Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17,843

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Universal Solvation Model Based on Solute Electron Density and on a Continuum Model of the Solvent Defined by the Bulk Dielectric Constant and Atomic Surface Tensions

Open access
Marenich, Aleksandr V., Cramer, Christopher J., Truhlar, Donald G.·2009·The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
DOI 10.1021/jp810292n
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present a new continuum solvation model based on the quantum mechanical charge density of a solute molecule interacting with a continuum description of the solvent. The model is called SMD, where the "D" stands for "density" to denote that the full solute electron density is used without defining partial atomic charges. "Continuum" denotes that the solvent is not represented explicitly but rather as a dielectric medium with surface tension at the solute-solvent boundary. SMD is a universal solvation model, where "universal" denotes its applicability to any charged or uncharged solute in any solvent or liquid medium for which a few key descriptors are known (in particular, dielectric constant, refractive index, bulk surface tension, and acidity and basicity parameters). The model separates the observable solvation free energy into two main components. The first component is the bulk electrostatic contribution arising from a self-consistent reaction field treatment that involves the solution of the nonhomogeneous Poisson equation for electrostatics in terms of the integral-equation-formalism polarizable continuum model (IEF-PCM). The cavities for the bulk electrostatic calculation are defined by superpositions of nuclear-centered spheres. The second component is called the cavity-dispersion-solvent-structure term and is the contribution arising from short-range interactions between the solute and solvent molecules in the first solvation shell. This contribution is a sum of terms that are proportional (with geometry-dependent proportionality constants called atomic surface tensions) to the solvent-accessible surface areas of the individual atoms of the solute. The SMD model has been parametrized with a training set of 2821 solvation data including 112 aqueous ionic solvation free energies, 220 solvation free energies for 166 ions in acetonitrile, methanol, and dimethyl sulfoxide, 2346 solvation free energies for 318 neutral solutes in 91 solvents (90 nonaqueous organic solvents and water), and 143 transfer free energies for 93 neutral solutes between water and 15 organic solvents. The elements present in the solutes are H, C, N, O, F, Si, P, S, Cl, and Br. The SMD model employs a single set of parameters (intrinsic atomic Coulomb radii and atomic surface tension coefficients) optimized over six electronic structure methods: M05-2X/MIDI!6D, M05-2X/6-31G, M05-2X/6-31+G, M05-2X/cc-pVTZ, B3LYP/6-31G, and HF/6-31G. Although the SMD model has been parametrized using the IEF-PCM protocol for bulk electrostatics, it may also be employed with other algorithms for solving the nonhomogeneous Poisson equation for continuum solvation calculations in which the solute is represented by its electron density in real space. This includes, for example, the conductor-like screening algorithm. With the 6-31G basis set, the SMD model achieves mean unsigned errors of 0.6-1.0 kcal/mol in the solvation free energies of tested neutrals and mean unsigned errors of 4 kcal/mol on average for ions with either Gaussian03 or GAMESS.

