Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Microscopic models for quantum mechanical calculations of chemical processes in solutions: LD/AMPAC and SCAAS/AMPAC calculations of solvation energies

Luzhkov, V., Warshel, A.·1992·Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract

Our previously developed approaches for integrating quantum mechanical molecular orbital methods with microscopic solvent models are refined and examined. These approaches consider the nonlinear solute–solvent coupling in a self‐consistent way by incorporating the potential from the solvent dipoles in the solute Hamiltonian, while considering the polarization of the solvent by the potential from the solute charges. The solvent models used include the simplified Langevin Dipoles (LD) model and the much more expensive surface constrained All Atom Solvent (SCAAS) model, which is combined with a free energy pertubation (FEP) approach. Both methods are effectively integrated with the quantum mechanical AMPAC package and can be easily combined with other quantum mechanical programs. The advantages of the present approaches and their earlier versions over macroscopic reaction field models and supermolecular approaches are considered. A LD/MNDO study of solvated organic ions demonstrates that this model can yield reliable solvation energies, provided the quantum mechanical charges are scaled to have similar magnitudes to those obtained by high level ab initio methods. The incorporation of a field‐dependent hydrophobic term in the LD free energy makes the present approach capable of evaluating the free energy of transfer of polar molecules from non polar solvents to aqueous solutions. The reliability of the LD approach is examined not only by evaluating a rather standard set of solvation energies of organic ions and polar molecules, but also by considering the stringent test case of sterically hindered hydrophobic ions. In this case, we compare the LD/MNDO solvation energies to the more rigorous FEP/SCAAS/MNDO solvation energies. Both methods are found to give similar results even in this challenging test case. The FEP/SCAAS/AMPAC method is incorporated into the current version of the program ENZYMIX. This option allows one to study chemical reactions in enzymes and in solutions using the MNDO and AM1 approximations. A special procedure that uses the EVB method as a reference potential for SCF MO calculations should help in improving the reliability of such studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcc.540130212

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Luzhkov, V., & Warshel, A.
Venue
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-03
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
199-213
ISSN
  • 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-987X
OpenAlex
W2063667373
Cited by
309
References
0
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microscopic models for quantum mechanical calculations of chemical processes in solutions: LD/AMPAC and SCAAS/AMPAC calculations of solvation energies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.540130212
The paper
Luzhkov, V., & Warshel, A. (1992). Microscopic models for quantum mechanical calculations of chemical processes in solutions: LD/AMPAC and SCAAS/AMPAC calculations of solvation energies. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.540130212

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.