4.8 Article

Geometrical Effect in 2D Nanopores

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 4223-4230

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b01091

关键词

Solid-state nanopores; 2D materials; molybdenum disulfide (MoS2); hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN); high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM); ion transport

资金

  1. European Research Council [259398]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [BIONIC BSCGI0_157802]
  3. SNSF [147607]
  4. EPSRC Cambridge NanoDTC [EP/L015978/1]
  5. Oxford Nanopore Technology
  6. Seeding Novel Interdisciplinary Research Program of the Beckman Institute
  7. Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) grant [MCA93S028]
  8. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on the TAUB cluster
  9. NSF China [11402113]
  10. Jiangsu NSF [BK20140807]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A long-standing problem in the application of solid-state nanopores is the lack of the precise control over the geometry of artificially formed pores compared to the well-defined geometry in their biological counterpart, that is, protein nanopores. To date, experimentally investigated solid-state nanopores have been shown to adopt an approximately circular shape. In this Letter, we investigate the geometrical effect of the nanopore shape on ionic blockage induced by DNA translocation using triangular h-BN nanopores and approximately circular molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanopores. We Observe a striking geometry dependent ion scattering effect, which is further corroborated by a modified ionic blockage model. The well-acknowledged ionic blockage Model is derived from uniform ion permeability through the 2D nanopore plane and hemisphere like access region in the nanopore vicinity. On the basis of our experimental results, we propose a modified ionic blockage model, which is highly related to the ionic profile caused by geometrical variations. Our findings shed light on the rational design of 2D nanopores and should be applicable to arbitrary nanopore shapes.

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