Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41325549›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025

Absence of Hofmeister Selectivity in Hydrophobic Ion-Exchanger Nanopores.

Gergely T Solymosi, Tünde Kis, Péter Fürjes, Róbert E Gyurcsányi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Gergely T SolymosiBME Lendület Chemical Nanosensors Research Group, Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem Rkp. 3, BudapestH-1111, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-4006-0326
Tünde KisBME Lendület Chemical Nanosensors Research Group, Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem Rkp. 3, BudapestH-1111, Hungary.
Péter FürjesInstitute of Technical Physics and Materials Science, HUN-REN Centre for Energy Research, Konkoly Thege Miklós út, Budapest29-33, H-1121, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8022-4367
Róbert E GyurcsányiBME Lendület Chemical Nanosensors Research Group, Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem Rkp. 3, BudapestH-1111, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-9929-7865

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dehydration governs ion selectivity in both natural ion channels and synthetic ion sieves, as ions must dehydrate to traverse subnanometer pores. Because lipophilic ions experience lower dehydration energy costs, an intrinsic lipophilic selectivity pattern known as the Hofmeister series arises. This Hofmeister selectivity is modulated in natural ion channels by electrostatic and coordinative interactions between ions and nanopore surfaces, yielding diverse selectivities. Ion selectivity has also been demonstrated in larger synthetic nanopores─up to 5 nm in diameter─functionalized with ionophores that enhance specific coordinative interactions. In these synthetic ion channels, surface hydrophobicity is critical for ion selectivity; however, its exact role remains undetermined. Here, we elucidate the contribution of hydrophobicity by comparing structurally identical hydrophilic and hydrophobic cation-exchanger gold nanopores modified with 10-mercaptodecane-1-sulfonate, a ligand lacking strong ion-coordinating functionalities. Zero-current potentiometry revealed that cation-exchanger nanopores do not discriminate among singly charged cations, except for a modest preference for H

Identifiers

PMID41325549
PMCPMC12713612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.