{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032004197271773345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03147953830010493, 'mean_word_length': 4.940809968847352, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Monte Carlo simulations of critical cluster sizes and nucleation rates of water.

We have calculated the critical cluster sizes and homogeneous nucleation rates of water at temperatures and vapor densities corresponding to experiments by Wolk and Strey [J. Phys. Chem B 105, 11683 (2001)]. The calculations have been done with an expanded version of a Monte Carlo method originally developed by Vehkamaki and Ford [J. Chem. Phys. 112, 4193 (2000)]. Their method calculates the statistical growth and decay probabilities of molecular clusters. We have derived a connection between these probabilities and kinetic condensation and evaporation rates, and introduce a new way for the calculation of the work of formation of clusters. Three different interaction potential models of water have been used in the simulations. These include the unpolarizable SPC/E [J. Phys. Chem. 91, 6269 (1987)] and TIP4P [J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926 (1983)] models and a polarizable model by Guillot and Guissani [J. Chem. Phys. 114, 6720 (2001)]. We show that TIP4P produces critical cluster sizes and a temperature and vapor density dependence for the nucleation rate that agree well with the experimental data, although the magnitude of nucleation rate is constantly overestimated by a factor of 2 x 10(4). Guissani and Guillot's model is somewhat less successful, but both the TIP4P and Guillot and Guissani models are able to reproduce a much better experimental temperature dependency of the nucleation rate than the classical nucleation theory. Using SPC/E results in dramatically too small critical clusters and high nucleation rates. The water models give different average binding energies for clusters. We show that stronger binding between cluster molecules suppresses the decay probability of a cluster, while the growth probability is not affected. This explains the differences in results from different water models.