ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/iceWater2/Supplemental_Information.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/iceWater2/Supplemental_Information.tex (file contents):
Revision 4259 by plouden, Tue Dec 16 17:30:53 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 4261 by gezelter, Tue Dec 16 21:01:15 2014 UTC

# Line 9 | Line 9
9   \usepackage{fixltx2e}
10   \usepackage{booktabs}
11   \usepackage{multirow}
12 + \usepackage{tablefootnote}
13 +
14   \bibpunct{(}{)}{,}{n}{,}{,}
15   \bibliographystyle{pnas2011}
16  
17 + \renewcommand{\thefigure}{S\arabic{figure}}
18 + \renewcommand{\thetable}{S\arabic{table}}
19 + \renewcommand{\theequation}{S\arabic{equation}}
20 + \renewcommand{\thesection}{S\arabic{section}}
21 +
22 + %% OPTIONAL MACRO DEFINITIONS
23 + \def\s{\sigma}
24 + %%%%%%%%%%%%
25 + %% For PNAS Only:
26 + %\url{www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709640104}
27 + \copyrightyear{2014}
28 + \issuedate{Issue Date}
29 + \volume{Volume}
30 + \issuenumber{Issue Number}
31 + %\setcounter{page}{2687} %Set page number here if desired
32 + %%%%%%%%%%%%
33 +
34   \begin{document}
35  
36 < %S1-S4 are the z-rnemd profiles
36 > \title{Supporting Information for: \\
37 > The different facets of ice have different hydrophilicities: Friction at water /
38 >  ice-I\textsubscript{h} interfaces}
39 >
40 > \author{Patrick B. Louden\affil{1}{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
41 > IN 46556}
42 > \and
43 > J. Daniel Gezelter\affil{1}{}}
44 >
45 > \contributor{Submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
46 > of the United States of America}
47 >
48 > \maketitle
49 >
50 > \begin{article}
51 >
52 > \section{Overview}
53 > The supporting information contains further details about the model
54 > construction, analysis methods, and supplies figures that support the
55 > data presented in the main text.
56 >
57 > \section{Construction of the Ice / Water interfaces}
58 > Ice I$_\mathrm{h}$ crystallizes in the hexagonal space group
59 > P$6_3/mmc$, and common ice crystals form hexagonal plates with the
60 > basal face $\{0~0~0~1\}$ forming the top and bottom of each plate, and
61 > the prismatic facet $\{1~0~\bar{1}~0\}$ forming the sides.  In extreme
62 > temperatures or low water saturation conditions, ice crystals can
63 > easily form as hollow columns, needles and dendrites.  These are
64 > structures that expose other crystalline facets of the ice to the
65 > surroundings.  Among the more common facets are the secondary prism,
66 > $\{1~1~\bar{2}~0\}$, and pyramidal, $\{2~0~\bar{2}~1\}$, faces.  
67 >
68 > We found it most useful to work with proton-ordered, zero-dipole
69 > crystals that expose strips of dangling H-atoms and lone
70 > pairs.\cite{Buch:2008fk} Our structures were created starting from
71 > Structure 6 of Hirsch and Ojam\"{a}e's set of orthorhombic
72 > representations for ice-I$_{h}$~\cite{Hirsch04}.  This crystal
73 > structure was cleaved along the four different facets.  The exposed
74 > face was reoriented normal to the $z$-axis of the simulation cell, and
75 > the structures were and extended to form large exposed facets in
76 > rectangular box geometries.  Liquid water boxes were created with
77 > identical dimensions (in $x$ and $y$) as the ice, with a $z$ dimension
78 > of three times that of the ice block, and a density corresponding to 1
79 > g / cm$^3$.  Each of the ice slabs and water boxes were independently
80 > equilibrated at a pressure of 1 atm, and the resulting systems were
81 > merged by carving out any liquid water molecules within 3 \AA\ of any
82 > atoms in the ice slabs.  Each of the combined ice/water systems were
83 > then equilibrated at 225K, which is the liquid-ice coexistence
84 > temperature for SPC/E water~\cite{Bryk02}. Reference
85 > \citealp{Louden13} contains a more detailed explanation of the
86 > construction of similar ice/water interfaces. The resulting dimensions
87 > as well as the number of ice and liquid water molecules contained in
88 > each of these systems are shown in Table S1.
89 >
90 > \section{A second method for computing contact angles}
91 > In addition to the spherical cap method outlined in the main text, a
92 > second method for obtaining the contact angle was described by
93 > Ruijter, Blake, and Coninck~\cite{Ruijter99}.  This method uses a
94 > cylindrical averaging of the droplet's density profile.  A threshold
95 > density of 0.5 g cm\textsuperscript{-3} is used to estimate the
96 > location of the edge of the droplet.  The $r$ and $z$-dependence of
97 > the droplet's edge is then fit to a circle, and the contact angle is
98 > computed from the intersection of the fit circle with the $z$-axis
99 > location of the solid surface.  Again, for each stored configuration,
100 > the density profile in a set of annular shells was computed. Due to
101 > large density fluctuations close to the ice, all shells located within
102 > 2 \AA\ of the ice surface were left out of the circular fits.  The
103 > height of the solid surface ($z_\mathrm{suface}$) along with the best
104 > fitting origin ($z_\mathrm{droplet}$) and radius
105 > ($r_\mathrm{droplet}$) of the droplet can then be used to compute the
106 > contact angle,
107 > \begin{equation}
108 > \theta =  90 + \frac{180}{\pi} \sin^{-1}\left(\frac{z_\mathrm{droplet} -
109 >  z_\mathrm{surface}}{r_\mathrm{droplet}} \right).
110 > \end{equation}
111 >
112 > \section{Determining interfacial widths using structural information}
113 > To determine the structural widths of the interfaces under shear, each
114 > of the systems was divided into 100 bins along the $z$-dimension, and
115 > the local tetrahedral order parameter (Eq. 5 in Reference
116 > \citealp{Louden13}) was time-averaged in each bin for the duration of
117 > the shearing simulation.  The spatial dependence of this order
118 > parameter, $q(z)$, is the tetrahedrality profile of the interface.
119 > The lower panels in figures S2-S5 in the SI show tetrahedrality
120 > profiles (in circles) for each of the four interfaces.  The $q(z)$
121 > function has a range of $(0,1)$, where a value of unity indicates a
122 > perfectly tetrahedral environment.  The $q(z)$ for the bulk liquid was
123 > found to be $\approx~0.77$, while values of $\approx~0.92$ were more
124 > common in the ice. The tetrahedrality profiles were fit using a
125 > hyperbolic tangent function (see Eq. 6 in Reference
126 > \citealp{Louden13}) designed to smoothly fit the bulk to ice
127 > transition while accounting for the weak thermal gradient. In panels
128 > $b$ and $c$ of the same figures, the resulting thermal and velocity
129 > gradients from an imposed kinetic energy and momentum fluxes can be
130 > seen. The vertical dotted lines traversing these figures indicate the
131 > midpoints of the interfaces as determined by the tetrahedrality
132 > profiles.
133 >
134 > \section{Determining interfacial widths using dynamic information}
135 > To determine the dynamic widths of the interfaces under shear, each of
136 > the systems was divided into bins along the $z$-dimension ($\approx$ 3
137 > \AA\ wide) and $C_2(z,t)$ was computed using only those molecules that
138 > were in the bin at the initial time. The time-dependence was fit to a
139 > triexponential decay, with three time constants: $\tau_{short}$,
140 > measuring the librational motion of the water molecules,
141 > $\tau_{middle}$, measuring the timescale for breaking and making of
142 > hydrogen bonds, and $\tau_{long}$, corresponding to the translational
143 > motion of the water molecules.  An additional constant was introduced
144 > in the fits to describe molecules in the crystal which do not
145 > experience long-time orientational decay.
146 >
147 > In Figures S6-S9 in the supporting information, the $z$-coordinate
148 > profiles for the three decay constants, $\tau_{short}$,
149 > $\tau_{middle}$, and $\tau_{long}$ for the different interfaces are
150 > shown.  (Figures S6 \& S7 are new results, and Figures S8 \& S9 are
151 > updated plots from Ref \citealp{Louden13}.)  In the liquid regions of
152 > all four interfaces, we observe $\tau_{middle}$ and $\tau_{long}$ to
153 > have approximately consistent values of $3-6$ ps and $30-40$ ps,
154 > respectively.  Both of these times increase in value approaching the
155 > interface.  Approaching the interface, we also observe that
156 > $\tau_{short}$ decreases from its liquid-state value of $72-76$ fs.
157 > The approximate values for the decay constants and the trends
158 > approaching the interface match those reported previously for the
159 > basal and prismatic interfaces.
160 >
161 > We have estimated the dynamic interfacial width $d_\mathrm{dyn}$ by
162 > fitting the profiles of all the three orientational time constants
163 > with an exponential decay to the bulk-liquid behavior,
164 > \begin{equation}\label{tauFit}
165 >  \tau(z)\approx\tau_{liquid}+(\tau_{wall}-\tau_{liquid})e^{-(z-z_{wall})/d_\mathrm{dyn}}
166 > \end{equation}
167 > where $\tau_{liquid}$ and $\tau_{wall}$ are the liquid and projected
168 > wall values of the decay constants, $z_{wall}$ is the location of the
169 > interface, as measured by the structural order parameter.  These
170 > values are shown in table \ref{tab:kappa}. Because the bins must be
171 > quite wide to obtain reasonable profiles of $C_2(z,t)$, the error
172 > estimates for the dynamic widths of the interface are significantly
173 > larger than for the structural widths.  However, all four interfaces
174 > exhibit dynamic widths that are significantly below 1~nm, and are in
175 > reasonable agreement with the structural width above.
