This post focuses on the phase behavior of polymers in solution, comparing a lattice-based Monte Carlo simulation with the classic Flory-Huggins mean-field theory. The simulation controls vary chain length \(N\), polymer fraction \(\phi\), and interaction parameter \(\chi\); you can also drag directly on the phase diagram to move in \(({\phi},{\chi})\) space. See the model description for details.


Control panel
box size 48
polymer fraction 0.35
chain length 16
interaction parameter 2.90
timesteps per frame 2400
Flory-Huggins free energy
Flory-Huggins phase diagram: Click and drag!

A simple experiment: start with the well‑mixed preset and quench the system by dragging χ above χc. How does the rate of quenching influence the typical cluster size?


Model description

Lattice Monte Carlo simulation

Each lattice site is either solvent or a polymer bead, and each polymer is a self-avoiding chain whose bonds connect orthogonal neighbors. The simulation uses a square lattice with coordination number \(z=4\). Assigning a contact energy \(u_{ij}\) to every nearest-neighbor pair of species \(i\) and \(j\), the total lattice energy is

\[H = u_{pp}\,n_{pp} + u_{ss}\,n_{ss} + u_{ps}\,n_{ps},\]

where \(n_{pp}\), \(n_{ss}\) and \(n_{ps}\) count polymer-polymer, solvent-solvent and polymer-solvent contacts. We adopt the symmetric convention \(u_{pp}=u_{ss}=-\varepsilon\) and \(u_{ps}=0\), so polymers and solvents both prefer like neighbors with the same strength \(\varepsilon>0\):

\[H = -\varepsilon\,(n_{pp}+n_{ss}).\]

Because each polymer (solvent) site has \(z\) neighbors, the lattice constraints \(2 n_{pp} + n_{ps} = z N_p\) and \(2 n_{ss} + n_{ps} = z N_s\) let us eliminate \(n_{ps}\) and \(n_{ss}\). Dropping the configuration-independent terms gives a Hamiltonian that depends only on \(n_{pp}\) and on the combination

\[\chi = \frac{z}{k_B T}\!\left[u_{ps} - \tfrac{1}{2}(u_{pp}+u_{ss})\right] = \frac{z\,\varepsilon}{k_B T},\]

the Flory interaction parameter, which on this \(z=4\) lattice is \(\chi = 4\beta\varepsilon\).

A proposed move is accepted with the Metropolis probability \(\min\{1,\,\exp(-\Delta H/k_B T)\}\). For any single-bead move (reptation, end flip, corner flip, or single-bead displacement), each polymer-polymer contact gained at the new site is matched by exactly one solvent-solvent contact gained at the old site, so

\[\Delta n_{ss} = \Delta n_{pp}, \qquad -\frac{\Delta H}{k_B T} = 2\beta\varepsilon\,\Delta n_{pp} = \tfrac{\chi}{2}\,\Delta n_{pp}.\]

The acceptance probability is therefore

\[\min\!\big\{1,\;\exp\!\big(\tfrac{\chi}{2}\,\Delta n_{pp}\big)\big\},\]

where \(\Delta n_{pp}\) is the change in the number of polymer-polymer contacts. Larger \(\chi\) makes like-like contacts more favorable and drives demixing.

Mean-field theory

The companion mean-field Flory–Huggins theory uses the same interaction parameter \(\chi\) and writes the free energy per lattice site as

\[g(\phi) \equiv \frac{f}{k_B T} = \frac{\phi}{N}\ln\phi + (1-\phi)\ln(1-\phi) + \chi\,\phi(1-\phi).\]

Its first derivative is

\[g'(\phi)=\frac{\ln\phi+1}{N}-\ln(1-\phi)-1+\chi(1-2\phi),\]

and its second derivative is

\[g''(\phi)=\frac{1}{N\phi}+\frac{1}{1-\phi}-2\chi.\]

The binodal is the coexistence curve: two compositions \(\phi_-\) and \(\phi_+\) lie on it when they share a common tangent to \(g(\phi)\), equivalently when they have equal chemical potential and osmotic pressure. Inside the binodal, phase separation lowers the free energy overall.

The spinodal is defined by \(g''(\phi)=0\). Between the two spinodal branches, \(g''(\phi)<0\), so a uniform mixture is linearly unstable and even infinitesimal concentration fluctuations grow spontaneously. Between the binodal and spinodal the system is only metastable: demixing is favorable, but it requires a sufficiently large fluctuation or nucleus.

The critical point is where the binodal and spinodal meet (\(g''(\phi_c)=0\) and \(g'''(\phi_c)=0\)), giving

\[\phi_c = \frac{1}{1+\sqrt{N}}, \qquad \chi_c = \frac{1}{2}\left(1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\right)^2.\]

Physically, \(\chi_c\) is the threshold interaction parameter at which coexistence first appears: below it the free energy has a single minimum, while above it two competing compositions emerge.

You might notice that the behavior of our 2D simulations differs considerably from the mean-field Flory-Huggins prediction; for example, the critical point is noticeably larger than the mean-field prediction. Mean-field Flory–Huggins predicts a critical interaction strength \(\chi_c^{\text{MF}}=\tfrac{1}{2}(1+1/\sqrt{N})^2\). Mapping the \(N=1\) case to the Ising model gives an Ising coupling \(J=\varepsilon/2\), and Onsager’s exact solution then yields \(\beta\varepsilon_c = \ln(1+\sqrt{2})\), i.e. \(\chi_c^{\text{exact, 2D}} = 4\ln(1+\sqrt{2}) \approx 3.53\), well above the mean-field value \(\chi_c^{\text{MF}}=2\). This Onsager critical is shown as a red diamond on the phase diagram when \(N=1\).


Useful references:

  1. C.P. Brangwynne, P. Tompa, and R.V. Pappu, Polymer physics of intracellular phase transitions, Nature Physics 11, 899 (2015)

  2. P.J. Flory, Thermodynamics of high polymer solutions, J. Chem. Phys. 10, 51 (1942)

  3. M.L. Huggins, Some properties of solutions of long-chain compounds, J. Phys. Chem. 46, 151 (1942)