Aggregation in dilute aqueous <i>tert</i>-butyl alcohol solutions: Insights from large-scale simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular dynamics simulations employing up to 64,000 particles are used to investigate aggregation and microheterogeneity in aqueous tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) solutions for TBA mole fractions X(t) ≤ 0.1. Four different force fields are considered. It is shown that the results obtained can be strongly dependent on the particular force field employed, and can be significantly influenced by system size. Two of the force fields considered show TBA aggregation in the concentration range X(t) ≈ 0.03 - 0.06. For these models, systems of 64,000 particles are minimally sufficient to accommodate the TBA aggregates. The structures resulting from TBA aggregation do not have a well-defined size and shape, as one might find in micellar systems, but are better described as TBA-rich and water-rich regions. All pair correlation functions exhibit long-range oscillatory behavior with wavelengths that are much larger than molecular length scales. The oscillations are not strongly damped and the correlations can easily exceed the size of the simulation cell, even for the low TBA concentrations considered here. We note that these long-range correlations pose a serious problem if one wishes to obtain certain physical properties such as Kirkwood-Buff integrals from simulation results. In contrast, two other force fields that we consider show little sign of aggregation for X(t) ≲ 0.08. In our 64,000 particle simulations all four models considered show demixing-like behavior for X(t) ≳ 0.1, although such behavior is not evident in smaller systems of 2000 particles. The meaning of the demixing-like behavior is unclear. Since real TBA-water solutions do not demix, it might be an indication that all four models we consider poorly represent the real system. Alternatively, it might be an artifact of finite system size. Possibly, the apparent demixing indicates that for X(t) ≳ 0.1, the stable TBA aggregates are simply too large to fit into the simulation cell. Our results provide a view of the possible nature of microheterogeneity in dilute TBA-water solutions, and of the associated long correlation lengths. It is clear that system size can be a very important factor in simulations of these solutions, and must be taken into account in the evaluation and development of TBA-water force fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".