1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The vibrational proton potential in bulk liquid water and ice
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.2895750
/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/15/10.1063/1.2895750
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/15/10.1063/1.2895750

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

water cluster used as a model of the solvated proton. The central proton along the vertex of the three fused pentagons is scanned.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Derivative of monomer dipole component parallel to OH bond with respect to OH distance as a function of external field parallel to OH bond. A comparison between the electronic structure results of Hermansson (Ref. 31) and models is shown. The units are consistent with Fig. 6 of Hermansson. (Multiply by to convert a.u./Å to D/Å.) Also, the same geometry (104.5°, ) was used as in Hermansson’s paper.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Vibrational component of the calculated gas-phase IR spectrum at for various models. Both classical and quantum results are shown. The quantum results were obtained from solving the three-dimensional vibrational Schrödinger equation. Experimental data are only provided in the stretch region. Only the experimentally observed antisymmetric peak is clearly visible as the symmetric peak has an intensity 20 times smaller. To make for an easier comparison with later figures, the intensities are calculated using a bulk liquid density of (noninteracting) monomers. Also, the experimental and quantum results are shown using a histogram of a nonzero width. The experimental spectrum was calculated using integrated IR intensities of 0.226 and quoted by Whalley and Klug (Ref. 78) and using frequencies of 3657 and .

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Top left: Comparison of proton scan for monomer and solvated proton from Fig. 1 using the surface. Also shown are the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions from solving the 1D Schrödinger equation for a proton in each well. The numbers show the transition frequency in wavenumbers. Top middle to bottom right: Comparison of proton scan for solvated proton from Fig. 1 using model and surfaces. Also shown are the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions from solving the 1D Schrödinger equation for a proton in each well. The numbers show the transition frequency in wavenumbers.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Top: Bulk liquid OO and OH distribution functions. Comparison of experimental data of Soper et al. (Ref. 1) with classical and path integral molecular dynamics results using the TTM4-F model. Bottom: Comparison of experimental (Ref. 1) bulk liquid OO and OH distribution functions and path integral simulation results using various models.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Dielectric constant calculated using path integral molecular dynamics for the RWK2 model. Results are shown for one (classical), two, four, and eight replicas.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Comparison of experimental and calculated IR spectra. Experimental data for the liquid from Bertie and Lan (Ref. 95). Experimental data for ice Ih taken from refractive index measurements of Clapp et al. (Ref. 96) at . Calculated results are shown from both classical (left) and wavefunction calculations (right).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Experimental and calculated proton momentum distribution functions in bulk ice Ih. Results for TIP3P-F, RWK2, and TTM2-F are taken from Burnham et al. (Ref. 29).

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Comparison of calculated momentum distributions from TTM4-F using two different calculation methods: Path integral and solving the 1D Schrödinger equation.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Calculated momentum distribution along the stretch direction for a given proton from solution of the 1D Schrödinger equation along the stretch direction vs H-bond parameter for TTM4-F for a variety of water phases. Also shown are experimental data points for the momentum distribution, using calculated averages from the simulation for the H-bond parameter.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

KE vs from solution of the 1D Schrödinger equation along the stretch direction for TTM4-F for a variety of water phases. Also shown are experimental data points using estimates for the KE from observed momentum distributions and frequencies from observed IR spectra in the OH stretch region. A value of for ice VI is taken from the data of Bertie et al. (Ref. 97) at . We were unable to find experimental IR data for the particular supercritical water thermodynamic point.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Model parameters. Coefficients [of Eq. (13)] are in units of (kcal/mol).

Generic image for table
Table II.

Electrostatic properties of the gas-phase monomer. the axis points out of the plane of the molecule, the axis is along the molecular bisection, and the axis is perpendicular to both and and lies in the molecular plane. Data in parentheses refer to coupled cluster results using the basis set comprising of 157 Gaussian-type functions from Avila (Ref. 86).

Generic image for table
Table III.

Comparison of various bulk ice , ambient liquid , and gas-phase properties from various water models with experimental data (where available).

Generic image for table
Table IV.

Intramolecular geometries for various water models in the gas phase , ambient liquid water , and ice using both classical and path integral simulation methods.

Generic image for table
Table V.

Binding energies for water clusters. MP2/CBS results from Xantheas et al. (Ref. 40).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/15/10.1063/1.2895750
2008-04-18
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: The vibrational proton potential in bulk liquid water and ice
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/128/15/10.1063/1.2895750
10.1063/1.2895750
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM