4.8 Article

Beyond Thermodynamics: Assessing the Dynamical Softness of Hydrated Ions from First Principles

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
Volume 12, Issue 49, Pages 11980-11986

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c03314

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  2. Laboratory Directed Research and Development [20-SI-004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ion (de)hydration is a key step in interfacial processes, and predicting its kinetics remains challenging. Static proxies like hydration energy and valence are useful but cannot fully capture the dynamic softness of the hydration shell. Dynamic descriptors are essential for correctly describing ion transfer processes.
Ion (de)hydration is a key rate-determining step in interfacial processes from corrosion to electrochemical energy storage. However, predicting the kinetics of ion (de)hydration remains challenging, prompting the use of static proxies such as hydration energy and valence. While useful for assessing thermodynamic preferences, such descriptors cannot fully capture the dynamical softness of the hydration shell that dictates kinetics. Accordingly, we use first-principles molecular dynamics to analyze hydration shell softness for a diverse set of metal cations. Three dynamic metrics are introduced to intuitively describe the bond rigidity, shape deformability, and exchange fluidity of the solvation shell. Together, these metrics capture the relevant physics in the static descriptors, while offering a far more complete and efficient representation for the overall propensity for (de)hydration. Application to the hydrated ion set demonstrates a weak connection between dynamical softness and hydration energy, confirming that dynamical descriptors of hydration are key for correctly describing ion transfer processes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available