4.7 Article

Non-negligible Water-permeance through Nanoporous Ion Exchange Medium

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29695-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Research Laboratory Project [NRF-2018R1A4A1022513]
  2. Basic Science Research Program [2016R1A1A1A05005032, 2016R1A6A3A11930759]
  3. Center for Integrated Smart Sensor - Global Frontier Project by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning and Korean Health Technology RND project, Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic of Korea [CISS-2011-0031870, HI13C1468, HI14C0559]
  4. Samsung Research Funding Center of Samsung Electronics [SRFC-MA1301-02]
  5. BK21 plus program
  6. LG Yonam Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the water impermeable constraint has been conventionally adopted for analyzing the transport phenomena at the interface of electrolyte/nanoporous medium, non-negligible water-permeance through the medium results in significant effect on ion and particle transportation. In this work, a rigorous theoretical and experimental analysis of the water-permeance effect were conducted based on a fully-coupled analytical/numerical method and micro/nanofluidic experiments. The regime diagram with three distinctive types of concentration boundary layers (ion depletion, ion accumulation, and intermediate) near the ion exchange nanoporous medium was proposed depending on the medium's permselectivity and the water-permeance represented by an absorbing parameter. Moreover, the critical absorbing parameters which divide the regimes were analytically obtained so that the bidirectional motion of particles were demonstrated only by altering the water-permeance without external stimuli. Conclusively, the presenting analysis of non-negligible water-permeance would be a substantial fundamental of transport phenomena at the interface of the ion exchange medium and electrolyte, especially useful for the tunable particle/ion manipulations in intermediate Peclet number environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据