, the data are internally inconsistent and deviate by more than 10 %.

294) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 23 % difference.

295) Value at T = 294 K.

296) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 13 % difference.

297) The data listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Dewulf et al. (1999) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

298) Value at T = 301 K.

299) Value given here as quoted by Staudinger & Roberts (1996).

300) Value from the test set for true external validation.

301) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −365.40646 +19821.40080/T +50.78223 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

302) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −383.72513 +20514.87172/T +53.42859 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

303) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −369.42890 +19642.42210/T +51.34122 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

304) Haynes (2014) refers to Mackay & Shiu (1981), but that article lists this value for 1,4-dimethylcyclohexane, not for 1,2-dimethylcyclohexane.

305) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

306) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −346.32547 +18710.62529/T +47.87396 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

307) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −187.57834 +9639.75167/T +25.50544 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

308) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −166.44396 +8613.39370/T +22.39721 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

309) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −175.14932 +9028.23984/T +23.67665 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

310) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −221.00345 +11107.50057/T +30.50409 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

311) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −168.51161 +9378.22816/T +22.33128 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

312) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −241.54650 +12718.75767/T +33.18333 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

313) The data from Serra & Palavra (2003) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −261.78124 +13728.80999/T +36.10653 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

314) According to Donahue & Prinn (1993), the value is incorrect.

315) Wang et al. (2017) provide separate data for cis and trans. However, since both isomers are identified by the same SMILES string in their study, it is unclear how the stereochemistry has been taken into account.

316) Values for the Henry's law constants shown in Fig. 3 of Martins et al. (2017) were obtained from Simão Pinho (personal communication, 2022).

317) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from multiple sources and obtained from experimental vapor pressure and water solubility.

318) The data from Dohányosová et al. (2004) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −169.70963 +10843.51298/T +21.91318 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

319) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single database or data collection and obtained from experimental vapor pressure and water solubility.

320) Approximate value extracted from Fig. 1 of Maillard & Rosenthal (1952).

321) The same article was also published in Monatshefte für Chemie 23, 489-501 (1902).

322) Value given here as quoted by Fogg et al. (2002).

323) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −143.25262 +7542.88446/T +19.33266 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

324) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2019) for 1-butyne. The number in their table should probably be 0.0569, not 0.569.

325) Regression and individual data points of Simpson & Lovell (1962) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

326) Using the theoretical initial concentration (H₀); see Zhang et al. (2013) for details.

327) Average of all duplicates (H₁); see Zhang et al. (2013) for details.

328) Sieg et al. (2009) also provide data for supercooled water. Here, only data above 0 ^°C were used to calculate the temperature dependence.

329) Extrapolated from data above 298 K.

330) It was found that H_s changes with the concentration of the solution.

331) The data from Görgényi et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −346.87760 +18421.40902/T +48.91353 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

332) Value obtained by applying a modified batch air-stripping method, otherwise called the vapor entry loop (VEL) method; see Kochetkov et al. (2001) for details.

333) Value obtained by applying the static head space (HS) method; see Kochetkov et al. (2001) for details.

334) The data from Khalfaoui & Newsham (1994b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −129.36127 +8999.50084/T +16.29092 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

335) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 189.34051 −5851.74068/T −30.89200 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

336) Value at T = 302 K.

337) The data from Cooling et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −231.38753 +13640.66542/T +31.46566 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

338) Calculated using G_h and H_h from Table 2 in Andon et al. (1954). Note that the thermodynamic functions in that table are not based on their α in Table 1. Instead, the expression exp(−G_h/(RT)) yields the Henry's law constant H_s^xp in the unit 1/atm.

339) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 11 % difference.

340) Values for salt solutions are also available from this reference.

341) The data from Görgényi et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −468.28244 +24099.41705/T +66.85571 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

342) Value obtained by applying the EPICS method; see Ayuttaya et al. (2001) for details.

343) Value obtained by applying the static cell (linear form) method; see Ayuttaya et al. (2001) for details.

344) Value obtained by applying the direct phase concentration ratio method; see Ayuttaya et al. (2001) for details.

345) Value obtained by applying the static cell (nonlinear form) method; see Ayuttaya et al. (2001) for details.

346) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −573.79714 +28957.92960/T +82.52324 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

347) The temperature dependence is recalculated using the data in Table 4 of Lamarche & Droste (1989) and not taken from their Table 5.

348) Apparently, the vapor pressure of toluene was used to calculate its Henry's law constant. However, no source is provided.

349) Value given here as quoted by Dewulf et al. (1995).

350) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1350.72129 +64759.34276/T +197.85632 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

351) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 100.47879 −2604.17171/T −17.31166 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

352) Value given here as quoted by HSDB (2015).

353) The regression parameters for ethylbenzene in Table 1 of Schwardt et al. (2021) are wrong. Corrected values from Schwardt et al. (2022) are used here.

354) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −176.88697 +11290.79930/T +23.22885 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

355) Different types of Henry's law constants of Ryu & Park (1999) are inconsistent, with 14 % difference.

356) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −371.46947 +20514.07888/T +51.95086 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

357) The value listed as A for diethylbenzene is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

358) Yaffe et al. (2003) list this species twice in their table, with different values. As it is unclear which is correct, the data are not reproduced here.

359) Erratum for page 365 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): data from Kondoh & Nakajima (1997) are cited incorrectly, giving the same values at 308.2 K and 318.2 K, respectively.

360) Value from the external prediction set.

361) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

362) Because of discrepancies between the values shown in Tables 4 and 5 of Shiu & Ma (2000), the data are not used here.

363) Effective Henry's law constants at several pH values are provided by van Ruth & Villeneuve (2002). Here, only the value at pH = 3 is shown.

364) The values of Dewulf et al. (1999) are not used here because, according to them, the calculated regression does not match the theoretical expectation for this species.

365) Calculated using the COSMO-RS method.

366) Value given here as quoted by Haynes (2014).

367) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single database or data collection and measured directly.

368) Literature-derived value.

369) Final adjusted value.

370) Value given here as quoted by Petrasek et al. (1983).

371) Calculated using COSMOtherm.

372) Calculated using the COSMO-RS method.

373) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single original paper and obtained from experimental vapor pressure and water solubility.

374) Value at T = 299 K.

375) Value at T = 283 K.

376) Cargill (1990) recommends the data from Rettich et al. (1982).

377) The data from Rettich et al. (1982) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −188.21734 +8974.05710/T +25.72558 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

378) The data from Douglas (1967) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −180.92854 +8514.06158/T +24.68061 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

379) Solubility in sea water at 20.99 % chlorinity.

380) The data from Winkler (1901) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −163.07025 +7890.85617/T +21.94516 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

381) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −161.93494 +7852.78341/T +21.76812 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

382) The data from Zheng et al. (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −144.44445 +8071.06256/T +19.20040 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

383) The data from Murray & Riley (1971) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −167.86796 +9146.18176/T +22.67310 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

384) The data from Morrison & Billett (1952) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −126.83006 +7302.88057/T +16.55553 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

385) The data from Bohr (1899) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −140.70031 +7951.74051/T +18.60965 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

386) As mentioned by Fogg & Sangster (2003), the fitting equation by Scharlin (1996) is erroneous. It appears that a correction factor of about 10⁶ is necessary for consistency with their own data in Table 1.

387) The data from Dean & Lange (1999) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −138.54127 +7859.16691/T +18.28487 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

388) Keßel et al. (2017) provide data at several pH values. Here, only the value at pH = 2 is shown because hydrolysis occurs in more alkaline solutions.

389) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 92 % difference.

390) This paper supersedes earlier work with more concentrated solutions (Butler et al., 1933).

391) Value given here as quoted by Gaffney et al. (1987).

392) Value given here as quoted by Hine & Weimar (1965).

393) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 10 % difference.

394) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 10 % difference.

395) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

396) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 10 % difference.

397) Extrapolated from data above 298 K.

398) Koga (1995) found that tert-butanol does not obey Henry's law at c > 3.8 mM.

399) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2019) for 2-methyl-2-propanol. The correct parameter for the temperature dependence is C = 37.98 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

400) Incorrect data are given by Burkholder et al. (2015) for 2-methyl-2-propanol. The correct parameter for the temperature dependence is C = 37.98 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

401) Calculated for an aqueous solution containing 60 % ethanol by volume as the solvent.

402) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

403) Value obtained by Saxena & Hildemann (1996) using the group contribution method.

404) Value at T = 300 K.

405) The error given by Suzuki et al. (1992) is not the difference between the observed and the calculated value, as it should be. It is unclear which of the numbers is wrong.

406) The species is probably 2,3-dimethyl-2-butanol and not 2,3-dimethylbutanol as listed in Hine & Mookerjee (1975).

407) Rumble (2021) refers to Moore et al. (1995) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

408) It is assumed here that entry number 72 in Table 1 of Yaws et al. (1997) refers to 2-methyl-1-heptanol, not 2-methyl-2-heptanol.

409) KWAC and KAWp from Table 2 of Lei et al. (2007) are inconsistent, with 10 % difference.

410) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

411) Different types of Henry's law constants of Yaws & Yang (1992) are inconsistent, with 16 % difference.

412) Different types of Henry's law constants of Yaws & Yang (1992) are inconsistent, with 10 % difference.

413) Value at T = 307 K.

414) Value given here as quoted by Mackay et al. (1995).

415) Calculated using SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry (SPARC). It is assumed here that the value refers to T = 298.15 K.

416) Value given here as quoted by Hine & Mookerjee (1975).

417) Value at T = 373 K.

418) Value at T = 281 K.

419) It is assumed here that the thermodynamic data refer to the units [mol dm⁻³] and [atm] as standard states.

420) Value given here as quoted by Shiu et al. (1994).

421) HSDB (2015) refers to Abraham et al. (1994b) as the source, but this value cannot be found there. Maybe the value is taken from Abraham et al. (1990).

422) Mackay et al. (2006c) list a vapor pressure p, a solubility c, and a Henry's law constant calculated as p/c. However, the data are internally inconsistent and deviate by more than 10 %.

423) Betterton (1992) gives Buttery et al. (1969) as the source. However, no data were found in that reference.

424) Intermediate of estimates employing the bond method from the EPI HENRYWIN software.

425) Although Mansfield (2020) writes that his "Table 6 summarizes numerical calculations for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde assuming the values given in Tables 4 and 5", different values for the Henry's law constants are shown in these tables.

426) Saxena & Hildemann (1996) say that this value is unreliable.

427) Calculated using the free energy perturbation (FEP) method.

428) Calculated using the thermodynamic integration (TI) method.

429) Calculated using the Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR) method.

430) Saxena & Hildemann (1996) give a range of 9.9×10² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 5.9×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

431) Saxena & Hildemann (1996) give a range of 5.9×10⁶ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.9×10⁹ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

432) The formula of 1,2-butanediol is incorrectly given as "HOCH(OH)C₂H₅" by Burkholder et al. (2019).

433) The formula of 1,2-butanediol is incorrectly given as "HOCH(OH)C₂H₅" by Burkholder et al. (2015).

