Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Charge Regulation Effect on Nanoparticles Interaction Mediated by Polyelectrolyte

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charge regulation turns a polymer-bridging attraction between nanoparticles into a weak osmotic repulsion at low salt.

desk verdict Plausible new CR result, but the CR-vs-CC comparison is confounded by geometry (discrete surface sites versus central point charge, different NP radii) and thin statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00549 v2 pith:ACK6W557 submitted 2025-07-01 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Vijay Yadav , Prabhat Kumar Jaiswal , Rudolf Podgornik , Sunita Kumari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords chargeregulationpolyelectrolytebridgingnanoparticleinteractionsconstant-chargeapproximationMonteCarlomoleculardynamicsosmoticrepulsionlow-saltelectrostaticsweak
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

The paper asks whether the common constant-charge (CC) approximation, which keeps the charges on nanoparticles and polymers fixed, misrepresents the force between two nanoparticles connected by an oppositely charged weak polyelectrolyte. Using a hybrid charge-regulation Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics simulation in which both the nanoparticle surface groups and the polymer acid groups can ionize in response to the local environment, the authors compare this charge-regulating (CR) model with CC simulations. At low salt, the two models disagree qualitatively: CR enhances polymer adsorption onto one nanoparticle, collapsing the chain into a localized state, while CC produces a bridging state in which the polymer stretches between both particles. As a result the CR force becomes weakly repulsive near $D = 7\ell_B$ (about 5 nm), dominated by osmotic pressure, whereas the CC force remains attractive through polymer bridging. The authors conclude that charge regulation must be included when predicting nanoparticle interactions in low-salt biological and colloidal conditions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hybrid charge-regulation Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics (CR-MC/MD) scheme in which each of the 256 base groups on a nanoparticle and each acid monomer on the polyelectrolyte is a discrete site that can switch between charged and neutral states via chemical equilibria $A_0 \rightleftharpoons A^- + H^+$ and $B_0 \rightleftharpoons B^+ + OH^-$, sampled by CR-MC moves. The interparticle force is decomposed at a fictitious midplane into osmotic, correlation, direct nanoparticle-nanoparticle, and bridging contributions, with the bridging force obtained from polymer segments whose bond vector crosses the midplane. This decomposition is what allows the paper to attribute the CR/CC difference to the suppression of bridging and the rise of osmotic repulsion.

What would settle it

A colloidal-probe atomic force microscopy force–distance measurement between two charge-regulating colloids in a low-salt solution of an oppositely charged weak polyelectrolyte would settle the claim, because the paper predicts a weak repulsive regime near $D \approx 7\ell_B$ (about 5 nm) whereas the constant-charge picture predicts a stronger bridging attraction at the same separation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that charge regulation flips the qualitative nature of the polyelectrolyte-mediated interaction between two like-charged nanoparticles. In the CR model, the nanoparticle surface charge increases locally to bind the entire PE chain onto one particle, neutralizing that particle's charge and suppressing bridging; the remaining force at intermediate separations is a weak net repulsion of osmotic origin. In the CC model, the fixed charges keep the PE partially adsorbed on both particles, producing a persistent entropic-elastic bridging attraction that is stronger and longer ranged. The paper reports that the CR effect is most pronounced at low salt concentration, where at $D = 15\ell_B$ the force magnitude differs by nearly a factor of six from the CC result, and that CR makes the force largely insensitive to polymer chain length, while CC shows stronger attraction for longer chains. At high salt, screening reduces the difference between the two models, although CR still adsorbs more polymer.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the charge-regulating and constant-charge simulations differ only in the freedom of surface charge to respond, yet the two models also place charge differently — 256 discrete sites versus one central charge — so geometry could be entangled with the effect being tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under low-salt conditions, constant-charge simulations overestimate the attractive bridging force between like-charged nanoparticles, so predictions of aggregation made with fixed charges may be unreliable.
  • Charge-regulating nanoparticles that have adsorbed a polyelectrolyte behave as weakly repulsive objects, meaning suspension stability can in principle be controlled by pH and surface-site chemistry rather than by salt alone.
  • The CR model predicts that interparticle force is nearly independent of polyelectrolyte chain length, whereas the CC model predicts longer chains give markedly stronger attraction; this is a direct experimental signature of charge regulation.
  • At high salt concentration the two models converge, so constant-charge modelling is a safer approximation for strongly screened, high-ionic-strength conditions.
  • Because CR adsorbs the polyelectrolyte roughly twice as fast as CC, the choice of boundary condition also matters for the kinetics of surface coating, not just for the equilibrium force.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The reported CR-versus-CC contrast may not be a pure test of charge regulation, because the CR nanoparticles carry 256 discrete surface sites while the CC charge sits at the nanoparticle centre; a constant-charge run with the same discrete site geometry would separate these effects.
  • Inference: If charge regulation suppresses bridging generally, then similar sign reversals should appear for other ionizable colloids or protein patches in weak-polyelectrolyte solutions, and multi-chain systems may show aggregation controlled by osmotic repulsion rather than bridging.
  • Inference: The faster adsorption kinetics seen under CR suggest that charge regulation could be exploited dynamically, for example by switching pH to trigger rapid coating or release, an application the paper mentions only in passing.
  • Inference: A direct testable extension would be to vary nanoparticle curvature or surface-site density, since the mechanism predicts that the localized-adsorption regime and the crossover near $D \approx 7\ell_B$ should shift with the number of ionizable sites per unit area.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies how charge regulation (CR) affects the interaction between two nanoparticles (NPs) mediated by an oppositely charged weak polyelectrolyte (PE) in an electrolyte solution. Using a hybrid CR Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics framework, the authors model each NP as a sphere carrying 256 ionizable base groups and the PE as a bead-spring chain of acid groups, then compute the NP-NP force via a midplane decomposition into osmotic, correlation, direct NP-NP, and bridging contributions. For comparison, they run constant-charge (CC) simulations in which the NP and monomer charges are fixed to the average values obtained from the CR runs. The central claim is that at low salt concentration, CR enhances PE adsorption onto a single NP, suppresses bridging, and yields a weak net repulsion near D = 7 ℓB, whereas the CC approximation predicts a stronger bridging attraction that persists over a wide range of separations; at higher salt, the differences diminish.

Significance. If the comparison were a clean test of charge regulation, the paper would provide a valuable and potentially influential demonstration that CR qualitatively changes PE-mediated NP interactions, with direct implications for interpreting colloidal stability and nanoparticle assembly experiments. The study builds on a well-established CR-MC/MD framework, explicitly decomposes the total force into physically meaningful components, and probes several parameter dependencies (chain length, ΔpK, salt concentration), citing experimental AFM work that is qualitatively consistent with the reported trends. The central quantitative inference, however, rests on a CR-versus-CC comparison whose two legs differ not only in charge dynamics but also in the spatial distribution of charge and in surface sterics, so the paper's main conclusion is not yet uniquely supported by the presented data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Fig. 1] The CR and CC models differ in two ways simultaneously: the CR model places 256 discrete ionizable sites on a spherical shell of radius 3 ℓB, each with excluded volume, while the CC model places the fixed average charge at the center of a smooth NP of radius 4 ℓB. Since polymer adsorption and bridging are known to be sensitive to the local field structure and to surface roughness/patchiness, the observed increases in f_ad and the suppression of bridging in the CR case could be caused by the discrete surface-site geometry rather than by charge-regulation dynamics. The authors should add a control CC simulation that uses the same 256 surface sites carrying the average CR charge, or a uniformly smeared surface charge, to isolate the effect of charge dynamics from the effect of charge placement.
  2. [Fig. 3c and Fig. 7c] The force curves are presented without error bars, and the captions state that the averages are taken over only 7 (CR) and 30 (CC) equilibrated configurations at low salt, and 5 and 50 at high salt. The claimed weak-repulsion plateau near D = 7 ℓB and the factor-of-six difference at D = 15 ℓB therefore rest on very limited statistics, especially for the CR case where the ionization states evolve slowly. The authors should provide confidence intervals from independent runs or block averaging, and ideally increase the number of equilibrated samples.
  3. [Sec. II, constant-charge construction] The CC model assigns fixed charges equal to the average charges obtained from the CR simulations. This makes the comparison a test of how much charge fluctuations around the CR mean matter, but it also means that the CC model is not an independent constant-charge model with a prescribed surface chemistry. The authors should state this construction explicitly and discuss whether their qualitative conclusions would survive if the CC charge were instead chosen independently, for example from the nominal pKa/pKb equilibrium values, since the average-charge matching could mask or amplify model-dependent differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'at low higher concentrations' is a typo; it should read 'at higher salt concentrations.'
  2. [Sec. II and throughout] The notation pIp = pIm is used to denote salt concentration, but the definition of these symbols is never given; the authors should define them explicitly, for instance as log10 of the salt concentration in reduced units.
  3. [Introduction] The text refers to 'the Ganeshan group' when citing refs. [79,80]; the correct spelling in the citations appears to be Ganesan, and the in-text name should be corrected.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The symbols ρ1(r) and ρ2(r1,r2) are used in the force expression but are not explicitly defined in the text; a short definition of the one- and two-body densities would improve the self-containedness of the derivation.
  5. [Fig. 3b] The axis label 'average charge' does not specify units; please state whether charges are reported in units of the elementary charge q.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CR-vs-CC comparison is a controlled simulation test, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that charge regulation (CR) enhances polyelectrolyte adsorption and suppresses bridging relative to constant charge (CC). This is an emergent simulation result, not a consequence of the model definitions by construction. The CC model is constructed by assigning fixed charges equal to the average ionization states observed in the CR simulations, but the reported quantities—adsorbed fraction, radius of gyration, total force, and force decomposition—are outputs of separately evolved MD trajectories, not re-statements of those input averages. The CR-MC/MD method is cited to prior external work (refs. 19-21, by Yuan, Takae, Tanaka, Curk, and Luijten), not to the present authors' own unverified results. The force decomposition in Eqs. 4-6 is taken from Ref. [30], one of whose authors is a coauthor here, but the paper explicitly re-derives it pedagogically and its role is to interpret the forces, not to assume the conclusion. The paper does not fit parameters to the data it then claims to predict; the CC comparison is a deliberate control isolating charge fluctuations. While one could question the control's geometric consistency (discrete surface sites in CR versus center-placed charge in CC), that is a correctness or modeling concern, not circularity under the defined criteria. No equation or citation chain makes the central result equivalent to its inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No entirely new physical entities are introduced. The paper's contribution rests on a simulation framework borrowed from prior self-citations and on a comparison design whose CC charges are averages of CR output. The main unverified assumptions are that the force decomposition and the CR-MC moves are error-free, and that the CC model's central-charge geometry does not confound the charge-regulation comparison.

free parameters (1)
  • CC model charge assignments = Average CR charges (vary with D)
    In the CC runs, each NP and PE monomer is assigned a fixed charge equal to the average charge from the CR simulation at the same conditions (Sec. II). This makes CC a charge-averaged version of CR rather than an independent comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CR-MC sampling accurately reproduces acid-base equilibria for surface sites and monomers with specified pKa/pKb and pH.
    The hybrid CR-MC/MD scheme is taken from Curk et al. (refs 20-21) and not re-derived or benchmarked here; the central results inherit its validity.
  • domain assumption Implicit-solvent continuum electrostatics with Bjerrum length 0.72 nm and monovalent ions captures PE-NP interactions.
    Water is treated as a dielectric continuum; ion-specific effects, hydrodynamics, and polarization are neglected (Sec. II).
  • standard math The midplane force decomposition in Eq. (4), including the harmonic bridging term (Eq. 6), is a valid and sufficient estimator of the true interparticle force.
    The decomposition follows Ref. [30] and assumes the contact theorem applies with a plane S of width 0.25 ℓB; systematic errors from this estimator are not assessed.
  • ad hoc to paper The CC model with center-placed charges is a fair constant-charge counterpart to the CR model.
    This choice is central to the CR-vs-CC comparison and is not justified beyond picturing the approximation (Fig. 1b).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charge Regulation Effect on Nanoparticles Interaction Mediated by Polyelectrolyte." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACK6W557

