4.7 Article

Kirkwood-Buff Integrals Using Molecular Simulation: Estimation of Surface Effects

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano10040771

关键词

nanothermodynamics; Kirkwood-Buff integrals; surface effects; molecular dynamics

资金

  1. NWO Exacte Wetenschappen (Physical Sciences)
  2. Nederlandse Organisatie voor weten schappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Scientific research, NWO)
  3. NWO-CW
  4. JSPS KAKENHI [19K05383]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19K05383] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kirkwood-Buff (KB) integrals provide a connection between microscopic properties and thermodynamic properties of multicomponent fluids. The estimation of KB integrals using molecular simulations of finite systems requires accounting for finite size effects. In the small system method, properties of finite subvolumes with different sizes embedded in a larger volume can be used to extrapolate to macroscopic thermodynamic properties. KB integrals computed from small subvolumes scale with the inverse size of the system. This scaling was used to find KB integrals in the thermodynamic limit. To reduce numerical inaccuracies that arise from this extrapolation, alternative approaches were considered in this work. Three methods for computing KB integrals in the thermodynamic limit from information of radial distribution functions (RDFs) of finite systems were compared. These methods allowed for the computation of surface effects. KB integrals and surface terms in the thermodynamic limit were computed for Lennard-Jones (LJ) and Weeks-Chandler-Andersen (WCA) fluids. It was found that all three methods converge to the same value. The main differentiating factor was the speed of convergence with system size L. The method that required the smallest size was the one which exploited the scaling of the finite volume KB integral multiplied by L. The relationship between KB integrals and surface effects was studied for a range of densities.

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