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; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Solvent Models for the Calculation of Solvation Free Energy in Organic Solvents

Open access
Zhang, Jin, Zhang, Haiyang, Wu, Tao, Wang, Qi, van der Spoel, David·2017·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

Abstract Quantitative prediction of physical properties of liquids is important for many applications. Computational methods based on either explicit or implicit solvent models can be used to approximate thermodynamics properties of liquids. Here, we evaluate the predictive power of implicit solvent models for solvation free energy of organic molecules in organic solvents. We compared the results calculated with four generalized Born (GB) models (GBStill, GBHCT, GBOBCI, and GBOBCII), the Poisson–Boltzmann (PB) model, and the density-based solvent model SMD with previous solvation free energy calculations (Zhang et al. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2015, 55, 1192–1201) and experimental data. The comparison indicates that both PB and GB give poor agreement with explicit solvent calculations and even worse agreement with experiments (root-mean-square deviation ≈ 15 kJ/mol). The main problem seems to be the prediction of the apolar contribution, which should include the solvent entropy. The quantum mechanical-based SMD model gives significantly better agreement with experimental data than do PB or GB, but it is not as good as explicit solvent calculation results. The dielectric constant ε of the solvent is found to be a powerful predictor for the polar contribution to the free energy in implicit models; however, the Onsager relation may not hold for realistic solvent, as suggested by explicit solvent and SMD calculations. From the comparison, we also find that with an optimization of the apolar contribution, the PB model gives slightly better agreement with experiments than the SMD model, whereas the correlation between the optimized GB models and experiments remains poor. Further optimization of the apolar contribution is needed for GB models to be able to treat solvents other than water.

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 · 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00169

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 88 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Wu, T., Wang, Q., & van der Spoel, D.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2017-03-06
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
1034-1043
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2592364803
Cited by
309
References
88
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Solvent Models for the Calculation of Solvation Free Energy in Organic Solvents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00169
The paper
Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Wu, T., Wang, Q., & van der Spoel, D. (2017). Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Solvent Models for the Calculation of Solvation Free Energy in Organic Solvents. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00169

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.