4.7 Article

Pair structure of the hard-sphere Yukawa fluid: An improved analytic method versus simulations, Rogers-Young scheme, and experiment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 134, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3524309

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Helmholtz Research School of Biophysics and Soft Matter (IHRS BioSoft)
  2. SeCyT-UNC
  3. CONICET
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB-TR6, B2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a comprehensive study of the equilibrium pair structure in fluids of nonoverlapping spheres interacting by a repulsive Yukawa-like pair potential, with special focus on suspensions of charged colloidal particles. The accuracy of several integral equation schemes for the static structure factor, S(q), and radial distribution function, g(r), is investigated in comparison to computer simulation results and static light scattering data on charge-stabilized silica spheres. In particular, we show that an improved version of the so-called penetrating-background corrected rescaled mean spherical approximation (PB-RMSA) by Snook and Hayter [Langmuir 8, 2880 (1992)], referred to as the modified PB-RMSA (MPB-RMSA), gives pair structure functions which are in general in very good agreement with Monte Carlo simulations and results from the accurate but nonanalytical and therefore computationally more expensive Rogers-Young integral equation scheme. The MPB-RMSA preserves the analytic simplicity of the standard rescaled mean spherical (RMSA) solution. The combination of high accuracy and fast evaluation makes the MPB-RMSA ideally suited for extensive parameter scans and experimental data evaluation, and for providing the static input to dynamic theories. We discuss the results of extensive parameter scans probing the concentration scaling of the pair structure of strongly correlated Yukawa particles, and we determine the liquid-solid coexistence line using the Hansen-Verlet freezing rule. (C) 2011 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3524309]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据