Molecular simulation of the surface tension of real fluids
Stephan Werth,1 Martin Horsch,1, a) and Hans Hasse1
Laboratory of Engineering Thermodynamics, University of Kaiserslautern,
Erwin-Schrödinger-Str. 44, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
(Dated: 4th August 2016)

arXiv:1608.04193v1 [physics.comp-ph] 15 Aug 2016

Molecular models of real fluids are validated by comparing the vapor-liquid surface
tension from molecular dynamics (MD) simulation to correlations of experimental
data. The considered molecular models consist of up to 28 interaction sites, including Lennard-Jones sites, point charges, dipoles and quadrupoles. They represent
38 real fluids, such as ethylene oxide, sulfur dioxide, phosgene, benzene, ammonia,
formaldehyde, methanol and water, and were adjusted to reproduce the saturated
liquid density, vapor pressure and enthalpy of vaporization. The models were not
adjusted to interfacial properties, however, so that the present MD simulations are
a test of model predictions. It is found that all of the considered models overestimate the surface tension. In most cases, however, the relative deviation between the
simulation results and correlations to experimental data is smaller than 20 %. This
observation corroborates the outcome of our previous studies on the surface tension
of 2CLJQ and 2CLJD fluids where an overestimation of the order of 10 to 20 % was
found.
Keywords: Molecular simulation, surface tension, vapor-liquid equilibrium

a)

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: martin.horsch@mv.uni-kl.de

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Interfacial properties are important for many applications in process engineering, including processes like absorption, wetting, nucleation, cavitation or foaming. Experimental data
on the surface tension are available for pure fluids, but the temperature range is usually
limited to ambient conditions1,2 . Hence, it is desirable to have models which allow predicting interfacial properties of pure fluids and mixtures over a wide temperature and pressure
range. Molecular modelling and simulation can be used for this purpose if the underlying
force fields are accurate3 .
In previous work of our group4–16 and recent work by Vrabec and co-workers17–22 a large
number of molecular models for real fluids were developed. The molecular model parameters
were adjusted to describe the saturated liquid density, vapor pressure and enthalpy of vaporization, which they do well. These models were also used to predict transport properties
and they showed very good agreement for the shear viscosity, self diffusion coefficients and
thermal conductivity of pure fluids6,18,21–23 and mixtures23–27 . Some of the fluids discussed
in the present work have recently been used to develop fundamental equation of state based
on molecular simulation as well as experimental data, e.g. ethylene oxide28 , phosgene29 ,
hexamethyldisiloxane21 and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane22 . The surface tension was not
part of the parameterization and is thus strictly predictive.
In previous work systematic evaluations of the surface tension of the two center LennardJones plus point quadrupole (2CLJQ) and the two center Lennard-Jones plus point dipole
(2CLJD) molecular model class were conducted30,31 . These models, on average, overestimate
surface tension by about 20 % and 12 %, respectively31,32 . Other molecular models which
have been adjusted to bulk properties, but not to interfacial properties, exhibit similar
deviations33–41 .
In the present work, existing molecular models are used straightforwardly. No parameters
are changed. By molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, predictions of interfacial properties
from bulk properties are obtained. Used in this way, molecular modeling can be compared to
other approaches for predicting the surface tension from bulk data, such as phenomenological parachor correlations42–45 , corresponding-states or critical-scaling expressions45,46 , which
are also phenomenological correlations, and other molecular methods, e.g. square gradient
theory47 and density functional theory48,49 on the basis of molecular equations of state50–53 .
In the present work, bulk and interfacial properties of real fluids are determined simultaneously from heterogeneous MD simulations. The simulation results are compared with
correlations to experimental data, where available.

II.

MOLECULAR SIMULATION

The molecular models discussed in the present work are taken from previous work of
our group4–16 and recent work by Vrabec and co-workers17–22 . The molecular models are
internally rigid and consist of several Lennard-Jones sites and superimposed electrostatics.
2

The total potential energy is given by
"
( nLJ nLJ
"
12 
6 # X
nei nej
j
N
−1 X
N
i
X
X
X
X 1 qic qjd
σijab
σijab
4ǫijab
U=
+
−
r
r
4πǫ0 rijcd
ijab
ijab
a=1 b=1
c=1 d=1
i=1 j=i+1
#)
µic µjd
µic Qjd + µjd Qic
Qic Qjd
+ 3
· f1 (ωi , ωj ) +
· f2 (ωi , ωj ) + 5
· f3 (ωi , ωj ) ,
4
rijcd
rijcd
rijcd

(1)

where ǫijab and σijab are the Lennard-Jones energy and size parameters, rijab and rijcd are sitesite distances, qic , qjd , µic , µjd , Qic and Qjd are the magnitude of the electrostatic interactions,
i.e. the point charges, dipole and quadrupole moments, and fk (ωi , ωj ) are dimensionless
angle-dependent expressions in terms of the orientation ωi ,ωj of the point multipoles54 .
Thermodynamic properties in heterogeneous systems are very sensitive to a truncation
of the intermolecular potential40,55–59 . For dispersive interactions, like the Lennard-Jones
potential, various long range correction (LRC) approaches exist which are known to be
accurate for planar fluid interfaces60–66 . The simulations in the present work use slab-based
LRC techniques based on the density profile64–66 . For polar interactions, LRCs based on
Ewald summation are typically used for the simulation of vapor-liquid interfaces61,67–70 .
However, a computationally efficient slab-based LRC based on the density profile can also
be used for polar molecular models58 . In terms of the thermodynamic results, the different
methods deliver a similar degree of accuracy for the two-center Lennard-Jones plus point
dipole fluid31,69,70 . Therefore, the slab-based LRC technique described in previous work58 is
employed here both for dipolar electrostatic interactions and for dispersion.
For the present series of MD simulations, systems were considered where the vapor and
liquid phases coexist with each other in direct contact, employing periodic boundary conditions, so that there are two vapor-liquid interfaces which are oriented perpendicular to the y
axis. The interfacial tension was computed from the deviation between the normal and the
tangential diagonal components of the overall pressure tensor71,72 , i.e. the mechanical route,
Z
1 ∞
dy (pN − pT ) .
(2)
γ=
2 −∞
Thereby, the normal pressure pN is given by the y component of the diagonal of the pressure
tensor, and the tangential pressure pT was determined by averaging over x and z components
of the diagonal of the pressure tensor. The simulations were performed with the MD code
ls1 mardyn 73 in the canonical ensemble with N = 16,000 particles. Further details on the
MD simulations are given in the Appendix.
III.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tab. I gives an overview of the molecular models investigated in the present work. All
studied models are rigid, i.e. internal degrees of freedom are no accounted for. The deviations
δρ′ and δpS , which are reported for the models in Tab. I, are taken from the corresponding
publications and represent relative mean deviations of the simulated values from correlations
to experimental data4–22 . The molecular simulations in previous work were performed with
the Grand Equilibrium method74 .
3

101

p / MPa

100
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4

2

3
4
1000 K / T

5

FIG. 1. Vapor pressure curves of ammonia, methanol, sulfur dioxide and benzene. Solid lines
represent correlations to experimental data75–78 and symbols are the present simulation results:
Sulfur dioxide (◦), benzene (), ammonia (△) and methanol (⋄).

Fig. 1 shows the simulation results for the vapor pressure of ammonia, methanol, sulfur
dioxide and benzene from the present work which were obtained from heterogeneous simulations; cf. the Appendix (Tab. II) for a complete presentation of the simulated properties.
The present results for the saturated densities and the vapor pressure are in very good
agreement with experimental data75–78 . However, for low temperatures the uncertainties in
the vapor density and vapor pressure are relatively high. This is due to the fact that a
low temperatures in many cases on average less than one molecule is in the vapor phase,
which yields relatively high statistical uncertainties. Similar findings were obtained for the
the other fluids studied in the present work. The simulation results obtained for the vapor
pressure and the saturated densities for all studied fluids are reported in Tab. II together
with the data for the surface tension.
The relative mean deviation δγ between the simulation data and the experimental data
reported in Tab. I is calculated in the same way as the deviations for the saturated liquid
density and the vapor pressure. It represents the relative mean deviation of the surface
tension predicted by the molecular models from Design Institute for Physical Properties
(DIPPR) correlations to experimental data
v
u
2
K  sim
u1 X
γ (Ti ) − γ exp (Ti )
t
,
(3)
|δγ| =
K i
γ exp (Ti )
between the triple point temperature and 95 % of the critical temperature. By convention,
the sign of δγ is positive if, on average, the model overestimates the surface tension (δγ =
+ |δγ|) and negative otherwise (δγ = − |δγ|). Underlying experimental surface tension data
are usually not available over the entire temperature range. Only for four compounds water, methanol, ammonia, heptafluoropropane - experimental data are available over the
entire temperature range. In most cases, the surface tension is measured only up to 373 K
and the DIPPR correlation extrapolates these results to the critical point1,2 .
4

γ / mN m−1

50
40
30
20
10
0

100

200

300
400
T /K

500

600

FIG. 2. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations
to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Thiophene (▽), ethylene
oxide (◦), dimethyl ether () and heptafluoropropane (△).

γ / mN m−1

100
80
60
40
20
0

200

300

400
500
T /K

600

FIG. 3. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations
to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Hydrazine (△), methylhydrazine (▽), 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (⋄), cyanogen chloride (◦) and cyanogen (). No experimental
data are available for methylhydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine.

The DIPPR correlations usually agree with available experimental data within 3 %, only
for dimethyl sulfide, ortho-dichlorobenzene, heptafluoropropane, cyanogen, decafluorobutane and hexamethyldisiloxane deviations of up to 5 % are reported1 . For three fluids formaldehyde, methylhydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine - no experimental data are available. The DIPPR correlations do not match the critical temperature for ethylene glycol and
formic acid. Therefore, a straight line is used to connect the DIPPR correlation and the
critical point of respective fluids.
5

γ / mN m−1

40
30
20
10
0
100

200

300

400
T /K

500

600

FIG. 4. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations
to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Cyclohexanol (△), ethyl
acetate (), hexamethyldisiloxane (⋄) and decafluorobutane (◦).

Figs. 2 – 9 show the surface tension for all studied fluids as a function of the temperature.
The molecular simulation results are compared with DIPPR correlations to experimental
data. For formaldehyde, methylhydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine no experimental data
are available. The predictions of the surface tension agree reasonably well with the experimental data. Fig. 10 shows the surface tension predicted by MD simulation as a function of
the experimental surface tension calculated by the DIPPR correlation1 for all studied fluids.

γ / mN m−1

50
40
30
20
10
0

200

300

400
500
T /K

600

FIG. 5. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Cyclohexanone (◦),
cyclohexane (), formaldehyde (△) and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (⋄). No experimental data
are available for formaldehyde.

6

The molecular models overestimate the surface tension in all cases. The average deviation
between the predictions by the molecular simulation and the experimental data is about 20
%. This is in line with results for the surface tension obtained by molecular simulation in
the literature31–41 . Compared to other methods for predicting the surface tension of lowmolecular fluids, molecular modeling and simulation, using models which are adjusted to
bulk data, leads to relatively high deviations.
Several examples illustrate this: The surface tension of benzene is reproduced with a
deviation of |δγ| ≈ 4 % using the corresponding-states (CS) correlation by Sastry and Rao46 ,
|δγ| = 1 % with the CS correlation by Zuo and Stenby45 , and |δγ| = 8.5 % from a parachor
correlation43–45 ; the molecular model from Huang et al.9 has |δγ| = 11.9 %. For cyclohexane,
|δγ| ≈ 1 % is obtained following CS by Sastry and Rao46 , |δγ| = 0.7 % with CS by Zuo
and Stenby45 , |δγ| = 7.4 % from the parachor correlation43–45 , and |δγ| = 10.8 % with the
molecular model from Merker et al.5 . In case of ethyl acetate, a CS correlation yields |δγ| ≈
7 %46 and density functional theory with the PC-SAFT equation of state49 reaches |δγ| ≈
4 %, whereas the average relative deviation is |δγ| = 10.3 % for the molecular model from
Eckelsbach et al.19 For methanol, the CS correlation by Sastry and Rao46 exhibits almost
perfect agreement |δγ| < 1 %; the molecular model by Schnabel et al.13 has |δγ| = 35.3 %.
Zuo and Stenby45 reproduce the surface tension of isobutane with an accuracy of |δγ| = 1.6 %
using their CS correlation and with |δγ| = 2.5 % using a parachor correlation43–45 ; in contrast,
the molecular model for isobutane from Eckl et al.8 exhibits a deviation of |δγ| = 12.5 %.
Square gradient theory with the SAFT-VR Mie equation of state, following Garrido et
al.47 , typically yields deviations of the order of 2 to 3% for the surface tension of lowmolecular fluids. However, no direct comparison is possible with any of the present results.
The anisotropic united atom (AUA) force field79,80 was also adjusted to bulk data only.
All results for γ from simulations with AUA models are therefore predictions of interfa-

γ / mN m−1

60

40

20

0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700
T /K

FIG. 6. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations
to experimental data1 , the dotted line connects the DIPPR correlation with the critical point
of ethylene glycol, and symbols are the present simulation results: Ethylene glycol (◦), orthodichlorobenzene (△), chlorobenzene (▽), benzene (⋄) and phosgene ().

