ABSTRACT
We probe the anomalous compressibilities of dilute mixtures of alcohols and alkane gases in water using molecular simulations. The response to increasing solute concentration depends sensitively on temperature, with the compressibility decreasing upon solute addition at low temperatures and increasing at elevated temperatures. The thermodynamic origin of stiffening is directly tied to the solute’s partial compressibility, which is negative at low temperatures and rises above water’s compressibility with increasing temperature. Hydration shell waters concurrently tilt towards clathrate-like structures at low temperatures that fade with heating. Kirkwood-Buff theory traces the solute’s partial compressibility to changes in the solute-water association volume upon heating and incongruous packing of waters at the boundary between the more structured hydration shell and bulk water.
The hydration of non- and minimally polar species is accompanied by a host of anomalies whose origins have been subject to intense inquiry as part of the larger effort to understand aqueous phase and biological assembly. Historic interpretations of hydrophobic hydration have attributed the characteristic negative hydration entropies and large positive heat capacities to microscopic “iceberg” stabilization within the solute’s hydration shell.1,2 While influential, this model has proven less convincing in light of more recent experimental, theoretical, and simulation studies.3–7 Nevertheless, hints of structured waters encircling non-polar moieties persist,8–10 suggesting a more nuanced understanding is necessary.
While temperature-dependent solubility data may have inspired the iceberg model, this is not its only evidence. One of the more counterintuitive supporting experiments has been measurement of the speed of sound (u) in alcohol/water mixtures. While u is greater in water than in alcohol, u initially increases with increasing alcohol content before dropping to its minimum for pure alcohol (e.g., Figure 1(a)). Based on the Newton-Laplace equation
where is the mass density and is its isentropic compressibility (= ), Franks and Ives11 interpreted u’s increase as if “some compression resistant structure were being formed or fortified.” Empirical relations invoking icebergs have subsequently been proposed to explain the anomalous increase in u, which begins with the first drop of alcohol.12,13 To date, however, limited molecular-scale studies have scrutinized this phenomenon.
(1) |

FIG. 1. (a) Speed of sound in ethanol/water mixtures as a function of the alcohol mole fraction at 25 °C. Experimental results were taken from Ref. 18. The thick red line is fitted to the experimental results at infinite dilution. (b) Derivative of the speed of sound in ethanol/water mixtures with respect to the solute mole fraction at infinite dilution as a function of temperature. The experimental lines were obtained from Refs. 19 and 20. (c) Comparison between experiment and simulation of the derivative of the speed of sound at infinite dilution at 25 °C for MeOH, EtOH, 2-PrOH, and TBA. The solid line indicates simulation/experimental agreement. The experimental results were taken from Ref. 18. Symbols are defined in the figures. Error bars indicate one standard deviation.
In this communication, we report molecular simulations of alcohols and short alkanes (methanol (MeOH), ethanol (EtOH), 1-propanol (1-PrOH), 2-propanol (2-PrOH), tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), methane, and ethane) modeled using the TraPPE-UA force field14,15 in TIP4P/2005 water16 to examine aqueous solution stiffening. These models were chosen since they accurately reproduce the pure liquid properties. Isothermal-isobaric ensemble simulations were performed using GROMACS17 over the temperature range 5 °C to 75 °C. Full computational details are provided in the supplementary material.
To begin we evaluated u in ethanol/water mixtures at 25 °C over the full concentration range. The speed of sound was evaluated using Eq. (1), with the isentropic compressibility determined as = (the isothermal compressibility (), thermal expansivity (), and heat capacity () were evaluated from fluctuation relationships). The speed of sound determined from simulation is in semi-quantitative agreement with experiment (Figure 1(a)),18 capturing the non-monotonic concentration dependence. While the maximum predicted from simulation is at a lower concentration, the slope at infinite dilution appears accurate. Indeed, we find that the simulation derivative is in excellent agreement with experiment over a broad temperature range (Figure 1(b)). Both experiment19,20 and simulation find that the stiffening effect diminishes with temperature, with extrapolated from simulation changing sign just above 75 °C. We additionally find excellent agreement comparing experimental results for for a number of alcohols18 against simulation at 25 °C (Figure 1(c)), with the derivative magnitudes increasing with solute size. The comparisons give confidence in the fidelity of our simulations.
Since the alcohol/water mixture density is monotonic with concentration, we expect that the maximum in can be tied to an extremum in . In the liquid state is dominated by (i.e., ), which is simpler to evaluate. Consequently, positive values for are expected to be mirrored by negative values of as a result of their inverse relationship. Figure 2(a) reports at infinite dilution as a function of temperature for the simulated alcohols and alkanes. At low temperatures the slope is negative, in agreement with our expectation. In difference to , changes sign in the neighborhood of 45 °C to 60 °C, lower than projected from extrapolating (Figure 1(b)). The projected crossover of at higher temperatures can be rationalized by the fact that is satisfied when . Since mixture densities decrease with alcohol concentration, is negative. As a result changes sign where (and similarly ) is positive, above the crossover temperatures in Figure 2(a).

FIG. 2. (a) Derivative of the isothermal compressibility with respect to solute mole fraction at infinite dilution as a function of temperature for all the solutes simulated. Derivatives were determined directly from the concentration dependence of the compressibility. The thin lines indicate best fits to the data. (b) Derivative of the isothermal compressibility with respect to solute mole fraction normalized by the product of the solvent density and the solute partial molar volume. The long-short dashed green line indicates . Symbols are defined in the figure. Error bars correspond to one standard deviation.
The magnitude of appears to grow with the solute size in Figure 2(a), consonant with the derivatives reported in Figure 1(c). This can be understood by recognizing that the compressibility derivative at infinite dilution is (see the supplementary material for derivation)
where and are the number density and isothermal compressibility of pure water, while is the solute’s partial molar volume at infinite dilution. The term –, referred to here as the solute’s partial compressibility (), is analogous to but applied to the solute’s partial molar volume. Assuming for small, chemically related solutes is similar, is expected to be proportional to the solute volume. Dividing by (i.e., ) the compressibility derivatives for the alcohols and alkanes appear to collapse onto two lines (Figure 2(b)). The lines for the alcohols and alkanes cross zero at 58.5 ± 0.9 °C and 47.1 ± 1.2 °C, respectively. The crossover temperature corresponds to the point at which , above which is greater than . The greater crossover temperature for the alcohols compared to the alkanes may result from the –OH group stabilizing hydration shell waters, although this effect likely diminishes for larger alcohols. Perhaps more interestingly, is negative when so that grows with increasing pressure. Examining the curve (Figure 2(b)), we find that below 10 °C for the alcohols and 20 °C for the alkanes, the solutes swell with increasing pressure.
(2) |
Kirkwood-Buff (KB) theory connects with the pressure dependence of solute-water correlations.21 Specifically, is determined as an integral over the solute-water radial distribution function ( or RDF)
whose pressure derivative is (see the supplementary material for derivation)
Here is the product of Boltzmann’s constant and the temperature, while is the solute-water association volume as a function of separation. In liquids and its pressure derivative, evaluated from simulations at elevated pressures, are smaller than the integral terms. The RDF between water’s oxygen and any solute site, like methane’s carbon, exhibits long-range correlations that challenge evaluation of the KB integrals. Recognizing that specific sites are not required to measure correlations in KB theory, packing oscillations can be minimized. Subsequently, the water oxygen and solute carbon nuclei can be uniformly smeared over a radius λ.22,23 For λ’s comparable in size to water, oscillations are suppressed and the integrals rapidly converge. Methane-water RDF smearing at 5 °C with λ = is demonstrated in Figure 3(a), reducing correlations to a comparatively featureless function whose integrated value is unaffected.22 Smearing has been used to evaluate solute volumes, compressibilities, and osmotic virial coefficients.22–24
(3a) |
(3b) |

FIG. 3. (a) Unsmeared and smeared RDF between methane and water’s oxygen at 5 °C. The green arrow indicates methane’s first hydration shell, identified by the distance to the first minimum in the unsmeared function (r < 5.4 Å). (b) Smeared methane-water association volumes at the lowest (5 °C) and highest (75 °C) temperatures simulated. The volumes were obtained from the pressure dependence of the RDF. (c) Derivative of the isothermal compressibility with respect to the methane mole fraction at infinite dilution evaluated directly from the concentration dependence of the compressibility and from the pressure derivative of the solute volume evaluated from KB theory (Eq. (3b)). Symbols and temperatures are identified in the figure legends. Error bars correspond to one standard deviation.
The methane-water association volume, evaluated from the pressure derivative of the smeared RDF at 5 °C and 75 °C, shows distinct features which contribute to the large variation in as a function of temperature (Figure 3(b)). At overlapping, smeared separations is negative, indicative of closer water packing against methane with increasing pressure that reduces methane’s volume. The association volume in this regime decreases with increasing temperature, indicating that the compressibility will increase with temperature. Notably, at intermediate separations, is positive at 5 °C and nearly zero at 75 °C, indicating that waters just beyond the first shell on average swell the solute with increasing pressure at lower temperatures and are unresponsive at higher temperatures. While the magnitude of the positive association volume at intermediate separations is not as large as the negative volume at overlap, the integration volume in Eq. (3) grows as , magnifying the positive association volume’s contribution. Moreover, the decreasing negative values of (Figure 3(b)) are generally observed for r < 3 Å where the smeared correlation function drops to values well below one (Figure 3(a)). As a result, the product for r < 3 Å contributes less to the integral in Eq. (3b) than might be anticipated. These contributions work to reduce and potentially reverse the sign of .
Combining the smeared distributions and association volumes, for methane can be evaluated via Eq. (2) (Figure 3(c)). The agreement between obtained from pressure derivative of determined via KB theory and that evaluated directly from the concentration dependence of is excellent. We conclude that the differences in with temperature (Figure 3(b)) are the controlling factor for the variation of . Moreover, the agreement between KB theory and direct measurements of at low temperatures supports the inferred negative partial compressibility in this regime.
To gain structural insights, we have examined methane’s hydration shell using a hierarchical set of measures: the number of hydrogen-bonds between waters; the tetrahedral order of water with its 4 nearest neighbors quantified using the Errington-Debenedetti parameter q;25 and larger-scale coordination amongst up to 8 waters quantified by Molinero’s CHILL+ bond order parameter c(i,j).26 In the bulk, each water participates in just under 4 hydrogen-bonds (donors + acceptors) with the number of bonds decreasing with temperature (Figure 4(a)). The number of bonds per water in the hydration shell (r < 5.4 Å) tends to be slightly enhanced relative to the bulk at 5 °C. Bond enhancement progressively decreases with heating so that hydration shell bonding is depleted below that in the bulk at 75 °C. We note that while bonding for waters closer than 3.5 Å is lower than the bulk at 5 °C, these waters are pressed into methane’s excluded volume (Figure 3(a)) and may be distorted. Similarly, water’s tetrahedral order in the bulk decreases with increasing temperature from qbulk = 0.70 (5 °C) to 0.61 (75 °C) (Figure 4(b)) (q = 1 indicates perfect tetrahedral order, while 0 indicates a disordered arrangement). Relative to the bulk, however, water’s tetrahedral order in the hydration shell is increased. The tetrahedral enhancement of the hydration shell is greatest at 5 °C and decreases with temperature, reminiscent of melting. Galamba observed similar temperature dependent structural changes.9

FIG. 4. (a) Number of hydrogen-bonds (donors + acceptors) per water as a function of distance from methane at 5 °C, 35 °C, and 75 °C. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the bulk number of bonds. A hydrogen-bond is identified when 2 water oxygens lie within 3.2 Å of one another and the O–O–H angle is less than 30° (pictured). (b) Values of the tetrahedrality order parameter q as a function of distance from methane at 5 °C, 35 °C, and 75 °C. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the bulk tetrahedrality. The Errington-Debenedetti order parameter25 is evaluated as , where is the angle formed by the lines joining the oxygen of a given water and those of its nearest neighbors i and j () (a central water (red sphere) and its 4 neighbors (gray spheres) are pictured). The purple shaded region indicates methane’s first hydration shell (r < 5.4 Å).
