American Journal of Analytical Chemistry
Vol.06 No.04(2015), Article ID:55131,13 pages

On an Expression of Extraction Constants without the Interfacial Equilibrium-Potential Differences for the Extraction of Univalent and Divalent Metal Picrates by Crown Ethers into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Nitrobenzene

Yoshihiro Kudo*, Shoichi Katsuta

Graduate School of Science, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

Email: *

Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

Received 17 February 2015; accepted 25 March 2015; published 27 March 2015


An idea on interfacial equilibrium-potential differences (Dfeq) which are generated for the extraction of univalent metal picrate (MPic) and divalent ones (MPic2) by crown ethers (L) into high-po- lar diluents was improved. These potentials were clarified with some experimental extraction- data reported before on the M = Ag(I), Ca(II), Sr(II) and Ba(II) extraction with 18-crown-6 ether (18C6) and benzo-18C6 into 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE) and nitrobenzene (NB). Consequently, it was demonstrated that the Dfeq values from the extraction-experimentally obtained logKD,Pic ones are in agreement with or close to those calculated from charge balance equations in many cases, where the symbol, KD,Pic, denotes an individual distribution constant of Pic into the DCE or NB phase. Also, it was experimentally shown that extraction constants based on the overall extraction equilibria do not virtually contain the Dfeq terms in their functional expressions.


Extraction Constants, Distribution Constant of a Single Ion, Interfacial Equilibrium-Potential Differences, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Nitrobenzene, Metal Picrates, Crown Ethers

1. Introduction

Univalent and divalent metal picrates, such as alkali and alkaline-earth metal ones, have

been extracted by crown compounds (L) into the high-polar diluents, such as 1,2-dichloethane (DCE), dichloromethane and nitrobenzene (NB) [1] -[5] . In such high-polar diluents, an extracted ion-pair complex, MLPicz, dissociates MLz+ and zPic [1] -[3] [6] . In introducing these component equilibria in an extraction model, an individual distribution constant (KD,A) of Pic (=A) into the diluents has been determined extraction-experimen- tally [1] -[3] [7] . However, in spite of the limitation of the same KD,A definition and the same diluents, the thus-determined KD,Pic values have differed from each other. For example, the logKD,Pic values were −0.94 [2] for the PbPic2 extraction with 18-crown-6 ether (18C6), −1.34 [7] for the SrPic2 one with benzo-18C6 (B18C6) into NB, −2.46 [3] for the AgPic one with benzo-15-crown-5 ether, −1.89 [2] for the PbPic2 one with 18C6 and −4.35 [6] for the CdPic2 one with 18C6 into DCE. Thus, their values have changed over experimental errors with combinations of MPicz and L.

To clarify a reason for such differences, the authors have applied the idea [8] of an interfacial potential dif-

ference (Dfeq) at extraction equilibrium to an expression of log KD,A, namely [3] [6]

[7] , where the negative sign being in the front of f, which denotes F/RT, comes from the electrical charge of A. In addition to this, extraction constants, Kex± and Kex2±, have been electrochemically expressed as

at and and at ex±, ex2± and 2 [3] [7] . Here, and refer

to standard formal potentials for the single distribution of A into the diluent or organic (o or org) phase and the formal potentials for the overall equilibrium, respectively. Also, Kex± and Kex2± have been defined experimentally

by extraction as [2] [7] or [1] -[3] and [7] , respectively.

On the other hand, from the thermodynamic points of view, these extraction constants are resolved into for [7] , for 1 [3] and

for [7] . Here, the component equilibrium constants, KML,org (complex

formation in the o phase) and K1,org (1st-step ion-pair formation in the o one), do not contain the Dfeq terms in their expressions, because the constants are of homogeneous systems that all species relevant to the reaction are present in the single o phase [3] [7] ; namely no interface is involved in these processes. Similarly, the distribution constant of Mz+ has been expressed with KD,M (see Equation (3) at in the Section 2.1) [3] . Therefore,

since KD,M and KD,A are present in the or term, the both terms must cancel out mu-

tually the Dfeq ones. Thereby, the extraction constants virtually lose the Dfeq terms on their functional expres-

sions. Thus, the above expression, such as, has caused contradictions on the thermodynamic cycles [3] [7] . Furthermore, such contradictions can cause discrepancies in between

experimentally-evaluated values and theoretically-reproduced ones [7] .

