4.5 Article

Thermodynamics of Mixing Water with Dimethyl Sulfoxide, as Seen from Computer Simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 118, 期 29, 页码 8724-8733

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp503352f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hungarian OTKA Foundation [OTKA 104234]
  2. Hungarian-French Intergovernmental Science and Technology Program (BALATON) [TeT_12_FR-1-2013-0013]
  3. Marie Curie program IRSES (International Research Staff Exchange Scheme) [GAN 247500]
  4. European Union
  5. European Social Fund [TAMOP 4.2.4.A/2-11/1-2012-0001]
  6. National Excellence Program [A2-SZJO-TOK-13-0030]
  7. French Government
  8. Campus France agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Helmholtz free energy, energy, and entropy of mixing of eight different models of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) with four widely used water models are calculated at 298 K over the entire composition range by means of thermodynamic integration along a suitably chosen thermodynamic path, and compared with experimental data. All 32 model combinations considered are able to reproduce the experimental values rather well, within RT (free energy and energy) and R (entropy) at any composition, and quite often the deviation from the experimental data is even smaller, being in the order of the uncertainty of the calculated free energy or energy, and entropy values of 0.1 kJ/mol and 0.1 J/(mol K), respectively. On the other hand, none of the model combinations considered can accurately reproduce all three experimental functions simultaneously. Furthermore, the fact that the entropy of mixing changes sign with increasing DMSO mole fraction is only reproduced by a handful of model pairs. Model combinations that (i) give the best reproduction of the experimental free energy, while still reasonably well reproducing the experimental energy and entropy of mixing, and (ii) that give the best reproduction of the experimental energy and entropy, while still reasonably well reproducing the experimental free energy of mixing, are identified.

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

4.5
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