Deformation of flexible ferromagnetic filaments under a rotating magnetic field

Abdelqader Zaben; Andrejs C\=ebers; Guntars Kitenbergs

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Deformation of flexible ferromagnetic filaments under a rotating magnetic field

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Low-frequency deformation of DNA-linked ferromagnetic filaments in a rotating field follows a linear law, θ ∝ f/H, whose slope yields the particle magnetic moment and whose relaxation yields the bending modulus.

desk verdict Solid experimental characterization with a clean scaling law and an interesting out-of-plane observation, but the reported material parameters are more loosely pinned than the text suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02604 v2 pith:3RQUVSQR submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Abdelqader Zaben , Guntars Kitenbergs , Andrejs Cēbers This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.flu-dyn

keywords magneticfilamentrotatingfieldferromagneticmicroparticlesDNA-linkedchainsbendingmodulusmomentdeformationrelaxationvideomicroscopy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports experiments on flexible ferromagnetic filaments—chains of micron-sized magnetic beads linked by DNA—subjected to a magnetic field rotating in the sample plane. It establishes that, at low rotation frequencies, the angle between the filament tangent at its center and the field direction grows linearly with frequency and shrinks with field strength, and that the proportionality constant lets one read off the magnetic moment of a single particle. It also shows that when this angle approaches 90 degrees, filaments leave the imaging plane, and that relaxation of a pre-deformed filament back to straight gives a bending modulus. These results matter because they offer a video-microscopy-only route to measure both magnetic and elastic properties of microfilaments for lab-on-chip and microrobotic applications.

What carries the argument

The central comparison is between magnetic torque and viscous drag, expressed through the magnetoelastic number Cm = M H L²/A_b and the elastic relaxation time τ = ζ L⁴/A_b with drag coefficient ζ = 4πη. The load-bearing relation is Eq. (1), θ = 0.086 ωτ/Cm, taken from numerical simulations of ferromagnetic filament dynamics; inserting the measured dθ/df versus 1/H slope solves for the magnetic moment. For the relaxation measurement, the load-bearing element is the fundamental relaxation rate 3.934 L⁻⁴ A_b/ζ of a free elastic rod, which converts the measured relaxation decrements into A_b.

What would settle it

Measure dθ/df versus 1/H for the same filament while independently determining its magnetic moment (for example, with vibrating-sample magnetometry of the beads) and check whether the inferred m = 9.01×10⁻¹¹ emu is reproduced; also repeat the relaxation measurement at different distances between the filament and the glass wall to see whether the decrement, and thus A_b, changes with wall proximity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, a ferromagnetic filament sedimented on a glass surface and driven by a field rotating in-plane develops a characteristic S-shaped deformation that can be quantified by the tangent angle θ at the filament center. In the low-frequency regime θ is proportional to the rotation frequency f and inversely proportional to field strength H, i.e. dθ/df = a/H, with a = 6.8 Oe·s for a filament of length L = 46.3 μm. Combining that measured slope with the numerical relation θ = 0.086 ωτ/Cm (Eq. 1) yields a magnetization per unit length M = 2.14×10⁻⁷ emu and a per-particle magnetic moment m = 9.01×10⁻¹¹ emu. Separately, the exponential relaxation of the filament tip after the field is switched off, with decrements scaling as L⁻⁴, gives an average bending modulus A_b = (6.5 ± 3.4)×10⁻¹³ erg·cm, which is almost two orders of magnitude larger than the dipolar contribution M²/2, indicating that the DNA linkers determine the bending stiffness.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative particle moment rests on the numerical constant 0.086 in Eq. (1), assumed transferable from earlier simulations to these DNA-linked ferromagnetic filaments, and on the drag coefficient being the free-space value ζ = 4πη with no wall correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Longer filaments deform more at fixed frequency and field because the magnetic torque scales with L² while the viscous resistance grows with L⁴, so bending is easier for longer chains.
The measured slope a = 6.8 Oe·s provides a route to estimate particle magnetic moment from video microscopy alone, without separate magnetization equipment.
The bending modulus obtained by relaxation is about two orders of magnitude above the dipolar estimate M²/2, so the DNA linkers, not magnetic interactions, set the elasticity.
As frequency increases, filaments leave the plane of rotation once the center angle nears 90 degrees, before any asynchronous back-and-forth regime is reached, in contrast to the asynchronous dynamics predicted numerically for similar filaments.
The implied persistence length is on the order of several tenths of centimeters, so these synthesized ferromagnetic filaments are quite stiff.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same protocol could be applied to filaments of other compositions, but the coefficient 0.086 in Eq. (1) should first be re-derived for each new geometry because it may depend on the numerical model's resolution and on details of the magnetic particle arrangement.
Because the filaments sediment and slide on a glass wall, setting ζ = 4πη neglects wall drag; correcting for wall proximity would shift both reported quantities, likely lowering the inferred magnetic moment and increasing the bending modulus.
The out-of-plane transition near θ = 90 degrees suggests a bifurcation that could be tested by tracking the filament's axial coordinate; if confirmed, it offers a way to measure the same elastic constants from full three-dimensional dynamics.
The relaxation decrement's dependence on L⁻⁴ could be checked with filaments of controlled length distribution to separate linker elasticity from wall-friction effects.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The headline: this is a solid experimental characterization, not a breakthrough. What's actually new is the systematic data on DNA-linked ferromagnetic filaments in a rotating field, especially the observation of out-of-plane motion near 90°, which hasn't been reported in this system before. The qualitative scaling—angle at the center increases linearly with frequency and decreases with field strength, larger for longer filaments—is well supported by the figures.

The paper does a good job with image processing: particle detection, polynomial fits for extracting the tangent angle, and relaxation measurements for the bending modulus. The relaxation data give clean exponentials and the trend in decrements with L^−4 is sensible. The authors also honestly note that the filament doesn't fully relax to its original shape, attributing it to damaged bonds or wall friction. The citation pattern is a bit self-referential—the key relation comes from their own [7]—but that by itself isn't a problem; the issue is that the relation isn't independently validated here.

The soft spot is the quantitative extraction of m and A_b. Both numbers ride on Eq. (1), θ = 0.086 ωτ/Cm, imported from the authors' earlier numerical work. The coefficient 0.086 is used without derivation, error estimate, or a check that it holds for these particle sizes, DNA linkers, and field regimes. The same ζ=4πη enters both the magnetic moment and the bending modulus, but the filaments sediment to the bottom of the fluidic cell, which the authors state in Section 3. A wall correction alone could shift both values by a non-negligible factor. On top of that, Fig. 4 and the slope fit in Fig. 5 come from a single filament per condition, with no error bars on the angle-frequency plots. So the numbers 9.01×10⁻¹¹ emu and (6.5±3.4)×10⁻¹³ erg·cm are better viewed as order-of-magnitude estimates than tightly secured material parameters. The paper also doesn't use the three-length data in Fig. 3 to test the L² dependence implicit in Eq. (1), which would have been a useful internal check.

Am I being too harsh? The central qualitative claims don't depend on those numbers, and the out-of-plane transition is a genuinely interesting observation. The manuscript is honest about its limitations. So the core is sound; the quantitative layer needs more work.

Who is this for? Experimentalists working on magnetic filaments or microfluidic actuation. It's a reasonable data point for the field, but I wouldn't put it on a pedestal. A serious referee could push for replicate measurements, error bars, and a discussion of hydrodynamic wall effects. With those, I'd be comfortable seeing it published.

I'd lean toward sending it to review rather than desk-rejecting. It's a short, clean experimental paper with a few soft spots that can be fixed.

Best.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of DNA-linked ferromagnetic microparticle filaments in a rotating magnetic field. Using video microscopy with a synchronized trigger, the authors measure the tangent angle at the filament center as a function of field frequency and strength. They observe that the angle increases linearly with frequency in the low-frequency regime, that longer filaments deform more, and that stronger fields reduce the deformation; at sufficiently high frequency the filament leaves the imaging plane. The linear slopes are fitted as dθ/df = a/H with a = 6.8 Oe·s and combined with the numerical relation θ = 0.086 ωτ/Cm from Ref. [7] to estimate a magnetization per unit length M = 2.14×10⁻⁷ emu and a particle magnetic moment m = 9.01×10⁻¹¹ emu. Relaxation experiments on three filaments give exponential decrements, and a fit against L⁻⁴ yields a bending modulus A_b = (6.5±3.4)×10⁻¹³ erg·cm. The authors conclude that the filaments are stiff, with a persistence length on the order of tens of centimeters.

