Theoretical study of solvent effects on the coil-globule transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coil-globule transition of a polymer in a solvent has been studied using Monte Carlo simulations of a single chain subject to intramolecular interactions as well as a solvent-mediated effective potential. This solvation potential was calculated using several different theoretical approaches for two simple polymer/solvent models, each employing hard-sphere chains and hard-sphere solvent particles as well as attractive square-well potentials between some interaction sites. For each model, collapse is driven by variation in a parameter which changes the energy mismatch between monomers and solvent particles. The solvation potentials were calculated using two fundamentally different methodologies, each designed to predict the conformational behavior of polymers in solution: (1) the polymer reference interaction site model (PRISM) theory and (2) a many-body solvation potential (MBSP) based on scaled particle theory introduced by Grayce [J. Chem. Phys. 106, 5171 (1997)]. For the PRISM calculations, two well-studied solvation monomer-monomer pair potentials were employed, each distinguished by the closure relation used in its derivation: (i) a hypernetted-chain (HNC)-type potential and (ii) a Percus-Yevick (PY)-type potential. The theoretical predictions were each compared to results obtained from explicit-solvent discontinuous molecular dynamics simulations on the same polymer/solvent model systems [J. Chem. Phys. 125, 194904 (2006)]. In each case, the variation in the coil-globule transition properties with solvent density is mostly qualitatively correct, though the quantitative agreement between the theory and prediction is typically poor. The HNC-type potential yields results that are more qualitatively consistent with simulation. The conformational behavior of the polymer upon collapse predicted by the MBSP approach is quantitatively correct for low and moderate solvent densities but is increasingly less accurate for higher densities. At high solvent densities, the PRISM-HNC and MBSP approaches tend to overestimate, while the PRISM-PY approach underestimates the tendency of the solvent to drive polymer collapse.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".