Arxiv:1706.04027V2

arXiv:1706.04027v2 [cond-mat.soft] 24 Jul 2017 hre hntesrae or surface, is the whether than respect charged important this is are in it ions multivalent Furthermore, the properties valence. ion One ionic important concentration. the their most and the present ions of of influenced type strongly the are Electrostatic by solutions [7]. such hardening across par- concrete interactions [5], and printing [6], ink-jet treat- design [4], water ticle waste processing [2], ceramic making [3], paper ment as and such [1], processes systems biological in many for important are lutions eaieywl netgtd ieauei uhscarcer much is literature investigated, well relatively 24– 21, ion-ion [18, by forces caused 26]. short-range be other and/or can correlations deviations larger PB These the at from few description. deviate confidence of forces separations with experimental the smaller used nanometers, at mean- be while that distances, can showed separation concentra- theory studies These PB minute field 21–23]. very [17–19, at tions already the forces description influence their electrostatic strongly of typically validity counterions theory[16–24]. Multivalent the Poisson-Boltzmann mean-field of the es- view within lately, the attention in increased pecially received counterions lent optical 15]. and in- colloidal 13], [14, total [12, tweezers 9], 11], (TIRM) [10, [8, microscopy (AFM) reflection (SFA) ternal microscopy apparatus force atomic force probe surface techniques experimental as of such variety with rou- be measured now tinely can solutions aqueous across surfaces charged surface. the as charge ∗ † el ege7 27Gnv,Switzerland Geneva, Rue 1217 E-mail: Division, 7, R&D Bergre la Corporate de SA, Firmenich Address: Current neatosbtencagdojcsi lcrlt so- electrolyte in objects charged between Interactions hl ytm otiigmliaetcutrosare counterions multivalent containing systems While multiva- of presence the in measurements force Direct or particles colloidal charged between forces The neatosbtenSlc atce ntePeec fMu of Presence the in Particles Silica between Interactions [email protected] nraigcinvlnewe lte safnto fconce of function a as plotted pa when regulation valence and coion pro potential increasing forces diffuse-layer the the from of extracted pendencies multivalen are are properties fo regulation coions measured and the the describes Although perfectly theory (DLVO) systems. Overbeek these in erties odlpoetcnqebsdo tmcfremcocp.Th electr of microscopy. behavior force the atomic understand to on varied based systematically technique probe loidal rfie olpet atrcrei lte safnto of function a as plotted if curve master a to collapse profiles ocsbtencagdslc atce nsltoso mul of solutions in particles silica charged between Forces .INTRODUCTION I. eateto nrai n nltclCeity Univers Chemistry, Analytical and Inorganic of Department counterions cecsI,3 uiEns-nemt 25Gnv,Switzer Geneva, 1205 Ernest-Ansermet, Quai 30 II, Sciences coions ijn zlc aetn Valmacco, Valentina Uzelac, Biljana hc ar h same the carry which , hc r oppositely are which , Dtd uy2,2017) 25, July (Dated: xsso h euaino hre ufcsi hs sys- these in surfaces charged of regulation information the detailed on no differ- particular, exists for In concentrations valences. of coion which range ent studies large no a the of in are properties double-layer there and forces knowledge the our investigate systematically of best the to [32–34]. rule utvln oo ytm h CSi nraigwith In increasing is [33]. CCIS recently valence, shown the increasing was systems an it counterions, coion as the multivalent as observed to coions is opposed multivalent inversion as the agent uses aggregating one an Schulze-Hardy if classical Surprisingly, the over as for to rule. known referred is is and behavior century This a increasing [32]. with valence decreases counterion strongly coagulation (CCIS) aggregation For critical strength ionic suspension the results. aggregating non-expected on for have interactions example, can on particles colloidal type of influ- these the on power-law Furthermore, a ence separations. to smaller transition and at There- distances behavior large exponen- are 31]. at systems only 30, coion tial multivalent [21, in forces force the the fore, a of in dependence results power-law double-layer counterion-only and charged These slit the the surfaces. between from left latter are the counterions monovalent of fi- only expulsion which the increased, to between is leads coions nally repulsion multivalent the electrostatic and between surface distance the the When reduced, slit. is the surfaces in enter counterions coions both and charged distances, two large-separation between At slit of surfaces. the expulsion from the coions multivalent by the induced This is 29]. behavior [28, as valence non-exponential effective modelled high extremely by be with induced can coions be which can case polyelectrolytes, profiles Extreme like-charged be force 27]. non-exponential can [21, such theory which of PB the forces, with long-ranged described well soft and non- invoke pro- exponential counterparts double-layer coion Force for their typical Interestingly, is forces. which systems. counterions exponential, multivalent usually coion containing are multivalent solutions of across files case the in hnmnnwsgvnaname: a given the inversion, was this to phenomenon Due valence. increasing with creases lhuh oeifrainaotteefre exists, forces these about information some Although, sai neatosaddul-ae prop- double-layer and interactions ostatic ∗ aee hf olwrcnetainwith concentration lower to shift rameter lsb sn h LOter.Tede- The theory. DLVO the using by files n rgrTrefalt Gregor and taino 1: of ntration c rfie.Tedffs-ae potentials diffuse-layer The profiles. rce h ejgi,Lna,Vre,and Verwey, Landau, Derjaguin, the t tivalent ooaetcutro concentration. counterion monovalent ocnrto f1: of concentration e coions t fGeneva, of ity z i.e. at neetnl,these Interestingly, salt. r esrdwt col- with measured are ogltn oe fcin de- coions of power coagulating land † tvln Coions ltivalent z lcrltsis electrolytes inverse Schulze-Hardy 2 tems. scope (Olympus IX70). The quartz slides and cantilevers In this work we focus on interactions between silica with attached probes were rinsed with water and ethanol, particles across solutions containing multivalent coions. dried in air, and plasma-treated for 20 min. The quartz We systematically study the influence of the concentra- substrate was glued (Pattex 100% Repair Gel) onto the tion and valence of the coions on double-layer forces. glass slide sealing the AFM cell. The AFM fluid cell We further examine the properties of the electric double- was mounted and flushed thoroughly with the respective layer, such as diffuse-layer potential and regulation pa- electrolyte solution. The particle on the cantilever was rameter, and try to pinpoint crucial factors which deter- centered above one particle on the substrate with the mine its behavior. Furtheremore a direct comparison of precision of about 100 nm. The deflection of the can- force curves at same salt concentration, counterion con- tilever was recorded for 100-200 approach-retract cycles centration, and ionic strength reveals how the structure with the sampling rate of 5 kHz and cantilever velocities of the double-layer changes when the valence of the coion of 300 nm/s, cycling frequency was 0.5 Hz. The zero sep- changes. aration distance was assumed when the force reached a value of 10 mN/m for repulsive curves, and 4 mN/m for attractive curves. Cantilever deflection was converted to II. EXPERIMENTAL the force using Hook’s law, where the spring-constant of the cantilever was determined by the method described A. Materials by Sader et al. [36]. The approach part of the raw force curves obtained with the procedure described above were For force measurements spherical silica particles averaged. The averaging of about 150 curves leads to the (Bangs Laboratories Inc., USA) were used. The producer noise level of about 2 pN. Only such averaged force pro- reports an average size of 5.2 µm. Before the measure- files are used in subsequent analysis. For each condition ments particles were heated at 1200 ◦C for 2 hours. Dur- forces between 3-5 different pairs of particles were mea- ing heat treatment the particles shrink for about 15 % sured. which yields an average diameter of 4.4 µm as reported earlier [35]. The root mean square (RMS) roughness of III. CHARGING OF THE SILICA SURFACE 0.63 nm was measured by AFM imaging in liquid [35]. Forces were measured in aqueous solutions of KCl (Sigma Basic Stern model is used to model the surface charge Aldrich), K2SO4 (Acros Organics), K3Fe(CN)6 (Sigma of silica particles at different solution compositions. For Aldrich), and K4Fe(CN)6 (Sigma Aldrich). The pH was kept at 10 ± 0.5 with addition of 1 mM KOH (Acros simplicity we just use 1-pK model, where only one type Organics) and was checked before and after each mea- of silanol groups can undergo deprotonation according to surement. Mili-Q water (Millipore) was use throughout. the following reaction [37–39] SiOH ⇋ SiO− + H+ . (1) B. Force Measurements The equilibrium between bulk protons and silanol groups is established according to the following equation,

Force measurements were carried out with colloidal + βe0ψ0 [H ]e Γ − probe technique in the symmetric sphere-sphere geom- K = SiO , (2) etry [24]. The particles were first glued to the tip-less ΓSiOH cantilevers (MikroMasch, Tallin, Estonia) which were be- where K (pK = − log K) is the equilibrium constant, forehand cleaned in air plasma (PDC-32G, Harrick, New [H+] (pH = − log[H+]) is the bulk concentration of pro- York) for 5 min. Tiny drop of glue (Araldite 2000+) tons, e0 is the elementary charge, β = 1/(kBT ) is the and few silica particles were placed on a glass slide. The inverse thermal energy, ψ0 is the surface potential, and cantilever was mounted in the AFM head and manipu- ΓSiO− and ΓSiOH are the surface densities of deproto- lated to touch the glue then a silica particle was picked nated and protonated silanol groups, respectively. The up and glued on the cantilever. The particles were sep- total number of silanol groups on the surface is given by arately spread on a quartz substrate (Ted Pella inc.), which was cleaned with piranha solution (3:1 mixture of Γ0 =ΓSiO− +ΓSiOH . (3) H SO (98 %) and H O (30 %)). Both a quartz slide 2 4 2 2 The surface charge density can be calculated from the and a cantilever were then heated side-by-side in an oven number of deprotonated silanol groups as at 1200 ◦C for 2 h. The heating procedure resulted in a firm attachment of the particles to the substrate and the σ = −e0ΓSiO− . (4) cantilever. During this process the glue is also completely removed. The potential drop over the Stern plane is determined by All the measurements were done at room tempera- Stern layer capacitance, CS, ture 23 ± 2 ◦C with a closed-loop AFM (MFP-3D, Asy- σ CS = , (5) lum Research) mounted on an inverted optical micro- ψ0 − ψdl 3 where ψdl is the diffuse layer potential. Finally, the where σ and ψdl are surface charge density and diffuse charge-potential relationship closes the above set of equa- layer potential of the isolated surface, and Cin is the in- tions: ner layer capacitance. Instead of using inner layer capacitance we introduce regulation parameter as 1/2 −βzie0ψdl Cdl σ = − 2kBTε0ε ci(e − 1) , (6) p = , (13) " i # Cdl + Cin X where diffuse layer capacitance is defined as ε is the dielectric constant, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, ci is the ion concentration, and zi ion valence. The fol- 2 1/2 −βzie0ψdl ∂σ e0εε0 i zici(e − 1) lowing parameters were used to calculate the diffuse-layer Cdl = = · . ∂ψ 2k T [ c (e−βzie0ψdl − 1)]1/2 potential from the basic Stern model: ionization constant dl B Pi i (14) pK = 7.7, silanol groups site density Γ = 4.75 nm−2, 0 Regulation parameter enablesP to easily interpret the and Stern capacitance C =0.12 Fm−2. S boundary conditions, p = 1 represents constant charge (CC) conditions, while p = 0 represents constant potential (CP) conditions. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FORCE CURVES The disjoining pressure is then calculated using a potential at the mid-plane ψ(0) = ψM The force measurements are done in a sphere-sphere, −zie0βψM while the calculations in a plate-plate geometry. The Π= kBT ci e − 1 . (15) Derjaguin approximation is used for the transformation i X between these two geometries The integration of the pressure profile results in the energy per unit area F =2πReff W, (7) ∞ ′ ′ where F is the force between the two spherical particles, Wdl = Π(h )dh . (16) h W is the energy per unit area in the plate-plate geometry, Z and Reff is the effective radius, which is equal to R/2 for Derjaguin approximation Eq. (7) is used to calculate the particles with radii R. double-layer force, Fdl, from energy per unit area, Wdl, The forces are modelled within DLVO theory and the total force is calculated via Eq. (8). The PB equation is solved numerically and the solu-

F = FvdW + Fdl , (8) tion is modelled as a mixture of 1:1 electrolyte stemming from pH adjustment with KOH and 1:z electrolyte for where FvdW is the van der Waals and Fdl is the double- the respective added salt. layer force. The former is calculated with non-retarded For comparison and easier interpretation the Debye- expression Hückel (DH) theory is also used to calculate far-field approximation of the double layer force HR 1 DH 2 −κh FvdW = − · , (9) F =2πRεε κψ e , (17) 12 h2 dl 0 eff 2 2βe0I where H is the Hamaker constant and h is the surface- where ψeff is the effective potential and κ = εε0 is surface separation. the inverse Debye length, where I is the ionicq strength 1 2 The double-layer force is calculated by solving the calculated as I = 2 i cizi . For 1:z electrolyte the ionic Poisson-Boltzmann equation in the plate-plate geometry strength is I = z(z+1) · c , while monovalent counte- 2P salt 2 rion concentration is proportional to the valence as zcsalt, d ψ(x) e0 − −βzie0ψ(x) where csalt is the concentration of 1:z salt. 2 = ci e , (10) dx εε0 i Finally, experimental force profiles are interpreted by X fitting DLVO theory and extracting the following param- where ψ(x) is the electric potential, and x is the coordi- eters: salt concentration, diffuse-layer potential, regula- nate normal to the plates. The plates are positioned at tion parameter, and Hamaker constant. In all cases the x = −h/2 and x = h/2. The PB equation can be solved difference between the fitted and nominal salt concentra- only in the 0 ≤ x ≤ h/2 half-space due to symmetry. The tion is typically below 10-15 %. Note that in the present constant regulation (CR) boundary conditions are used case of 1:z salts, the sign of the diffuse-layer potential of silica particles can be unambiguously determined from dψ the force profile, since the curves would have a different = 0 and (11) dx shape if the surfaces would have been positively charged. x=0 dψ Variations of diffuse-layer potentials and regulation pa- = σ − C [ψ(h/2) − ψ ] , (12) rameters for different pairs of particles at the same con- dx in dl x=h/2 ditions are typically between 10 and 20 %.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION centrations and it is also consistent with all other used salts. For the double-layer component of the force curve, Forces between pairs of silica particles were measured the background 1:1 electrolyte concentration is fixed to with colloidal probe technique based on AFM. These 0.1 mM. The remaining fitting parameters are: 1 : z salt concentration, diffuse-layer potential, and regulation pa- forces were measured in the presence of KCl, K2SO4, rameter. The same fitting procedure is used also for other K3Fe(CN)6, and K4Fe(CN)6 at pH 10. Forces measured between silica particles in KCl are salts. The fitted curves are presented as lines in Fig. 1. shown in Fig. 1a. On the left and right panel forces are The DLVO theory describes the force curves perfectly, except at very short separations below few nanometers, KCl where the experimental curves are more repulsive then predicted by the theory. This short-range repulsion is 1 mM 20 mM (a) 0.3 10 3 mM 200 mM probably due to the hydration forces [41–44] or overlap- 5 mM 500 mM 0.2 10 mM 1000 mM ping hairy layers of polysilicilic acid [38] and it is not 1 part of our theoretical description. 0.1 In Fig. 1b forces in the presence of K2SO4 are shown. 0.1 0 Similar behavior as in the case of KCl is observed. The forces are repulsive at low salt concentration and become -0.1 0.01 attractive at high levels of salt. However, the onset of

Force/Effective Radius (mN/m) Force/Effective 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 attractive vdW force is observed at lower concentrations Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm) as compared to the KCl case. Again the DLVO theory

K2 SO 4 fits the data very well. The double-layer forces in the (b) presence of divalent coions are not exponential anymore 0.3 10 0.5 mM 5 mM 1 mM 15 mM as evident for the log-lin presentation. The exponential 2 mM 20 mM 200 mM 0.2 DH Debye-Hückel curve is presented with the dashed line for 1 500 mM the lowest concentration, see Fig 1b right. One can ob- 0.1 serve that the experimental force at 0.5 mM of K2SO4 is 0.1 0 only exponential at distances beyond 30 nm. At smaller separations the force deviates from the exponential be- -0.1 0.01 havior. Such long-range sigmoidal curves in the presence Force/Effective Radius (mN/m) Force/Effective of mulitvalent coions were already observed by some of 0 10 203040 0 10 20 30 40 Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm) us [21] and they can become extremely non-exponential for the coions with large effective charge [28, 29]. The FIG. 1. Force curves between silica particles at different salt source of this behavior is the exclusion of the multiva- concentrations for (a) KCl and (b) K2SO4 at pH 10. The lent coions from the area between the charged surfaces DLVO calculations are presented as full lines. Lin-lin repre- at close proximity. At large distances both monovalent sentation is shown left and log-lin representation right. DH counterions and mulitvalent coions are in the slit between approximation is also shown for 0.5 mM of K2SO4. two charged surfaces and the force between the respective surfaces is exponential with the decay length corre- plotted in linear and logarithmic representations, respec- sponding to the inverse Debye length for 1 : z electrolyte. tively. At low salt concentrations the forces are repulsive When the surfaces approach, the multivalent coions feel and they decay exponentially as expected for double-layer strong electrostatic repulsion from the charged surfaces interactions. With increasing salt concentration forces and get excluded from the slit. At this point only the become shorter-ranged and finally at high concentrations monovalent counterions are left in the slit. Such system above 500 mM they turn attractive as the vdW force be- behaves as salt-free (counterions-only) and results in the comes dominant. In the log-lin representation one can power-law decay of the force as first proposed by Lang- also observe that the slope of the forces in increasing muir [30]. Further details on these non-exponential force with increasing concentration as the decay length short- profiles can be found in [21]. ens. DLVO fits are shown as lines in the Fig. 1. The Forces measured in solutions of K3Fe(CN)6 and fitting strategy is the following. First the Hamaker con- K4Fe(CN)6 are presented in Fig. 2. Subfigures 2a and stant is fitted at KCl concentrations above 200 mM. An b show the trivalent and tetravalent coion case, respec- average value of H =2.6±0.3·10−21 J is obtained, which tively. For both cases forces are repulsive at low salt and is in agreement with our earlier results [35]. The mea- attractive at high salt levels. The DLVO theory, shown sured Hamaker constant is also close to the theoretical es- as full lines, nicely fits the experimental data. Again, timate of 1.6 · 10−21 J calculated from accurate dielectric for the two lowest concentrations in the log-lin represen- spectra [40]. This high value of the measured Hamaker tations the DH approximation is presented with dashed constant is due to extremely small surface roughness of lines. The deviation from the non-exponential behavior ◦ the silica particles heated at 1200 C [35]. The fitted is even more evident as for the K2SO4 case. Further- value of the Hamaker constant is fixed for lower con- more, this deviation is shifted to larger distances with 5

K Fe(CN) 3 6 fore the force is exponential with its decay length being (a) 0.1 mM 0.75 mM κ−1. Since in the present case of constant counterion 0.3 10 0.3 mM 1.0 mM 0.5 mM 5.0 mM concentration the ionic strength for K4Fe(CN)6 salt is 0.2 DH 10 mM 1 200 mM higher than for KCl, the K4Fe(CN)6 force decays faster at large separations. Also the slope in log-lin plot, which 0.1 0.1 repersents this decay length is bigger for the tetravalent 0 case. At smaller separations where coions are expelled 0.01 the force is determined only by counterions in this case -0.1 K+ and the two force curves collapse.

Force/Effective Radius (mN/m) Force/Effective 0 10 203040 0 10 20 30 40 The third case, presented in Fig. 3c, shows forces at Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm) constant ionic strength of 1 mM. Here the long-distance K Fe(CN) 4 6 behavior is similar for both KCl and K4Fe(CN)6 salts. 0.1 mM 1.0 mM (b) Since, the ionic strength is constant the decay length of 0.3 10 0.5 mM 3.0 mM 0.75 mM 100 mM the exponential DH behavior is the same, resulting in the 0.2 1 DH same slope for both curves in the log-lin representation. 0.1 On the other side, the short-distance behavior is diﬀer- 0.1 ent, while the KCl force stays exponential down to few 0 nanometers, the K4Fe(CN)6 force does not decay expo- 0.01 nentially at short distances. Only at very short distances -0.1 below ∼ 5 nm, where tetravalent as well as monovalent

Force/Effective Radius (mN/m) Force/Effective 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 coions are expelled from the slit the two curves collapse. Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm) This situation is again dominated by counterions. Let us now look at the diffuse-layer potentials ex- FIG. 2. Force curves between silica particles at different salt tracted from the force curves. In Fig. 4 the potentials are concentrations for (a) K3Fe(CN)6 and (b) K4Fe(CN)6 at pH shown for all salts at different conditions. The results for 10. The DLVO calculations are presented as full lines. Lin-lin coions of different valences are presented at: (a) the same representation is shown left and log-lin representation right. + DH approximation is shown for the two lowest concentration. salt concentration, (b) the same K concentration, and (c) the same ionic strength. The results of basic Stern model are shown as lines for comparison. In all cases the diffuse-layer potential is negative at low concentrations increasing valence of the coions. The exclusion of the due to charged silanol groups on the silica surface, see coions happens at larger distances because the repulsion Eq. 1. With increasing concentration the potential in- between charged surfaces and coions is increasing with creases and is neutralized at very high salt levels. The increasing valence [34]. diffuse-layer potential curves are shifted to lower concen- To get a further insight in the interactions between sil- trations when the coion valence is increased, see Fig. 4a. ica particles in the presence of multivalent coions we com- Although there is some scatter in the experimental data pare the forces for different coion valences at the same (a) they nicely follow the basic Stern model. The presented salt concentration, (b) counterion concentration, and (c) coion valence trend can be rationalized in the following ionic strength in Fig. 3. For all the cases conditions are way. At constant salt concentration, the K+ concentra- chosen such that the vdW force is negligible and only the tion increases as zcsalt, the surface charge is screened double-layer component of the force is present. more strongly when K+ concentration is increased, and At constant salt concentration of 1 mM all forces this leads to lower magnitude of the diffuse-layer poten- for coion valences between 1 and 4 are repulsive, see tial. This rationale is confirmed by Fig. 4b where the Fig. 3a. Two features can be observed. First, only potentials are plotted as a function of the K+ concen- − the force for monovalent coion, namely Cl , is expo- tration. All the experimental data as well as basic Stern nential, while the interactions for the multivalent coions model calculations collapse on a single curve, showing are non-exponential. Second, the forces get progressively that the potential is only a function of the counterion screened by increasing coion valence. This behavior is concentration. In a recent study by Trompette [45], the due to the increase of both the ionic strength as well type of monovalent coion is shown to have an effect on as counterion (K+) concentration with increasing coion silica nanoparicle aggregation. This behavior suggests valence when the salt concentration is fixed. specific adsorption of coions to the silica surface, on the If we now compare the force for KCl and K4Fe(CN)6 contrary our results suggest no specific adsorption of the at constant counterion concentration of 3 mM of K+, an coions. In our case the coions are multivalent and feel interesting behavior is revealed. At large separation dis- stronger repulsion from the silica surface which probably tances the K4Fe(CN)6 repulsion is weaker as compared to hinders their adsorption. In Fig. 4c the diffuse-layer po- the KCl case, while at distances below ∼ 25 nm the two tential is plotted as a function of ionic strength. Here forces are comparable. As noted earlier large-distance the trend is reversed, the potential curves are shifted to behavior can be described by DH approximation, there- higher ionic strength as coion valence increases, however 6

+ Salt Concentation 1 mM K Concentration 3 mM Ionic Strength 1 mM (a) (b) (c) -2 -2 KCl -2 10 10 10 K2 SO 4 DH K3 Fe(CN) 6 DH -3 -3 -3 10 10 K4 Fe(CN) 6 10 -4 K4 Fe(CN) 6 -4 -4 10 10 10 -5 KCl 10 KCl -5 -5 10 10 K4 Fe(CN) 6 -6

Force/Effective Radius (N/m) Force/Effective

Force/Effective Radius (N/m) Force/Effective Force/Effective Radius (N/m) Force/Effective 10 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm) Separation Distance (nm)

FIG. 3. Force curves between silica particles at (a) salt concentration of 1 mM, (b) K+ concentration of 3 mM, and (c) ionic strength of 1 mM for diﬀerent salts at pH 10. In (b) and (c) only KCl and K4Fe(CN)6 are shown for clarity. The DLVO ﬁts are shown as full lines, and DH approximation in (c) as dashed line.

0 (a) 0 (b) 0 (c) -20 KCl -20 -20 K2 SO 4 -40 -40 -40 -60 -60 -60 -80 -80 -80 -100 -100 -100 -120 -120 -120 K3 Fe(CN) 6

Diffuse Layer Potential (mV) Diffuse

Diffuse LayerDiffuse Potential (mV) -140 K4 Fe(CN) 6 LayerDiffuse Potential (mV) -140 -140

-6 -4 -2 -5 -3 -1 -5 -3 -1 10 10 10 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Salt Concentration (M) K Concentration (M) Ionic Strength (M)

FIG. 4. Diffuse layer potential extracted form force curves as a function of (a) salt concentration, (b) K+ concentration, and (c) ionic strength for different salts at pH 10. The results form the basic Stern model are shown with lines. The parameters −2 −2 are: ionization constant pK = 7.7, silanol groups site density Γ0 = 4.75 nm , and Stern capacitance CS = 0.12 Fm . in this case the trend is weaker. Similar reversal is ob- decreases with concentration, see Eq. (13). Such behav- served in stability of colloidal suspensions as a function ior is in line with our observations of decreasing regu- of coion valence and is referred to as the inverse Schulze- lation parameter with increasing concentration. At low Hardy rule [24, 33]. concentrations below about 1 mM we have fixed p = 1 in our fits in order to avoid the values above unity which Finally we examine another important property of are not consistent with the regulation model. Due to this charged surfaces, namely its regulation behavior. In modification the measured forces were slightly more re- Fig. 5 regulation parameter is presented in a similar man- pulsive than the calculated ones at short distances, and ner as the diffuse-layer potential above. Regulation pa- this behavior if probably connected to the short-range rameter describes how the charge on the surface is chang- hydration repulsion which is known to be present for sil- ing upon approach of the two particles. If regulation ica surfaces in aqueous solutions [23, 41–44]. parameter, p, is close to unity, the charge on the surface is constant upon approach. On the other hand for p < 1, the surface regulates/adjusts its charge upon approach [46]. Fig. 5 reveals that the general trend for all salts is the same, regulation parameter is close to unity Similarly to the diffuse-layer potential, regulation pa- at low salt concentration and it decreases with increasing rameter curves also shift to lower salt concentrations with concentration. One would expect an increase in regula- increasing coion valence, see Fig. 5a. When the p is tion parameter in a situation where the inner layer capac- plotted as a function of either K+ concentration or ionic itance, Cin, is constant or it is decreasing with increasing strength the data points collapse on a single curve. Since concentration [46]. However, it has been recently shown there is relatively large scatter in the experimental points with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy in a liquid micro- it is not possible to determine which collapse is correct. jet, that the inner layer capacitance of silica surface is Regulation behavior is determined by adsorption of K+ + increasing with increasing concentration [47]. If Cin is ions to the surface and therefore the collapse on K con- increasing with concentration the regulation parameter centration is probably a relevant one. 7