Significance. The qualitative phenomenology reported here—larger deformation at higher frequency and longer length, smaller deformation at higher field, and a linear low-frequency regime—is internally consistent and useful for applications such as microfluidic mixing and biosensing. The experimental protocol, including synchronized imaging and direct measurement of the center tangent angle, is straightforward, and the relaxation data provide an independent cross-check on elasticity. If the quantitative extraction is accepted, the paper offers a simple route to estimate magnetic moment and bending modulus of ferromagnetic microfilaments. However, the central quantitative claims depend on an imported numerical coefficient and on an unbounded-fluid drag model that are not validated for the wall-adjacent filaments used here, and the main slope fit has no reported uncertainty. These issues place the quantitative conclusions on less secure footing than the qualitative trends.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (1)] The quantitative extraction of the magnetic moment is not self-contained: Eq. (1) imports the numerical coefficient 0.086 from the authors' earlier paper [7], but the present manuscript gives no derivation, no stated range of validity in H, L, or frequency, and no error estimate for that coefficient. Because Eq. (1) makes m linearly proportional to 0.086, any error in this calibration factor enters the reported m=9.01×10⁻¹¹ emu directly, and the comparison with [7] is not an independent validation since it uses the same coefficient from the same group. The authors should either derive the prefactor for the present geometry or provide a sensitivity analysis of m to this coefficient.
[Section 3, hydrodynamic drag coefficient] The manuscript states that the filaments sediment to the bottom of the fluidic cell, yet it uses ζ=4πη for the hydrodynamic drag coefficient, which is the unbounded-fluid value for a rod. For a filament resting on a glass surface, the wall increases the drag (often by a factor of order 2 or more for close contact), and both headline material parameters inherit this error: the slope fit gives M ∝ ζ and the relaxation decrement fit gives A_b ∝ ζ. No wall correction or bound on its magnitude is provided, so the reported magnetic moment and bending modulus have an unquantified systematic uncertainty. This is a load-bearing assumption and should be addressed, for example by including a wall-correction estimate or by repeating the analysis with bracketing drag values.
[Section 3, Figs. 4 and 5] The slope a=6.8 Oe·s is obtained from measurements on a single filament at three field strengths, and the paper does not show error bars on the θ(f) data or on the dθ/df versus 1/H plot, report repeated measurements, or give a goodness-of-fit statistic for the forced-origin linear fit. As a result, the extracted magnetic moment has no stated statistical uncertainty. At minimum, the authors should report the number of independent trials, per-point standard deviations, and the fit uncertainty on a before propagating it to M and m.
[Section 3, Fig. 3 and Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) implies that the low-frequency slope dθ/df at fixed H should scale as L², but the three filament lengths shown in Fig. 3 are not used to test this prediction. Adding this check would provide a direct, internally consistent validation of Eq. (1) for the present system, rather than relying solely on the coefficient imported from [7]. If the L² scaling is not satisfied, the quantitative interpretation in terms of m and A_b would need to be revised.

minor comments (6)

[Conclusions] The statement that the persistence length has the order of magnitude of 'several tenths of centimeters' appears inconsistent with the reported A_b=6.5×10⁻¹³ erg·cm, which gives A_b/(k_B T) ≈ 16 cm at room temperature; please correct this to 'tens of centimeters' or show the calculation.
[Section 2.1] The text says '4.26 μm large' where '4.26 μm diameter' would be more precise, and the viscosity of the TE buffer used in ζ=4πη is not specified.
[Section 3, paragraph after Fig. 4] The text says the field strength is between 6 Oe and 25 Oe, whereas Fig. 4 uses 25.8 Oe; please reconcile the numbers.
[Fig. 5] The y-axis label 'd /dF(rad.s)' should be typeset as dθ/df (rad s⁻¹) and the x-axis label as 1/H (Oe⁻¹) for clarity.
[Fig. 7 caption] The statement that the red dotted lines are 'confidence intervals for 3σ' is ambiguous; specify whether these are a 99.7% confidence band on the fit, a prediction band, or something else, and state how many measurements contribute to the fit.
[Section 3, relaxation paragraph] The text notes that the filament does not return to its original shape and attributes this to damaged bonds or wall surface drag; please clarify whether the offset term in the exponential fits is included in the reported decrements and whether the physical origin of the offset was accounted for.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted slope and the imported numerical coefficient 0.086 are distinct inputs, and the relaxation modulus uses an independent external eigenvalue.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the required sense. The experimental slope a=6.8 Oe·s in Fig. 5 is an independent fit to the measured dθ/df versus 1/H data. The magnetic moment follows by algebra from the fixed numerical relation θ=0.086ωτ/Cm (Eq. 1) imported from [7], and that coefficient is not re-fitted to the present data. Substituting τ=ζL⁴/A_b and Cm=MHL²/A_b cancels A_b and leaves M=0.086·2π·ζL²/a, so the fitted slope and the coefficient are distinct inputs; the output m is not the fit renamed. The bending modulus A_b is obtained independently from measured relaxation decrements converted with the external eigenvalue 3.934 from Wiggins et al. [15]; fitting decrements versus L⁻⁴ is a standard model inversion, not a tautology. Although Eq. (1) comes from the same laboratory, it is a fixed, parameter-free numerical benchmark whose stated assumptions do not include the present fitted values, so under the review rules it counts as independent support rather than load-bearing self-citation. Concerns about ζ=4πη neglecting wall effects and the small number of relaxation lengths are correctness or uncertainty risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its quantitative results rest on three main assumptions: the imported numerical scaling relation from prior work, the drag coefficient approximation, and the validity of the free-rod relaxation mode. Each is plausible but none is independently verified in this paper.

free parameters (2)

slope a in dtheta/df = a/H = 6.8 Oe s
Fitted by linear regression through the origin in Fig. 5; used with the numerical relation to compute the magnetic moment. No uncertainty is reported.
relaxation decrements = 0.25, 0.42, 0.94 s^-1
Exponential fits to tip displacement over time for three filaments; these decrements are then regressed against L^-4 to obtain the bending modulus. No fit uncertainties are given for the individual decrements.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The numerical relation theta = 0.086 omega tau / Cm from [7] describes the low-frequency deformation of ferromagnetic filaments in a rotating field.
Invoked in Section 3, Eq. 1, to convert measured slopes into the magnetic moment. Its validity for DNA-linked particles, near a wall, and in this frequency range is not established in this paper.
domain assumption Hydrodynamic drag per unit length is zeta = 4 pi eta, an unbounded-fluid slender-body estimate.
Used in the definitions of tau and the relaxation decrement. The filaments sediment to the bottom of the fluidic cell, so wall drag may increase zeta and bias both the magnetic moment and the bending modulus.
standard math The relaxation of a free, unclamped elastic rod is governed by the smallest bending mode with decrement 3.934 L^-4 Ab / zeta.
Taken from [15]; used to compute the bending modulus from the three measured decrements. The filament is observed not to return fully to its original shape, suggesting residual attachments or damage that may violate the free-end assumption.
domain assumption The viscosity of the TE buffer is approximately that of water at room temperature.
Needed to evaluate zeta = 4 pi eta; no rheometry is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformation of flexible ferromagnetic filaments under a rotating magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RQUVSQR

@misc{pith2026190802604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformation of flexible ferromagnetic filaments under a rotating magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RQUVSQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02604}
}

read the original abstract

Research on magnetic particles dispersed in a fluid medium, actuated by a rotating magnetic field, is becoming increasingly active for both lab-on-chip and bio-sensing applications. In this study, we experimentally investigate the behaviour of ferromagnetic filaments in a rotating field. Filaments are synthesized by linking micron-sized ferromagnetic particles with DNA strands. The experiments were conducted under different magnetic field strengths, frequencies and filament sizes, and deformation of the filaments was registered via microscope and camera. The results obtained showed that the body deformation is larger for longer filaments and higher frequencies and lower for larger magnetic field. The angle between the filament tangent at the centre and the magnetic field direction increases linearly with frequency at low-frequency regime. A further increase in the frequency will result in filament movement out of plane when the angle approaches 90 degrees. The experimental results were used to estimate magnetic moment and the bending elasticity of the filament.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02604 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Behavior of two flexible magnetic filaments under rotating magnetic field = 8.6 Oe. Filament with = 67.4 m at (a) 0.2 Hz, (b) 0.3 Hz, (c) 0.4 Hz and (d) 0.6 Hz. Filament with = 50.5 m at (e) 1.0 Hz, (f) 1.5 Hz, (g) 2.0 Hz and (h) 3.0 Hz. In (h), the filament moves out of imaging plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) An illustration of filament image processing. Polynomial fit (black curve) of centres of particles (blue asterisks and red circles) describes the deformed filament. The angle () between the tangent at the filament center (blue dashed line) and the magnetic field direction (indicated with the black arrow) is used for characterizing deformation. (b) An example of deformation relaxation measurement. The position o… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Relationship between the angle and frequency under rotating magnetic field, = 6.9 Oe, for filaments with different lengths: = 46.2 m (blue line), = 37.9 m (red line) and = 16.8 m (green line). 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency (Hz) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Angle (Deg) 8.6Oe 17.2Oe 25.8Oe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Relationship between the angle and frequency, under rotating magnetic field with different strengths, = 8.6 Oe (red line), = 17.2 Oe (blue line) and = 25.8 Oe (green line), filament length = 46.3 m. Increase of frequency induces a larger deformation of the filament. Th…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Relationship between relaxation decrements and −4 for different filament lengths. Black circles are experimental points with errorbars. Red dashed line is linear fit and red dotted lines are confidence intervals for 3. calculated by the relation for the dipolar interac…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Filament relaxation behaviour for different filament length and initial rotating field conditions: = 80.0 m, = 1.0 Hz and = 8.6 Oe (red curve). = 63.2 m, = 1.0 Hz and = 13.7 Oe (blue curve). = 67.4 m, = 1.5 Hz and = 8.6 Oe (green curve). The motion of the filament tip …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[7]

¯Erglis, R

K. ¯Erglis, R. Livanovi/uni010Ds, A. C¯ebers, Three dimensional instability of ﬂexible ferromagnetic ﬁlament loop, Magnetohydrodynamics 46 (2010) 245–256

work page 2010
[1]

S. L. Biswal, A. P. Gast, Micromixing with linked chains of param- agnetic particles, Analytical Chemistry 76 (2004) 6448–6455

work page 2004
[2]

Hanasoge, P

S. Hanasoge, P. J. Hesketh, A. Alexeev, Metachronal motion of arti- ﬁcial magnetic cilia, Soft Matter 14 (2018) 3689–3693

work page 2018
[3]

C. P. Moerland, L. J. van IJzendoorn, M. W. J. Prins, Rotating mag- netic particlesfor lab-on-chipapplications - acomprehensive review, Lab Chip 19 (2019) 919–933

work page 2019
[4]

C¯ebers, K.¯Erglis, Flexible magnetic ﬁlaments and their applica- tions, Advanced Functional Materials 26 (2016) 3783–3795

A. C¯ebers, K.¯Erglis, Flexible magnetic ﬁlaments and their applica- tions, Advanced Functional Materials 26 (2016) 3783–3795

work page 2016
[5]

¯Erglis, M

K. ¯Erglis, M. Belovs, A. C¯ebers, Flexible ferromagnetic ﬁlaments and the interface with biology, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 321 (2009) 650 – 654

work page 2009
[6]

Townsend, R

J. Townsend, R. Burtovyy, Y. Galabura, I. Luzinov, Flexible chains of ferromagnetic nanoparticles, ACS Nano 8 (2014) 6970–6978

work page 2014
[8]

Belovs, A

M. Belovs, A. C¯ebers, Ferromagnetic microswimmer, Phys. Rev. E 79 (2009) 051503. See also Erratum

work page 2009

Show all 18 references

[9]

J.Cerdà, P

J. J.Cerdà, P. A.Sánchez, D. Lüsebrink, Flexiblemagnetic ﬁlaments under the inﬂuence of external magnetic ﬁelds in the limit of inﬁnite dilution, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18 (2016) 12616–12625

2016
[10]

D.Lüsebrink,J.J.Cerdà,P.A.Sánchez,S.S.Kantorovich,T.Sintes, Thebehaviorofamagneticﬁlamentinﬂowundertheinﬂuenceofan externalmagneticﬁeld, TheJournalofChemicalPhysics145(2016) 234902

2016
[11]

Goyeau, R

L. Goyeau, R. Livanovi/uni010Ds, A. C¯ebers, Dynamics of a ﬂexible ferro- magneticﬁlamentinarotatingmagneticﬁeld, Phys.Rev.E96(2017) 062612

2017
[12]

¯Erglis, Experimental study of properties and motion of ﬂexible magnetic microﬁlaments, PhD Thesis, University of Latvia (2010)

K. ¯Erglis, Experimental study of properties and motion of ﬂexible magnetic microﬁlaments, PhD Thesis, University of Latvia (2010)

2010
[13]

S. L. Biswal, A. P. Gast, Rotational dynamics of semiﬂexible param- agnetic particle chains, Phys. Rev. E 69 (2004) 041406

2004
[14]

S. Kuei, B. Garza, S. L. Biswal, From strings to coils: Rotational dynamicsofDNA-linkedcolloidalchains, Phys.Rev.Fluids2(2017) 104102

2017
[15]

C. H. Wiggins, D. Riveline, A. Ott, R. E. Goldstein, Trapping and wiggling: Elastohydrodynamics of driven microﬁlaments, Biophysi- cal Journal 74 (1998) 1043 – 1060

1998
[16]

Kiani, D

B. Kiani, D. Faivre, S. Klumpp, Elastic properties of magnetosome chains, New Journal of Physics 17 (2015) 043007

2015
[17]

Vella, E

D. Vella, E. D. Pontavice, C. L. Hall, A. Goriely, The magneto- elastica : from self-buckling to self-assembly, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 470 (2014) 20130609

2014
[18]

Byrom, P

J. Byrom, P. Han, M. Savory, S. L. Biswal, Directing assembly of dna-coated colloids with magnetic ﬁelds to generate rigid, semiﬂex- ible, and ﬂexible chains, Langmuir 30 (2014) 9045–9052. PMID: 25052952. A.Zaben et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 5 of 5

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

¯Erglis, R

K. ¯Erglis, R. Livanovi/uni010Ds, A. C¯ebers, Three dimensional instability of ﬂexible ferromagnetic ﬁlament loop, Magnetohydrodynamics 46 (2010) 245–256

work page 2010

[2] [1]

S. L. Biswal, A. P. Gast, Micromixing with linked chains of param- agnetic particles, Analytical Chemistry 76 (2004) 6448–6455

work page 2004

[3] [2]

Hanasoge, P

S. Hanasoge, P. J. Hesketh, A. Alexeev, Metachronal motion of arti- ﬁcial magnetic cilia, Soft Matter 14 (2018) 3689–3693

work page 2018

[4] [3]

C. P. Moerland, L. J. van IJzendoorn, M. W. J. Prins, Rotating mag- netic particlesfor lab-on-chipapplications - acomprehensive review, Lab Chip 19 (2019) 919–933

work page 2019

[5] [4]

C¯ebers, K.¯Erglis, Flexible magnetic ﬁlaments and their applica- tions, Advanced Functional Materials 26 (2016) 3783–3795

A. C¯ebers, K.¯Erglis, Flexible magnetic ﬁlaments and their applica- tions, Advanced Functional Materials 26 (2016) 3783–3795

work page 2016

[6] [5]

¯Erglis, M

K. ¯Erglis, M. Belovs, A. C¯ebers, Flexible ferromagnetic ﬁlaments and the interface with biology, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 321 (2009) 650 – 654

work page 2009

[7] [6]

Townsend, R

J. Townsend, R. Burtovyy, Y. Galabura, I. Luzinov, Flexible chains of ferromagnetic nanoparticles, ACS Nano 8 (2014) 6970–6978

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Belovs, A

M. Belovs, A. C¯ebers, Ferromagnetic microswimmer, Phys. Rev. E 79 (2009) 051503. See also Erratum

work page 2009