Pressure and temperature dependence of hydrophobic hydration: Volumetric, compressibility, and thermodynamic signatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined effect of pressure and temperature on hydrophobic hydration of a nonpolar methanelike solute is investigated by extensive simulations in the TIP4P model of water. Using test-particle insertion techniques, free energies of hydration under a range of pressures from 1 to 3000 atm are computed at eight temperatures ranging from 278.15 to 368.15 K. Corresponding enthalpy, entropy, and heat capacity accompanying the hydration process are estimated from the temperature dependence of the free energies. Partial molar and excess volumes calculated using pressure derivatives of the simulated free energies are consistent with those determined by direct volume simulations; but direct volume determination offers more reliable estimates for compressibility. At 298.15 K, partial molar and excess isothermal compressibilities of methane are negative at 1 atm. Partial molar and excess adiabatic (isentropic) compressibilities are estimated to be also negative under the same conditions. But partial molar and excess isothermal compressibilities are positive at high pressures, with a crossover from negative to positive compressibility at approximately 100-1000 atm. This trend is consistent with experiments on aliphatic amino acids and pressure-unfolded states of proteins. For the range of pressures simulated, hydration heat capacity exhibits little pressure dependence, also in apparent agreement with experiment. When pressure is raised at constant room temperature, hydration free energy increases while its entropic component remains essentially constant. Thus, the increasing unfavorability of hydration under raised pressure is seen as largely an enthalpic effect. Ramifications of the findings of the authors for biopolymer conformational transitions are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".