We present a formal and numerical comparison between the iterative and matrix‐inversion approaches of the polarizable continuum model. The formal analysis shows completely the equivalence of the two approaches. Numerical equivalence is also recovered, introducing in both methods the proper boundary conditions on the apparent charge distribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cammi et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: