4.6 Article

Repulsion between Oppositely Charged Planar Macroions

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069436

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Korea Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Gyeongsangbuk-Do and Pohang City
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea
  4. Korea government [NRFC2012R1A1A2009275]
  5. WCU program through NRF [R33-2008-000-10163-0]
  6. National Science Foundation [CHE-0848809, CHE-1153096]
  7. PLSI supercomputing resources of Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  9. Division Of Chemistry [1153096] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. National Research Foundation of Korea [R33-2008-000-10163-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The repulsive interaction between oppositely charged macroions is investigated using Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations of an unrestricted primitive model, including the effect of inhomogeneous surface charge and its density, the depth of surface charge, the cation size, and the dielectric permittivity of solvent and macroions, and their contrast. The origin of the repulsion is a combination of osmotic pressure and ionic screening resulting from excess salt between the macroions. The excess charge over-reduces the electrostatic attraction between macroions and raises the entropic repulsion. The magnitude of the repulsion increases when the dielectric constant of the solvent is lowered (below that of water) and/or the surface charge density is increased, in good agreement with experiment. Smaller size of surface charge and the cation, their discreteness and mobility are other factors that enhance the repulsion and charge inversion phenomenons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available