Next, we calculated the surface pressure-area isotherms for DPPC and POPC with these models (Fig. ). Large negative surface pressures were not observed in these simulations, and monolayer phase behavior was consistent with experiments and the standard C36 model Depending on the rate of compression, the experimental surface pressure-area isotherms can greatly vary in their shape and positioning. However, this issue is more critical for small APLs, whereas the behavior of more expanded monolayers is independent of the compression rate. Thus, we further evaluate our simulation models by analyzing the APL values where pores begin to form in DPPC and comparing these to the experimental value from vibrational spectroscopy. Fig. suggests approximately linear dependence between pore formation APL and surface tension of water in the simulation. However, the line fitted to the data does not pass through the experimental data point, yet an o↵set of ⇡10 mN/m is observed, suggesting that also adjustments to the C36/LJ-PME lipid model are required to correctly capture the pore formation tension. In contrast, the simulations performed with the standard C36 lipid model and the OPC4 water with LJ cut-o↵ 15 are in excellent agreement with the experimental data point in Fig. . The discrepancy in pore forming APL may originate from the procedure to derive C36/LJ-PME parameters where parameters were fitted to reproduce the monolayer surface tension, (APL) in Eq. ( ), at three APL values. Because the surface tension of the TIPS3P water model, 0 in Eq. ( ), is too low, parameters that reproduce the correct (APL) lead to too low surface pressure, ⇧(APL) in Eq. ( ).