Prediction of the auto-ignition temperature of binary liquid mixtures based on the quantitative structure–property relationship approach

  • Yanting Jin
  • Juncheng JiangEmail author
  • Yong PanEmail author
  • Lei Ni


The auto-ignition temperature (AIT) is one of the most important parameters in flammability risk assessment and management in the chemical process. Therefore, in this work, quantitative structure–property relationship approach was employed to estimate the AIT of binary liquid mixtures only based on the information of molecular structures. Various kinds of molecular descriptors were calculated using Dragon 6.0 software after the geometry optimization of molecular structures. Genetic algorithm (GA) was used to select the best subset of descriptors which have a significant contribution to AIT. Two novel models including multiple linear regression (MLR) model and support vector machine (SVM) model were developed based on the GA-selected molecular descriptors. The resulted models showed satisfied goodness-of-fit, robustness and external predictability after the rigorous verification based on appropriate criteria. The MLR model showed great performance with the average absolute error (AAE) of training set and test set being 13.420 °C and 15.076 °C, while the AAE of SVM model was reduced to 5.629 °C and 9.206 °C, respectively. The two optimal models could provide a convenient and effective way to predict the AIT of binary liquid mixtures as well as guidance for the safety design of the chemical process industry.


Auto-ignition temperature Quantitative structure–property relationship Binary liquid mixtures Genetic algorithm Support vector machine 



This work was financially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. DUT19LAB27).


This research was supported by National Natural Science Fund of China (No. 21576136, 51974165), and National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China (2017YFC0804801, 2016YFC0801502).

