 Solution

Stabilization and screening. Charge stabilization of colloids means suppressing aggregation through repulsion between similarly charged particles and their electric double layers. In DLVO theory, this repulsion competes with attractive Van der Waals forces. A substantial repulsive barrier compared with thermal energy $k_{B}T$ can make aggregation slow, even when the dispersed state is only metastable.

The Debye–Hückel screening length ${\lambda }_D={\kappa }^{-1}$ is the characteristic range over which a weak electric potential is attenuated by rearrangement of mobile ions. It measures the thickness of a diffuse screening cloud, not a molecular diameter. For a plane, a weak potential decays as $e^{-\kappa x}$ into the bulk.

Derivation and the source convention. Put a planar interface at $x=0$, with electrolyte in $x>0$, bulk potential zero, and absolute permittivity $\epsilon ={\epsilon }_0{\epsilon }_r$. For a symmetric $z:z$ electrolyte, let $n_{\infty }$ be the bulk number density of each ionic species. The Boltzmann distribution givesso the mobile charge density isSubstitution into the SI Poisson equation, ${\nabla }^2\psi =-{\rho }_e/\epsilon$, gives the Poisson-Boltzmann equationFor $|ze\psi |\ll k_{B}T$, linearize the hyperbolic sine. The Debye–Hückel approximation is thenHere $z$ is the ionic valence magnitude, $e$ the elementary electric charge, $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant, $T$ absolute temperature, ${\epsilon }_0$ the vacuum permittivity, and ${\epsilon }_r$ the solvent's relative permittivity. For several ionic species, the numerator $2z^2{e}^2{n}_{\infty }$ is replaced by $e^2{\sum }_i{z}_i^2{n}_{i,\infty }$.

The original PDF includes an additional $4\pi$ in the denominator. That factor does not follow from SI Poisson equation with number densities and the stated permittivities. The Bjerrum length provides a useful check: ${\ell }_B=e^2/(4\pi \epsilon k_{B}T)$ and the consistent result is ${\kappa }^2=8\pi {\ell }_B{z}^2{n}_{\infty }$. A Gaussian-unit convention moves factors of $4\pi$ together with the charge and permittivity conventions; it does not justify inserting this extra factor while retaining all the given SI quantities. Both numerical interpretations are reported below rather than silently changing the source.

Conditions favoring stability. Increasing the surface-potential or surface-charge magnitude usually strengthens the electrostatic barrier. Lower ionic strength increases ${\lambda }_D$ and generally makes repulsion longer ranged; added salt and especially multivalent counterions shorten it and can promote aggregation. Suitable pH can keep an ionizable surface charged, while conditions near an isoelectric state weaken charge repulsion. The solvent-dependent Van der Waals forces, charge regulation and particle geometry also affect the barrier, so a long screening length is not by itself sufficient. At fixed density and valence, the linear formula gives ${\lambda }_D\propto \sqrt{\epsilon T}$, but actual temperature changes can also alter the permittivity and surface chemistry.

Surface charge at small potential. Take the usual one-sided planar-interface model, with negligible electric displacement on the nonaqueous side. The solution decaying into the solution isThe electric field is $E_x=-{\psi }^{\prime }=\kappa {\psi }_0{e}^{-\kappa x}$. The electrostatic interface boundary conditions then give the surface charge densityOne can also derive it by integrating the diffuse charge density:Thus the diffuse layer neutralizes the surface charge. This is the planar Debye-Hückel double layer. If instead the object is an isolated sheet wetted by identical electrolyte on both sides, each side screens half its total charge and ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{sheet}}=2\epsilon \kappa {\psi }_0$. The one-sided assumption is the conventional local model for the exterior of a large charged colloid; it must be stated because the question does not specify the material on the other side.

Numerical ion density. For $T=298.15\mathrm{K}$, $z=1$, $\kappa =10^9{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $\epsilon =80{\epsilon }_0=7.0834\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{F}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, the consistent SI result isThis is $\boxed{0.0943\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}}$ for each ion species, and hence also the salt concentration for a monovalent $1:1$ salt. The combined number density of both signs is $2n_{\infty }$.

Literal substitution into the formula printed in the PDF instead givesThese values are distinct consequences of the source's extra factor; they cannot both describe the same physical screening length in SI with the same definition of $n_{\infty }$.

Surface potential and validity. The requested linear estimate in the one-sided model isHowever, the thermal voltage is $k_{B}T/e=25.7\mathrm{mV}$, so $e{\psi }_{0,\mathrm{linear}}/(k_{B}T)\simeq 13.7$. Thus the small-potential approximation is not self-consistent for the supplied surface charge. The boxed value is its formal extrapolation, not a reliable prediction of the actual surface potential.

For a valid nonlinear comparison within the ideal one-sided planar Poisson-Boltzmann equation, multiply the differential equation by ${\psi }^{\prime }$ and use zero potential and field in the bulk. This givesUsing the surface boundary condition yields the Grahame equation and its inverse:With the SI screening length, the latter gives $\boxed{{\psi }_{0,\mathrm{PB}}\simeq 0.135\mathrm{V}}$. This is a nonlinear mean-field estimate under explicit assumptions, not a unique experimentally determined potential: compact interfacial layers, finite ion size and surface chemistry were not supplied. The source's normalization problem and its use of a linear formula far outside the small-potential regime are separate issues.