ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. A2026
Systematic Evaluation of a Cluster-Continuum-Model Workflow to Compute the Free Energies of Solvation of Ions in Different Solvents.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. A, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A partially automatized computational protocol for the construction of embedded microsolvated clusters based on a combination of the quantum cluster growth algorithm, DFT reoptimization, higher-level energy computations, conformer selection based on free energy, embedding into advanced implicit solvation models like COSMO-RS, and averaging over a range of cluster sizes has been validated and applied to calculate single-ion Gibbs free energies of solvation in different solvents. For aqueous solution, excellent agreement with a widely accepted single-ion scale based on the cluster pair approximation (CPA) is found, to within the error margins of that scale, but without anchoring to one particular ion like the latter. Similar calculations show that the TATB assumption underlying the second widely used single-ion scale is not justified, shifting the TATB scale even further from the CPA scale. Applications of the cluster-continuum method to single-ion values in acetonitrile show that here the CPA-based proton value may be less settled than with water, methanol, or DMSO, and it deserves closer examination. Finally, the solvation of the fluoride ion is compared in a variety of different solvents (water, acetonitrile, methanol, DMSO, diethyl ether, and benzene). While water and methanol provide the most negative solvation free energies, acetonitrile, methanol, and DMSO are not far behind, and even the relatively nonpolar diethyl ether and benzene exhibit appreciable stabilization. This is due to significant charge-assisted C-H···F hydrogen bonds to the highly compact fluoride ion in all of the formally aprotic solvents, involving in some cases more than one proton from a given solvent molecule in a chelate binding mode.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.