Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Interfacial water simulations interaction potentials

Equations 3-4 show that the form of the interaction potentials used in simulating interfacial water is critical. Of interest for interfacial systems are both the interaction potential between water molecules and that between the surface and a water molecule. [Pg.23]

It is important to propose molecular and theoretical models to describe the forces, energy, structure and dynamics of water near mineral surfaces. Our understanding of experimental results concerning hydration forces, the hydrophobic effect, swelling, reaction kinetics and adsorption mechanisms in aqueous colloidal systems is rapidly advancing as a result of recent Monte Carlo (MC) and molecular dynamics (MO) models for water properties near model surfaces. This paper reviews the basic MC and MD simulation techniques, compares and contrasts the merits and limitations of various models for water-water interactions and surface-water interactions, and proposes an interaction potential model which would be useful in simulating water near hydrophilic surfaces. In addition, results from selected MC and MD simulations of water near hydrophobic surfaces are discussed in relation to experimental results, to theories of the double layer, and to structural forces in interfacial systems. [Pg.20]

An interaction potential between the surface and ions may also be needed in simulating counterion diffusion for the smectite and mica surface models. The form of such an interaction potential remains to be determined. This may not pose a significant problem, since recent evidence (40) suggests that over 98% of the cations near smectite surfaces lie within the shear plane. For specifically adsorbed cations such as potassium or calcium, the surface-ion interactions can also be neglected if it is assumed that cation diffusion contributes little to the water structure. In simulating the interaction potential between counterions and interfacial water, a water-ion interaction potential similar to those already developed for MD simulations (41-43) could be specified. [Pg.28]

Spohr describes in detail the use of computer simulations in modeling the metal/ electrolyte interface, which is currently one of the main routes towards a microscopic understanding of the properties of aqueous solutions near a charged surface. After an extensive discussion of the relevant interaction potentials, results for the metal/water interface and for electrolytes containing non-specifically and specifically adsorbing ions, are presented. Ion density profiles and hydration numbers as a function of distance from the electrode surface reveal amazing details about the double layer structure. In turn, the influence of these phenomena on electrode kinetics is briefly addressed for simple interfacial reactions. [Pg.350]

Interface between two liquid solvents — Two liquid solvents can be miscible (e.g., water and ethanol) partially miscible (e.g., water and propylene carbonate), or immiscible (e.g., water and nitrobenzene). Mutual miscibility of the two solvents is connected with the energy of interaction between the solvent molecules, which also determines the width of the phase boundary where the composition varies (Figure) [i]. Molecular dynamic simulation [ii], neutron reflection [iii], vibrational sum frequency spectroscopy [iv], and synchrotron X-ray reflectivity [v] studies have demonstrated that the width of the boundary between two immiscible solvents comprises a contribution from thermally excited capillary waves and intrinsic interfacial structure. Computer calculations and experimental data support the view that the interface between two solvents of very low miscibility is molecularly sharp but with rough protrusions of one solvent into the other (capillary waves), while increasing solvent miscibility leads to the formation of a mixed solvent layer (Figure). In the presence of an electrolyte in both solvent phases, an electrical potential difference can be established at the interface. In the case of two electrolytes with different but constant composition and dissolved in the same solvent, a liquid junction potential is temporarily formed. Equilibrium partition of ions at the - interface between two immiscible electrolyte solutions gives rise to the ion transfer potential, or to the distribution potential, which can be described by the equivalent two-phase Nernst relationship. See also - ion transfer at liquid-liquid interfaces. [Pg.358]

Recently, detailed molecular pictures of the interfacial structure on the time and distance scales of the ion-crossing event, as well as of ion transfer dynamics, have been provided by Benjamin s molecular dynamics computer simulations [71, 75, 128, 136]. The system studied [71, 75, 136] included 343 water molecules and 108 1,2-dichloroethane molecules, which were separately equilibrated in two liquid slabs, and then brought into contact to form a box about 4 nm long and of cross-section 2.17 nmx2.17 nm. In a previous study [128], the dynamics of ion transfer were studied in a system including 256 polar and 256 nonpolar diatomic molecules. Solvent-solvent and ion-solvent interactions were described with standard potential functions, comprising coulombic and Lennard-Jones 6-12 pairwise potentials for electrostatic and nonbonded interactions, respectively. While in the first study [128] the intramolecular bond vibration of both polar and nonpolar solvent molecules was modeled as a harmonic oscillator, the next studies [71,75,136] used a more advanced model [137] for water and a four-atom model, with a united atom for each of two... [Pg.327]

Some most impressive computer simulations have been made in efforts to model the structure of liquid water. Yet, because these calculations usually are based on pair additivity of the potentials for the H-bonded water molecules, the possibility exists that subtle effects may escape the theoretician, as no means are provided to incorporate the possibility of extensive cooperativity—an aspect that Henry Frank (1972) has so eloquently stressed. Very likely, this is the crux of the problem of interfacially modified water if nothing else, the thermal anomalies (discussed below) in the properties of vicinal water strongly implicate cooperativity on a large scale—a collective behavior of water molecules that no existing potential function is able to reproduce. The cooperativity reflects nonpair additivity, and it does not seem plausible that effective potential energy functions can be devised that will remedy the specific lack of a detailed understanding of many-body interactions in water. Attempts to allow for cooperativity have been made by Finney, Barnes, and co-workers, notably Quinn and Nicholas (see Barnes et al., 1979). [Pg.176]

The obtained electrostatic potential profiles and ion distributions can in principle be used to calculate surface or interfacial tensions. However, up to now only few PMFs for ion-water surface interactions are available from MD simulations and there are no reliable experimental data of interfacial tensions for SAM-solution interfaces. Therefore it is not yet possible to check if the correct Hofmeister series can be obtained with this new approach. [Pg.303]


See other pages where Interfacial water simulations interaction potentials is mentioned: [Pg.30]    [Pg.32]    [Pg.33]    [Pg.144]    [Pg.41]    [Pg.147]    [Pg.37]    [Pg.586]    [Pg.16]    [Pg.49]    [Pg.184]    [Pg.261]    [Pg.138]    [Pg.219]    [Pg.6]    [Pg.37]    [Pg.304]    [Pg.205]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.23 , Pg.24 , Pg.25 , Pg.26 , Pg.27 ]




SEARCH



Interaction potential, interfacial

Interfacial water

Interfacial water simulations

Potential interfacial

Water simulations

© 2024 chempedia.info