ArticleFaraday discussions2026
When is nanoconfined water different from interfacial water?
Article in Faraday discussions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- More Converged, Less Accurate? Reassessing Standard Choices for Ab Initio Water Using Machine Learning Potentials.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2026Article
- How reactive is water at the nanoscale and how to control it?Science advances · 2026Article
- Sub-diffractional infrared absorption of two-dimensional water.Nature communications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Water behaves very differently at surfaces and under extreme confinement, but the boundary between these two regimes has remained unclear. Despite evidence that interfacial effects persist under sub-nanometre confinement, the molecular-scale behaviour and its evolution with slit width remain unclear. Here, we use machine-learning molecular dynamics with first-principles accuracy to probe water at graphene surfaces across slit widths ranging from the open-interface limit to angstrom-scale confinement. We find that water undergoes a sharp structural transition: when three or more water layers fit between the walls, the structure of the graphene-water interface is effectively indistinguishable from that in an open system, with density layering, hydrogen bonding, and orientational ordering retaining interfacial character. Below this threshold, however, angstrom-scale confinement strongly reorganises the liquid, producing enhanced ordering, a restructured hydrogen-bond network, and modified orientational motifs. These results establish a molecular-level picture that clearly separates interfacial behaviour from genuine nanoconfinement and provide guidance for predicting and controlling the structure of water in nanoscale solid-liquid environments.
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.