7

100

γ / mN m−1

80
60
40
20
0

200

300

400
500
T /K

600

FIG. 7. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations
to experimental data1 , the dotted line connects the DIPPR correlation with the critical point of
formic acid, and symbols are the present simulation results: Water (◦), formic acid (⋄), methanol
(△), dimethylamine ().

γ / mN m−1

50
40
30
20
10
0

200

300
400
T /K

500

FIG. 8. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Dimethyl sulfide (◦),
hydrogen cyanide (△) and sulfur dioxide ().

cial properties from bulk fluid properties. For benzene, applying the test-area method in
Monte Carlo simulations with the AUA-9 sites force field, which was parameterized by Nieto
Draghi and collaborators81,82 , Biscay et al.83 report a surface tension which deviates from
experimental data by about δγ ≈ +4 %, compared to δγ = +11.9 % for the Huang et al.9
model. For cyclohexane83 , the AUA-9 sites model has δγ ≈ +5 %, whereas for the Merker
et al.5 model, δγ = +11.9 % was found in the present work. The AUA-4 model80 underestimates the surface tension of methanol by δγ ≈ −12 %, cf. Biscay et al.84 , which compares
8

γ / mN m−1

60

40

20

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

T /K

FIG. 9. Surface tension as a function of the temperature. Solid lines represent DIPPR correlations to experimental data1 and symbols are the present simulation results: Nitromethane (⋄),
acetonitrile (△), ammonia (◦) and isobutane ().

γ sim / mN m−1

100
80
60
40
20
0

0

20

40
γ

corr

60
80
−1
/ mN m

100

FIG. 10. Predicted surface tension over the experimental surface tension based on DIPPR
correlations1 for the present molecular simulation results. The solid line represents perfect agreement between simulation and experiment, and the dashed line represents a deviation of 20 %.

favorably to the Schnabel et al.13 model with δγ = +35.3 %. Overall, the AUA force field is
more reliable for predicting the surface tension than the models investigated in the present
work85 ; it has roughly the same accuracy as empirical parachor correlations45 . However,
this still makes the AUA force field less accurate than empirical CS correlations45,46 and
semiempirical square gradient theory47 .
Since molecular simulation is also computationally much more expensive than the other
approaches, it cannot be recommended to predict interfacial properties from molecular models which were not previously adjusted to or, at least, validated against such data. However,
9

a systematic overestimation of the surface tension has also been observed in density functional theory in combination with physically based equations of state48,86–89 . To account for
this overestimation, an empirical correction expression is often employed, which is formally
attributed to the presence of capillary waves and decreases the surface tension. Without
this correction term, which was adjusted to fit the experimental surface tension values of the
n-alkane series48 , density functional theory would deviate from the surface tension of real
fluids in a similar way as the molecular models mentioned above. In square gradient theory,
the influence parameter, which controls the magnitude of the surface excess free energy, is
also adjusted to surface tension data.

TABLE I. Molecular models discussed in the present work. The deviations δρ′ and δps as
given in respective publications and δγ is the root mean square relative deviation between
predictions by the present MD simulations and DIPPR correlations to experimental data1 . For
all considered fluids, the molecular models overestimate γ on average. # stands for the number of
the corresponding sites in the model.
Name
Neon
Argon
Krypton
Xenon
Methane
Acetonitrile
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexanol
Ethylene oxide
Isobutane
Formaldehyde
Dimethyl ether
Sulfur dioxide
Dimethyl sulfide
Thiophene
Hydrogen cyanide
Nitromethane
Phosgene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Cyanogen chloride
Cyanogen
Heptafluoropropane (R227ea)
Ammonia
Formic acid
Methanol
Dimethylamine
Ethylene glycol
Water
Hydrazine
Methylhydrazine
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Ethyl acetate
Decafluorobutane
Hexamethyldisiloxane
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane

Formula
Ne
Ar
Kr
Xe
CH4
C2 H3 N
C6 H12
C6 H10 O
C6 H10 OH
C2 H4 O
C4 H10
CH2 O
C2 H6 O
SO2
C2 H6 S
C4 H1 0
HCN
CH3 NO2
COCl2
C6 H6
C6 H5 Cl
C6 H4 Cl2
NCCl
C2 N2
C3 HF7
NH3
CH2 O2
CH3 OH
C2 H7 N
C2 H6 O2
H2 O
N2 H4
CH6 N2
C2 H8 N2
C4 H8 O2
C4 F10
C6 H18 OSi2
C8 H24 O2 Si4

