Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2009 Oct 14;80(4 Pt 1):041918. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.041918

FIG. 5.

FIG. 5

Comparison of dimer counts between simulation data and predicted data for simultaneous variation in C, B, M, and D. Predicted data are calculated by Eq. (4) and Eq. (9). (a) test cases for fixed reactant concentration (CR) of 0.1 (Table I) in a 100nm × 100nm area. Concentrations of inert particles (CI), B, M, D are randomly selected, with CI from 0–0.35, B from 0.1–0.9, M from 0.6–1.4ns, and D from 3.9–43.9 ×10−11m2s−1. (b) test cases for varying reactant concentration (CR) from 0.1–0.45 (Table II) in a 100nm × 100nm area. CI, B, M, and D are also randomly selected, with CI from 0 – (0.45-CR), B from 0.1–0.9, M from 0.6–1.4ns, and D from 3.9–43.9 ×10−11m2s−1. (c) test cases for fixed reactant concentration (CR) of 0.1 (Table III) in a 200nm × 200nm area. CI, B, M, and D are randomly selected from the same parameter ranges as in (a). (d) test cases for varying reactant concentration (CR) from 0.1–0.45 (Table IV) in a 200nm × 200nm area. CI, B, M, and D are randomly selected from the same parameter ranges as in (b).The other parameter values are set to the default values: (α=2,β=1, and dth=0.5nm).