434) Saxena & Hildemann (1996) give a range of 9.9×10² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 4.9×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

435) Saxena & Hildemann (1996) give a range of 3.9×10² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.9×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

436) Calculated based on atmospheric measurements.

437) Calculated using EPI.

438) Calculated using SPARC.

439) Henry's law constants calculated using the GROMHE model. Temperature dependences calculated with the method of Kühne et al. (2005).

440) Isaacman-VanWertz et al. (2016) refer to Raventos-Duran et al. (2010) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

441) Calculated using GROMHE.

442) Isaacman-VanWertz et al. (2016) refer to a paper by Hilal et al. as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

443) Calculated using SPARC.

444) Calculated using the bond contribution of HENRYWIN.

445) Compernolle & Müller (2014b) recommend H_s^cp for 1,7-heptanediol in the range of 4.5×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 8.3×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

446) Compernolle & Müller (2014b) recommend H_s^cp for 1,9-nonanediol in the range of 2.4×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.9×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

447) Compernolle & Müller (2014b) recommend H_s^cp for 1,10-decanediol in the range of 2.5×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.0×10⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

448) Value given here as quoted by Hilal et al. (2008).

449) Calculated using the EPI Suite method at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface (last access: 18 September 2023).

450) Value for the temperature range from 261 K to 281 K.

451) Value at T = 278 K.

452) Leriche et al. (2000) assume H_s(ROO) = H_s(ROOH) ×H_s(HO₂) / H_s(H₂O₂).

453) Lelieveld & Crutzen (1991) assume H_s(CH₃OO) = H_s(HO₂).

454) Jacob (1986) assumes H_s(CH₃OO) = H_s(CH₃OOH) ×H_s(HO₂) / H_s(H₂O₂).

455) Calculated using EVAPORATION and AIOMFAC.

456) Calculated using the GROMHE model.

457)

Effective value that takes into account the hydration of HCHO:

H_s= ([HCHO]+[CH₂(OH)₂])/p(HCHO).

458) Data from Table 1 by Zhou & Mopper (1990) were used to redo the regression analysis. The data for acetone in their Table 2 are incorrect.

459) Dong & Dasgupta (1986) found that the Henry's law constant for HCHO is not a true constant but that it increases with increasing concentration. Note that their expression does not converge asymptotically to a constant value at infinite dilution.

460) Ledbury & Blair (1925) (and also Blair & Ledbury (1925)) measured the solubility of HCHO at very high concentrations around 5 to 15 M. Their value of H_s increases with HCHO concentration. Lelieveld & Crutzen (1991), Hough (1991), and Pandis & Seinfeld (1989) all use these solubility data but do not specify how they extrapolated to lower concentrations. Since the concentration range is far from typical values in atmospheric chemistry, the value is not reproduced here.

461) Value given here as quoted by Möller & Mauersberger (1992).

462)

Effective value that takes into account the hydration of the aldehyde:

H_s= ([RCHO]+[RCH(OH)₂])/p(RCHO).

463) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 25.01186 +3596.13179/T −6.81725 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

464) Value given here as quoted by Bone et al. (1983).

465) Value suitable for the conditions of a case study in Mexico City.

466) Volkamer et al. (2009) found average effective Henry's law constants for CHOCHO in the range 1.6×10⁶ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 5.9×10⁶ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ for solutions containing ammonium sulfate and/or fulvic acid. A salting-in effect by fulvic acid was observed even in the absence of sulfate.

467) Solubility in sulfate aerosol.

468) Woo & McNeill (2015) say that the Henry's law constant was updated based on advances in the literature since McNeill et al. (2012) but do not provide further details.

469) Value at T = 372 K.

470) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −176.35942 +12895.73116/T +22.70566 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

471) The formula of propenal is incorrectly given as "CH₂CHO" by Burkholder et al. (2019).

472) The temperature dependence parameter C for 2-butenal is missing in Burkholder et al. (2019). The correct value is C = 24.42 (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

473) The data from Buttery et al. (1971) for trans-2-octenal are incorrectly cited by Betterton (1992).

474) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

475) Calculated under the assumption that ∆G and ∆H are based on [mol L⁻¹] and [atm] as the standard states.

476) Calculated using the experimental value adjusted (EVA) method; see McFall et al. (2020) for details.

477) Value at T = 359 K.

478) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

479) Calculated from the slope of y_acP vs x_ac, using data from Table VIII in Lichtenbelt & Schram (1985).

480) Value at T = 313 K.

481) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

482) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

483) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

484) Table S2 in the supplement of Wu et al. (2022a) contains incorrect data for 3-octanone. Here, the corrected data (Shuang Wu, personal communication, 2022) were used: 2.88×10⁻² and 1.52×10⁻² at 25 ^°C and 35 ^°C, respectively.

485) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

486) The value listed as A for 2,6,8-trimethyl-4-nonanone is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

487) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 116.85779 −1341.05519/T −19.91967 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

488) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −74.84079 +9452.88256/T +7.41864 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

489) The value given here was measured at a liquid-phase mixing ratio of 1 μmol mol⁻¹. Servant et al. (1991) found that the Henry's law constant changes at higher concentrations.

490) Abraham (1984) smoothed the values from a plot of enthalpy against carbon number.

491) The value of H_s^⊖ was taken from Keene & Galloway (1986).

492) Calculated using thermodynamic data from Latimer (1952).

493) Value at pH = 4.

494) Calculated using HENRYWIN 3.2 (bond contribution method).

495) At pH = 7.

496) At pH = 10.8.

497) Value at T = 289 K.

498) Value at T = 338 K.