The CHILL+ bond order parameter c(i,j) discriminates between cubic ice, hexagonal ice, clathrate, and liquid states based on the distribution of staggered, eclipsed, and disordered bonds between neighboring waters.26 This parameter, which varies between −1 and 1, describes the relative orientation of water’s neighboring two central water molecules i and j evaluated by the dot product between their bond order vectors. These vectors are determined by a rank-3 spherical harmonic projection of the distribution of the 4 closest waters about i or j. Values of c between −0.35 and 0.25 correspond to eclipsed orientations, while values less than −0.8 are staggered (Figure 5). The inset to Figure 5 shows the normalized probability distribution of observing specified values of c(i,j), P(c), for waters within methane’s hydration shell (ri > 5.4 Å) and outside the shell at 5 °C. Waters beyond the hydration shell exhibit a broad distribution consistent with liquid water.26 The hydration shell’s distribution exhibits only minor perturbations. Taking the difference between the hydration shell and bulk distributions (Figure 5), however, we find that the hydration shell waters are enriched in eclipsed orientations and depleted in staggered orientations at 5 °C. Eclipsed enrichment is consistent with a preference toward clathrate-like hydration shell structures, while the depletion of staggered orientations signifies that ice-like structures are disfavored. Bond orientation preferences progressively decrease with temperature, such that at 75 °C the eclipsed enrichment is half that observed at 5 °C, while the depletion of staggered orientations is only weakly perturbed.

FIG. 5. Bond order distributions between two neighboring water molecules (i and j) quantified by the CHILL+ bond order parameter c(i,j).26 The inset figure reports the normalized bond order distributions for bulk waters (ri/j > 5.4 Å) and waters within the methane’s hydration shell (ri/j < 5.4 Å) at 5 °C. The main figure shows the bond order distribution differences between the hydration shell and the bulk () at 5 °C, 35 °C, and 75 °C. Values of c less than 0.8 are associated with staggered orientations (green shaded band), while values between 0.35 and 0.25 correspond to eclipsed orientations (purple shaded band). The included pictures illustrate idealized staggered and eclipsed bond orientations about the neighboring i and j pair (red spheres) along with the 3 closest waters to i and the 3 closest waters to j (gray spheres) which determine the bond orientation.
While the waters hydrating methane are liquid, the increased hydrogen-bonding, tetrahedral order, and eclipsed bond orientations signify enhanced clathrate-like structuring between hydration shell waters at low temperatures that dissipate with heating. The negative association volumes reported in Figure 3(b), however, indicate that even though cold hydration waters are more structured, they contribute to reduction of the solute volume with increasing pressure. The magnitude of the reduction is lowest at 5 °C, suggesting that the more structured hydration shell waters are more compression resilient. The waters that contribute positive association volumes to further resist compression, however, lie on average between the structured shell and the bulk. We surmise that the positive association volumes observed at low temperature result from incongruous packing between hydration shell waters and those in the bulk, slightly expanding the volumes of waters at the hydration shell boundary. As temperature increases and structure is lost, the hydration waters more readily mesh with the bulk, deflating the positive association volume. So while it may be tempting to ascribe the anomalous solution stiffening simply to “iceberg” formation, a full accounting of necessitates characterization of the interaction of hydration waters with the bulk as encapsulated by the association volume.
We have shown that aqueous solution stiffening results from differences between and . The significant change in the solute’s compressibility with temperature, varying from negative to positive with increasing temperature, is tied to the solute-water association volume. These results, in turn, correlate with hydration shell structural changes that lean toward clathrate-like structures at low temperature and dissipate with heating. Not unexpectedly the hydration shell structure about the –OH group is distinct from that about a carbon unit, as suggested by the crossover differences observed in Figure 2. Nevertheless, we observe similar enhanced structuring to methane about the distal carbon units from the –OH group (e.g., the methyl unit of 1-propanol). More intriguingly, Ben-Amotz and co-workers8 observed from Raman scattering experiments that waters in the shells of long chain alcohols appear to transition from more tetrahedrally ordered to more disordered relative to bulk water at temperatures of ∼60 °C. This transition appears to coincide with the crossover temperature we observe in Figure 2 (albeit for shorter alcohols), suggesting these phenomena may be connected.
