CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Electrostatics and Colloid InteractionsMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesChemical and Physical Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Underscreening in concentrated electrolytes

Open access
Lee, Alpha A., Perez-Martinez, Carla S., Smith, Alexander M., Perkin, Susan·2017·Faraday Discussions
DOI 10.1039/c6fd00250a
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Screening of a surface charge by an electrolyte and the resulting interaction energy between charged objects is of fundamental importance in scenarios from bio-molecular interactions to energy storage. The conventional wisdom is that the interaction energy decays exponentially with object separation and the decay length is a decreasing function of ion concentration; the interaction is thus negligible in a concentrated electrolyte. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, we have shown by surface force measurements that the decay length is an increasing function of ion concentration and Bjerrum length for concentrated electrolytes. In this paper we report surface force measurements to test directly the scaling of the screening length with Bjerrum length. Furthermore, we identify a relationship between the concentration dependence of this screening length and empirical measurements of activity coefficient and differential capacitance. The dependence of the screening length on the ion concentration and the Bjerrum length can be explained by a simple scaling conjecture based on the physical intuition that solvent molecules, rather than ions, are charge carriers in a concentrated electrolyte.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c6fd00250a

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hückel, 1923, Phys. Z, 24, 185
  2. Attard, 1996, Adv. Chem. Phys., 92, 1
  3. A. K. Reddy , Modern Electrochemistry 1: Ionics, Springer, 1998
  4. Salmon, 2006, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 18, 11443

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–175 of 175

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lee, A. A., Perez-Martinez, C. S., Smith, A. M., & Perkin, S.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Lee, Alpha A.
  • Perkin, Susan
ORCID
Venue
Faraday Discussions
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published
2017
Volume
199
Pages
239-259
ISSN
  • 1359-6640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-5498
DOI
10.1039/c6fd00250a
OpenAlex
W2580724977
Cited by
175
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 6
FWCI
13.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Faraday Discussions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • H2020 European Research Council (676861)
  • Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2015-328)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Electrostatics and Colloid Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Filtration and Separation › Membrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Chemical and Physical Studies
Keywords
underscreening, concentrated electrolytes, Bjerrum length, screening length, surface charge, interaction energy, surface force measurement, activity coefficients, differential capacitance, ion concentration dependence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review