. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Aug 15.

Published in final edited form as: Nat Nanotechnol. 2012 Jan 15;7(2):133–139. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2011.240

Table 2. Comparison of K⁺ flux (M) and electrophoretic mobility (EM) obtained using ionic current and ICP-AES methods.

	Ionic Current Analysis^**	ICP-AES Analysis^*
M_K₊ (moles/hr)	1.6×10⁻⁸	2.0×10⁻⁸
EM_K₊ (m²/s-V)	7.7×10⁻⁸	9.6×10⁻⁸

Note:

one side of U-shape tube is composed of 0.1 M KCl solution, and another side is filled with DI water;

^**

both sides are filled with 0.1 M KCl solution, assuming transport number of K⁺ is 0.49; applied bias is −0.6V (two electrode system, Ag/AgCl); bulk μ_K₊ is equal to 7.6 × 10⁻⁸ m²/s-V; pore area of membrane is 5.0×10⁻¹² m².

Table 2. Comparison of K+ flux (M) and electrophoretic mobility (EM) obtained using ionic current and ICP-AES methods.

Table 2. Comparison of K⁺ flux (M) and electrophoretic mobility (EM) obtained using ionic current and ICP-AES methods.