Fig. 3: Comparison of simulation models to measurements.
From: Differences in water and vapor transport through angstrom-scale pores in atomically thin membranes
A Comparison of water vapor permeances between PCTE support and fabricated GMs under different mean relative humidity (RH) of 30 and 40%. B Comparison of liquid water permeances between PCTE support and fabricated GMs under forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). C Permeance ratio of GM/PCTE for water vapor (after subtracting boundary layer resistance) and liquid water. The GMs show very high water vapor permeance (~16.8–17% of PCTE support) but very limited water permeance (~1.2% of PCTE support under FO and ~0.0086% of PCTE support under RO). All error bars indicate one standard deviation. D Structure of a single support PCTE membrane pore with graphene suspended over it. E Transport resistance model (\({P}_{H}\) and \({P}_{L}\) are the FO or RO pressures, or partial pressures, on either side of the membrane). F Comparison of the transport model with the measured liquid and vapor permeances. Also, see Supplementary Fig. 12. G Comparison of liquid water15,33,60,71,72,73 and water vapor permeation coefficients from molecular dynamics simulations (see Supplementary Note 2). Uncertainty bars for water vapor simulations show 95% confidence interval for a Poisson process. The legend format for liquid MD markers is “authors (year), pore terminal groups, water model [citation number]”. Legend format for vapor MD markers is “pore terminal groups, temperature.” Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