In the present paper, in order to solve the above two contradictions, namely the differences of KD,A caused by experimental conditions of extraction and the contradiction based on the thermodynamic cycles [3] [7] , we proposed another expression without Dfeq of the extraction constants, Kex± and Kex2±. In course of clarifying this expression, some experimentally-determined constants [3] [7] , such as Kex±, an individual distribution constant (KD,ML) of the complex ion ML2+ into the NB phase and that of AgL+ into DCE, were also reproduced by calculation. Here, the AgPic and MPic2 (M = Ca, Sr & Ba) extraction with L = 18C6 and/or B18C6 [3] [7] were employed as model systems. Also, a meaning of the Dfeq values [3] [7] & [8] which were calculated from the logKD,A ones determined by the extraction experiments was discussed based on an electroneutrality-point of view [8] for the o phases. Moreover, the thus-obtained expressions for the extraction constants were applied to other types of extraction systems with o = DCE and NB.

2. Theory

2.1. Dfeq Values Derived from Charge Balance Equations for the o Phase

(i) Case of the M(I) extraction with L. For the extraction equilibrium, , we can obtain from the extraction model (see Appendix I for more details) reported before the following charge-balance equation


for the o phase. The concentrations of M+ and A in the o phase were modified as


by using electrochemical equations [6] [8] such as




see Appendix B in ref [6] for a detailed derivation from electrochemical potentials to this equation. Here, and [j]o/[j] denote a standard formal potential of species j {=M(I), A(−I) & ML(I); see the introduction and section 3.3} and the individual distribution constant (KD,j) of j between the two phases, respectively. At least, the values are available from references for M = Ag(I) [9] , Ca(II) [10] , Sr(II) [10] and Ba(II) [10] and A = Pic(−I) [11] into the DCE and NB phases. Additionally, the

values have been determined extraction-experi- mentally [1] -[3] [6] [7] ; see Appendix II for the KD,A determination. Defining as and then rearranging Equation (2), we can easily obtain







Accordingly, the following equation is derived.


Hence, if the [M+], [ML+]o and [A] values are determined experimentally, then we can obtain the Dfeq values from Equation (6) immediately; the [ML+]o values were calculated here from the relation

with (see Appendix II for more detail) and. The data of [ML+]o £ 0 were neglected in a further computation.

(ii) Case of the M(II) extraction with L. Similarly, we can consider the following stepwise extraction-equili- bria [6] [12] at the same time: (see Appendix I for a basic extraction model and Appendix II for the KD,A determination). Therefore, the charge balance equation for the o phase becomes


As described above, this equation was modified to [8]


Defining as and then rearranging Equation (8), we easily obtain the cubic equation







We can exactly solve this equation for x based on the mathematical formula [13] . Its real solution is


where and. Therefore, we can similarly obtain the Dfeq value from the combination of Equations (6) and (10).

The b¢ values were evaluated from the relation, with and 2, where (under the condition of [7] ). The values were directly determined by AAS measurements in the

extraction experiments [2] [7] and also we were able to calculate the other values in r+ from the experimental data [7] .

2.2. On Expressions of the Extraction Constants without Dfeq

According to previous papers, the two of the three extraction constants have been defined as for the MIA-L extraction system [3] and and for the MIIA2-L extraction one [7] . Here, logKex± (or logKex2±) equals (or) at.

These two kinds of extraction constants contain the Dfeq terms as parameters in their functional expressions[3]

[7] . On the other hand, logKex has been expressed as or without Dfeq and spontaneously became an expression electrochemically-standardized at [3] [7] .

