Enhanced zeta potentials caused by surface ion mobilities

Elena F. Silkina; Evgeny S. Asmolov; Olga I. Vinogradova

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Enhanced zeta potentials caused by surface ion mobilities

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a Stern layer containing diffuse, mobile ions and sharply reduced permittivity makes the electrokinetic zeta potential exceed the surface potential, amplifying electro-osmotic flow most at slippery walls in…

desk verdict A clean mean-field derivation of a μ≥1 electrokinetic slip, but the Stern-layer diffuse-ion population that drives the effect is assumed, not derived—Born self-energy would deplete it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02915 v2 pith:JB6EGUOW submitted 2025-06-03 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.soft

Evgeny S. Asmolov , Elena F. Silkina , Olga I. Vinogradova This is my paper

classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.soft PACS 47.65.-d

keywords electro-osmoticflowzetapotentialSternlayersurfaceionmobilitysliplengthPoisson-Boltzmannequationelectricdoubleelectrohydrodynamicboundarycondition

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Classical electro-osmosis treats the Stern layer as stagnant, so the zeta potential is taken to equal the diffuse-layer surface potential. This paper instead models the Stern layer as a thin slab of sharply reduced permittivity that still contains diffuse, laterally mobile ions, and studies conducting walls held at fixed potential. It argues that those inner ions are pulled in the same direction as the outer electro-osmotic flow, giving a mobility parameter $\mu \geq 1$ and a zeta potential that generally exceeds the surface potential by $(\Delta\phi/\gamma)(b/\delta)$. The enhancement is largest for hydrophobic surfaces with large slip length and for concentrated solutions, where most diffuse ions sit inside the Stern layer. If the claim is right, zeta potentials inferred from electro-osmotic measurements should be reinterpreted, and electro-osmotic transport in slippery nanochannels is stronger than previously predicted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the momentum integral $P = \int_0^\delta z\,\rho_i(z)\,dz$, the first moment of the diffuse ionic space charge in the Stern layer, which appears after integrating the Stokes equation. Equating the two-layer flow to the effective boundary condition fixes $\sigma(1-\mu) = P/\delta$, so $\mu$ is interpreted as the normalized momentum of the inner diffuse ions. Using the Poisson-Boltzmann equation and the Grahame relation converts this into the electrostatic formula $\mu = \frac{\Delta\phi}{2\sinh(\phi_s/2)}\,\frac{\lambda}{\gamma\delta}$, with slip length $b = \delta\,\eta/\eta_i$. This identity is what turns a microscopic picture of the Stern layer into a macroscopic prediction for $\zeta \approx \phi_s + (\Delta\phi/\gamma)(b/\delta)$.

What would settle it

Measure the electro-osmotic plug velocity and independently infer the surface potential $\phi_s$ (via capacitance or surface-force data) on the same hydrophobic wall across salt concentrations up to $\sqrt{\gamma}\,\delta/\lambda \geq 1$; the model predicts $\zeta \approx \phi_s + (\Delta\phi/\gamma)(b/\delta)$, so observing the ratio $\zeta/\phi_s$ remain at or below unity would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an explicit diffuse Stern layer of reduced permittivity acts as a mobile surface charge that amplifies electro-osmosis. The authors map the two-layer system onto an imaginary wall at the Stern/diffuse boundary carrying an effective charge density $\sigma$ and obeying an electrohydrodynamic slip condition with mobility parameter $\mu$. They derive $\mu$ from the integrated momentum $P$ of the inner diffuse ions and show it is set purely by electrostatics: $\mu = \frac{\Delta\phi}{2\sinh(\phi_s/2)}\,\frac{\lambda}{\gamma\delta}$, where $\Delta\phi = \phi_0 - \phi_s$ is the potential drop across the Stern layer, $\gamma = \varepsilon/\varepsilon_i$ is the permittivity contrast, and $\delta/\lambda$ is the relative Stern thickness. Because the inner ions carry the same sign as the outer diffuse layer, they produce a forward inner flow, so $\mu \geq 1$. Combining $\mu$ with the slip length $b = \delta\,\eta/\eta_i$ yields $\zeta \approx \phi_s + (\Delta\phi/\gamma)(b/\delta)$, so the zeta potential exceeds the surface potential whenever the slip length is positive, and substantially so for $b/\delta \gg 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction depends on the Stern layer being a uniform slab of sharply reduced permittivity whose ions remain diffuse and laterally mobile; if those ions are immobile, or the permittivity drop is gradual rather than sharp, the inner momentum vanishes and the zeta enhancement disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The measured zeta potential of a wall is generally larger than its diffuse-layer surface potential, so electro-osmotic velocities computed from $\phi_s$ alone underestimate the true plug flow.
The amplification factor $A = \zeta/\phi_s$ grows rapidly with salt concentration once $\sqrt{\gamma}\,\delta/\lambda \geq 1$, so concentrated solutions near slippery walls show the largest effect.
For hydrophilic surfaces with $b \approx \delta$, the enhancement is small or negligible, preserving the traditional zeta picture at low salt and moderate potentials.
At high salt, the zeta potential approaches $b\phi_0/(\delta\gamma)$, a lower bound that can still be many times $\phi_s$ when $b/\delta$ is large.
The mobility parameter $\mu$ is independent of viscosity contrast and depends only on electrostatic double-layer properties, so it can be computed from known capacitance or surface-potential data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves the streaming-potential counterpart of its zeta result open; if the zeta enhancement is real, streaming-potential measurements near slippery walls would need an equivalent correction.
Because the formula for $\mu$ is stated to survive for fixed-charge insulators, the same amplification mechanism could carry over to insulating walls and charged colloids, where only the charge regulation changes.
A clean experimental discriminator is salt dependence: unlike charged porous coatings, which amplify in dilute solutions, this mechanism amplifies in concentrated solutions, so a concentration scan can distinguish the two.
Nanochannel transport models that currently assume $\mu \leq 1$ would acquire a new high-salt branch, with consequences for ionic conductivity and electrokinetic energy conversion.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this paper does a careful job of mapping an explicit two-layer (Stern + diffuse) electrokinetic problem onto a single effective slip condition, and it gets the right closed forms for μ and ζ. The math is internally consistent and the approximate formulas match the numerics. The authors also correctly flag that Eq. (42) appeared in Uematsu et al. [23], which is honest.

What's genuinely new is the parameterization with μ≥1 and the asymptotic formulas in the different concentration regimes. That is a useful toolkit for people interpreting zeta potentials near hydrophobic walls or concentrated electrolytes.

The soft spot is physical, not mathematical. The model puts a Boltzmann-distributed diffuse ion population inside a Stern layer with ε_i ≈ 2 (γ=40). Any continuum treatment of a dielectric discontinuity should include the ionic self-energy; the Born penalty for moving a 0.2-nm ion from bulk water into ε≈2 is on the order of 70 k_B T. At that cost, the Stern-layer ion density is suppressed by exp(-70), making the momentum integral P nearly zero, μ≈1, and the proposed amplification disappears. The paper neither derives nor cites a justification for dropping this term. This is not a minor caveat—it is the load-bearing assumption behind μ≥1. The counterargument, of course, is that simulations do show diffuse ions in the Stern layer; but then the continuum model needs to explain why they are there, and that explanation is missing.

The circularity concern in the reader's report is unfounded: μ is computed from electrostatic quantities, not fitted to ζ. And the citation practice is fine—self-citations to [21] are standard PB results.

Verdict: worthwhile for the derivation style and the applied formulas, but the central physical premise is unproven. If a referee watches the self-energy issue, the paper would need substantial revision—either an explicit justification for neglecting it or a modified model that includes it. Still, the paper is well-posed and the derivations are worth referee time. I'd send it out, but with a clear request to address the Born/image-charge depletion.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper revisits electro-osmotic flow near a conducting wall by explicitly modeling a Stern layer of reduced permittivity and, possibly, different viscosity that still contains diffuse, mobile ions described by a Poisson-Boltzmann distribution. The authors map the inner-layer flow onto an effective slip boundary condition at the dividing plane z = δ, introducing a mobility parameter μ. They derive an analytic expression for μ, Eq. (27), that depends only on electrostatic quantities, show that μ ≥ 1 for their model, and conclude that the effective zeta potential generally exceeds the surface potential, Eq. (42), leading to amplification of electro-osmotic flow, most strongly for large slip lengths and concentrated solutions. Approximate formulas are validated against numerical solutions of the model in Figs. 4–9.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a simple, analytically tractable mechanism by which a diffuse Stern layer can enhance, rather than merely reduce, electro-osmotic mobility, and it makes concrete predictions for zeta potentials as functions of salt concentration and slip length. The derivation is internally mostly consistent, the final formula Eq. (42) matches a known result from Uematsu et al. [23] by an independent route, and the approximate formulas are checked against numerics. These are real strengths. However, the central prediction depends on a physically fragile assumption about ion densities in a low-permittivity Stern layer, and there is also a sign error in a key intermediate equation.

major comments (2)

[Section III, Eq. (24)] There is a sign error in the evaluation of the integral in Eq. (23). With Δφ = φ0 − φs, the integral ∫0δ [φ_i′(δ) − φ_i′(z)] dz equals δφ_i′(δ) + Δφ, not δφ_i′(δ) − Δφ. As printed, Eq. (24) gives P = −2en∞λ_i^2[δφ_i′(δ) − Δφ] = σδ + 2en∞λ_i^2 Δφ, which combined with Eq. (22) leads to μ = −2en∞λ_i^2 Δφ/(δσ), i.e., a negative mobility parameter. This contradicts the paper's central claim μ ≥ 1 and the final expression Eq. (27). The subsequent paragraph implicitly uses the plus sign, and Eq. (27) is correct, but Eq. (24) and the surrounding text are internally inconsistent as written and must be corrected.
[Section II, Eqs. (5)–(9)] The model assumes that ions in the Stern layer obey the bare Boltzmann distribution c± = c∞ exp(∓φ), with the only free energy being that of the mean electrostatic potential. For a dielectric discontinuity with γ = ε/ε_i ≈ 40, the ionic self-energy includes a Born solvation penalty of order (e^2/8πε0 a)(1/ε_i − 1/ε), which for an ion radius a ≈ 0.2 nm is roughly 70 k_BT. This would exponentially suppress the diffuse ion density inside the Stern layer. As a result, the momentum integral P in Eq. (20) would be negligible, and Eq. (22) would force μ ≈ 1, so that the zeta enhancement in Eq. (42) reduces to ζ ≈ φs. The manuscript neither derives nor cites a justification for neglecting this self-energy contribution. Because a non-negligible diffuse-ion population in the Stern layer is the load-bearing premise for μ ≥ 1, this omission is a central weakness that must be addressed, either by modeling the self-energy or by providing a quantitative argument for its irrelevance in the parameter range considered.

minor comments (3)

[Section IV, discussion of Fig. 6] The sentence “Also includes are the curves for φs” is grammatically awkward and should read “Also included are the curves for φs”.
[Figures 3–9] Several axis labels and legends are rendered in very small type, and the color bar in Fig. 3 lacks a label; the figures would be easier to read if these were enlarged.
[Section III, paragraph after Eq. (22)] The statement that “P is either of the opposite sign to that of σ or vanishes” is central to concluding μ ≥ 1; it would be clearer if it were explicitly tied to Eq. (22) and to the sign of Δφ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mobility parameter is derived from electrostatics, the zeta potential follows from the derived slip condition, and the central formula matches an independent reference.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an explicit diffuse Stern layer of reduced permittivity yields mu >= 1 and enhanced zeta potentials. The derivation is self-contained: mu is obtained analytically in Eq. (27) from the momentum integral P in Eq. (20) and the Grahame relation Eq. (26), with no parameter fitted to zeta-potential data. The surface potential phi_s is determined by Eq. (30), which is the first integral of the Poisson-Boltzmann equation (5) under the stated boundary conditions; although Eq. (30) is attributed to the authors' previous work [21], it is independently rederivable from equations stated in this paper, and the paper also presents numerical solutions of Eqs. (5) and (9) that confirm the asymptotic formulas. The zeta potential is obtained from the derived slip velocity, Eq. (41), and the equivalent closed form Eq. (42) is acknowledged to have been independently derived by Uematsu, Netz, and Bonthuis [23], providing external confirmation. The mobility parameter is not defined in terms of zeta, nor fitted to a subset of the data; the physical premise of mobile diffuse ions in a low-permittivity Stern layer is an assumption, and while it may be open to correctness criticism (e.g., omitted Born self-energy), assuming a model is not circular reasoning. The few self-citations, including Refs. [7], [10], [21], and [33], are for standard results or prior context and are not load-bearing in a way that reduces the derivation to its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no new entities or fitted parameters; all inputs are standard electrokinetic quantities or parameters taken from prior experiments. The theory depends on the diffuse, mobile Stern layer model and the decoupled slip length assumption.

free parameters (3)

delta (Stern layer thickness) = 0.5 nm
Chosen from literature [20,25,26]; not fitted to this paper's results, but used in all numerical plots.
gamma (permittivity ratio epsilon / epsilon_i) = 40
Taken from experiment [20]; illustrative value for calculations.
b (slip length) = delta = 0.5 nm (hydrophilic) or 10 nm (hydrophobic)
Chosen to illustrate regimes; derived in the model as b = delta * eta / eta_i.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Both the Stern layer and the diffuse layer obey the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation with Boltzmann-distributed ions.
Sec. II, Eq. (5). Mean-field treatment of ions in both layers is assumed.
domain assumption The Stern layer is a homogeneous slab of thickness delta with uniformly reduced permittivity epsilon_i = epsilon / gamma and possibly different viscosity eta_i.
Sec. II. The sharp-interface model is borrowed from prior work [22,23]; if the permittivity profile is diffuse, the formulas change.
domain assumption The slip length is purely hydrodynamic and decoupled from electrostatics: b = delta * eta / eta_i.
Eq. (18) and surrounding text. This relies on the 'gas cushion model' and simulations [30-32] indicating negligible electrostatic friction contribution.
domain assumption The wall is a conductor held at constant potential phi_0.
Eq. (6). The analysis is for conducting walls; extension to insulators of fixed charge is noted as future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced zeta potentials caused by surface ion mobilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JB6EGUOW

@misc{pith2026250602915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced zeta potentials caused by surface ion mobilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JB6EGUOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02915}
}

abstract

The electro-hydrodynamics near conducting walls is revisited. Attention is focused on the impact of an explicit diffuse Stern layer, which permittivity and viscosity differ from the bulk values, on the velocity of an electro-osmotic plug flow. To solve this problem we propose an approach of mapping the flow in the Stern layer to the surface dividing the Stern and diffuse layer, where an effective electro-hydrodynamic slip boundary condition is imposed. The latter implies that an effective surface charge is responding to the applied field and characterized by a mobility parameter $\mu \geq 1$. We derive analytic equations for $\mu$ and demonstrate that it is determined only by electrostatic properties of the electric double layer. These equations are then used to calculate electrokinetic (zeta) potentials of surfaces. We show that the zeta potential generally exceeds the surface one, which implies an amplification of the electro-osmotic flow. This effect is most pronounced if the hydrodynamic slip length is large and/or in concentrated solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02915 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The real double layer (a) and the imaginary wall (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (b). An overall conclusion from this three dimensional plot is that µ increases with ϕ0 and δ/λ. Some useful approximate solutions for ϕs are known and can be immediately used to derive approximate expressions for µ in different modes. Below we consider two distinct situations, of small and large ϕ0. We focus first to the case of small applied potentials, ϕ0 ≤ 1. The (small) ϕs is given by [21] ϕs ≃ ϕ0 cosh √γ λ… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Zeta (solid) and surface (dashed) potentials as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The amplification factor as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The amplification factor as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[23]

Uematsu, R

Y. Uematsu, R. R. Netz, and D. J. Bonthuis. Analytical interfacial layer model for the capacitance and electroki- netics of charged aqueous interfaces.Langmuir, 34(31): 9097–9113, 2018

work page 2018
[21]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, and E. S. Asmolov. Surface potentials of conductors in electrolyte solutions. J. Chem. Phys., 161(20), 2024

work page 2024
[1]

J. L. Anderson. Colloid transport by interfacial forces. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 21:61–99, 1989

work page 1989
[2]

O. Stern. Zur Theorie der elektrolytischen Doppelschicht. Z. Elektrochem, 30(508):1014–1020, 1924

work page 1924
[3]

J. Lyklema. Molecular interpretation of electrokinetic potentials.Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 15(3):125– 130, 2010

work page 2010
[4]

slip plane

Nowadays this obsolete definition of the “slip plane” is confusing for the newcomers since macroscopically it ap- pears that liquid slips over the plane located at distance δ+λfrom the wall, but not at theδ-plane, where the surface electrostatic potential Φ s is defined

work page
[5]

von Smoluchowski.Handbuch der Elektrizit¨ at und des Magnetismus

M. von Smoluchowski.Handbuch der Elektrizit¨ at und des Magnetismus. Vol. 2. Barth, J. A., Leipzig, 1921

work page 1921
[6]

O. I. Vinogradova. Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces.Int. J. Miner. Process., 56:31–60, 1999

work page 1999

Show all 46 references

[7]

S. R. Maduar, A. V. Belyaev, V. Lobaskin, and O. I. Vinogradova. Electrohydrodynamics near hydrophobic surfaces.Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:118301, 2015

2015
[8]

Grosjean, M.-L

B. Grosjean, M.-L. Bocquet, and R. Vuilleumier. Ver- satile electrification of two-dimensional nanomaterials in water.Nat. Com., 10:1656, 2019

2019
[9]

Mangaud, M.-L

E. Mangaud, M.-L. Bocquet, L. Bocquet, and B. Roten- berg. Chemisorbed vs physisorbed surface charge and its impact on electrokinetic transport: Carbon vs boron nitride surface.J. Chem. Phys., 156(4):044703, 2022

2022
[10]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, and E. S. Asmolov. Slip- pery and mobile hydrophobic electrokinetics: from single walls to nanochannels.Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 68:101742, 2023

2023
[11]

O. I. Vinogradova. Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces.Langmuir, 11:2213–2220, 1995

1995
[12]

Mouterde and L

T. Mouterde and L. Bocquet. Interfacial transport with mobile surface charges and consequences for ionic trans- port in carbon nanotubes.Eur. Phys. J. E, 41:1–10, 2018

2018
[13]

Mouterde, A

T. Mouterde, A. Keerthi, A. R. Poggioli, S. A. Dar, A. Siria, A. K. Geim, L. Bocquet, and B. Radha. Molec- ular streaming and its voltage control in angstr¨ om-scale channels.Nature, 567:87–90, 2019

2019
[14]

B. E. Conway, J. O’M. Bockris, and I. A. Ammar. The dielectric constant of the solution in the diffuse and Helmholtz double layers at a charged interface in aqueous solution.Trans. Faraday Soc., 47:756–766, 1951

1951
[15]

S. V. Borisevich, Yu. I. Kharkats, and G. A. Tsirlina. Localization of the reagents at electrochemical interfaces and its role in the solvent reorganization.Russ. J. Elec- trochem., 35(6):675–682, 1999

1999
[16]

Guidelli and W

R. Guidelli and W. Schmickler. Recent developments in models for the interface between a metal and an aque- ous solution.Electrochimica Acta, 45(15-16):2317–2338, 2000

2000
[17]

Hartkamp, A.-L

R. Hartkamp, A.-L. Biance, L. Fu, J.-F. Dufreche, O. Bonhomme, and L. Joly. Measuring surface charge: why experimental characterization and molecular mod- eling should be coupled.Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2018

2018
[18]

Schlaich, E

A. Schlaich, E. W. Knapp, and R. R. Netz. Water dielec- tric effects in planar confinement.Phys. Rev. Lett., 117 (4):048001, 2016

2016
[19]

Becker, P

M. Becker, P. Loche, M. Rezaei, A. Wolde-Kidan, Y. Ue- matsu, R. R. Netz, and D. J. Bonthuis. Multiscale mod- eling of aqueous electric double layers.Chem. Rev., 124 (1):1–26, 2023

2023
[20]

Fumagalli, A

L. Fumagalli, A. Esfandiar, R. Fabregas, S. Hu, P. Ares, A. Janardanan, Q. Yang, B. Radha, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, et al. Anomalously low dielectric constant of confined water.Science, 360(6395):1339–1342, 2018

2018
[22]

D. J. Bonthuis and R. R. Netz. Unraveling the combined effects of dielectric and viscosity profiles on surface ca- pacitance, electro-osmotic mobility, and electric surface conductivity.Langmuir, 28(46):16049–16059, 2012

2012
[24]

M. J. Kadhim and M. I. Gamaj. Estimation of the diffu- sion coefficient and hydrodynamic radius (Stokes radius) for inorganic ions in solution depending on molar conduc- tivity as electro-analytical technique-a review.J. Chem. Rev, 2(3):182–188, 2020

2020
[25]

B. E. Conway.Theoretical Treatment and Modeling of the Double Layer at Electrode Interfaces, pages 125–168. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1999

1999
[26]

A. A. Kornyshev, W. Schmickler, and M. A. Vorotynt- sev. Nonlocal electrostatic approach to the problem of a double layer at a metal-electrolyte interface.Phys. Rev. B, 25(8):5244, 1982

1982
[27]

H. J. Butt, K. Graf, and M. Kappl.Physics and Chem- istry of Interfaces. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2003

2003
[28]

Herrero and L

C. Herrero and L. Joly. The Poisson–Boltzmann equation in micro-and nanofluidics: A formulary.Phys. Fluids, 36 (10), 2024

2024
[29]

O. I. Vinogradova. Coagulation of hydrophobic and hy- drophilic solids under dynamic conditions.J. Colloid In- terface Sci., 169(2):306–312, 1995

1995
[30]

L. Joly, C. Ybert, E. Trizac, and L. Bocquet. Liquid fric- tion on charged surfaces: From hydrodynamic slippage to electrokinetics.J. Chem. Phys., 125(20), 2006

2006
[31]

Sendner, D

C. Sendner, D. Horinek, L. Bocquet, and R. R. Netz. In- terfacial water at hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces: Slip, viscosity, and diffusion.Langmuir, 25(18):10768– 10781, 2009

2009
[32]

Y. Xie, L. Fu, T. Niehaus, and L. Joly. Liquid-solid slip on charged walls: The dramatic impact of charge distri- bution.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(1):014501, 2020

2020
[33]

E. F. Silkina, E. S. Asmolov, and O. I. Vinogradova. Electro-osmotic flow in hydrophobic nanochannels.Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 21(41):23036–23043, 2019

2019
[34]

L. Joly, C. Ybert, E. Trizac, and L. Bocquet. Hydrody- namics within the electric double layer on slipping sur- faces.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:257805, 2004

2004
[35]

E. F. Silkina, N. Bag, and O. I. Vinogradova. Electro- osmotic Properties of Porous Permeable Films.Phys. Rev. Fluids, 5:123701, 2020