CAS RN # LJ # Charges # Dipoles # Quadrupoles δρ′ δps δγ Source
7440-01-9 1
0.6 2.5 20.1 Vrabec et al.16
7440-37-1 1
0.9 2.1 31.9 Vrabec et al.16
7439-90-9 1
0.9 2.1 27.8 Vrabec et al.16
7440-63-3 1
1.4 1.7 46.9 Vrabec et al.16
74-82-8
1
1.0 2.7 19.2 Vrabec et al.16
75-05-8
3
1
0.1 4.7 51.7 Deublein et al.4
110-82-7
6
0.3 1.7 10.8 Merker et al.5
108-94-1
7
1
0.9 2.7 26.0 Merker et al.5
108-93-0
7
3
0.2 3.0 28.3 Merker et al.6
75-21-8
3
1
0.4 1.5 16.6 Eckl et al.7
75-28-5
4
1
1
0.6 4.2 12.5 Eckl et al.8
50-00-0
2
1
0.9 4.3 - Eckl et al.8
115-10-6
3
1
0.4 2.6 18.9 Eckl et al.8
7446-09-5 3
1
1
0.9 4.0 3.4 Eckl et al.8
75-18-3
3
1
2
0.7 4.0 18.1 Eckl et al.8
110-02-1
5
1
1
1.2 3.8 22.4 Eckl et al.8
74-90-8
2
1
1
1.0 7.2 51.9 Eckl et al.8
75-52-5
4
1
1
0.2 18.7 31.5 Eckl et al.8
75-44-5
4
1
1
0.5 2.1 17.2 Huang et al.9
71-43-2
6
6
0.4 3.4 11.9 Huang et al.9
108-90-7
7
1
5
0.9 5.0 17.8 Huang et al.9
95-50-1
8
1
4
0.5 6.4 34.3 Huang et al.9
506-77-4
3
1
1
0.3 2.1 15.3 Miroshnichenko et al.17
460-19-5
4
1
0.6 13.0 2.5 Miroshnichenko et al.17
431-89-0
10
1
1
1.0 1.0 7.2 Eckl et al.10
7664-41-7 1
4
0.7 1.6 36.7 Eckl et al.11
64-18-6
3
4
0.8 5.1 9.5 Schnabel et al.12
67-56-1
2
3
0.6 1.1 35.3 Schnabel et al.13
124-40-3
3
3
0.4 6.2 28.7 Schnabel et al.14
107-21-1
4
6
0.8 4.8 32.6 Huang et al.15
7732-18-5 1
3
1.1 7.2 30.7 Huang et al.15
302-01-2
2
6
0.5 7.6 29.2 Elts et al.18
60-34-4
3
3
0.2 7.0 - Elts et al.18
57-14-7
4
3
1.3 3.7 - Elts et al.18
141-78-6
6
5
0.1 4.6 10.3 Eckelsbach et al.19
355-25-9
14
14
0.5 3.5 10.3 Köster et al.20
107-46-0
9
3
0.5 5.0 12.9 Thol et al.21
556-67-2
16
8
0.5 6.0 10.5 Thol et al.22

10

The unfavorable performance of molecular models, compared to methods which are more
abstract physically and less expensive numerically, is explained by the fact that the molecular
models are entirely predictive for interfacial properties. All other methods, i.e. density
functional theory, square gradient theory, and phenomenological correlations, were adjusted
to surface tension data at least indirectly. Moreover, methods which are based on analytical
equations of state, including molecular equations of state, fail in the vicinity of the critical
point, so that δγ diverges at high temperatures. Renormalization group theory has to be
employed in these cases to avoid unphysical behavior49,90,91 . By molecular simulation, the
(Ising class) critical scaling behavior of intermolecular pair potentials is correctly captured.
Therefore, any fit of force-field parameters to VLE data over a significant temperature range
always indirectly adjusts the molecular model to the critical temperature92 .
It has been shown before that a better agreement of molecular simulation results with
experimental data for the surface tension can be achieved by taking into account experimental data on the surface tension in the parameterization of the molecular models. However,
improvements in the quality of the representation of the surface tension have to be traded
off against losses in the quality of the representation of bulk fluid properties32,92–94 .

IV.

CONCLUSION

In the present work, the surface tension of real fluids was determined by MD simulation.
The surface tension was evaluated for 38 real fluids which were parameterized to reproduce
the saturated liquid density, vapor pressure and enthalpy of vaporization. The agreement
between the calculated bulk values in heterogeneous simulations and the experimental data is
very good. On the basis of well described phase equilibria the surface tension was predicted.
The surface tension is consistently overpredicted by the molecular models. On average the
deviation is about +20 %. Such overpredictions have been reported before in the literature.
The reasons should be investigated in more detail in future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from BMBF within the SkaSim
project (grant no. 01H13005A) and from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within
the Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 926. They thank Patrick Leidecker for performing
some of the present simulations and Gabriela Guevara Carrión, Maximilian Kohns, Yonny
Mauricio Muñoz Muñoz and Jadran Vrabec for fruitful discussions. The present work was
conducted under the auspices of the Boltzmann-Zuse Society for Computational Molecular
Engineering (BZS), and the simulations were carried out on Elwetritsch at the Regional
University Computing Center Kaiserslautern (RHRK) under the grant TUKL-MSWS and on
SuperMUC at Leibniz Supercomputing Center (LRZ), Garching, within the SPARLAMPE
computing project (pr48te).
11

REFERENCES
1

R. L. Rowley, W. V. Wilding, J. L. Oscarson, Y. Yang, N. A. Zundel, T. E. Daubert, and
R. P. Danner. DIPPR Information and Data Evaluation Manager for the Design Institute
for Physical Properties. AIChE, 2013. Version 7.0.0.
2
DDB - Dortmund Data Bank. 7.3.0.458 (DDB), 1.18.0.122 (Artist). DDBST GmbH, Oldenburg, 2015.
3
A. Ghoufi, P. Malfreyt, and D. J. Tildesley. Chem. Soc. Rev., 45(5):1387–1409, 2016.
4
S. Deublein, P. Metzler, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Mol. Sim., 39(2):109–118, 2012.
5
T. Merker, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 315:77–83, 2012.
6
T. Merker, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Soft Mater., 10(1-3):3–24, 2012.
7
B. Eckl, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 274(1–2):16–26, 2008.
8
B. Eckl, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. J. Phys. Chem. B, 112(40):12710–12721, 2008.
9
Y.-L. Huang, M. Heilig, H. Hasse, and J. Vrabec. AIChE J., 52(4):1043–1060, 2011.
10
B. Eckl, Y.-L. Huang, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 260:177–182, 2007.
11
B. Eckl, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Mol. Phys., 106:1039–1046, 2008.
12
T. Schnabel, M. Cortada, J. Vrabec, S. Lago, and H. Hasse. Chem. Phys. Lett., 435:268–
272, 2007.
13
T. Schnabel, A. Srivastava, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. J. Phys. Chem. B, 111:9871–9878,
2007.
14
T. Schnabel, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 263:144–159, 2008.
15
Y.-L. Huang, T. Merker, M. Heilig, H. Hasse, and J. Vrabec. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
51(21):7428–7440, 2012.
16
J. Vrabec, J. Stoll, and H. Hasse. J. Phys. Chem. B, 105:12126–12133, 2001.
17
S. Miroshnichenko, T. Grützner, D. Staak, and J. Vrabec. Fluid Phase Equilib., 354:286–
297, 2013.
18
E. Elts, T. Windmann, D. Staak, and J. Vrabec. Fluid Phase Equilib., 322–323:79–91,
2012.
19
S. Eckelsbach, T. Janzen, A. Köster, S. Miroshnichenko, Y. M. Muñoz Muñoz, and
J. Vrabec. In W. E. Nagel, D. B. Kröner, and M. M. Resch, editors, High Performance
Computing in Science and Engineering ’14, pages 645–649. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg,
2014.
20
A. Köster, P. Nandi, T. Windmann, D. Ramjugernath, and J. Vrabec. Fluid Phase Equilib.,
336:104–112, 2012.
21
M. Thol, F. H. Dubberke, G. Rutkai, T. Windmann, A. Köster, R. Span, and J. Vrabec.
Fluid Phase Equilib., 416:133–151, 2016.
22
M. Thol, G. Rutkai, A. Köster, F. H. Dubberke, T. Windmann, R. Span, and J. Vrabec.
J. Chem. Eng. Data, 61(7):2580–2595, 2016.
23
G. Guevara Carrión, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Int. J. Thermophys., 33:449–468, 2012.
24
S. Pařez, G. Guevara Carrión, H. Hasse, and J. Vrabec. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.,
15:3985–4001, 2013.
25
G. Guevara Carrión, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. J. Chem. Phys., 134:074508, 2011.
26
G. Guevara Carrión, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 316:46–54, 2012.

