text: The following limitations were acknowledged by Charles Hansen:
  * The parameters will vary with temperature
  * The parameters are an approximation. Bonding between molecules is more subtle than the three parameters suggest. Molecular shape is relevant, as are other types of bonding such as induced dipole, metallic and electrostatic interactions.
  * The size of the molecules also plays a significant role in whether two molecules actually dissolve in a given period.
  * The parameters are hard to measure.
  * 2008 work by Abbott and Hansen has helped address some of the above issues. Temperature variations can be calculated, the role of molar volume ("kinetics versus thermodynamics") is clarified, new chromatographic ways to measure HSP are available, large datasets for chemicals and polymers are available, Sphere software for determining HSP values of polymers, inks, quantum dots etc. is available (or easy to implement in one's own software) and the new Stefanis-Panayiotou method for estimating HSP from Unifac groups is available in the literature and also automated in software. All these new capabilities are described in the e-book, software, datasets described in the external links but can be implemented independently of any commercial package.
  * Sometimes Hildebrand solubility parameters are used for similar purposes. Hildebrand parameters are not suitable for use outside their original area which was non-polar, non-hydrogen-bonding solvents. The Hildebrand parameter for such non-polar solvents is usually close to the Hansen  value. A typical example showing why Hildebrand parameters can be unhelpful is that two solvents, butanol and nitroethane, which have the same Hildebrand parameter, are each incapable of dissolving typical epoxy polymers. Yet a 50:50 mix gives a good solvency for epoxies. This is easily explainable knowing the Hansen parameter of the two solvents and that the Hansen parameter for the 50:50 mix is close to the Hansen parameter of epoxies.