499) Pecsar & Martin (1966) are quoted as the source. However, only activity coefficients and no vapor pressures are listed there.

500) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

501) The formula of methyl ethanoate is incorrectly given as "CH₃C(O)CH₃" by Burkholder et al. (2015).

502) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 74 % difference.

503) The same data were also published in Kieckbusch & King (1979a).

504) The H298 and A, B, C data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

505) The formula of propyl ethanoate is incorrectly given as "CH₃C(O)C₃H₈" by Burkholder et al. (2019).

506) Katritzky et al. (1998) list this species twice in their table, with different values. As it is unclear which of them is correct, the data are not reproduced here.

507) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

508) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

509) The value listed as A for n-heptyl acetate is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

510) The value listed as A for n-octyl acetate is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

511) Betterton (1992) gives Kieckbusch & King (1979b) as the source. However, no data were found in that reference.

512) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

513) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

514) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

515) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 34.46819 +3269.30103/T −8.76903 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

516) Burkholder et al. (2019) refer to Dohnal et al. (2010) but the quoted value cannot be found there.

517) Burkholder et al. (2015) refer to Dohnal et al. (2010) but the quoted value cannot be found there.

518) Dipropyl phthalate is listed twice with different values.

519) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 9 % difference.

520) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 17 % difference.

521) Hwang et al. (2010) present regression parameters in their Table 6 and values extrapolated to 298.15 K in their Table 5. However, I was not able to reproduce their calculation. The data shown here are from my own regression of the measured data between 318.15 K and 333.15 K.

522) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 752.38908 −29351.67152/T −115.55353 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

523) Different types of Henry's law constants of Arp & Schmidt (2004) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

524) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −4264.22086 +202442.23096/T +628.55271 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

525) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 224.10182 −4205.08840/T −37.65778 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

526) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −780.32217 +40759.16396/T +112.07659 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

527) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −565.00561 +31411.46240/T +79.73748 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

528) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single original paper and obtained from experimental vapor pressure and the infinite-dilution activity coefficient.

529) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1125.51962 +56732.44374/T +163.04716 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

530) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1315.53816 +64110.40807/T +191.89567 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

531) The value listed as A for di-n-pentyl ether is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

532) The value listed as A for di-n-hexyl ether is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K.

533) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

534) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −157.10519 +10203.59116/T +20.42550 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

535) Mackay et al. (1993) show 2-methyltetrahydrofuran in their Table 4.2. The associated data, however, appear to be for 2-methylfuran. This was corrected in the 2nd edition (Mackay et al., 2006c).

536) Betterton (1992) gives Hine & Weimar (1965) as the source. However, no data were found in that reference.

537) Betterton (1992) gives Vitenberg et al. (1975) as the source. However, no data were found in that reference.

538) Based on gas chromatograph retention indices (GC-RIs).

539) Warneck (2005) refers to Saxena & Hildemann (1996) as the source, but the quoted value cannot be found there.

540) The formula of hydroxyethanoic acid is incorrectly given as "HC(OH)C(O)OH" by Burkholder et al. (2019).

541) The formula of hydroxyethanoic acid is incorrectly given as "HC(OH)C(O)OH" by Burkholder et al. (2015).

542) Temperature dependencies in Tables 1 and 2 of Ashworth et al. (1988) are inconsistent, with 31 % difference.

543) Compernolle & Müller (2014a) recommend H_s^cp for tartaric acid in the range of 6.9×10¹⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 9.2×10¹⁵ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

544) Chan et al. (2010) give a range of 1.9×10⁵ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 9.5×10⁶ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

545) Calculated using the HENRYWIN program and calibration to 1,3-propanediol.

546) The value was chosen for a model study because it gave the best agreement with measurements.

547) Center of the range (2.3... 4.0) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

548) Calculated based on the method by Hine & Mookerjee (1975).

549) Compernolle & Müller (2014a) recommend H_s^cp for citric acid in the range of 2.0×10¹⁴ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 5.9×10¹⁵ mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

550) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −96.39126 +11107.87158/T +10.76466 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

551) In their Fig. 5b, Kish et al. (2013) apply an unspecified factor to the Henry's law constant, and it is not clear if the temperature dependence shown there is correct (Yong Liu, personal communication, 2014).

552) Calculated using the method from Nguyen (2013).

553) Calculated from the slope of y₁P vs x₁, using the tabulated VLE data from Kim et al. (2008) between 40 ^°C and 100 ^°C. Only dilute solutions with x₁ ≤ 0.1 were considered.

554) Value at T = 309 K.

555) The data from Christie & Crisp (1967) for dipropylamine are incorrectly cited by Betterton (1992).

556) Value at T = 323 K.

557) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

558) Value at T = 308 K.

559) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

560) Value at T = 285 K.

561) Mackay et al. (2006d) list a vapor pressure p, a solubility c, and a Henry's law constant calculated as p/c. However, the data are internally inconsistent and deviate by more than 10 %.

562) Calculated using ∆G_s^{g→ H₂O} and ∆H_s^{g→ H₂O} from Table IV of Arnett & Chawla (1979). Since some of the values in this table are taken directly from Andon et al. (1954), it is assumed that the thermodynamic properties are defined in the same way. Since ∆H_s^{g→ H₂O} is defined relative to pyridine, a value of −11.93 kcal mol⁻¹ from Arnett et al. (1977) was added.

563) Due to an apparently incorrect definition of the Henry's law constant by Andon et al. (1954), Staudinger & Roberts (2001) quote incorrect values from that paper.

564) The data from Wieland et al. (2015) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −12.48322 +7833.96799/T −2.23379 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

565) Value given here as quoted by Feigenbrugel & Le Calvé (2021).

566) Value calculated from the solubility of 9.4×10⁻³ mol L⁻¹ and the vapor pressure of 0.255 mmHg, as shown on pages 7142-7143 of Arnett & Chawla (1979). It is inconsistent with the entry in Table IV of that paper.

567) Value given here as quoted by Ma et al. (2010a).

568) Nguyen (2013) refer to Kim et al. (2008) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

569) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

570) Value given here as quoted by Goodarzi et al. (2010).

571) Goodarzi et al. (2010) compared several QSPR methods and found that the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm with Bayesian regularization produces the best results. Values obtained with other methods can be found in their supplement.

572) Value from the validation set.

573) At pH = 5.

574) Value from the test set.

575) At pH = 10.

576) At pH = 9.

577) At pH = 5.2.

578) At pH = 7.4.

579) At pH = 9.3.

580) At pH = 4.

581) Kames & Schurath (1992) were unable to assign the values to the isomers.

582) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single original paper and measured directly.

583) The same data were also published in Fischer & Ballschmiter (1998a).

584) The formula of 1,3-propanediol dinitrate is incorrectly given as "O₂NO₂CH₂CH₂CH₂ONO₂" by Burkholder et al. (2019).

585) The formula of 1,3-propanediol dinitrate is incorrectly given as "O₂NO₂CH₂CH₂CH₂ONO₂" by Burkholder et al. (2015).

586) Comparing the value with that from the cited publication (Kames & Schurath, 1995), it can be seen that the unit and the temperature listed in Table 3 of Warneck et al. (1996) are incorrect.

587) The data from Kames & Schurath (1995) for peroxyacetyl nitrate are incorrectly cited by Schurath et al. (1996).

588) The data from Kames & Schurath (1995) for peroxypropionyl nitrate are incorrectly cited by Schurath et al. (1996).

589) The data from Kames & Schurath (1995) for peroxy-n-butyl nitrate are incorrectly cited by Schurath et al. (1996).

590) The data from Kames & Schurath (1995) for peroxymethacryloyl nitrate are incorrectly cited by Schurath et al. (1996).

591) The data from Kames & Schurath (1995) for peroxy-i-butyl nitrate are incorrectly cited by Schurath et al. (1996).

592) Estimate based on Raventos-Duran et al. (2010).

593) The value at T^⊖ is the intrinsic Henry's law constant, but the temperature dependence refers to the effective Henry's law constant at pH = 3.0.

594) The value at T^⊖ is the intrinsic Henry's law constant, but the temperature dependence refers to the effective Henry's law constant at pH = 3.08.

595) Burkholder et al. (2019) refer to Borduas et al. (2016), but the quoted temperature dependence cannot be found there.

596) The values for nitroethane in Tables VI and VIII of Friant & Suffet (1979) differ by a factor of 10. Apparently, the value in Table VIII is wrong.

597) The data listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Dewulf et al. (1999) are inconsistent, with 27 % difference.

598) Mackay et al. (2006d) list two values for dinoseb which differ by a factor of 1000. It is unclear which number is correct (if any), and the data are not reproduced here.

599) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

600) The data from Glew & Moelwyn-Hughes (1953) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −135.82153 +7593.40210/T +18.05983 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

601) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −163.70243 +8973.31702/T +22.17142 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

602) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −142.70483 +8025.53634/T +19.04459 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

603) The data from Zheng et al. (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −190.61883 +10088.26604/T +25.94088 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

604) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −177.44258 +9554.69077/T +23.94054 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

605) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −350.64769 +16708.21158/T +49.40260 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

606) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −552.21925 +25529.87824/T +79.59532 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

607) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1994) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −552.21925 +25529.87824/T +79.59532 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

608) The data from Wen & Muccitelli (1979) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −356.92862 +16943.60743/T +50.37024 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

609) The data from Ashton et al. (1968) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −320.94920 +15261.59761/T +45.04999 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

610) The data from Morrison & Johnstone (1954) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −174.44927 +8434.85415/T +23.34667 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

611) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-7 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

612) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-7 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

613) The data from Zheng et al. (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −203.78636 +11097.46295/T +27.89781 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

614) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −184.82862 +10260.68748/T +25.06659 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

615) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −175.64790 +9805.36255/T +23.71997 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

616) The data from Zheng et al. (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −244.13803 +12963.44791/T +33.68869 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

617) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −225.56576 +12186.49271/T +30.88527 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

618) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −208.89063 +11387.66269/T +28.42221 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

619) The data from Chang & Criddle (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1003.84843 +45506.41997/T +147.89575 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

620) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −164.25912 +9381.27951/T +21.50852 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

621) The data from Wen & Muccitelli (1979) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −499.58027 +23563.58548/T +71.28547 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

622) Value at T = 287 K.

623) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −78.74652 +5836.89853/T +8.41927 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

624) The data from Clever et al. (2005) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −588.11493 +28143.62655/T +84.26602 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

625) In their Table 13, Clever et al. (2005) list Ostwald coefficients that are probably incorrect by a factor of 100. Therefore, these values are not used. Instead, H_s is calculated using the amount fraction x₁ from the same table.

626) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1994) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −630.69812 +30309.09620/T +90.46890 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

627) The data from Wen & Muccitelli (1979) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −673.45093 +31915.22191/T +97.01287 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

628) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −197.14328 +10473.25320/T +26.34780 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

629) Calculated using the COSMO-RS method.

630) Value given here as quoted by Kanakidou et al. (1995).

631) Comparing with Abraham et al. (1994a), it seems that the compound called "trifluoroethanol" by Goss (2005) refers to 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol.

632) Comparing with Abraham et al. (1994a), it seems that the compound called "hexafluoropropanol" by Goss (2005) refers to 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-propanol.

633) Value at T = 284 K.

634) Measured in aqueous hydrochloric acid and extrapolated to pure water as the solvent at 25 ^°C. Measurements were also made at other temperatures; however, those were not extrapolated to pure water as the solvent.

635) Calculated using the EPI Suite Bond estimation method.

636) Calculated using the new SPARC method; see Arp et al. (2006) for details.

637) Calculated using the COSMOtherm method; see Arp et al. (2006) for details.

638) A refit yields A = −18.99, B = 5493, and H(298 K) = 0.57 M atm⁻¹ (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

639) A refit yields A = −18.99, B = 5493, and H(298 K) = 0.57 M atm⁻¹ (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

640) A refit yields A = −21.67, B = 5776, and H(298 K) = 0.10 M atm⁻¹ (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

641) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 29 % difference.

642) A refit yields A = −21.67, B = 5776, and H(298 K) = 0.10 M atm⁻¹ (Robert E. Huie, personal communication, 2021).

643) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 29 % difference.

644) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 29 % difference.

645) The data from Clever et al. (2005) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 289.52731 −11352.28764/T −46.16636 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

646) The Ostwald coefficient given by Clever et al. (2005) at 313.2 K is probably incorrect. Therefore, the Ostwald coefficients are not used. Instead, H_s is calculated using the amount fraction x₁ from the same table.

647) Extrapolated based on number of carbons.

648) Measured with the wetted-wall column at room temperature.

649) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 9 % difference.

650) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2006) are inconsistent, with 9 % difference.

651) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −251.05524 +13259.11238/T +35.01689 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

652) The same data were also published in McConnell et al. (1975).

653) The data from Glew & Moelwyn-Hughes (1953) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −171.13922 +9743.00862/T +23.09617 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

654) Values at different temperatures are from different sources. Thus a temperature dependence was not calculated.

655) Chiang et al. (1998) show vinyl chloride in their Table 2 but most probably they meant to refer to dichloromethane instead.

656) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −444.17924 +22456.73010/T +63.76504 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

657) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

658) The data from Görgényi et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −378.58394 +20174.21740/T +53.50733 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

659) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 32.52949 +1878.33965/T −7.88669 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

660) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −109.09283 +8000.75665/T +13.39152 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

661) Probably an interpolation of the data from Balls (1980).

662) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

663) The data from Bullister & Wisegarver (1998) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −704.14827 +34144.22543/T +102.05900 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

664) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −426.63883 +22457.44484/T +60.22986 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

665) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −221.58685 +12291.19692/T +30.42274 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

666) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −233.85408 +12927.78674/T +32.20896 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

667) The data from Görgényi et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −372.18171 +19566.24430/T +52.67563 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

668) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1295.59488 +61538.96732/T +190.02999 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

669) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −309.75754 +17275.24359/T +43.35857 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

670) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 313.48900 −12120.80915/T −49.20309 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

671) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 255.46482 −8896.18926/T −40.90189 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

672) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

673) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 200.57490 −7128.25195/T −31.87090 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

674) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −304.31063 +17046.46392/T +42.59182 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

675) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1784.39346 +88282.78313/T +260.26420 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

676) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 608.52671 −23622.70039/T −93.86675 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

677) The value for A in the table of Kondoh & Nakajima (1997) is incorrect. Recalculating the regression, it can be seen that it should be 13.95 and not 1.395.

678) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 2638.58362 −114985.14319/T −396.08684 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

679) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 9 % difference.

680) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −573.71583 +28877.33987/T +82.70652 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

681) The data from Sarraute et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −503.53929 +28223.72051/T +70.89539 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

682) As explained by Miller & Stuart (2003), the measurements were performed at 296 K.

683) Value for T = 295... 298 K.

684) Value for T = 293... 298 K.

685) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −20.66550 +2604.04375/T +0.71618 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

686) Mackay et al. (2006b) list a vapor pressure p, a solubility c, and a Henry's law constant calculated as p/c. However, the data are internally inconsistent and deviate by more than 10 %.

687) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

688) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −214.72711 +12076.59750/T +29.20357 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

689) A typo in Ashworth et al. (1988) has been corrected by Howe et al. (1987).

690) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −332.68901 +17925.88529/T +46.77838 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

691) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −6.68889 +2211.36530/T −1.35562 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

692) The data from Khalfaoui & Newsham (1994b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −593.56638 +30300.74334/T +85.11654 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

693) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −294.54970 +16409.35487/T +40.82700 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

694) The data from Cooling et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −511.78487 +26710.19432/T +72.88428 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

695) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −265.05023 +15058.74166/T +36.44489 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

696) The data from Görgényi et al. (2002) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −480.92627 +24776.54948/T +68.60203 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

697) The data from Knauss et al. (2000) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −389.28715 +21123.08306/T +54.69870 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

698) The data from Khalfaoui & Newsham (1994b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −511.93333 +26713.10409/T +72.90486 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

699) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 176.54626 −5510.83530/T −28.96476 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

700) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 681.41357 −27448.54898/T −104.63745 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

701) The data from Cooling et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −574.03736 +29404.85275/T +82.22239 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

702) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −330.94732 +18207.71618/T +46.05983 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

703) The data from Knauss et al. (2000) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −281.09212 +15955.08701/T +38.60106 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

704) The data from Robbins et al. (1993) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1145.60543 +55089.35358/T +167.32916 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

705) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −224.85290 +13463.70772/T +30.65123 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

706) Henry's law constants were evaluated using data from Florida sandy field soil.