In the above functions, some contradictions have been observed in the former cases: see Appendix in ref. [7] . As an example similar to that described in the introduction, the relation,

, must give a function without Dfeq, because

the resulting component equilibrium-constant K2,org does not relate with Dfeq [7] ; namely K2,org and Kex are the constants at. However, using the above definition [3] [7] , the same term, , be-

comes and then the Dfeq term does not disappear, where and. The same is also true of the result of which is defined as. These two facts obviously have the contradiction with respect to Dfeq.

In order to cancel such contradictions, we assume here that the two extraction constants are functions without Dfeq, as well as that of Kex [3] [7] . Accordingly, the constants are defined as




That is, by our traditional sense, it is proposed here that complicated equilibrium constants, such as Kex, Kex± and Kex2±, do not contain the Dfeq terms in their functions. This means that these constants are ordinarily defined without Dfeqor under the condition of and thereby are electrochemically-standardized as and [3] [7] . Table 1 lists new (or traditional) expressions of such extraction constants composed of some component equilibrium constants based on thermodynamic cycles.

The relations in Table 1 shows that the individual distribution process of A [12] cancels out that of a cation [14] , such as M+, R4N+, M2+ and ML2+, in Dfeq. As an example, the thermodynamic relation for M(II)


can be rearranged into


Table 1. Relations between Kex± or Kex2± and its component equilibrium constants and their corresponding valuesa.

ak = ex±, ex2±, ML,org, ML,w, & 1,org, where the symbol “w” shows a water phase; bThermodynamic cycle; cRef. [3] ; dRef. [7] .

Therefore, the relation (c) in Table 1 is immediately obtained. From Equations (2) and (8), one should obviously see that Dfeq of KD,M equals that of KD,A in the extraction system of Equation (13). Also, we can rewrite Equation (13) to


Consequently, Equation (14) or (13) does not contain the Dfeq term and is virtually expressed with only the standard formal potentials (at) as Equation (13a). The thermodynamic relations are also satisfied with the expressions such as Equations (11) and (12). The same is true of the other relations in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. On a Meaning of Dfeq Estimated from log KD,A

Table 2(a) lists fundamental data [3] for the extraction of AgPic by B18C6 into DCE. The Dfeq values were calculated from Equation (4) and the experimental log KD,Pic values in Table 2(a).

Here, [11] at 298 K was employed in the calculation.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Table 2. (a) Fundamental data for the extraction of AgPic by B18C6 into DCE at 298 K; (b) Evaluated Dfeq values; (c) Reproduced logKex± values; (d) Evaluated and reproduced logKD,AgL values.

aValues calculated from at 298 K; bValues calculated from; cUnit: mol dm−3; dRef. [3] ; eValues re-calculated from the same data as that reported before. See ref. [3] ; fAdditionally determined values which were calculated from the same data as that reported before. See ref. [3] ; gData obtained from additional extraction experiments. Experimental conditions and data analyses are essentially the same as those reported on ref. [3] . For only the data no. 2, the w phases were prepared with about 0.1 mol dm−3 HNO3.


* §.

Also, we estimated Dfeq,av from Equation (6) with Equation (5), where Dfeq,av denotes an average value for each run.

The both values, expressed as & in Table 2(b), agreed well within experimental errors.

Average I values of the extraction systems in Table 2(a) were 0.0036 mol×dm−3 for the no. 1A [3] , 0.0028 for 1B, 0.0027 for 1C and 0.097 for 2; I denotes the ionic strength of the water phase in the extraction. Except for the data no. 2, we can handle other three data on the average, because experimental conditions [3] of the data are essentially the same (see the footnote g in Table 2(a) for no. 2). So the following values were obtained at 298 K and L = B18C6: logKex± = 0.31 ± 0.14 and logKD,Pic = −2.54 ± 0.07;

in the IDCE range of (0.40 - 1.1) ´ 10-5 mol×dm−3 (see the data in Table 2(a)) and

in the same IDCE range. The symbol, IDCE, refers to the average ionic strength of the DCE phase; the same is true of INB (see Table 3).

