黑料社区

The n-AQUA team (a collaboration between the Max Planck Institute, CNRS, and the University of Cambridge) studies what happens to water when it is confined in spaces so small that only a few molecules can fit across. At this scale, water no longer behaves like the familiar liquid we encounter every day. It can flow in unexpected ways, reorganise its internal structure, and respond very differently to its surroundings.

To understand this, the team combine three complementary approaches. They measure how water moves through extremely small channels, use advanced laser-based methods to probe how water molecules vibrate and organise at interfaces, and develop theoretical models that describe these behaviours at the atomic level. Bringing these perspectives together directly links how water flows with how it is structured and how its molecules interact collectively.

The team's key advance is showing that water transport at this scale is not controlled only by the size of the channel, but also by how groups of water molecules move together and interact with the material around them. This means that water flow in nanoscopic systems can, in principle, be tuned by controlling these collective molecular motions.

This changes how scientists can think about water at small scales. Instead of treating it as a simple fluid, it can be viewed as a dynamic system whose behaviour can be understood and potentially controlled. In the long term, this could lead to more efficient water purification and desalination technologies, improved energy systems that rely on proton transport, and new materials that precisely regulate how water moves through them.

Given that we have not yet been able to fully understand something as familiar as a glass of water, thinking about the immense breadth of natural and industrial processes underpinned by water at these scales gives a sense of the impact that this work will ultimately have.

Hugo Rauch

Q&A

How do you feel about receiving a Horizon Prize?

Yongkang Wang: I feel very honoured and grateful to receive this prize. It is a wonderful recognition of the work and of the collaborative effort behind it, and it is also very motivating for future research.

Lei Gao: Learning that we had received this prize was a truly exciting and rewarding moment for our entire team. It felt not only like a recognition of the work we have accomplished so far, but also a strong affirmation of the direction we have chosen. More importantly, the award has inspired us to look ahead with even greater determination. It reinforces our belief in the importance of this field and motivates us to continue exploring new ideas and pushing the boundaries of innovation.

Xavier R. Advincula: I feel genuinely honoured and very grateful to receive this prize. It is especially meaningful because it recognises a collective effort. This project brought together people with very different kinds of expertise, from experiments on water flow and nonlinear spectroscopy to molecular simulations and theory, and each part was essential to the final picture. For me, that is one of the most rewarding aspects of the work: seeing how different perspectives can come together to answer a question that none of us could have addressed alone. It is wonderful to see such a shared effort recognised in this way.

What was your role within the team?

Yongkang Wang: In the project I am leading on 2D material鈥搘ater interfaces, my role was to contribute molecular-level insight from spectroscopy and to help bring together the contributions from different team members into a consistent picture of the interface.

Xavier R. Advincula: My role was on the theory and molecular simulation side. I worked on understanding how water behaves at the atomic level when it is confined or placed near interfaces, and on connecting molecular structure and collective motion to the behaviour observed experimentally. In practice, this means thinking about what the water molecules are doing, how they organise near an interface, how they interact with the surrounding material, and how these microscopic details shape the larger behaviour we measure. What I found especially rewarding was being able to use simulations as a bridge between molecular-level mechanisms and experimental measurements.

What were the biggest challenges in this project, and how did you overcome them?

Yongkang Wang: One of the biggest challenges was that the interface looked simple at the macroscopic level, but it was actually very subtle at the molecular scale. To understand the unexpectedly strong interaction of water with hBN compared with its structural analogue, graphene, we had to uncover the molecular structure of the interface and separate intrinsic surface charging from defects, contamination and other extrinsic effects.

We overcame these challenges by bringing together the expertise of a highly collaborative team and complementary techniques: surface-specific molecular vibrational spectroscopy to directly probe the molecular structure of water and surface charging; nanofluidic device fabrication to ensure atomically clean surfaces; high-resolution AFM to check surface structure and defects; and accurate simulations to uncover the underlying molecular mechanisms. The key was cross-validating the results from each method until they all pointed to the same molecular-level understanding.

Xavier R. Advincula: One of the biggest challenges was linking phenomena that occur on very different length and time scales. Experiments measure collective behaviour, such as water flow or spectroscopic signatures, while simulations give us access to individual molecules and their interactions. Bridging these two views is not straightforward, because a molecular mechanism that looks clear in a simulation does not always leave a clear fingerprint in an experiment, and a measured signal can have several plausible microscopic origins. What made it possible was close communication across the team: constantly comparing what each technique could tell us, being open about the limitations of each approach, and using theory as a way to connect experimental observations to the underlying molecular picture.

Angelos Michaelides: It was a challenge early on for the different teams to understand each other鈥檚 scientific languages and to build trust. Many people in the collaboration put effort into breaking down these language barriers and building trusting relationships. Out of this, friendships have blossomed and, from this, exciting scientific breakthroughs!

What different strengths did different people bring to the team?

Yongkang Wang: Different people brought different strengths to the project, whether in spectroscopy, AFM, device fabrication or simulations. But the real strength of the team was the people themselves - their openness, complementary thinking, and ability to work together towards a common picture.

Lei Gao: The achievement of this award clearly reflects the strong and diverse background of our team. Each member brings complementary strengths that together create a highly collaborative and effective research environment.

Our team leader, Mischa, provides a clear scientific vision and strong guidance, helping to shape the overall direction of the research. Other members contribute a wide range of expertise, spanning experimental design, device fabrication, data analysis and theoretical understanding. This diversity allows us to approach challenges from multiple perspectives and develop more innovative and robust solutions.

For example, Yongkang鈥檚 deep insight into solid鈥搇iquid interfaces has been instrumental in guiding our experimental strategies, while Nikita鈥檚 strong theoretical support has helped us better understand emerging physico-chemical processes.

Xavier R. Advincula: The strength of the team was that no single approach could have answered the question on its own. The nanofluidics expertise allowed us to probe how water moves through extremely small spaces in a controlled and quantitative way. The spectroscopy expertise gave us a window into how water molecules organise and interact at interfaces. The theory and simulation work helped to interpret these observations in molecular terms, so we could connect what was being measured to what was happening at the atomic scale. Bringing these together made it possible to build a much more complete picture, and that complementarity is what made the project so exciting to be part of.

Why is this work so important and exciting?

Yongkang Wang: One of the goals of this project was to understand 2D material鈥搘ater interfaces at the molecular level. This work is important because it changes how we think about 2D material鈥搘ater interfaces, especially for materials such as hBN and graphene. hBN was often treated as a structurally simple, almost inert analogue of graphene, but our results show that its interaction with water is much more complex and intrinsically active. That is exciting because it opens new questions about surface charging, interfacial water structure, and how 2D materials behave in realistic environments. More practically, it can provide guidance for tailoring interfacial phenomena such as water flow and ion transport in 2D鈥憁aterial鈥慴ased nanofluidics, as well as for desalination and energy applications.

Xavier R. Advincula: Water seems like the most ordinary substance in the world, and yet, under nanoscale confinement and at complex interfaces, it behaves in ways we are still discovering. This matters because many natural and technological processes, from biological channels to membranes for filtration and energy materials, involve water moving through nanoscale environments. What is striking is that water in these settings is not just a passive fluid. Its collective molecular behaviour can strongly influence how it flows, organises and transports charge, which means there are still very fundamental things to learn about such a familiar substance.

Hugo Rauch: Even in our day-to-day lives, the unusual properties of water are evident. Take, for example, a glass of ice water: when we observe ice bobbing at the surface, we witness one of the most striking anomalous features of water鈥攖hat it is less dense as a solid than as a liquid. When we 鈥榸oom in鈥� and examine water at the atomistic level, its strong anisotropic hydrogen bonds reveal the origin of its unusual properties. Remarkably, there exists no universally accepted framework to rationalise the behaviour of water at this scale. Nanoconfined water is an ideal system for uncovering these principles, as the phenomenology we probe in this regime is dominated by water鈥檚 molecular properties. Even when looking at the beverage from our simple example, without these guiding principles, we cannot fully explain the molecular organisation of water at the interface with the glass. Given that we have not yet been able to fully understand something as familiar as a glass of water, thinking about the immense breadth of natural and industrial processes underpinned by water at these scales gives a sense of the impact that this work will ultimately have.

Where do you see the biggest impact of these discoveries being?

Yongkang Wang: I think the biggest impact of our molecular-level understanding of 2D material鈥搘ater interfaces will be in nanofluidics and membrane science. More broadly, this work provides a molecular-level foundation for designing 2D-material interfaces for energy harvesting and desalination, because once we understand how water really behaves at these surfaces, we can start to engineer them more rationally.

Hugo Rauch: Since water is vital to so many natural and industrial processes, there are many ways in which our work could be used in 鈥榬eal-life鈥� industrial applications, some of which we are already directly exploring. However, more broadly, machine learning is having a transformative impact on our ability to simulate the physics of atomic systems. For example, the state-of-the-art calculations used in our research would have been impossible without machine learning acceleration. Given the rapid improvement in simulation capabilities, there has been a growing effort to use these tools to guide the discovery of new materials for technological applications. Of course, any new material predicted computationally would only be useful if it does not degrade under realistic conditions. The rules governing the atomic details of how water interacts with solids, which we aim to uncover, could enable the design of new materials that are robust in our humid atmosphere, as well as improve existing materials.

How do you see this work developing over the next few years? 

Yongkang Wang: Over the next few years, I see this work developing in two main directions. First, it will become more quantitative and predictive, with better control over water flow and ion transport through interface engineering, so that we can connect molecular structure directly to transport and charging properties. Second, it will help us understand anomalous behaviour in nanoconfined water, including anisotropic dielectric response and unusual transport properties.

How important would you say collaboration is for producing high-quality science? How has collaboration influenced your work?

Yongkang Wang: I think collaboration is one of the most important ingredients in high-quality science. In this project, it helped us combine different perspectives and methods, and that was crucial for turning a subtle and complicated system into a clear molecular-level picture.

Lei Gao: Collaboration is absolutely essential for producing high-quality science. Truly impactful research often goes beyond what any individual can achieve alone; it requires the integration of different perspectives, expertise and ways of thinking. In our experience, strong collaboration enables researchers to move beyond the limits of their own knowledge and approach problems with a much deeper and more specialised understanding. It creates an environment where ideas can be challenged, refined and expanded in ways that would not be possible in isolation.

In our own work, collaboration has played a decisive role. For example, without a deep understanding of interfacial phenomena, even if we were able to fabricate well-controlled solid鈥搇iquid interfaces, we would not have been able to fully interpret the underlying physics or push beyond our existing understanding. It is precisely through close collaboration that we have been able to bridge this gap and achieve meaningful progress.

Xavier R. Advincula: Collaboration is essential, especially for problems as complex as water at interfaces and under confinement. No single technique gives the full answer, and this project was a good example of that. In my own work, collaboration has helped me think beyond what a simulation can show by itself. It forces you to ask whether a molecular mechanism is experimentally observable, whether a theoretical idea is physically meaningful, and whether different measurements are telling a consistent story. That back-and-forth is what makes the science stronger, and it is also what makes it genuinely fun.

What does good research culture mean to you, and why does it matter?

Lei Gao: To me, a good research culture is one that acts as an 鈥榠ncubator鈥� for ideas: an environment where curiosity is encouraged, interdisciplinary thinking is natural, and early-stage concepts can be nurtured into mature and impactful research directions. Such a culture is essential because it provides both the intellectual freedom and the collaborative support needed for scientific ideas to grow. It allows researchers to extend their projects beyond their initial scope, exploring new directions and uncovering deeper levels of understanding that might not be accessible within a more rigid framework.

Xavier R. Advincula: Good research culture means creating an environment where people can be rigorous, open and honest. It means being able to ask questions, say 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know鈥�, challenge interpretations constructively, and value contributions from everyone on the team. This matters because high-quality science depends not only on technical skill, but also on trust, communication and the willingness to improve ideas together. The best ideas often emerge from conversations where people feel comfortable enough to question the current picture.

Jiuyang Shi: To me, a good research culture is one that gives ideas enough space to grow. Many meaningful scientific questions begin as incomplete thoughts, unexpected observations or small doubts. A healthy environment allows people to share these early ideas openly, test them rigorously, and develop them through discussion and collaboration. Good science is not always linear. It often requires patience, trust and the freedom to explore uncertainty. A strong research culture helps people think beyond immediate results, connect different perspectives, and turn fragile early ideas into lasting scientific progress.

In what ways does creativity influence how you think about or carry out your work?

Arsh Hazrah: Creativity in my work often shows up during troubleshooting. Experiments at interfaces are rarely straightforward; signals are weak, sensitive to alignment, and easily distorted by small changes in conditions. When something does not work, there is usually no single fix, so I have to systematically test assumptions, isolate components, and sometimes rethink the entire approach. That process, figuring out what the system is actually telling you versus what you expect to see, is where a lot of the real thinking happens. In practice, creativity is what allows you to turn a failed or unclear experiment into a useful measurement.

Asmita Niyogi: Scientific research is about trying to push our understanding beyond what is already known, and that inherently requires creativity. In my work, creativity often comes into play when linking theory to systems that can be tested experimentally, or when turning an initial idea into something that can actually be investigated. It also shows up in how raw data are interpreted and developed into meaningful analysis. Much of this comes from adapting ideas across disciplines, learning from colleagues with different expertise, and allowing time to explore problems from different angles. For me, creativity in science is not a single moment of insight, but an ongoing process of problem-solving.

What do you wish more people understood about your field or the chemical sciences in general?

Arsh Hazrah: A common misconception is that chemistry is largely descriptive or already a mature field. In reality, many chemically relevant environments, especially interfaces, remain poorly understood at the molecular level. Even something as familiar as water behaves differently at interfaces or when confined. Chemical sciences are central not only to materials and reactions, but also to energy, climate and biology, as they determine how molecules organise and transform under real conditions. The field is still developing the tools needed to directly observe these processes, which makes it both technically demanding and full of open questions.

How can scientists try to improve the environmental sustainability of research? Can you give us any examples from your own experience or context?

Arsh Hazrah: There are three methods with measurable impact. Improve instrumentation efficiency and longevity, as stable, solid-state laser systems often reduce total energy consumption and waste compared to older, maintenance-intensive platforms. Be selective about what is built and measured; prioritising experiments with clear mechanistic value avoids redundant or low-impact work. Sustainability in research is less about a single change and more about systematically reducing inefficiencies across the workflow.

Asmita Niyogi: It is important to recognise that computational research also comes with a physical carbon footprint. A simulation can be launched with the click of a button, but behind that convenience is a substantial energy cost associated with maintaining and running high-performance computing facilities. For me, adopting a sustainable approach to research means being deliberate about how these resources are used, choosing an appropriate level of theory for the scientific question, testing calculations before launching them at scale, and openly sharing workflows, models and datasets with others to minimise redundancy. More broadly, sustainability in research is about precision. We want to focus on the questions that matter most and continually challenge ourselves to work efficiently in how we investigate them.

Thinking back to earlier in your career, are there any words of wisdom that you wish someone had told you?

Arsh Hazrah: Two points would have been useful early on. First, the choice of problem matters more than the choice of method; a well鈥憄osed question can justify developing entirely new techniques, whereas a poorly chosen one will not yield meaningful insight, regardless of sophistication. Second, clarity of interpretation is as important as experimental capability. It is easy to generate complex data, but much harder to extract conclusions that are robust and broadly relevant. Investing time in simplifying models and questioning assumptions typically has a higher return than adding further technical complexity.