12

27

G. Guevara Carrión, T. Janzen, Y. M. Muñoz Muñoz, and J. Vrabec. J. Chem. Phys.,
144:124501, 2016.
28
M. Thol, G. Rutkai, A. Köster, M. Kortmann, R. Span, and J. Vrabec. Chem. Eng. Sci.,
121:87–99, 2015.
29
G. Rutkai and J. Vrabec. J. Chem. Eng. Data, 60:2895–2905, 2015.
30
S. Werth, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 392:12–18, 2015.
31
S. Werth, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. J. Chem. Phys., 144:054702, 2016.
32
S. Werth, K. Stöbener, P. Klein, K.-H. Küfer, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Chem. Eng. Sci.,
121:110–117, 2015.
33
J.-C. Neyt, A. Wender, V. Lachet, and P. Malfreyt. J. Phys. Chem. B, 115(30):9421–9430,
2011.
34
S. Eckelsbach, S. Miroshnichenko, G. Rutkai, and J. Vrabec. In W. E. Nagel, D. B. Kröner,
and M. M. Resch (eds.), High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering ’13,
pp. 635–646. Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.
35
C. Avendaño, T. Lafitte, A. Galindo, C. S. Adjiman, G. Jackson, and E. A. Müller. J.
Phys. Chem. B, 115(38):11154–11169, 2011.
36
C. Herdes, T. S. Totton, and E. A. Müller. Fluid Phase Equilib., 406:91–100, 2015.
37
N. Ferrando, V. Lachet, J. Pérez Pellitero, A. D. Mackie, and P. Malfreyt. J. Phys. Chem.
B, 115(36):10654–10664, 2011.
38
S. Eckelsbach and J. Vrabec. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 17:27195–27203, 2015.
39
S. K. Singh, A. Sinha, G. Deo, and J. K. Singh. J. Phys. Chem. C, 113(17):7170–7180,
2009.
40
R. A. Zubillaga, A. Labastida, B. Cruz, J. C. Martı́nez, E. Sánchez, and J. Alejandre. J.
Chem. Theory Comput., 9(3):1611–1615, 2013.
41
C. Caleman, P. J. van Maaren, M. Hong, J. S. Hub, L. T. Costa, and D. van der Spoel.
J. Chem. Theory Comput., 8(1):61–74, 2012.
42
S. Sugden. J. Chem. Soc., 125:1177–1189, 1924.
43
J. A. Hugill and A. J. van Welsenes. Fluid Phase Equilib., 29:383–390, 1986.
44
K. A. M. Gasem, P. B. Dulcamara Jr., K. B. Dickson, and R. L. Robinson Jr. Fluid Phase
Equilib., 53:39–50, 1989.
45
Y.-X. Zuo and E. H. Stenby. Canad. J. Chem. Eng., 75(6):1130–1137, 1997.
46
S. R. S. Sastry and K. K. Rao. Chem. Eng. J., 59:181–186, 1995.
47
J. M. Garrido, M. M. Piñeiro, F. J. Blas, and E. A. Müller. AIChE J., 62(5):1781–1794,
2016.
48
J. Groß. J. Chem. Phys., 131: 204705, 2009.
49
X. Tang and J. Groß. J. Supercrit. Fluids, 55(2):735–742, 2010.
50
J. Groß and G. Sadowski. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 44(4):1244–1260, 2001.
51
J. Groß and J. Vrabec. AIChE J., 52(3): 1194–1204, 2006.
52
J. Vrabec and J. Groß. J. Phys. Chem. B, 112(1):51–60, 2008.
53
C. Avendaño, T. Lafitte, C. S. Adjiman, A. Galindo, E. A. Müller, and G. Jackson. J.
Phys. Chem. B, 117(9): 2717–2733, 2013.
54
C. G. Gray and K. E. Gubbins. Theory of Molecular Fluids, Vol. 1: Fundamentals.
Clarendon, Oxford, 1984.
55
F. Goujon, P. Malfreyt, and D.-J. Tildesley. J. Chem. Phys., 140:244710, 2014.

13

56

S. Werth, M. Horsch, J. Vrabec, and H. Hasse. J. Chem. Phys., 142:107101, 2015.
F. Goujon, P. Malfreyt, and D.-J. Tildesley. J. Chem. Phys., 142:107102, 2015.
58
S. Werth, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Mol. Phys., 113(23):3750–3756, 2015.
59
F. Goujon, P. Malfreyt, J.-M. Simon, A. Boutin, B. Rousseau, and A. H. Fuchs. J. Chem.
Phys., 121(24):12559–12571, 2004.
60
P. J. in ’t Veld, A. E. Ismail, and G. S. Grest. J. Chem. Phys., 127:144711, 2007.
61
R. E. Isele-Holder, W. Mitchell, and A. E. Ismail. J. Chem. Phys., 137:174107, 2012.
62
G. Mathias, B. Egwolf, M. Nonella, and P. Tavan. J. Chem. Phys., 118(24):10847–10860,
2003.
63
D. Tameling, P. Springer, P. Bientinesi, and A. E. Ismail. J. Chem. Phys., 140:024105,
2014.
64
M. Mecke, J. Winkelmann, and J. Fischer. J. Chem. Phys., 107(21):9264–9270, 1997.
65
J. Janeček. J. Phys. Chem. B, 110(12):6264–6269, 2006.
66
S. Werth, G. Rutkai, J. Vrabec, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Mol. Phys., 112(17):2227–2234,
2014.
67
J. W. Perram, H. G. Peterson, and S. W. de Leeuw. Mol. Phys., 65(4):875–893, 1988.
68
R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood. Computer Simulations Using Particles. Taylor &
Francis, Bristol, PA, USA, 1988.
69
S. G. Moore, M. J. Stevens, and G. S. Grest. Phys. Rev. E, 91:022309, 2015.
70
S. Enders, H. Kahl, M. Mecke, and J. Winkelmann. J. Mol. Liq., 115(1):29–39, 2004.
71
J. P. R. B. Walton, D. J. Tildesley, J. S. Rowlinson, and J. R. Henderson. Mol. Phys.,
48(6):1357–1368, 1983.
72
J. G. Kirkwood and F. P. Buff. J. Chem. Phys., 17(3):338–343, 1949.
73
C. Niethammer, S. Becker, M. Bernreuther, M. Buchholz, W. Eckhardt, A. Heinecke, S.
Werth, H.-J. Bungartz, C. W. Glass, H. Hasse, J. Vrabec, and M. Horsch. J. Chem. Theory
Comput., 10(10):4455–4464, 2014.
74
J. Vrabec and H. Hasse. Mol. Phys., 100(21):3375–3383, 2002.
75
R. Tillner-Roth, F. Harms-Watzenberg, and H. D. Baehr. DKV-Tagungsbericht, 20:167–
181, 1993.
76
A. Polt, B. Platzer, and G. Maurer. Chem. Tech. (Leipzig), 44(6):216–224, 1992.
77
K. M. de Reuck and R. J. B. Craven. Methanol, International Thermodynamic Tables of
the Fluid State - 12. Blackwell Scientific, London, 1993.
78
E. W. Lemmon and R. Span. J. Chem. Eng. Data, 51:785–850, 2006.
79
S. Toxvaerd. J. Chem. Phys., 93(6):4290–4295, 1990.
80
Ph. Ungerer, C. Beauvais, J. Delhommelle, A. Boutin, B. Rousseau, and A. H. Fuchs. J.
Chem. Phys., 112(12):5499–5510, 2000.
81
P. Bonnaud, C. Nieto Draghi, and Ph. Ungerer. J. Phys. Chem. B, 111(14):3730–3741,
2007.
82
C. Nieto Draghi, P. Bonnaud, and Ph. Ungerer. J. Phys. Chem. C, 111(43):15686–15699,
2007.
83
F. Biscay, A. Ghoufi, V. Lachet, and P. Malfreyt. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 11(29):6132–
6147, 2009.
84
F. Biscay, A. Ghoufi, V. Lachet, and P. Malfreyt. J. Phys. Chem. C, 115(17):8670–8683,
2011.
57

14

85

F. Biscay, A. Ghoufi, F. Goujon, V. Lachet, and P. Malfreyt. J. Phys. Chem. B,
112(44):13885–13897, 2008.
86
F Llovell, A. Galindo, F. J. Blas, and G. Jackson. J. Chem. Phys., 133:024704, 2010.
87
P. I. Teixeira and M. M. Telo da Gama. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 3(1):111–125, 1991.
88
J. Winkelmann. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 13(21):4739–4768, 2001.
89
P. Frodl and S. Dietrich. Phys. Rev. E, 48(5):3741–3759, 1993.
90
E. Forte, F. Llovell, L. F. Vega, J. P. M. Trusler, and A. Galindo. J. Chem. Phys.,
134:154102, 2011.
91
E. Forte, F. Llovell, J. P. M. Trusler, and A. Galindo. Fluid Phase Equilib., 337:274–287,
2013.
92
K. Stöbener, P. Klein, M. Horsch, K. Küfer, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase Equilib., 411:33–42,
2016.
93
K. Stöbener, P. Klein, S. Reiser, M. Horsch, K.-H. Küfer, and H. Hasse. Fluid Phase
Equilib., 373:100–108, 2014.
94
S. Werth, K. Stöbener, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Mol. Phys., 2016, accepted.
95
D. Fincham. Mol. Sim., 8(3–5):165–178, 1992.
96
S. Werth, S. V. Lishchuk, M. Horsch, and H. Hasse. Physica A, 392(10):2359–2367, 2013.
97
J. M. Prausnitz, R. N. Lichtenthaler, and E. G. de Azevedo. Molecular Thermodynamics
of Fluid-Phase Equilibria. Pearson Education, New Jersey, 1998.

15

TABLE II: Molecular simulation results for the vapor-liquid
equilibrium of the pure components from the present work.
The numbers in parentheses indicate the statistical uncertainties of the last decimal digits.
T
K
Acetonitrile
300
370
440
510
Cyclohexane
280
335
390
445
510
Cyclohexanone
250
315
380
445
510
Cyclohexanol
300
375
450
525
600
Ethylene oxide
180
245
310
375
440
Isobutane
120
185
250
315
380
Formaldehyde
180
235
290
345

′

′′

ps
MPa

ρ
mol l−1

ρ
mol l−1

γ
mN m−1

0.005(4)
0.137(38)
0.839(90)
2.72(14)

18.885(1)
17.013(20)
14.810(21)
11.84(9)

0.002(1)
0.053(12)
0.307(58)
1.09(15)

41.9(15)
27.1(6)
15.7(30)
5.9(3)

0.008(6)
0.049(8)
0.270(33)
0.855(34)
2.387(93)

9.355(3)
8.750(4)
8.093(3)
7.325(13)
6.117(26)

0.003(1)
0.017(3)
0.090(9)
0.273(11)
0.834(41)

29.2(12)
22.3(13)
15.5(10)
9.5(7)
3.5(4)

0.000(0)
0.002(2)
0.020(6)
0.148(22)
0.558(37)

9.902(8)
9.327(4)
8.741(5)
8.118(11)
7.423(14)

0.000(0)
0.001(1)
0.006(1)
0.042(5)
0.146(9)

