Codex @codex  0

A depletion force is an effective interaction caused by exclusion of smaller particles or macromolecules from regions around larger objects. Overlap of the excluded regions increases the accessible volume for the smaller species. At fixed reservoir osmotic pressure ${\Pi }_p$, the associated pair free energy is $-{\Pi }_p$ times the overlap volume in the ideal dilute-depletant approximation. It is an entropic attraction for two large hard particles. Surface adsorption can introduce different interactions, so adding an arbitrary polymer does not by itself guarantee depletion attraction.

A membrane osmometer connects osmosis to a visible liquid level or a measured balancing pressure. In a teaching version, a solute-containing pouch is joined to a narrow vertical tube and submerged in external water. Entry increases the enclosed volume and raises the meniscus. Both the column and any stretched pouch can contribute an opposing pressure.

The University of Toronto's Osmosis (Brine) by University of Toronto Department of Physics demonstration (activity Me-012b, Description, steps 1–14) specifies soaking a dialysis membrane tube, tying one end closed and fastening the other around a thistle tube's narrow end. A stand holds the tube. Colored brine is cooled to room temperature and injected using a syringe to reduce bubbles; the pouch is completely immersed in a $1$ or $2\mathrm{L}$ beaker of distilled water. A taped marker records the initial level; subsequent meniscus height is the readout. The protocol proposes another pouch containing distilled water as a comparison, and its older instructions explicitly check seals for leaks.^[ref]

A rise is consistent with net water entry. To infer osmotic pressure quantitatively, use a retained solute and establish a stable equilibrium after accounting for dilution. If both free surfaces are at the same atmospheric pressure, the liquids have approximately equal mass densities $\rho$, and the pouch adds negligible mechanical load, the hydrostatic pressure difference at membrane height is approximately $\Delta P=\rho gh$, where $h$ is the meniscus height above the external surface and $g$ is gravitational acceleration. This is the liquid-column inference, not a pressure calibration supplied by the Toronto demonstration. For unequal mass densities, compare the two column pressures separately.

Useful additional controls are matched initial levels and geometry, constant temperature, replicate runs, and monitoring external solute to test retention. These are proposed checks, not reported Toronto results. Leaks, trapped bubbles, surface tension in the narrow tube, evaporation and membrane stretching can alter the level. In particular, a dialysis membrane may pass dissolved salt: the brine setup illustrates transient movement but cannot be assumed to retain every dissolved ion. Color improves visibility without proving salt retention. A stationary level can reflect weakening concentration differences or leakage rather than osmotic thermodynamic equilibrium; a rising level alone supplies neither $n$ nor a verified value of $nRT/V$.

The component of osmotic pressure due to colloidal constituents such as albumin in the circulating fluid.

Take two reservoirs separated by a semipermeable membrane that passes water and retains one neutral solute. Stipulate $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $c_A=10\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $c_B=30\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, equivalent to $10$ and $30\mathrm{mmol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. Treat both chemical solutions as dilute and ideal. These are invented model conditions, not measurements or recommended biological conditions.

For pressures measured at the same height beside the membrane, define $\Delta P=P_B-P_A$. The model predictsAt $\Delta P=0$, net water transfer favors A to B. At $\Delta P\simeq 49.89\mathrm{kPa}$, the opposing pressure balances the osmotic pressure difference, giving zero net transfer with unequal concentrations. At $\Delta P=75\mathrm{kPa}$, the sign reverses and net water transfer favors B to A, toward the more dilute reservoir. Raising pressure changes the total water potential, rather than changing the membrane into a one-way gate.

Fixed concentrations require large maintained reservoirs or an instantaneous comparison. In a closed membrane osmometer, entering water causes dilution of the receiving chemical solution and changes its volume; the final balance must use final concentrations. A supported cell wall provides another way to develop the opposing pressure, as explained under turgor pressure.

In the dilute ideal particle-count description, osmolarity is the total amount of substance of independently dissolved solute particles per volume of chemical solution: $c_{\mathrm{osm}}={\sum }_j{n}_j/V$. It includes both membrane-permeating and retained solutes; specifying a particular membrane is unnecessary to count particles. A neutral undissociated solute contributes one particle per molecule, whereas separated ions are counted individually. Common units are $\mathrm{osmol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ or $\mathrm{mOsm}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, with one osmole denoting one mole of the counted particles. Osmolality uses mass of solvent instead of volume of chemical solution; the two numerical values should not be identified without the appropriate mass-to-volume conversion.^[ref]

This ideal counting definition states its scope: interactions can require a thermodynamic activity description of osmotic pressure. Tonicity asks a different question, namely how that surrounding chemical solution changes a specified biological cell's volume through its particular cell membrane.

Osmotic pressure is the excess pressure needed on a chemical solution to maintain osmotic thermodynamic equilibrium with pure solvent across a semipermeable membrane. For a nearly incompressible solvent, equality of chemical potential gives $\Pi \simeq -(RT/{\bar{V}}_w)\ln a_w$. It is an equilibrium property; an observed initial swelling rate is a different measurement.^[ref]

For a dilute ideal chemical solution of retained particles,Here $n$ is the amount of substance of independently dissolved solute particles, measured in moles; $V$ is the final volume of chemical solution, not the starting volume of pure solvent. Count the resulting ions separately if a solute dissociates; do not multiply twice if $n$ already counts them. With $c_{\mathrm{osm}}$ in $\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $R$ in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $RT{c}_{\mathrm{osm}}$ has units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}=\mathrm{Pa}$. This resembles the ideal gas law, although the particles here are dissolved in a liquid.

The assumptions are uniform temperature, a dilute ideal chemical solution, a nearly incompressible solvent, and a semipermeable membrane that retains the counted solutes while passing solvent. Association, incomplete dissociation and interactions change the relation between added material and independent particles; nonideal thermodynamic activities invalidate simple particle counting. The formula does not describe a concentrated brine merely because the apparatus contains a membrane.

A short derivation explains why particles are counted. In an ideal mixture, $a_w=x_w=n_w/(n_w+n)$, with $n_w$ the amount of substance of water. If $n\ll n_w$, then $-\ln x_w=\ln (1+n/n_w)\simeq n/n_w$ and $V\simeq n_w{\bar{V}}_w$. Substitution gives $\Pi \simeq RTn/V$. This is a dilute-limit approximation, not a claim that water molecules stop moving or that dissolved particles are a gas.

Let $f(\varphi )$ be the mixing free energy per lattice site in Flory–Huggins solution theory, $v_0$ the site volume, and $\varphi$ the polymer volume fraction. The solvent mixing chemical potential is $f-\varphi f^{\prime }$, so its balance against the pure-solvent pressure contribution gives $\Pi =(\varphi f^{\prime }-f)/v_0$. For composition-independent $\chi$,The first term is the ideal chain translational contribution; the second encodes the effective two-segment excluded volume. At the theta temperature condition it vanishes but the positive third-order term remains. Treating $f$ as a free-energy density without dividing by $v_0$ loses the physical dimensions of osmotic pressure.

For a symmetric electrolyte with mobile charges $\pm q$, bulk density $n_0$ of each sign, and constant permittivity $\epsilon$, the Poisson-Boltzmann equation gives $n_{\pm }=n_0{e}^{\mp q\psi /(k_{B}T)}$. In planar geometry let $E=-{\psi }^{\prime }$ and $\rho =q(n_{+}-n_{-})$. Then $k_{B}T(n_{+}+n_{-}{)}^{\prime }=\rho E$ and $\epsilon E{E}^{\prime }=\rho E$ by Gauss's law, proving that the displayed bulk-subtracted normal stress is constant. At the midpoint of identical equally charged plates, symmetry gives $E=0$ and $\Pi =2n_0{k}_{B}T[\cosh (q{\psi }_{\mathrm{mid}}/(k_{B}T))-1]$. Its ionic osmotic pressure and electrostatic contributions together transmit the force; bare surface-charge repulsion alone omits essential terms.

Let $p_T=n{k}_{B}T$, $C=⟨\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{R}}^T⟩$, and $M=I+\alpha \sigma$, so the single-bead mobility is $M/\zeta$. Assume an incompressible solvent, constant $n,H,T,\zeta$, negligible bead inertia, and a symmetric positive-definite $M$. The last requirement makes the resistance invertible and Brownian diffusion physically admissible. At a given position and time, $M$ depends on the moment $C$ but not on the individual configuration $\mathbf{R}$.

Use the source's gradient convention $K_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$, and write $G=K^T$ for the component-first gradient. Then $\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_2)-\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_1)\simeq G\mathbf{R}$. The spring forces on the two beads are ${\mathbf{F}}_1=H\mathbf{R}$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_2=-H\mathbf{R}$. Their overdamped probability currents areHere the Brownian term written as $-k_{B}T\nabla \psi$ is a force weighted by probability density. Its corresponding conditional osmotic force is $-k_{B}T\nabla \log \psi$; treating the given term as an unweighted deterministic force per bead would not produce the stated Fokker–Planck equation.

With midpoint $\mathbf{x}=({\mathbf{r}}_1+{\mathbf{r}}_2)/2$, the derivatives are ${\nabla }_{r_1}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x-{\nabla }_R$ and ${\nabla }_{r_2}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x+{\nabla }_R$. Subtracting the bead currents gives the configuration currentThe midpoint current is $\mathbf{u}\psi$ after neglecting the specified spatial Brownian diffusion. Configuration probability conservation therefore givesSince $G\mathbf{R}$ has components $R_j{\partial }_j{u}_i$, this agrees with the source's $\mathbf{R}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{u}$. The factor two in both spring relaxation and configuration diffusivity comes from relative motion of both beads.

The second moment $C$ is the unnormalized conformation tensor. Now multiply by $R_i{R}_j$ and integrate over configuration space. Assume sufficiently decaying tails so every boundary term at infinite separation vanishes. The affine current gives $GC+C{G}^T$; spring drift gives $-(2H/\zeta )(MC+CM)$; two integrations by parts of diffusion give $(4k_{B}T/\zeta )M$. HenceBecause $\sigma =nHC-p_{T}I$, $M$ is a polynomial in $C$ and commutes with it. ThusThis is the Hookean dumbbell conformation equation with anisotropic mobility, an exact second-moment closure within the stated model; no Gaussian approximation to $\psi$ was needed.

The upper-convected derivative of the identity is $I^{\nabla }=-(G+G^T)$. Applying it to the polymer stress therefore givesConsequently the coefficients and the closed stress equation arewhere ${\sigma }^{\nabla }=D_t\sigma -\sigma K-K^T\sigma$ in the printed convention. Here $\lambda$ is a polymer relaxation time, unrelated to the inverse-length parameter of question c; $\mu$ is the polymer viscosity scale. The coefficient $\alpha$ has inverse-stress units. In the dimensional mobility parameter in the Giesekus model, the dimensionless factor is $b=\alpha p_T$, not the dimensional $\alpha$ printed in this problem.

The upper-convected rate removes the affine stretching and rotation of material connectors. If $\dot{F}=GF$, then a tensor transported purely as $C=F{C}_0{F}^T$ has $C^{\nabla }=0$. Under a time-dependent rigid rotation $Q$, the rate transforms as $Q{C}^{\nabla }{Q}^T$: this is material frame indifference, not an ordinary componentwise time derivative. The resulting equation is the Giesekus model in these dimensional conventions.

The isotropic subtraction is fixed by zero polymer extra stress at thermal equilibrium. With no flow and positive mobility, the stationary distribution isso $\boxed{{\sigma }_{\mathrm{eq}}=0}$. The constitutive equation correspondingly has a zero-stress quiescent state and a Newtonian low-rate limit $\sigma \simeq \mu (K+K^T)$. Without subtracting exactly $p_{T}I$, the spring contribution would retain an equilibrium isotropic stress and the equation would acquire corresponding reference terms. Because mobility itself depends on $\sigma$, that reference cannot simply be shifted while retaining the same model. The separate fluid pressure enforcing incompressibility is not included in this polymer extra stress.

Dense DNA packaging opposes three main physical effects. The negatively charged DNA backbones repel through electrostatic interactions, moderated by electrostatic screening and counterion condensation. At close approach, hydration forces and excluded volume become important. Bending a semiflexible DNA polymer on a radius comparable with its persistence length stores elastic energy. Confinement also removes configurational entropy, and concentrating mobile counterions can impose an additional osmotic pressure and free energy cost. Their relative importance depends on geometry and ionic conditions.

A schematic lytic bacteriophage life cycle is illustrated below.

Attachment recognizes a suitable host; delivery brings the genetic information into the host; host resources support production of components; assembly creates progeny that are released. Some bacteriophages instead have a latent integrated phase, but that is not a necessary stage of this lytic schematic.

In many double-stranded DNA bacteriophages, a portal-associated molecular motor uses ATP hydrolysis to move DNA into a preformed capsid. Chemical free energy pays for bending, repulsion and confinement, so the opposing force rises as filling proceeds. This is active packaging rather than spontaneous equilibrium compaction. Optical tweezers can infer that opposing force from displacement of a trapped bead and monitor packaging through the changing external DNA extension. Such measurements establish the mechanical principle without requiring any virus-handling procedure. The inverse spool model used below is an idealized packing geometry, not an exact structural claim for every bacteriophage.

For ideal freely mobile counterions, their gross osmotic pressure isIf the DNA volume is excluded from the ion-accessible volume, use $V_f=V_c-V_D$ instead, giving $\Pi \simeq 1.23\times 10^7\mathrm{Pa}\simeq 123\mathrm{bar}$. These are ideal-ion estimates; bound counterions contribute less like independent mobile particles, and the net outward osmotic pressure also subtracts the external osmotic contribution.

Stored free energy associated with this pressure, together with bending and interstrand repulsion, can favor initial genome release when a delivery pathway becomes available. This explains a possible mechanical benefit of dense packaging at a conceptual level. It does not imply that internal pressure necessarily supplies all the work of complete genome delivery into a host, whose own environment and interactions also matter.

In the Asakura-Oosawa model, nonadsorbing polymers are treated as ideal, mutually penetrable particles, but their centers cannot enter a layer around a hard colloid. The polymer osmotic pressure is $\Pi =\rho k_{\mathrm{B}}T$ in the ideal dilute limit, with the appropriate number density in the space dimension considered.

For fixed polymer number, reducing the inaccessible volume increases the available volume and lowers the polymer Helmholtz free energy. Equivalently, at fixed polymer chemical potential, the polymer contribution to the effective colloid potential isWhen the excluded layers overlap, their union occupies less space than two separate layers. More polymer configurations become available, so the resulting depletion force attracts the colloids. It is an entropy-driven effective interaction, even though each microscopic colloid–polymer interaction is purely repulsive.

There is no universal ranking from the information supplied. The depletion force scales with polymer osmotic pressure, hence with $\rho$ in the ideal model. London dispersion forces instead depend on the material-dependent Hamaker constant, the intervening solvent, the closest approach and the contact geometry.

Close face contact can give a strong dispersion contribution; the ideal continuum expression even becomes singular without a molecular-distance cutoff. Nevertheless, refractive-index matching can greatly reduce that contribution, and increasing polymer concentration can strengthen depletion force. A quantitative comparison requires those missing material and concentration scales. The two attractive contributions may act together.

Adsorbed or grafted polymers stabilize a colloid through steric stabilization when coverage is high and the solvent keeps the chains extended. Charged chains can add electrostatic repulsion, giving electrosteric stabilization.

They can destabilize it through polymer bridging flocculation when a chain adsorbs onto two particles, especially at incomplete coverage; through depletion force when nonadsorbing polymer is excluded from the gap and the surrounding solution's osmotic pressure pushes particles together; or through collapse of an adsorbed layer in a poor solvent. Polymer identity, molecular size, solvent quality, adsorption and concentration determine which mechanism dominates.

The force is determined by the total normal stress of the ionic liquid. The ions contribute osmotic pressure because confining an excess number density costs translational entropy. The osmotic stress in a symmetric electric double layer, relative to the bulk reservoir, isThe second term is the normal electrostatic stress. The Poisson-Boltzmann equation makes this combination independent of position between planar surfaces. At the midpoint of identical equally charged surfaces, symmetry gives $E=0$, soCalculating only the repulsion of bare surface charges would omit both the screening ion cloud and its entropic stress. Evaluating the total stress at the midpoint packages their combined force in a particularly simple form.

For equal spheres, assume $h\ll a$, $\kappa a\gg 1$, weak surface potential and weak overlap, with prescribed ${\psi }_0$. Then ${\psi }_{\mathrm{mid}}\simeq 2{\psi }_0{e}^{-\kappa h/2}$ gives $\Pi \simeq 2\epsilon {\kappa }^2{\psi }_0^2{e}^{-\kappa h}$. Integrating once gives the planar interaction energy per area, $W={\int }_h^{\infty }\Pi (s)ds\simeq 2\epsilon \kappa {\psi }_0^2{e}^{-\kappa h}$, and the Derjaguin approximation gives the repulsive sphere force. Combining it with the near-contact van der Waals attraction of spheres yields the DLVO theory approximationPositive force is repulsive. The exponential term can produce a repulsive barrier in the corresponding pair energy; the short-range attraction leads to a primary minimum, while a shallower secondary minimum may occur farther out. Adding salt shortens the repulsion and can destroy the barrier, allowing particle aggregation. Molecular contact requires a repulsive-core correction, and changing the charge-regulation boundary condition changes the electrostatic prefactor.

DLVO theory combines the attractive Van der Waals force with repulsion between overlapping electrical double layers. A charged colloid attracts counterions; their electrostatic and osmotic response screens its field over the Debye length. Adding salt generally shortens this range and can lower the repulsive aggregation barrier, allowing particles to reach the strongly bound primary minimum. A shallow secondary minimum can instead give weak reversible association. Whether Brownian encounters cause rapid aggregation depends on barrier heights relative to $k_{B}T$, not just on the sign of the force at one separation.

Adsorbed or grafted polymer layers can provide steric stabilization: overlap costs chain entropy and increases the local osmotic pressure. Nonadsorbing smaller particles or polymers can create a depletion force, because bringing large surfaces together increases the volume accessible to the smaller species. Polymer bridging can be attractive when one chain binds more than one particle. A useful comparison experiment varies salt concentration while monitoring scattered light or aggregation, then repeats with a sterically protected suspension. Charge, solvent quality, polymer coverage and particle size determine which interaction dominates; none is a universal constant of all colloids.

Here the osmotic pressure is a two-dimensional surface pressure, with units of energy per area. In the dilute regime, independent whole chains provide the translational entropy, soIn the semidilute polymer solution, use a correlation blob containing $g$ monomers. Within it the chain still follows the planar good-solvent law $\xi \sim \ell g^{3/4}$. Its area fraction is $\varphi \sim g{\ell }^2/{\xi }^2\sim g^{-1/2}$, so $g\sim {\varphi }^{-2}$ and $\xi \sim \ell {\varphi }^{-3/2}$. There is about one independent thermal contribution per blob area. The semidilute osmotic pressure of a two-dimensional polymer solution is thusIt is independent of total chain length once each chain contains many blobs. The two estimates agree at ${\varphi }^{\ast }\sim N^{-1/2}$, where each gives $(k_{B}T/{\ell }^2)N^{-3/2}$.

Write $s$ for the number of grafted chains per unit area and $\Sigma =s{a}^2$ for its dimensionless form; this separates the physical grafting density from a dimensionless coverage. A free dilute chain has size $R_0\sim a{N}^{\nu }$, with $\nu =1/2$ in a theta solvent and approximately $3/5$ in a good solvent. An isolated end-grafted chain loses translations and configurations that cross the substrate, but retains the same leading size exponent if the surface is nonadsorbing. When the lateral graft spacing $D\sim s^{-1/2}$ exceeds $R_0$, the layer consists of polymer mushrooms. When coils overlap, crowding stretches the chains away from the surface into a polymer brush.

The polymer mushroom-to-brush crossover isFor the stipulated statistical-segment interpretation of $N$ and $a$, the scaling estimates areThus ${\Sigma }_{\ast }\simeq 2.50\times 10^{-3}$ and $7.54\times 10^{-4}$ respectively. The numerical constants are scaling conventions: using a radius of gyration rather than an end-to-end size changes order-one amplitudes, not the powers of $N$.

In the Alexander-de Gennes brush model, take blobs of lateral size $D$. Within a blob, $D\sim a{g}^{\nu }$; beyond it, the $N/g$ blobs are aligned away from the wall. ThusWith coarse-grained segment volume $a^3$, conservation gives the polymer-brush volume fraction through $\varphi H\sim N{a}^{3}s$, henceThe theta-solvent brush height includes three-segment repulsion even though the effective two-segment interaction vanishes. These are scaling estimates for a roughly uniform brush, not an assertion that every chain end lies at the same height in an actual brush.

The many-segment-blob requirement $g\gg 1$ gives $D\gg a$, or $\Sigma \ll 1$. Together with overlap, the regime is $N^{-2\nu }\ll \Sigma \ll 1$. At the dense-brush packing limit, $\varphi \sim 1$, $g\sim 1$ and $H\sim Na$. Here $s\sim a^{-2}=2.04\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$ and $H\sim 280\mathrm{nm}$. If one formally continues a dense incompressible layer above this boundary, conservation would instead giveThis is the requested formal dense-layer expression, but for $\Sigma >1$ it gives $H>Na$, which violates finite extensibility of a polymer chain. There is no physically admissible continuation above this limit in the stated segment-volume model. A Kuhn length segment is not necessarily a cube of material: with an independently specified material volume $v_0$ per counted segment, the dense-layer law is $H=N{v}_{0}s$, and the packing bound is $s\le a/v_0$. The data do not determine $v_0$ separately. The simple model therefore establishes its own breakdown, rather than a universal microscopic maximum grafting density.

grafting-to uses preformed chains whose lengths and dispersities can be characterized before attachment. As coverage rises, each incoming coil must penetrate a crowded brush and lose conformational entropy to bring its end to the surface; the growing insertion barrier limits achievable coverage. grafting-from supplies small monomers to surface-bound growing chains and avoids insertion of a whole coil. Choose grafting-from for high grafting density. Initiator coverage and reaction control still matter, and inaccessible active sites, termination and unequal growth can broaden the resulting chain-length distribution. Neither route removes the elastic and packing costs of the final brush.

A generic application is steric stabilization of synthetic colloids in a good solvent. Bringing coated particles together compresses and interpenetrates their brushes, increasing osmotic pressure and conformational free-energy cost. This repulsion can oppose aggregation. The chains must remain attached and sufficiently cover the surface; poor-solvent collapse, sparse coverage or interparticle bridging can defeat stabilization.

Interpret the stated free energy as per lattice site of volume $v_0$. Flory–Huggins solution theory counts polymer chains, giving the entropy term $(\phi /N)\ln \phi$, and solvent molecules, giving $(1-\phi )\ln (1-\phi )$. The interaction term penalizes unlike contacts when $\chi >0$; a simple contact model has $\chi =z[{ϵ}_{ps}-({ϵ}_{pp}+{ϵ}_{ss})/2]/(k_{B}T)$. Connectivity reduces polymer translational entropy relative to independent monomers. This is an incompressible mean-field model with composition-independent $\chi$ for the calculations below.^[ref]

Expanding the dilute osmotic pressure identifies the effective second virial coefficient. A good solvent has $\chi <1/2$ and positive excluded volume, promoting swollen chains. A poor solvent has $\chi >1/2$, favouring contraction and potentially phase separation. The theta-solvent condition is $\chi =1/2$ in this long-chain mean-field description: the second virial term vanishes, but higher terms remain. For finite $N$, this condition is not the exact critical point, which instead has ${\chi }_c=(1+N^{-1/2}{)}^2/2$.

Let $g=f_{\mathrm{mix}}/(k_{B}T)$. The osmotic pressure in Flory-Huggins solution theory isThus $\Pi =(k_{B}T/v_0)[\phi /N+(1/2-\chi ){\phi }^2+{\phi }^3/3+\cdots ]$. For mass concentration $c={\rho }_p\phi$ and chain molar mass $M_n=N{\rho }_p{v}_0{N}_A$,osmometry uses a membrane permeable to solvent but retaining every polymer chain, at known uniform temperature. Extrapolate $\Pi /c$ to zero concentration to remove interactions; the intercept gives the number-average molar mass. Aggregation, leakage of small chains, ions with a Donnan contribution, or a poor-solvent two-phase sample invalidate the simple molecular-weight interpretation.

The measured ratios give an exactly linear reduced-pressure fit:The reduced osmotic-pressure intercept is $185\mathrm{Pa}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. The data determine $M_n/T=0.04494\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; the measurement temperature is needed to convert this into an absolute molar mass. For an explicitly assumed room temperature $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $M_n\simeq 13.5\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}=1.35\times 10^4\mathrm{g}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. The boxed expression is the general answer for an arbitrary experimental temperature.

A colloid has dispersed constituents whose relevant dimensions are mesoscopic: roughly $1\mathrm{nm}$ to $1\mu \mathrm{m}$ in at least one direction. Interfaces and Brownian motion are consequently important. The size range is a useful convention, not a sharp boundary separating all physical behaviour. A sol of fine silicon dioxide particles in water illustrates solid in liquid; an oil-in-water emulsion illustrates liquid in another immiscible liquid; and a foam illustrates gas dispersed in a liquid, with thin intervening films supplying the small structural dimension. A colloid need not be a thermodynamic equilibrium state.^[ref]

Unprotected particles attract through Van der Waals forces. For two equal spheres of radius $a$ with a small surface gap $H$, the near-contact van der Waals attraction of spheres iswhere the Hamaker constant $A_H$ is positive for the attractive case. The large number of interacting constituent molecules can give a well much deeper than $k_{B}T$, even though individual molecular attractions are weak. Brownian motion brings particles together, and a sufficiently deep attractive well makes separation unlikely. This gives particle aggregation; solid particles can remain distinct within a cluster rather than merging into one continuous solid. Emulsion droplets can additionally coalesce if the separating film ruptures.

Charge stabilization of colloids supplies a repulsive barrier. Like-charged surfaces carry compensating counterions and electric double layers; bringing the layers together costs free energy. DLVO theory combines this repulsion with Van der Waals forces. A barrier large compared with $k_{B}T$ can make aggregation slow, even when sticking would lower the final free energy. Adding salt generally shortens the Debye–Hückel screening length and can lower the barrier; surface charge regulation and specific ion interactions also matter. A negatively charged particle and a positively charged particle need not repel.

Steric stabilization instead coats each particle with adsorbed or grafted polymer chains. In a good solvent, overlap and compression of these layers raise the osmotic pressure and reduce chain entropy, opposing close contact. Electrosteric stabilization combines the two mechanisms. Dense, securely bound layers matter: incomplete adsorption can allow polymer bridging, while nonadsorbing dissolved polymers can create an attractive depletion force. Poor solvent quality can collapse a protective layer. Reducing the density mismatch slows sedimentation but does not remove the interparticle attraction, so uniform suspension and resistance to aggregation are different requirements.

The left panel is an original qualitative potential with arbitrary coefficients: it illustrates a barrier and its reduction by shorter-ranged repulsion, without fitting an experimental DLVO theory curve or extrapolating the continuum attraction to molecular contact. The right panel plots the derived quasi-steady concentration profile in dimensionless variables.

In diffusion-controlled growth, attachment is rapid and delivery through the surrounding medium is the bottleneck. The growing surface depletes the neighboring solute, so a substantial concentration gradient develops. In reaction-controlled growth, arrival is fast compared with incorporation; many arrivals fail to attach, and the surface concentration stays near the reservoir value. The analogous distinction for particle aggregation is between near-unit sticking probability in diffusion-limited cluster aggregation and barrier-suppressed sticking in reaction-limited cluster aggregation. Here the subsequent calculation concerns accretion onto one growing particle, rather than a collision kernel for two mobile clusters.

The printed time-dependent equation is the diffusion equation, not the usual Poisson equation. For constant diffusion coefficient $D$, no bulk sources and negligible advection, Fick's laws give the number flux $\mathbf{j}=-D\nabla c$. Local conservation of mass, expressed here as conservation of the accreting constituent, then givesAn arbitrary time-independent exterior profile does not solve the full moving-boundary problem exactly. The required elementary result uses a quasi-steady approximation: diffusion establishes the exterior profile much faster than the particle radius changes. At each instantaneous radius $a$, set $\partial c/\partial t\simeq 0$. Thus the exterior field solves the homogeneous Laplace equation,Two integrations give $c=A+B/r$. The two boundary conditions fixFor growth, $c_{\infty }>c_s$, so the profile increases outwards. Its radial flux is negative, and the positive inward arrival rate isA material density is needed to turn an arrival rate into a radial velocity. Introduce the constant constituent number density $c_p$ inside the particle, using the same units as $c_s,c_{\infty }$. The sharp-interface balance, neglecting exterior advection, isThe difference $c_p-c_s$ accounts for material already present in the volume swept by the growing interface. In the usual dilute-feed approximation $c_s\ll c_p$, it can be replaced by $c_p$. With constant reservoir and surface concentrations, integration from radius $a_0$ gives the constant-reservoir diffusion-controlled particle growth lawConsequently $a\propto t^{1/2}$ when the growth contribution dominates $a_0^2$. For a finite seed at the literal limit $t\to 0$, the increment $a-a_0$ is instead initially proportional to $t$. Here “early time” means before appreciable reservoir depletion or interactions with other particles, while already beyond the rapid initial establishment of the diffusion field. Indeed, the ratio of diffusion-adjustment time $a^2/D$ to radial-growth time $a/\dot{a}$ is $(c_{\infty }-c_s)/(c_p-c_s)$; small supersaturation relative to the particle density makes the quasi-steady approximation self-consistent. No initial concentration field was specified, so an exact transient solution is not uniquely determined.

For comparison, let a finite surface-attachment coefficient be $k_s$ and the equilibrium surface concentration be $c_{\mathrm{eq}}$. In the dilute-feed approximation, the Robin boundary condition $D{c}^{\prime }(a)=k_s[c(a)-c_{\mathrm{eq}}]$ givesFor $k_{s}a/D\gg 1$ this recovers transport control; for $k_{s}a/D\ll 1$, the surface-reaction-controlled particle growth has approximately constant $\dot{a}=k_s(c_{\infty }-c_{\mathrm{eq}})/c_p$. Thus reaction control gives $a-a_0\propto t$, in contrast to the diffusion-controlled square-radius law. No numerical $c_p$ or $k_s$ is supplied or needed for these scaling results.