ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Zeta Potentials of Cotton Membranes in Acetonitrile Solutions
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Zeta Potentials of Cotton Membranes in Acetonitrile Solutions
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Yuki Uematsu*
    Yuki Uematsu
    Department of Physics and Information Technology, Kyushu Institute of Technolohy, Iizuka 820-8502, Japan
    PRESTO, Japan Science and Technology Agency, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Yuki Uematsu
  • Suguru Iwai
    Suguru Iwai
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
    More by Suguru Iwai
  • Mariko Konishi
    Mariko Konishi
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
  • Shinsuke Inagi
    Shinsuke Inagi
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
Open PDF

Langmuir

Cite this: Langmuir 2024, 40, 38, 20294–20301
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c02798
Published September 16, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Solid surfaces in contact with nonaqueous solvents play a key role in electrochemistry, analytical chemistry, and industrial chemistry. In this work, the zeta potentials of cotton membranes in acetonitrile solutions were determined by streaming potential and bulk conductivity measurements. By applying the Gouy–Chapman theory and the Langmuir adsorption isotherm of ions to the experimental data, the mechanism of the electrification at the cotton/acetonitrile interface is revealed for the first time to be solely due to ion adsorption on the surface, rather than proton dissociation at the interface. Different salts were found to produce opposite signs of the zeta potentials. This behavior can be attributed to ion solvation effects and the strong ordering of acetonitrile molecules at the interface. Furthermore, a trend of the electroviscous effect was observed, in agreement with the standard electrokinetic theory. These findings demonstrate that electrokinetics in acetonitrile, a polar aprotic solvent, can be treated in the same manner as in water.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The zeta potential of the solid/liquid interface is an important quantity because it characterizes the amount of charges at the interface. (1,2) The charged liquid interfaces are ubiquitous and have various applications such as the stabilization of colloidal dispersions (1) and electrokinetic devices. (3) However, in contrast to the solid/water interface, electrokinetics at the solid/organic liquids interface has received less attention until recently, (4−8) although it has been recognized as important for capillary electrophoresis, (9−14) nonaqueous colloidal dispersions, (15−28) and nonaqueous electrochemistry. (29−32) Organic solvents have unique and various physicochemical properties which the water does not have. The polarity of liquids is one of the most important properties of the solvent. (33) The polarity strength can be characterized by the dielectric constant of the liquids, and the water has ε = 78 at 25 °C and 1 atm. The water dielectric constant is relatively high compared to those of other organic liquids, except for some amides, and thus, the water is a good solvent for ions. Another important classification is protonation ability. (33) An amphiprotic solvent is one that can both donate and accept a proton. These solvents typically exhibit self-ionization through protonation and deprotonation as the water does. Because water is a polar amphiprotic solvent, the dissociable groups with a labile proton on surfaces in contact with water are deprotonated depending on the pH of water. The electrification mechanism of the water interface is well understood except for hydrophobic surfaces. (2) However, the electrification of solid surfaces in contact with polar aprotic solvents is less understood compared to water, because pKa of the dissociable groups in such solvent is either unknown or significantly different from that in water. (34,35) Furthermore, the pH of aprotic solvents cannot be controlled easily.
Let us summarize the previous work on the zeta potentials in organic liquids. The electrification of fused silica surfaces in contact with various organic liquids has been studied in the field of capillary electrophoresis. (10,12,13) These studies revealed that the electro-osmotic mobility of fused-silica capillaries has a linear correlation with the ratio of dielectric constant and viscosity ε/η for various polar aprotic solvents as well as amphiprotic solvents. (12) Thus, the silanol groups on the silica surface donate protons to aprotic solvents such as acetonitrile as well as amphiprotic solvents. Focusing on acetonitrile, the zeta potential of fused silica surfaces in contact with salt-free acetonitrile is about −200 mV, (10,12) which is much larger than that of the silica/salt-free water interface, about −100 mV. Here the zeta potential was calculated by the Helmholtz–Smoluchowski equation, ζ = −(η/εε0)μ where ζ is the zeta potential, η is the viscosity of the liquids, ε is the dielectric constant of the liquid, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, and μ is the electro-osmotic mobility. When salts are added to the acetonitrile, the magnitude of zeta potential decreases as a function of the salt concentration, (36) which qualitatively agrees with the Gouy–Chapman theory of fixing the surface charge density. (37,38) Thus, the electric double-layer structure of the polar aprotic solvent seems to be well described by the Gouy–Chapman theory as aqueous electric double layers. Inagi and co-workers, however, measured the streaming potential of cotton membranes with various salts in different polar aprotic solvents. (32) They found that the combination of salts and solvents can change the sign of the streaming potential. This implies that the electrification of the cotton membrane in polar aprotic solvents is different from that of the silica surface.
In this study, the zeta potential of cotton membranes in contact with acetonitrile is further investigated by the streaming potential measurements, bulk conductivity measurements, and the comparison with the standard electrokinetic theory. The theory includes the Gouy–Chapman theory, (37,38) the Langmuir adsorption isotherm of ions, (2,39) and the electrokinetics in a thin capillary. (40) The comparison between the experimental data and the theory reveals that the zeta potential of the cotton/acetonitrile interface is governed not by the dissociable groups on the membrane surface but by the surface adsorption of the ions dissociated from the added salts. Thus, the sign of the zeta potentials depend on the type of salts. Furthermore, a tendency of the electroviscous effect was found, in agreement with the theoretical prediction. These findings will be a key step to understanding the electrokinetics in organic liquids.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

Acetonitrile (Fujifilm Wako, super dehydrated, 99.8%) was used for the solvent. The dielectric constant of acetonitrile is ε = 35.9 at 298 K, (41) which is about half of that of water (ε = 78). The viscosity of acetonitrile is η = 0.344 mPa·s at 298 K, (41) which is again about half of that of water (η = 0.89 mPa·s). For the electrolytes, two different salts were selected to show different solvation properties: tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate (Bu4NPF6, Fujifilm Wako, 97%) and lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4, Tokyo Chemical Industry, >98%). The both anions, hexafluorophosphate ions (PF6) and tetrafluoroborate ions (BF4), were hydrophobic, whereas the cations have a different hydrophobicities: tetrabutylammonium ions (Bu4N+) is hydrophobic, while lithium ions (Li+) is hydrophilic. All salts and solvents were used without further purification. Medical cotton wool (Hakujuji, 11006) was used for the membrane by packing it tightly into a tube. Platinum (Pt) wires (Nilaco, ϕ0.6 mm) were used as the electrodes for the streaming potential measurements.

Methods

The methods to measure the streaming potential and pressure difference were the same as those described in the previous work. (32) The experimental system of the streaming potential measurements was illustrated in Figure 1. Two custom-made plastic chambers (polyether ether ketone, PEEK) were connected by a PEEK tube (inner diameter, d = 0.5 mm), in which approximately 6 mg of cotton wool was tightly packed with the length of L = 50 mm. An electrolyte solution was fed by a pump with a constant volume flux Q (>0), and the pressure difference Δp (>0) was measured. The voltage difference, i.e., streaming potential Δψ, across the cotton membrane was measured on a voltmeter (Sanwa, PC773) and recorded using software (Sanwa, PC Link 7) with Pt wire electrodes. The voltage difference is defined as the electrostatic potential at the upper side of the membrane relative to the lower side, which is the opposite of the definition used in the previous work. (32) Because the voltmeter ideally has infinite resistance, the condition of zero current I = 0 was satisfied. The voltage difference became nearly stationary 30 s after applying the flow, and the measured value was determined by averaging the stationary data over 90 s. The linearity of the streaming potential with respect to pressure was verified in the Supporting Information of the previous paper, (32) and thus we fixed the volume flux at Q = 0.5 mL/min. The bulk conductivities of the sample solutions were measured using a conductivity electrode (Horiba, 3552-10D), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations were conducted using a JEOL JSM 6610.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Illustration of the experimental setup. The volume flux of the sample solution, Q, is controlled by the pump, whereas the pressure difference Δp and the voltage difference Δψ are measured. The zero current condition I = 0 is satisfied because the electric circuit is open.

Results with Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Zeta Potential

First, the zeta potentials of the cotton/acetonitrile interface in the Bu4NPF6 solution are investigated. Figure 2a shows the streaming potential Δψ of the three different cotton membranes filled with acetonitrile as a function of the Bu4NPF6 concentration, denoted by c. The color represents the different cotton membranes #1 (red circle), #2 (blue triangle), and #3 (green square). Measurements in ascending order of the salt concentrations are shown with open symbols and solid lines, whereas measurements in descending order are shown with filled symbols and broken lines. The streaming potential shows minor difference between each membrane, and a slight hysteresis was observed in the ascending and descending order of salt concentrations. In contrast to the streaming potential, the induced pressure Δp, as shown in Figure 2b, significantly depends on both the individual membrane and the order of the concentrations. This aspect is discussed in the section on the electroviscous effect.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Streaming potential of cotton membranes filled with acetonitrile as a function of the Bu4NPF6 concentration when a solution flux of Q = 0.5 mL/min was applied. (b) Induced pressure difference as a function of the Bu4NPF6 concentration. The color represents the different cotton membranes #1 (red circle), #2 (blue triangle), and #3 (green square). Measurements in ascending order of the salt concentrations (→ in the label) are shown with open symbols and solid lines, whereas measurements in descending order (← in the label) are shown with filled symbols and broken lines.

In Figure 3, the bulk conductivity, σ, of the solution of Bu4NPF6 is plotted as a function of the concentration. The points are the experimental data, whereas the solid line corresponds to the linear equation predicted by the molar limiting conductivity of the cation λ+ = 61.3 S·cm2/mol (41) and of the anion λ = 103.5 S·cm2/mol. (41) Since the experimental data approximately follow the linear equation, the salts in acetonitrile behave as strong electrolytes.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Bulk conductivity of a Bu4NPF6 solution in acetonitrile as a function of concentration. The solid line represents the linear fit calculated by the molar limiting conductivity of the salts, 164.8 S·cm2/mol. (41) The broken line is a guide for the eye.

To convert these data into the zeta potential, (1,2)
Δψ=εε0ζησΔp
(1)
was used, where ε is the dielectric constant of the solution, ε0 is the electric permittivity of vacuum, ζ is the zeta potential of the cotton membrane, and η is the solution viscosity. Figure 4a shows the zeta potential derived from eq 1. The obtained zeta potential is negative, and its magnitude increases with salt concentration up to 3 mM. For comparison, Figure 4b shows the zeta potentials of the silica/acetonitrile interface as a function of salt concentration from previous work. (36) In contrast, the zeta potential of the silica/acetonitrile interface decreases in magnitude with increasing salt concentration. (36) In that study, the electrolyte used was 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoroacetate. Because the silica surface is relatively acidic even in acetonitrile, the silanol groups donate the protons to the acetonitrile. (10,12,36) To validate this electrification mechanism, the salinity dependence of the zeta potential is calculated using the Grahame equation (1,2) with a constant surface charge density, as given by
σ0=2kBTeεε0κsinheζ2kBT
(2)
where σ0 is the surface charge density, kB is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature, and κ–1 = (2e2c/εε0kBT)−1/2 is the Debye length. The black solid line in Figure 4b is calculated using eq 2 with ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, and σ0 = −0.08 e/nm2, which agrees with the experimental data. (36) Thus, the silica surface appears to be fully dissociated in that experiment, even though the pKa of the silanol group in water is about 7.5. (42,43)

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Zeta potentials of the cotton/acetonitrile interface as a function of Bu4NPF6 concentration. The points are derived from experimental data using eq 1 whereas the lines represent theoretical fits based on eqs 2 and 3 with α = −1.2 and Γ0 as denoted in the figure. Other parameters are z* = 0.5 nm, ε = 35.9, and T = 298 K. Due to the lack of experimental bulk conductivity data at low salinity, the linear slope from Figure 3 was used to calculate the zeta potential for the membrane #3. (b) Zeta potentials of the silica/acetonitrile interface as a function of salt concentration. (36) The original data are provided in Figure 2a of the ref (36). as the electro-osmotic mobility. Zeta potentials were calculated using ζ = −(η/εε0)μ, where η/εε0 = 1.08 × 106 s·V2/m2. The solid line is calculated using eq 2 with ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, and σ0 = −0.08 e/nm2.

On the contrary, the salinity dependence of the zeta potential of the cotton/acetonitrile interface differs from that of the silica/acetonitrile interface. The primary component of cotton is cellulose, a polysaccharide consisting of d-glucose units. Since the pKa of the hydroxy group in cellulose in water is approximately 12, (44,45) these groups are considered weak acids. Consequently, in acetonitrile solutions, the hydroxy groups of cellulose does not dissociate protons, although they can act as donors for hydrogen bonds with the nitrogen atoms of acetonitrile molecules. A hypothesis is that the surface charge density of the cotton membrane originates from ion adsorption. To test this hypothesis, anion adsorption is modeled using the Langmuir adsorption isotherm, (2,39) given by
σ0=eΓ0(z*/Γ0)ceeζ/kBTα1+(z*/Γ0)ceeζ/kBTα
(3)
where z* is the thickness of the adsorption layer, α is the adsorption energy of the anion in the unit of kBT, and Γ0 is the adsorption site density per area. The black solid and broken lines in Figure 4a represent the fitting results calculated using eqs 2 and 3. The thickness of the adsorption layer was set to z* = 0.5 nm, consistent with previous works. (2,46) The fit parameters are α and Γ0. The value of α = −1.2 was used for all the membranes, whereas Γ0 = 0.007/nm2 (solid line) was used for membrane #1 and 0.003/nm2 (broken line) for membranes #2 and #3. The theoretical calculation well captures the experimental zeta potential of the cotton/acetonitrile interface, suggesting that the surface charge density of the cotton membrane is due to ion adsorption. However, in Figure 4a, there is a small discrepancy between the experimental results and the theoretical predictions at low salt concentrations. The experimental data exhibit a linear relationship with c whereas the theory predicts a dependence of c.
Next, we discuss the zeta potentials associated with LiBF4 salts. Lithium salts are known to change the sign of the surface charge from negative to positive at both silica/acetonitrile interfaces (47−50) and cotton/acetonitrile interfaces. (32) Figure 5a shows the zeta potential of a cotton membrane filled with a LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile. In contrast to the Bu4NPF6 solution, the zeta potential of the LiBF4 solution is positive, suggesting that lithium ions adsorb to the cotton interface. Figure 5b–d are the streaming potential, (32) the induced pressure difference, and the bulk conductivity of the LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile, respectively, which were used to calculate the zeta potentials. The bulk conductivity demonstrate a linear dependence on concentration, with the limiting molar conductivity of LiBF4 determined to be 165.5 S·cm2/mol. The positive charging observed with LiBF4 is consistent with recent studies on the rectification of ionic current through conical nanopores, which found that alkali metal salts in polar aprotic solvents induce positive surface charges on various nanopore surfaces. (6,7,47,48,51) The adsorption of alkali metal cations in polar aprotic solvents was attributed to the formation of strongly solvated cations (48,52,53) and the strong ordering of acetonitrile molecules at the interface. (49,50,54) Based on these studies, (49,50) acetonitrile molecules form a lipid-bilayer-like structure at the cotton interface similar to that at the silica interface, as cellulose has hydroxy groups that act as donors of hydrogen bonds. In the first layer of this strongly ordered structure, the cyano groups accept hydrogen bonds from the surface hydroxy groups, while in the second layer, the cyano groups point in the opposite direction. Our results suggest that interfacial Bu4N+ are well solvated between the two layers of methyl groups of acetonitrile, while PF6 ions segregate between the cotton interface and the first layer of interfacial acetonitrile molecules. In contrast, BF4 ions are well solvated between the hydrophobic methyl groups in the first and second layers of interfacial acetonitrile molecules, whereas Li+ ions adsorb to the cotton interface.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Zeta potential of a cotton membrane filled with a LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile, calculated using the data shown in b–d, and eq 1. (b) Streaming potential of the cotton membrane with a flux of Q = 0.5 mL/min, data previously published. (32) (c) Induced pressure difference across the cotton membrane. (d) Bulk conductivity of the LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile. The solid line represents the linear fit of the experimental data, with a molar limiting conductivity of 165.5 S·cm2/mol. The broken lines in a–c are guides for the eye.

To finalize this section, we discuss the relationship between the zeta potential of cotton/water interfaces and that of cotton/acetonitrile interfaces. The zeta potential of cotton/water interfaces is typically negative in pH-neutral solutions. (55−57) However, the origin of this charge at the cotton/water interface remains unclear. The isoelectric point of cotton is around pH = 3, suggesting that the electrification of the cotton/water interface is governed by similar mechanisms as those for hydrophobic surfaces, (58) despite cotton being a hydrophilic fiber. There is ongoing debate regarding whether hydroxide ions adsorb to the interface or if a small amount of impurity at the interface dissociates protons. (58) The zeta potentials of these surfaces in salt-free water remain negative and finite, similar to those of silica surface. This contrasts with the result shown in Figure 4a, where the zeta potential of the cotton/acetonitrile interface approaches zero in the salt-free limit. This observation does not contradict the findings, as the surface adsorption of hydroxide ions is negligible in polar aprotic solvents, and impurities at the interface do not dissociate protons.

Electroviscous Effect

So far, the discussion has been based on the assumption that the Debye length is much smaller than the pore size of the membrane. We will now examine this assumption. The analytic equations for the electrokinetic coefficients of a bundle of thin capillaries with radius R, length L, and zeta potential ζ are given by, (40)
L11=NπR48ηL
(4)
L12=L21=Nεε0ζηπR2L(12F(κR)κR)
(5)
L22=NσπR2L[1+β(2F(κR)κR+F(κR)21)]
(6)
where N is the numbers of the capillaries, the flux and the electric current are defined by Q = L11Δp + L12Δψ and I = L21Δp + L22Δψ. Additionally, β = (ηκ2/σ)·(εε0ζ/η)2 = β*(eζ/kBT)2, and F(x) is defined by F(x) = I1(x)/I0(x) where I0(x) and I1(x) are the modified Bessel functions of the first kind. Note that these equations are derived under the linear approximation of eζ/kBT in the Poisson–Boltzmann equation.
The cotton membrane used in the experiments can be modeled as a bundle of thin capillaries. To estimate the pore size R, we use eqs 46. The relation between Q and Δp under the condition of I = 0 is given by
Q=L11(1L12L21L11L22)Δp
(7)
In the limit of large salt concentration, Qp approaches L11. In the experiments, Δp = 13 MPa with Q = 0.5 mL/min in this limit as shown in Figure 2b, and thus L11 = 1.3 × 10–6 mm3/(Pa·s) is obtained. The volume fraction of the cotton fiber in the membrane was 0.39, calculated using the mass density of cotton 1.55 g/cm3 (59) and the membrane volume πd2L/4 = 9.8 mm3. Assuming the area fraction of the membrane cross-section is the same as the volume fraction, we obtained NπR2 = 0.61πd2/4 = 0.12 mm2. Thus, the pore size is calculated as R=8ηLL11/NπR2=1.2μm. Figure 6 shows the SEM images of the cotton membrane. The thickness of the cotton fibers is about 10 μm, and they are packed tightly. The estimated pore size of 1.2 μm is realistic and consistent with the SEM images.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy images of the cotton membrane. (a) The scale bar is 100 μm. (b) The scale bar is 50 μm.

When eqs 46 are considered, the streaming potential as a function of κR and ζ is given by
ΔψΔp=εε0ζησ12F(κR)κR1+β*(eζkBT)2(2F(κR)κR+F(κR)21)
(8)
instead of eq 1, where β* = 0.28 for Bu4NPF6 in acetonitrile, using the limiting molar conductivity. Eq 8 can be analytically solved for ζ using the quadratic formula. However, when eq 8 is used to convert the experimental streaming potential into the zeta potential, no significant difference is observed compared to using eq 1 because κR > 1 is satisfied with R = 1.2 μm where κ–1 = 205 nm for c = 10–3 mM.
Next, the electroviscous effect is examined. This effect describes the increase in apparent viscosity when the capillary size is on the same order as the Debye length. (40,60) Using eq 7 and the pressure difference at large salt concentrations, Δp0 = Q/L11, the electroviscous effect can be represented by
ΔpΔp0=[18β(κR)2(12F(κR)κR)21+β(2F(κR)κR+F(κR)21)]1
(9)
where the maximum of eq 9 with fixed ζ occurs at approximately κR = 2.2. (40,60) To theoretically calculate the zeta potential without the assumption of κR ≫ 1, eq 2 should be replaced with the one for cylindrical geometry. Although no analytical equation is known for arbitrary ζ, (61,62) the linear approximation with ζ yields
σ0=εε0κζF(κR)
(10)
Figure 7 shows the normalized pressure difference as a function of Bu4NPF6 concentrations. The solid lines represent theoretical calculations based on eqs 3, 9, and 10 with the parameters α = −1.2, z* = 0.5 nm, Γ0 = 0.003/nm2, ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, η = 0.344 mPa·s, λ+ = 61.3 S·cm2/mol, and λ = 103.5 S·cm2/mol. The colors of the solid lines correspond to different pore radii as R = 1 μm (green), 2 μm (blue), and 8 μm (red). The lines exhibit a maximum at a concentration of approximately 10–3 mM where the Debye length is κ–1 = 205 nm. The maximum value decreases with increasing R. The maximum at a concentration where κR > 2.2 results from the combined effects of double-layer overlap and concentration-dependent zeta potentials. The points represent experimental data for Bu4NPF6 solutions, where Δp0 is used for the pressure difference at c = 5 mM for membranes #1 and #2 and at 1 mM for membrane #3. The experimental data in the ascending order (open symbol) increase with concentration, which does not agree with the theoretical predictions. However, the descending order data (filled symbol) decrease with concentration, matching the theoretical predictions for R = 1 μm (#3, green) and R = 2 μm (#2, blue). This is consistent with the estimated R = 1.2 μm and the SEM images.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Normalized pressure difference as a function of Bu4NPF6 concentration. Theoretical curves are calculated using eqs 3, 8, and 9 with the parameters α = −1.2, z* = 0.5 nm, Γ0 = 0.003/nm2, ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, η = 0.344 mPa·s, λ+ = 61.3 S·cm2/mol, and λ = 103.5 S·cm2/mol. Experimental data points are for Bu4NPF6 solutions where Δp0 is used for the pressure difference at c = 5 mM for membranes #1 and #2 and at 1 mM for membrane #3.

