4.4 Article

Predicting Hydrophobic Solvation by Molecular Simulation: 2. New United-Atom Model for Alkanes, Alkenes, and Alkynes

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 359-369

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24689

关键词

solubility; molecular simulation; hydrocarbons; non-polar; free energy

资金

  1. UMIC (Agencia para a Sociedade do Conhecimento)
  2. FCT (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia) in Portugal
  3. IBERCIVIS foundation
  4. CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas)
  5. Gobierno de Aragon in Spain (IBERCIVIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Existing united-atom models for non-polar hydrocarbons lead to systematic deviations in predicted solvation free energies in hydrophobic solvents. In this article, an improved set of parameters is proposed for alkane molecules that corrects this systematic deviation and accurately predicts solvation free energies in hydrophobic media, while simultaneously providing a very good description of pure liquid densities. The model is then extended to alkenes and alkynes, again yielding very accurate predictions of solvation free energies and densities for these classes of compounds. For alkynes in particular, this work represents the first attempt at a systematic parameterization using the united-atom approach. Averaging over all 95 solute/solvent pairs tested, the mean signed deviation from experimental data is very close to zero, indicating no systematic error in the predictions. The fact that predictions are robust even for relatively large molecules suggests that the new model may be applicable to solvation of non-polar macromolecules without accumulation of errors. The root mean squared deviation of the simulations is only 0.6 kJ/mol, which is lower than the estimated uncertainty in the experimental measurements. This excellent performance constitutes a solid basis on which a more general model can be parameterized to describe solvation in both polar and non-polar environments. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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