Nanoscale Horizons is a leading journal for the publication of exceptionally high-quality, innovative nanoscience and nanotechnology. To celebrate the excellent articles that are published in the journal, we asked some of our authors to discuss their research in more detail.
In this post, we hear from Seth B. Darling as they discuss their recent review article, ‘Sharpening the cut: physical origins of rejection-curve broadening and routes to precision ultrafiltration‘.
Insights from the author
Anyone who has used a kitchen sieve expects filtering by size to be simple: small things pass through and large things stay behind. Ultrafiltration membranes, which are essential to water treatment, protein purification, and oil/water separations, are built on this idea, but they have never worked that cleanly. Their “rejection curves” are soft, S-shaped slopes rather than crisp steps. Molecules smaller than the average-sized pores are partly held back, and some larger ones slip through. For about fifty years, the field has largely accepted this as an inherent limit, with classical hindered-transport theory often read as a hard ceiling on precision. In our new article, ‘Sharpening the Cut: Physical Origins of Rejection-Curve Broadening and Routes to Precision Ultrafiltration’, my co-authors at Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago and I argue that this softness is not a law of nature. It is the sum of several separate problems, and each one can be solved.
We describe the gap between the ideal step and the real slope as a “broadening budget” with three main entries. First, conventional membranes have a wide spread of pore sizes. Because flow scales with the fourth power of pore radius, the largest pores carry most of the fluid and leak oversized molecules. Second, even in a perfectly uniform pore, a molecule close to the pore size is slowed by the walls due to solvent (water) drag. Third, a molecule has to reach a pore mouth to pass through, and in a single pass many never get the chance. The deceptively simple insight that excited us is that a molecule smaller than the pore is only slowed, not blocked. If the feed is recirculated, it gets another try. If a single pass retains a fraction of the population of a solute, then after a sufficient number of passes the remaining solutes will find their way through, while a solute too large to enter is rejected every time. Our team tested this idea in earlier work published in Nature Water. We used silicon nitride membranes with exceptionally uniform nanoscale pores, with a coefficient of variation of about 0.07 compared with roughly 0.2 for commercial membranes. After recirculating the feed more than 900 times over about 200 hours, the rejection curve became much sharper than classical single-pass theory predicts, and the cutoff stayed locked at the pore size.
We still did not reach a perfect step, and the reason points to the next challenge. Simulations showed that most of the flow ran along the membrane rather than into it, so many passes were not true encounters with a pore. The path forward therefore runs increasingly through process design, but there is a catch. Water moves through pores faster than dissolved solutes do, so any process that maximizes encounters also has to keep resupplying water at the membrane surface to prevent concentration build-up and fouling. Flow cells that steer solutes toward the membrane, pulsed flows, and pore walls that let water “slip” are all promising next steps. More broadly, I hope this work encourages researchers in any field to look again at limits that seem fundamental. Sometimes they turn out to be several smaller, solvable problems stacked on top of each other.
Meet the authors
Sharpening the cut: physical origins of rejection-curve broadening and routes to precision ultrafiltration
Jamila G. Eatman; Chaoqiuyu Wang; Paul F. Nealey; Seth B. Darling
Nanoscale Horiz. (2026). DOI: 10.1039/d6nh00362a






