The reason for the no electroviscous effect in the data of the ascending order is not clear. We consider that the cotton fibers were not rigid, and during the flow-forcing experiment, they deformed and blocked some pores. In the experiments, the measurements in the ascending order were conducted first, and a few days later, those in the descending order were done. Thus, flow-forcing and aging made the membrane mechanically stable. The zeta potential was not affected by this aging because it is independent of the pore size as long as κR ≫ 1 is satisfied. This is probably why the induced pressure differences plotted in Figure 2b are scattered, whereas the streaming potentials in Figure 2a are not.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The zeta potential of the cotton membrane in the acetonitrile solution was experimentally determined using streaming potential and bulk conductivity measurements. Fitting the Langmuir adsorption isotherm of ions to the experimental zeta potentials reveals that the zeta potential of the cotton membrane is induced not by the dissociation of the proton on the surface but by ion adsorption. This fact contrasts with silica/acetonitrile interfaces because acetonitrile can accept protons dissociated from the silanol groups on the silica surface, as reported previously. (36) The fitted adsorption energy of anions was −1.2 in the unit of thermal energy for Bu4NPF6 solutions in acetonitrile. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that LiBF4 electrifies the cotton/acetonitrile interface positively, which agrees with the recent works on nanopore rectification (6,7,47,48,51) and the strong ordering of acetonitrile molecules at the interface. (49,50)
In addition to the analysis of the zeta potential, the salt-concentration dependence of the induced pressure difference during the flow-forcing measurements was analyzed in terms of the electroviscous effect. Some experimental data exhibit an enhancement of the pressure difference, i.e., the apparent viscosity, at low salt concentrations, which agrees with the theoretical prediction for the micrometer-sized pore size.
These experimental results and the analysis with the standard electrokinetic theory suggest that electrokinetics in acetonitrile, a polar aprotic solvent, can be treated similarly to electrokinetics in water. However, the electrification mechanisms and the ion-specific effect in nonaqueous solvents could differ from those in water. We hope that this work will inspire further studies in the field of electrokinetics in organic liquids.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Yuki Uematsu - Department of Physics and Information Technology, Kyushu Institute of Technolohy, Iizuka 820-8502, JapanPRESTO, Japan Science and Technology Agency, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4970-4696 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Suguru Iwai - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
    • Mariko Konishi - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
    • Shinsuke Inagi - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9867-1210
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by JST PRESTO Grant No. JPMJPR21O2 and JST FOREST Grant No. JPMJFR211G.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 62 other publications.