@misc{pith2026250700549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charge Regulation Effect on Nanoparticles Interaction Mediated by Polyelectrolyte},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACK6W557}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00549}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to precisely control surface charge using charged polymers is fundamental to many nanotechnology applications, enabling the design and fabrication of materials with tailored properties and functionalities. Here, we study the effect of charge regulation (CR) on the interaction between two nanoparticles (NPs) mediated by an oppositely charged polyelectrolyte (PE) in an electrolyte solution. To this end, we employ a hybrid CR Monte Carlo / molecular dynamics simulation framework to systematically explore the effects of pH, salt concentration, and polymer chain length on NP surface charge behavior. For comparison, we also conduct molecular simulations under constant charge (CC) conditions. Our results reveal that CR enhances PE adsorption onto NP surfaces compared to the CC case, where polymer bridging dominates across a wide range of NP intersurface separations. This enhanced adsorption under CR leads to a weak net repulsion driven by osmotic forces. In contrast, the CC model yields a stronger net attraction due to the bridging force. Furthermore, we find that the CR effects are more pronounced at low salt concentration, whereas at high salt concentration, counterion screening dominates in both CR and CC cases, diminishing the CR effect. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating charge regulation in characterizing nanoparticle interactions within a complex biochemical environment, particularly in low salt concentrations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The initial configurations of our modeled systems. (a) A snapshot of the charge regulation (CR) simulation, where nanoparticles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the system for the force calculation. A fictitious plane, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Charge regulation (CR) effects on NPs–PE interactions at a low salt concentration ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of PE chain length on interaggregate force and PE adsorption across different simulation models, under the same conditions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Effect of net acid and base dissociation constants on adsorbed monomer fraction ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temporal evolution of the adsorbed monomer fraction ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Charge regulation (CR) effects on NPs–PE interactions at low higher concentrations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deirram, C

    N. Deirram, C. Zhang, S. S. Kermaniyan, A. P. R. Johnston, and G. K. Such, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 40, 1800917 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    J. Lin, L. Miao, G. Zhong, C.-H. Lin, R. Dargazangy, and A. Alexander-Katz, Commun Biol 3, 205 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Ly, K.-N

    P.-D. Ly, K.-N. Ly, H.-L. Phan, H. H. T. Nguyen, V .-A. Duong, and H. V . Nguyen, Front. Nanotechnol.6, 1456939 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    M. K. Granfeldt, B. Joensson, and C. E. Woodward, J. Phys. Chem. A 95, 4819–4826 (1991)

    1991

  5. [5]

    Muthukumar, Physics of Charged Macromolecules: Synthetic and Biological Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    M. Muthukumar, Physics of Charged Macromolecules: Synthetic and Biological Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Mateos-Maroto, I

    A. Mateos-Maroto, I. Abelenda-N ´u˜nez, F. Ortega, R. G. Rubio, and E. Guzm´an, Polymers 13, 1221 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Ulrich, A

    S. Ulrich, A. Laguecir, and S. Stoll, Macromolecules 38, 8939–8949 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Ulrich, M

    S. Ulrich, M. Seijo, A. Laguecir, and S. Stoll, J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 20954–20964 (2006)

    2006

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Carnal and S

    F. Carnal and S. Stoll, J. Phys. Chem. B 115, 12007–12018 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    G. S. Longo, M. Olvera de la Cruz, and I. Szleifer, ACS Nano 7, 2693–2704 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Stornes, P

    M. Stornes, P. M. Blanco, and R. S. Dias, Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 628, 127258 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    C. Lu, C. Hu, C. L. Ritt, X. Hua, J. Sun, H. Xia, Y . Liu, D.-W. Li, B. Ma, M. Elimelech, and J. Qu, J. Am. Chem. Soc.143, 14242–14252 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    de la Escosura-Mu ˜niz and A

    A. de la Escosura-Mu ˜niz and A. Merkoc ¸i, ACS Nano6, 7556–7583 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Prakash, M

    S. Prakash, M. Pinti, and B. Bhushan, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 370, 2269–2303 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Curtis, D

    C. Curtis, D. Toghani, B. Wong, and E. Nance, Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 170, 673 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Veider, E

    F. Veider, E. Sanchez Armengol, and A. Bernkop-Schn¨urch, Small 20, 2304713 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Karnik, R

    R. Karnik, R. Fan, M. Yue, D. Li, P. Yang, and A. Majumdar, Nano Lett.5, 943–948 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    C. L. Ritt, J. P. de Souza, M. G. Barsukov, S. Yosinski, M. Z. Bazant, M. A. Reed, and M. Elimelech, ACS Nano16, 15249–15260 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    J. Yuan, K. Takae, and H. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 158001 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    T. Curk, J. Yuan, and E. Luijten, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 044122 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Curk and E

