2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2015.05.068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of surfactant SDS on DMSO transport across water/hexane interface by molecular dynamics simulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[74] We take the mean of these five values as our estimate of the self-diffusivity, and report uncertainties in our estimate as the standard deviation over the estimates from the five independent runs, to determine a value of D imp = (6.6 ± 0.2) × 10 −5 cm 2 /s. We compare this value to that of D exp = (7.1 ± 0.6) × 10 −5 cm 2 /s, computed in explicit solvent from block averaging of a 10 ns simulation conducted using the parameters given in Section 2.1, with the exception that we instead of a Langevin thermostat we implement a Nosé-Hoover thermostat with a time constant of 0.5 ps, a value commonly used in the literature, [75,76] that has been shown to reliably approximate the true dynamical time scales of the atomic system. [77] The agreement of the implicit and explicit self-diffusion coefficients within error bars indicates that the Langevin thermostat implemented within our implicit runs with a time constant of 2 ps −1 accurately mimics the dynamics of random collisions of solvent molecules with our peptide [78][79][80] resulting in dynamical time scales in good agreement with explicit solvent simulations.…”
Section: Time Scale Correspondence In Explicit and Implicit Solvent Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[74] We take the mean of these five values as our estimate of the self-diffusivity, and report uncertainties in our estimate as the standard deviation over the estimates from the five independent runs, to determine a value of D imp = (6.6 ± 0.2) × 10 −5 cm 2 /s. We compare this value to that of D exp = (7.1 ± 0.6) × 10 −5 cm 2 /s, computed in explicit solvent from block averaging of a 10 ns simulation conducted using the parameters given in Section 2.1, with the exception that we instead of a Langevin thermostat we implement a Nosé-Hoover thermostat with a time constant of 0.5 ps, a value commonly used in the literature, [75,76] that has been shown to reliably approximate the true dynamical time scales of the atomic system. [77] The agreement of the implicit and explicit self-diffusion coefficients within error bars indicates that the Langevin thermostat implemented within our implicit runs with a time constant of 2 ps −1 accurately mimics the dynamics of random collisions of solvent molecules with our peptide [78][79][80] resulting in dynamical time scales in good agreement with explicit solvent simulations.…”
Section: Time Scale Correspondence In Explicit and Implicit Solvent Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fortunately, various simulation methods, such as Monte Carlo simulation (MC), molecular dynamics (MD), and dissipative particle dynamics (DPD), are available to solve these problems. It is in principle viable to study the adsorption of polymer molecules at the atomistic level by using molecular dynamics (MD) . MD can provide specific information regarding the interfacial behavior of PEO-PPO-PEO triblock copolymers at hydrophobic surfaces without compromising the atomistic details.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is in principle viable to study the adsorption of polymer molecules at the atomistic level by using molecular dynamics (MD). 17 MD can provide specific information regarding the interfacial behavior of PEO-PPO-PEO triblock copolymers at hydrophobic surfaces without compromising the atomistic details. However, the time scale and length scale accessible to classical MD is too short to allow for observing the adsorption behavior and film morphologies at hydrophobic surfaces.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, an alternative method by modifying the Langevin equation is used to resolve this problem . The modified method and the major calculation process have been reviewed in previous work …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%