Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Zigzagging Diffusion and Non-Standard Transport in Particle-laden Nanopores Under Extreme Confinement

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 claims that toluene confined in alumina slit pores just a few molecules wide forms discrete layers, and that the fit between those layers and the pore width makes diffusion, flow velocity, and the effective Péclet number…

desk verdict A well-executed, openly documented MD study whose central zig-zag claim is not yet statistically supported; deserves review but needs revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09191 v1 pith:5WLPWXJY submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.soft

A. Baer , P. Malgaretti , K. Hoellring , J. Harting , Ana-Suncana Smith This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords moleculardynamicsnanoporeconfinementtoluenelayeringcommensurabilityfullerenediffusionPécletnumbernanofluidicsslitporetransport
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

Molecular dynamics simulations of toluene in hydroxylated alumina slit pores show that the liquid organizes into discrete layers, and the paper argues that whether those layers match the pore width determines how fast transport is. As the pore width is varied over the range of roughly 1 to 7 nanometres, the self-diffusion coefficient of toluene does not change smoothly but zig-zags between faster and slower states, with peaks spaced about 0.3 nm apart, the thickness of a toluene molecule. The same pattern appears in the mean flow velocity under a constant pulling force and in the effective Péclet number, so the usual proportionality between diffusion and flow breaks down. Adding dissolved C60 or C70 fullerenes does not erase the effect: the fullerenes themselves diffuse with a zig-zag dependence on pore width, and their diffusivity ratio to the solvent varies non-monotonically. If correct, this means continuum hydrodynamic relations fail quantitatively at pore widths of a few molecular diameters and cannot be recovered by an effective radius or viscosity; the oscillations only vanish for pores larger than roughly ten molecular layers.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is solvent layering and its commensurability with the pore width. At the hydroxylated alumina wall, toluene forms discrete layers visible as oscillations in the density profile; the paper proposes that commensurate widths, where the pore can hold an integer number of molecular layers, give well-ordered, mobile packing, while incommensurate widths give frustrated, interlocked structures with lower mobility. Layering is quantified by position-resolved density profiles, and the interpretation is supported by the roughly 0.3 nm peak-to-peak spacing, which matches the smallest dimension of the toluene platelet, and by orientation profiles showing that toluene lies flat at the wall and reorients as the pore widens. Position-resolved parallel and perpendicular diffusion coefficients link structure to mobility, and the pulling-force simulations extend the same layer-counting argument to non-equilibrium flow.

What would settle it

Two checks would settle the claim. Experimentally: measure toluene diffusivity (for instance by pulsed-field-gradient NMR or neutron spin echo) in well-defined hydroxylated alumina slit pores scanned finely over the 1 to 3 nm range; a smooth or monotonic dependence on pore width rather than oscillations with roughly 0.3 nm periodicity would falsify the zig-zag picture. Numerically: repeat the narrow-pore simulations of the 1.08, 1.17, and 1.40 nm pores with an independent force field or a polarizable model; if the oscillation peaks shift or disappear, the pattern is a force-field artifact rather than the physics of commensurate layering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under extreme confinement, transport of toluene in a slit nanopore is controlled by structural commensurability between the solvent's molecular layers and the pore width. Toluene, a flat molecule of roughly $0.83 \times 0.66 \times 0.33$ nm, packs into well-defined layers against the alumina wall; when the pore width matches an integer number of layers, the liquid is ordered and mobile, and when it does not, the packing is frustrated and interlocked and mobility drops. This layer-counting effect makes the parallel self-diffusion coefficient oscillate with pore width (peak-to-peak spacing about 0.3 nm), and the authors show the same zig-zag in the mean velocity of toluene pulled through the pore at constant force. Because the diffusion and velocity oscillations do not compensate each other, the effective Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe} = \bar{v}d/D$ and the permeability also zig-zag, contradicting mesoscopic expectations. The effect persists in particle-laden systems: fullerenes locally disrupt the layering without washing out the zig-zag, and their own diffusivity follows the same non-monotonic pattern, with the solute-to-solvent diffusivity ratio varying non-monotonically, behaviour that Stokes–Einstein scaling with an effective radius cannot describe.