2020
[36]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, N. Bag, and E. S. Asmolov. Achieving large zeta-potentials with charged porous surfaces.Phys. Fluids, 32(10), 2020. 11

2020
[37]

B. J. Kirby and E. F. Hasselbrink Jr. Zeta potential of microfluidic substrates: 1. Theory, experimental tech- niques, and effects on separations.Electrophoresis, 25(2): 187–202, 2004

2004
[38]

D. Yan, C. Yang, N.-T. Nguyen, and X. Huang. A method for simultaneously determining the zeta poten- tials of the channel surface and the tracer particles using microparticle image velocimetry technique.Electrophore- sis, 27(3):620–627, 2006

2006
[39]

Werner, R

C. Werner, R. Zimmermann, and T. Kratzm¨ uller. Streaming potential and streaming current measure- ments at planar solid/liquid interfaces for simultaneous determination of zeta potential and surface conductivity. Colloids Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspect, 192(1-3): 205–213, 2001

2001
[40]

F. H. J. van der Heyden, D. J. Bonthuis, D. Stein, C. Meyer, and C. Dekker. Electrokinetic energy con- version efficiency in nanofluidic channels.Nano Lett., 6: 2232–2237, 2006

2006
[41]

P. B. Peters, R. Van Roij, M. Z. Bazant, and P. M. Biesheuvel. Analysis of electrolyte transport through charged nanopores.Phys. Rev. E, 93(5):053108, 2016

2016
[42]

O. I. Vinogradova and E. F. Silkina. Electrophore- sis of ions and electrolyte conductivity: From bulk to nanochannels.J. Chem. Phys., 159(17), 2023

2023
[43]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, and E. S. Asmolov. Enhanced transport of ions by tuning surface properties of the nanochannel.Phys. Rev. E, 104(3):035107, 2021

2021
[44]

Y. Liu, J. Xing, and J. Pi. Surface-charge-mobility- modulated electrokinetic energy conversion in graphene nanochannels.Phys. Fluids, 34(11), 2022

2022
[45]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, and E. S. Asmolov. Transport of ions in hydrophobic nanotubes.Phys. Flu- ids, 34(12), 2022

2022
[46]

Majhi, S

S. Majhi, S. Bhattacharyya, and P. P. Gopmandal. Im- pact of laterally mobile surface charge on diffusiophore- sis of hydrophobic rigid colloids.J. Fluid Mech., 997:A8, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Uematsu, R

Y. Uematsu, R. R. Netz, and D. J. Bonthuis. Analytical interfacial layer model for the capacitance and electroki- netics of charged aqueous interfaces.Langmuir, 34(31): 9097–9113, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [21]

O. I. Vinogradova, E. F. Silkina, and E. S. Asmolov. Surface potentials of conductors in electrolyte solutions. J. Chem. Phys., 161(20), 2024

work page 2024

[3] [1]

J. L. Anderson. Colloid transport by interfacial forces. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 21:61–99, 1989

work page 1989

[4] [2]

O. Stern. Zur Theorie der elektrolytischen Doppelschicht. Z. Elektrochem, 30(508):1014–1020, 1924

work page 1924

[5] [3]

J. Lyklema. Molecular interpretation of electrokinetic potentials.Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 15(3):125– 130, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [4]

slip plane

Nowadays this obsolete definition of the “slip plane” is confusing for the newcomers since macroscopically it ap- pears that liquid slips over the plane located at distance δ+λfrom the wall, but not at theδ-plane, where the surface electrostatic potential Φ s is defined

work page

[7] [5]

von Smoluchowski.Handbuch der Elektrizit¨ at und des Magnetismus

M. von Smoluchowski.Handbuch der Elektrizit¨ at und des Magnetismus. Vol. 2. Barth, J. A., Leipzig, 1921

work page 1921

[8] [6]

O. I. Vinogradova. Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces.Int. J. Miner. Process., 56:31–60, 1999

work page 1999