Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37118441›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Chemistry2021

Water at charged interfaces.

Grazia Gonella, Ellen H G Backus, Yuki Nagata, Douwe J Bonthuis, Philip Loche, Alexander Schlaich, Roland R Netz, Angelika Kühnle, Ian T McCrum, Marc T M Koper and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

130 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Visible light leaves evaporation and interfacial structure of neat water unchanged at the air-water interface.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Photochemistry in an organic capsule: communication across a molecular wall.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Grazia GonellaMax Planck Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0470-4043
Ellen H G BackusMax Planck Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz, Germany.
Yuki NagataMax Planck Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz, Germany.
Douwe J BonthuisInstitute of Theoretical and Computational Physics, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-7745
Philip LochePhysics Department, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9112-0010
Alexander SchlaichPhysics Department, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-363X
Roland R NetzPhysics Department, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Angelika KühnleFaculty of Chemistry, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Ian T McCrumLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-032X
Marc T M KoperLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Martin WolfFritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd WinterFritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin, Germany.
Gerard MeijerFritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9669-8340
R Kramer CampenFritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin, Germany.
Mischa BonnMax Planck Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz, Germany. bonn@mpip-mainz.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-8453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ubiquity of aqueous solutions in contact with charged surfaces and the realization that the molecular-level details of water-surface interactions often determine interfacial functions and properties relevant in many natural processes have led to intensive research. Even so, many open questions remain regarding the molecular picture of the interfacial organization and preferential alignment of water molecules, as well as the structure of water molecules and ion distributions at different charged interfaces. While water, solutes and charge are present in each of these systems, the substrate can range from living tissues to metals. This diversity in substrates has led to different communities considering each of these types of aqueous interface. In this Review, by considering water in contact with metals, oxides and biomembranes, we show the essential similarity of these disparate systems. While in each case the classical mean-field theories can explain many macroscopic and mesoscopic observations, it soon becomes apparent that such theories fail to explain phenomena for which molecular properties are relevant, such as interfacial chemical conversion. We highlight the current knowledge and limitations in our understanding and end with a view towards future opportunities in the field.

Identifiers

PMID37118441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.