Hubbry Logo
Born equationBorn equationMain
Open search
Born equation
Community hub
Born equation
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Born equation
Born equation
Born equation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Born equation can be used for estimating the electrostatic component of Gibbs free energy of solvation of an ion. It is an electrostatic model that treats the solvent as a continuous dielectric medium (it is thus one member of a class of methods known as continuum solvation methods).

The equation was derived by Max Born.[1][2] where:

Derivation

[edit]

The energy U stored in an electrostatic field distribution is:Knowing the magnitude of the electric field of an ion in a medium of dielectric constant εr is and the volume element can be expressed as , the energy can be written as: Thus, the energy of solvation of the ion from gas phase (εr = 1) to a medium of dielectric constant εr is:

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Born equation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Born equation, formulated by German physicist in 1920, is a cornerstone of that quantifies the electrostatic contribution to the of for an transferred from to a continuum modeled as a uniform medium. It assumes the behaves as a rigid, spherical charge distribution of radius rr and charge zeze, where zz is the charge number and ee is the , yielding the solvation free energy as ΔGsolv=−NAz2e28πϵ0r(1−1ϵ),\Delta G_\text{solv} = -\frac{N_A z^2 e^2}{8\pi \epsilon_0 r} \left(1 - \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right), with NAN_A as Avogadro's number, ϵ0\epsilon_0 as the , and ϵ\epsilon as the relative of the . This expression arises from the difference in the 's electrostatic between (ϵ=1\epsilon = 1) and the , emphasizing how the screening reduces the energy required to charge the in solution. Born's derivation, originally applied to hydration heats and ionic volumes in aqueous media, relies on classical electrostatics and the Born model of a conducting sphere, providing a simple yet insightful estimate of solvation thermodynamics that scales inversely with ion radius and solvent dielectric constant. The equation has profoundly influenced electrolyte theory, enabling predictions of ion transfer free energies and absolute solvation enthalpies when combined with experimental data, though it traditionally approximates the under isothermal conditions. Its applications extend to interpreting ion mobilities, lattice energies in ionic crystals via the Born-Haber cycle, and foundational aspects of and surface chemistry. Despite its elegance, the Born equation overlooks specific ion-solvent interactions, entropy effects from solvent reorganization, and non-electrostatic contributions like cavitation and dispersion, often leading to overestimations for small ions or low-dielectric solvents. These limitations spurred extensions, notably the generalized Born (GB) model, which adapts the formalism to non-spherical solutes like proteins by integrating effective Born radii over molecular surfaces, enhancing accuracy in quantum mechanical and molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecular solvation. Modern refinements also incorporate dielectric saturation and nonlocal electrostatics to better align with experimental solvation free energies, underscoring the equation's enduring role as a benchmark in computational and .

Background

Ion Solvation

Solvation refers to the process by which solvent molecules surround and stabilize solute in solution through intermolecular interactions, primarily electrostatic attractions between the ion's charge and the solvent's dipoles, as well as van der Waals forces that contribute to the overall . This surrounding layer, known as the , effectively screens the ion's charge and influences its behavior in the bulk . In aqueous environments, molecules orient their oxygen atoms toward cations and hydrogen atoms toward anions, forming structured hydration shells that can extend to multiple layers depending on the ion's . The process is essential for the physical and chemical properties of solutions. It determines by balancing the energy gained from ion-solvent interactions against the required to separate ions from the solid phase; for instance, highly charged ions like Li⁺ form strong bonds that promote dissolution in polar solvents. also governs electrical conductivity, as the size and stability of the affect ion mobility—strongly solvated ions move more slowly, reducing solution conductance at higher concentrations where increases. Additionally, modulates reactivity by altering the ion's effective charge and accessibility, impacting reaction rates in processes like or exchange. Early recognition of solvation effects emerged in the late 19th century with Svante Arrhenius's 1887 theory of electrolytic dissociation, which explained the enhanced and conductivity of solutions by positing that dissolved salts partially dissociate into hydrated stabilized by . This laid groundwork for understanding behavior beyond simple dissociation, highlighting hydration's role in solution . Max Born's 1920 contribution advanced theory by quantifying electrostatic contributions, building on these foundations to address discrepancies in observed solution properties. Experimental measurement of energies relies on techniques that capture the thermodynamic changes accompanying ion-solvent interactions. , particularly solution calorimetry, quantifies the of solvation by measuring the heat evolved or absorbed when ions dissolve in a , allowing isolation of solvation contributions from lattice energies via thermochemical cycles. Electrochemical methods, such as potentiometric cells, probe solvation free energies by recording open-circuit potentials in cells where ion transfer between phases reveals solvation differences, often using electrodes to establish absolute scales. These approaches provide empirical essential for validating theoretical models of ion in solution.

Continuum Solvation Models

In continuum solvation models, the solvent is treated as a homogeneous dielectric medium with a constant relative permittivity ϵr\epsilon_r, effectively ignoring its molecular-scale structure and fluctuations to focus on average electrostatic properties. This approximation represents the solvent as a continuous polarizable environment surrounding the solute, which is typically placed within a cavity to mimic the exclusion of solvent molecules from the solute's volume. Such models emerged from early electrostatic theories and have been widely adopted in computational chemistry for their ability to incorporate solvent effects without the need for explicit molecular representations. Compared to discrete solvation approaches, like explicit solvent simulations in or methods, continuum models drastically reduce computational cost by avoiding the simulation of thousands of solvent molecules and their dynamic interactions. Explicit models capture specific hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic effects, and solvent structuring at the molecular level but require extensive sampling and resources, making them impractical for large systems or high-throughput calculations. In contrast, continuum models excel in efficiency for quantum mechanical treatments of solute electronic structure, enabling rapid assessments of influences on molecular properties. The physical foundation of these models lies in adapted for media, which govern the electrostatic potential ϕ\phi through ∇⋅(ϵ∇ϕ)=−ρ/ϵ0\nabla \cdot (\epsilon \nabla \phi) = -\rho / \epsilon_0 inside the , where ϵ=ϵ0ϵr\epsilon = \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r and ρ\rho is the . The responds to the solute's by developing a polarization P=ϵ0χE\mathbf{P} = \epsilon_0 \chi \mathbf{E}, with susceptibility χ=ϵr−1\chi = \epsilon_r - 1, leading to bound charges that screen the field; these induced charges predominantly appear as surface charges σb=P⋅n^\sigma_b = \mathbf{P} \cdot \hat{n} at the cavity boundary, where n^\hat{n} is the outward normal. This linear response assumes the polarization is directly proportional to the field, valid for weak fields and non-saturating media. For applications like the Born model, continuum relies on key assumptions, including the representation of ions as spherical charge distributions to simplify boundary conditions and the validity of the linear response regime, ensuring the dielectric constant remains field-independent. These prerequisites allow the model to treat the solvent as an infinite, uniform medium outside the spherical cavity, providing a baseline for electrostatic contributions.

Formulation

The Equation

The Born equation expresses the electrostatic contribution to the Gibbs free energy of solvation, ΔGsolv\Delta G_{\text{solv}}, for the transfer of a charged ion from vacuum to a dielectric solvent modeled as a continuum. This is given by ΔGsolv=−NAz2e28πϵ0r0(1−1ϵr)\Delta G_{\text{solv}} = -\frac{N_A z^2 e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0} \left(1 - \frac{1}{\epsilon_r}\right) where the parameters are defined as follows:
  • ΔGsolv\Delta G_{\text{solv}}: electrostatic Gibbs free energy of solvation, in J/mol;
  • NAN_A: Avogadro's number, 6.022×10236.022 \times 10^{23} mol−1^{-1};
  • zz: charge number of the ion, dimensionless;
  • ee: elementary charge, 1.602×10−191.602 \times 10^{-19} C;
  • ϵ0\epsilon_0: vacuum permittivity, 8.854×10−128.854 \times 10^{-12} F/m (or C2^2 N−1^{-1} m−2^{-2});
  • r0r_0: effective ion radius, in m;
  • ϵr\epsilon_r: relative permittivity of the solvent, dimensionless.
When using these SI units, the equation yields ΔGsolv\Delta G_{\text{solv}} in J/mol. For water as the solvent at 25°C, a typical value is ϵr≈78.5\epsilon_r \approx 78.5. The equation applies specifically to the electrostatic charging contribution for transferring an ion from vacuum (ϵr=1\epsilon_r = 1) to an infinitely dilute solution in the solvent.

Physical Interpretation

The term 1−1ϵr1 - \frac{1}{\epsilon_r} in the Born equation captures the reduction in electrostatic energy due to the solvent's response, representing the difference in work required to charge an in (ϵr=1\epsilon_r = 1) versus in the solvent medium with ϵr>1\epsilon_r > 1. This factor quantifies dielectric screening, where the solvent's polarization lowers the self-energy of the by partially canceling its , leading to a stabilizing effect that is more pronounced in polar solvents like (ϵr≈[78](/page/The78)\epsilon_r \approx [78](/page/The_78)) compared to less polar . The parameter r0r_0, known as the Born radius, serves as the effective radius of a cavity in the continuum solvent model, delineating the region where the ion's charge is unscreened from the surrounding . It approximates the distance from the ion's center to the point where solvent molecules fully reorganize, often exceeding the ion's bare to account for the first ; in practice, r0r_0 is frequently calibrated empirically against experimental data to improve accuracy for specific ions and s. The quadratic dependence on the ion's charge z2z^2 underscores how solvation energy scales with the square of the charge magnitude, reflecting the electrostatic origin of the interaction where energy is proportional to q2q^2 in adapted to a continuum. This explains the disproportionately stronger of multivalent ions (e.g., z=2z = 2) over monovalent ones, as higher charges induce greater solvent polarization and thus more negative solvation free energies. In terms of magnitude, the Born equation yields free energies typically on the order of -100 kcal/mol for ions in , such as approximately -102 kcal/mol for Na+^+, illustrating the model's ability to predict trends like decreasing solvation strength with increasing ion or across solvents with lower ϵr\epsilon_r (e.g., , ϵr≈33\epsilon_r \approx 33). These values highlight the equation's in estimating the electrostatic contribution to overall .

Derivation

Thermodynamic Cycle

The for deriving the Born equation outlines a hypothetical pathway to compute the electrostatic contribution to an 's free energy by considering the reversible work required to charge the in distinct media. This cycle involves three key steps: (1) charging a bare, uncharged in to its full ionic charge under reversible conditions; (2) transferring the fully charged from into the medium without altering its charge; and (3) evaluating the net reversible work across this path to determine the free energy change associated with . This framework allows the process to be dissected into computable components, emphasizing the difference in electrostatic interactions between the non-polarizable and the . At its core, the cycle relies on Gibbs free energy changes for isothermal, isobaric processes, where the solvation free energy is defined as the difference between the free energy required to charge the in the and that in . This difference arises because the 's screening reduces the electrostatic of the compared to . The approach ensures path independence through of , as the net work in a closed cycle must be zero, allowing the direct transfer of the charged (step 2) to be equated to an alternative path involving neutral transfer and differential charging. The model treats the as a rigid charged . Max Born introduced this in his seminal 1920 paper "Volumen und Hydratationswärme der Ionen" on ion volumes and hydration heats, framing it as a model for solutions at infinite dilution that provided foundational insights into ionic activity. This work preceded and influenced the Debye-Hückel theory of 1923, which extended the Born model by incorporating ionic atmosphere effects in dilute solutions.

