ArticleACS nano2021
Nanoconfined Fluids: Uniqueness of Water Compared to Other Liquids.
Article in ACS nano, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- When is nanoconfined water different from interfacial water?Faraday discussions · 2026Article
- Topology-Controlled Dipolar Ordering and Wetting Thermodynamics of Water in Hydrophobic Nanotubes.The journal of physical chemistry letters · 2026Article
- How reactive is water at the nanoscale and how to control it?Science advances · 2026Article
- Experimental observation of liquid-solid transition of nanoconfined water at ambient temperature.Nature materials · 2026Article
- Water Networks as Hydrophobic Recognition Motifs in Proteins.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026Article
- Spatial Extent and Heterogeneity of Water at Phospholipid Membranes Revealed by Molecular Dynamics.Sub-cellular biochemistry · 2026Review
- Confinement-induced acceleration of CONature communications · 2025Article
- Wettability Effect on Nanoconfined Water's Spontaneous Imbibition: Interfacial Molecule-Surface Action Mechanism Based on the Integration of Profession and Innovation.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Self-assembly and thermal conductivity of amphiphilic Janus nanoparticles under nanoslit confinement.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Topological Frustration Triggers Ultrafast Dynamics of Monolayer Water Confined in Graphene Slit Pores.Nano letters · 2024Article
- Spontaneous Dipole Reorientation in Confined Water and Its Effect on Wetting/Dewetting of Hydrophobic Nanopores.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- Harvesting Energy from Changes in Relative Humidity Using Nanoscale Water Capillary Bridges.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2023Article
- Hydrophobic Homopolymer's Coil-Globule Transition and Adsorption onto a Hydrophobic Surface under Different Conditions.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2023Article
- Size-Pore-Dependent Methanol Sequestration from Water-Methanol Mixtures by an Embedded Graphene Slit.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Classical Quantum Friction at Water-Carbon Interfaces.Nano letters · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanoconfinement can drastically change the behavior of liquids, puzzling us with counterintuitive properties. It is relevant in applications, including decontamination and crystallization control. However, it still lacks a systematic analysis for fluids with different bulk properties. Here we address this gap. We compare, by molecular dynamics simulations, three different liquids in a graphene slit pore: (1) A simple fluid, such as argon, described by a Lennard-Jones potential; (2) an anomalous fluid, such as a liquid metal, modeled with an isotropic core-softened potential; and (3) water, the prototypical anomalous liquid, with directional HBs. We study how the slit-pore width affects the structure, thermodynamics, and dynamics of the fluids. All the fluids show similar oscillating properties by changing the pore size. However, their free-energy minima are quite different in nature: (i) are energy-driven for the simple liquid; (ii) are entropy-driven for the isotropic core-softened potential; and (iii) have a changing nature for water. Indeed, for water, the monolayer minimum is entropy driven, at variance with the simple liquid, while the bilayer minimum is energy driven, at variance with the other anomalous liquid. Also, water has a large increase in diffusion for subnm slit pores, becoming faster than bulk. Instead, the other two fluids have diffusion oscillations much smaller than water, slowing down for decreasing slit-pore width. Our results, clarifying that water confined at the subnm scale behaves differently from other (simple or anomalous) fluids under similar confinement, are possibly relevant in nanopores applications, for example, in water purification from contaminants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.