4.7 Article

Three-dimensional patchy lattice model: Ring formation and phase separation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 140, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4863135

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [EXCL/FIS-NAN/0083/2012, PEst-OE/FIS/UI0618/2011]
  2. Direccion General de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnica [FIS2010-15502]
  3. Direccion General de Universidades e Investigacion de la Comunidad de Madrid [FIS2010-15502]
  4. Program MODELICO-CM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the structural and thermodynamic properties of a model of particles with 2 patches of type A and 10 patches of type B. Particles are placed on the sites of a face centered cubic lattice with the patches oriented along the nearest neighbor directions. The competition between the self- assembly of chains, rings, and networks on the phase diagram is investigated by carrying out a systematic investigation of this class of models, using an extension ofWertheim's theory for associating fluids and Monte Carlo numerical simulations. We varied the ratio r epsilon(AB)/epsilon(AA) of the interaction between patches A and B, epsilon(AB), and between A patches, epsilon(AA) (epsilon(BB) is set to theta) as well as the relative position of the A patches, i.e., the angle. between the (lattice) directions of the A patches. We found that both r and theta (60 degrees, 90 degrees, or 120 degrees) have a profound effect on the phase diagram. In the empty fluid regime (r < 1/2) the phase diagram is reentrant with a closed miscibility loop. The region around the lower critical point exhibits unusual structural and thermodynamic behavior determined by the presence of relatively short rings. The agreement between the results of theory and simulation is excellent for theta = 120 degrees but deteriorates as. decreases, revealing the need for new theoretical approaches to describe the structure and thermodynamics of systems dominated by small rings. (C) 2014 AIP Publishing LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据