Abstract
This investigation examines the source of the disparity between experimental values of the light scattering second virial coefficient $${A}_{2}$$ A 2 (mL.mol/g 2 ) for proteins and those predicted on the statistical mechanical basis of excluded volume. A much better theoretical description of published results for lysozyme is obtained by considering the experimental parameters to monitor the difference between the thermodynamic excluded volume term and its hydrodynamic counterpart. This involves a combination of parameters quantifying concentration dependence of the translational diffusion coefficient obtained from dynamic light scattering measurements. That finding is shown to account for observations of a strong correlation between $${A}_{2}{M}_{2}$$ A 2 M 2 (mL/g), where M 2 is the molar mass (molecular weight) of the macromolecule and the diffusion concentration parameter $${k}_{D}$$ k D (mL/g). On the grounds that $${k}_{D}$$ k D is regarded as a hydrodynamic parameter, the same status should be accorded the light scattering second virial coefficient rather than its current incorrect thermodynamic designation as $${B}_{2}$$ B 2 (mL.mol/g 2 ), or just B , the osmotic second virial coefficient for protein self-interaction.