4.8 Article

Ion Transport in Electrically Imperfect Nanopores

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 10518-10526

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c04453

关键词

ion transport; nanopore; power-law; ion conductance; ion selectivity; surface charge; molecular dynamics

资金

  1. Center for Enhanced Nanofluidic Transport (CENT), an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0019112]
  2. National Science Foundation [1545907, 1708852, 1720633, 1921578]
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [OCI-1053575]
  4. state of Illinois
  5. NSF [OCI-0725070, ACI-1238993]
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Materials Research [1708852] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Directorate For Engineering
  9. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1921578] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionic transport through a charged nanopore at low ion concentration is governed by the surface conductance. Several experiments have reported various power-law relations between the surface conductance and ion concentration, i.e., G(surf) proportional to c(0)(alpha). However, the physical origin of the varying exponent, alpha, is not yet clearly understood. By performing extensive coarse-grained Molecular Dynamics simulations for various pore diameters, lengths, and surface charge densities, we observe varying power-law exponents even with a constant surface charge and show that alpha depends on how electrically perfect the nanopore is. Specifically, when the net charge of the solution in the pore is insufficient to ensure electro-neutrality, the pore is electrically imperfect and such nanopores can exhibit varying alpha depending on the degree of imperfectness. We present an ionic conductance theory for electrically imperfect nanopores that not only explains the various power-law relationships but also describes most of the experimental data available in the literature.

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

4.8
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