VOLUME 87, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

15 OCTOBER 2001

Specic Ion Effects: Why DLVO Theory Fails for Biology and Colloid Systems
M. Bostrm, D. R. M. Williams, and B. W. Ninham*
Department of Applied Mathematics, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0200 (Received 30 May 2001; published 1 October 2001) The classical Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek theory that underpins colloid and surface science is shown to be awed, especially at biological salt concentrations. This is in part because the dispersion forces acting on the ions are ignored. When these are included properly very different results are obtained. These results have substantial implications for biological and for ordinary colloid systems at moderate salt concentrations.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.168103 PACS numbers: 87.15.Rn, 82.70.Dd, 82.45.Tv

The forces between charged objects in an aqueous electrolyte solution is a central preoccupation of colloid science. Whether the application is to membrane biology or protein interactions, soil science, electrochemistry, polymers, or mesostructured uids, a knowledge of the forces is crucial. The Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of interparticle interactions [1,2] treats colloid stability in terms of a balance of attractive van der Waals forces and repulsive electrical double-layer forces. While there have been many improvements (e.g., Lifschitz theory of attractive forces [3,4], ion uctuation forces [4,5], charge regulation in the double layer [6]), the theory has remained unchallenged for half a century. There is a huge amount of literature devoted to force measurements, either direct via the surface force apparatus technique of Israelachvili and colleagues [7,8], or by atomic force microscopy, or osmotic measurements pioneered by Parsegian [9,10]. But, except for a few cases [9,11,12], agreement with theory is illusory in the sense that the measurements can be accounted for only by invoking tting parameters to accommodate surface potential or charge. There is a high degree of ion pair and buffer specicity [9]. Forces can vary in magnitude by a factor of 50 or more by simply changing the counterion from, e.g., bromide to acetate [11]. The same problem is mirrored in the simple experiment of bubble bubble interactions [13], or in explaining the interfacial tension of an electrolyte-air interface [14]. This shows up in biological and biochemical applications particularly where socalled Hofmeister effects are ubiquitous [15,16], as indeed they are for polyelectrolytes, and mesostructured uids. The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Even with ve adjustable parameters, theory often disagrees with experiment at short ranges less than, for instance, 100 [17]. It does not properly take into account specic ion effects [8,9,11,], which are ubiquitous in biochemistry and colloid science. Above 0.1M , the regime of biological interest, theory loses all pretence of predictability [15]. These problems can be resolved by including dispersion forces acting on the dissolved ions at the same level as electrostatic forces [18]. Interactions between charged particles, strongly dependent on specic ion effects, can differ substantially from the DLVO results. 168103-1 0031-9007y 01 y 87(16) y 168103(4)$15.00

Even given a tting parameter such as effective charge or potential, at short length scales experiments often show substantial deviations from DLVO theory. These deviations are usually accounted for by invoking a zoo of socalled extra-DLVO forces [7,8]. These may be hydration forces, hydrophobic, oscillatory, membrane uctuations, or water structure forces. But, any assessment of the important short range forces is impossible if they are obtained by subtracting a wrong form for the long range forces from an experimental force curve. The problem lies in [18] the inconsistency built into the DLVO theory which separates forces between particles into double-layer and van der Waals forces. The electrostatic forces are handled by a nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann description or decorations thereof. The van der Waals forces are treated in a linear (Lifschitz) theory. In the biological regime (oil-water, high salt), the dominant part of the interaction is precisely equivalent to an extension to two interfaces of the Onsager-Samaras theory for the change in interfacial tension at an air-water interface due to dissolved salt [18]. This limiting law is incorrect except possibly at extremely low concentrations. So, also, the DLVO ansatz, the separation of forces, is equally invalid. Both the electrostatic and the dispersion forces have to be handled at the same level. Only then will it be possible to estimate theshort range forces. Importantly, we can actually calculate the dispersion forces and, hence, their effect on the forces between the particles. We now show that when ionic dispersion forces are included consistently the modied theory that emerges gives quantitatively different results that can accommodate specic ion effects. While the macroscopiccontinuum model is probably not accurate enough, it is essential to maintain its use here to focus on the main point. The DLVO theory has appeared to work reasonably well for low salt concentrations (,5 3 1022 M ), where electrostatics dominates. At biological concentrations, however, electrostatics is strongly screened. There, and in other systems with high concentrations, the dispersion forces on the ions can be expected to dominate electrostatic forces. The dispersion potential, in a macroscopic-continuum model, between an ion at a distance x from an air-water 2001 The American Physical Society 168103-1

VOLUME 87, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS Udispersion sx , 2Ld and Uimage sk , x , 2Ld where

15 OCTOBER 2001 B6 B6 1 , x3 s2L 2 x d3 e2 sS1 1 S2 d , 16pew e0

interface can be well approximated by [4,18]

(1)

(5)

where nw (nair ) is the refractive index of water (air), h v is an electron afnity for the ion, and a p s0d is the static excess polarizability of the ion in water. The static excess polarizability is the change in polarizability of an ion compared to an equivalent volume of water and can be deduced from partial molar volumes of the bulk solutions and refractive index data. The electron afnities are unknown, but must be between an infrared and an UV frequency. In Gaussian units a p has dimensions of volume, and a lower bound would be, for instance, a p 1 3 10224 cm3 . a p can in fact be much larger, e.g., for an unhydrated anion of radius 2 , a p , 30 3 . a p can be negative due to electrostriction. For CH3 COO2 , having approximately the same electron density as water, we expect very little excess polarizability; for Br2 we expect large excess polarizability. We can thus estimate the dispersion energy. With the parameters taken to be vi 1015 -radys, a p 2 3 , and nw 1.33, one nd that a typical value is B 2 3 10250 J m3 . In Ref. [14] we used the dispersion coefcients (B6 ) as tting parameters. We showed that one can accommodate surface tension changes for a large group of salts, i.e., combinations of cations and anions, if dispersion constants of this order of magnitude were used. Inclusion of the dispersion potentials of the counterions has a very important inuence on ion density, charge density, self-consistent potential, and on the double-layer force. There can be very large effects on the force when two charged surfaces come close together. We begin by showing how to calculate the contribution of the ions at concentration c to the free energy of interaction of two parallel plates separated by a distance 2L. This is found using the Gibbs adsorption equation. In this expression the free energy (F ) is found from the internal energy (E ) using a coupling constant integration that slowly turns on the interaction [2]: Z c dc 0 F sc, 2Ld E sc0 , 2Ld , (2) c 0 0 E sc0 , 2Ld 2kB T fG1 sc0 , 2Ld 1 G2 sc0 , 2Ldg , G6 c0 Z
2L 0

(6)

S1 2 lnf1 2 D2 exps24k LdgyL , (7) ` 22k f2Ls p 21d1x g X e22k s2Lp 2x d e S2 D21 1 . (8) 2Lp 2 x p 1 2Ls p 2 1d 1 x Here, D ; sew 2 eair dysew 1 eair d 1, with eair and ew being the dielectric constants p of air and water. The inverse Debye length is kD s2b e2 c0 dyse0 ew d, where b 1ykB T , kB is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature. For T 300 K this becomes kD 0.325sfcgd1y2 21 , where fcg is the molarity of the salt solution. Numerically, we include only the rst 200 of the innite number of images for the image (dispersion) potential. We assume a cutoff radius of 2 for the ions to ensure that the potential does not diverge at either interface. The potential does not diverge on the interface in a complete theory [4]. To obtain the self-consistent electrostatic potential sf d we need to solve the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation: d f 2 ydx 2 2esc1 2 c2 dysew e0 d , where the ion concentrations are given by dj . c6 c0 hexp s 2 b f6ef 1 U6 sx dgd (10) There are many possible boundary conditions. Here for the purpose of demonstration and comparison we use the xed potential boundary conditions: f0 const and d f ydx jx L 0. We solve the Poisson-Boltzmann equation numerically using the method of relaxation. Once the self-consistent potential is known, the integrations are performed numerically to obtain the free energy. To obtain the interaction free energy, we subtract off the free energy at innite separation. This quantity can be related to the measured force ( f ) between crossed cylinders (of radii R ) using the Deryaguin approximation [19]: f yR 2p fF s2Ld 2 F s`dg . (11) The fact that one cannot separate double-layer and dispersion forces causes some difculty when comparing the various theories, since the image effect would usually need to be included in the double-layer force, but in fact in a full calculation it contributes to the dispersion force. We thus calculated three different kinds of double-layer forces here. These are differentiated by exactly what goes into the microscopic potential U acting on the ions. They are (i) DLVO, i.e., U 0; (ii) DLVO 1 images, U Uimage; (iii) DLVO 1 images 1 dispersion U 168103-2 (9)

(3) (4)

dx hexps2b f6ef 1 U6 sx dgd d 2 1j .

