4.5 Article

Charge Transport in Water-NaCl Electrolytes with Molecular Dynamics Simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 127, 期 12, 页码 2729-2738

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c08047

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, ionic conductivity and transport numbers in electrolyte systems are calculated using Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations and compared with experimental results. The significance of the frame of reference is discussed when determining and comparing transport numbers. Two methods of computing ionic conductivity from equilibrium simulations are presented: the Nernst-Einstein approximation or the Onsager coefficients. The main features and differences between equilibrium and nonequilibrium simulations are discussed, and potential anomalies and critical pitfalls of using nonequilibrium molecular dynamics to determine transport properties are highlighted.
A systematic description of microscopic mechanisms is necessary to understand mass transport in solid and liquid electrolytes. From Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations, transport properties can be computed and provide a detailed view of the molecular and ionic motions. In this work, ionic conductivity and transport numbers in electrolyte systems are computed from equilibrium and nonequilibrium MD simulations. Results from the two methods are compared with experimental results, and we discuss the significance of the frame of reference when determining and comparing transport numbers. Two ways of computing ionic conductivity from equilibrium simulations are presented: the Nernst-Einstein approximation or the Onsager coefficients. The Onsager coefficients take ionic correlations into account and are found to be more suitable for concentrated electrolytes. Main features and differences between equilibrium and nonequilibrium simulations are discussed, and some potential anomalies and critical pitfalls of using nonequilibrium molecular dynamics to determine transport properties are highlighted.

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