| Literature DB >> 34353907 |
Sang Soo Lee1, Ayumi Koishi2,3, Ian C Bourg4,3, Paul Fenter5.
Abstract
Classical electrical double layer (EDL) models are foundational to the representation of atomistic structure and reactivity at charged interfaces. An important limitation to these models is their dependence on a mean-field approximation that is strictly valid for dilute aqueous solutions. Theoretical efforts to overcome this limitation are severely impeded by the lack of visualization of the structure over a wide range of ion concentration. Here, we report the salinity-dependent evolution of EDL structure at negatively charged mica-water interfaces, revealing transition from the Langmuir-type charge compensation in dilute salt solutions to nonclassical charge overscreening in highly concentrated solutions. The EDL structure in this overcharging regime is characterized by the development of both lateral positional correlation between adsorbed ions and vertical layering of alternating cations and anions reminiscent of the structures of strongly correlated ionic liquids. These EDL ions can spontaneously grow into nanocrystalline nuclei of ionic compounds at threshold ion concentrations that are significantly lower than the bulk solubility limit. These results shed light on the impact of ion cooperativity that drives heterogeneous nonclassical behaviors of the EDL in high-salinity conditions.Entities:
Keywords: EDL; X-ray reflectivity; adsorption; molecular dynamics; salinity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34353907 PMCID: PMC8364158 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105154118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Observation of EDL structure at the muscovite mica (001)–saline solution interface using in situ high-resolution X-ray reflectivity and MD simulation. (A) Experimental setup for X-ray reflectivity. A single-crystal muscovite mica in contact with either RbCl or RbI solution is encapsulated in a thin-film X-ray cell (22). (B) Position-dependent evolution of Rb concentration ([Rb]) in the cell recorded as a function of time. The data (with the initial [Rb] of 0.3 M) were collected by translating the mica sample transverse to the X-ray scattering plane. The black arrow with four circles schematically shows a pathway along which a series of XR datasets are collected during evolution of the solution composition in the cell. (C) A series of XR datasets as a function of [Rb]. The data at average [Rb] of 0.36, 0.76, 1.6, and 2.6 M were collected as a function of momentum transfer (q) along the surface normal direction and are plotted after scaling by factors of 10−2, 1, 102, and 104, respectively, for clarity. (D) Snapshot of the MD simulation at [Rb] = 0.5 M (yellow = Si; pink = Al; red = O; white = H; cyan = K; purple = Rb; blue = Cl). Water molecules are displayed using stick models.
Fig. 2.Structural change at the muscovite mica (001)–RbCl interface measured by X-ray reflectivity and MD simulation. (A) Normalized XR as a function of [Rb] (0.022, 0.050, 0.090, 0.36, 0.49, 0.76, 0.84, 1.3, 2.1, 2.6, 3.7, and 6.7 M). These datasets are scaled by factors of 10, where n (= 1, 2, 3, …) increases from Bottom to Top, following the sequence of increasing [Rb]. (B) Total electron-density profiles derived from the best-fit models of the XR data. Results are normalized to the density of bulk water and broadened by the spatial resolution of the data (π/qmax = ∼0.8 Å, where qmax is the maximum q of each XR dataset). Line thickness reflects the two-standard-deviation uncertainty. The profile at the lowest [Rb] (= 0.022 M) is offset by three, and each of the subsequent profiles is offset by one from the previous profile. The Rb-specific profiles derived from RAXR data in [Rb] = 0.003 and 0.4 M (ρRb0.003 and ρRb0.4) are plotted without vertical offset. (C) Total electron-density profiles derived from MD simulations as a function of [RbCl] (= 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 M). Results are calculated from the density profiles of the atomic nuclei weighted by the number of electrons associated with each nucleus and broadened by the spatial resolution of the corresponding XR data. The profile at [Rb] = 0.1 M is offset by five to match the offset for the profile determined experimentally at a similar [Rb] (= 0.09 M), and each of the subsequent profiles is offset by one from the previous profile. The Rb profiles determined by MD in the lowest [RbCl] limit and at 3.0 M (ρRb0.0 and ρRb3.0) are plotted without vertical offset, while the Cl profiles determined by MD in the same solutions (ρCl0.0 and ρCl3.0) are plotted as dotted lines with a vertical offset of four. Black and green open arrows indicate the locations of Cl− and secondary Rb+ adsorbed at the mica (001)–water interface, respectively.
Fig. 3.Control of ion cooperativity over interfacial energetics and structures at the muscovite mica–saline solution interface. (A) [Rb]-dependent changes in the coverage of IS Rb (ΓRbIS) in RbCl and RbI from XR. The black solid line through the data points is derived from a two-K isotherm model (). The deviation of the data from the classical Langmuir isotherm (green solid line) is due to overcharging. The theoretical limit associated with the formal charge of the mica surface is also shown for comparison. The variation in the coverage of IS Rb obtained from MD simulations is also plotted (open circles). The simulated data show similar trends to the experimental data. However, the adsorption edge is shifted by ∼10 toward higher [Rb], indicating that the simulated adsorption of Rb during overcharging is weaker than that determined by experiment. (B and C) Comparison of the interfacial electron-density profiles between RbCl and RbI solutions. The total electron-density profiles measured in solutions containing [Rb] = ∼0.05, ∼0.5, and ∼1 M are shown in dotted, dashed, and solid lines, respectively. Additional layering is observed in RbI solutions when [Rb] ≥ ∼1 M (i.e., below the saturation concentration of the ionic crystal [shown as a yellow area in A]) (). (D and E) Snapshots of the mica–saline solution interface at [RbI] = 3 M at 1 and 20 ns, respectively, showing IS Rb and the first layer of the coadsorbed anions. (F–H) Large-scale simulation of the mica–RbI solution interface at 3 M. Side-view snapshots taken at 1, 18, and 30 ns displaying the evolution of heterogeneous nucleation events. Note the abundance of heterogeneously nucleated crystals in an earlier time (i.e., 18 ns) in contrast to the rare occurrence of homogeneous nucleation (blue arrow, single event observed during a 30-ns-long simulation; Movie S2).