Electrostatic interactions solute-solvent energy

The electrostatic free energy contribution in Eq. (14) may be expressed as a thennody-namic integration corresponding to a reversible process between two states of the system no solute-solvent electrostatic interactions (X = 0) and full electrostatic solute-solvent interactions (X = 1). The electrostatic free energy has a particularly simple form if the thermodynamic parameter X corresponds to a scaling of the solute charges, i.e., (X,... 

If classical Coulombic interactions are assumed among point charges for electrostatic interactions between solute and solvent, and the term for the Cl coefficients (C) is omitted, the solvated Eock operator is reduced to Eq. (6). The significance of this definition of the Eock operator from a variational principle is that it enables us to express the analytical first derivative of the free energy with respect to the nuclear coordinate of the solute molecule R ,... 

In a solution of a solute in a solvent there can exist noncovalent intermolecular interactions of solvent-solvent, solvent-solute, and solute—solute pairs. The noncovalent attractive forces are of three types, namely, electrostatic, induction, and dispersion forces. We speak of forces, but physical theories make use of intermolecular energies. Let V(r) be the potential energy of interaction of two particles and F(r) be the force of interaction, where r is the interparticle distance of separation. Then these quantities are related by... 

The ions in solution are subject to two types of forces those of interaction with the solvent (solvation) and those of electrostatic interaction with other ions. The interionic forces decrease as the solution is made more dilute and the mean distance between the ions increases in highly dilute solutions their contribution is small. However, solvation occurs even in highly dilute solutions, since each ion is always surrounded by solvent molecules. This implies that the solvation energy, which to a first approximation is independent of concentration, is included in the standard chemical potential and has no influence on the activity. 

H-bonding is an important, but not the sole, interatomic interaction. Thus, total energy is usually calculated as the sum of steric, electrostatic, H-bonding and other components of interatomic interactions. A similar situation holds with QSAR studies of any property (activity) where H-bond parameters are used in combination with other descriptors. For example, five molecular descriptors are applied in the solvation equation of Kamlet-Taft-Abraham excess of molecular refraction (Rj), which models dispersion force interactions arising from the polarizability of n- and n-electrons the solute polarity/polarizability (ir ) due to solute-solvent interactions between bond dipoles and induced dipoles overall or summation H-bond acidity (2a ) overall or summation H-bond basicity (2(3 ) and McGowan volume (VJ [53] ... 

In a recent paper. Mo and Gao [5] used a sophisticated computational method [block-localized wave function energy decomposition (BLW-ED)] to decompose the total interaction energy between two prototypical ionic systems, acetate and meth-ylammonium ions, and water into permanent electrostatic (including Pauli exclusion), electronic polarization and charge-transfer contributions. Furthermore, the use of quantum mechanics also enabled them to account for the charge flow between the species involved in the interaction. Their calculations (Table 12.2) demonstrated that the permanent electrostatic interaction energy dominates solute-solvent interactions, as expected in the presence of ion species (76.1 and 84.6% for acetate and methylammonium ions, respectively) and showed the active involvement of solvent molecules in the interaction, even with a small but evident flow of electrons (Eig. 12.3). Evidently, by changing the solvent, different results could be obtained. 

If a substance is to be dissolved, its ions or molecules must first move apart and then force their way between the solvent molecules which interact with the solute particles. If an ionic crystal is dissolved, electrostatic interaction forces must be overcome between the ions. The higher the dielectric constant of the solvent, the more effective this process is. The solvent-solute interaction is termed ion solvation (ion hydration in aqueous solutions). The importance of this phenomenon follows from comparison of the energy changes accompanying solvation of ions and uncharged molecules for monovalent ions, the enthalpy of hydration is about 400 kJ mol-1, and equals about 12 kJ mol-1 for simple non-polar species such as argon or methane. 

As discussed in many previous studies of biomolecules, the treatment of electrostatic interactions is an important issue [69, 70, 84], What is less widely appreciated in the QM/MM community, however, is that a balanced treatment of QM-MM electrostatics and MM-MM electrostatics is also an important issue. In many implementations, QM-MM electrostatic interactions are treated without any cut-off, in part because the computational cost is often negligible compared to the QM calculation itself. For MM-MM interactions, however, a cut-off scheme is often used, especially for finite-sphere type of boundary conditions. This imbalanced electrostatic treatment may cause over-polarization of the MM region, as was first discussed in the context of classical simulations with different cut-off values applied to solute-solvent and solvent-solvent interactions [85], For QM/MM simulations with only energy minimizations, the effect of over-polarization may not be large, which is perhaps why the issue has not been emphasized in the past. As MD simulations with QM/MM potential becomes more prevalent, this issue should be emphasized. 

Rao and Singh32 calculated relative solvation free energies for normal alkanes, tetra-alkylmethanes, amines and aromatic compounds using AMBER 3.1. Each system was solvated with 216 TIP3P water molecules. The atomic charges were uniformly scaled down by a factor of 0.87 to correct the overestimation of dipole moment by 6-31G basis set. During the perturbation runs, the periodic boundary conditions were applied only for solute-solvent and solvent-solvent interactions with a non-bonded interaction cutoff of 8.5 A. All solute-solute non-bonded interactions were included. Electrostatic decoupling was applied where electrostatic run was completed in 21 windows. Each window included 1 ps of equilibration and 1 ps of data... 

To make an accurate FEP calculation, a good description of the system is required. This means that the parameters for the chosen force field must reproduce the dynamic behaviour of both species correctly. A realistic description of the environment, e.g. size of water box, and the treatment of the solute-solvent interaction energy is also required. The majority of the parameters can usually be taken from the standard atom types of a force field. The electrostatic description of the species at both ends of the perturbation is, however, the key to a good simulation of many systems. This is also the part that usually requires tailoring to the system of interest. Most force fields require atom centered charges obtained by fitting to the molecular electrostatic potential (MEP), usually over the van der Waals surface. Most authors in the studies discussed above used RHF/6-31G or higher methods to obtain the MEP. 

The physical properties of atoms and molecules embedded in polar liquids have usually been described in the frame of the effective medium approximation. Within this model, the solute-solvent interactions are accounted for by means of the RF theory [1-3], The basic quantity of this formalism is the RF potential. It is usually variationally derived from a model energy functional describing the effective energy of the solute in the field of an external electrostatic perturbation. For instance, if a singly negative or positive charged atomic system is considered, the RF potential is simply given by... 

---