Vega C, Sanz E, Abascal JLF. The melting temperature of the most common models of water.
J Chem Phys 2005;
122:114507. [PMID:
15836229 DOI:
10.1063/1.1862245]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 262] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The melting temperature of ice I(h) for several commonly used models of water (SPC, SPC/E,TIP3P,TIP4P, TIP4P/Ew, and TIP5P) is obtained from computer simulations at p = 1 bar. Since the melting temperature of ice I(h) for the TIP4P model is now known [E. Sanz, C. Vega, J. L. F. Abascal, and L. G. MacDowell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 255701 (2004)], it is possible to use the Gibbs-Duhem methodology [D. Kofke, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 4149 (1993)] to evaluate the melting temperature of ice I(h) for other potential models of water. We have found that the melting temperatures of ice I(h) for SPC, SPC/E, TIP3P, TIP4P, TIP4P/Ew, and TIP5P models are T = 190 K, 215 K, 146 K, 232 K, 245 K, and 274 K, respectively. The relative stability of ice I(h) with respect to ice II for these models has also been considered. It turns out that for SPC, SPC/E, TIP3P, and TIP5P the stable phase at the normal melting point is ice II (so that ice I(h) is not a thermodynamically stable phase for these models). For TIP4P and TIP4P/Ew, ice I(h) is the stable solid phase at the standard melting point. The location of the negative charge along the H-O-H bisector appears as a critical factor in the determination of the relative stability between the I(h) and II ice forms. The methodology proposed in this paper can be used to investigate the effect upon a coexistence line due to a change in the potential parameters.
Collapse