CCL: Thermodynamic Data & Solvation - Calculation Questions:
- From: Uwe Huniar <huniar!^!cosmologic.de>
- Subject: CCL: Thermodynamic Data & Solvation - Calculation
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:24:18 +0200
Sent to CCL by: Uwe Huniar [huniar~!~cosmologic.de]
some time ago we have been asked similar questions, so I forwarded
issue to our own implicit solvation expert, Frank Eckert. Here his
answer (probably not directly an answer to all your questions, though):
The topic of reference states is sometimes a bit confusing.
The molar reference state of 1 mol/L in both gas and solution is the
one that typically is used to compare the computed DGsolv to
"experimentally" determined values, while the bar/mol reference state
intended for the use in reaction free energy calculations using the
I have put "experimentally" in quotes, because DGfus is not a direct
observable in experiments. DGfus typically is extrapolated from
solubility or VLE data via the Henry law constant and the definition of
DGsolv depends on a given reference state. This by convention is the
molar reference state of 1 mol/L in both gas and solution. The molar
convention is also followed by Cramer and Truhlar in their SMx papers.
They converted both experimental and calculated DGsolv value to the
molar reference frame. The molar reference state is used in most
databases and also by most experimentalists, but it is in no way a
natural or self-explaining choice. It is just a convention. If you look
into original papers from experimentalists, in particular older oner
from Russia or China, you might as well also find other reference states.
Here is s link to a recent publication that tries to unravel some of
Hope this helps a bit,
Am 06.04.2017 um 08:24 schrieb MIELCZAREK Detlev Conrad
Sent to CCL by: MIELCZAREK Detlev Conrad [detlev-conrad.mielczarek]^[ifpen.fr]
Dear CCL, a question on thermodynamic data & solvation from me, maybe you
can help me.
So, the basic problem for me is, that I am calculating/want to calculate
thermodynamic data (Hf, S - hence also dG) in solvation, using implicit
solvation models, SMD with a COSMO cavity to be specific. For my application,
these should be accurate enough. (So no molecular dynamics simulations etc.)
Solvation models are normally parametrised for dGsolv - so this value can be
extracted from the quantum chemistry calculation as the difference in the
calculated Gibbs Free Enthalpy.
Hf can calculated easily in the gas phase, and a re-optimisation of the
structure with solvation should capture the majority of the impact of solvation
on the enthalpy. (Which is dominated by molecular structure.)
(I guess there is the case of stabilisation and complexes, such as are reported
for water. However this is currently beyond the scope of my work.)
The topic of solvation has been discussed previously on the CCL here:
And there is the book "Essentials of Computational Chemistry Theories and
Models" from Professor Cramer with a section on phase change (the source of
Specifically, the discussion concerning the energy change related to the state
conversion causes me some grief.
On the one hand, the CCL responses read as if this should be applied in the case
of any phase change, but then others suggest this is applicable only if the
process is a second order reaction and thus the total number of mols changes? -
The latter view seems to agree with the book...
So if I have compound A in both the gas and liquid phase (from a quantum
chemistry calculation), do I need to account for the phase change/change of
state or not? Or is it something that can be included in the parametrisation of
the solvation model/the quantum chemistry code already?
Just to add more confusion to the topic: I have trialled a commercial product
which gives the Gibbs Enthalpy of Solvation in kcal/mol for mol/L concentrations
and using a very low end/fast functional, it gives values similar to when a
correction term is added... on the other hand, where available, the calculated
values without correction agree with the published values in the SMD paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp810292n (Supplementary
In addition, a regular computational chemistry calculation sees very little
(virtually no) difference in the entropy between the gaseous and solvated phase.
This would agree with the CCL-linked paper here http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp205508z . But this
would clash with the common expectation that entropy in the liquid phase is
Hence, I would highly appreciate if someone knowledgeable in the field of
solvation could guide me onto the correct track.
Detlev Conrad Mielczarek
Scientific Visitor/Post Doctorant
IFP Energies nouvelles
Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement ! Please consider the
environment before printing !
Ce message et toutes ses pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis
à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation non
conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou
partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. IFP Energies nouvelles
décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message. This message and
any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any
unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. IFP Energies nouvelles should
not be liable for this message.
Dr. Uwe Huniar
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Imbacher Weg 46
D-51379 Leverkusen, Germany
HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Dr. Andreas Klamt