See supplementary material for details regarding the molecular simulations performed, evaluation of the partial molar volume via smeared distribution functions, evaluation of the solute-water association volumes, and derivations of key mathematical expressions.
We thank financial support from the NSF-DMR (No. 1460637), NSF-OIA (No. 1430280), and Louisiana Board of Regents Graduate Research Fellowship program (J.W.B.). Computational support from the Louisiana Optical Network Initiative is gratefully acknowledged. H.S.A. also thanks Amish Patel for invaluable discussions improving this work.
- 1. H. S. Frank and M. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 13, 507 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1723985, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
- 2. D. N. Glew, J. Phys. Chem. 66, 605 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1021/j100810a008, Google ScholarCrossref
- 3. D. T. Bowron, A. Filipponi, M. A. Roberts, and J. L. Finney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4164 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4164, Google ScholarCrossref
- 4. D. Laage, G. Stirnemann, and J. T. Hynes, J. Phys. Chem. B 113, 2428 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp809521t, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 5. P. N. Perera, K. R. Fega, C. Lawrence, E. J. Sundstrom, J. Tomlinson-Phillips, and D. Ben-Amotz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 12230 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903675106, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 6. G. Hummer, S. Garde, A. E. Garcia, M. E. Paulaitis, and L. R. Pratt, J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 10469 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp982873+, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 7. H. S. Ashbaugh and L. R. Pratt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 159 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.159, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 8. J. G. Davis, K. P. Gierszal, P. Wang, and D. Ben-Amotz, Nature 491, 582 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11570, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 9. N. Galamba, J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 2153 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp310649n, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 10. K. Meister, S. Strazdaite, A. L. DeVries, S. Lotze, L. L. C. Olijve, I. K. Voets, and H. J. Bakker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 17732 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414188111, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 11. F. Franks and D. J. G. Ives, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc. 20, 1 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1039/QR9662000001, Google ScholarCrossref
- 12. G. Onori, J. Chem. Phys. 87, 1251 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.453307, Google ScholarScitation
- 13. A. Burakowski and J. Glinski, Chem. Rev. 112, 2059 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1021/cr2000948, Google ScholarCrossref
- 14. B. Chen, J. J. Potoff, and J. I. Siepmann, J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 3093 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp003882x, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 15. M. G. Martin and J. I. Siepmann, J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 2569 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp972543+, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 16. J. L. F. Abascal and C. Vega, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 234505 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2121687, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
- 17. B. Hess, C. Kutzner, D. van der Spoel, and E. Lindahl, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 435 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1021/ct700301q, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 18. J. Lara and J. E. Desnoyers, J. Solution Chem. 10, 465 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00652081, Google ScholarCrossref
- 19. J. Tong, M. J. W. Povey, X. Zou, B. Ward, and C. P. Oates, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 279, 012023 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/279/1/012023, Google ScholarCrossref
- 20. R. Ruiz, F. J. Hoyuelos, A. M. Navarro, J. M. Leal, and B. Garcia, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 2025 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CP03459G, Google ScholarCrossref
- 21. J. G. Kirkwood and F. B. Buff, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 774 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1748352, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
- 22. A. V. Sangwai and H. S. Ashbaugh, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 5169 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0714448, Google ScholarCrossref
- 23. D. M. Lockwood, P. J. Rossky, and R. M. Levy, J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 4210 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp994197x, Google ScholarCrossref
- 24. H. S. Ashbaugh, K. Weiss, S. M. Williams, B. Meng, and L. N. Surampudi, J. Phys. Chem. B 119, 6280 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b02056, Google ScholarCrossref
- 25. J. R. Errington and P. G. Debenedetti, Nature 409, 318 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35053024, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 26. A. H. Nguyen and V. Molinero, J. Phys. Chem. B 119, 9369 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp510289t, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.