707) According to Thomas et al. (2006), theoretical Henry's law constants were calculated using the "normal boiling point, the critical temperature, and the enthalpy of volatilization at the normal boiling point".

708) Haynes (2014) refers to Mackay & Shiu (1981), but that article lists this value for 1-chloro-2-methylpropane (the saturated compound), not for 1-chloro-2-methylpropene.

709) The regression parameters for chlorobenzene in Table 1 of Schwardt et al. (2021) are wrong. Corrected values from Schwardt et al. (2022) are used here.

710) The data from Schwardt et al. (2021) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −266.69799 +14811.78875/T +37.00248 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

711) The data from Khalfaoui & Newsham (1994b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −757.46490 +35956.20088/T +110.75697 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

712) The data from Cooling et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −820.00735 +38880.21496/T +120.01463 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

713) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

714) Erratum for page 344 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): their reference [89] does not contain 1,2-dichlorobenzene.

715) The data listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Dewulf et al. (1999) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

716) The data listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Dewulf et al. (1999) are inconsistent, with 7 % difference.

717) Rumble (2021) refers to Oliver (1985) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

718) Value for T = 298... 303 K.

719) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from multiple sources and obtained from the experimental octanol-water partition coefficient and the octanol-air partition coefficient.

720) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single database or data collection and obtained from the experimental octanol-water partition coefficient and the octanol-air partition coefficient.

721) Odabasi & Adali (2016) provide the parameters A and B for an equation to calculate temperature-dependent Henry's law constants. Values calculated with this equation at 298 K are slightly different than those measured at 298 K and given as H in their Table 1. Here, the values H and B are used.

722) Modified gas-stripping method (MGSM); see Lau et al. (2006) for details.

723) Integrated gas-stripping method (IGSM); see Lau et al. (2006) for details.

724) Calculated with the principal component regression (PCR) method; see Lee (2007) for details.

725) Calculated with the partial least-square regression (PLSR) method; see Lee (2007) for details.

726) The same data were also published in Dunnivant et al. (1988).

727) Value given here as quoted by Dunnivant et al. (1988).

728) Calculated using the EPICS method.

729) Calculated using the "Direct" method.

730) Westcott et al. (1981) give a range of 1.9×10⁻² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 3.2×10⁻² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

731) Westcott et al. (1981) give a range of 2.8×10⁻² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹ < H_s^cp < 9.0×10⁻² mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹.

732) Erratum for page 350 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): the equation describing the recommended temperature-dependent data appears to be incorrect and is not used here.

733) Value at pH = 4.

734) When comparing H in Table 4 with K_gw in Table 5 of Pfeifer et al. (2001), it can be seen that the values refer to K_gw×100 and not K_gw/100.

735) Measured at pH = 1.

736) The same data were also published in Brandsch et al. (1993).

737) Erratum for page 376 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): data from Santl et al. (1994) are cited incorrectly; it should be 3.64, not 3.84.

738) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 8 % difference.

739) Although pronamide and propyzamide are the same species, Mackay et al. (2006d) list two different values for them. It is unclear which number is correct (if any), and the data are not reproduced here.

740) The value at 20 ^°C was calculated from published values of vapor pressure and water solubility. Data between 25 ^°C and 40 ^°C were calculated from the measured evaporation rate.

741) At pH = 5.4.

742) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from multiple sources and measured directly.

743) The data from Zheng et al. (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −206.94328 +11372.60160/T +28.22232 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

744) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −200.57407 +11192.94120/T +27.21799 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

745) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −208.06143 +11491.37664/T +28.35385 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

746) The data from Chang & Criddle (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −1756.76650 +80805.82151/T +259.24493 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

747) The data from McLinden (1989) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −387.81127 +19950.77318/T +54.91344 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

748) The temperature dependence was recalculated from the data on p. 20 of McLinden (1989).

749) The data from McLinden (1989) for HCFC-22 are incorrectly cited by Kanakidou et al. (1995).

750) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

751) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2015) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

752) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5.4 of Sander et al. (2011) are inconsistent, with 5 % difference.

753) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 100.23549 −3339.67153/T −17.66843 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

754) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −291.40640 +14224.51414/T +40.73318 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

755) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1994) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −291.40640 +14224.51414/T +40.73318 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

756) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −147.53839 +8643.06007/T +18.97754 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

757) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −211.99443 +11400.29628/T +28.66244 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

758) The data from Scharlin & Battino (1994) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −211.99443 +11400.29628/T +28.66244 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

759) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −278.68450 +15169.41169/T +38.36975 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

760) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −129.78180 +8533.82232/T +16.20443 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

761) The data from Bu & Warner (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −415.59148 +21411.23945/T +58.50526 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

762) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 0.13353 +5070.08549/T −4.84639 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

763) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −113.07649 +6884.36541/T +13.75469 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

764) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −149.62350 +7869.46397/T +19.40044 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

765) The data from Chang & Criddle (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −402.30146 +20229.88310/T +57.28666 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

766) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −277.88367 +14905.51683/T +38.38687 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

767) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −195.56657 +11207.09158/T +26.12576 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

768) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −249.15405 +13774.89639/T +34.23235 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

769) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −210.55602 +11968.42921/T +28.54087 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

770) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −155.04312 +9704.04801/T +20.06575 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

771) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −270.78347 +14413.04074/T +37.48367 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

772) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −184.96251 +10541.14304/T +24.70439 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

773) The data from Chang & Criddle (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −190.58229 +10602.73158/T +25.66223 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

774) The data from Maaßen (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −237.50723 +13032.41210/T +32.48568 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

775) The data from Reichl (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −200.95921 +11406.82242/T +27.03094 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

776) The data from Smith et al. (1981b) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 678.01556 −27346.74011/T −103.92469 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

777) Kanakidou et al. (1995) assume H_s(CClF₂OONO₂) = H_s(PAN).

