The Fluxional Nature of the Hydrated Electron: Energy and Entropy Contributions to Aqueous Electron Free Energies.

Abstract

There has been a great deal of recent controversy over the structure of the hydrated electron and whether it occupies a cavity or contains a significant number of interior waters (noncavity). The questions we address in this work are, from a free energy perspective, how different are these proposed structures? Do the different structures all lie along a single continuum, or are there significant differences (i.e., free energy barriers) between them? To address these questions, we have performed a series of one-electron calculations using umbrella sampling with quantum biased molecular dynamics along a coordinate that directly reflects the number of water molecules in the hydrated electron's interior. We verify that a standard cavity model of the hydrated electron behaves essentially as a hard sphere: the model is dominated by repulsion at short range such that water is expelled from a local volume around the electron, leading to a water solvation shell like that of a pseudohalide ion. The repulsion is much larger than thermal energies near room temperature, explaining why such models exhibit properties with little temperature dependence. On the other hand, our calculations reveal that a noncavity model is highly fluxional, meaning that thermal motions cause the number of interior waters to fluctuate from effectively zero (i.e., a cavity-type electron) to potentially above the bulk water density. The energetic contributions in the noncavity model are still repulsive in the sense that they favor cavity formation, so the fluctuations in structure are driven largely by entropy: the entropic cost for expelling water from a region of space is large enough that some water is still driven into the electron's interior. As the temperature is lowered and entropy becomes less important, the noncavity electron's structure is predicted to become more cavity-like, consistent with the observed temperature dependence of the hydrated electron's properties. Thus, we argue that although the specific noncavity model we study overestimates the preponderance of fluctuations involving interior water molecules, with appropriate refinements to correctly capture the true average number of interior waters and molar solvation volume, a fluxional model likely makes the most sense for understanding the various experimental properties of the hydrated electron.