Table 3(a) summarizes the fundamental data [7] for the extraction of MPic2 (M = Ca, Sr & Ba) by 18C6 and B18C6 into NB.

The Dfeq values were calculated from Equation (4) with the logKD,Pic values in Table 3(a) and the

[11] ones reported previously. From Equation (6) with Equation (10), the

Dfeq,av values were estimated in the same manner. The above findings are listed in Table 3(b).

For the 18C6 extraction systems, the values obtained from Equation (4) are close to the ones from Equation (6) with Equation (10). On the other hand, the former values are larger than the latter ones for the B18C6 extraction systems.

Except for the and values of the B18C6 systems, the above results indicate that the interfa-

cial equilibrium-potential differences, Dfeq, based on Equation (4) are essentially the same as those based on

Equation (6). The differences between and for the B18C6 systems can be due to those in the

charge balance equation between extraction experiments (see Appendix II) and electrochemical (or theoretical)

treatments, namely [7] and Equation (7) or (8). In other words, the condition of cannot be satisfied in the B18C6 systems. For example, an average value of was 0.12 for L = B18C6, while that was 0.029 for 18C6; these values

were the maximum of the B18C6- and 18C6-M(II) extraction systems. Practically, the values based on Equation (7) or (8) must be more accurate than the ones.

On the basis of the above facts, and, we see that the Dfeq value obtained from the distribution process of is essentially equivalent to that from the combined process of and [8] {see Equations (1) & (2)} or, and {see Equations (7) & (8)} into and NB.

3.2. Experimental Proof of Kex± and Kex2± without Dfeq

We obtained the log Kex± values of the AgPic extraction with B18C6 into DCE from the relation (a) in Table 1 with [9] ([3] ), [11] (into DCE) and the corres

ponding logKML,DCE value in Table 2(a). These values, expressed as below, are in good agreement with those listed in Table 2(a).

The KD,AgL calculation can be an indirect proof of Kex± without Dfeq. First, the log KD,AgL values (namely ones) standardized at for L = B18C6 were calculated from the modified form, , of the relation (b) in Table 1. The obtained values are shown as in Table 2(d). In this calculation, we employed [11] (into DCE), [15] (in water), [16] at 298 K.

Next, the logKD,AgL values were reproduced by using the equation,

at 298 K (see Appendix in ref. [3] for its detailed derivation), with the calculated values and the ones. These values in

Table 2(d) are in good accordance with the values listed in Table 2(a). Thus the log KD,AgL values can be well

reproduced. From the results of & at least, we can see that Equation (11) is valid for the Ag

Pic-B18C6 extraction system.

Moreover, an average value for all the ones was 1.39 ± 0.23. From this value and the ones, we calculated the logKD,AgL values again, using the above relation [3] . The value obtained from of no. 1C was under-estimated by½0.3½ and that of no. 2 was over-estimated by the same, compared to those in Table 2(a) or of. On the other hand, the logKD,AgL values (= 3.1 & 2.7, respectively) of nos.

1A and 1B were close to those in Table 2(a).

The logKex± values for the M(II)-B18C6 extraction into NB were calculated from the relation (c) in Table 1.

These values are in accordance with the values in Table 3(a); the logKex± values in Table 3(a) have

been determined by the procedure [2] [7] described in Appendix II. This accordance indicates that Equation (11)

without Dfeq is satisfied. In this calculation, , ,

[10] , logKCaL,NB = 11.2, logKSrL,NB = 13.1, logKBaL,NB = 13.4 for L = 18C6 [17] , logKCaL,NB = 9.43, logKSrL,NB = 11.1 and logKBaL,NB = 11.6 for L = B18C6 [17] were employed. Also, the logKD,M values were calculated from

the modified form of Equation (3), , with the values, where the values in Table 3(a) corresponding to them were employed accordingly.

