Disintegration Mechanisms of Charged Aqueous Nanodroplets Studied by Simulations and Analytical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of fragmentation processes in aqueous nanodroplets charged with ions is studied by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. By using constant-temperature MD, the evaporation of the water is naturally taken into account and sequences of ion fragmentation events are observed. The size of the critical radius of the charged droplet just before the fragmentation and the distribution of the sizes of the fragments are estimated. Comparison of the Rayleigh critical radius for fragmentation and simulation data is within 0.23 nm. This seemingly small difference arises from a large difference in the number of water molecules that makes fragmentation an activated process as in the ion evaporation mechanism (IEM). This finding is in agreement with the predictions of Labowsky et al. [Anal. Chim. Acta 2000, 406, 105-118] for charged aqueous drops. The size of the daughter droplets is larger than the prediction of Born's theory by 0.1 to 0.15 nm. The nature and the dynamics of the intermediate states of the fragmentation process characterized by a bridge formed between the mother droplet and the evaporating ion or thorned structures where the ion sits on the tip are important for the outcome of the size-distribution of the fragments, while they are is missing in Born's theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".