    T. Curk and E. Luijten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 138003 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    T. Bian, A. Gardin, J. Gemen, L. Houben, C. Perego, B. Lee, N. Elad, Z. Chu, G. M. Pavan, and R. Klajn, Nat. Chem. 13, 940–949 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Ruixuan, A

    H. Ruixuan, A. Majee, J. Dobnikar, and R. Podgornik, Eur. Phys. J. E 46, 115 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kumari and R

    S. Kumari and R. Podgornik, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 014905 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Lund and B

    M. Lund and B. J ¨onsson, Q. Rev. Biophys. 46, 265–281 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Xiong, X

    Y . Xiong, X. Liu, and H. Xiong, Sci Rep11, 17386 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. N. Israelachvili, ed., Intermolecular and surface forces, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    ˚Akesson, C

    T. ˚Akesson, C. Woodward, and B. J¨onsson, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 2461–2469 (1989)

    1989

  21. [29]

    S. J. Miklavic, C. E. Woodward, B. Joensson, and T. Aakesson, Macromolecules 23, 4149–4157 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    Podgornik, T

    R. Podgornik, T. ˚Akesson, and B. J¨onsson, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 9423 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    Podgornik, J

    R. Podgornik, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 11286–11296 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Muthukumar, J

    M. Muthukumar, J. Chem. Phys. 86, 7230–7235 (1987)

    1987

  25. [33]

    S. F. Edwards, Proc. Phys. Soc. 85, 613–624 (1965)

    1965

  26. [34]

    P. G. d. Gennes, Rep. Prog. Phys. 32, 187–205 (1969)

    1969

  27. [35]

    J. H. J. v. Opheusden, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21, 2739–2751 (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    Borukhov, D

    I. Borukhov, D. Andelman, and H. Orland, EPL 32, 499–504 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    Borukhov, D

    I. Borukhov, D. Andelman, and H. Orland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 435–438 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Borukhov, D

    I. Borukhov, D. Andelman, and H. Orland, J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 5042–5057 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    P. M. Biesheuvel, Eur. Phys. J. E 16, 353–359 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Gurovitch and P

    E. Gurovitch and P. Sens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 339–342 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Podgornik, J

    R. Podgornik, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 7221–7231 (1993)

    1993

  34. [42]

    Podgornik, J

    R. Podgornik, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 5249–5255 (1991)

    1991

  35. [43]

    Vagharchakian, B

    L. Vagharchakian, B. Desbat, and S. H ´enon, Macromolecules 37, 8715–8720 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    A. V . Dobrynin, A. Deshkovski, and M. Rubinstein, Macromolecules34, 3421–3436 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    A. Y . Grosberg, T. T. Nguyen, and B. I. Shklovskii, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 329–345 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Lenz and C

    O. Lenz and C. Holm, Eur. Phys. J. E 26, 191–195 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    A. V . Dobrynin, A. Deshkovski, and M. Rubinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3101–3104 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    T. T. Nguyen and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 018101 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Nguyen and B

    T. Nguyen and B. Shklovskii, Physica A 310, 197–211 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    M. A. G. Dahlgren, A. Waltermo, E. Blomberg, P. M. Claesson, L. Sjoestroem, T. Aakesson, and B. Joensson, J. Phys. Chem. 97, 11769–11775 (1993)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Podgornik and M

    R. Podgornik and M. Li ˇcer, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 11, 273–279 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Stornes, B

    M. Stornes, B. Shrestha, and R. S. Dias, J. Phys. Chem. B 122, 10237–10246 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    F. A. Africo, A. G. Cherstvy, and S. Jurado de Carvalho, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 194905 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    A. G. Cherstvy and R. G. Winkler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 11686 (2011). 11

    2011

  47. [55]

    D. A. Anhesini, D. L. Z. Caetano, I. P. Caruso, A. G. Cherstvy, and S. J. de Carvalho, Polymers 17, 10.3390/polym17162205 (2025)

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    S. J. de Carvalho, R. Metzler, and A. G. Cherstvy, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 15539 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Szilagyi, G