The following discussion is similar to that from to KD,AgL at L = B18C6 (Table 2(d)). The values at M(II) were calculated from a modified form, , of the relation (f) in Table 1. Here, the adopted, in water at 298 K} val-

ues were 0.48 for the Ca-18C6 [18] and -B18C6 [19] systems, 2.72 [20] for Sr-18C6, 3.87 [20] for Ba-18C6, 2.41 [15] for Sr-B18C6 and 2.90 [13] for Ba-B18C6. Also, [11] (into NB), logKD,18C6 = −1.00 [21] and logKD,B18C6 = 1.57 [17] (into NB) at 298 K were used for calculation. Furthermore, from the assumption in the section 2.2, we employed the logKex2± values [12] which have been reported before and their values virtually correspond to the ones standardized at (see Table 3(a)).

The calculated values are listed in Table 3(d). These values agreed well with those [17] previously-reported by the ion-transfer polarographic measurements, except for the Ba-18C6 and -B18C6 systems. This fact indirectly indicates that Equation (12) is satisfied. For the Ba-18C6 and -B18C6 systems, −2.6 for the former and −0.8 for the latter have been reported [17] .

As similar to in Table 2(d), the calculation of logKD,ML becomes the indirect proof of logKex2±

without Dfeq. Then, the logKD,ML values at 298 K were estimated from the ones and the equation, [7] ; the values were used here.

The thus-calculated values were close to the values listed in Table 3(a); the experimental

logKD,ML values in Table 3(a) have been calculated from the relation (d) in Table 1 [7] . This fact indicates that Equation (12) satisfies indirectly the thermodynamic cycle of (f).

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Table 3. (a) Fundamental data for the extraction of MPic2 (M = Ca, Sr& Ba) by L into NB at 298 K.a; (b) Evaluated Dfeq values; (c) Reproduced logKex± values; (d) Evaluated and reproduced log KD,ML values.

aRef. [7] ; bUnit: mol dm−3; c values: see ref [12] ; dValues re-calculated from the data in ref [12] .


*. §.

The above calculation results for the AgPic and MPic2 extraction with L indicate that the assumption of Equations (11) and (12) without Dfeq is essentially valid. In other words, the overall extraction constants, Kex± and Kex2±, must be expressed rationally as functions without Dfeq.

3.3. For Applications to Other Extraction Systems

The above handling based on Table 1 can be also applied to the practical extraction equilibria of

into o = NB [14] , (E11)

into DCE [22] and CH2Cl2 [23] , (E12)

into IL = an ionic liquid phase [24] [25] , (E13)

into DCE [26] , (E14)

into NB [27] (E15)


into NB [28] . (E16)

As examples, thermodynamic points of view suggest the following cycles for the above equilibria:





with and,




with, and, respectively. Similarly, only the KD,j values are expressed as

functions with the Dfeq ones.

The relation, , for the process (E11) can be arranged into. This does not contradict the fact [14] that the determination of by solvent extraction experiments gives and, when either KD,M or KD,A was standardized at which is based on the Ph4As+BPh4- assumption [14] [29] & [30] . Also, KD,C cancels out KD,A in (E12c):. For and, the value becomes 2.66 ([22] ) and accordingly we have obtained the value at 298 K from the experimental one [11] .

Similarly, KD,T cancels out KD,A in (E13c), where T- denotes another anion. That is,

. For the overall

equilibria, (E14) & (E15), one can handle them in the same manner as that described above for the AgPic and MPic2 extraction with L, respectively.

We can easily see that the KD,H and KD,Pu values cancel out the KD,Cl one in (E16c). That is,

equals and then becomes . We found the value { = 0.035 V [29] at 298 K}, but were not able to find the value in references.

4. Conclusion

It was demonstrated that the Dfeq values calculated from the experimental logKD,Pic ones are in agreement with or close to those more-accurately done from the charge balance equations for the species with M(I) in the DCE phase and with M(II) in the NB one, except for some cases. This demonstration indicates that the plots of versus, described in Appendix II with & 2, yield the practical KD,A

values and then the first-approximated Dfeq ones. These results will give an answer to how one explain the differences in KD,A among extraction experiments of various MA or MA2 by various L. Also, we clarified that the assumption of Equations (11) and (12) is valid for the AgPic and MPic2 extraction with 18C6 and/or B18C6. This eliminated the contradictions [3] [7] due to Dfeq from the thermodynamic cycles. Moreover, the present work indicates a possibility that the proposed handling can be applied to various extraction systems with neutral ligands at least.


The authors thank Mr. Tomohiro Amano, Mr. Satoshi Ikeda and Mr. Yuki Ohsawa for their experimental assistances.

Cite this paper

Yoshihiro Kudo, Shoichi Katsuta,, (2015) On an Expression of Extraction Constants without the Interfacial Equilibrium-Potential Differences for the Extraction of Univalent and Divalent Metal Picrates by Crown Ethers into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Nitrobenzene. American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 06, 350-363. doi: 10.4236/ajac.2015.64034


  1. Kudo, Y., Harashima, K., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2011) Solvent Extraction of Sodium Permanganate by Monobenzo-3m-Crown-m Ethers (m = 5, 6) into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Nitrobenzene: A Method which Analyzes the Extraction System with the Polar Diluents. International Journal of Chemistry, 3, 99-107.

  2. Kudo, Y., Takahashi, Y., Numako, C. and Katsuta, S. (2014) Extraction of Lead Picrate by 18-crown-6 Ether into Various Diluents: Examples of Sub-Analysis of Overall Extraction Equilibrium Based on Component Equilibria. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 194, 121-129.

  3. Kudo, Y., Ogihara, M., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2014) An Electrochemical Understanding of Extraction of Silver Picrate by Benzo-3m-Crown-m Ethers (m = 5, 6) into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Dichloromethane. American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 5, 433-444.

  4. Valente, M., Sousa, S.F., Magalhaes, A.L. and Freire, C. (2010) Crown-Ether Type Podands as Alkali Metal Cation Extractants: Interface of the Number of Oxygens in the Chain. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 39, 1230-1242.

  5. Valente, M., Sousa, S.F., Magalhaes, A.L. and Freire, C. (2011) Complexation of Alkali Metal Cations by Crown-Ether Type Podands with Applications in Solvent Extraction: Insights from Quantum Chemical Calculations. Journal of Molecular Model, 17, 3275-3288.

  6. Kudo, Y., Horiuchi, N., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2013) Extraction of Cadmium Bromide and Picrate by 18-crown-6 Ether into Various Less-Polar Diluents: Analysis of Overall Extraction Equilibria Based on Their Component Equilibria with Formation of Their Ion Pairs in Water. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 177, 257-266.

  7. Kudo, Y. and Takeuchi, T. (2014) On the Interfacial Potential Differences for the Extraction of Alkaline-Earth Metal Picrates by 18-Crown-6 Ether Derivatives into Nitrobenzene. Journal of Thermodynamics & Catalysis, 5, 6 pp.

  8. Takeda, Y., Ezaki, T., Kudo, Y. and Matsuda, H. (1995) Distribution Study on Electroneutral ans Protonated Amino Acids between Water and Nitrobenzene. Determination of the Standard Ion-Transfer Potentials of Protonated Amino Acids. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 68, 787-790.

  9. Marcus, Y. (1983) Thermodynamic Functions of Transfer of Single Ions from Water to Nonaqueous and Mixed Solvents: Part 1-Gibbs Free Energies of Transfer to Nonaqueous Solvents. Pure & Applied Chemistry, 55, 977-1021.

  10. Pivoňková, M. and Kyrs, M. (1969) The Distribution of Alkaline Earth Dipicrylaminates and Tetraphenylborates Between Water and Nitrobenzene Phases. Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 31, 175-185.

  11. Kudo, Y., Harashima, K., Hiyoshi, K., Takagi, J., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2011) Extraction of Some Univalent Salts into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Nitrobenzene: Analysis of Overall Extraction Equilibrium Based on Elucidating Ion-Pair Formation and Evaluation of Standard Potentials for Ion Transfers at the Interfaces between Their Diluents and Water. Analytical Sciences, 27, 913-919.

