4.2 Review

What ice can teach us about water interactions: a critical comparison of the performance of different water models

Journal

FARADAY DISCUSSIONS
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages 251-276

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b805531a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DGI (Spain) [FIS2007-66079-CO2-01]
  2. CANI [S-0505/ESP/0229]
  3. European Union [MTKD-CT-2004-509249]
  4. UCM [910570]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of several popular water models (TIP3P, TIP4P, TIP5P and TIP4P/2005) is analyzed. For that purpose the predictions for ten different properties of water are investigated, namely: 1. vapour-liquid equilibria (VLE) and critical temperature; 2. surface tension; 3. densities of the different solid structures of water (ices); 4. phase diagram; 5. melting-point properties; 6. maximum in the density of water at room pressure and thermal coefficients alpha and kappa(T), structure of liquid water and ice; 8. equation of state at high pressures; 9. self-diffusion coefficient; 10. dielectric constant. For each property, the performance of each model is analyzed in detail with a critical discussion of the possible reason of each model is analyzed in detail with a critical discussion of the possible reason of the success or failure of the model. A final judgement on the quality of these models is provided. TIP4P/2005 provides the best description of almost all properties of the list, the only exception being the dielectric constant. In second position, TIP5P and TIP4P yield a similar performance overall, and the last place with the poorest description of the water properties is provided by TIP3P. The ideas leading to the proposal and design of the TIP4P/2005 are also discussed in detail. TIP4P/2005 is probably close to the best description of water that can be achieved with a non-polarizable model described by a single Lennard-Jones (LJ) site and three charges.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available