Abstract:Tröster et al. (J. Phys. Chem B 2013, 117, 9486-9500) recently suggested a mixed computational and empirical approach to the optimization of polarizable molecular mechanics (PMM) water models. In the empirical part the parameters of Buckingham potentials are optimized by PMM molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The computational part applies hybrid calculations, which combine the quantum mechanical description of a H2O molecule by density functional theory (DFT) with a PMM model of its liquid phase environment generated by MD. While the static dipole moments and polarizabilities of the PMM water models are fixed at the experimental gas phase values, the DFT/PMM calculations are employed to optimize the remaining electrostatic properties. These properties cover the width of a Gaussian inducible dipole positioned at the oxygen and the locations of massless negative charge points within the molecule (the positive charges are attached to the hydrogens). The authors considered the cases of one and two negative charges rendering the PMM four- and five-point models TL4P and TL5P. Here we extend their approach to three negative charges, thus suggesting the PMM six-point model TL6P. As compared to the predecessors and to other PMM models, which also exhibit partial charges at fixed positions, TL6P turned out to predict all studied properties of liquid water at p0 = 1 bar and T0 = 300 K with a remarkable accuracy. These properties cover, for instance, the diffusion constant, viscosity, isobaric heat capacity, isothermal compressibility, dielectric constant, density, and the isobaric thermal expansion coefficient. This success concurrently provides a microscopic physical explanation of corresponding shortcomings of previous models. It uniquely assigns the failures of previous models to substantial inaccuracies in the description of the higher electrostatic multipole moments of liquid phase water molecules. Resulting favorable properties concerning the transferability to other temperatures and conditions like the melting of ice are also discussed.

What ice can teach us about water interactions: a critical comparison of the performance of different water models

Accuracy limit of non-polarizable four-point water models: TIP4P/2005 vs OPC. Should water models reproduce the experimental dielectric constant?

The water supercooled regime as described by four common water models

Liquid-Liquid Criticality in TIP4P/2005 and Three-State Models of Water

Density Isobar of Water and Melting Temperature of Ice: Assessing Common Density Functionals

On the transferability of three water models developed by adaptive force matching

Machine Learning-Generated TIP4P-BGWT Model for Liquid and Supercooled Water

An Equation of State For The TIP4P/2005 Model of Water Including Negative Pressures

An improved interstitial-ice model for pure liquid water

Comparison of the TIP4P-2005, SWM4-DP and BK3 interaction potentials of liquid water with respect to their consistency with neutron and X-ray diffraction data of pure water

A five-site model for liquid water and the reproduction of the density anomaly by rigid, nonpolarizable potential functions

A Unified Description of the Liquid Structure, Static and Dynamic Anomalies, and Criticality of TIP4P/2005 Water by a Hierarchical Two-State Model

A critical assessment of two-body and three-body interactions in water

Seven-Site Effective Pair Potential for Simulating Liquid Water

Two-state thermodynamics and the possibility of a liquid-liquid phase transition in supercooled TIP4P/2005 water

Simulating a flexible water model as rigid: Best practices and lessons learned

Modeling Molecular Interactions in Water: From Pairwise to Many-Body Potential Energy Functions

Comparison of the Melting Temperatures of Classical and Quantum Water Potential Models

Melting points of water models: Current situation

Polarizable six-point water models from computational and empirical optimization

Accuracy of TIP4P/2005 and SPC/Fw Water Models