  12. Kudo, Y., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2012) Evaluation of Overall Extraction Constants for the Crown Ether-Complex Ions of Alkali and Alkaline-Earth Metal with Counter Picrate Ions from Water into Nitrobenzene Based on Their Component Equilibrium Constants. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 173, 66-70.

  13. Umegaki, T. (1983) Su-gakuYo-koKo-shiki-syu (Handbook of Mathematical Formula, 4th Edition). Komatsu, Y., Ed., Hirokawa Publishing Co., Tokyo, Chap. 3, 78-79. (In Japanese)

  14. Rais, J. (1976) Individual Extraction Constants of Univalent Ions in the System Water-Nitrobenzene. Collection of Czechoslovak Chemical Communications, 36, 3253-3262.

  15. Takeda, Y., Kohno, R., Kudo, Y. and Fukada, N. (1989) Stabilities in Water and Transfer Activity Coefficients from Water to Nonaqueous Solvents of Benzo-18-crown-6-Metal Ion Complexes. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 62, 999-1003.

  16. Takeda, Y. (2002) Extraction of Alkali Metal Picrates with 18-crown-6, benzo-18-crown-6, and Dibenzo-18-crown-6 into Various Organic Solvents. Elucidation of Fundamental Equilibria Governing Extraction-Ability and -Selectivity. Bunseki Kagaku (Analytical Chemistry), 51, 515-525. (In Japanese)

  17. Kudo, Y., Miyakawa, T., Takeda, Y., Matsuda, H. and Yajima, S. (1996) Ion-Transfer Polarographic Study of the Distribution of Alkali and Alkaline-Earth Metal Complexes with 3m-crown-m Ether Derivatives (m = 6, 8) between Water and Nitrobenzne Phases. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Molecular Recognition in Chemistry, 26, 331-341.

  18. Hoiland, H., Ringseth, J.A. and Brun, T.S. (1979) Cation-Crown Ether Complex Formation in Water. II. Alkali and Alkaline Earth Cations and 12-crown-4, 15-crown-5, and 18-crown-6. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 8, 779-792.

  19. Takeda, Y. and Nishida, M. (1989) Solvent Extraction of Various Metal Picrates with Benzo-18-crown-6 into CHCl3. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 62, 1468-1471.

  20. Izatt, R.M., Terry, R.E., Haymore, B.L., Hansen, L.D., Dalley, N.K., Avondet, A.G. and Christensen, J.J. (1976) Calorimetric Titration Study of the Interaction of Several Uni- and Bivalent Cations with 15-crown-5, 18-crown-6, and Two Isomers of Dicyclohexo-18-crown-6 in Aqueous Solution at 25°C and μ= 0.1. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 98, 7620-7626.

  21. Iwachido, T., Minami, M., Sadakane, A. and Toei, K. (1977) The Coextraction of Water into Nitrobenzene with Alkaline Earth Metal 2,2',4,4',6,6'-Hexanitrodiphenylaminats in the Presence of the Crown Ethers. Chemistry Letters, 6, 1511-1514.

  22. Kusakabe, S. and Arai, M. (1996) Solvent Extraction of Several Anions with Tetrabutylammonium Ion into 1,2-Dichloroethane and Hydration of Anions in the Organic Phase. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, 69, 581-588.

  23. Katsuta, S., Wakabayashi, H., Tamaru, M., Kudo, Y. and Takeda, Y. (2007) Tetraalkylammonium Picrates in the Dichloromethane-Water System: Ion-Pair Formation and Liquid-Liquid Distribution of Free Ions and Ion Pairs. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 36, 531-547.

