4.7 Article

Study of solvent effect on the stability of water bridge-linked carboxyl groups in humic acid models

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 20-26

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.006

关键词

Geochemistry; Soils; Organic materials; Water

资金

  1. Austrian Sciences Fund [P20893-N19]
  2. German Research Foundation [SPP 1315, GE 1676/1-1, SCHA849/8-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular dynamics simulations have been performed by means of density functional theory with tight binding (DFTB) in order to describe the structure and the energetic stability of water bridges in humic substances (HS) model. This model is constructed from two parallel aliphatic chains geometrically restrained on one end and terminated with a carboxyl group on the other to supply the structural pattern for supramolecular contact of two HS chains through hydrogen bonds. Molecular dynamics simulations were used to analyze the interactions of the carboxylic groups with a variable number of water molecules up to 14 representing domains of micro hydration states of polar centers in humic acids. For the present geometrical arrangements of the model five water molecules form a stable bridge between the two carboxylic groups located at each aliphatic chain. The effect of environment through three solvents of different polarities (n-hexane, acetonitrile and water) was investigated. Distribution profiles of oxygen atoms of carboxyl and chain water molecules show that the environmental effect of the solvent with moderate polarity (acetonitrile) is most pronounced in exerting an ordering effect on the water bridge. Energy profiles for incremental addition of water molecules and hydrogen bond analysis demonstrate the remarkable stability of the five water complex as compared to all other models investigated in both gas phase and in acetonitrile. These findings correlate nicely with experimentally observed antiplasticizing effects of water bridges in organic matrices. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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