Load-bearing premise

The computer models used for toluene, the fullerenes, and the rigid alumina walls are accurate at pore widths of one to two nanometres, even though they are only checked against the known liquid density at pore centres for pores of three nanometres or wider; if they misrepresent how the molecules stack and orient at the walls, the zig-zag pattern could be an artifact of the model rather than real physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pore-width change of about 0.3 nm, far smaller than a full molecular diameter, can switch a pore between fast and slow transport states for both solvent and dissolved fullerenes.
  • Because the proportionality between diffusion and flow breaks down, permeability and the effective Péclet number carry their own zig-zag, so continuum models based on an effective viscosity or an effective solute radius cannot be repaired by re-fitting.
  • Because the solute-to-solvent diffusivity ratio varies non-monotonically with pore width, size-based separation in nanoporous membranes depends sensitively on the exact pore width rather than on pore-size class.
  • The oscillations decay and disappear once the pore exceeds roughly ten molecular layers, giving a concrete pore-width threshold beyond which continuum hydrodynamics become reliable in this system.
  • The effect persists under driven flow and in particle-laden fluids, so it applies to operating conditions of nanofluidic devices, not only to equilibrium measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same layer-counting picture would predict that other flat, rigid molecules such as benzene or xylene isomers show analogous transport oscillations in smooth slit pores; testing one of them would show whether the mechanism is geometric rather than specific to toluene.
  • A design consequence the authors leave implicit is that engineered membranes or nanofluidic channels could exploit 'forbidden' pore widths (zig-zag troughs) to suppress diffusion and resonant widths (peaks) to enhance it, with sub-nanometre control of the slit gap.
  • The paper does not vary the force field; a natural next test is to rerun the three narrowest pores with an independent, validated model for toluene and alumina to confirm that the oscillation peaks stay at the same pore widths.
  • The roughly 3 nm decay length of the oscillations (about ten molecular layers) is a candidate for a measurable confinement correlation length that a systematic experimental pore-width scan could extract.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular dynamics simulations of toluene confined in hydroxylated alumina slit nanopores of widths in the approximate range 1–7 nm, with and without dissolved C60/C70 fullerenes. The central claim is that the self-diffusion coefficient of confined toluene, the mean flow velocity under a constant pulling force, the resulting Péclet number, and the diffusivity of the dissolved fullerenes all exhibit a non-monotonic, 'zig-zag' dependence on pore width in the few-nanometre regime. This behaviour is attributed to discrete solvent layering whose commensurability with the pore width changes abruptly, combined with orientational ordering of the platelet-like toluene molecules. The authors further argue that the diffusivity and flow-velocity oscillations are not compensatory, so that standard mesoscopic scaling relations between diffusion, viscosity, and flow fail under extreme confinement.

Significance. If the reported zig-zag pattern is robust, the paper provides a simulation-based demonstration that continuum transport relations fail quantitatively at pore widths of only a few molecular diameters, and that solute diffusion inherits the solvent's non-monotonic response. This would be significant for nanofluidics and membrane separations. The manuscript has notable strengths: the simulation protocol is clearly described, the non-equilibrium runs are checked for linear response (Fig. S2), the analysis includes spatially resolved density, diffusion, and orientation profiles, the bulk-density validation is performed where a bulk-like region exists, and input files with raw data are deposited on Zenodo, which makes the headline claim independently testable. The transport coefficients are emergent outputs of the simulations rather than fitted quantities, so there is no circularity in the central derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 1 and 3; main-text discussion of the zig-zag pattern] The central claim of a zig-zag dependence is not statistically established as presented. In Figs. 1a–c and 3, individual pore widths are connected by guide-to-eye lines, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or formal non-monotonicity tests are reported. In the decisive sub-2 nm regime the extrema are separated by only a few data points (e.g., 1.08, 1.17, and 1.40 nm are discussed explicitly), so sampling noise or arbitrary line choices could produce the apparent oscillation. The deposited Zenodo data should allow the authors to add block-averaged error bars, independent replicate runs or a permutation test, and a quantitative statement of the significance of the extrema and of the claimed approximately 0.3 nm period. This is a load-bearing issue because the particle-diffusion and Péclet-number claims inherit the solvent-pattern claim.
  2. [SI Section S1] The validation of the force field is not yet sufficient for the regime where the headline effect occurs. SI Section S1 checks that the toluene density in the pore centre matches the experimental bulk density only for pores of at least approximately 3 nm; for the 1–2 nm pores that define the zig-zag, the reported deviations from the bulk density reach up to about 15 percent. Neither the layering amplitude nor the orientational order that the proposed mechanism relies on is compared with experiment or with a second force field. A concrete test would be a comparison of the density and orientation profiles at one or two narrow pore widths against another force field or against available experimental structural data, or at least a sensitivity analysis that bounds how much the predicted extrema shift. Without such a check, the possibility that the non-monotonicity is a force-field artifact remains open.
  3. [Fig. 1c and Péclet-number discussion] The statement that the zig-zag in the Péclet number constitutes a clear deviation from the mesoscopic prediction is not backed by a concrete statement of the prediction being tested. The Péclet number is defined with a chosen molecular length d = 0.66 nm and with the equilibrium solvent diffusivity, while the mean velocity is measured under a constant applied force; a constant Péclet number is not an obvious consequence of the cited mesoscopic models once slip, viscosity layering, and finite pore width are included. The authors should write down the continuum prediction, including boundary conditions and any local viscosity model, and compare it quantitatively with the simulated velocity and diffusivity data, or soften the 'breaking of scaling relations' claim to a documented breakdown of a specific Stokes–Einstein-type proportionality.
  4. [Abstract and concluding paragraph] The abstract and the concluding paragraph state that the layering drives oscillations in permeability under pressure-driven conditions, but no permeability is defined or computed anywhere in the manuscript. The non-equilibrium simulations measure a mean flow velocity under a constant per-molecule force; the conversion to a permeability (for example, volume flux per unit pressure gradient times viscosity) is absent. Please either report the permeability explicitly with its definition and uncertainties, or remove it from the abstract and conclusions. This matters because 'breaking expected scaling relations between diffusion, viscosity, and flow' is one of the paper's headline claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SI Section S1] There is a stray unmatched parenthesis in 'for pores with a width of at least ≈ 3 nm)'.
  2. [Main text] Several typos should be corrected: 'interemediate' should be 'intermediate', 'attens' should be 'approaches' or 'attains', and 'is fully accommodated even in most narrow pores' should be 'even in the narrowest pores'.
  3. [Fig. S2 caption] The error bars in Fig. S2 are described as standard deviations over all molecules and time frames; because molecular velocities are time-correlated, these are not independent statistical errors, and block averaging or bootstrapping over trajectory chunks would give a more honest uncertainty estimate.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 3 states that all lines are guides to the eye; the same statement should be added to the caption of Fig. 1 to avoid the impression that the connecting lines represent a model or interpolation.
  5. [Throughout] The notation for the solvent and particle diffusion coefficients alternates between D_S and Ds and between D_p and Dp; please unify the notation and define each symbol at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zig-zag transport coefficients are emergent MD outputs, not fitted quantities or self-citation-derived predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is that toluene confined in hydroxylated alumina slit pores shows a non-monotonic, zig-zag dependence of diffusivity, flow velocity, and Péclet number on pore width, and that dissolved fullerenes retain a similar pattern. In the paper, the solvent diffusion coefficient is extracted from mean-squared displacements via a standard linear-fit relation (Eqs. S1–S3), the mean flow velocity is measured from the toluene center-of-mass motion relative to the pore wall under a constant applied force, and the Péclet number is defined as Pe = vd/D. None of these quantities is fitted to produce the zig-zag pattern; the pattern emerges from the MD trajectories. The force fields are taken from external literature (OPLS-AA for toluene, fullerene parameters from Refs. 29–31, alumina wall from Refs. 32–33), and the SI validates the setup against bulk toluene density for pores of at least 3 nm. Self-citations to Refs. 13, 14, and 18 provide methodological continuity, including the SPM drift-correction protocol for perpendicular diffusion, but the headline results in Figs. 1 and 3 rely on parallel diffusion coefficients obtained directly from MSD, not on that fitted protocol. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors’ previous work. The skeptical concern about missing error bars and the absence of a formal non-monotonicity test concerns statistical evidence, not circularity. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the circularity patterns checked.

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

The paper contributes simulation data rather than a formal derivation. There are no fitted parameters that shape the central zig-zag result; the only input choices are standard thermodynamic/thermostat settings and a characteristic molecular diameter d=0.66 nm for the Peclet number, which only rescales the curve. The load-bearing assumptions are the transferability of the OPLS-AA force field to extreme confinement, the rigid neutral wall model, and the mapping of a constant body force to pressure-driven flow.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Classical molecular dynamics with fixed-charge force fields (OPLS-AA for toluene, custom for alumina and fullerenes) accurately captures the relevant intermolecular interactions and dynamics in pores down to 1 nm.
    Invoked throughout; validated only against bulk density at pore center for pores >= 3 nm (SI S1), not against confined density, structure, or transport data.
  • domain assumption The hydroxylated alumina walls are rigid and non-polar, and their interaction with toluene is dominated by dispersion forces.
    The model choice in 'Simulation methods'; no account for wall flexibility, surface charge, or polarization, which could alter layering and transport.
  • domain assumption Applying a constant external force to all toluene molecules mimics a uniform pressure-driven flow, and the response is linear.
    Used to produce Fig. 1b-c; linear response is checked in Fig. S2 for the forces used, but the body force is not a rigorous pressure gradient.
  • standard math The Einstein relation D = MSD/(2 n t) holds for computing diffusion coefficients from equilibrium trajectories.
    Used in SI S2 to extract D_parallel and D_perpendicular.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zigzagging Diffusion and Non-Standard Transport in Particle-laden Nanopores Under Extreme Confinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WLPWXJY

@misc{pith2026250609191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zigzagging Diffusion and Non-Standard Transport in Particle-laden Nanopores Under Extreme Confinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WLPWXJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09191}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding transport subject to molecular-scale confinement is key to advancing nanofluidics, yet classical hydrodynamic laws often fail at these scales. Here, we study a model system: transport of toluene as a solvent and small fullerenes as model particles confined within alumina slit nanopores using molecular dynamics simulations. We find that toluene organizes into discrete layers whose commensurability with the pore width leads to a striking, non-monotonic, zig-zag dependence of transport coefficients on confinement. This layering drives oscillations not only in solvent diffusivity but also in flow velocity and permeability under pressure-driven conditions, breaking the expected scaling relations between diffusion, viscosity, and flow. Surprisingly, introducing a nanoparticle does not wash out these effects - although the fullerene perturbs local layering, the nanoparticle diffusivity retains a zig-zag dependence on pore width. Our results demonstrate how structural commensurability and interfacial effects dominate transport in nanoconfined liquids, and lead to important deviations from continuum expectations. These findings establish a microscopic basis for size-dependent transport in nanopores and highlight the need for beyond-hydrodynamic models in confined soft matter systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Pore size dependence of transport through the pore. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Achs, Y. Chen, B. Yang, X. Li, and J. Wang, Nano Lett. 20, 6937 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bocquet and E

    L. Bocquet and E. Charlaix, Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 1073 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Huber, J

    P. Huber, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 103102 (2015), ISSN 0953-8984, publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Kavokine, R

    N. Kavokine, R. R. Netz, and L. Bocquet, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 53, 377 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Robin and L

    P. Robin and L. Bocquet, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 160901 (2023), ISSN 0021-9606

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Zhang, X

    R. Zhang, X. Zeng, B. Kim, R. J. Bushby, K. Shin, P. J. Baker, V. Percec, P. Leowanawat, and G. Ungar, ACS Nano 9, 1759 (2015), ISSN 1936-0851, publisher: American Chemical Society

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Wiese, D

    O. Wiese, D. Marenduzzo, and O. Henrich, Soft Matter 12, 9223 (2016), publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Wittmann, L

    R. Wittmann, L. B. G. Cortes, H. L¨ owen, and D. G. A. L. Aarts, Nat. Commun. 12, 623 (2021), ISSN 2041-1723, number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    H. Peng, W. Jiang, Q. Liu, G. Chen, M. Ni, F. Liang, Y. Liao, X. Xie, and I. I. Smalyukh, Langmuir 34, 10955 (2018), ISSN 0743-7463, publisher: American Chemical Society

    2018

  2. [10]

    Chen, X.-Y

    H.-Q. Chen, X.-Y. Wang, H. K. Bisoyi, L.-J. Chen, and Q. Li, Langmuir 37, 3789 (2021), ISSN 0743-7463, publisher: American Chemical Society

    2021

  3. [11]

    I. M. Sivebaek, V. N. Samoilov, and B. N. J. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 036102 (2012), publisher: American Physical Society

    2012

  4. [12]

    Matsubara, F

    H. Matsubara, F. Pichierri, and K. Kurihara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 197801 (2012), publisher: American Physical Society

    2012

  5. [13]

    H¨ ollring, A

    K. H¨ ollring, A. Baer, N. Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 657, 272 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. Baer, P. Malgaretti, M. Kaspereit, J. Harting, and A.-S. Smith, J. Mol. Liq. 368, 120636 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Jung and T

    G. Jung and T. Franosch, Phys. Rev. E 106, 014614 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    S. H. Khan, G. Matei, S. Patil, and P. M. Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 106101 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

    2010

  9. [17]

    Bureau, Phys

    L. Bureau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 218302 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

    2010

  10. [18]

    H¨ ollring, A

    K. H¨ ollring, A. Baer, N. Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 650, 1930 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    S. H. Khan, E. L. Kramkowski, P. J. Ochs, D. M. Wilson, and P. M. Hoffmann, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 023110 (2014), ISSN 0003-6951, publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2014

  12. [20]

    Ghanbarian, Adv

    B. Ghanbarian, Adv. Water Resour. 161, 104123 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    van der Spoel, E

    D. van der Spoel, E. Lindahl, B. Hess, G. Groenhof, A. E. Mark, and H. J. C. Berendsen, J. Comp. Chem. 26, 1701 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    H. J. C. Berendsen, D. van der Spoel, and R. van Drunen, Comput. Phys. Commun. 91, 43 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    Lindahl, B

    E. Lindahl, B. Hess, and D. van der Spoel, Molecular S1 modeling annual 7, 306 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    B. Hess, C. Kutzner, D. van der Spoel, and E. Lindahl, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 435 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    N. Goga, A. J. Rzepiela, A. H. de Vries, S. J. Marrink, and H. J. C. Berendsen, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 3637 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Pronk, S

    S. Pronk, S. P´ all, R. Schulz, P. Larsson, P. Bjelkmar, R. Apostolov, M. R. Shirts, J. C. Smith, P. M. Kasson, D. van der Spoel, et al., Bioinformatics 29, 845 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    M. J. Abraham, T. Murtola, R. Schulz, S. P´ all, J. C. Smith, B. Hess, and E. Lindahl, SoftwareX 1–2, 19 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell, and J. Tirado-Rives, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 11225 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    C. S. Yannoni, P. P. Bernier, D. S. Bethune, G. Meijer, and J. R. Salem, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113, 3190 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    Goodman, C70 source (2006), URL http://www-jmg

    J. Goodman, C70 source (2006), URL http://www-jmg. ch.cam.ac.uk/data/molecules/misc/c70.html

    2006

  23. [31]

    Monticelli, J

    L. Monticelli, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 1370 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, R

    N. Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, R. D. Banhatti, R. Stepi´ c, C. R. Wick, D. Berger, M. U. Gaimann, A. Baer, J. Harting, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 553, 350 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, R

    N. Vuˇ cemilovi´ c-Alagi´ c, R. D. Banhatti, R. Stepi´ c, C. R. Wick, D. Berger, M. U. Gaimann, A. Baer, J. Harting, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, Data in Brief 28, 104794 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    D. M. Huang, C. Sendner, D. Horinek, R. R. Netz, and L. Bocquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 226101 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Chinappi and C

    M. Chinappi and C. M. Casciola, Phys. Fluids 22, 042003 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Bussi, D

    G. Bussi, D. Donadio, and M. Parrinello, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 014101 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    S. d. Beer, W. K. d. Otter, D. v. d. Ende, W. J. Briels, and F. Mugele, EPL 97, 46001 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Schmidt and H

    M. Schmidt and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4552 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    C. P. Royall, P. Charbonneau, M. Dijkstra, J. Russo, F. Smallenburg, T. Speck, and C. Valeriani, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 045003 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    C. O. Solano-Cabrera, P. Castro-Villarreal, R. E. Moctezuma, F. Donado, J. C. Conrad, and R. Casta˜ neda- Priego, Annual Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. 16, 41 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    A. Baer, S. E. Wawra, K. Bielmeier, M. J. Uttinger, D. M. Smith, W. Peukert, J. Walter, and A.-S. Smith, Small 20, 2304670 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. Baer, P. Malgaretti, K. H¨ ollring, J. Harting, and A.-S. Smith, Dataset: Zigzagging diffusion and non- classical transport in molecular nanopores under extreme confinement (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.15535557

    2025

  35. [43]

    B. Hess, H. Bekker, H. J. C. Berendsen, and J. G. E. M. Fraaije, J. Comp. Chem. 18, 1463 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Christen, P

    M. Christen, P. H¨ unenberger, D. Bakowies, R. Baron, R. B¨ urgi, D. P. Geerke, T. N. Heinz, M. A. Kastenholz, V. Kr¨ autler, C. Oostenbrink, et al., J. Comp. Chem.26, 1719 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Darden, D

    T. Darden, D. York, and L. Pedersen, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 10089 (1993)

    1993

  38. [46]

    Essmann, L

    U. Essmann, L. Perera, M. L. Berkowitz, T. Darden, H. Lee, and L. G. Pedersen, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 8577 (1995)

    1995

  39. [47]

    Daridon and J.-P

    J.-L. Daridon and J.-P. Bazile, J. Chem. Eng. Data 63, 2162 (2018). S2 Supplementary Information Zigzagging Diffusion and Non-Standard Transport in Particle-laden Nanopores Under Extreme Confinement Andreas Baer1, Paolo Malgaretti 2,∗, Kevin H¨ ollring1, Jens Harting 2,3,1 and...

    2018

Pith tools

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