Abstract:Identifying the stable surface phases under a given electrochemical conditions serves as the basis for studying the atomistic mechanism of reactions at solid/water interfaces. In this work, we systematically compare the performance of the two main approaches that are used to capture the impact of an aqueous environment, implicit and explicit solvent, on surface energies and phase diagrams. As a model system, we consider the magnesium/water interface with (i) Ca substitution and (ii) proton and hydroxyl adsorption. We show that while the implicit solvent model is computationally very efficient, it suffers from two shortcomings. First, the choice of the implicit solvent parameters significantly influences the energy landscape in the vicinity of the surface. The default parameters benchmarked on solvation in water underestimate the energy of the dissolved Mg ion and lead to spontaneous dissolution of the surface atom, resulting in large differences in the surface energetics. Second, in systems containing a charged surface and a solvated ion, the implicit solvent model may not converge to the energetically stable ionic charge state but remain in a high-energy metastable configuration, representing the neutral charge state of the ion. When these two issues are addressed, surface phase diagrams that closely match the explicit water results can be obtained. This makes the implicit solvent model highly attractive as a computationally-efficient surrogate model to compute surface energies and phase diagrams.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the performance difference between the explicit solvent model and the implicit solvent model in the construction of the solid - surface phase diagram in the water environment. Specifically, by comparing the performance of these two models in describing the surface energy and phase diagram of the Mg/H₂O interface (including Ca substitution and proton/hydroxyl adsorption), the authors explored the applicability and limitations of the implicit solvent model. ### Main problems 1. **Computational efficiency and accuracy of the implicit solvent model**: - Although the implicit solvent model has high computational efficiency, it may lead to inaccurate results in some cases. For example, the implicit solvent model under default parameters may underestimate the energy of dissolved ions, causing surface atoms to dissolve spontaneously, thus affecting the calculation of surface energy. - When dealing with systems of charged surfaces and dissolved ions, the implicit solvent model may not converge to the ion valence state with the lowest energy, but remain in a high - energy metastable state. 2. **Selection of implicit solvent model parameters**: - Different implicit solvent parameters (such as the electron density cutoff value \(n_c\) and surface tension \(\tau\)) have a significant impact on the surface energy. Selecting appropriate parameters can improve the accuracy of the implicit solvent model. 3. **Comparison between the implicit solvent model and the explicit solvent model**: - Through systematic comparison, the authors hope to determine in which cases the implicit solvent model can be an effective alternative to the explicit solvent model, especially when calculating surface energy and phase diagrams. ### Solutions - **Model system**: Use the Mg/H₂O interface as a model system, considering the cases of Ca substitution and proton/hydroxyl adsorption. - **Calculation method**: Employ ab - initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) and the implicit solvent model (VASPsol) for calculations. - **Parameter selection**: Test the influence of different implicit solvent parameters (especially \(n_c\)) on the results and compare them with the results of the explicit solvent model. ### Conclusions - The authors found that when appropriate implicit solvent parameters (such as \(n_c = 10^{- 3}\)) are selected, the implicit solvent model can obtain a surface phase diagram close to that of the explicit solvent model. - The implicit solvent model has an obvious advantage in computational efficiency, but in some cases, parameters need to be carefully selected to avoid inaccurate results. Through these studies, the authors provided guidance for using the implicit solvent model to calculate surface energy and phase diagrams, enabling it to find a balance between computational cost and accuracy.

Comparative analysis of surface phase diagrams in aqueous environment: Implicit vs explicit solvation models

The Water-Amorphous Silica Interface: Analysis Of The Stern Layer And Surface Conduction

An Approach to Computing Solvent Reorganization Energy.

Implicit Solvation Methods for Catalysis at Electrified Interfaces

Correcting Implicit Solvation at Metal/Water Interfaces Through the Incorporation of Competitive Water Adsorption

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

On the Chemistry at Oxide/Water Interfaces: the Role of Interfacial Water

Bridging the gap between mesoscopic and molecular models of solid/liquid interfaces out-of-equilibrium

Implicit solvation model for density-functional study of nanocrystal surfaces and reaction pathways

Implicit self-consistent electrolyte model in plane-wave density-functional theory

The Aqueous Solvation of Water: A Comparison of Continuum Methods with Molecular Dynamics

Modeling and analysis of ensemble average solvation energy and solute-solvent interfacial fluctuations

Solvation Free Energies in Subsystem Density Functional Theory

An Electrostatically Embedded QM/MM Scheme for Electrified Interfaces

A Seamless Grid-Based Interface for Mean-Field QM/MM Coupled with Efficient Solvation Free Energy Calculations

Performance of the AMOEBA Water Model in the Vicinity of QM Solutes: A Diagnosis Using Energy Decomposition Analysis.

Solvation Enthalpy Determination for Aqueous-Phase Reaction Adsorbates Using Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics-Based Structure Sampling

Thermodynamics of Electrolyte Solutions Near Charged Surfaces: Constant Surface Charge vs. Constant Surface Potential

Bridging atomistic simulations and thermodynamic hydration models of aqueous electrolyte solutions

Solvation Thermodynamics of Solutes in Water and Ionic Liquids Using the Multiscale Solvation-Layer Interface Condition Continuum Model

Ab initio approach for thermodynamic surface phases with full consideration of anharmonic effects -- the example of hydrogen at Si(100)