  1. 1
    Russel, W. B.; Saville, D. A.; Schowalter, W. R. Colloidal Dispersions; Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  2. 2
    Uematsu, Y. Electrification of water interface. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2021, 33, 423001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-648X/ac15d5
  3. 3
    Siria, A.; Poncharal, P.; Biance, A.-L.; Fulcrand, R.; Blase, X.; Purcell, S. T.; Bocquet, L. Giant osmotic energy conversion measured in a single transmembrane boron nitride nanotube. Nature 2013, 494, 455458,  DOI: 10.1038/nature11876
  4. 4
    Gortner, R. A. Electrokinetics XXIII. Electrokinetics as a tool for the study of the molecular structure of organic compounds. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1940, 35, 63,  DOI: 10.1039/TF9403500063
  5. 5
    Westermann-Clark, G.; Christoforou, C. Note on nonaqueous electrokinetic transport in charged porous media. J. Membr. Sci. 1984, 20, 325338,  DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(00)82009-8
  6. 6
    Lucas, R. A.; Lin, C.-Y.; Siwy, Z. S. Electrokinetic Phenomena in Organic Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 61236131,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b04969
  7. 7
    Russell, W. S.; Siwy, Z. Enhanced electro-osmosis in propylene carbonate salt solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 2021, 154, 134707,  DOI: 10.1063/5.0044402
  8. 8
    Suzuki, Y.; Mizuhata, M. Predictive Zeta Potential Measurement Method Applicable to Nonaqueous Solvents in High-concentration Dispersion Systems for the System of LiClO4–Propylene Carbonate Solution and LiCoO2 Powder Sheet. Electrochemistry 2022, 90, 103001103001,  DOI: 10.5796/electrochemistry.22-66050
  9. 9
    Schwer, C.; Kenndler, E. Electrophoresis in fused-silica capillaries: the influence of organic solvents on the electroosmotic velocity and the zeta potential. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 18011807,  DOI: 10.1021/ac00017a026
  10. 10
    Wright, P. B.; Lister, A. S.; Dorsey, J. G. Behavior and Use of Nonaqueous Media without Supporting Electrolyte in Capillary Electrophoresis and Capillary Electrochromatography. Anal. Chem. 1997, 69, 32513259,  DOI: 10.1021/ac9613186
  11. 11
    Tjo̷rnelund, J.; Hansen, S. H. The effect of water on separations in non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis systems. Chromatographia 1997, 44, 59,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02466508
  12. 12
    Valkó, I. E.; Sirén, H.; Riekkola, M.-L. Characteristics of electroosmotic flow in capillary electrophoresis in water and in organic solvents without added ionic species. J. Microcolumn Sep. 1999, 11, 199208,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-667X(1999)11:3<199::AID-MCS5>3.0.CO;2-D
  13. 13
    Riekkola, M.-L.; Jussila, M.; Porras, S. P.; Valkó, I. E. Non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 2000, 892, 155170,  DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00108-4
  14. 14
    Geiser, L.; Mirgaldi, M.; Veuthey, J.-L. Determination of electroosmotic flow in nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1068, 7581,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.02.001
  15. 15
    Kitahara, A. Zeta potential in nonaqueous media and its effect on dispersion stability. Prog. Org. Coat. 1973, 2, 8198,  DOI: 10.1016/0300-9440(73)80001-3
  16. 16
    Fowkes, F. Dispersions of ceramic powders in organic media. Adv. Ceram.: Ceram. Powder Sci. 1987, 21, 411421
  17. 17
    Van Der Hoeven, P.; Lyklema, J. Electrostatic stabilization in non-aqueous media. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1992, 42, 205277,  DOI: 10.1016/0001-8686(92)80024-R
  18. 18
    Siffert, B.; Jada, A.; Eleli-Letsango, J. Stability Calculations of TiO2 Nonaqueous Suspensions: Thickness of the Electrical Double Layer. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1994, 167, 281286,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1994.1362
  19. 19
    Hughes, D. F. K.; Robb, I. D.; Dowding, P. J. Stability of Copper Phthalocyanine Dispersions in Organic Media. Langmuir 1999, 15, 52275231,  DOI: 10.1021/la981389v
  20. 20
    Kosmulski, M. Zeta potentials in nonaqueous media: how to measure and control them. Colloids Surf., A 1999, 159, 277281,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00273-3
  21. 21
    Kosmulski, M.; Eriksson, P.; Brancewicz, C.; Rosenholm, J. B. Zeta potentials of monodispersed, spherical silica particles in mixed solvents as a function of cesium chloride concentration. Colloids Surf., A 2000, 162, 3748,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00027-8
  22. 22
    Zhukov, A. Integrated investigations of the electrosurface properties of nonaqueous disperse and capillary systems. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2007, 134–135, 330345,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2007.04.014
  23. 23
    Hamieh, T.; Toufaily, J.; Alloul, H. Physicochemical Properties of the Dispersion of Titanium Dioxide in Organic Media by Using Zetametry Technique. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2008, 29, 11811188,  DOI: 10.1080/01932690701856626
  24. 24
    Kosmulski, M.; Prochniak, P.; Rosenholm, J. B. Control of the Zeta Potential in Semiconcentrated Dispersions of Titania in Polar Organic Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 1280612810,  DOI: 10.1021/jp903845e
  25. 25
    Cihlar, J.; Drdlik, D.; Cihlarova, Z.; Hadraba, H. Effect of acids and bases on electrophoretic deposition of alumina and zirconia particles in 2-propanol. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2013, 33, 18851892,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.02.017
  26. 26
    Lyklema, J. Principles of interactions in non-aqueous electrolyte solutions. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 18, 116128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2013.02.002
  27. 27
    Mazzini, V.; Craig, V. S. Specific-ion effects in non-aqueous systems. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 23, 8293,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2016.06.009
  28. 28
    Rosenholm, J. B. Evaluation of particle charging in non-aqueous suspensions. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 259, 2143,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2018.06.004
  29. 29
    Barthel, J.; Gores, H.-J.; Schmeer, G.; Wachter, R. Topics in Current Chemistry; Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 1983; pp 33144.
  30. 30
    Izutsu, K. Electrochemistry in Nonaqueous Solutions; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2002.
  31. 31
    Iwasaki, H.; Kimura, Y.; Uematsu, Y. Ubiquitous Preferential Water Adsorption to Electrodes in Water/1-Propanol Mixtures Detected by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 2023, 127, 2338223389,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c05320
  32. 32
    Iwai, S.; Suzuki, T.; Sakagami, H.; Miyamoto, K.; Chen, Z.; Konishi, M.; Villani, E.; Shida, N.; Tomita, I.; Inagi, S. Electropolymerization without an electric power supply. Commun. Chem. 2022, 5, 66,  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-022-00682-8
  33. 33
    Kolthoff, I. M. Acid-base equilibriums in dipolar aprotic solvents. Anal. Chem. 1974, 46, 19922003,  DOI: 10.1021/ac60349a005
  34. 34
    Rossini, E.; Knapp, E. Proton solvation in protic and aprotic solvents. J. Comput. Chem. 2016, 37, 10821091,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24297
  35. 35
    Rossini, E.; Bochevarov, A. D.; Knapp, E. W. Empirical Conversion of pKa Values between Different Solvents and Interpretation of the Parameters: Application to Water, Acetonitrile, Dimethyl Sulfoxide, and Methanol. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 16531662,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b01895
  36. 36
    Borissova, M.; Gorbatšova, J.; Ebber, A.; Kaljurand, M.; Koel, M.; Vaher, M. Nonaqueous CE using contactless conductivity detection and ionic liquids as BGEs in ACN. Electrophoresis 2007, 28, 36003605,  DOI: 10.1002/elps.200700067
  37. 37
    Gouy, M. Sur la constitution de la charge électrique à la surface d’un électrolyte. J. Phys. Theor. Appl. 1910, 9, 457468,  DOI: 10.1051/jphystap:019100090045700
  38. 38
    Chapman, D. L. A contribution to the theory of electrocapillarity. London Edinb. Philos. Mag. 1913, 25, 475481,  DOI: 10.1080/14786440408634187
  39. 39
    Langmuir, I. THE ADSORPTION OF GASES ON PLANE SURFACES OF GLASS, MICA AND PLATINUM. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1918, 40, 13611403,  DOI: 10.1021/ja02242a004
  40. 40
    Rice, C. L.; Whitehead, R. Electrokinetic Flow in a Narrow Cylindrical Capillary. J. Phys. Chem. 1965, 69, 40174024,  DOI: 10.1021/j100895a062
  41. 41
    Goldfarb, D. L.; Longinotti, M. P.; Corti, H. R. Electrical Conductances of Tetrabutylammonium and Decamethylferrocenium Hexafluorophosphate in Organic Solvents. J. Solution Chem. 2001, 30, 307322,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1010334021934
  42. 42
    Hiemstra, T.; De Wit, J.; Van Riemsdijk, W. Multisite proton adsorption modeling at the solid/solution interface of (hydr)oxides: A new approach. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1989, 133, 105117,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(89)90285-3
  43. 43
    Behrens, S. H.; Grier, D. G. The charge of glass and silica surfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 115, 67166721,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1404988
  44. 44
    Bialik, E.; Stenqvist, B.; Fang, Y.; Östlund, Å.; Furó, I.; Lindman, B.; Lund, M.; Bernin, D. Ionization of Cellobiose in Aqueous Alkali and the Mechanism of Cellulose Dissolution. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 50445048,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b02346
  45. 45
    Malerz, S.; Mudryk, K.; Tomaník, L.; Stemer, D.; Hergenhahn, U.; Buttersack, T.; Trinter, F.; Seidel, R.; Quevedo, W.; Goy, C.; Wilkinson, I.; Thürmer, S.; Slavíček, P.; Winter, B. Following in Emil Fischer’s Footsteps: A Site-Selective Probe of Glucose Acid–Base Chemistry. J. Phys. Chem. A 2021, 125, 68816892,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c04695
  46. 46
    Uematsu, Y.; Bonthuis, D. J.; Netz, R. R. Charged Surface-Active Impurities at Nanomolar Concentration Induce Jones–Ray Effect. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 189193,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b02960
  47. 47
    Plett, T.; Shi, W.; Zeng, Y.; Mann, W.; Vlassiouk, I.; Baker, L. A.; Siwy, Z. S. Rectification of nanopores in aprotic solvents–transport properties of nanopores with surface dipoles. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 1908019091,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR06340J
  48. 48
    Nasir, S.; Ali, M.; Ramirez, P.; Froehlich, K.; Cervera, J.; Mafe, S.; Ensinger, W. Ionic conduction through single-pore and multipore polymer membranes in aprotic organic electrolytes. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 635, 119505  DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119505
  49. 49
    Polster, J. W.; Souna, A. J.; Motevaselian, M. H.; Lucas, R. A.; Tran, J. D.; Siwy, Z. S.; Aluru, N. R.; Fourkas, J. T. The electrical-double layer revisited. Nat. Sci. 2022, 2, e20210099  DOI: 10.1002/ntls.20210099
  50. 50
    Souna, A. J.; Motevaselian, M. H.; Polster, J. W.; Tran, J. D.; Siwy, Z. S.; Aluru, N. R.; Fourkas, J. T. Beyond the electrical double layer model: ion-dependent effects in nanoscale solvent organization. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2024, 26, 67266735,  DOI: 10.1039/D3CP05712G
  51. 51
    Yin, X.; Zhang, S.; Dong, Y.; Liu, S.; Gu, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Shao, Y. Ionic Current Rectification in Organic Solutions with Quartz Nanopipettes. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 90709077,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02337
  52. 52
    Spångberg, D.; Hermansson, K. The solvation of Li+ and Na+ in acetonitrile from ab initio-derived many-body ion–solvent potentials. Chem. Phys. 2004, 300, 165176,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphys.2004.01.011
  53. 53
    Amara, S.; Toulc’Hoat, J.; Timperman, L.; Biller, A.; Galiano, H.; Marcel, C.; Ledigabel, M.; Anouti, M. Comparative Study of Alkali-Cation-Based (Li+, Na+, K+) Electrolytes in Acetonitrile and Alkylcarbonates. ChemPhysChem 2019, 20, 581594,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201801064
  54. 54
    Ding, F.; Hu, Z.; Zhong, Q.; Manfred, K.; Gattass, R. R.; Brindza, M. R.; Fourkas, J. T.; Walker, R. A.; Weeks, J. D. Interfacial Organization of Acetonitrile: Simulation and Experiment. J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 1765117659,  DOI: 10.1021/jp104597z
  55. 55
    Pusić, T.; Grancarić, A. M.; Soljaçić, I.; Ribitsch, V. The effect of mercerisation on the electrokinetic potential of cotton. Color. Technol. 1999, 115, 121124,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-4408.1999.tb00308.x
  56. 56
    Sadeghi-Kiakhani, M.; Safapour, S. Salt-free reactive dyeing of the cotton fabric modified with chitosan-poly(propylene imine) dendrimer hybrid. Fibers and Polym. 2015, 16, 10751081,  DOI: 10.1007/s12221-015-1075-9
  57. 57
    Grancarić, A. M.; Tarbuk, A.; Hadžić, S.; Simončič, B. From Raw to Finished Cotton─Characterization by Interface Phenomena. Autex Res. J. 2023, 23, 184192,  DOI: 10.2478/aut-2021-0055
  58. 58
    Uematsu, Y.; Bonthuis, D. J.; Netz, R. R. Nanomolar Surface-Active Charged Impurities Account for the Zeta Potential of Hydrophobic Surfaces. Langmuir 2020, 36, 36453658,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03795
  59. 59
    Sghaier, S.; Zbidi, F.; Zidi, M. Characterization of Doum Palm Fibers After Chemical Treatment. Text. Res. J. 2009, 79, 11081114,  DOI: 10.1177/0040517508101623
  60. 60
    Brož, Z.; Epstein, N. Electrokinetic flow through porous media composed of fine cylindrical capillaries. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1976, 56, 605612,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(76)90127-2
  61. 61
    Levine, S.; Marriott, J.; Neale, G.; Epstein, N. Theory of electrokinetic flow in fine cylindrical capillaries at high zeta-potentials. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1975, 52, 136149,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(75)90310-0
  62. 62
    Uematsu, Y.; Netz, R. R.; Bocquet, L.; Bonthuis, D. J. Crossover of the Power-Law Exponent for Carbon Nanotube Conductivity as a Function of Salinity. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 29922997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b01975

