The fits do a reasonably good job of capturing the thermal gradients in the solvent for these systems. Projection of particle and solvent temperatures onto the interface also allows straightforward calculation of the temperature gap between solid and solution phases. The thermal profiles of the planar systems were also compared with identical systems using sodium citrate interaction parameters from Wright et al., and with systems solvated in neat water, and all force fields yield nearly identical ∆T values at the planar interface under the same kinetic energy flux. This is reflected in the interfacial thermal conductance values, which are quite similar for the planar interface. All simulations have an average temperature of 300 ± 10 K. Middle: Average thermal profile for the non-polarizable (EAM) gold systems (black circles) and a fit of the thermal profile using the continuity equation in Eq. (5) (red line). Bottom: The same as the middle panel, but for polarizable gold simulated using the DR-EAM force field. In each case, the thermal profiles are an average of 10 statistically independent simulations.