The raw single-ion solvation free energies computed from atomistic (explicit-solvent) simulations are extremely sensitive to the boundary conditions and treatment of electrostatic interactions used during these simulations. However, as shown recently [M. A. Kastenholz and P. H. Hünenberger, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 224501 (2006); M. M. Reif and P. H. Hünenberger, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 144103 (2010)], the application of appropriate correction terms permits to obtain methodology-independent results. The corrected values are then exclusively characteristic of the underlying molecular model including in particular the ion–solvent van der Waals interaction parameters, determining the effective ion size and the magnitude of its dispersion interactions. In the present study, the comparison of calculated (corrected) hydration free energies with experimental data (along with the consideration of ionic polarizabilities) is used to calibrate new sets of ion-solvent van der Waals (Lennard-Jones) interaction parameters for the alkali (Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, Rb⁺, Cs⁺) and halide (F⁻, Cl⁻, Br⁻, I⁻) ions along with either the SPC or the SPC/E water models. The experimental dataset is defined by conventional single-ion hydration free energies [Tissandier et al., J. Phys. Chem. A 102, 7787 (1998); Fawcett, J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 11181] along with three plausible choices for the (experimentally elusive) value of the absolute (intrinsic) hydration free energy of the proton, namely, $\Delta G_{\mathrm{hyd}}^{\ominus }\left[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}\right]=-1100$ , −1075 or −1050 kJ mol⁻¹, resulting in three sets L, M, and H for the SPC water model and three sets L_E, M_E, and H_E for the SPC/E water model (alternative sets can easily be interpolated to intermediate $\Delta G_{\mathrm{hyd}}^{\ominus }\left[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}\right]$ values). The residual sensitivity of the calculated (corrected) hydration free energies on the volume-pressure boundary conditions and on the effective ionic radius entering into the calculation of the correction terms is also evaluated and found to be very limited. Ultimately, it is expected that comparison with other experimental ionic properties (e.g., derivative single-ion solvation properties, as well as data concerning ionic crystals, melts, solutions at finite concentrations, or nonaqueous solutions) will permit to validate one specific set and thus, the associated $\Delta G_{\mathrm{hyd}}^{\ominus }\left[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}\right]$ value (atomistic consistency assumption). Preliminary results (first-peak positions in the ion-water radial distribution functions, partial molar volumes of ionic salts in water, and structural properties of ionic crystals) support a value of $\Delta G_{\mathrm{hyd}}^{\ominus }\left[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}\right]$ close to −1100 kJ·mol⁻¹.

The GROMOS 54A8 force field [Reif et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 3705–3723] is the first of its kind to contain nonbonded parameters for charged amino acid side chains that are derived in a rigorously thermodynamic fashion, namely a calibration against single-ion hydration free energies. Considering charged moieties in solution, the most decisive signature of the GROMOS 54A8 force field in comparison to its predecessor 54A7 can probably be found in the thermodynamic equilibrium between salt-bridged ion pair formation and hydration. Possible shifts in this equilibrium might crucially affect the properties of electrolyte solutions or/and the stability of (bio)molecules. It is therefore important to investigate the consequences of the altered description of charged oligoatomic species in the GROMOS 54A8 force field. The present study focuses on examining the ability of the GROMOS 54A8 force field to accurately model the structural properties of electrolyte solutions, lipid bilayers, and proteins. It is found that (i) aqueous electrolytes involving oligoatomic species (sodium acetate, methylammonium chloride, guanidinium chloride) reproduce experimental salt activity derivatives for concentrations up to 1.0 m (1.0-molal) very well, and good agreement between simulated and experimental data is also reached for sodium acetate and methylammonium chloride at 2.0 m concentration, while not even qualitative agreement is found for sodium chloride throughout the whole range of examined concentrations, indicating a failure of the GROMOS 54A7 and 54A8 force-field parameter sets to correctly account for the balance between ion–ion and ion–water binding propensities of sodium and chloride ions; (ii) the GROMOS 54A8 force field reproduces the liquid crystalline-like phase of a hydrated DPPC bilayer at a pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of 323 K, the area per lipid being in agreement with experimental data, whereas other structural properties (volume per lipid, bilayer thickness) appear underestimated; (iii) the secondary structure of a range of different proteins simulated with the GROMOS 54A8 force field at pH 7 is maintained and compatible with experimental NMR data, while, as also observed for the GROMOS 54A7 force field, α-helices are slightly overstabilized with respect to 3₁₀-helices; (iv) with the GROMOS 54A8 force field, the side chains of arginine, lysine, aspartate, and glutamate residues appear slightly more hydrated and present a slight excess of oppositely-charged solution components in their vicinity, whereas salt-bridge formation properties between charged residues at the protein surface, as assessed by probability distributions of interionic distances, are largely equivalent in the GROMOS 54A7 and 54A8 force-field parameter sets.

The raw single-ion solvation free energies computed from atomistic (explicit-solvent) simulations are extremely sensitive to the boundary conditions (finite or periodic system, system or box size) and treatment of electrostatic interactions (Coulombic, lattice-sum, or cutoff-based) used during these simulations. However, as shown by Kastenholz and Hünenberger [J. Chem. Phys. 124, 224501 (2006)], correction terms can be derived for the effects of: (A) an incorrect solvent polarization around the ion and an incomplete or/and inexact interaction of the ion with the polarized solvent due to the use of an approximate (not strictly Coulombic) electrostatic scheme; (B) the finite-size or artificial periodicity of the simulated system; (C) an improper summation scheme to evaluate the potential at the ion site, and the possible presence of a polarized air–liquid interface or of a constraint of vanishing average electrostatic potential in the simulated system; and (D) an inaccurate dielectric permittivity of the employed solvent model. Comparison with standard experimental data also requires the inclusion of appropriate cavity-formation and standard-state correction terms. In the present study, this correction scheme is extended by: (i) providing simple approximate analytical expressions (empirically-fitted) for the correction terms that were evaluated numerically in the above scheme (continuum-electrostatics calculations); (ii) providing correction terms for derivative thermodynamic single-ion solvation properties (and corresponding partial molar variables in solution), namely, the enthalpy, entropy, isobaric heat capacity, volume, isothermal compressibility, and isobaric expansivity (including appropriate standard-state correction terms). The ability of the correction scheme to produce methodology-independent single-ion solvation free energies based on atomistic simulations is tested in the case of Na⁺ hydration, and the nature and magnitude of the correction terms for derivative thermodynamic properties is assessed numerically.