The free energy is directly related to the separation dependence of the adsorption excess G6 . Here, f is the electrostatic potential felt by the ions. This is the only term involved in the basic DLVO theory which totally neglects the possibility of other potentials acting on the ions, here given by U6 sx d. Here, we take the interaction potential to consist of contributions from both image and dispersion potentials. We approximate the image and the dispersion potentials in the presence of two interfaces as 168103-2

VOLUME 87, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

15 OCTOBER 2001

f/R (mN/m)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2

(N/m2 ) Force/unit area

1 104 8 103 6 103 4 103 2 103 0 100 -2 103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (nm)

Distance (nm)

FIG. 1. Calculated force, using the Deryaguin approximation, between charged interfaces (100 mV) across a 0.01M salt solution. Three different cases are considered: U 0 (dotted line), U Uimage (dashed line), and nally U Uimage 1 Udispersion (solid line).

FIG. 3. Calculated force per unit area (f 2F yd ) between charged interfaces (10 mV) across a 0.3M salt solution. Three different cases are considered: U 0 (dotted line), U Uimage (dashed line), and nally U Uimage 1 Udispersion (solid line).

Uimage 1 Udispersion . The image potential gives rise to one term that cancels out one part of the ordinary dispersion interaction (the zero frequency term) and replaces it with a term that decays exponentially at large separations [18]. The most interesting comparison is therefore between the latter two cases. As examples, we use values of the dispersion potentials which previously have been shown to give good results for the surface tension of ionic solutions [14] (B2 31 3 10250 J m3 and B1 21 3 10250 J m3 ). We begin with a case where the DLVO theory works well, 0.01M solution with a plate potential of 100 mV (Fig. 1). Here, we can see that the modications caused by the ionic dispersion potentials are small. However, when we increase the concentration to that of the biological regime (0.1M , 10 mV) (Fig. 2), we nd very substantial modication of the double-layer force. This is particularly
400 300

true for distances less than 30 , where the force actually has the opposite sign. At even higher concentrations (0.3M , 10 mV), the results are even more dramatic. When ionic dispersion potentials are included, the force can become attractive at both small and large separations with a repulsive barrier at intermediate separations (Fig. 3). This is similar to the secondary minimum found in ordinary DLVO theory. However, one should note that the ordinary electrostatic DLVO force, which this should be compared with, is always repulsive and always decreases monotonically. The most important conclusion here is that ordinary DLVO theory is simply wrong in the biological context. Of course, the ionic dispersion forces affect the force between the plates because they modify the concentration prole, and an example is shown in Fig. 4. We note that there

(N / m )

200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Relative Ion Density

1.5

0.5

f/R

0.4

Distance (nm)
FIG. 2. Calculated force, using the Deryaguin approximation, between charged interfaces (10 mV) across a 0.1M salt solution. Three different cases are considered: U 0 (dotted line), U Uimage (dashed line), and nally U Uimage 1 Udispersion (solid line).

Distance (nm)

0.8

1.2

1.6

FIG. 4. Relative ion concentration prole for an 0.3M salt solution between positively charged interfaces (f0 10 mV). The counterion (anion) distribution has been marked with open circles to distinguish between anions and cations. Three cases are considered: U 0 (dotted line), U Uimage (dashed line), and nally U Uimage 1 Udispersion (solid line).

