4.6 Article

The Born model can accurately describe electrostatic ion solvation

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 22, Issue 43, Pages 25126-25135

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0cp04148c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DE200100794, DP200102573, FL170100101]
  2. Australian Government
  3. University of Queensland's Research Computing Centre (RCC)
  4. Australian Research Council [DP200102573, DE200100794] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate models of the free energies of ions in solution are crucially important. They can be used to predict and understand the properties of electrolyte solutions in the huge number of important applications where these solutions play a central role such as electrochemical energy storage. The Born model, developed to describe ion solvation free energies, is widely considered to be critically flawed as it predicts a linear response of water to ionic charge, which fails to match water's supposed intrinsic preference to solvate anions over cations. Here, we demonstrate that the asymmetric response observed in simulation is the result of an arbitrary choice of the oxygen atom to be the centre of a water molecule. We show that an alternative and reasonable choice, which places the centre 0.5 angstrom towards the hydrogen atoms, results in a linear and charge symmetric response of water to ionic charge for a classical water model consistent with the Born model. Therefore, this asymmetry should be regarded as a property of the specific short-range repulsive interaction not an intrinsic electrostatic property of water and so the fact that the Born model does not reproduce it is not a limitation of this approach. We also show that this new water centre results in a more reasonable surface potential contribution to the solvation free energies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available