    I. Szilagyi, G. Trefalt, A. Tiraferri, P. Maroni, and M. Borkovec, Soft Matter 10, 2479 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    R. R. Netz and D. Andelman, Phys. Rep. 380, 1–95 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    C. F. Narambuena, P. M. Blanco, A. Rodriguez, D. E. Rodriguez, S. Madurga, J. L. Garc´es, and F. Mas, Polymer 212, 123170 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Yuan and H

    J. Yuan and H. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 228101 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    B. W. Ninham and V . Parsegian, J. Theoret. Biol.31, 405 (1971)

    1971

  54. [62]

    Bakhshandeh, D

    A. Bakhshandeh, D. Frydel, A. Diehl, and Y . Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 208004 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Bakhshandeh, D

    A. Bakhshandeh, D. Frydel, and Y . Levin, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.22, 24712–24728 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Bakhshandeh, A

    A. Bakhshandeh, A. P. dos Santos, and Y . Levin, J. Phys. Chem. B124, 11762–11770 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    D. A. Gomez, D. Frydel, and Y . Levin, J. Chem. Phys.154, 074706 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    D. Chan, J. W. Perram, L. R. White, and T. W. Healy, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans.71, 1046 (1975)

    1975

  59. [67]

    D. C. Prieve and E. Ruckenstein, J. Theoret. Biol. 56, 205–228 (1976)

    1976

  60. [68]

    von Gr ¨unberg, J

    H. von Gr ¨unberg, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 219, 339–344 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    Pericet-Camara, G

    R. Pericet-Camara, G. Papastavrou, S. H. Behrens, and M. Borkovec, J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 19467–19475 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    G. S. Longo, M. O. d. l. Cruz, and I. Szleifer, Soft Matter 8, 1344–1354 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    Ad ˇzi´c and R

    N. Ad ˇzi´c and R. Podgornik, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 214901 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Markovich, D

    T. Markovich, D. Andelman, and R. Podgornik, EPL 106, 16002 (2014)

    2014

  65. [73]

    Diamant and D

    H. Diamant and D. Andelman, J. Phys. Chem. 100, 13732–13742 (1996)

    1996

  66. [74]

    J. C. Everts, S. Samin, and R. van Roij, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 098002 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Koopal, W

    L. Koopal, W. Tan, and M. Avena, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.280, 102138 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Muthukumar, J

    M. Muthukumar, J. Hua, and A. Kundagrami, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 084901 (2010)

    2010

  69. [77]

    P. M. Blanco, S. Madurga, F. Mas, and J. L. Garc´es, Macromolecules 52, 8017–8031 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Colla, A

    T. Colla, A. Bakhshandeh, and Y . Levin, J. Chem. Phys.161, 094103 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Samanta, A

    R. Samanta, A. Halabe, and V . Ganesan, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B124, 4421 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Samanta and V

    R. Samanta and V . Ganesan, Macromolecular Theory and Simulations30, 2000054 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Liu, and E. Thormann, Langmuir 34, 7264 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    I. Popa, G. Gillies, G. Papastavrou, and M. Borkovec, J. Phys. Chem. B 114, 3170 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    D. J. Wales and S. Ulker, Phys. Rev. B 74, 212101 (2006)

    2006

  76. [84]

    Baschnagel, K

    J. Baschnagel, K. Binder, P. Doruker, A. A. Gusev, O. Hahn, K. Kremer, W. L. Mattice, F. M¨uller-Plathe, M. Murat, W. Paul, S. Santos, U. W. Suter, and V . Tries, inViscoelasticity, Atomistic Models, Statistical Chemistry (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000) p. 41–156

    2000

  77. [85]

    S. C. Glotzer and W. Paul, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 32, 401–436 (2002)

    2002

  78. [86]

    Kroger, Phys

    M. Kroger, Phys. Rep. 390, 453–551 (2004)

    2004

  79. [87]

    Peter and K

    C. Peter and K. Kremer, Soft Matter 5, 4357 (2009)

    2009

  80. [88]

    Lovett and M

    R. Lovett and M. Baus, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 8596–8605 (1992)

    1992

  81. [89]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolintineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton, Comp. Phys. Comm.271, 108171 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.