168103-3

168103-3

VOLUME 87, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

15 OCTOBER 2001

can be very large effects on the counterion distribution. In the ordinary DLVO theory counterions accumulate close to the surface. At high salt concentrations, when dispersion potentials are accounted for, there may instead be a total depletion very close to the interface. Depending on several factors, dispersion potentials may give rise to either accumulation or depletion of ions close to an interface. How important the effects of dispersion potentials are depends, for instance, on the salt concentration, the magnitude and sign of the dispersion potentials, and on the magnitude and sign of the surface potential (surface charge). We have consequently considered an air-salt solution-air system. The extension to the interaction between, e.g., oil or mica surfaces is straightforward. The dispersion potentials towards the interfaces may change both in magnitude and sign, depending on the optical properties of the interacting surfaces, the salt solution, and the ions (consistent with the known fact that KI adsorbs negatively at an air-water interface and positively at a dodecane-water interface [20]). This gives rise to reduced or enhanced double-layer forces. As we have demonstrated the double-layer force may even become attractive. Similar results have been found using the constant surface charge boundary condition. The main conclusion of this Letter is that, while the traditional DLVO theory works well for low concentrations of order 0.01M , it is often very wrong for the biological regime, or for any system where the concentration is of order 0.1M or higher. This has very important implications for a whole range of colloidal problems, and also obviously for anyone interested in modeling biological systems. This Letter shows the undoubted importance of ionic dispersion forces. However, in order to solve the full problem we need to produce an analytic theory which takes into account all the forces. The purpose of this simplication is to highlight the effects of including dispersion potentials. Detailed comparison with experiments can be done only if different ions sizes are accounted for. It will also be important to consider dissolved gas [21] and the way dispersion forces are handled in the surface region. We gratefully acknowledge nancial support from the Australian Research Council and from STINT, the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education.

*Present address: Malm University, School of Technology and Society, SE-205 06 Malm, Sweden. [1] B. V. Deryaguin and L. Landau, Acta Phys. Chem. 14, 633 (1941); Sov. Phys. JETP 15, 633 (1945). [2] E. J. W. Verwey and J. Th. G. Overbeek, Theory of the Stability of Lyophobic Colloids (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1948). [3] I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. Usp. 4, 153 (1961) [Adv. Phys. 10, 165 (1961)]. [4] J. Mahanty and B. W. Ninham, Dispersion Forces (Academic, London, 1976). elja, J. Chem. [5] R. Kjellander, A. P. Lyubartsev, and S. Marc Phys. 114, 9565 (2001), and references therein. [6] B. W. Ninham and V. A. Parsegian, J. Theor. Biol. 31, 405 (1971). [7] J. N. Israelachvili and G. E. Adams, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. I 74, 975 (1978); see also J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces (Academic, London, 1992), 2nd ed., and references therein. [8] R. M. Pashley, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 83, 153 (1981). [9] M. Dubois, Th. Zemb, N. Fuller, R. P. Rand, and V. A. Parsegian, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 7855 (1998). [10] Y.-h. Tsao, D. F. Evans, R. P. Rand, and V. A. Parsegian, Langmuir 9, 233 (1993). [11] R. M. Pashley, P. M. McGuiggan, B. W. Ninham, J. Brady, and D. F. Evans, J. Phys. Chem. 90, 1637 (1986). [12] V. A. Parsegian, R. P. Rand, and N. L. Fuller, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 4777 (1991). [13] V. S. Craig, B. W. Ninham, and R. M. Pashley, J. Phys. Chem. 97, 10 192 (1993). [14] M. Bostrm, D. R. M. Williams, and B. W. Ninham, Langmuir 17, 4475 (2001). [15] H.-K. Kim, E. Tuite, B. Nordn, and B. W. Ninham, Eur. Phys. J. E 4, 411 (2001). [16] K. D. Collins and M. W. Washabaugh, Q. Rev. Biophys. 18, 323 (1985), and references therein. [17] V. E. Schubin and P. Kkicheff, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 155, 108 (1993). [18] B. W. Ninham and V. Yaminsky, Langmuir 13, 2097 (1997). [19] B. V. Deryaguin, Kolloid Z. 69, 155 (1934). [20] R. Aveyard and S. M. Saleem, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. I 72, 1609 (1976). [21] M. Alfredsson, B. W. Ninham, and S. Wall, Langmuir 16, 10 087 (2000).

168103-4

168103-4