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Langmuir

Cite this: Langmuir 2024, 40, 38, 20294–20301
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c02798
Published September 16, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

600

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Illustration of the experimental setup. The volume flux of the sample solution, Q, is controlled by the pump, whereas the pressure difference Δp and the voltage difference Δψ are measured. The zero current condition I = 0 is satisfied because the electric circuit is open.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) Streaming potential of cotton membranes filled with acetonitrile as a function of the Bu4NPF6 concentration when a solution flux of Q = 0.5 mL/min was applied. (b) Induced pressure difference as a function of the Bu4NPF6 concentration. The color represents the different cotton membranes #1 (red circle), #2 (blue triangle), and #3 (green square). Measurements in ascending order of the salt concentrations (→ in the label) are shown with open symbols and solid lines, whereas measurements in descending order (← in the label) are shown with filled symbols and broken lines.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Bulk conductivity of a Bu4NPF6 solution in acetonitrile as a function of concentration. The solid line represents the linear fit calculated by the molar limiting conductivity of the salts, 164.8 S·cm2/mol. (41) The broken line is a guide for the eye.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. (a) Zeta potentials of the cotton/acetonitrile interface as a function of Bu4NPF6 concentration. The points are derived from experimental data using eq 1 whereas the lines represent theoretical fits based on eqs 2 and 3 with α = −1.2 and Γ0 as denoted in the figure. Other parameters are z* = 0.5 nm, ε = 35.9, and T = 298 K. Due to the lack of experimental bulk conductivity data at low salinity, the linear slope from Figure 3 was used to calculate the zeta potential for the membrane #3. (b) Zeta potentials of the silica/acetonitrile interface as a function of salt concentration. (36) The original data are provided in Figure 2a of the ref (36). as the electro-osmotic mobility. Zeta potentials were calculated using ζ = −(η/εε0)μ, where η/εε0 = 1.08 × 106 s·V2/m2. The solid line is calculated using eq 2 with ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, and σ0 = −0.08 e/nm2.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (a) Zeta potential of a cotton membrane filled with a LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile, calculated using the data shown in b–d, and eq 1. (b) Streaming potential of the cotton membrane with a flux of Q = 0.5 mL/min, data previously published. (32) (c) Induced pressure difference across the cotton membrane. (d) Bulk conductivity of the LiBF4 solution in acetonitrile. The solid line represents the linear fit of the experimental data, with a molar limiting conductivity of 165.5 S·cm2/mol. The broken lines in a–c are guides for the eye.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy images of the cotton membrane. (a) The scale bar is 100 μm. (b) The scale bar is 50 μm.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Normalized pressure difference as a function of Bu4NPF6 concentration. Theoretical curves are calculated using eqs 3, 8, and 9 with the parameters α = −1.2, z* = 0.5 nm, Γ0 = 0.003/nm2, ε = 35.9, T = 298 K, η = 0.344 mPa·s, λ+ = 61.3 S·cm2/mol, and λ = 103.5 S·cm2/mol. Experimental data points are for Bu4NPF6 solutions where Δp0 is used for the pressure difference at c = 5 mM for membranes #1 and #2 and at 1 mM for membrane #3.

  • References


    This article references 62 other publications.

