Nonetheless, the resulting model can reproduce the solvation contribution to the free energy of adsorption for the training set of small aromatic molecules (see Fig. , blue symbols) as well as an additional (unfit) test set of aliphatic alcohol (C5H11OH) and carboxylic acids (C4H9COOH, red symbols). Where multiple distinct binding modes are possible, the calculated relative free energies of the modes are also compared (green symbols). The characteristic error of the free energies predicted by the phenomenological model versus thermodynamic integration is ~0.1 eV, which, although non-negligible, is a relatively small fraction of the total solvation correction. The characteristic errors for the training and testing set appear to be comparable, suggesting reasonable transferability, despite the fact that the fitting was done using only small aromatics. These errors are also dramatically smaller (by a factor of 10) than the associated errors from the implicit model, 0.82 eV (see Supporting Information). Note, however, that it is possible that more sophisticated continuum models that incorporate cavitation energy, such as that of Eggert et al., may at least partially account for this competitive water adsorption, and we anticipate that they would also exhibit reduced errors versus conventional continuum models. Finally, it is also important to note that our present results focus on the low coverage limit (for the organics). Outside of that limit, adsorbate-adsorbate interactions will also play an important role in influencing both adsorption energy and conformation. Although these interactions would be included in the underlying DFT energies, it is unclear whether they would also strongly modulate the solvation interaction, thus requiring additional model parameterization. We also extended our model to account for the additional influence of applied electrode potential, since the interaction of adsorbate with an electric field is fundamental in electrochemistry. One additional term is added to Eq. 2,