Electrostatic Energy Calculation

The electrostatic contribution to the solvation free energy in the Born model is obtained by computing the difference in the 's electrostatic between the and the solvent environments, as part of the for transferring the charged . The is modeled as a of r0r_0 bearing a total charge q=zeq = z e, where zz is the valence, ee is the , and the charge resides on the surface. In , the is zero inside the (r<r0r < r_0) and E=q4πϵ0r2r^\mathbf{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} \hat{r} outside (r>r0r > r_0), determined via applied to a spherical : ∮E⋅dA=qencϵ0\oint \mathbf{E} \cdot d\mathbf{A} = \frac{q_{\text{enc}}}{\epsilon_0}, yielding the radial field magnitude due to symmetry. The WvacW_{\text{vac}} is the total electrostatic field , Wvac=ϵ02∫E2 dV,W_{\text{vac}} = \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \int E^2 \, dV, integrated over all space. The inside contribution vanishes since E=0E = 0. For the outside region, ∫r0∞E2 4πr2 dr=4π(q4πϵ0)2∫r0∞drr2=q24πϵ02⋅1r0.\int_{r_0}^\infty E^2 \, 4 \pi r^2 \, dr = 4 \pi \left( \frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \right)^2 \int_{r_0}^\infty \frac{dr}{r^2} = \frac{q^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0^2} \cdot \frac{1}{r_0}. Thus, Wvac=ϵ02⋅q24πϵ02r0=q28πϵ0r0=z2e28πϵ0r0.W_{\text{vac}} = \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \cdot \frac{q^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0^2 r_0} = \frac{q^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0} = \frac{z^2 e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0}. In the solvent, modeled as a linear dielectric continuum with relative permittivity ϵr\epsilon_r filling the space outside the spherical cavity of radius r0r_0, the field inside remains zero, while outside it is E=q4πϵ0ϵrr2r^\mathbf{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r r^2} \hat{r}, again from Gauss's law in dielectrics: ∮D⋅dA=qenc\oint \mathbf{D} \cdot d\mathbf{A} = q_{\text{enc}}, where D=ϵ0ϵrE\mathbf{D} = \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r \mathbf{E}, ensuring the boundary condition of continuous normal DD at the interface (with no free surface charge on the cavity wall). The self-energy WsolvW_{\text{solv}} uses the general form for linear media, Wsolv=12∫D⋅E dV=ϵ0ϵr2∫r0∞E2 4πr2 dr.W_{\text{solv}} = \frac{1}{2} \int \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathbf{E} \, dV = \frac{\epsilon_0 \epsilon_r}{2} \int_{r_0}^\infty E^2 \, 4 \pi r^2 \, dr. Substituting EE gives the same integral as in vacuum but scaled by 1/ϵr21/\epsilon_r^2 in E2E^2, so ∫r0∞E2 4πr2 dr=q24πϵ02ϵr2r0,\int_{r_0}^\infty E^2 \, 4 \pi r^2 \, dr = \frac{q^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0^2 \epsilon_r^2 r_0}, and Wsolv=ϵ0ϵr2⋅q24πϵ02ϵr2r0=q28πϵ0ϵrr0=z2e28πϵ0ϵrr0.W_{\text{solv}} = \frac{\epsilon_0 \epsilon_r}{2} \cdot \frac{q^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0^2 \epsilon_r^2 r_0} = \frac{q^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r r_0} = \frac{z^2 e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r r_0}. The electrostatic solvation free energy per ion is the difference, ΔGsolvelec=Wsolv−Wvac=−z2e28πϵ0r0(1−1ϵr),\Delta G_{\text{solv}}^{\text{elec}} = W_{\text{solv}} - W_{\text{vac}} = -\frac{z^2 e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0} \left(1 - \frac{1}{\epsilon_r}\right), reflecting the stabilization due to dielectric screening in the solvent. For molar quantities, multiply by Avogadro's constant NAN_A: ΔGsolvelec, molar=−NAz2e28πϵ0r0(1−1ϵr).\Delta G_{\text{solv}}^{\text{elec, molar}} = -N_A \frac{z^2 e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0} \left(1 - \frac{1}{\epsilon_r}\right).

Applications

Solvation Energy Predictions

The Born equation enables straightforward predictions of ion solvation free energies in polar solvents by incorporating the ion's charge, effective radius, and the solvent's dielectric constant. For the sodium cation (Na⁺ with valence z=1z = 1 and effective radius r0≈1.8r_0 \approx 1.8 Å) in (εr=78.5\varepsilon_r = 78.5), the model computes an electrostatic solvation free energy of ΔGsolv≈−98\Delta G_\text{solv} \approx -98 kcal/mol, closely matching the experimental hydration free energy of approximately −97-97 kcal/mol. Across different ions, the Born model highlights the inverse radius dependence, where solvation energies become more negative for smaller ions due to stronger electrostatic interactions with the solvent continuum; this trend accurately captures why compact ions like Li⁺ exhibit greater hydration stability than larger counterparts such as K⁺ or Cs⁺. Varying the solvent's dielectric constant further modulates predictions, as lower εr\varepsilon_r values reduce the gain from polarization; for instance, transferring Na⁺ to (εr=33\varepsilon_r = 33) yields a less favorable ΔGsolv\Delta G_\text{solv} compared to , providing a quantitative basis for selecting solvents in synthetic chemistry where weaker ion solvation may enhance reactivity or . In thermodynamic analyses, the Born equation facilitates estimation of absolute ion hydration free energies by integrating calculated solvation terms with experimentally determined lattice energies of ionic solids, enabling the partitioning of salt dissolution energetics into individual contributions without direct measurement of single-ion properties.

Integration with Ionic Models

The Born equation plays a central role in theories by providing the electrostatic contribution to single-ion free energy, which is incorporated into the Debye-Hückel framework to account for ion-solvent interactions alongside ionic strength effects on activity coefficients. In this integration, the Born term corrects for the dielectric response of the solvent around individual ions, while Debye-Hückel handles long-range electrostatic screening in multi-ion solutions; this combination extends the limiting law to moderate concentrations by including a concentration-dependent that modulates the Born energy. For instance, Hückel's original extension of Debye-Hückel theory explicitly adds the Born charging work to the excess , enabling predictions of osmotic coefficients and mean activity coefficients in solutions up to 1 M. Extensions of the Born-Haber cycle incorporate the Born solvation energy to link lattice energies of ionic solids with their dissolution , facilitating predictions of salt in aqueous media. In this for , the Born term represents the hydration free energy of gaseous , balancing the endothermic lattice dissociation against the overall exothermicity of to determine the net free energy of solution; this approach reveals why salts with high lattice energies, like those involving small, highly charged , often exhibit low unless compensated by strong . Such cycles have been applied to analyze the trends of halides and salts, where the Born contribution highlights the role of size and charge density in stabilizing aqueous phases. In biochemical contexts, the Born equation underpins continuum solvation models to estimate ionic effects on processes like and potentials, treating the as a medium that screens electrostatic interactions between charged residues or . Generalized Born variants of the model, which approximate the Born solvation energy using effective atomic radii, enable efficient simulations of folding pathways by capturing the desolvation penalties for burying charged groups in hydrophobic cores, thus reproducing experimental stability profiles for peptides and small proteins. For membrane systems, implicit Born models integrate a low-dielectric slab to mimic bilayers, allowing computation of permeation potentials and voltage-dependent conformational changes in channels without explicit molecules.74455-1) Computationally, the Born equation is embedded in software through polarizable continuum models (PCM), where it supplements calculations by providing the electrostatic solvation free energy as a reaction field operator added to the solute Hamiltonian. In PCM implementations, the Born term arises from the charge distribution induced on the cavity surface by the solute's quantum charges, enabling accurate prediction of reaction energies and spectra in solution for ionic species; this integration has become standard in packages like Gaussian and Q-Chem for studying ion-pairing and potentials. By treating the solvent polarization dynamically, PCM-Born approaches bridge gas-phase with condensed-phase properties, with refinements to cavity definitions improving accuracy for multicharged ions.