    1. 1
      Russel, W. B.; Saville, D. A.; Schowalter, W. R. Colloidal Dispersions; Cambridge University Press, 1989.
    2. 2
      Uematsu, Y. Electrification of water interface. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2021, 33, 423001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-648X/ac15d5
    3. 3
      Siria, A.; Poncharal, P.; Biance, A.-L.; Fulcrand, R.; Blase, X.; Purcell, S. T.; Bocquet, L. Giant osmotic energy conversion measured in a single transmembrane boron nitride nanotube. Nature 2013, 494, 455458,  DOI: 10.1038/nature11876
    4. 4
      Gortner, R. A. Electrokinetics XXIII. Electrokinetics as a tool for the study of the molecular structure of organic compounds. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1940, 35, 63,  DOI: 10.1039/TF9403500063
    5. 5
      Westermann-Clark, G.; Christoforou, C. Note on nonaqueous electrokinetic transport in charged porous media. J. Membr. Sci. 1984, 20, 325338,  DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(00)82009-8
    6. 6
      Lucas, R. A.; Lin, C.-Y.; Siwy, Z. S. Electrokinetic Phenomena in Organic Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. B 2019, 123, 61236131,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b04969
    7. 7
      Russell, W. S.; Siwy, Z. Enhanced electro-osmosis in propylene carbonate salt solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 2021, 154, 134707,  DOI: 10.1063/5.0044402
    8. 8
      Suzuki, Y.; Mizuhata, M. Predictive Zeta Potential Measurement Method Applicable to Nonaqueous Solvents in High-concentration Dispersion Systems for the System of LiClO4–Propylene Carbonate Solution and LiCoO2 Powder Sheet. Electrochemistry 2022, 90, 103001103001,  DOI: 10.5796/electrochemistry.22-66050
    9. 9
      Schwer, C.; Kenndler, E. Electrophoresis in fused-silica capillaries: the influence of organic solvents on the electroosmotic velocity and the zeta potential. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 18011807,  DOI: 10.1021/ac00017a026
    10. 10
      Wright, P. B.; Lister, A. S.; Dorsey, J. G. Behavior and Use of Nonaqueous Media without Supporting Electrolyte in Capillary Electrophoresis and Capillary Electrochromatography. Anal. Chem. 1997, 69, 32513259,  DOI: 10.1021/ac9613186
    11. 11
      Tjo̷rnelund, J.; Hansen, S. H. The effect of water on separations in non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis systems. Chromatographia 1997, 44, 59,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02466508
    12. 12
      Valkó, I. E.; Sirén, H.; Riekkola, M.-L. Characteristics of electroosmotic flow in capillary electrophoresis in water and in organic solvents without added ionic species. J. Microcolumn Sep. 1999, 11, 199208,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-667X(1999)11:3<199::AID-MCS5>3.0.CO;2-D
    13. 13
      Riekkola, M.-L.; Jussila, M.; Porras, S. P.; Valkó, I. E. Non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 2000, 892, 155170,  DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00108-4
    14. 14
      Geiser, L.; Mirgaldi, M.; Veuthey, J.-L. Determination of electroosmotic flow in nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1068, 7581,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.02.001
    15. 15
      Kitahara, A. Zeta potential in nonaqueous media and its effect on dispersion stability. Prog. Org. Coat. 1973, 2, 8198,  DOI: 10.1016/0300-9440(73)80001-3
    16. 16
      Fowkes, F. Dispersions of ceramic powders in organic media. Adv. Ceram.: Ceram. Powder Sci. 1987, 21, 411421
    17. 17
      Van Der Hoeven, P.; Lyklema, J. Electrostatic stabilization in non-aqueous media. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1992, 42, 205277,  DOI: 10.1016/0001-8686(92)80024-R
    18. 18
      Siffert, B.; Jada, A.; Eleli-Letsango, J. Stability Calculations of TiO2 Nonaqueous Suspensions: Thickness of the Electrical Double Layer. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1994, 167, 281286,  DOI: 10.1006/jcis.1994.1362
    19. 19
      Hughes, D. F. K.; Robb, I. D.; Dowding, P. J. Stability of Copper Phthalocyanine Dispersions in Organic Media. Langmuir 1999, 15, 52275231,  DOI: 10.1021/la981389v
    20. 20
      Kosmulski, M. Zeta potentials in nonaqueous media: how to measure and control them. Colloids Surf., A 1999, 159, 277281,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00273-3
    21. 21
      Kosmulski, M.; Eriksson, P.; Brancewicz, C.; Rosenholm, J. B. Zeta potentials of monodispersed, spherical silica particles in mixed solvents as a function of cesium chloride concentration. Colloids Surf., A 2000, 162, 3748,  DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00027-8
    22. 22
      Zhukov, A. Integrated investigations of the electrosurface properties of nonaqueous disperse and capillary systems. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2007, 134–135, 330345,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2007.04.014
    23. 23
      Hamieh, T.; Toufaily, J.; Alloul, H. Physicochemical Properties of the Dispersion of Titanium Dioxide in Organic Media by Using Zetametry Technique. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2008, 29, 11811188,  DOI: 10.1080/01932690701856626
    24. 24
      Kosmulski, M.; Prochniak, P.; Rosenholm, J. B. Control of the Zeta Potential in Semiconcentrated Dispersions of Titania in Polar Organic Solvents. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 1280612810,  DOI: 10.1021/jp903845e
    25. 25
      Cihlar, J.; Drdlik, D.; Cihlarova, Z.; Hadraba, H. Effect of acids and bases on electrophoretic deposition of alumina and zirconia particles in 2-propanol. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2013, 33, 18851892,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2013.02.017
    26. 26
      Lyklema, J. Principles of interactions in non-aqueous electrolyte solutions. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 18, 116128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2013.02.002
    27. 27
      Mazzini, V.; Craig, V. S. Specific-ion effects in non-aqueous systems. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 23, 8293,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2016.06.009
    28. 28
      Rosenholm, J. B. Evaluation of particle charging in non-aqueous suspensions. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 259, 2143,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2018.06.004
    29. 29
      Barthel, J.; Gores, H.-J.; Schmeer, G.; Wachter, R. Topics in Current Chemistry; Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 1983; pp 33144.
    30. 30
      Izutsu, K. Electrochemistry in Nonaqueous Solutions; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2002.
    31. 31
      Iwasaki, H.; Kimura, Y.; Uematsu, Y. Ubiquitous Preferential Water Adsorption to Electrodes in Water/1-Propanol Mixtures Detected by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 2023, 127, 2338223389,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c05320
    32. 32
      Iwai, S.; Suzuki, T.; Sakagami, H.; Miyamoto, K.; Chen, Z.; Konishi, M.; Villani, E.; Shida, N.; Tomita, I.; Inagi, S. Electropolymerization without an electric power supply. Commun. Chem. 2022, 5, 66,  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-022-00682-8
    33. 33
      Kolthoff, I. M. Acid-base equilibriums in dipolar aprotic solvents. Anal. Chem. 1974, 46, 19922003,  DOI: 10.1021/ac60349a005
    34. 34
      Rossini, E.; Knapp, E. Proton solvation in protic and aprotic solvents. J. Comput. Chem. 2016, 37, 10821091,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24297
    35. 35
      Rossini, E.; Bochevarov, A. D.; Knapp, E. W. Empirical Conversion of pKa Values between Different Solvents and Interpretation of the Parameters: Application to Water, Acetonitrile, Dimethyl Sulfoxide, and Methanol. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 16531662,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b01895
    36. 36
      Borissova, M.; Gorbatšova, J.; Ebber, A.; Kaljurand, M.; Koel, M.; Vaher, M. Nonaqueous CE using contactless conductivity detection and ionic liquids as BGEs in ACN. Electrophoresis 2007, 28, 36003605,  DOI: 10.1002/elps.200700067
    37. 37
      Gouy, M. Sur la constitution de la charge électrique à la surface d’un électrolyte. J. Phys. Theor. Appl. 1910, 9, 457468,  DOI: 10.1051/jphystap:019100090045700
    38. 38
      Chapman, D. L. A contribution to the theory of electrocapillarity. London Edinb. Philos. Mag. 1913, 25, 475481,  DOI: 10.1080/14786440408634187
    39. 39
      Langmuir, I. THE ADSORPTION OF GASES ON PLANE SURFACES OF GLASS, MICA AND PLATINUM. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1918, 40, 13611403,  DOI: 10.1021/ja02242a004
    40. 40
      Rice, C. L.; Whitehead, R. Electrokinetic Flow in a Narrow Cylindrical Capillary. J. Phys. Chem. 1965, 69, 40174024,  DOI: 10.1021/j100895a062
    41. 41
      Goldfarb, D. L.; Longinotti, M. P.; Corti, H. R. Electrical Conductances of Tetrabutylammonium and Decamethylferrocenium Hexafluorophosphate in Organic Solvents. J. Solution Chem. 2001, 30, 307322,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1010334021934
    42. 42
      Hiemstra, T.; De Wit, J.; Van Riemsdijk, W. Multisite proton adsorption modeling at the solid/solution interface of (hydr)oxides: A new approach. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1989, 133, 105117,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(89)90285-3
    43. 43
      Behrens, S. H.; Grier, D. G. The charge of glass and silica surfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 115, 67166721,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1404988
    44. 44
      Bialik, E.; Stenqvist, B.; Fang, Y.; Östlund, Å.; Furó, I.; Lindman, B.; Lund, M.; Bernin, D. Ionization of Cellobiose in Aqueous Alkali and the Mechanism of Cellulose Dissolution. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 50445048,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b02346
    45. 45
      Malerz, S.; Mudryk, K.; Tomaník, L.; Stemer, D.; Hergenhahn, U.; Buttersack, T.; Trinter, F.; Seidel, R.; Quevedo, W.; Goy, C.; Wilkinson, I.; Thürmer, S.; Slavíček, P.; Winter, B. Following in Emil Fischer’s Footsteps: A Site-Selective Probe of Glucose Acid–Base Chemistry. J. Phys. Chem. A 2021, 125, 68816892,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c04695
    46. 46
      Uematsu, Y.; Bonthuis, D. J.; Netz, R. R. Charged Surface-Active Impurities at Nanomolar Concentration Induce Jones–Ray Effect. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 189193,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b02960
    47. 47
      Plett, T.; Shi, W.; Zeng, Y.; Mann, W.; Vlassiouk, I.; Baker, L. A.; Siwy, Z. S. Rectification of nanopores in aprotic solvents–transport properties of nanopores with surface dipoles. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 1908019091,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR06340J
    48. 48
      Nasir, S.; Ali, M.; Ramirez, P.; Froehlich, K.; Cervera, J.; Mafe, S.; Ensinger, W. Ionic conduction through single-pore and multipore polymer membranes in aprotic organic electrolytes. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 635, 119505  DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119505
    49. 49
      Polster, J. W.; Souna, A. J.; Motevaselian, M. H.; Lucas, R. A.; Tran, J. D.; Siwy, Z. S.; Aluru, N. R.; Fourkas, J. T. The electrical-double layer revisited. Nat. Sci. 2022, 2, e20210099  DOI: 10.1002/ntls.20210099
    50. 50
      Souna, A. J.; Motevaselian, M. H.; Polster, J. W.; Tran, J. D.; Siwy, Z. S.; Aluru, N. R.; Fourkas, J. T. Beyond the electrical double layer model: ion-dependent effects in nanoscale solvent organization. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2024, 26, 67266735,  DOI: 10.1039/D3CP05712G
    51. 51
      Yin, X.; Zhang, S.; Dong, Y.; Liu, S.; Gu, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Shao, Y. Ionic Current Rectification in Organic Solutions with Quartz Nanopipettes. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 90709077,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02337
    52. 52
      Spångberg, D.; Hermansson, K. The solvation of Li+ and Na+ in acetonitrile from ab initio-derived many-body ion–solvent potentials. Chem. Phys. 2004, 300, 165176,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphys.2004.01.011
    53. 53
      Amara, S.; Toulc’Hoat, J.; Timperman, L.; Biller, A.; Galiano, H.; Marcel, C.; Ledigabel, M.; Anouti, M. Comparative Study of Alkali-Cation-Based (Li+, Na+, K+) Electrolytes in Acetonitrile and Alkylcarbonates. ChemPhysChem 2019, 20, 581594,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201801064
    54. 54
      Ding, F.; Hu, Z.; Zhong, Q.; Manfred, K.; Gattass, R. R.; Brindza, M. R.; Fourkas, J. T.; Walker, R. A.; Weeks, J. D. Interfacial Organization of Acetonitrile: Simulation and Experiment. J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 1765117659,  DOI: 10.1021/jp104597z
    55. 55
      Pusić, T.; Grancarić, A. M.; Soljaçić, I.; Ribitsch, V. The effect of mercerisation on the electrokinetic potential of cotton. Color. Technol. 1999, 115, 121124,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-4408.1999.tb00308.x
    56. 56
      Sadeghi-Kiakhani, M.; Safapour, S. Salt-free reactive dyeing of the cotton fabric modified with chitosan-poly(propylene imine) dendrimer hybrid. Fibers and Polym. 2015, 16, 10751081,  DOI: 10.1007/s12221-015-1075-9
    57. 57
      Grancarić, A. M.; Tarbuk, A.; Hadžić, S.; Simončič, B. From Raw to Finished Cotton─Characterization by Interface Phenomena. Autex Res. J. 2023, 23, 184192,  DOI: 10.2478/aut-2021-0055
    58. 58
      Uematsu, Y.; Bonthuis, D. J.; Netz, R. R. Nanomolar Surface-Active Charged Impurities Account for the Zeta Potential of Hydrophobic Surfaces. Langmuir 2020, 36, 36453658,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03795
    59. 59
      Sghaier, S.; Zbidi, F.; Zidi, M. Characterization of Doum Palm Fibers After Chemical Treatment. Text. Res. J. 2009, 79, 11081114,  DOI: 10.1177/0040517508101623
    60. 60
      Brož, Z.; Epstein, N. Electrokinetic flow through porous media composed of fine cylindrical capillaries. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1976, 56, 605612,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(76)90127-2
    61. 61
      Levine, S.; Marriott, J.; Neale, G.; Epstein, N. Theory of electrokinetic flow in fine cylindrical capillaries at high zeta-potentials. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1975, 52, 136149,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9797(75)90310-0
    62. 62
      Uematsu, Y.; Netz, R. R.; Bocquet, L.; Bonthuis, D. J. Crossover of the Power-Law Exponent for Carbon Nanotube Conductivity as a Function of Salinity. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 29922997,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b01975