(a) (b) (c) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 KCl 0.4 0.4 0.4 K2 SO 4 K3 Fe(CN) 6

Regulation Parameter Regulation Parameter 0.2 Regulation Parameter 0.2 0.2 K4 Fe(CN) 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -3 -2 -1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 Concentration of Salt (M) Counterion Concentration (M) Ionic Strength (M)

FIG. 5. Regulation parameter extracted form force curves as a function of (a) salt concentration, (b) K+ concentration, and (c) ionic strength for diﬀerent salts at pH 10. Lines are only used to guide the eye.

VI. CONCLUSIONS is more effective in screening the surface charge. This behavior is in line with 1-pK basic Stern model predictions. We have measured forces between negatively charged The order of the potential curves gets reversed if they silica particles in the presence of 1:z salts. In these sys- are plotted as a function of ionic strength, i.e. the po- tems the multivalent ions have the same charge as the tential curve for lower valence comes first. Finally, if one surface and therefore play the role of coions. The mea- plots the potentials as a function of monovalent counte- sured forces are repulsive at low concentrations where rion concentration all the experimental data as well as the the double-layer forces are strong, while at high concen- basic Stern model calculations collapse on a single mas- tration the attractive vdW forces are dominant as the ter curve. Similar shifts to lower salt concentrations with electrostatic interactions are screened away. The double- increasing coion valence are also observed for the regu- layer force profiles assume a non-exponential shape, lation parameter. Furthermore, the collapse on a single where transition between a long-range exponential and master curve is also observed if regulation parameter is short-range power-law behavior is observed. This tran- plotted as a function of monovalent counterion concen- sition is due to the electrostatic exclusion of multivalent trations. From this behavior one can conclude that for a coions from the slit at smaller separation distances. At asymmetric 1:z electrolytes, where z represents the coion, large separation distances the forces are parallel at con- the double-layer properties are mainly determined by the stant ionic strength if plotted in log-lin representation. concentration of the monovalent counterions. On the other hand at closer separations the forces overlap ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for different coion valences if the counterion concentration is constant. This behavior suggests that the mono- This research was supported by the Swiss National valent counterion concentration determines the near-field Science Foundation through grant 162420 and the Uni- force. The diffuse-layer potentials are increasing with in- versity of Geneva. The authors are thankful to Michal creasing concentration for all investigated salts. The po- Borkovec for providing access to the instruments in his tential curves shift to lower salt concentrations with in- laboratory and to Plinio Maroni for the help with AFM creasing coion valence, since the salts with higher valence measurements.

[1] H. H. Strey, R. Podgornik, D. C. Rau, and V. A. [8] J. Israelachvili, Y. Min, M. Akbulut, A. Alig, G. Carver, Parsegian, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 8, 309 (1998). W. Greene, K. Kristiansen, E. Meyer, N. Pesika, K [2] F. Iselau, P. Restorp, M. Andersson, and R. Bordes, Rosenberg, and H. Zeng, Rep. Prog. Phys. 73, 036601 Colloids Surf., A 483, 264 (2015). (2010). [3] B. Bolto and J. Gregory, Water Research 41, 2301 (2007). [9] R. M. Espinosa-Marzal, T. Drobek, T. Balmer, and M. P. [4] M. Cerbelaud, A. Videcoq, P. Abelard, C. Pagnoux, Heuberger, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14, 6085 (2012). F. Rossignol, and R. Ferrando, Soft Matter 6, 370 (2010). [10] W. A. Ducker, T. J. Senden, and R. M. Pashley, Nature [5] D. Kuscer, G. Stavber, G. Trefalt, and M. Kosec, J. Am. 353, 239 (1991). Ceram. Soc. 95, 487 (2012). [11] H. J. Butt, Biophys. J. 60, 1438 (1991). [6] M. Zanini, C.-P. Hsu, T. Magrini, E. Marini, [12] D. C. Prieve, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 82, 93 (1999). and L. Isa, Colloids Surf., A in press (2017), [13] H. H. von Grunberg, L. Helden, P. Leiderer, and 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.05.084. C. Bechinger, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 10094 (2001). [7] C. Labbez, B. Jonsson, I. Pochard, A. Nonat, and B. Ca- [14] C. Gutsche, U. F. Keyser, K. Kegler, and F. Kremer, bane, J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 9219 (2006). Phys. Rev. E 76, 031403 (2007). 8

[15] J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 352 [32] G. Trefalt, I. Szilagyi, G. T´ellez, and M. Borkovec, Lang- (1994). muir 33, 1695 (2017). [16] R. M. Pashley, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 102, 23 (1984). [33] T. Cao, I. Szilagyi, T. Oncsik, M. Borkovec, and G. Tre- [17] K. Besteman, M. A. G. Zevenbergen, H. A. Heering, and falt, Langmuir 31, 6610 (2015). S. G. Lemay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 170802 (2004). [34] G. Trefalt, Phys. Rev. E 93, 032612 (2016). [18] O. Zohar, I. Leizerson, and U. Sivan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [35] V. Valmacco, M. Elzbieciak-Wodka, C. Besnard, P. Ma- 96, 177802 (2006). roni, G. Trefalt, and M. Borkovec, Nanoscale Horiz. 1, [19] P. Sinha, I. Szilagyi, F. J. Montes Ruiz-Cabello, P. Ma- 325 (2016). roni, and M. Borkovec, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4, 648 [36] J. E. Sader, J. W. M. Chon, and P. Mulvaney, Rev. Sci. (2013). Instrum. 70, 3967 (1999). [20] K. D. Danov, E. S. Basheva, and P. A. Kralchevsky, [37] T. Hiemstra, W. H. van Riemsdijk, and G. H. Bolt, J. Materials 9, 145 (2016). Colloid Interface Sci. 133, 91 (1989). [21] F. J. Montes Ruiz-Cabello, G. Trefalt, P. Maroni, and [38] M. Kobayashi, F. Juillerat, P. Galletto, P. Bowen, and M. Borkovec, Langmuir 30, 4551 (2014). M. Borkovec, Langmuir 21, 5761 (2005). [22] M. Moazzami Gudarzi, G. Trefalt, I. Szilagyi, P. Maroni, [39] S. H. Behrens and D. G. Grier, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 6716 and M. Borkovec, J. Phys. Chem. C 119, 15482 (2015). (2001). [23] V. Valmacco, M. Elzbieciak-Wodka, D. Herman, G. Tre- [40] H. D. Ackler, R. H. French, and Y. M. Chiang, J. Colloid falt, P. Maroni, and M. Borkovec, J. Colloid Interface Interface Sci. 179, 460 (1996). Sci. 472, 108 (2016). [41] G. Vigil, Z. H. Xu, S. Steinberg, and J. Israelachvili, J. [24] G. Trefalt, T. Palberg, and M. Borkovec, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 165, 367 (1994). Colloid Interface Sci. 27, 9 (2017). [42] J. J. Valle-Delgado, J. A. Molina-Bolivar, F. Galisteo- [25] M. Trulsson, B. Jonsson, T. Akesson, J. Forsman, and Gonzalez, M. J. Galvez-Ruiz, A. Feiler, and M. W. Rut- C. Labbez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 068302 (2006). land, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 034708 (2005). [26] M. Kanduˇc, M. Moazzami-Gudarzi, V. Valmacco, [43] A. Grabbe and R. G. Horn, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 157, R. Podgornik, and G. Trefalt, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 375 (1993). 19, 10069 (2017). [44] S. M. Acuna and P. G. Toledo, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [27] M. M. Kohonen, M. E. Karaman, and R. M. Pashley, 361, 397 (2011). Langmuir 16, 5749 (2000). [45] J.-L. Trompette, J. Phys. Chem. B 121, 5654 (2017). [28] M. Moazzami-Gudarzi, T. Kremer, V. Valmacco, P. Ma- [46] G. Trefalt, S. H. Behrens, and M. Borkovec, Langmuir roni, M. Borkovec, and G. Trefalt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 32, 380 (2016). 088001 (2016). [47] M. A. Brown, A. Goel, and Z. Abbas, Angew. Chem., [29] M. Moazzami-Gudarzi, P. Maroni, M. Borkovec, and Int. Ed. 55, 3790 (2016). G. Trefalt, Soft Matter 13, 3284 (2017). [30] I. Langmuir, J. Chem. Phys. 6, 873 (1938). [31] W. H. Briscoe and P. Attard, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 5452 (2002).