778) The H298 and A, B data listed in Table 5-4 of Burkholder et al. (2019) are inconsistent, with 11 % difference.

779) The data from De Bruyn & Saltzman (1997) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −521.18749 +25058.11933/T +75.61080 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

780) The data from Glew & Moelwyn-Hughes (1953) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −184.73662 +10636.12215/T +25.03185 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

781) Values at 298 K in Tables C2 and C5 of Brockbank (2013) are inconsistent, with 6 % difference.

782) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −395.20167 +20638.03484/T +56.40082 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

783) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −82.06673 +6867.92071/T +9.56720 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

784) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −408.59491 +21699.59623/T +58.19801 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

785) The data from Wright et al. (1992) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 1124.79951 −46767.40872/T −170.54217 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

786) Erratum for page 274 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): the value in the table is k_H, not lnk_H.

787) Value at T = 50 K.

788) Rumble (2021) refers to Hiatt (2013) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

789) Haynes (2014) refers to Mackay et al. (1993) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

790) The data from Sarraute et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −370.06259 +22192.70584/T +51.12679 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

791) Erratum for page 321 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): data from Yates & Gan (1998) are cited with a typo. The value at 313.2 K should probably be 4.78×10⁻⁶, not 4.78×10⁻².

792) Ebert et al. (2023) present "curated experimental" Henry's law constants from the literature but do not provide any references. It is only mentioned that the value is from a single original paper and obtained from the experimental octanol-water partition coefficient and the octanol-air partition coefficient.

793) Diaz et al. (2005) also cite a Henry's law constant from Pfeifer et al. (2001) even though this species is not mentioned there. There might be a mix up of the different haloanisoles.

794) Erratum for page 285 of Fogg & Sangster (2003): data in their table look strange (9.70R) and are not used here.

795) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −76.31131 +7250.73360/T +8.15388 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

796) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −265.18008 +15516.80509/T +36.54803 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

797) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −229.06923 +13418.39257/T +31.15669 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

798) The data from Glew & Moelwyn-Hughes (1953) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −384.31680 +19391.25705/T +54.93603 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

799) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −247.93525 +14910.30572/T +34.08071 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

800) The regression given by Fogg & Sangster (2003) does not produce the data in their table. Thus the regression was recalculated.

801) The value listed as A for iodobenzene is probably not A but the Henry's law volatility constant H_v^px at 298 K. For the value of B, a minus sign is probably missing.

802) The data from Moore et al. (1995) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −242.58767 +14043.89458/T +33.48497 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

803) Karagodin-Doyennel et al. (2021) probably assume that CH₂BrI has the same Henry's law constant as CH₂ClI.

804) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −266.45963 +15037.04768/T +36.80775 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

805) Yaws et al. (2003) present Henry's law constants based on water solubility and vapor pressure. The water solubility is calculated using a correlation to the boiling point. For the vapor pressures, no references are provided.

806) The data from Zin et al. (2016) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −419.66260 +22034.32358/T +59.55560 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

807) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −166.97891 +10357.07398/T +22.04420 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

808) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −406.56642 +21428.75389/T +57.60183 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

809) The data from Zin et al. (2016) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( 10.26074 +2303.75755/T −4.36399 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

810) Presumably, the species called "42-methyl-2-butanethiol" in Table 1 of Yao et al. (2002) should be 2-methyl-2-butanethiol.

811) Schäfer & Lax (1962) present data based on Booth & Jolley (1943). However, these data appear to be incorrect.

812) Booth & Jolley (1943) converted data from Rex (1906) to another unit. However, this was apparently not done correctly.

813) Booth & Jolley (1943) present data from Chancel & Parmentier (1885). However, in that paper only the solubility at an unknown partial pressure of CS₂ was measured.

814) Value extracted from their Fig. 46.

815) The data from Haimi et al. (2006) were fitted to the three-parameter equation: H_s^cp= exp( −233.40064 +13839.29731/T +31.85234 ln(T)) mol m⁻³ Pa⁻¹, with T in K.

816) H_s′ = 6.4×10¹⁴ mol²/(m⁶ Pa)

817) It is unclear how Fogg & Sangster (2003) obtained the data. Apparently, limiting activity coefficients γ^∞ were taken from Trampe & Eckert (1993), but a source for vapor pressure data is not mentioned. Also, the γ^∞ values listed in the table are different from those found in the original paper.

818) At pH = 3.9.

819) At pH = 4.8.

820) Mackay et al. (2006d) list two values for thiobencarb which differ by a large factor. It is unclear which number is correct (if any), and the data are not reproduced here.

821) Extrapolated from data at elevated temperatures.

822) Calculated using HENRYWIN 3.21.

823) Calculated using vapor pressures and water solubilities from HENRYWIN 3.21.

824) Calculated using vapor pressures and water solubilities from the EPA Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (TEST).

825) Wilhelm et al. (1977) and Abraham (1979) are quoted as the source. However, the data cannot be found there.

826) Shon et al. (2005) refer to Petersen et al. (1998) as the source, but this value cannot be found there.

827) The value from their experiment 7 at 10 ^°C is not used in the determination of the temperature dependence because of very different ionic strengths and concentrations for that experiment.

* * *

Search Henry's Law Database

* * *

Convert Henry's Law Constants

	Convert:

Henry's Law Constants

https://www.henrys-law.org, https://henry.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de

Rolf Sander

Home