Supplementary material

10973_2019_8774_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 44 kb)
10973_2019_8774_MOESM2_ESM.docx (44 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 44 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gharagheizi F. An accurate model for prediction of autoignition temperature of pure compounds. J Hazard Mater. 2011;189:211–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pan Y, Jiang JC, Wang R, et al. Prediction of auto-ignition temperatures of hydrocarbons by neural network based on atom-type electrotopological-state indices. J Hazard Mater. 2008;157:510–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazzús JA. Autoignition temperature prediction using an artificial neural network with particle swarm optimization. Int J Thermophys. 2011;32:957–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM International, ASTM standard test method E659-15, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan Y, Jiang JC, Wang R, et al. Predicting the auto-ignition temperatures of organic compounds from molecular structure using support vector machine. J Hazard Mater. 2009;164:1242–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keshavarz MH, Jafari M, Esmaeilpour K, et al. New and reliable model for prediction of autoignition temperature of organic compounds containing energetic groups. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2018;113:491–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egolf LM, Jurs PC. Estimation of autoignition temperatures of hydrocarbons, alcohols, and esters from molecular structure. Ind Eng Chem Res. 1992;31:1798–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suzuki T. Quantitative structure-property relationships for auto-ignition temperatures of organic compounds. Fire Mater. 1994;18:81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tetteh J, Metcalfe E, Howells SL. Optimisation of radial basis and backpropagation neural networks for modelling auto-ignition temperature by quantitative-structure property relationships. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 1996;32:177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tetteh J, Howells S, Metcalfe E, et al. Optimization of radial basis function neural networks using biharmonic spline interpolation. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 1998;41:17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim YS, Lee SK, Kim JH, et al. Prediction of autoignition temperatures (AITs) for hydrocarbons and compounds containing heteroatoms by the quantitative structure-property relationship. J Chem Soc Perkin Trans. 2002;2:2087–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsai FY, Chen CC, Liaw HJ. A model for predicting the auto-ignition temperature using quantitative structure property relationship approach. Procedia Eng. 2012;45:512–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borhani TNG, Afzali A, Bagheri M. QSPR estimation of the auto-ignition temperature for pure hydrocarbons. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2016;103:115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pan Y, Jiang JC, Wang R, et al. Advantages of support vector machine in QSPR studies for predicting auto-ignition temperatures of organic compounds. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2008;92:169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Albahri TA, George RS. Artificial neural network investigation of the structural group contribution method for predicting pure components autoignition temperature. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2003;42:5708–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen CC, Liaw HJ, Kuo YY. Prediction of autoignition temperatures of organic compounds by the structural group contribution approach. J Hazard Mater. 2009;162:746–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abbasi A, Gitifar V, Setoodeh P. QSPR strategy to model and analyze surface tension of binary-liquid mixtures: a large-data-set case. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2016;155:36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gaudin T, Rotureau P, Fayet G. Mixture descriptors toward the development of quantitative structure-property relationship models for the flash points of organic mixtures. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2015;54:6596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou LL, Jiang JC, Ni L, et al. Predicting the superheat limit temperature of binary mixtures based on the quantitative structure property relationship. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016;43:432–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torabian E, Sobati MA. New structure-based models for the prediction of flash point of multi-component organic mixtures. Thermochim Acta. 2019;672:162–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou LL, Wang BB, Jiang JC, et al. Predicting the gas-liquid critical temperature of binary mixtures based on the quantitative structure property relationship. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2017;167:190–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang BB, Park H, Xu KL, et al. Prediction of lower flammability limits of blended gases based on quantitative structure-property relationship. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;132:1124–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qin LT, Chen YH, Zhang X, et al. QSAR prediction of additive and non-additive mixture toxicities of antibiotics and pesticide. Chemosphere. 2018;198:122–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ye LT, Pan Y, Jiang JC. Experimental determination and calculation of auto-ignition temperature of binary flammable liquid mixtures. Pet Process Sect. 2015;31:753–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lan JX, Jiang JC, Pan Y, et al. Experimental measurements and numerical calculation of auto-ignition temperatures for binary miscible liquid mixtures. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2018;113:22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oprisiu I, Varlamova E, Muratov E, et al. QSPR approach to predict nonadditive properties of mixtures. Application to bubble point temperatures of binary mixtures of liquids. Mol Inf. 2012;31:491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muratov EN, Varlamova EV, Artemenko AG, et al. Existing and development approaches for QSAR analysis of mixtures. Mol Inf. 2012;31:202–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Todeschini R, Consonni V. Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics. New York: Wiley; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Todeschini R, Consonni V, Pavan M. DRAGON 6 user’s manual. 2010.
  30. 30.
    Rogers D, Hopfinger AJ. Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationships and quantitative structure–property relationships. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1994;34:854–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gramatica P, Chirico N, Papa E, et al. QSARINS: a new software for the development, analysis, and validation of QSAR MLR models. J Comput Chem. 2013;34:2121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gramatica P, Cassani S, Chirico N. QSARINS-Chem: insubria datasets and new QSAR/QSPR models for environmental pollutants in QSARINS. J Comput Chem. 2014;35:1036–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vapnik VN. The nature of statistical learning theory. New York: Springer; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vapnik VN. Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang BB, Zhou LL, Xu KL, et al. Prediction of minimum ignition energy from molecular structure using quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2016;56:47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou LL, Wang BB, Jiang JC, et al. Quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) study for predicting gas-liquid critical temperatures of organic compounds. Thermochim Acta. 2017;655:112–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pan Y, Jiang JC, Wang R, et al. A novel QSPR model for prediction of lower flammability limits of organic compounds based on support vector machine. J Hazard Mater. 2009;168:962–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suleiman MA, Owolabi TO, Adeyemo HB, et al. Modeling of autoignition temperature of organic energetic compounds using hybrid intelligent method. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2018;120:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu KL, Xu LS, Zhu YL, et al. Correlation between 13C NMR chemical shifts and complete sets of descriptors of natural coumarin derivatives. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2019;184:167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hsu CW, Chang CC, Lin CJ. A practical guide to support classification. 2016.
  41. 41.
    OECD. Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure–activity relationship [(Q)SAR] models. 2007.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eriksson L, Jaworska J, Worth AP, et al. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1361–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kiralj R, Ferreira MMC. Basic validation procedures for regression models in QSAR and QSPR studies: theory and application. J Braz Chem Soc. 2009;20:770–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. Mol Inf. 2003;22(1):69–77.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schuurmann G, Ebert R, Chen J, et al. External validation and prediction employing the predictive squared correlation coefficient-test set activity mean vs training set activity mean. J Chem Inf Model. 2008;48:2140–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R. Comments on the definition of the Q 2 parameter for QSAR validation. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:1669–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R. Evaluation of model predictive ability by external validation techniques. J Chemom. 2010;24:194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chirico N, Gramatica P. Real external predictivity of QSAR models: part 2—new intercomparable thresholds for different validation criteria and the need for scatter plot inspection. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:2048–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ojha PK, Mitra I, Das RN, et al. Further exploring r m2 metrics for validation of QSPR models. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2011;107:194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Roy K, Mitra I, Kar S, et al. Comparative studies on some metrics for external validation of QSPR models. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:396–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mitra I, Roy PP, Kar S, et al. On further application of r m2 as a metric for validation of QSAR models. J Chemom. 2010;24:22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roy PP, Paul S, Mitra I, et al. On two novel parameters for validation of predictive QSAR models. Molecules. 2009;14:1660–701.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gramatica P. Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci. 2007;26:694–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hair JF, Black B, Bebin BJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson new international edition (7th edn). 2013.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Randic M. Novel shape descriptors for molecular graphs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:607–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Labute P. A widely applicable set of descriptors. J Mol Gr Model. 2000;18:464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Devinyak O, Havrylyuk D, Lesyk R. 3D-MoRSE descriptors explained. J Mol Gr Model. 2014;54:194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao XY, Pan Y, Jiang JC, et al. Thermal hazard of ionic liquids: modeling thermal decomposition temperatures of imidazolium ionic liquid via QSPR method. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2017;56:4185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Safety Science and EngineeringNanjing Tech UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Hazardous Chemicals Safety and ControlNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations