ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Short-range electrostatic screening in ionic liquids as inferred by direct force measurements.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thermodynamic effects of solid electrolyte interphase formation from solvation and ionic association in water-in-salt electrolytes.Faraday discussions · 2026Article
- Reversible ionic aggregation kinetics in concentrated electrolytes.Chemical science · 2026Article
- Water doping sodium battery electrolyte controls nanostructure, interactions, and electrochemical properties.Science advances · 2026Article
- Classical Density Functional Treatment of Polydisperse Polarizable Clusters.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2026Article
- Short-range electrostatic screening in ionic liquids as inferred by direct force measurements.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous experimental reports of long-range interactions in ionic liquids (ILs) stand in contradiction with theoretical predictions and numerical simulations. To provide insights into the literature discrepancies regarding the experimental ranges of electrostatic screening, claimed with orders of magnitude larger, the interactions between pairs of mica and borosilicate surfaces confining ILs are investigated by two complementary advanced Surface Force Apparatuses. Regardless of differences in confinement geometries (crossed-cylinders, sphere-flat), radii of curvature (cm-mm), and measurement techniques (stepwise versus continuous approach), two ever present force regimes are evidenced. At small surface separations, oscillatory forces reflect IL structuration and layering, while outside this gap, the interaction is monotonic repulsive. In both regimes the spatial extent and force magnitude depend critically on motion conditions, as demonstrated by achieving velocities as low as 9 pm/s with equilibration times up to 90 s. At large separations, fast surface displacements generate long-range interactions (over tens of ion size) creating the illusion of anomalous underscreening, whereas increasingly slow ones shrink both magnitude and range of the repulsion with decay-lengths converging ultimately to a screening length consistent with Poisson-Boltzmann theory with finite ion sizes. The transition from apparent long-range to short-range screening unfolds over nearly two orders of magnitude in time, revealing slow relaxation dynamics reminiscent of aging phenomena. These findings definitely resolve a decade-old controversy on force measurements and reveal rich out-of-equilibrium dynamics. The hydrodynamic contribution to the net force is admittedly crucial to be reduced especially when relaxations span decades in time, but approaching thermodynamic equilibrium during measurements proves essential.
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.