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/jp810292n

Cites

80 of 80 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

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Klamt, 1993, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 799
  2. Gregerson, 2003, Helv. Chim. Acta, 86, 4112, 10.1002/hlca.200390340 · doi:10.1002/hlca.200390340
  3. Ginovska, 2008, J. Phys. Chem. A, 112, 10604, 10.1021/jp804092v · doi:10.1021/jp804092v
  4. Rivail, 1996, In, 139, 10.1142/9789812830364_0004 · doi:10.1142/9789812830364_0004
  5. Peradejordi, 1963, Cahiers Phys., 17, 393
  6. Jano, 1965, C. R. Acad. Sci., 261, 103
  7. Tapia, 1981, Quantum Theory of Chemical Reactions, 25
  8. Marenich, 2008, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 4, 877, 10.1021/ct800029c · doi:10.1021/ct800029c
  9. Stone, 1988, J. Phys. Chem., 92, 3325, 10.1021/j100323a006 · doi:10.1021/j100323a006
  10. Tschampel, 2007, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 3, 1721, 10.1021/ct700046j · doi:10.1021/ct700046j
  11. Grycuk, 2003, J. Chem. Phys., 119, 4817, 10.1063/1.1595641 · doi:10.1063/1.1595641
  12. Marenich, 2007, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 3, 2055, 10.1021/ct7001539 · doi:10.1021/ct7001539
  13. Pethica, 2007, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 9, 6253, 10.1039/b706153f · doi:10.1039/b706153f
  14. Smith, 1994, J. Phys. Chem., 98, 13735, 10.1021/j100102a046 · doi:10.1021/j100102a046
  15. Boresch, 1994, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 20, 25, 10.1002/prot.340200105 · doi:10.1002/prot.340200105
  16. Cramer, 2006, Trends and Perspectives in Modern Computational Science, 112, 10.1201/b12251-8 · doi:10.1201/b12251-8
  17. Cramer, Acc. Chem. Res., 10.1021/ar900004j · doi:10.1021/ar900004j
  18. Cramer, 1991, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 113, 8552, 10.1021/ja00022a069 · doi:10.1021/ja00022a069
  19. Li, 1998, Chem. Phys. Lett., 288, 293, 10.1016/S0009-2614(98)00194-8 · doi:10.1016/s0009-2614(98)00194-8
  20. Kelly, C. P . Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2007.
  21. Olson, 2007, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 3, 2046, 10.1021/ct7001607 · doi:10.1021/ct7001607
  22. Thompson, 2002, PhysChemComm, 5, 117, 10.1039/b206369g · doi:10.1039/b206369g
  23. Frisch, 2004, Gaussian03, Revisions C.01, C.02, D.02, and E.01
  24. Bylaska, 2006, NWChem, A Computational Chemistry Package for Parallel Computers, Version 4.7
  25. Soteras, 2005, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem), 727, 29, 10.1016/j.theochem.2005.02.029 · doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2005.02.029
  26. Shimizu, 2005, J. Phys. Chem. A, 109, 11322, 10.1021/jp054673l · doi:10.1021/jp054673l
  27. Curutchet, 2006, J. Comput. Chem., 27, 1769, 10.1002/jcc.20480 · doi:10.1002/jcc.20480
  28. de O. Mendes, 2006, J. Phys. Chem. A, 110, 4034, 10.1021/jp053520v · doi:10.1021/jp053520v
  29. Basilevsky, 2006, J. Comput. Chem., 27, 552, 10.1002/jcc.20332 · doi:10.1002/jcc.20332
  30. Böes, 2008, Chem. Phys., 344, 101, 10.1016/j.chemphys.2007.12.006 · doi:10.1016/j.chemphys.2007.12.006
  31. Wangsness, 1979, Electromagnetic Fields, 179
  32. Wrobel, 2002, The Boundary Element Method
  33. Pomelli, 2001, J. Comput. Chem., 22, 1262, 10.1002/jcc.1083 · doi:10.1002/jcc.1083
  34. Frediani, 2004, J. Comput. Chem., 25, 375, 10.1002/jcc.10381 · doi:10.1002/jcc.10381
  35. Scalmani, 2002, J. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng., 2, 469
  36. Abraham, 1989, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 699
  37. Abraham, 1994, Quantitative Treatment of Solute/Solvent Interactions; Theoretical and Computational Chemistry Series, 83
  38. Marenich, 2009, Minnesota Solvation Database version 2009
  39. Winget, 1999, Minnesota Solvent Descriptor Database version 1999
  40. Stefanovich, 1995, Chem. Phys. Lett., 244, 65, 10.1016/0009-2614(95)00898-E · doi:10.1016/0009-2614(95)00898-e
  41. Li, 1998, Theor. Chem. Acc., 99, 192, 10.1007/s002140050323 · doi:10.1007/s002140050323
  42. Olson, 2008, MN-GSM, version 2008
  43. Floris, 1993, Chem. Phys., 169, 11, 10.1016/0301-0104(93)80036-9 · doi:10.1016/0301-0104(93)80036-9
  44. Claverie, 1982, Quantum Theory of Chemical Reactions, 151, 10.1007/978-94-015-6918-7_10 · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-6918-7_10
  45. Vigné-Maeder, 1987, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 109, 24, 10.1021/ja00235a003 · doi:10.1021/ja00235a003
  46. Pierotti, 1963, J. Phys. Chem., 67, 1840, 10.1021/j100803a024 · doi:10.1021/j100803a024
  47. Claverie, 1978, Intermolecular Interactions: From Diatomics to Biomolecules, 69
  48. Barone, 2004, Theor. Chem. Acc., 111, 237, 10.1007/s00214-003-0541-4 · doi:10.1007/s00214-003-0541-4
  49. Luque, 1994, J. Comput. Chem., 15, 847, 10.1002/jcc.540150806 · doi:10.1002/jcc.540150806
  50. Orozco, 1995, J. Comput. Chem., 16, 563, 10.1002/jcc.540160505 · doi:10.1002/jcc.540160505
  51. Luque, 1996, J. Phys. Chem., 100, 4269, 10.1021/jp9529331 · doi:10.1021/jp9529331
  52. Luque, 1996, J. Comput. Chem., 17, 806, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199605)17:7<806::AID-JCC5>3.0.CO;2-W · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(199605)17:7<806::aid-jcc5>3.0.co;2-w
  53. Amovilli, 1994, Chem. Phys. Lett., 229, 244, 10.1016/0009-2614(94)01044-7 · doi:10.1016/0009-2614(94)01044-7
  54. Alexandrovsky, 2004, J. Phys. Chem. B, 108, 15830, 10.1021/jp031189e · doi:10.1021/jp031189e
  55. Böes, 2007, Chem. Phys. Lett., 436, 362, 10.1016/j.cplett.2007.01.063 · doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2007.01.063
  56. Giesen, 1997, J. Phys. Chem. B, 101, 2061, 10.1021/jp963080v · doi:10.1021/jp963080v
  57. Marenich, 2008, GESOL-version 2008

Cited by

See all 17,843

Metadata

Authors
Marenich, A. V., Cramer, C. J., & Truhlar, D. G.
Venue
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2009-04-14
Volume
113
Issue
18
Pages
6378-6396
ISSN
  • 1520-5207 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6106
DOI
10.1021/jp810292n
OpenAlex
W2011215428
Cited by
17,843
References
80
FWCI
80.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html (vor, 2296 d)

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

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.