50.6(38)
40.5(12)
30.8(21)
22.3(13)
14.8(6)

0.000(0)
0.009(7)
0.122(20)
0.633(24)
2.093(91)

9.700(22)
9.028(4)
8.277(3)
7.422(13)
6.325(20)

0.000(0)
0.003(1)
0.034(8)
0.165(12)
0.575(31)

40.3(62)
32.0(13)
22.9(4)
14.0(7)
5.7(11)

0.000(0)
0.006(4)
0.331(68)
1.304(57)
4.77(40)

23.230(4)
21.325(6)
19.323(27)
16.851(13)
13.39(13)

0.000(0)
0.004(3)
0.145(30)
0.495(27)
2.16(34)

48.1(33)
38.6(23)
25.0(13)
14.3(19)
3.7(11)

0.000(0) 12.654(6) 0.000(0) 37.9(13)
0.001(1) 11.539(3) 0.001(1) 26.7(8)
0.067(17) 10.383(23) 0.032(7) 17.4(5)
0.584(10) 8.983(28) 0.263(16) 9.1(7)
2.32(12)
7.112(41) 1.13(12) 2.3(4)
0.001(1)
0.030(9)
0.331(54)
1.66(13)

16

31.984(54)
29.228(5)
26.222(77)
22.594(39)

0.001(1)
0.017(5)
0.155(20)
0.782(66)

51.6(14)
36.3(15)
24.2(14)
12.7(9)

T
K
Dimethyl ether
205
260
315
370
Sulfur dioxide
220
265
310
355
400
Dimethyl sulfide
190
260
330
400
470
Thiophene
250
320
390
460
530
Hydrogen cyanide
280
315
340
375
410
Nitromethane
260
330
400
470
540
Phosgene
160
225
290
355
420

′

′′

ps
MPa

ρ
mol l−1

ρ
mol l−1

γ
mN m−1

0.016(8)
0.205(39)
0.95(13)
3.34(35)

17.016(5)
15.415(53)
13.563(13)
10.94(12)

0.016(4)
0.100(35)
0.442(38)
1.70(31)

30.0(12)
19.8(13)
10.9(10)
3.6(6)

0.013(8)
0.106(39)
0.65(17)
1.95(46)
4.65(26)

24.771(11)
22.923(25)
20.932(52)
18.48(12)
14.87(28)

0.007(4)
0.049(14)
0.278(74)
0.83(19)
2.30(25)

39.8(29)
29.6(27)
20.0(14)
11.1(9)
3.6(10)

0.001(1)
0.036(14)
0.342(26)
1.70(15)
5.32(33)

19.996(5)
18.300(17)
16.471(18)
14.315(56)
10.85(26)

0.000(0)
0.022(14)
0.134(16)
0.635(65)
2.60(57)

48.6(16)
36.1(10)
23.6(7)
11.8(13)
2.1(8)

0.002(1)
0.035(16)
0.263(37)
1.12(11)
3.13(29)

13.107(7)
12.168(6)
11.166(7)
10.001(16)
8.458(65)

0.001(1)
0.013(4 )
0.084(9)
0.342(35)
1.01(16)

43.6(22)
33.3(7)
22.4(13)
13.6(10)
5.0(8)

0.038(21)
0.122(12)
0.343(32)
0.949(50)
2.03(10)

25.756(38)
24.015(12)
22.589(23)
20.50(12)
17.766(69)

0.021(11)
0.063(10)
0.153(23)
0.431(41)
1.00(12)

34.0(11)
25.5(21)
19.2(12)
13.2(17)
7.6(7)

0.001(1)
0.030(7)
0.109(22)
0.826(69)
2.84(26)

19.569(16)
18.014(6)
16.259(52)
14.337(25)
11.70(20)

0.001(1)
0.014(6)
0.044(15)
0.266(32)
1.06(15)

55.3(37)
41.6(34)
28.3(14)
16.5(15)
6.0(9)

0.000(0)
0.007(7)
0.133(34)
0.937(36)
3.35(33)

17.047(11)
15.578(10)
14.047(7)
12.311(20)
9.873(48)

0.000(0)
0.004(3)
0.058(8)
0.367(8)
1.46(22)

49.2(32)
34.8(17)
23.1(21)
12.5(12)
3.7(7)

17

T
K
Benzene
290
350
410
470
530
Chlorobenzene
250
335
420
505
590
Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
375
470
565
660
Cyanogen chloride
280
315
350
385
420
Cyanogen
260
290
320
350
380
Heptafluoropropane
200
250
300
350
Ammonia
220
260
300
340
380

ps
MPa

′

ρ
mol l−1

′′

ρ
mol l−1

γ
mN m−1

0.007(7) 11.208(13) 0.003(3) 33.2(13)
0.092(23) 10.403(7) 0.033(3) 24.3(7)
0.423(47) 9.523(3) 0.137(16) 15.7(10)
1.441(67) 8.450(19) 0.468(22) 8.5(11)
3.337(92) 6.884(36) 1.21(13) 2.6(9)
0.004(3) 10.320(8) 0.002(2) 46.7(28)
0.011(6)
9.466(11) 0.005(3) 33.3(19)
0.122(13) 8.567(23) 0.037(2) 21.9(8)
0.79(14)
7.520(30) 0.222(44) 11.7(9)
2.91(8)
5.992(20) 0.94(7)
3.2(9)
0.003(2)
0.097(17)
0.701(89)
2.79(14)

8.472(5)
7.631(3)
6.647(16)
5.240(33)

0.001(1)
0.026(6)
0.173(28)
0.807(80)

36.1(51)
23.4(8)
12.6(15)
3.0(7)

0.079(21)
0.312(36)
0.86(17)
1.86(43)
3.74(36)

19.777(13)
18.490(46)
17.08(39)
15.27(7)
12.92(9)

0.036(8)
0.135(9)
0.361(83)
0.79(23)
1.86(54)

28.3(21)
21.6(16)
14.9(21)
9.4(17)
4.2(7)

0.094(31)
0.349(95)
0.79(30)
2.17(34)
4.40(5)

18.030(33)
16.866(58)
15.546(99)
13.820(16)
11.15(28)

0.049(21)
0.168(25)
0.36(17)
1.04(26)
2.89(40)

21.9(24)
16.6(12)
11.5(16)
5.7(6)
1.2(6)

