Models and Mechanisms of Hofmeister Effects in Electrolyte Solutions, and Colloid and Protein Systems Revisited

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/264548635
Models and mechanisms of Hofmeister effects in electrolyte solutions, and

colloid and protein systems revisited
Article in Chemical Society Reviews · August 2014

DOI: 10.1039/c4cs00144c
CITATIONS READS
287 544
2 authors:
Andrea Salis Barry W Ninham

Università degli studi di Cagliari Australian National University
110 PUBLICATIONS 3,259 CITATIONS 495 PUBLICATIONS 32,368 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Hofmeister series View project
Enzyme immobilisation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Salis on 08 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chem Soc Rev
REVIEW ARTICLE
Models and mechanisms of Hofmeister effects in

electrolyte solutions, and colloid and protein
Cite this: Chem. Soc. Rev., 2014,
43, 7358 systems revisited
Andrea Salis*ab and Barry W. Ninhamb
Specific effects of electrolytes have posed a challenge since the 1880’s. The pioneering work was that of
Franz Hofmeister who studied specific salt induced protein precipitation. These effects are the rule rather
the exception and are ubiquitous in chemistry and biology. Conventional electrostatic theories (Debye–
Hückel, DLVO, etc.) cannot explain such effects. Over the past decades it has been recognised that addi-
tional quantum mechanical dispersion forces with associated hydration effects acting on ions are missing
from theory. In parallel Collins has proposed a phenomenological set of rules (the law of matching water
affinities, LMWA) which explain and bring to order the order of ion–ion and ion–surface site interactions
at a qualitative level. The two approaches appear to conflict. Although the need for inclusion of quantum
dispersion forces in one form or another is not questioned, the modelling has often been misleading and
inappropriate. It does not properly describe the chemical nature (kosmotropic/chaotropic or hard/soft) of
the interacting species. The success of the LMWA rules lies in the fact that they do. Here we point to the
Received 30th April 2014 way that the two apparently opposing approaches might be reconciled. Notwithstanding, there are more
DOI: 10.1039/c4cs00144c challenges, which deal with the effect of dissolved gas and its connection to ‘hydrophobic’ interactions,
the problem of water at different temperatures and ‘water structure’ in the presence of solutes. They take
www.rsc.org/csr us to another dimension that requires the rebuilding of theoretical foundations.
1. Introduction Fitting parameters like hydrated ion size that fit one experi-
ment are different for another.
‘Hofmeister’, ‘lyotropic’ or ‘salting in vs. salting out’ effects are The situation has frustrated physical chemists since
synonyms for the same ion specific phenomenon.1–4 They are not Hofmeister’s original work on ion specificity that showed up with
explained by standard theories of electrolytes.5–7 The term ‘ion precipitation of proteins about 130 years ago.1,2 It is a frustration
specificity’ in fact puts the ‘cart before the horse’. Specificity is the also because without any evident systematics all attempts to exploit
rule rather than the exception and exists everywhere in chemistry Hofmeister effects in applications are doomed.4
and biology.4,5 Examples of these phenomena include the Born We make a distinction between specific ion effects in
energy,8 electrolyte activities,9 buffers,10,11 viscosities,12 bubble electrolyte solutions and those in more complex colloids like
coalescence,13 surfactant and microemulsion phases,14,15 ionic proteins. Two recent developments appeared to throw light on
liquids,16 polymer solubility,17,18 cation and protein adsorption at the problem. In one, Collins44 found a set of rules that brings
silica surfaces,19–21 optical rotation of amino acids,22 enzyme activi- many observations to order. The rules take cognizance of
ties,23–28 protein cloud points,29,30 protein surface charges31 and electrostatic interactions and systematise (unquantified) hydra-
electrophoretic mobilities,32,33 electrochemistry of redox enzymes,34 tion interactions between ions, and between ions and surface
growth rates of microorganisms,35 and many others. For an over- sites of opposite charge. But they ignore quantum mechanical
view of the situation see some recent books6,36 and reviews.5,7,37–42 (and ion specific) dispersion forces, which have to be included
Classical theories of electrolytes ‘work’ qualitatively but in a complete theory. Attempts to take these into account have
never quantitatively without many fitting parameters, e.g. those been made by one of us and coworkers.45–49 Ion specificity
developed systematically in the widely used Pitzer scheme.43 emerged, but the first theoretical attempts ignored hydration.
Note however that Hofmeister effects also do exist in non-
a
aqueous solvents.50,51 The initial work on ionic dispersion
Department of Chemical and Geological Science, University of Cagliari,
Italy and CSGI. E-mail: asalis@unica.it
forces also failed to take account of ion size variations. At first
b
Department of Applied Mathematics, The Australian National University, sight this might seem totally wrong. However the formulae
0200 ACT, Australia. E-mail: andrea.salis@anu.edu.au required polarisability and radii of ions scale (see Section 6.3).
7358 | Chem. Soc. Rev., 2014, 43, 7358--7377 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014
Review Article Chem Soc Rev
Nonetheless, the two approaches, ion specificity expressed via that reflected their efficiency in precipitating proteins. The
hydration (Collins’ rules) vs. specificity explicit with ionic series orders the increasing concentration required to do the
dispersion forces, appeared to conflict. job:
Recent studies of Duignan et al.52–55 subsume recent
encouraging steps by Lund et al.56 and Levin et al.57,58 that SO42 4 HPO42 4 F 4 CH3COO 4 Cl 4 Br 4 NO3 4
point the way to reconciliation of the two apparently opposing I 4 ClO4 4 SCN
approaches. The development quantifies ion specific disper-
sion forces and ion size via ab initio quantum mechanics that Similarly, for salts with the same anion the cation order is:
also includes hydration and thus ‘Collins’ rules’. Promising
quantification and predictability is emerging. This will be (CH3)4N+ 4 Rb+ 4 K+ 4 Na+ 4 Li+ 4 Mg2+ 4 Ca2+
illustrated explicitly by means of examples of ion specific
phenomena in bulk, colloid, and protein systems. Such experiments were carried out in the context of a back-
The outline of the review is as follows. ground where pH was unquantified and no theory of electro-
– We lay out the background to the phenomena and diffi- lytes like the Debye–Hückel theory existed.
culties that face us in protein, solution, and colloid chemistry Hofmeister remained bemused on whether his effects
(Sections 2–4). should be attributed to bulk water (withdrawing power) or
– We explain Collins’ rules and illustrate their application surface effects due to salts. As a pharmacologist, the withdrawal
(Section 5). power of magnesium sulfate used as a laxative was evident! And
– We then give a brief account of theory that includes while the weight of opinion opposes such long range effects,
quantum dispersion forces missing from classical theory, and nagging questions like the existence of extremely dilute gels
show how hydration and ion size are taken account of system- that comprise jellyfish remain an unsolved issue.59
atically (Section 6). Besides Hofmeister’s studies in the 1880s, attempts to
– We discuss how the Collins’ and ‘missing dispersion account for the phenomena in the early years of the 20th
forces’ approaches might be reconciled (Section 7). century can be seen in the major studies of Robertson,60
– Finally we summarise the present state of affairs covered in Loeb,61 and Gustavson.62 We note that these post-Hofmeister
this review, with a focus on future challenges (Section 8). studies were conducted in 1911, 1920, and 1926, indicating the
venerability of the problem, which is still unexplained.
A remarkable example of ion-specific effects in a protein
2. Background to ion specific system was reported by Green63 in 1932 who studied the
phenomena solubility of carboxy-hemoglobin in different aqueous salt
solutions. By considering the ratios of protein solubility S in
2.1. Hofmeister’s and other early ‘ion specific’ experiments the presence of salts, and solubility S0 in the absence of salts,
In 1888 and subsequently Franz Hofmeister quantified specific the entity log S/S0 followed a bell shaped trend as a function of
effects of salts on egg white protein precipitation.1 For salts the square root of the ionic strength I (Fig. 1). Experimental
having the same cation the anions could be ordered in a series data could be fitted by using an empirical equation which is
Andrea Salis received his PhD in Barry Ninham founded the

chemistry (2002) and carried out Department of Applied Mathe-
post-doctoral research at Cagliari matics (Natural Sciences) at the
University (Sardinia, Italy). He Australian National University in
has been a visiting student at 1970. 45 years later he and his
Lund University (Sweden) and a colleagues continue with their
Research Fellow at the Australian sustained contributions to the
National University. He was experimental and theoretical
recently (2014) awarded with the aspects of colloid science relevant
Italian National Qualification for to modern materials science and
associate professorship both in structural biology. His work on
Physical Chemistry (03A2) and measurement and theories of
Andrea Salis Chemical Technologies (03B2). He Barry W. Ninham intermolecular forces and supra-
presently carries out research and molecular self-assembly in solution
teaching at Cagliari University. Besides Hofmeister phenomena, his has progressed the understanding of the genesis of sub-cellular structures
research interests involve nanobiotechnology (nanostructured in biology and the aggregation behaviour of soaps, lipids and related
materials, biocatalysis and biosensors). http://people.unica.it/ amphiphilic molecules in solution. He has mentored more than 75 full
andreasalis/ professors and works at the ANU and the University of Florence. http://
physics.anu.edu.au/appmaths/people/profile.php?ID = 610
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 Chem. Soc. Rev., 2014, 43, 7358--7377 | 7359
Chem Soc Rev Review Article
Table 1 Literature values of some ion specific parameters. Mobility (mi) of

aqueous ions at infinite dilution at 25 1C.64 Jones–Dole Viscosity B
coefficient (B).69 Hydration enthalpies (DHhydration).70 Ionic size (hard
sphere radius, a).6 Static polarisabilities (a0)6
mi DHhydration
Ion (cm2 V1 s1 104) B (kJ mol1) a (Å) a0 (Å3)

CH3COO 4.23 0.236 425 — —
F 5.70 — 515 1.12 1.218
Cl 7.91 0.007 381 1.86 4.220
Br 8.13 0.032 347 2.16 6.028
NO3 7.40 0.046 314 2.21 4.008
I 7.95 0.080 305 2.33 8.967
SCN — 0.103 310 2.39 7.428
Li+ 4.01 0.147 519 0.42 0.028
Na+ 5.19 0.086 409 0.67 0.131
K+ 7.62 0.007 322 1.06 0.795
Fig. 1 Solubility of carboxyhemoglobin in various electrolyte solutions at NH4+ 7.60 0.007 307 — —
25 1C. Adapted with permission from ref. 63. Copyright (1932), by the Rb+ 7.92 0.029 293 1.23 1.348
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Cs+ 7.96 0.045 264 1.62 2.354
exactly equivalent to the extended Debye–Hückel equation for They found that salt solutions can be either more or less
mean activity coefficients of electrolyte solutions, viscous than pure water depending on the nature of the salts.
pffiffiffi The relationship between the relative viscosity (Z/Z0) and the
S 0:5z1 z2 I salt concentration c is:
log ¼ pffiffiffi Ks I (1)
S0 1þA I pffiffiffi
Z=Z0 ¼ A c þ Bc (2)
where z1 and z2 are ion valences, and Ks is the ‘salting out’
coefficient, analogous to the Jones–Dole B coefficient for where A is an ‘electrostatic’ parameter about equal for all salts,
viscosity (see next paragraph). and B is an ‘ion specific’ parameter known as the ‘Jones Dole
Viscosity B coefficient’ (Table 1).
2.2. First attempts to come to grips with ion specificity It was supposed that a ‘water structure’ (which can be
It was supposed at the beginning that ion specificity was thought as a dynamic fluctuating hydrogen bond network)
intimately related to the specific interactions that ions have existed, and that this was specifically affected by electrolytes.66
with water. This is reflected in many easily measurable physico- (For recent attempts to better fine ‘water structure’, and water
chemical parameters of aqueous salt solutions. We consider and electrolytes in biology see recent articles by Hyde67 and
the insights that can be gleaned from two of these, namely Henry.68) The ions with a positive value of B increased the
conductivity and viscosity. viscosity of aqueous solutions and were supposed to ‘make the
2.2.1. First ion specific parameters and water structure. In order’ in the water structure. They were called ‘kosmotropes’.
1876 Kohlraush measured the conductivity of electrolyte solu- Those with a negative value of B decreased viscosity of aqueous
tions.64 His mechanism for conductivity was the ‘independent solutions and were supposed to ‘break the order’ in the water
migration’ of ions through the solution caused by the presence structure. They were called ‘chaotropes’.
of an electric field. Positive ions migrate towards the negative
electrode and negative ions toward the positive electrode. The 2.3. Failure of conventional theoretical ideas
current through the solution is given by the product of the On the basis of the previous classification of ions as kosmotropes
velocity of the ion and its charge. The electrochemical mobility, and chaotropes, one possible explanation for Hofmeister’s experi-
mi (cm2 V1 s1), is given by the ratio between the velocity and ments (salt induced protein precipitation) was that kosmotropic
the applied electric field. anions withdraw the water molecules of the hydration layer of
One would expect that the mobility is high for small ions and proteins, thus forcing them to aggregate. Chaotropic anions were
low for big ions. In fact the order of mobility for alkali metal thought to act with exactly the opposite mechanism.71
cations is Cs+ 4 Rb+ 4 K+ 4 Na+ 4 Li+ and for halides is Br 4 Although this seemed to be a qualitatively satisfactory
I 4 Cl 4 F (Table 1). That is the opposite of what was explanation, there are several observations which demonstrate
expected. The accepted explanation is that the actual effective that the mechanism at work is much more complicated. These
size of ions in water is very different from that in a crystal. Small observations are briefly outlined below.
ions (e.g. Li+, F) are strongly hydrated and move bearing several 2.3.1. Effect of cations. The water ‘withdrawing power’
water molecules with them and so they move slowly compared mechanism appeared to provide some comfort to explain the
with bigger, poorly hydrated ions (e.g. Cs+, Br). behavior of anions observed by Hofmeister. But if this was the
The first pioneering experiment on electrolyte viscosities mechanism at work, the question arises as to why kosmotropic
was that of Poiseuille65 in 1847. Jones and Dole measured cations salt in (see the cation series above and the recent paper
the viscosities of salt aqueous solutions about 80 years later.12 by Schwierz et al.72) proteins and the chaotropic ones are salting
out? (that is, cations give rise to exactly the opposite effect of the non-ideal behaviour of electrolyte solutions is measured by
anions). the mean activity coefficient, g = (g+g)1/2.9 Its simplest expres-
2.3.2. Hofmeister series reversal. It was found that in some sion is that derived via Debye–Hückel theory,79
situations the series were reversed in order.60,73 From the begin- pffiffiffi
Az1 z2 I
ning this has been the key challenge for any theory. Let us take the log g ¼ pffiffiffi (3)
1 þ Ba I
ordering of ions that promote protein aggregation listed above as
the standard or ‘direct Hofmeister series’. This is usually observed where z1 and z2 are the valences of the ions, I is the ionic
at pH values above the protein isoelectric point (IEP). The series strength, a is the ion diameter, and A and B are constants
reverses at a pH below the IEP (reverse or inverse Hofmeister depending on the dielectric constant and temperature. This
series).73 Again, at a pH below IEP the series changes from theory considers ions interacting with electrostatic forces only
‘inverse’ to ‘direct’ with increasing salt concentration.29,60 and treats water as a continuum. It cannot claim validity above
Other examples of series reversal are seen by pH measure- 103–102 M and does not take into account ion specificity.
ments in salt solutions. At the same nominal pH of 7, they 2.4.1. Attempts to extend the Debye–Hückel law. Several
follow a direct Hofmeister series for phosphate buffer, and attempts were made along the years to extend the range of
reverse for cacodylate buffer.10 The same kind of reversal is validity of Debye–Hückel theory.80,81 Robinson and Stokes
seen with restriction enzymes23 and activity coefficients (see added a linear term with an additional fitting parameter b to
Section 2.4.2). These and other striking examples are usually extend the range of validity:9
ignored completely because they pose too much of a challenge. pffiffiffi
Az1 z2 I
Such observations imply that both specific surface hydration– log g ¼ pffiffiffi þ bI (4)
1 þ Ba I
ion hydration interactions and hydrated ion–bulk water inter-
actions are involved. The direct and reverse sequences can Decorations were made to allow short range ion hydration. The
rearrange in internal ordering depending on the nature of the overlapping of such hydration shells gave an extra potential of
surface (e.g. hydrophobic or hydrophilic, charged or uncharged, interaction (Gurney potentials).82,83 A further extension of
zwitterionic).74 Nonetheless, the idea that there is a fixed eqn (4) gives an explicit form to this interaction term which
universal Hofmeister series persists. can be obtained from equations of state for effective hard
2.3.3. Concentration range. For decades it was thought spheres,84
that Hofmeister effects were associated only with phenomena pffiffiffi
Az1 z2 I
occurring at high salt concentrations (i.e. 0.5–3 M).63 This belief log g ¼ pffiffiffi þ Da3 I (5)
1 þ Ba I
persists. It was probably due to the unavailability of sensitive
enough experimental methods. But even early in the piece, ion In this expression the extra parameter, a, is the centre to centre
specificity was found to also occur at low salt concentrations.60 distance of cation and anion on contact. From such an equa-
That they can occur at very low concentration is a matter tion a set of apparently additive consistent ion size parameters
predicted theoretically46 and has been confirmed e.g. by could be found to predict the activities of alkali halides up to
Mahiuddin and colleagues.75 These observations have now very high concentrations (B3 to 4 M).43,84 The fitted effective
become more frequent.32,33,76 In particular, the occurrence of ion sizes were reasonably consistent, except for some ions like
ion specificity at physiological concentrations (B0.1 to 0.15 M Cs+, and NO3, SO42, PO43, AcO. For these the ion sizes that
and below) reflects the fact that ions play a specific key role in fit the data were less than the bare ion size. This suggests that
most biochemical mechanisms.77 extra attractive forces (dispersion forces) are operating. With
2.3.4. Ions do not affect the long range water structure. multivalent and mixed electrolytes full nonlinear electrostatic
Besides the open questions above, some experiments have theories give a good account, but only at low concentration.85
demonstrated that ions do not affect hydrogen bonding of For other experiments the effective ion size parameters that fit
water beyond their first solvation shells.78 Hence, the hypothe- the data vary from experiment to experiment and are tempera-
sised long range effect of ions on water structure has been put ture dependent.
aside. Analogously, the traditional mechanism that assigned A review of the many attempts to come to grips with
Hofmeister effects to salt-induced withdrawal of water from activities is due to Kunz and Neueder,86 where they state:
protein surfaces is no longer considered an explanation of ion ‘‘There is not a single published work in which a prediction
specific phenomena at a salt concentration of o0.2 M. of these values can be found.’’ Further ‘‘Today, it seems that the
These observations imply that, to be acceptable, any most physical model is one of the oldest: the Friedman–Gurney
approach that explains ion specific phenomena has to account (FG) model’’.87 This model uses sophisticated HNC calculations
for the different behaviour between anions and cations, the to treat the statistical mechanics, but still relies on ‘Gurney
reversal of Hofmeister series, as well as their occurrence at low potentials’, with parameters adjusted for each salt.
concentration. An alternative approach focused on electrostatics and upon
short ranged hydration anticipated Collins’ rules. Hydration
2.4. Bulk electrolytes forces were calculated by the theory of Maxwell (1876) and
If we want to understand ion specificity we necessarily have to revived a century later by Marcelja.88,89 With the Marcelja theory
consider the behaviour of electrolyte solutions. We recall that of hydration fits to solubilities with a universal parameter
Fig. 2 Activity coefficients of alkali metals bromides (A) and acetates (B) as a function of concentration. The change of the anion results in a reversal of
the cation series. Data from ref. 9.
‘worked’. But it failed for few odd ions like silver and copper. So out since 1980s. They provide very different insights into our
the theory had to be rejected.90 The spectre of bulk water puzzles in bulk and protein systems. In particular, proteins,
structure as the source of ion specificity loomed again! being macromolecules, are not colloids with smooth surfaces at
2.4.2. Series reversal of activity coefficients. Let us empha- a molecular level. They are not homogenous in charge, and
sise the difficulties in predicting the behaviour of what in are neither hydrophilic nor hydrophobic. We can draw more
principle is a simple system (just salt in water!) with the support for the modelling we are going to present in the next
following example. One of the most dramatic series reversal sections if we consider ion specificity in other systems in which
is that seen with the mean activity coefficients of alkali metal ions interact with better defined surfaces. The highlight is on
salts. They reverse with a change of anions.9 At a given the behaviour of surfactant systems.
concentration, for bromide (or iodide) salts, the average activity
coefficient decreases in the sequence: Li+ 4 Na+ 4 K+ 4 Rb+ 4 3.1. A paradox
Cs+ (Fig. 2). Before we do so in detail, we discuss a paradox that shows quite
Instead, if acetate or fluoride salts are considered, the starkly the dilemma faced by classical electrolyte solutions and
activity coefficient decreases along an inverse series: Cs+ 4 the electrostatic double layer theory of forces between colloid
Rb+ 4 K+ 4 Na+ 4 Li+. These results imply that no consistent particles. We consider two cases at first for illustration.
effective hard core interaction description between the ions is Consider direct force measurements between molecularly
possible. We know that there are missing (quantum mechan- smooth surfaces of monolayers of an insoluble double chained
ical) dispersion forces between ions that are highly specific, cationic surfactant, dihexadecyldimethylammonium bromide.91
and we do know that they also contribute specifically to hydra- These are either adsorbed or deposited on molecularly smooth
tion because of ion–water dispersion interactions. The specifi- mica and interact across an electrolyte solution. The quaternary
city (in hydration) arises from differing ion sizes, static and ammonium head groups have two fixed water molecules of
dynamic (frequency dependent) ionic polarisabilities. hydration. The forces between the surfaces fit to the classical
Poisson–Boltzmann theory (DLVO) with and without an added
electrolyte (KBr). To a very good approximation the measured
3. Insights from colloid and surfactant forces fit theory with a (chemical) site binding model. It is
science assumed that 80% of the bromide counterion is actually bound.
The same results emerge for osmotic force measurements on the
In colloid science generally, for a century or so, matters were corresponding lamellar phases. At very close distances hydration
assumed to be accommodated by using fitting parameters forces show up and are also measured.91
(inner and outer Helmholtz planes) that reflected ion size Next we consider micelles formed from the corresponding
and hydration, specific (colloid) surface hydration, and forces single chained surfactants hexadecyltrimethylammonium
due to overlapping hydration profiles of surface and ion. Again bromide.92 The surfactant headgroup is essentially the same
while the fitting parameters attempt to capture some of reality, as those in the force measurements. The cmcs, aggregation
there is even less predictability than for bulk electrolytes. numbers, and salt dependence can be measured and predicted
Matters were obscured (and still are) because most work in by an electrostatic theory exactly equivalent to the Poisson–
colloid science and in surfactant and polymer chemistry Boltzmann theory above including hydration forces. Counterion
focuses on the easiest to use electrolytes like sodium chloride. binding can be measured using NMR and comes out to be
That is, it ignores specific ion effects. Moreover, the idea that around 80% in apparent agreement with the force measure-
coions could adsorb at a surface of the same charge was seen as ments. However, it can be shown that the phenomenological
an absurdity. If electrostatic forces alone acted that would be equation used to interpret NMR binding measurements is
so. But they are not the only forces as we shall see. exactly equivalent to an electrostatic theory in which ion binding
Extensive work in colloid and interface science has allowed is connected to physisorption of the counterion.93,94 There is
the development of the new ideas, which will be explained in no actual ion binding in the sense of a binding constant that has
the next sections. We review some extensive research carried to be invoked to explain the force measurements. This theory
apparently agrees with experiment up to 130 1C.92 So the force Of more interest are microemulsions formed from the same
measurements ought to fit the Poisson–Boltzmann prediction surfactant, alkanes and water where the Br counterion is ion
but with no actual binding. exchanged for SO42. Here instead of the usual reversed curva-
There is a paradox here that can only be resolved by admitting ture structures (water-in-oil) that form with Br, the micro-
that we have to take into account the missing quantum disper- emulsions have normal (oil-in-water) curvature.108 This means
sion forces which contribute directly and to hydration. These that the divalent sulfate counterion is not adsorbed at a
observations are reinforced if we consider the same situations surfactant interface as strongly as Cl, Br, I. Remarkably,
but with acetate instead of the (strongly polarisable) bromide as titration of only a very small amount of NaBr causes the
the counterion.91 Here the forces fit to Poisson–Boltzmann microemulsion to reverse back to the Br only form. This is
theory but with no binding of acetate ions. For the corres- impossible if only electrostatic forces were operating, as the
ponding micelles too, there is no binding. (The NMR electro- divalent sulfate ion would win out for the cationic interface
static ion binding model works only asymptotically in the limit against the univalent bromide.
of tight binding. Otherwise it is meaningless.92–101) At low water content, which can be as low as 1–2%, the
These observations reflect quite dramatic differences. The microstructure of these systems is essentially connected cylin-
forces between bilayers differ by more than an order of magni- ders of water in oil with the surfactant at the interface. Their
tude from one counterion (bromide) to another (acetate).91 A diameters are typically as low as 10 Å. Water here is all
careful study of such forces with Br vs. Cl as counterions ‘hydration’ water. The same is true for the force measurements
shows that the forces cannot be explained without dispersion above at small distances say 10 Å separation. And this certainly
forces.102 They are also extremely subtle. For the micelles of is a factor not understood.
hexadecyltrimethylammonium surfactants, a change of coun- A nice example is given in the work of Murgia et al.14 If the
terion from bromide to the very similar chloride changes head microemulsions are formed successively with water containing low
group area so that one forms cylindrical micelles, the other concentrations of NaBr, for that matter of all alkali metal bromide
spherical ones.92 salts, nothing changes until the added salt reaches 103 M. At and
beyond that point, the microemulsions collapse and phases
3.2. The role of hydration separate. This is indeed remarkable. The counterion bromide is
If we take the same systems and alter headgroup hydration via present at concentrations of at least 1 M. NMR measurements
adsorption of alcohols103 or by altering the headgroup, the show the positively charged sodium ions adsorb onto the positively
forces again change dramatically.104 In this case a change of charged cationic dimethylammonium surfactant surfaces. Electro-
headgroup from dimethyl-ammonium group to one with a statics can have no influence. Nor can the small amount of
methyl-hydroxyethyl-ammonium group changes the inter- adsorbed sodium ions affect the curvature at the oil–water inter-
bilayer forces with acetate counterion back to that observed face. At a certain point of sodium addition the adsorbed sodium is
with the dimethyl-ammonium headgroup and bromide. Clearly expelled from the connected cylinder microstructure to its junction
this is an effect of hydration. It implies obviously that binding nodes and collapses the structure.15
of drugs to proteins, for example, can be highly dependent on a Especially notable is the fact that these cationic microemul-
particular residue. sions do not form with buffers. At low water concentrations the
A great deal of work has been done on ion specificity of water is all hydration water. Further the buffer anions adsorb at
hydration forces between phospholipid bilayers. Most of the the surfactant headgroup as does sodium in the preceding
studies are associated with Parsegian and colleagues,102 with example. This, the strange effects of buffers at very low con-
very little on the effects of sugars that affect water structure. centrations compared to salt is a huge problem for classical
Similarly there is much available information on nonionic theory.10 It is as well known to biochemists as it is ignored by
surfactants.105 The inwardness of these data is that ions adsorb physical chemists.
specifically at uncharged surfaces. Some other studies on ion
specificity with micelles are those reported in ref. 96 and 106. 3.4. Vesicles
The double chained cationic surfactants form lamellar phases
3.3. Specificity in microemulsions in water with bromide counterions. With different counterions
Quite dramatic are effects of specificity on self-assembled or salt addition they show Hofmeister effects, revealed by
vesicles, and ternary microemulsions formed from the cationic equilibrium spacing. Careful measurements show that it is
double chained surfactant didodecyldimethylammonium impossible to account for the data using standard theories
bromide (DDAB), oil (alkanes or alkenes) and water. The system is and dispersion forces have to be taken into account, and
ideal in that it is very rich in phase behaviour.98 The head group area properly.99
is fixed, the interfacial forces due to headgroups on one side and oil An exhaustive analysis showed that was impossible to fit the
adsorption on the other are fixed and the microstructure is deter- data with classical theory (DLVO plus many parameters) so that
mined by global packing alone.97 The microstructure varies with a again some extra forces were missing. At higher water content
change of counterion Br, Cl, I.107 The system is of biological the lamellar phase swells to form univalent stable vesicles if the
interest because of the similarity of the dimethylammonium moiety Br ion is exchanged with OH, AcO, NO3, etc. The forces
and the terminal choline group of phosphatidyl choline. between lamellae change by orders of magnitude in agreement
with direct force measurements, and headgroup intra-surfactant electrochemistry of redox enzymes which might be important
interactions allow the required change in curvature.109 for applications34 as well as experiments on the cloud points of
The same phenomenon occurs for anionic double chained phospholipids and lysozyme, which seem to provide new
surfactants.110 The didodecylsulphosuccinates with sodium insights into the mechanisms of ion pumps.30,116 We consider
counterion form lamellar bilayer phases with only water of these effects that remain open problems as a memorandum for
hydration. Upon ion exchange to lithium as counterions the future research, and, more importantly, because the absence of
surfactants swell to form stable vesicles. Addition of lithium their explanation flags a caveat on developments that we think
salts in concentrations as high as 1 M does not affect their represent progress.
stability.
4.1. Specific buffer effects
3.5. Hydrophobic interactions The list of salts used by Hofmeister also includes others that we
A parenthetic consideration germane to this digression on ion term ‘weak electrolytes’. They are indeed known to react with
specific forces is that of the role of interactions between water by giving hydrolysis and so affecting pH,
hydrophobic surfaces. These are larger by an order of magni-
A + H2O 3 HA + OH
tude compared to the van der Waals forces expected from
Lifshitz (Hamaker) theory.6,111,112 The hydrophobic force is
likely related to the effect of dissolved gas (see Section 4.3).113 B+ + H2O 3 BOH + H+
More recent work of Pashley114 demonstrates convincingly that where A is the conjugate base of the weak acid HA and B+ is the
upon removal of atmospheric gas emulsions become stable. conjugate acid of the weak base BOH. This gives rise to an
That is hydrophobic interactions are switched off upon removal additional complication since there is an overlapping between
of gas. In the model colloid system of Alfridsson et al.,115 solid two (ion and pH) effects. But this is not the main point. In fact,
colloidal paraffin (hydrophobic) particles were functionalised weak electrolytes are commonly used to set pH according to
with a long chained anionic surfactant. And the flocculation standard techniques.117 The Henderson–Hasselbalch equation
rates were studied as a function of the Hofmeister series, both assigns buffer specificity to the pKa of the undissociated weak
in gassed and degassed states. The results bore no relation to electrolyte involved in the equilibrium.118 One might reasonably
the standard predicted rates of flocculation from DLVO theory. think this should be a good approximation in chemical bulk
The Hofmeister series existed in both cases but was not systems. It has been shown that the addition of a strong electro-
recognisably related to the usual series, different again from lyte does affect the measured pH.10 It follows a Hofmeister series.
gassed and degassed. But somewhat startlingly, as already discussed above, the series
reverses if the buffer changes from say phosphate to cacodylate at
3.6. Summary of insights from colloid science and surfactants
the same nominal pH. The series reverses again with the same
Our attempts to come to grips with Hofmeister effects in Section 2 buffer if in the background electrolyte sodium is replaced by
focussed on specificity in protein and bulk electrolyte solutions. In potassium. The classical theory of buffers and pH is then missing
contrast, the results reviewed above focus on Hofmeister effects something.117,119 The assumptions that underlie our intuition
in, by and large, molecularly smooth homogenous particles or have dramatic impact in biochemical systems120,121 and most
surfaces. Neither are good representations of Hofmeister’s egg simply in the presence of a protein–enzyme,122 or, e.g., in the
white proteins. These are certainly not smooth, or homogeneous. presence of colloidal limestone in barrier reefs. The evidence is
Nor are they made up of single ion pairs that act additively. that different buffers at the same (nominal) pH have a dramatic
Nevertheless, there are some common features among these effect in influencing enzyme activities.23,28 A further consequence
systems. The specific interactions of counterions with surfactant is that the standard values of pKas have to be questioned since
(both charged and uncharged) headgroups affect their self- they are arrived at by using the same classical theory.
assembly properties through intra- and intermolecular forces. Very recently, we performed a simple experiment which
The first determine interfacial curvature, the second aggregation. demonstrates explicitly the specific effects of buffers.122 A solution
A similar phenomenon occurs for charged and uncharged patches of lysozyme was prepared at pH 7.15 by means of 5 different
of proteins and for ion–ion interactions. We try to understand commonly used biological buffers, namely, TrisHCl, phosphate,
what is going on both at phenomenological and theoretical level carbonate, cacodylate, and citrate. The electrophoretic mobility of
in next sections. But first let us focus on some additional open the lysozyme solution was measured through electrophoretic light
problems, which are intimately connected to ion specificity. scattering. The mobility depends on the effective charge Z carried
by the protein. This can be calculated in a standard manner
through:
4. Other open problems connected to
X Ni X Nj
ion specificity Z¼
1 þ 10pK þpH
pKaj pHs
(6)
i¼bases
ai s
j¼acids
1 þ 10
The effects of buffers, of temperature and of dissolved gas are
all, at this time, major fundamental challenges that are still where Ni and Nj are the number of basic and acidic amino
open. We mention also some recent experiments on the acid residues having the dissociation constants pKai and pKaj
Temperatures in the range 38–41 1C are associated with infectious

diseases, and for T 4 42 1C death can result. Proteins–enzymes
can lose their functions and often denature due to an increase of
temperature. This is due to the modification of secondary/ternary/
quaternary structure of proteins caused by heat. These effects are
widely acknowledged and undisputed.
But at a simpler level temperature also affects electrolyte
solutions and related precipitation equilibria. This was first
observed by Berthollet124 in 1798 when he was part of the
scientific team accompanying Napoleon’s expedition that invaded
Egypt. Visiting the ‘El Natron’ Lakes in the Nile flood plane west of
Cairo, he observed sodium carbonate deposits on the surrounding
limestone (calcium carbonate) hills.125 This unexpected finding
Fig. 3 Specific buffer (10 mM, pH 7.15) effects on lysozyme electrophore- was explained as due to a reverse precipitation reaction between
tic mobility. Reproduced from ref. 122.
NaCl and CaCO3. Berthollet related this counterintuitive reaction
to the high temperatures reached during summer in that area.
respectively. The pHs is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen This was possibly the first observation of the effect of temperature
ion activity at the protein surface, and can be calculated from: on chemical equilibria. Such observations really led to the devel-
opment of physical chemistry and remain unexplained.
zecðrÞ
10pHs ¼ 10pHs e kT (7) Increased temperature, salts, and solutes like different
isomers of sugars all affect nucleation and precipitation of
where e is the elementary charge, c(r) is the surface electrostatic particles from solution, their size, polydispersity and shape, a
potential, k is the Boltzmann constant and T the absolute veritable gallimaufry of supra Hofmeister behaviours that await
temperature. This modelling requires that the effective charge, Z, systematic exploitation. This, terra incognita, is presumably how
and hence the electrophoretic mobility, depends on pH of the buffer biology is able to manufacture magnetic nanoparticles for
used to fix it. The results in Fig. 3 show that this is not the case. navigation in the brains of fish and birds, and how in lactose
In fact, at fixed pH (7.15) mobility decreases along the series rich early mammalian mothers milk, nanoparticles of calcium
Tris/TrisH+ 4 carbonic acid/hydrogen carbonate B cacodylic phosphate form.
acid/cacodylate 4 dihydrogen phosphate/hydrogen phosphate The only thing that is clear is that whatever water structure
4 hydrogen citrate/citrate. It is particularly significant that the and hydration means, it changes with temperature and solutes.
sign of mobility is reversed when citrate buffer is used. This By 90 1C water has lost any hydrogen bonding and behaves
means that the net charge has become negative although it exactly like hydrazine N2H4 in all its thermodynamic parameters.
should be positive (lysozyme isoelectric point B11). This might Similarly for low temperatures.126 Specific ion effects at high
drastically influence interactions in biological systems. More- temperatures can have nothing to do with water structure.
over, if salts are added the commonly observed ion specificity is
observed.122 But the type of buffer has a strong influence on the 4.3. The effects of dissolved gas
measured electrophoretic mobility and plays a fundamental role No theory or simulation experiments take account of effects of
on affecting ion specific effects. Indeed, ion specific effects seem dissolved gas, which water in the real world of biology contains.
to be superimposed on a more important buffer specific effect. This complicates matters more. Atmospheric dissolved gas,
A possible explanation is that, as well as strong electrolytes, essential for the existence of most life (i.e. oxygen), plays a
weak electrolytes (buffers) specifically interact with the protein– key role in affecting interactions.13,113–115 This is known, but its
enzyme surface. The measured mobility is the outcome of the consequences are unknown. The effects on interaction forces
(ion specific) simultaneous equilibria established by the buffer and on water structure are large.6,127
species in the bulk and at the protein surface. A similar Gas solubility changes with salt concentration and is also
reasoning holds for the measurement of pH in such systems ion specific.128 Moreover, extensive studies of Craig et al.129
with the additional complication that specific adsorption at the have been made on salt dependence and specificity of bubble
glass electrode surface contribute to the final outcome of the coalescence. Some empirical rules to take into account the
electrochemical potential that we call pH.10,123 phenomenon have been proposed.13 But the reason for the
The inference is that the buffer moiety, even at very dilute occurrence of the phenomena is still not understood. It prob-
concentrations compared with background salt, can have a ably depends on dissolved gas that affects water structure. That
much stronger ion binding capacity than the counterion is suggested by numerous studies of gas dependence of hydro-
(or coion) for a surface. phobic interactions.127,130,131
4.2. The effects of temperature 4.4. Ion specificity in bioelectrochemistry

Temperature has a drastic effect in biological systems. The human Very recently a new door has been opened onto an already
body has an optimal temperature of 37 1C (normothermia). unexplored field of Hofmeister phenomena. Electrochemical
studies of redox proteins and enzymes require the use of salts the experimental observations’.134 There are still unanswered
as supporting electrolytes. The choice of the salt relies on the questions at the molecular level, that is: (i) where are the
assumption that the electrolyte used does not affect the electro- binding sites for the cations, (ii) what is their nature, (iii)
chemical properties of the proteins and enzymes under inves- how does the system discriminate between Na+ and K+?134
tigation. Recently Magner and coworkers34 found that the A contribution to these questions on the mechanism of ion
electrochemical properties of the redox protein cytochrome c pumps and more generally, can come from the specific ion
at a 4,4 0 -bipyridyl modified gold electrode are ion specific. Both partitioning that occurs between two phases in equilibrium at a
the redox potential (Eo 0 ) and the Faradaic current are influenced finite volume. In red cells a concentrated phase of haemoglobin is
by the nature of the electrolyte used according to a Hofmeister separated from a finite volume of overall physiological salt solution
series (Fig. 4). It is very likely that the nature of the ion may affect by a cell membrane. Haemoglobin molecules are tightly packed and
the kinetics of the redox process, although this last phenomenon express a high surface area available for specific ion adsorption.
has not been explored yet. But the importance of these studies is We remark on some recent studies of Lo Nostro and
from an applications point of view. Indeed, it is very likely that the coworkers30,116,135 to illustrate this mechanism. An aqueous
response observed with the model redox protein cytochrome c,34 is dispersion of dioctanoyl-phosphatidylcholine (diC8PC) phase
in fact general for other redox proteins and enzymes. This may separates upon cooling. Upon phase separation, two phases
ultimately be displayed as changes in sensitivity or response for coexist. The upper phase consists of a diluted micellar solution
such enzymes when utilized in applications such as biosensors and of the lipid, while the bottom phase is a gel-like highly viscous
biofuel cells. phase and contains very large entangled wormlike aggregates.
The addition of different sodium salts results in a consistent
4.5. New inputs into the mechanism of ion pumps shift of the coexistence curve and in a variation of its skewness
The physiological salt concentration is about 150 mM. At such a (Fig. 5).
concentration electrostatics and electrostatic forces lose their These changes follow a Hofmeister series and are particularly
dominance. The Debye screening length is lower than 1 nm so relevant in the presence of chaotropic anions. The concentra-
that biology belongs to the domain of ion specificity. There is a tions of the anions in the two coexisting phases show that Br
constant movement of ions carrying the same valence inside and NO3 accumulate in the lipid rich bottom phase, resulting
and outside cells. For human erythrocytes (red blood cells), in an asymmetric partition between the two coexisting phases,
transmembrane enzymes (e.g. Na+,K+-ATPase) are acknowl- while F ions distributes almost evenly. Specific ion binding to
edged to act as ‘ion pumps’ catalysing the transfer of ions micelle surfaces in the two-phase system provides a reasonable
across the membrane.132 The reaction steps involve cycling mechanism for the observed asymmetric ion partitioning.
between two different enzyme conformations in which either Similarly, an aqueous dispersion of lysozyme and SDS phase
Na+ or K+ are selectively bound on one side of the plasma separates below the cloud point.30 Anions partition asymmetri-
membrane or the other. Na+,K+-ATPase transports three Na+ cally between the two phases and cloud point temperatures
ions out of the cell for every two K+ carried in, hydrolysing one change according to a reversed Hofmeister series. In a system
ATP molecule in each turn of the reaction cycle.133 This of finite volume, a concentrated dispersion of a protein acts as
mechanism in turn maintains an electrochemical gradient an ion ‘sponge’. The difference in ion concentration between the
that drives the otherwise energetically unfavourable secondary concentrated and dilute dispersion is maintained without the
active transport of L-amino acids via integral membrane need for an ion pump.
proteins (e.g. Na+-symporters) and contributes to the regulation If a similar mechanism is at work to maintain a fixed Na+/K+
of cell volume.133 Nevertheless, as recognized by Skou (the concentration ratio between inside and outside the cell, this
discoverer of ion pumps) in his Nobel lecture, the proposed can either assist or counteract the action of Na+,K+-ATPase.
model is just a ‘working hypothesis which explains a good deal of That is, specific ion binding can be part of the whole
Fig. 4 Ion specificity in bioelectrochemistry. (A) Plot of peak current of cytochrome c at 298 K in the presence of a range of anions (200 mM). (B) Redox
potential, Eo 0 , of cytchrome c for a range of anions at 298 K (200 mM). Reproduced from ref. 34 with permission from the PCCP Owner Societies.
(electrolyte activities, colloid phase transition, protein aggrega-

tion, enzyme activities, etc.), it is necessary to disentangle
specific ion–ion and ion–surface interactions first. In other
words, we need to understand which laws, or at least empirical
rules, we can invoke to put order into what will remain
otherwise an incomprehensible mess. The two most popular
approaches which aim to solve the puzzle will be reviewed in
the next paragraphs. We will discuss both their strength and
weak points and finally how they could be reconciled.
5.1. The law of matching water affinities

A very useful rule, the law of matching water affinities (LMWA)
was formulated by Collins.44 It brought a systematic framework
to ion–ion and ion-charged site interactions that had previously
been absent. The starting point of this LMWA is the old
classification of ions as either kosmotropes or chaotropes
depending on the sign of Jones–Dole viscosity B coeffi-
Fig. 5 Coexistence curves for dioctanoylphosphatidylcholine–H2O cient.44,69,136,137 This classification is still used. But the mean-
dispersions in the presence of different 0.05 M sodium salts: fluoride ing of the words ‘kosmotrope’ and ‘chaotrope’ is no longer
(&), acetate (K), chloride (m), bromide (.), nitrate (’), azide (J) and
taken as related to ‘long range water structure’. Rather it is
iodide (E). Reprinted with permission from ref. 116. Copyright (2007)
American Chemical Society. understood as a characterisation of the ‘degree of hydration’.
Loosely speaking this is high for kosmotropes and low for
chaotropic ions. Then, it is recognised that ions of opposite
mechanism of ‘ion pumps’. The source and the mechanisms charge tend to associate to form ion pairs.138
behind this specific ion binding are the subject of the next Collins deduced his rules of cation–anion pairing (LMWA)
sections. by the observation of the ‘volcano plot’ (Fig. 6(A)).139 The
‘volcano plot’ correlates the standard heat of solution of a
crystalline salt at infinite dilution with the difference between
5. Recent approaches to Hofmeister the absolute heats of hydration of the corresponding individual
phenomena. Ion–ion and ion–surface gaseous anion and cation.
interactions The LMWA asserts that: ‘Cations and anions form stable ion
pairs if their respective hydration enthalpies (considered to be a
The sections above dealt with insights gleaned from solution measure of ‘water affinities’) match’. That is, the lower the
chemistry, colloid science and protein chemistry and the difference between the hydration enthalpies of the anion and
difficulties which we still have to take on with ion specificity. of the cation then, the higher is the tendency of the ions to
But whatever the ion specific phenomenon being investigated form a contact ion pair.
Fig. 6 The Law of Matching water affinities (LMWA). (A) Volcano plot. Adapted with permission from ref. 69. Copyright (2004) Elsevier. (B) Schematics of
LMWA: a kosmotropic (chaotropic) cation would form a contact ion pair with a kosmotropic (chaotropic) anion, whereas a kosmotropic (chaotropic)
cation would not form a contact ion pair with a chaotropic (kosmotropic) anion. Adapted with permission from ref. 69. Copyright (2004) Elsevier.
This will be less probable if the difference between the

hydration enthalpies is large. In simple terms, a kosmotropic
(small) cation likes kosmotropic a (small) anion and a chao-
tropic (big) cation likes a chaotropic (big) anion.44 Collins’ rule,
schematised in Fig. 6(B), is successful in putting order into a
series of phenomenon as shown in the next paragraphs.
5.2. The reversal of activity coefficients of alkali metal salts

accommodated via LMWA
A strong reinforcement for the validity of the LMWA was given
by Kunz.38 He proposed a qualitative explanation for the affinity
of charged surfactant head groups for different counterions
(see next paragraph) and why the specific order of the mean
activity coefficients of alkali metal salts reverses by changing Fig. 7 Ordering of anionic surfactant headgroups and the respective
the anion (e.g. bromide with acetate). At a fixed high concen- counterions regarding their capabilities to form close pairs. The green
tration, say 0.5 M, when electrostatic interactions are screened, arrows mean strong interactions (close ion pairs). Reproduced with per-
mission from ref. 140. Copyright (2008) Elsevier.
a lower activity coefficient is a sign of a stronger anion–cation
interaction (in Collins’ language a contact ion pair is formed).
For the kosmotropic acetate (B = 0.236), the mean activity of their chemical similarity with kosmotropic or chaotropic
coefficient decreases in the sequence Cs+ 4 Rb+ 4 K+ 4 ions.44 That is, the positively charged groups (due to Lys, His,
Na+ 4 Li+ (see Fig. 2 above). This means a stronger interaction Arg residues) are classified as chaotropic since they are similar to
of acetate with the kosmotropic Li+ (B = 0.147), rather than with NH4+ (B = 0.007). The negatively charged groups (due to Asp
the chaotropic Cs+ (B = 0.045), according to LMWA. Instead, if and Glu residues) are classified as kosmotropic due to their
the salts of the chaotropic Br (B = 0.032) are considered, the similarity with CH3COO (B = 0.236).
average activity coefficients decrease along an inverse series On the basis of these assumptions, and by applying LMWA
Li+ 4 Na+ 4 K+ 4 Rb+ 4 Cs+. Again, in agreement with LMWA, (cf. Section 5.1), the order of anion binding to positively
it is the chaotropic Cs+ which interacts more strongly with the Br. charged surface group would be: SCN 4 I 4 NO3 4 Br
4 Cl and, that of cation binding to negatively charged groups
5.3. Counterion binding to surfactant head groups
would be Li+ 4 Na+ 4 K+ 4 Rb+ 4 Cs+.
We have shown above (Section 3) that the self-assembly of Support for this prediction has been given by Cremer and
surfactants is strongly affected by ion specificity. Many possible coworkers.143 For example, they determined the change of
explanations for the observed phenomenon were given. cloud point temperatures of a negatively charged polypeptide
Recently, Kunz and coworkers investigated the micelle-to- in the presence of different chloride salts. The cation specific
vesicle transition of a catanionic surfactant system induced cloud point temperature, T, as a function of concentration, [M],
by specific cation effect.140,141 The series reverses if dodecyl- was fitted with the following equation:
sulfate is used instead of dodecylcarboxylate. On the basis of
these results and of molecular dynamics simulations, Kunz,
2
Jungwirth and coworkers142 tried to apply LMWA to rationalise Bmax ½Meb½M
T ¼ T0 þ c½M þ (8)
counterion binding to surfactant headgroups. In order to do Kd þ ½Meb½M
2
that they first classified anionic surfactant headgroups as

chaotropic (soft) or kosmotropic (hard). According to this
classification the chaotropicity (softness) of surfactant charged where T0 is the phase transition temperature of the polypeptide
headgroups increases along the series: carboxylate o phosphate at [M] = 0, Bmax is the maximum decrease in the cloud point
o sulfate o sulfonate (Fig. 7). temperature when all the negative sites are paired with cations,
Hence, for carboxylate surfactants the tendency to form ion the constant b is related to the strength of electrostatic (and we
pairs would decrease along the series Li+ 4 Na+ 4 K+ 4 Rb+ 4 also argue dispersion) interactions between the charged group
Cs+. A reversed cation series would be expected for sulfonate and the cations, and Kd is the apparent dissociation constant
surfactants. The same concept can be used to understand and for the specific interaction of the cations to the negative
predict the binding of ions to cationic surfactant headgroups surface sites.
and to protein charged groups. Let us focus on this last issue. The lower the value of Kd the stronger the binding affinity
should be. The estimated dissociation constants, Kd, of cations
5.4. Counterion binding to protein surface charged groups with the negative carboxylate groups of their model anionic
Proteins are zwitterionic macromolecules, that is, their surfaces polypeptide was correlated with the difference in the hydration
carry both acidic and basic amino acids residues. These become enthalpies (DHhyd(Acetate-Cation)) of acetate and that of different
charged by exchanging protons with water. Collins has classified monovalent cations (Fig. 8). They found an acceptable correla-
the charged residues as kosmotropic or chaotropic on the basis tion for monovalent cations (but no correlation for divalents).
Fig. 8 Correlation of observed dissociation constant (Kd) values for the

cations with the hydration enthalpy difference between the acetate ion
and the cationic species for monovalent metal chlorides. Reprinted with Fig. 9 The ‘inverted volcano plot’ proposed by Duignan et al.55 It reports
permission from ref. 143. Copyright (2012) American Chemical Society. Bromley’s experimentally determined B coefficients144 as a function of the
difference in anion and cation solvation energies. B empirically represents
the ion–ion interactions that determine activity coefficients. Copyright
5.5. Limitations of the LMWA (2014) Elsevier.
It has to be remarked that LMWA is not a ‘theory’ but rather
an empirical rule based on phenomenological observations. Its
has to predict hydration and hydration shell interactions. That
development comes from a correlation of thermodynamic prop-
is in fact available to us and this is a more detailed approach we
erties of salts and single ions at infinite dilution. Recently, some
now explore. This approach to ion specificity recognises that
criticism to this correlation has been raised.5 In fact it is difficult
the classical electrostatic (plus hydration) theories omit any
to understand why properties of single ions at infinite dilution
explicit account of quantum mechanical interactions between
have anything to do with ion–ion or ion–protein interactions.
ions and quantum contributions to self-energies. These are
Nevertheless, it should be recognised that LMWA can be also
indeed ion specific.46 The inclusion of these additional inter-
inferred from the viscosity B coefficients at finite concentrations
actions presents some difficulties which need to be explained.
or, as very recently proposed by Duignan et al.,55 by Bromley’s B
coefficients. Indeed, Kunz38 has argued that the electrolyte
properties that most clearly exhibit the law of matching water 6.1. Difficulties in including quantum interactions
affinity are the activity coefficients because they give a measure
6.1.1. The first difficulty. The inclusion of quantum inter-
of the strength of the ion–ion interactions. Bromley144 estimated
actions might be considered implicit, but is certainly unquanti-
the activity coefficients, up to reasonably high concentrations
fied, in classical theories. It is implicit in notions like adjustable
and with good accuracy, using only one experimental parameter B.
ion size, hydration and hydration shell interactions (Gurney
A low B value means a small activity coefficient and, hence, a more
potentials). In the double layer theory, they are implicitly
attractive ion–ion interaction. Fig. 9 shows a plot of Bromley B
included in core notions like inner and outer Helmholtz planes
coefficient against the difference in cation and anion solvation
and dielectric constants. A difficulty is that different parameters –
energies.55 The figure looks like an ‘inverted volcano plot’ and has
even for the same ion pair electrolyte – apply to each experiment
a clear physical interpretation.
or situation. The parameters are ion specific – including those
Another limitation of the LMWA comes from its application
that ought to be constant. Ionic radii that fit activities e.g., are
to the case of ion–protein interactions which do not involve
sometimes required to be less than crystallographic radii.84 The
only charged amino acid residues. Experiments carried out at
parameterisation requires multiple fitting parameters, and the
Cremer’s lab showed that ions can also bind to uncharged
theory then loses predictability.
amide groups of polypeptides and proteins.145–148 Moreover,
In colloid science quantum interactions are also explicit in
simulations carried out by Lund et al.149 showed the impor-
the DLVO theory of stability that includes attractive dispersion
tance of specific ion interactions with nonpolar surface patches
forces to oppose electrostatic (double layer) forces but only
of proteins (see Section 7).
partially, and in fact erroneously. The quantum mechanical
attractive forces include all many body forces via Lifshitz
6. Ion quantum (dispersion) theory, which relies (in principle) on all measured frequency
interactions fluctuations in the dielectric susceptibilities.6,150,151 But it
ignores hydration at interfaces. It treats a liquid across which
The LMWA is an inference from thermodynamic observations. two particles interact as a bulk liquid. This is only half the
Its justification ultimately has to rely on a proper statistical problem with developing a consistent theory. (This is not
mechanical molecular theory of electrolyte solutions. Such a quite such a difficulty as it appears. A theorem of statistical
justification has to explain specific interactions of ions and also mechanics shows that in order to get free energies to the
A second approach cuts through those difficulties using a

bootstrapping procedure. We illustrate for the example of
colloid particle interacting across an electrolyte. Bear in mind
that the dispersion forces need to be treated consistently with
those due to electrostatics. Then this can be done by including
in the mean field Poisson–Boltzmann equation an additional
(mean field) term, Udispersion
x , which is added to the conven-
tional electrostatic potential (zecx),
dispersion
rx ¼ r0 eðzecx þUx Þ=kT (9)
Fig. 10 The Poisson Boltzmann distribution of counterions from two
charged surfaces. Counterion concentration at a distance x (rx) from the
charged surface decreases exponentially according to: rx = r0ezecx/kT.
The approximations required and formal derivation from sta-
Here r0 is the counterion concentration in the bulk, z is the valence, e is tistical mechanics are done in ref. 52, 53 and 158.
the elemental charge, cx is the electrostatic potential, k the Boltzmann Electrostatic interactions alone cannot explain ion specific
constant and T the absolute temperature. DLVO theory is inconsistent results. This is not a priori obvious. When ionic charge and the
since it treats ion–surface electrostatic interactions as varying exponen- concentration are the same for all 1 : 1 electrolyte ions, ionic
tially and van der Waals quantum forces (Lifshitz theory) as varying linearly.
radii and consequent hydration will be different. But as
remarked above the difficulty is that radii are fitting parameters
second order one needs the profile of order at an interface and vary with the experimental situation. And worse, some-
hydration only to zeroth order).152 times these fitted radii are less than bare ion radii.
6.1.2. The second difficulty. It can be proved46 that even if We are forced to include the missing dispersion forces. In
dispersion forces are dealt with accurately, the assumption of fact, at any substrate/water interface, ions experience, besides
additivity of electrostatic forces and dispersion forces is not just an image charge interaction, a quantum mechanical fluctua-
incorrect, but badly so. This is so even if water is treated as a tion (dispersion potential) given by Lifshitz theory. The image
continuum solvent. The additivity ansatz occurs in all theories charges effects are included in the formalism and cannot be
of electrolytes. For electrolyte solutions the dispersion forces separated out. The potential includes image forces and many
are either ignored or subsumed in additive hydration para- body dipole–dipole, dipole–induced-dipole and induced-
meters. In colloid science (DLVO theory) electrostatic double dipole–induced-dipole forces. This potential U(x) is given
layer forces are treated in non-linear theory (Fig. 10), the schematically as
quantum forces in a linear theory (Lifshitz theory). This violates ð
1 1 aðioÞ ew ðioÞ es ðioÞ
some fundamental laws of physics.46 U ðxÞ ¼ 3 do (10)
x 0 ew ðioÞ ew ðioÞ þ es ðioÞ
In a consistent theory the dispersion (and hard core and
other) forces have to be treated at the same nonlinear level as where a(io) is the excess polarisability of the ions as a function
will be explained in the next paragraph. of frequency, x is the distance between the ion and the inter-
It can also be shown that the additivity approximation face, and ew(io) and es(io) are the dielectric functions of water
ignores ion specificity. The same remarks hold for bulk electro- and of the substrate. In general, the integral is a sum over
lytes, activities and all other properties. They hold whether or frequencies and includes temperature explicitly. These forces
not the solvent for an electrolyte is treated in a continuum that drive ionic adsorption appear to be a major player in
approximation, (primitive model), or if it is treated at a mole- several Hofmeister phenomena and depend strictly on the
cular level (civilised model).6 nature of the participating entities. The potential can be
positive or negative depending on frequency-dependent dielec-
6.2. Inclusion of quantum interactions: formalism tric susceptibilities of the substrate.
There are two ways in which this can be done. The first is the Physically, in this modification of the standard treatment of
high road via statistical mechanics. Electrostatic and disper- electrostatic interactions, besides an electrostatic interaction
sion forces between ions are incorporated into the partition with its neighbours and with a surface, any ion will also
function for the electrolyte solution from the beginning.153,154 experience, an additional dispersion potential. This can either
A program to incorporate these dispersion forces, missing from enhance or diminish electrostatic interactions in ways that are
classical electrolyte theory has been embarked upon by Kjel- specific and counterintuitive as illustrated in Fig. 11.
lander in an elegant series of recent papers.155–157 But this high For example, in this extension of classical Born, Debye–
road is very complex even though some useful asymptotic Hückel, DLVO, Onsager–Samaras theories, ions with charge of
results can be extracted. For example when ionic dispersion the same sign can attract, coions can adsorb at surfaces of the
forces are included, the pair distribution function in an same charge.
electrolyte decays as a power law, not with an exponentially
screened Debye length decay. It rapidly becomes so complex 6.3. Inclusion of quantum interactions: implementation
that the insight tends to be obscured, and practically, computa- The first attempts to apply this theory to some specific examples
tion of thermodynamic properties becomes very difficult. estimated the dispersion potential, Udispersion
x , from the static
Later developments did the job correctly. The frequency

dependent dynamic polarisabilities were calculated by Parsons
et al.41,159 from ab initio quantum mechanics (QM), as ion size
and hydration were equally necessary to quantify ion specifi-
city. The dispersion potential was then calculated according to,
B
Uxdispersion ¼ f ðxÞ (13)
x3
where f (x) is a form factor which accounts for the finite size of
the ion (including hydration), and the B dispersion coefficient
was now calculated by,160

kT X a ðion Þ ew ðioÞ es ðioÞ
B¼ (14)
2 n ew ðion Þ ew ðioÞ þ es ðioÞ
where on = 2pkTn/ h and k and T are the Boltzmann constant

and the temperature. ew(io) and es(io) are the dielectric func-
Fig. 11 Schematic representation of the classic Poisson–Boltzmann tions of water and the substrate, respectively. a*(io) is the
theory and its modification that includes ion dispersion forces.
excess dynamic polarisability of the ion. The magnitudes, and
even the signs, of the dispersion potentials near the two
polarisability of the ions and a single adsorption frequency o interfaces depend in a sensitive way on these frequency-
estimated from ionisation potentials and electron affinities of dependent entities. It is important to note that by bringing to
ions. The dispersion potential at a distance x from an interface is bear ab initio QM, ion size is no longer a parameter. It is the
approximately, same for electrostatics and quantum forces for the first time. It
is not an adjustable parameter. The QM interaction is not a
B parameter either. It should be explained that ion size and ion
Uxdispersion ¼ (11)
x3 polarisability have contrasting effects. Polarisability generally
increases with size, hence strengthening the dispersion inter-
Where the dispersion coefficient, B, is roughly
action while, at the same time, the increased size diminishes
a ð0Þho 2 the interaction. In addition, hydration water molecules change
B¼ nw ns2 (12) the effective size of the ion. The final outcome is a subtle
16p
balance between all these effects which become much more
where, nw and ns represent the refractive index for water and the complicated for some non-spherical ions (e.g. NO3, SCN) due
substrate (the dispersion potential changes sign according to to the anisotropy of polarisability. The testing of these devel-
whether the refractive index of the substrate is larger or smaller opments has been and is being accomplished successfully now
than that of water), ho/2p is the ionisation potential of the ion, in a series of papers on electrolyte properties.20,52,53,161–163
a*(0) is the static excess polarisability (that is the difference in
polarisability of an ion compared to an equivalent volume of 6.4. Recent developments: free energy of ionic hydration
water). In general, the higher the polarisability (Table 1) the The ion dispersion forces theory is currently being applied to
higher the dispersion force the ion would experience when explain a series of phenomena in different systems.164,165 For
interacting with another ion or with an interface. With this example, very recently it has been shown how the solvation
approach ion specificity emerged naturally thanks to an ion energy of some ions can be predicted with a good level of
specific molecular parameter. But this modelling considered all agreement with the experimental data even in the approxi-
ions having the same unknown radii and moreover ion hydra- mation of the continuum solvent model (Fig. 12). Solvation
tion was neglected.45 This is plainly far too crude and over- energies measure the change in free energy of a solute in a
simplified. Since cf. eqn (11) and (12) polarisability scales as vacuum compared to that of the solute immersed in water.53
radius cubed, any crudity here is subsumed in the unknown This needs to consider, besides the conventional electro-
polarisability and does not affect the proof of concept. But static energy (Born energy), also the energy required to create a
something came out right, and at least confirmed the necessity cavity to accommodate the ion, as well as the dispersion
for the explicit inclusion of dispersion forces.45 But it led to the energy.52,53 The reason why the Born model gives in general a
idea that there was a conflict with Collins’ rules. As the situation good estimation of solvation energies is because the cavity and
has been outlined so far, there is indeed a conflict. the dispersion contributions cancel in most – but not all –
One approach considers interactions correctly including cases. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the dispersion term is
quantum forces, but only in a continuum solvent approxi- fundamental to get a very good agreement with the experi-
mation. The other (Collins) does the job through embracing mental values.53 This is at the basis for anticipated develop-
empirical hydration effects. The resolution is to include hydra- ments like the calculations of osmotic and activity coefficients,
tion in ab initio calculations of polarisabilities and size. as well as of surface tensions of electrolyte solutions.
isoelectric point of BSA,161 or the surface charge of mesoporous

silica.20 But it does not explicitly explain the specificity of ion
pairing for surface sites as LMWA does. This may lead to the
prediction of discordant cation binding sequences to anionic sites
of proteins143,166 or surfactant headgroups.142 The necessity of a
modelling improvement will be better explained by means of a
practical example. We now consider a recent work where specific
ion binding is invoked to explain protein aggregation.77
7.2. Protein aggregation explained by specific ion binding

In the previous paragraphs we have explained two apparently
opposing approaches to deal with ion specificity. We focused our
attention on specific ion–ion and ion–surface interactions. We
now show how such kind of interactions may affect macroscopic
Fig. 12 Calculated solvation energies compared with experiment for phenomena as protein aggregation. We take as an example a
some ions. Reprinted with permission from ref. 53. Copyright (2013) recent work based on turbidimetric pH titrations of haemoglo-
American Chemical Society. bin.77 Turbidimetric titrations can be used to study the effect of
pH on the aggregation/disaggregation of protein molecules. The
effect is important at the salt concentration of r150 mM. We
7. Towards reconciliation between the illustrate the differences between the two approaches.
two approaches Fig. 13 shows the ion specific turbidimetric titration of
haemoglobin as a function of pH. An estimation of the extent
7.1. What went wrong? of aggregation is given by the ratio of transmittance T/T0 at
Although progress in the theory includes quantum dispersion different pH values (T0 is the transmittance of the optically
force correctly and explicitly, the reconciliation and equivalence clear protein solution). The haemoglobin suspension is opti-
with the LMWA has not been recognised. cally clear below pH 5 (T/T0 = 1), and then becomes cloudy as
LMWA considers the interaction of ions with other ions and pH is increased due to the aggregation of protein molecules.
with discrete surface charged sites of opposite charge. The first T/T0 reaches a minimum at about pH 7.4, then it increases, due
approach is successful in qualitatively ordering electrolyte to the re-dissolution of protein aggregates, reaching a value
behavior, like for the series reversal observed for the activity close to that at the beginning of the titration.
coefficients of alkali metals salts, and for counter-ion binding The effect of pH on protein aggregation can be explained to
to surfactant charged headgroups.38 (There is a difference first approximation by invoking DLVO theory of colloid
between an empirical characterisation and a testable theory). science167–169 based on the balance of attractive (van der Waals)
In contrast to the case of ions interacting with (both colloidal and repulsive (Coulomb) interactions. This can only provide a
and protein) surfaces the modelling so far that includes ionic rough guide since ion specificity is not included. For proteins,
dispersion forces has assumed that interacting surfaces carry repulsive forces are pH-dependent since the electric charge on
a uniformly smeared charge.162 But even with such simple model- the protein surface is produced by the dissociation of weak
ling, Boström et al.45 provided an elegant explanation of anion acidic (R-COOH) and basic (R-NH2 or similar nitrogen-based)
Hofmeister series reversal by changing pH (below and above the groups carried by surface amino acids. The repulsive force is
isoelectric point). The same approach has been used in giving minimal at the isoelectric point (IEP, zero net charge) and
some possible explanations of series reversal observed with maximal at pH c IEP or pH { IEP. The attractive force,
changing salt concentration for lysozyme systems,162 the shift in instead, should not be affected by pH.
Fig. 13 Specific ion effects on turbidimetric pH titration (T/T0 vs. pH) of haemoglobin dispersions at salt concentration = 50 mM and temperature =
25 1C. (A) Specific anion effects; (B) specific cation effects. Reprinted with permission from ref. 77. Copyright (2013) American Chemical Society.
But, as always, DLVO fails to predict ion specific effects.

Salts formed by ions having the same charge would behave in
the same way. But this does not occur if NaCl is substituted by
another monovalent salt at the same concentration (Fig. 13).
Here in almost the whole investigated pH range, anions
promote aggregation according to an inverse Hofmeister series:
I 4 NO3 4 Br 4 Cl. Our interpretation is that specific
anion binding decreases the net positive surface charge of
protein molecules, and hence decreases the repulsion among
them, thus allowing for protein molecules aggregation. Cation
specific effects were similarly observed in the presence of
different 50 mM chloride salts. At the starting pH 4.5 haemoglo-
bin carries a positive net charge, so that cations behave as
coions. The T/T0 values show a less marked variation along the
investigated pH range for cations than in the case of anions.32
Fig. 14 A schematic comparison between (A) the law of matching water
Nonetheless, the effect is quite marked. Cations promote hemo-
affinities and (B) the theory of ion dispersion forces, to explain the specific
globin aggregation in the order Rb+ 4 K+ B Na+ 4 Cs+ 4 Li+. interactions of cations with a negatively charged surface. Depending on
LMWA and dispersion forces approaches would predict the the nature of the surface (i.e. a protein), the two approaches may predict
same sequence of anion binding, in one case (LMWA) because opposite cation series.
the chaotropic positive amino groups would prefer to form
contact ion pairs with more chaotropic anions (I 4 Cl). In
the other case (dispersion forces), the higher the anion polari- surface site has not been considered. Indeed the dispersion
sability the higher the attractive dispersion potential to the potential has been calculated by modelling the surface just in
protein surface will be (I 4 Cl). terms of its dielectric function es(io) (eqn (8)). But in fact it
Things become more complicated for cations. Differently should also consider the chemical nature (that is kosmotropic
from anions, a higher cation binding produces a more positive or chaotropic, soft or hard) of the charged site. This is in fact
charge which results in a lower aggregation. Here we observe considered by LMWA, which for proteins classifies the negative
that the aggregation decreases in the series Rb+ 4 Li+ (if we do and positive protein surface sites as kosmotropic and chaotropic
not consider Cs+) that is, Li+ binds more than Rb+. This is respectively.
exactly what is predicted by LMWA. The kosmotropic carbox- The consideration of a protein surface to be uniformly
ylate group will prefer to form a contact ion pair with the charged with a dielectric function es(io) without taking into
kosmotropic Li+ rather than the chaotropic Rb+. But, the LMWA account the occurrence of a discrete (kosmotropic/chaotropic)
mechanism is only part of the story for protein systems. Cremer charged site corresponds to a model of the solvent as a
and coworkers have clearly shown that besides charged groups, continuum instead of taking into account its granularity at a
uncharged polar groups have also been found to be binding molecular level and the consequent accompanying hydration.
sites for anions.145,147 This kind of mechanism might also That is, it captures some basic issues but might give wrong
apply to Cs+ and so explains the ‘strange’ sequence (Rb+ 4 K+ results in very specific cases.
B Na+ 4 Cs+ 4 Li+) observed for hemoglobin aggregation That The goal of LMWA is to explain ion specificity in the case
is, besides ion pair formation (according to LMWA) the inter- where two ions of opposite charge or a charged surface group
action of the highly polarizable Cs+ with uncharged sites is also and different counterions interact. An ion pair is formed only
likely at work.77 This type of mechanism was in fact proposed when their sizes – or their water affinities – match. The concept
by Lund et al.149 is simple and generally valid.
The inclusion of ion dispersion forces is in principle able to
7.3. How could we reconcile the two approaches? give a theoretical framework to the LMWA but, as exhaustively
In the early attempts to include dispersion forces the Udispersion explained in the previous paragraphs, this has not been
was estimated from ion static polarisabilities. No ion size or ion reached yet. The goal is to recognise that all the interactions
hydration was considered. Since polarizability increases upon which the LMWA invoke as the driving forces of the formation
going from Li+ to Cs+, a stronger adsorption for Cs+ rather than of ion pairs (that is ion–water, ion–ion and ion-charged site
Li+ at a protein surface is expected.166 But if we consider LMWA interactions) are in fact due to the cooperation of electrostatic
the formation of ion pairs between a cation and a negatively and quantum mechanical dispersion forces.
charged kosmotropic carboxylate would follow the order Li+ 4 But the final goal will be the improvement of the modelling to
Na+ 4 K+ 4 Rb+ 4 Cs+.143 That is, the two approaches would predict specific ion binding to charged surface sites. This cannot
predict exactly the opposite sequences (Fig. 14). Even the most be done by using the dielectric function of the interface as the
recent developments (although they quantify ion specific inter- sole parameter. Although surface hydration has been included to
actions features from ab initio dynamic ion polarisabilities and model mica surfaces,160 this method has not been applied for
ion radii) fail. In fact, up to now, the specificity of the discrete more complicated surfaces (e.g. surfactants, proteins, polymers).
A way to solve this problem might be to include in the model the But the inclusion of these additional interactions presents
discrete surface site in a way similar to what has already been some technical difficulties that are still extant. The modelling
done by Parsons for the interacting ions.159 That is, the polari- used to include ion dispersion interactions appeared to predict in
sability, the size, and the hydration of the surface site should be some cases opposite ion binding sequences to what was pre-
calculated ab initio. dicted by LMWA.143,166 The reason for this is clear. The disagree-
ment is because while on the one hand the polarisability (and
later more recent developments, even the size and the hydra-
8. Concluding remarks tion54) of the ion was considered, on the other hand the charged
surfactant or protein interface was modelled (besides having a
The only conclusion to any discussion involving water is that it smeared out charge) only in terms of its dielectric function. That
cannot be concluded. When solutes are thrown into the mix, is, the chemical nature of the surface sites was not considered.
and temperature and dissolved gas are factors, any attempts to The way to reconcile the correct sequence, given by Collins’
capture its essence are bound to be elusive and or illusory. The rules, with the correct theory (which includes ion dispersion
venerable Hofmeister specific ion effect with colloids and interactions) is to consider that charged sites can be either
proteins that we have reviewed is an example of a more general chaotropic (soft) or kosmotropic (hard). That is, the polarisa-
challenge. Hofmeister effects have escaped explanation for bility, size, and hydration of the charged site need to be
almost 130 years now. Every time an ‘explanation’ emerges, a included in the modelling. Otherwise wrong or partially correct
counterexample seems to pop out to invalidate it. Any progress sequences are sometimes obtained. With the problems now
in systematising the phenomena, we are grateful for. identified, better quantitative modelling is coming into sight.
The barriers to progress are large. Berthollet observed that in Here, we have faced what in principle is an easy form of a
a solution comprised of a mixture of CaCO3 and NaCl, calcium more general problem. We have attempted to seek a theoretical
carbonate precipitates at low temperatures, and sodium carbo- basis for the phenomenology of the Law of Matching Water
nate at high temperatures (50–60 1C) and the results of such Affinities. Further work is still needed but these two apparently
(inorganic) precipitation and nanoparticle nucleation experi- opposing approaches are in fact one and the same. We have
ments depend strongly on the perturbations of water structure indicated here how they are reconcilable, the LMWA being
by solutes like sugars. However we think of ‘water structure’ it derivable from a more complete theory of electrolytes.53
clearly affects nucleation, crystal growth and interactions and But on the way to that resolution, we have necessarily to
specific ‘hydration’ as a function of temperature. Further, we consider what seem to be still open challenges. The interpreta-
know that dissolved gas looms always in the background as an tions of all of the standard measurements on which our
unspoken elephant in the living room, which affects ‘hydro- arguments are based depend on and rely on a theory. In most
phobic’ interactions. Moreover, there is the existence of gels, part this underlying, classical, theory is based on electrostatics
jellyfish with 95–98% water59 being perfectly functional, see- alone, be they measurements of pH, or buffers, molecular
mingly providing an unarguable, and certainly not understood forces, electrophoresis, ion binding, pKas, and so on. That, as
case for ‘very long ranged water structure’, shades of polywater. we have discovered, is inadequate and erroneous, and has been
Given that, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah or naivete to swept under the carpet. The unrecognised problem of dissolved
tackle the problem. With this in mind we have tried to put gas and its connection to ‘hydrophobic’ interactions takes us
order in at least some phenomena, which are certainly at work, into another realm, as does the problem of water at different
although they are not the full story, in ion specific experiments. temperatures and ‘water structure’ in the presence of solutes.
We have shown how Collins’ Law of Matching Water Affinities,44 Henry59,68 has argued cogently that zoomorphic water, water in
can be useful in describing specific ion/ion and ion/charged site cells, is very different. And in this he is very probably correct.
binding sequences. They are important because they characterise Phenomena like the reversal of the series observed for buffer
and bring to order properties like activity coefficients,38 surface solutions in enzyme activities,23 pH measurements,10 or buffer
charge,34 electrophoretic mobilities,33 interaction of ions with specificity in electrophoretic mobilities122 still await explana-
surfactant charged headgroups,142 and ultimately, protein aggregation. They have implications for matters as fundamental as
tion.77 Collins’ rules, the LMWA, are derived for correlations with membrane potentials in physiology. In real systems things are
experimental observations on single ions (volcano plot).44 They are complicated further by the presence of mixed electrolytes, as
likely related to Born free energies of transfer, which have been Na+ and K+ in red cells. The necessity for rebuilding theoretical
shown to depend on previously neglected dispersion Born ener- foundations to include specific dispersion forces consistently
gies.53 Although the basis of the Volcano plot is questionable, with electrostatics and consequent hydration is obvious.
the ion binding sequence given by the rule is usually correct as We live in interesting times.
confirmed by wide experimental evidence. However, the rules are
not the whole story as they neglect ion–neutral site interactions.149
They do exist and are part of ion–protein surface interactions.31,77,145 Acknowledgements
These types of interactions together with ion-charged site both
originate in previously neglected dispersion forces.46 This is emer- The Australian Research Council is thanked for financial sup-
ging in the properties of electrolyte solutions.52,53,55 port. Dr L. Medda is acknowledged for his help with Figures.
Dr D.F. Parsons is thanked for many useful discussions. We 26 M. C. Pinna, P. Bauduin, D. Tourand, M. Monduzzi,
are indebted to Prof. M. Monduzzi for her critical evaluation of B. W. Ninham and W. Kunz, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2005, 109,
the review. 16511–16514.
27 M. C. Pinna, A. Salis, M. Monduzzi and B. W. Ninham,
J. Phys. Chem. B, 2005, 109, 5406–5408.
28 A. Salis, D. Bilaničová, B. W. Ninham and M. Monduzzi,
References
J. Phys. Chem. B, 2007, 111, 1149–1156.
1 F. Hofmeister, Arch. Exp. Pathol. Pharmakol., 1888, 24, 29 Y. Zhang and P. S. Cremer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.,
247–260. 2009, 106, 15249–15253.
2 W. Kunz, J. Henle and B. W. Ninham, Curr. Opin. Colloid 30 P. Lo Nostro, N. Peruzzi, M. Severi, B. W. Ninham and
Interface Sci., 2004, 9, 19–37. P. Baglioni, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 6571–6577.
3 J. Lyklema, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 2003, 100–102, 1–12. 31 L. Medda, B. Barse, F. Cugia, M. Boström, D. F. Parsons,
4 P. Jungwirth and P. S. Cremer, Nat. Chem., 2014, 6, 261–263. B. W. Ninham, M. Monduzzi and A. Salis, Langmuir, 2012,
5 P. Lo Nostro and B. W. Ninham, Chem. Rev., 2012, 112, 28, 16355–16363.
2286–2322. 32 Y. R. Gokarn, R. M. Fesinmeyer, A. Saluja, V. Razinkov,
6 B. W. Ninham and P. Lo Nostro, Molecular Forces and Self S. F. Chase, T. M. Laue and D. N. Brems, Protein Sci., 2011,
Assembly - In Colloid, Nano Sciences and Biology, Cambridge 20, 580–587.
University Press, Cambridge, 2010. 33 A. Salis, F. Cugia, D. F. Parsons, B. W. Ninham and
7 W. Kunz, P. Lo Nostro and B. W. Ninham, Curr. Opin. M. Monduzzi, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 4343–4346.
Colloid Interface Sci., 2004, 9, 1–18. 34 L. Medda, A. Salis and E. Magner, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.,
8 V. M. Born, Z. Phys., 1919, 1, 45–48. 2012, 14, 2875–2883.
9 R. A. Robinson and R. H. Stokes, Electrolyte Solutions, 35 P. Lo Nostro, B. W. Ninham, A. Lo Nostro, G. Pesavento,
Butterworth, London, 2nd edn, 1970. L. Fratoni and P. Baglioni, Phys. Biol., 2005, 2, 1–7.
10 A. Salis, M. C. Pinna, D. Bilaničová, M. Monduzzi, P. Lo 36 W. Kunz, Specific Ion Effects, World Scientific Publishing,
Nostro and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2006, 110, Singapore, 2010.
2949–2956. 37 M. G. Cacace, E. M. Landau and J. J. Ramsden, Q. Rev.
11 P. Bauduin, F. Nohmie, D. Touraud, R. Neueder, W. Kunz Biophys., 1997, 30, 241–277.
and B. W. Ninham, J. Mol. Liq., 2006, 123, 14–19. 38 W. Kunz, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2010, 15, 34–39.
12 G. Jones and M. Dole, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1929, 51, 39 Y. Zhang and P. S. Cremer, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2006,
2950–2964. 10, 658.
13 V. S. J. Craig, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2004, 9, 40 Y. Zhang and P. S. Cremer, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 2010,
178–184. 61, 63–83.
14 S. Murgia, M. Monduzzi and B. W. Ninham, Curr. Opin. 41 D. F. Parsons, M. Bostrom, P. Lo Nostro and B. W. Ninham,
Colloid Interface Sci., 2004, 9, 102–106. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 12352–12367.
15 S. Murgia, F. Portesani, B. W. Ninham and M. Monduzzi, 42 P. Jungwirth and D. J. Tobias, Chem. Rev., 2005, 106,
Chem. – Eur. J., 2006, 12, 7689–7698. 1259–1281.
16 S. Murgia, G. Palazzo, M. Mamusa, S. Lampis and 43 K. S. Pitzer and G. Mayorga, J. Phys. Chem., 1973, 77, 2300–2308.
M. Monduzzi, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 9238–9245. 44 K. D. Collins, Biophys. J., 1997, 72, 65–76.
17 Y. Zhang, S. Furyk, D. E. Bergbreiter and P. S. Cremer, 45 M. Boström, F. W. Tavares, S. Finet, F. Skouri-Panet,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2005, 127, 14505–14510. A. Tardieu and B. W. Ninham, Biophys. Chem., 2005, 117,
18 B. A. Deyerle and Y. Zhang, Langmuir, 2011, 27, 9203–9210. 217–224.
19 J. Morag, M. Dishon and U. Sivan, Langmuir, 2013, 29, 46 B. W. Ninham and V. Yaminsky, Langmuir, 1997, 13,
6317–6322. 2097–2108.
20 A. Salis, D. F. Parsons, M. Boström, L. Medda, B. Barse, 47 M. Boström and B. Ninham, Colloids Surf., A, 2006, 291, 24.
B. W. Ninham and M. Monduzzi, Langmuir, 2010, 26, 48 M. Boström, D. R. M. Williams and B. W. Ninham, Curr.
2484–2490. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci., 2004, 9, 48–52.
21 A. Salis, M. S. Bhattacharyya and M. Monduzzi, J. Phys. 49 M. Boström, V. Deniz, B. W. Ninham and G. Franks, Adv.
Chem. B, 2010, 114, 7996–8001. Colloid Interface Sci., 2006, 5, 123–126.
22 S. Rossi, P. Lo Nostro, M. Lagi, B. W. Ninham and 50 N. Peruzzi, B. W. Ninham, P. Lo Nostro and P. Baglioni,
P. Baglioni, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2007, 111, 10510–10519. J. Phys. Chem. B, 2012, 116, 14398–14405.
23 H.-K. Kim, E. Tuite, B. Nordén and B. W. Ninham, Eur. 51 D. Bilaničová, A. Salis, B. W. Ninham and M. Monduzzi,
Phys. J. E, 2001, 4, 411–417. J. Phys. Chem. B, 2008, 112, 12066–12072.
24 K. Toth, E. Sedlak, M. Sprinzl and G. Zoldak, Biochim. 52 T. T. Duignan, D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys.
Biophys. Acta, Proteins Proteomics, 2008, 1784, 789–795. Chem. B, 2013, 117, 9412–9420.
25 R. Varhac, N. Tomásková, M. Fabián and E. Sedlák, 53 T. T. Duignan, D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys.
Biophys. Chem., 2009, 144, 21–26. Chem. B, 2013, 117, 9421–9429.
54 B. W. Ninham, T. T. Duignan and D. F. Parsons, Curr. Opin. 86 W. Kunz and R. Neueder, in Specific Ion Effects, ed.
Colloid Interface Sci., 2011, 16, 612–617. W. Kunz, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2010,
55 T. T. Duignan, D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, Chem. pp. 3–53.
Phys. Lett., 2014, 608, 55–59. 87 P. S. Ramanathan and H. L. Friedman, J. Chem. Phys., 1971,
56 M. Lund, B. Jagoda-Cwiklik, C. E. Woodward, R. Vàcha and 54, 1086–1099.
P. Jungwirth, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2010, 1, 300–303. 88 S. Marčelja and N. Radić, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1976, 42,
57 A. P. dos Santos and Y. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2011, 129–130.
106, 167801. 89 S. Marcelja, Croat. Chem. Acta, 1977, 49, 347–358.
58 Y. Levin, A. P. dos Santos and A. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90 S. Marcelja, D. J. Mitchell, B. W. Ninham and M. J. Sculley,
2009, 103, 257802. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2, 1977, 73, 630–648.
59 M. Henry, Cell. Mol. Biol., 2005, 51, 677–702. 91 R. M. Pashley, P. M. McGuiggan, B. W. Ninham, J. Brady
60 B. T. Robertson, J. Biol. Chem., 1911, 9, 303. and D. F. Evans, J. Phys. Chem., 1986, 90, 1637.
61 J. Loeb, Science, 1920, LII, 449–456. 92 D. F. Evans, M. Allen, B. W. Ninham and A. Fouda,
62 K. H. Gustavson, in In Colloid Symposium Monograph, J. Solution Chem., 1984, 13, 87–101.
ed. H. B. Weiser, The Chemical Catalog Company Inc., 93 D. F. Evans, D. J. Mitchell and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys.
New York, 1926. Chem., 1984, 88, 6344–6348.
63 A. A. Green, J. Biol. Chem., 1932, 95, 47–66. 94 U. Mohanty, B. W. Ninham and I. Oppenheim, Proc. Natl.
64 A. W. Adamson, A Textbook of Physical Chemistry, Academic Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 1996, 93, 4342–4344.
Press, New York, 2nd edn, 1979. 95 D. F. Evans and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem., 1983, 87,
65 J. M. L. Poiseuille, Ann. Chim. Phys., 1847, 21, 76–109. 5025–5032.
66 T. G. Kujumzelis, Z. Phys., 1938, 110, 742. 96 G. G. Warr, C. J. Drummond, F. Grieser, B. W. Ninham and
67 S. T. Hyde, in Aqua Incognita: why ice floats on water and D. F. Evans, J. Phys. Chem., 1986, 90, 4581–4586.
Galileo 400 years on, ed. B. W. Ninham and P. Lo Nostro, 97 S. T. Hyde, B. W. Ninham and T. Zemb, J. Phys. Chem.,
Connor Court Publishers, Ballarat, 2014, pp. 142–171. 1989, 93, 1464–1471.
68 M. Henry, in Aqua Incognita: why ice floats on water and 98 K. Fontell, A. Ceglie, B. Lindman and B. Ninham, Acta
Galileo 400 years on, ed. B. W. Ninham and P. Lo Nostro, Chem. Scand., Ser. A, 1986, 40, 247–256.
Connor Court Publishers, Ballarat, 2014, pp. 34–99. 99 M. Dubois, T. Zemb, N. Fuller, R. P. Rand and
69 K. D. Collins, Methods, 2004, 34, 300–311. V. A. Parsegian, J. Chem. Phys., 1998, 108, 7855–7869.
70 D. W. Smith, J. Chem. Educ., 1977, 54, 540. 100 T. Zemb, D. Gazeau, M. Dubois and T. Gulikkrzywicki,
71 K. D. Collins and M. W. Washabaugh, Q. Rev. Biophys., Europhys. Lett., 1993, 21, 759–766.
1985, 18, 323–422. 101 F. Caboi and M. Monduzzi, Langmuir, 1996, 12, 3548–3556.
72 N. Schwierz, D. Horinek and R. R. Netz, Langmuir, 2013, 29, 102 H. I. Petrache, T. Zemb, L. Belloni and V. A. Parsegian,
2602–2614. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2006, 103, 7982–7987.
73 M. M. Ries-Kautt and A. F. Ducruix, J. Biol. Chem., 1989, 103 R. M. Pashley, P. M. McGuiggan and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys.
264, 745–748. Chem., 1986, 90, 5841–5845.
74 N. Schwierz, D. Horinek and R. R. Netz, Langmuir, 2010, 26, 104 J. L. Parker, H. K. Christenson and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys.
7370–7379. Chem., 1988, 92, 4155–4159.
75 J. M. Borah, S. Mahiuddin, N. Sarma, D. F. Parsons and 105 S. Murgia, M. Monduzzi and G. Palazzo, Langmuir, 2012,
B. W. Ninham, Langmuir, 2011, 27, 8710–8717. 28, 1283–1289.
76 L. Miao, H. Qin, P. Koehl and J. Song, FEBS Lett., 2011, 585, 106 J. E. Brady, D. F. Evans, G. G. Warr, F. Grieser and
3126–3132. B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem., 1986, 90, 1853–1859.
77 L. Medda, C. Carucci, D. F. Parsons, B. W. Ninham, 107 V. Chen, D. F. Evans and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem.,
M. Monduzzi and A. Salis, Langmuir, 2013, 29, 15350–15358. 1987, 91, 1823–1826.
78 A. W. Omta, M. F. Kropman, S. Woutersen and 108 M. Nydén, O. Söderman and P. Hansson, Langmuir, 2001,
H. J. Bakker, Science, 2004, 301, 347–349. 17, 6794–6803.
79 P. Debye and E. Hückel, Phys. Z., 1923, 24, 185. 109 B. W. Ninham and D. F. Evans, Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc.,
80 E. A. Guggenheim, Phil. Mag. Series 7, 1935, 19, 88–643. 1986, 81, 1–17.
81 C. W. Davies, J. Chem. Soc., 1938, 2093–2098. 110 M. E. Karaman, B. W. Ninham and R. M. Pashley, J. Phys.
82 R. W. Gurney, Ionic Processes In Solution, McGraw-Hill, Chem., 1994, 98, 11512–11518.
1953. 111 R. M. Pashley, P. M. McGuiggan, B. W. Ninham and
83 P. S. Ramanathan and H. L. Friedman, J. Chem. Phys., 1971, D. F. Evans, Science, 1985, 229, 1088–1089.
54, 1086–1099. 112 H. K. Christenson, J. Fang, B. W. Ninham and J. L. Parker,
84 B. A. Pailthorpe, D. J. Mitchell and B. W. Ninham, J. Chem. J. Phys. Chem., 1990, 94, 8004–8006.
Soc., Faraday Trans. 2, 1984, 80, 115–139. 113 M. E. Karaman, B. W. Ninham and R. M. Pashley, J. Phys.
85 M. A. Knackstedt and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, Chem., 1996, 100, 15503–15507.
100, 1330–1335. 114 R. M. Pashley, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2003, 107, 1714–1720.
115 M. Alfridsson, B. Ninham and S. Wall, Langmuir, 2000, 16, 142 N. Vlachy, B. Jagoda-Cwiklik, R. Vácha, D. Touraud,
10087–10091. P. Jungwirth and W. Kunz, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.,
116 M. Lagi, P. Lo Nostro, E. Fratini, B. W. Ninham and 2009, 146, 42–47.
P. Baglioni, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2006, 111, 589–597. 143 J. Kherb, S. C. Flores and P. S. Cremer, J. Phys. Chem. B,
117 J. N. Butler and D. R. Cogley, Ionic Equlibrium: Solubility 2012, 116, 7389–7397.
and pH Calculations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 144 L. A. Bromley, AIChE J., 1973, 19, 313–320.
1998. 145 K. B. Rembert, J. Paterova, J. Heyda, C. Hilty, P. Jungwirth
118 H. N. Po and N. M. Senozan, J. Chem. Educ., 2001, 78, 1499. and P. S. Cremer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 10039–10046.
119 R. P. Buck, S. Rondinini, A. K. Covington, F. G. K. Baucke, 146 Y. Cho, Y. Zhang, T. Christensen, L. B. Sagle, A. Chilkoti
C. M. A. Brett, M. F. Camoes, M. J. T. Milton, T. Mussini, and P. S. Cremer, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2008, 112, 13765–13771.
R. Naumann, K. W. Pratt, P. Spitzer and G. S. Wilson, Pure 147 H. I. Okur, J. Kherb and P. S. Cremer, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
Appl. Chem., 2002, 74, 2169–2200. 2013, 135, 5062–5067.
120 M. A. Will, N. A. Clark and J. E. Swain, J. Assist. Reprod. 148 X. Chen, S. C. Flores, S.-M. Lim, Y. Zhang, T. Yang, J. Kherb
Genet., 2011, 28, 711–724. and P. S. Cremer, Langmuir, 2010, 26, 16447–16454.
121 Y. Zhai, J. Bloch, M. Hömme, J. Schaefer, T. Hackert, 149 M. Lund, L. Vrbka and P. Jungwirth, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
B. Philippin, V. Schwenger, F. Schaefer and C. P. Schmitt, 2008, 130, 11582–11583.
Pediatr. Nephrol., 2012, 27, 1165–1177. 150 J. Mahanty and B. W. Ninham, Dispersion Forces, Academic
122 F. Cugia, M. Monduzzi, B. W. Ninham and A. Salis, RSC Press, London, 1976.
Adv., 2013, 3, 5882–5888. 151 V. A. Parsegian, Van der Waals Forces. A Handbook for
123 A. E. Voinescu, P. Bauduin, M. C. Pinna, D. Touraud, Biologists, Chemists, Engineers, and Physicists, Cambridge
B. W. Ninham and W. Kunz, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2006, 110, University Press, 2006.
8870–8876. 152 L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical physics, Perga-
124 http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/ mon Press, Oxford, 1969.
napoleon/soda_lakes.shtml. 153 D. J. Mitchell and B. W. Ninham, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1978,
125 A. Lucas, J. Egypt. Arch., 1932, 18, 62–66. 53, 397–399.
126 F. Franks, Biophysics and Biochemistry at Low Temperatures, 154 M. Diesendorf and B. W. Ninham, J. Math. Phys., 1968, 9,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985. 745–752.
127 V. S. J. Craig, B. W. Ninham and R. M. Pashley, Langmuir, 155 R. Kjellander, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 2006, 39, 4631–4641.
1999, 15, 1562–1569. 156 E. Wernersson and R. Kjellander, J. Chem. Phys., 2006, 125,
128 M. Setchenow, Ann. Chim. Phys., 1892, 25, 226–270. 154702–154710.
129 V. S. J. Craig, B. W. Ninham and R. M. Pashley, J. Phys. 157 E. Wernersson and R. Kjellander, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2007,
Chem., 1993, 97, 10192–10197. 111, 14279–14284.
130 R. M. Pashley, M. J. Francis and M. Rzechowicz, Curr. Opin. 158 D. F. Parsons, V. Deniz and B. W. Ninham, Colloids Surf., A,
Colloid Interface Sci., 2008, 13, 236–244. 2009, 343, 57–63.
131 N. Maeda, K. J. Rosenberg, J. N. Israelachvili and 159 D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2009,
R. M. Pashley, Langmuir, 2004, 20, 3129–3137. 113, 1141–1150.
132 J. C. Skou, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1957, 23, 394–401. 160 D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, Colloids Surf., A, 2011,
133 M. Puckeridge, B. E. Chapman, A. D. Conigrave, 383, 2–9.
S. M. Grieve, G. A. Figtree and P. W. Kuchel, Biophys. J., 161 A. Salis, M. Boström, L. Medda, F. Cugia, B. Barse,
2013, 104, 1676–1684. D. F. Parsons, B. W. Ninham and M. Monduzzi, Langmuir,
134 J. C. Skou, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 1998, 37, 2320–2328. 2011, 27, 11597–11604.
135 M. Boström, E. R. A. Lima, E. C. Biscaia, F. W. Tavares, 162 M. Boström, D. F. Parsons, A. Salis, B. W. Ninham and
P. L. Nostro, D. F. Parsons, V. Deniz and B. W. Ninham, M. Monduzzi, Langmuir, 2011, 27, 9504–9511.
J. Phys. Chem. B, 2009, 113, 8124–8127. 163 T. T. Duignan, D. F. Parsons and B. W. Ninham, Chem.
136 K. Collins, Biophys. Chem., 2006, 119, 271–281. Phys. Lett., 2014, 608, 55–59.
137 K. D. Collins, Biophys. Chem., 2012, 167, 43–59. 164 V. Deniz and D. F. Parsons, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117,
138 Y. Marcus and G. Hefter, Chem. Rev., 2006, 106, 4585–4621. 16416–16428.
139 D. F. C. Morris, in Structure and Bonding, ed. C. K. Jørgensen, 165 D. F. Parsons, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2014, 427, 67–72.
J. B. Neilands, R. Nyholm, D. Reinen and R. J. P. Williams, 166 L. A. Moreira, M. Boström, B. W. Ninham, E. C. Biscaia and
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1969, vol. 6, pp. 157–159. F. W. Tavares, Colloids Surf., A, 2006, 282–283, 457–463.
140 N. Vlachy, M. Drechsler, J.-M. Verbavatz, D. Touraud and 167 M. Wagner, K. Reiche, A. Blume and P. Garidel, Colloids
W. Kunz, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2008, 319, 542–548. Surf., A, 2012, 415, 421–430.
141 A. Renoncourt, N. Vlachy, P. Bauduin, M. Drechsler, 168 E. J. W. Verwey and J. T. G. Overbeek, Trans. Faraday Soc.,
D. Touraud, J. M. Verbavatz, M. Dubois, W. Kunz and 1946, 42B, 117.
B. W. Ninham, Langmuir, 2007, 23, 2376–2381. 169 B. Derjaguin, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1940, 35, 203–215.
View publication stats

Models and Mechanisms of Hofmeister Effects in Electrolyte Solutions, and Colloid and Protein Systems Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Models and Mechanisms of Hofmeister Effects in Electrolyte Solutions, and Colloid and Protein Systems Revisited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Models and Mechanisms of Hofmeister Effects in Electrolyte Solutions, and Colloid and Protein Systems Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Models and mechanisms of Hofmeister effects in electrolyte solutions, and

Article in Chemical Society Reviews · August 2014

Andrea Salis Barry W Ninham

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hofmeister series View project

Enzyme immobilisation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Models and mechanisms of Hofmeister eﬀects in

Andrea Salis received his PhD in Barry Ninham founded the

Table 1 Literature values of some ion specific parameters. Mobility (mi) of

Temperatures in the range 38–41 1C are associated with infectious

4.2. The eﬀects of temperature 4.4. Ion specificity in bioelectrochemistry

(electrolyte activities, colloid phase transition, protein aggrega-

5.1. The law of matching water aﬃnities

This will be less probable if the diﬀerence between the

5.2. The reversal of activity coeﬃcients of alkali metal salts

that they first classified anionic surfactant headgroups as

Fig. 8 Correlation of observed dissociation constant (Kd) values for the

A second approach cuts through those diﬃculties using a

Later developments did the job correctly. The frequency

where on = 2pkTn/ h and k and T are the Boltzmann constant

isoelectric point of BSA,161 or the surface charge of mesoporous

7.2. Protein aggregation explained by specific ion binding

But, as always, DLVO fails to predict ion specific eﬀects.

View publication stats

You might also like

where on = 2pkTn/ h and k and T are the Boltzmann constant