  24. Katsuta, S. (2013) Distribution Behavior of Neutral and Anionic Compounds in Ionic Liquid/Water Biphase Systems. Bunseki Kagaku (Analytical Chemistry), 62, 297-315. (In Japanese)

  25. Katsuta, S., Nakamura, K., Kudo, Y. and Takeda, Y. (2012) Mechanisms of Rules of Anion Partition into Ionic Liquids: Phenolate Ions in Ionic Liquid/Water Biphasic Systems. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 116, 852-859.

  26. Camagong, C.T. and Honjo, T. (2001) Separation of Gold (III) as Its Ion-Pair Complex with 18-Crown-6 from Hydrochloric Acid Media by Means of Solvent Extraction. Analytical Sciences, 17, i725-i728. [Proceedings of IUPAC International Congress on Analytical Sciences 2001 (ICAS 2001)]

  27. Dernini, S., Scrugli, A., Palmas, S. and Polcaro, A.M. (1996) Competitive Extraction of Pb2+ by Dicyclohexano-18-crown-6 from Heavy Metal Aqueous Solutions. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 41, 1388-1391.

  28. Mohapatra, P.K. and Manchanda, V.K. (1996) Ion-Pair Extraction of Tetravalent Plutonium from Hydrochloric Acid Medium Using Crown Ethers. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Molecular Recognition in Chemistry, 25, 257-265.

  29. Yoshida, Y., Yoshida, Z., Aoyagai, H., Kitatsuji, Y., Uehara, A. and Kihara, S. (2002) Evaluation of Gibbs Free Energy for the Transfer of a Highly Hydrophilic Ion from an Acidic Aqueous Solution to an Organic Solution Based on Ion Pair Extraction. Analytica Chimica Acta, 452, 149-161.

  30. Markin, V.S. and Volkov, A.G. (1989) The Gibbs Free Energy of Ion Transfer between Two Immiscible Liquids. Electrochimica Acta, 34, 93-107.

  31. Kudo, Y., Usami, J., Katsuta, S. and Takeda, Y. (2004) Solvent Extraction of Silver Picrate by 3m-crown-m Ethers (m = 5, 6) and Its Mono-Benzo-Derivative from Water into Benzene or Chloroform: Elucidation of an Extraction Equilibrium Using Component Equilibrium Constants. Talanta, 62, 701-706.

Appendix I

The basic extraction model [1] [3] [31] for the case (i) is as follows.

(corresponding equilibrium constant is KML), (A1)

(K1), (A2)

(KD,MLA), (A3)

, (A4)



(KMA). (A6)

Consequently, these component equilibria yield those of (KD,M), (KD,ML), (KD,L) and (KD,A). An extraction of HPic, (Kex,HPic), was added in the

[Pic-] calculation. The distribution [31] of into the DCE phase was neglected in this study; its constant was not available from references.

The case (ii) [2] [6] [7] was

(KML), (A7)

(K1), (A8)

(K2), (A9)

(KD,MLA2), (A10)

, (A11)

, (A12)



(KMA+), (A14)

where the distribution of into the NB phase was neglected; their constants were not available from references. Similarly, some equilibria, such as (KD,M), (KD,ML) and, can be given from the above component equilibria and the Kex,HPic value was included in the calculation.

The both models, (i) & (ii), do not contain supporting electrolytes in the o phases. This point is a large difference from corresponding electrochemical measurements [29] [30] .

Appendix II

The KD,A values have been determined extraction-experimentally using the following equations [1] -[3] [6] [7] .



for at (the case of M+) or for at (that of M2+). Hence, the plots of

versus [1] [3] and versus [2] [6] [7] based on Equation (A16)

give the KD,A value with the Kex ones for the MA- and MA2-L extraction systems, respectively. Here, the

values are determined by AAS measurements and then the [Mz+], [L]o and [A] values are

calculated by a successive approximation [1] -[3] [6] [7] . The following mass-balance equations have been

employed for the approximation: [1] [3] against Equation (1) and [2]

[6] [7] against Equation (7) (see the Section 3.1).

Similarly, the Kex± values have been evaluated from the other arranged form of Equation (A15),


for at or for 1, 2 at 2 [3] [7] .


*Corresponding author.