0.002(1) 10.364(13) 0.001(1)
0.063(10) 9.381(8) 0.031(2)
0.466(39) 8.215(3) 0.213(21)
1.776(68) 6.531(20) 0.938(46)

21.9(10)
14.8(19)
7.7(9)
1.8(6)

0.029(2)
0.233(38)
1.029(80)
3.080(66)
7.23(15)

55.1(19)
40.1(36)
26.2(13)
15.2(25)
4.8(1)

18

41.985(19)
38.927(14)
35.470(30)
31.410(26)
25.572(21)

0.015(1)
0.116(23)
0.467(39)
1.421(43)
3.86(21)

T
K
Formic acid
300
360
420
480
540
Methanol
245
320
395
470
Dimethylamine
210
260
310
360
410
Ethylene glycol
380
480
580
680
Water
300
375
450
525
600
Hydrazine
280
360
440
520
Methylhydrazine
270
345
420
495
570

ps
MPa

′

′′

ρ
mol l−1

ρ
mol l−1

γ
mN m−1

0.014(10)
0.072(9)
0.333(28)
1.14(17)
3.20(25)

26.192(5)
24.478(9)
22.607(11)
20.36(17)
17.45(14)

0.007(2)
0.038(14)
0.169(20)
0.543(61)
1.57(18)

39.3(29)
30.2(23)
22.0(15)
15.3(13)
6.7(15)

0.001(1)
0.045(17)
0.58(13)
3.61(14)

26.175(9)
23.958(6)
21.317(36)
17.318(91)

0.001(1)
0.020(7)
0.359(49)
1.61(26)

36.0(16)
27.1(16)
14.0(20)
6.0(14)

0.003(1)
0.033(11)
0.257(24)
1.04(10)
2.65(74)

16.653(10)
15.523(4)
14.279(7)
12.888(6)
10.814(77)

0.002(1)
0.016(6)
0.109(10)
0.407(45)
1.07(50)

35.2(13)
27.3(4)
19.0(2)
11.8(9)
5.3(18)

0.005(3)
0.107(60)
1.144(52)
5.45(58)

16.867(29)
15.527(25)
13.759(14)
10.906(97)

0.002(1)
0.028(11)
0.268(9)
1.44(19)

65.6(21)
42.3(36)
23.6(31)
6.2(12)

0.006(5)
0.069(16)
0.63(10)
3.31(16)
10.43(20)

56.348(12)
52.650(12)
48.475(11)
43.412(11)
36.485(46)

0.002(1)
0.024(8)
0.31(13)
0.94(6)
3.28(3)

94.0(21)
75.1(13)
56.9(19)
34.1(21)
13.7(20)

0.000(0)
0.028(10)
0.358(24)
2.24(64)

32.321(8)
29.955(5)
27.220(18)
24.063(80)

0.000(0)
0.010(5)
0.153(19)
1.16(33)

96.7(23)
72.6(13)
49.4(30)
29.9(20)

0.009(5)
0.031(13)
0.420(64)
1.93(21)
5.21(22)

19.384(10)
17.944(6)
16.358(48)
14.598(16)
12.21(12)

0.004(3)
0.012(3)
0.137(40)
0.573(51)
1.73(13)

57.3(13)
43.1(16)
29.7(12)
16.7(8)
5.7(9)

19

T
K
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
260
315
370
425
480
Ethyl acetate
190
265
340
415
490
Decafluorobutane
260
310
360
Hexamethyldisiloxane
210
280
350
420
490
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane
310
355
420
485
550

′

′′

ps
MPa

ρ
mol l−1

ρ
mol l−1

γ
mN m−1

0.003(2)
0.045(13)
0.290(14)
1.03(13)
2.97(19)

13.783(6)
12.833(4)
11.806(6)
10.603(3)
9.026(33)

0.001(1)
0.018(6)
0.101(9)
0.344(40)
1.10(12)

35.5(21)
27.6(16)
19.4(9)
11.9(4)
4.6(4)

0.000(0) 11.726(4) 0.000(0) 42.2(19)
0.002(1) 10.709(18) 0.001(1) 29.9(6)
0.063(12) 9.636(10) 0.024(3) 19.7(9)
0.497(39) 8.379(6) 0.170(6) 10.9(12)
2.078(53) 6.584(19) 0.831(37) 3.0(7)
0.077(13)
0.357(6)
1.329(67)

6.848(12) 0.038(7) 11.8(17)
6.021(28) 0.157(5) 6.5(6)
4.852(77) 0.657(43) 1.7(3)

0.000(0)
0.002(1)
0.047(15)
0.299(20)
1.161(26)

5.211(31)
4.788(5)
4.327(8)
3.771(10)
3.020(25)

0.000(0)
0.001(0)
0.017(4)
0.097(10)
0.421(10)

0.000(0)
0.004(2)
0.044(14)
0.217(15)
0.699(12)

3.135(14)
2.970(12)
2.709(8)
2.403(12)
1.985(27)

0.000(0) 18.6(33)
0.001(0) 14.6(10)
0.013(4) 10.1(11)
0.061(4) 5.7(2)
0.211(7) 1.9(3)

26.3(17)
18.4(9)
12.1(11)
6.7(4)
1.8(2)

MOLECULAR SIMULATION DETAILS
The equation of motion was solved by a leapfrog integrator95 with a time step of ∆t =
1 fs. The elongation of the simulation volume normal to the interface was 30 nm and the
thickness of the liquid film in the center of the simulation volume was 15 nm to account
for finite size effects96 . The elongation in the other spatial directions was at least 10 nm.
The equilibration was executed for 500,000 time steps. The production was conducted for
2,500,000 time steps to reduce statistical uncertainties. The statistical errors were estimated
to be three times the standard deviation of five block averages, each over 500,000 time steps.
The saturated densities and vapor pressures were calculated as an average over the respective
phases excluding the area close to the interface, i.e. the area where the first derivative of the
density with respect to the y coordinate deviated from zero significantly.
20

The cutoff radius was set to 17.5 Å and a center-of-mass cutoff scheme was employed. The
Lennard-Jones interactions were corrected with a slab-based long range correction based on
the density profile66 . Electrostatic long-range interactions were approximated by a resulting
effective molecular dipole and corrected with a slab-based long range correction based on
the density profile58 . The quadrupolar interactions do not need a long-range correction as
they decay by r −10 , cf. Prausnitz et al.97

21