Limitations and Extensions

Key Assumptions and Validity

The Born equation relies on several fundamental assumptions to model the electrostatic contribution to energy. It treats the as a spherical hard-sphere with a uniformly distributed charge, embedded in a represented as a linear continuum with a constant ε. This approach assumes a linear response of the to the 's , neglecting nonlinear effects such as saturation. Additionally, the model disregards specific ion- interactions, including hydrogen bonding, dispersion forces, or covalent contributions, and considers the transfer of the from vacuum to the medium at constant , isolating the electrostatic free energy change. These assumptions render the equation most valid for small monovalent ions in highly polar solvents like , particularly at low concentrations where the continuum approximation adequately captures the solvent behavior and ion-ion interactions are minimal. The model performs best under conditions of infinite dilution in protic polar solvents, where the bulk constant dominates and short-range structural effects are subdued. However, it is less applicable to large ions or those exhibiting hydrophobic character, as the neglect of non-electrostatic components leads to significant inaccuracies, and it struggles in non-aqueous solvents where the uniform assumption fails to account for heterogeneous or low-permittivity environments. Experimental comparisons reveal notable discrepancies, particularly an overestimation of solvation energies for anions, attributed to unaccounted non-electrostatic effects such as enhanced or asymmetric charge hydration that the spherical hard-sphere model cannot capture without parameter adjustments like increased effective radii. The equation also exhibits failures in solvents with pronounced specific interactions or varying properties, amplifying errors beyond electrostatic predictions. Quantitatively, the Born equation reproduces experimental hydration free energies within a few percent for ions in , such as Na⁺ and K⁺, validating its utility for these systems when appropriate ionic radii are used. For multivalent ions, however, the model's quadratic charge dependence breaks down due to emerging dielectric saturation and nonlinear solvent responses, resulting in errors of approximately 5% for divalent ions and up to 9% or more for trivalent ones, highlighting its limitations for higher charge states.

Modern Refinements

Empirical adjustments to the emerged in the late to address discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental energies, primarily through the use of effective Born radii. These radii represent an adjusted ionic size that incorporates effects and is fitted directly to measured absolute free energies, yielding improved agreement with for aqueous ions. Compilations by Yizhak Marcus in the and provided key experimental datasets on hydration free energies for hundreds of ions, enabling systematic derivation of these effective radii via inversion of the Born formula, with typical adjustments reducing prediction errors by 20-50% for monovalent ions. Hybrid models, such as the polarizable continuum model (PCM), advanced the Born framework starting in the 1990s by integrating quantum mechanical solute descriptions with continuum solvent representations. PCM refines the electrostatic solvation energy by distributing apparent surface charges on the solute cavity boundary, accounting for and non-linear saturation effects beyond the linear response assumed in the original Born equation. This approach, formalized in seminal works, enhances accuracy for polarizable molecules and non-aqueous solvents, with free energy errors reduced to under 5 kcal/mol for neutral organics compared to gas-phase benchmarks. Integrations with (MD) simulations in the 2000s further refined the Born model through generalized Born (GB) variants, which pair with explicit solvent treatments for hybrid accuracy in biomolecular systems. GB-MD employs pairwise descreening approximations using effective Born radii to compute fast , enabling simulations of protein dynamics and binding with computational costs 10-100 times lower than fully explicit methods while maintaining correlation coefficients above 0.9 for energies. These advancements, particularly in parameter sets like AMBER's igb models, have become standard for studying channels and mechanisms.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01881023
  2. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/cp/c5cp00288e
  3. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/j100374a057
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5402/2012/204104
  5. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ct4010917
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378381223002352
  7. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Concepts_in_Biophysical_Chemistry_(Tokmakoff)/01%3A_Water_and_Aqueous_Solutions/04%3A_Solvation/4.01%3A_Solvation
  8. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/156/20/204501/2841429/Ionic-mobility-driven-by-correlated-van-der-Waals
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/solvation
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8509758/
  11. https://www.cecam.org/workshop-details/aqueous-solvation-of-ions-837
  12. https://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/equilibria/calorimetry.html
  13. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cui_group/papers/Kim_Cui_JACS_2021.pdf
  14. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr9904009
  15. https://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/_archiv/ag-radu/teaching/winter20112012/atom_mol_intern/vorl19-120117.pdf
  16. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/56/jresv56n1p1_a1b.pdf
  17. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017214117
  18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2023.113955
  19. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/j100347a081
  20. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/7/2/108/214345/The-Free-Energy-of-Hydration-of-Gaseous-Ions-and
  21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2022.120554
  22. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct3010485
  23. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9904009
  24. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed059p359
  25. https://archive.org/details/ionsolvation0000marc
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.