Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics Studies of Ionic Dissolution and Precipitation of Sodium Chloride and Silver Chloride in Water Clusters, NaCl(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub><i>n</i></sub> and AgCl(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub><i>n</i></sub>, <i>n</i> = 6, 10, and 14
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ab initio molecular dynamics method was used to compare the ionic dissolution of soluble sodium chloride (NaCl) in water clusters with the highly insoluble silver chloride (AgCl). The investigations focused on the solvation structures, dynamics, and energetics of the contact ion pair (CIP) and of the solvent-separated ion pair (SSIP) in NaCl(H(2)O)(n) and AgCl(H(2)O)(n) with cluster sizes of n = 6, 10 and 14. We found that the minimum cluster size required to stabilize the SSIP configuration in NaCl(H(2)O)(n) is temperature-dependent. For n = 6, both configurations are present as two distinct local minima on the free-energy profile at 100 K, whereas SSIP is unstable at 300 K. Both configurations, separated by a low barrier (<10 kJ mol(-1)), are identifiable on the free energy profiles of NaCl(H(2)O)(n) for n = 10 and 14 at 300 K, with the Na(+)/Cl(-) pairs being internally solvated in the water cluster and the SSIP configuration being slightly higher in energy (<5 kJ mol(-1)). In agreement with the low bulk solubility of AgCl, no SSIP minimum is observed on the free-energy profiles of finite AgCl(H(2)O)(n) clusters. The AgCl interaction is more covalent in nature, and is less affected by the water solvent. Unlike NaCl, AgCl is mainly solvated on the surface in finite water clusters, and ionic dissolution requires a significant reorganization of the solvent structure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".