176 >
177 > \end{article}
178 >
179 > \begin{table}[h]
180 > \centering
181 > \caption{Sizes of the droplet and shearing simulations.  Cell
182 >  dimensions are measured in \AA. \label{tab:method}}
183 > \begin{tabular}{r|cccc|ccccc}
184 > \toprule
185 > \multirow{2}{*}{Interface} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Droplet} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Shearing} \\
186 >  & $N_\mathrm{ice}$ & $N_\mathrm{droplet}$ & $L_x$ & $L_y$ & $N_\mathrm{ice}$ & $N_\mathrm{liquid}$ & $L_x$ & $L_y$ & $L_z$  \\
187 > \midrule
188 > Basal  $\{0001\}$                    & 12960 & 2048 & 134.70 & 140.04 & 900 & 1846  & 23.87 & 35.83 & 98.64  \\
189 > Pyramidal  $\{2~0~\bar{2}~1\}$       & 11136 & 2048 & 143.75 & 121.41 & 1216 & 2203 & 37.47 & 29.50 & 93.02  \\
190 > Prismatic  $\{1~0~\bar{1}~0\}$       &  9900 & 2048 & 110.04 & 115.00 & 3000 & 5464 & 35.95 & 35.65 & 205.77 \\
191 > Secondary Prism  $\{1~1~\bar{2}~0\}$ & 11520 & 2048 & 146.72 & 124.48 & 3840 & 8176 & 71.87 & 31.66 & 161.55 \\
192 > \bottomrule
193 > \end{tabular}
194 > \end{table}
195 >
196 > %S1: contact angle
197   \begin{figure}
198 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ContactAngle}
199 + \caption{\label{fig:ContactAngle} The dynamic contact angle of a
200 +  droplet after approaching each of the four ice facets.  The decay to
201 +  an equilibrium contact angle displays similar dynamics.  Although
202 +  all the surfaces are hydrophilic, the long-time behavior stabilizes
203 +  to significantly flatter droplets for the basal and pyramidal
204 +  facets.  This suggests a difference in hydrophilicity for these
205 +  facets compared with the two prismatic facets.}
206 + \end{figure}
207 +
208 +
209 + %S2-S5 are the z-rnemd profiles
210 + \begin{figure}
211   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr_comic_strip}
212   \caption{\label{fig:pyrComic} Properties of the pyramidal interface
213    being sheared through water at 3.8 ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Lower
# Line 36 | Line 228 | ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those
228   \end{figure}
229  
230   \begin{figure}
231 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bComicStrip}
232 < \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The basal interface with a shear
231 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{B_comic_strip}
232 > \caption{\label{fig:bComic} The basal interface with a shear
233   rate of 1.3 \
234   ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:pyrComic}.}
235   \end{figure}
236  
237   \begin{figure}
238 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pComicStrip}
239 < \caption{\label{fig:spComic} The prismatic interface with a shear
238 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{prismatic_comic_strip}
239 > \caption{\label{fig:pComic} The prismatic interface with a shear
240   rate of 2 \
241   ms\textsuperscript{-1}. Panel descriptions match those in figure \ref{fig:pyrComic}.}
242   \end{figure}
243  
244 < %Figures S5-S8 are the z-orientation times
244 > %Figures S6-S9 are the z-orientation times
245   \begin{figure}
246   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Pyr-orient}
247   \caption{\label{fig:PyrOrient} The three decay constants of the
# Line 69 | Line 261 | prism face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig
261  
262  
263   \begin{figure}
264 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{basal_Tau_comic_strip}
265 < \caption{\label{fig:SPorient} Decay constants for $C_2(z,t)$ at the basal face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
264 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{B-orient}
265 > \caption{\label{fig:Borient} Decay constants for $C_2(z,t)$ at the basal face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
266   \end{figure}
267  
268   \begin{figure}
269 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{prismatic_Tau_comic_strip}
270 < \caption{\label{fig:SPorient} Decay constants for $C_2(z,t)$ at the
269 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{prismatic-orient}
270 > \caption{\label{fig:Porient} Decay constants for $C_2(z,t)$ at the
271   prismatic face. Panel descriptions match those in \ref{fig:PyrOrient}.}
272   \end{figure}
273  
274 < \end{document}
274 > \bibliography{iceWater}
275 >
276 > \end{document}

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines