Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Hybrid dielectrophoretic-optical trap for microparticles in aqueous suspension

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates a working hybrid dielectrophoretic–optical trap that confines tens of microparticles in a single potential well in water, tracks each particle individually, and selects particles by the frequency dependence of the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful aqueous hybrid DEP-optical trap, with one quantitative loose end that needs tightening: the stiffness–voltage scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13956 v1 pith:HLHYNYIM submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.app-ph

Carlos D. Gonzalez-Gomez , Jose Garcia-Guirado , Romain Quidant , Felix Carrique , Emilio Ruiz-Reina , Raul A. Rica-Alarcon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph
keywords dielectrophoresisopticaltweezershybridtrapnegativeClausius-MossottifactormicroparticletrappingBrownianmotionlab-on-a-chip
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 a hybrid trap that combines a set of microfabricated ring electrodes with a commercial optical tweezers platform to confine microparticles in an aqueous suspension. The electrodes create a region of low electric field at the centre of the ring, where negatively dielectrophoretic particles are collected and held in the same potential well, tens at a time. Because the device sits on a microscope with video tracking, the trajectories of the individual trapped particles can be followed, and the trap stiffness can be tuned by changing the voltage. The authors further show that the optical tweezers can ferry particles into the dielectrophoretic trap and that trapping is selective: reducing the field frequency expels particles of a chosen size or material through the frequency dependence of the Clausius-Mossotti factor. The value of the scheme is that it extends multi-particle trapping and tracking to materials, such as absorbing particles, that are difficult to hold with light alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is negative dielectrophoresis in the electric-field minimum created by two concentric ring electrodes. The dielectrophoretic force on a spherical particle is $F_{\mathrm{DEP}} = 2\pi\varepsilon_m R^3 \mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{CM}(\omega)]\nabla E^2$, where the Clausius-Mossotti factor $\mathrm{CM}(\omega)=(\varepsilon_p-\varepsilon_m)/(\varepsilon_p+2\varepsilon_m)$ depends on the complex permittivities of particle and medium and changes sign at a cut-off frequency. Working above that frequency makes the force point toward the low-field region at the centre of the rings, creating a stable parabolic potential well; working below it turns the force repulsive from the minimum and expels particles. The paper couples this well to the optical tweezers, whose gradient force provides a second, stiffer potential, and uses the overdamped Langevin description of Brownian motion, with the mean squared displacement $\mathrm{MSD}(t) = 4k_BT/\kappa \, (1-e^{-\kappa t/\gamma})$, to extract trap stiffness and friction from tracked trajectories.

What would settle it

Measure the cut-off frequency of a well-characterised particle suspension of known conductivity and compare it with the frequency at which $\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{CM}(\omega)]=0$; if particles are attracted to the electrodes below the predicted cut-off, or if the measured cut-offs deviate strongly without a stated medium-parameter model, the trapping-by-negative-DEP explanation would be in question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pair of concentric ring microelectrodes can be integrated with a commercial optical tweezers microscope to form a hybrid electro-optical trap that works in water. In the electrode configuration the squared electric field has a minimum at the centre of the rings, and when the applied AC field frequency lies above the particle's cut-off frequency the real part of the Clausius-Mossotti factor is negative, so particles are pushed by negative dielectrophoresis toward that field minimum. The result is a single potential well that holds tens of particles simultaneously, each of which can be tracked individually from the microscope video. The authors demonstrate frequency-based selectivity by expelling small magnetite-loaded composite particles at 4 MHz and larger ones at 600 kHz, measure trap stiffness from the mean squared displacement of single particles, show that the stiffness grows linearly with applied voltage, and show that the optical tweezers can load particles into the DEP trap and that a hybrid trap remains stable even at a low laser power of 1 mW.

Load-bearing premise

The trap only works if the real part of the Clausius-Mossotti factor is negative for the particles in the actual suspension at the operating frequency, which requires the suspension's conductivity and permittivity to lie within the right range; the paper does not report those medium parameters, so a change of buffer could flip the force direction and turn the trap into a repellent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tens of particles can be held in one potential well while their individual Brownian trajectories are recorded, which is not offered by conventional optical tweezers.
  • Particles can be sorted or filtered by tuning the AC frequency, since the cut-off frequency between negative and positive dielectrophoresis depends on particle size and material.
  • The optical tweezers can act as a loader, carrying particles from elsewhere in the chamber into the DEP trap, and the two traps can operate together at low laser power.
  • Modulating the electrode voltage modulates the trap stiffness and therefore the local density of trapped particles.
  • Materials that absorb light and are hard to trap optically, such as magnetite-loaded composite particles, can be confined and studied in the DEP trap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable next step would be to measure the suspension's conductivity and permittivity and predict the cut-off frequencies from the Clausius-Mossotti expression, rather than measuring them empirically as done here.
  • The multi-particle single-well geometry is a natural platform for stochastic-thermodynamics experiments with interacting colloids, such as collective heat engines or many-body relaxation, which the paper mentions as a prospect.
  • The exclusion region around the trap could be exploited for clean assays, since stray particles are actively kept away from the trapping volume.
  • Combining the selectivity with the loader suggests a lab-on-a-chip workflow where a mixture is separated by frequency and then specific species are delivered to a sensing site by the optical tweezers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a hybrid dielectrophoretic–optical trap for microparticles in aqueous suspension, implemented by coupling a set of concentric ring microelectrodes to a commercial optical tweezers system. The authors use COMSOL simulations to show an electric-field minimum at the center of the electrodes, argue that negative dielectrophoresis collects particles there, and experimentally demonstrate trapping of multiple 1-µm and 500-nm particles, selective expulsion based on particle size and material through the frequency-dependent Clausius-Mossotti factor, modulation of trap stiffness by voltage, and loading of particles from optical tweezers into the DEP trap. Single-particle Brownian dynamics are fitted to the overdamped Langevin equation to extract trap stiffness and friction, and multi-particle trajectories are tracked to show group behavior.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a practical route to confine and visualize many microparticles simultaneously in a single harmonic-like potential, which is difficult with conventional optical tweezers. The hybrid scheme offers selective loading, an exclusion region, and compatibility with a commercial tweezers platform, and could enable experiments on interacting Brownian systems and stochastic thermodynamics with multiple particles. The paper has clear strengths: the COMSOL simulation is independent of the experimental fits; the MSD analysis is standard; the supplementary videos substantiate the qualitative trapping and loading claims; and the demonstration of optical-trap-to-DEP-trap transfer is compelling. However, the quantitative validation of the DEP mechanism is incomplete: the reported linear voltage dependence of the trap stiffness conflicts with the expected V² scaling, and the electrical properties of the suspension are not reported. These gaps leave the attribution of the trapping force to DEP as modeled by Eq. (3) not fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B.1, Fig. 4b] The reported linear dependence of trap stiffness on applied voltage, κ = (0.15 ± 0.01 fN/(V·µm))·V − (1.60 ± 0.28 fN/µm), contradicts the dielectrophoretic force law of Eq. (3), which with E ∝ V for a fixed electrode geometry implies κ ∝ V². The negative intercept also violates the requirement that κ → 0 as V → 0 for a passive field-induced trap. The manuscript does not address this discrepancy; please either provide a mechanism that yields an effectively linear regime (e.g., electrode polarization, field-dependent medium conductivity, or electrothermal flow) and test it, or re-analyze the data with a V² fit and discuss the range of validity. This check is central because it bears on whether the measured confinement is actually dominated by DEP.
  2. [III.B.1, text near Fig. 4b] The distance to the wall (0.4 µm) is inferred solely from the difference between the measured friction coefficient γ = 1.02 ± 0.25 × 10⁻⁸ Ns/m and the Stokes value, using Faxén's law. This inference is used to claim that trapping occurs close to the top wall, which is relevant to the force balance and to the quasi-2D MSD model. Please provide an independent measurement of the particle height (e.g., from focal-plane analysis or from the known chamber geometry), or at least propagate the uncertainty in γ into the distance estimate and discuss how the inferred height affects the reported stiffness values.
  3. [II.B.1, III.B.1, Table I] The paper does not report the conductivity or permittivity of the aqueous suspension, which are necessary to compute the Clausius-Mossotti factor in Eq. (4) and to verify that Re[CM] < 0 at the operating frequencies near the field minimum. The cutoff frequencies in Table I are measured rather than predicted from known medium parameters. Since negative DEP is the central trapping mechanism, please provide the medium's electrical properties (or a direct measurement of the CM factor) and compare the measured cutoff frequencies with values predicted from the particle and medium properties. This would also strengthen the selectivity claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The arrows in panels a)–c) are not defined in the caption; please identify what they indicate.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The MSD expression is stated for 'motion in a plane' but implicitly assumes equal stiffness in x and y; please state this assumption explicitly.
  3. [Table I] The term 'cutoff frequency' is used without a precise operational definition; please define the criterion (e.g., the frequency at which a particle is expelled from the trap within a fixed observation time or at which the MSD plateau increases by a given factor).
  4. [III.B.3] The statement that particles do not escape during the near-zero-voltage part of the cycle because the diffusion time exceeds the modulation period would be more convincing if accompanied by a quantitative comparison of the diffusion length over the off-interval with the trap size.
  5. [Fig. 7] The histograms are fitted to Gaussian functions to extract stiffness via equipartition; please report the number of samples and the acquisition time for each distribution to allow assessment of the statistical error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are supported by independent COMSOL simulation, direct video-based stiffness measurement, and frequency-selection data that are measured rather than derived from the model.

full rationale

The central claim, that a microelectrode arrangement produces a negative-DEP trap at an electric-field minimum, is supported by an electrostatic COMSOL simulation that is not fitted to the particle dynamics, and by experimental observables (MSD plateaus, cutoff frequencies in Table I, exclusion-region videos) that are measured from particle trajectories and are not predictions of a fitted model. Equation 3 (FDEP proportional to Re[CM] times the gradient of E-squared) and Eq. 4 for the Clausius-Mossotti factor are standard textbook results cited to independent literature; the paper does not use them to generate a prediction and then claim that prediction as confirmation. The trap stiffness kappa in Fig. 4b is obtained by fitting measured MSD curves to Eq. 2, so it is a measured quantity, not a parameter tuned to reproduce the DEP force law. The cutoff frequencies in Table I are measured, and the paper explicitly declines to model them: 'A detailed analysis of how the cutoff frequency depends on particle properties is out of the scope of the present work.' Self-citations (refs. 12, 16, 17, 40, 44, 59, 63) provide background on optical-tweezer physics, stochastic thermodynamics, and prior Paul-trap designs; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the hybrid-trap premise. The reported linear kappa(V) dependence, which is in tension with the V-squared scaling expected from Eq. 3, is a physical correctness concern rather than a circularity because the stiffness was not defined or fit to enforce Eq. 3. Similarly, the absence of measured suspension conductivity does not make any step circular, since the sign of the CM factor is assumed and tested through observed trapping and ejection, not claimed as a first-principles prediction from medium parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard physics and measured parameters; no ad hoc free parameters are introduced to force agreement. The fitted stiffness-voltage line is a description of data, not an input to predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • fitted trap stiffness versus voltage: slope m = 0.15 ± 0.01 fN/(V·µm)
    Linear fit to measured stiffness values in Fig. 4b; descriptive of trap characterization, not used for predictions.
  • fitted trap stiffness versus voltage: intercept b = -1.60 ± 0.28 fN/µm
    Intercept of linear fit in Fig. 4b; yields unphysical negative stiffness below about 10.7 V.
  • friction coefficient gamma (from MSD fit) = 1.02 ± 0.25 × 10^-8 Ns/m
    Obtained from fitting MSD to Eq. 2; used to infer wall distance via Faxen's law.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Overdamped Langevin equation with Gaussian white noise and MSD expression (Eqs. 1 and 2).
    Used to model Brownian motion in a parabolic trap and to extract stiffness and friction from measured trajectories.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation for dielectrophoretic force and Clausius-Mossotti factor for a lossy dielectric sphere (Eqs. 3 and 4).
    Assumes particle size is small relative to field non-uniformity and that the uniform-sphere dielectric model describes the particles.
  • domain assumption Harmonic (Hooke's law) approximation for both traps (Eq. 7).
    Assumes small displacements near the trap center; used to justify the parabolic potential model.
  • domain assumption Faxen's law correction for Stokes drag near a wall.
    Used to interpret the measured friction coefficient as corresponding to a wall distance of about 0.4 µm.
  • domain assumption COMSOL electrostatics simulation is representative of the actual electrode geometry and field distribution.
    The predicted field minimum and z-direction force reversal are assumed to match the fabricated device; experiments partially confirm this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid dielectrophoretic-optical trap for microparticles in aqueous suspension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLHYNYIM

@misc{pith2026241113956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid dielectrophoretic-optical trap for microparticles in aqueous suspension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLHYNYIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13956}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that a set of microfabricated electrodes can be coupled to a commercial optical tweezers device, implementing a hybrid electro-optical trap with multiple functionalities to manipulate micro/nanoparticles in suspension. Our design allows us to simultaneously trap tens of particles in a single potential well generated in the low electric field region of the electrode arrangement, taking advantage of negative dielectrophoresis. Together with the optical tweezers, we show that the hybrid scheme allows enhanced manipulation capabilities, including controlled loading and accumulation in the dielectrophoretic trap from the optical tweezers, selectivity, and tracking of the individual trajectories of trapped particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This exclusion region is useful to realize clean exper- iments in the trap, so no undesired particles are allowed to accidentally enter the trapping region as they freely diffuse and/or are brought by convection that might be present in the chamber. B. Experimental results

    work page

  2. [2]

    This can be expected from the field distribution seen in Fig

    Dielectrophoretic trap characterization The DEP trap presented here features a large influence volume, where particles that would otherwise freely dif- fuse are either pushed to the center of the trap or away from its influence region, generating an exclusion region. This can be expected from the field distribution seen in Fig. 2d), in agreement with expe...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Tracking the Brownian dynamics of groups of particles in the DEP trap A key capability of the DEP trap, as opposed to con- ventional optical tweezers, consists of trapping several 6 FIG. 3. Selective trapping. a) The experiment starts with four 0.9 µm ProMag ® 1 particles and three 3 .1 µm ProMag ® 3 particles trapped with an electric field of 40 Vpp and ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    When several particles are trapped together, modulating the voltage also modulates the trap stiffness, effectively changing the local density of particles, as shown in Fig

    DEP Trap Modulation The trap stiffness can be controlled through the volt- age applied to the electrodes. When several particles are trapped together, modulating the voltage also modulates the trap stiffness, effectively changing the local density of particles, as shown in Fig. 6. In panel a), we illustrate the effect of voltage modulation with some tens ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the first experiment, we trapped one 1 µm- polystyrene particle with the optical trap (see Fig

    Hybrid Trap One of the most interesting features of our design is the possibility it offers to be combined with optical tweez- ers, leading to a hybrid trap with enhanced manipulation capabilities.[40, 41, 53] We here demonstrate that optical tweezers are compatible with the DEP trap, and illus- trate how these two approaches can be used to, e.g., load th...

  6. [6]

    K. Lee, R. Mishra, T. Kim, Review of micro/nanofluidic particle separation mechanisms: Toward combined mul- tiple physical fields for nanoparticles, Sensors and Actu- ators A: Physical 363 (2023) 114688. doi:10.1016/j. sna.2023.114688

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Lambert, E

    E. Lambert, E. Barthout, T. Provent, R. Manczak, S. Saada, B. Bessette, M. Mathonnet, F. Lallou ˜A©, C. Dalmay, A. Pothier, Lab-on-chip uhf-dielectrophoretic cytometer for colorectal cancer stem cells sorting, IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology (2023) 1–8 doi:10.1109/JERM. 2023.3234463

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J. Xie, H. Pang, R. Sun, T. Wang, X. Meng, Z. Zhou, Development of rapid and high-precision colorimetric de- vice for organophosphorus pesticide detection based on microfluidic mixer chip, Micromachines 12 (3) (2021). doi:10.3390/mi12030290

    work page doi:10.3390/mi12030290 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    M. Khan, M. Hasan, S. Hossain, M. Ahommed, M. Daizy, Ultrasensitive detection of pathogenic viruses with elec- trochemical biosensor: State of the art, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 166 (2020) 112431. doi:10.1016/j.bios. 2020.112431

    2020

  2. [10]

    Gieseler, J

    J. Gieseler, J. R. Gomez-Solano, A. Magazz` u, I. P. Castillo, L. P. Garc ´ ıa, M. Gironella-Torrent, X. Viader- Godoy, F. Ritort, G. Pesce, A. V. Arzola, K. Volke- Sep´ ulveda, G. Volpe, Optical tweezers — from calibra- tion to applications: a tutorial, Adv. Opt. Photon. 13 (...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Volpe, O

    G. Volpe, O. M. Marag` o, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, G. Pesce, A. B. Stilgoe, G. Volpe, G. Tkachenko, V. G. Truong, S. N. Chormaic, F. Kalantarifard, et al., Roadmap for optical tweezers, Journal of Physics: Pho- tonics 5 (2) (2023) 022501. doi:10.1088/2515-7647/ acb57b

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C. J. Bustamante, Y. R. Chemla, S. Liu, M. D. Wang, Optical tweezers in single-molecule biophysics, Nature 10 Reviews Methods Primers 1 (1) (2021) 25. doi:10.1038/ s43586-021-00021-6

    2021

  5. [13]

    R. M. Robertson-Anderson, Optical tweezers microrhe- ology: from the basics to advanced techniques and appli- cations (2018). doi:10.1021/acsmacrolett.8b00498

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    S. C. Chapin, V. Germain, E. R. Dufresne, Automated trapping, assembly, and sorting with holographic opti- cal tweezers, Optics express 14 (26) (2006) 13095–13100. doi:10.1364/OE.14.013095

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    Penders, I

    J. Penders, I. J. Pence, C. C. Horgan, M. S. Bergholt, C. S. Wood, A. Najer, U. Kauscher, A. Nagelkerke, M. M. Stevens, Single particle automated raman trap- ping analysis, Nature communications 9 (1) (2018) 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06397-6

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    X. Dai, W. Fu, H. Chi, V. S. D. Mesias, H. Zhu, C. W. Leung, W. Liu, J. Huang, Optical tweezers-controlled hotspot for sensitive and reproducible surface-enhanced raman spectroscopy characterization of native protein structures, Nature communications 12 (1) (2021) 1292. doi:10...

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    I. A. Mart ˜Anez, E. Rold ˜A¡n, L. Dinis, R. A. Rica, Col- loidal heat engines: a review, Soft Matter 13 (1) (2017) 22–36. doi:10.1039/C6SM00923A

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    E. J. Peterman, F. Gittes, C. F. Schmidt, Laser-induced heating in optical traps, Biophysical journal 84 (2) (2003) 1308–1316. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74946-7

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    Catal` a, F

    F. Catal` a, F. Mars` a, M. Montes-Usategui, A. Farr´ e, E. Mart ´ ın-Badosa, Influence of experimental parameters on the laser heating of an optical trap, Scientific reports 7 (1) (2017) 16052. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15904-6

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    D. Lu, F. G´ amez, P. Haro-Gonz´ alez, Temperature ef- fects on optical trapping stability, Micromachines 12 (8) (2021) 954. doi:10.3390/mi12080954

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, S. Orozco-Barrera, W. Sun, F. G´ amez, C. Caro, M. L. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, R. A. Rica, Hot brownian motion of thermoresponsive microgels in optical tweezers shows discontinuous volume phase tran- sition and bistability, Small 19 (34) (2023) 2301653. ...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Ortiz-Rivero, S

    E. Ortiz-Rivero, S. Orozco-Barrera, H. Chatterjee, C. D. Gonz´ alez-G´ omez, C. Caro, M.-L. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, P. H. Gonz´ alez, R. A. Rica, F. G´ amez, Light-to-heat con- version of optically trapped hot brownian particles, ACS nano 17 (24) (2023) 24961–24971. doi:10.1021/ ...

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. E. S. Spesyvtseva, K. Dholakia, Trapping in a ma- terial world, Acs Photonics 3 (5) (2016) 719–736. doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.6b00023

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    C. Min, Z. Shen, J. Shen, Y. Zhang, H. Fang, G. Yuan, L. Du, S. Zhu, T. Lei, X. Yuan, Focused plasmonic trap- ping of metallic particles, Nature Communications 4 (1) (2013) 2891. doi:10.1038/ncomms3891

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    M. L. Juan, M. Righini, R. Quidant, Plasmon nano- optical tweezers, Nature photonics 5 (6) (2011) 349–356. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.56

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    Zhang, K

    C. Zhang, K. Khoshmanesh, A. Mitchell, K. Kalantar- zadeh, Dielectrophoresis for manipulation of micro/nano particles in microfluidic systems, Analytical and bioan- alytical chemistry 396 (2010) 401–420. doi:10.1007/ s00216-009-2922-6

    2010

  19. [27]

    Pethig, Dielectrophoresis: Status of the theory, tech- nology, and applications, Biomicrofluidics 4 (2) (2010)

    R. Pethig, Dielectrophoresis: Status of the theory, tech- nology, and applications, Biomicrofluidics 4 (2) (2010). doi:10.1063/1.3456626

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    D’Amico, N

    L. D’Amico, N. Ajami, J. Adachi, P. Gascoyne, J. Pet- rosino, Isolation and concentration of bacteria from blood using microfluidic membraneless dialysis and di- electrophoresis, Lab on a Chip 17 (7) (2017) 1340–1348. doi:10.1039/C6LC01277A

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    H. A. Pohl, The Motion and Precipitation of Suspensoids in Divergent Electric Fields, Journal of Applied Physics 22 (7) (1951) 869–871. doi:10.1063/1.1700065

    1951 doi

  22. [30]

    H. A. Pohl, Some Effects of Nonuniform Fields on Di- electrics, Journal of Applied Physics 29 (8) (1958) 1182–

    1958

  23. [31]

    G. I. Russo, N. Musso, A. Romano, G. Caruso, S. Pe- tralia, L. Lanzan` o, G. Broggi, M. Camarda, The role of dielectrophoresis for cancer diagnosis and prognosis, Cancers 14 (1) (2022). doi:10.3390/cancers14010198

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Morgan, N

    H. Morgan, N. Green, AC Electrokinetics: Colloids and Nanoparticles, Microtechnologies and microsystems se- ries, Research Studies Press, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    Rosenthal, J

    A. Rosenthal, J. Voldman, Dielectrophoretic traps for single-particle patterning, Biophysical Journal 88 (3) (2005) 2193–2205. doi:10.1529/biophysj.104.049684

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Lorenz, D

    M. Lorenz, D. Malangr´ e, F. Du, M. Baune, J. Th¨ oming, G. R. Pesch, High-throughput dielectrophoretic fil- tration of sub-micron and micro particles in macro- scopic porous materials, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 412 (16) (2020) 3903–3914. doi:10.1007/ s00216-020-02557-0

    2020

  27. [35]

    L. A. N. Julius, H. Scheidt, G. Krishnan, M. Becker, O. Nassar, S. M. Torres-Delgado, D. Mager, V. Badilita, J. G. Korvink, Dynamic dielectrophoretic cell manipu- lation is enabled by an innovative electronics platform, Biosensors and Bioelectronics: X 14 (2023) 100333. doi: 1...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Turcan, M

    I. Turcan, M. A. Olariu, Dielectrophoretic manipulation of cancer cells and their electrical characterization, ACS Combinatorial Science 22 (11) (2020) 554–578. doi:10. 1021/acscombsci.0c00109

    2020

  29. [37]

    J. H. Park, P. S. Krsti ¨A‡, Stability of an aqueous quadrupole micro-trap, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 24 (16) (2012) 164208. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/ 24/16/164208

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Paul, Electromagnetic traps for charged and neutral particles, Rev

    W. Paul, Electromagnetic traps for charged and neutral particles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62 (1990) 531–540. doi:10. 1103/RevModPhys.62.531

    1990

  31. [39]

    W. Guan, S. Joseph, J. H. Park, P. S. Krsti ¨A‡, M. A. Reed, Paul trapping of charged particles in aqueous so- lution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 108 (23) (2011) 9326–9330. doi:10.1073/pnas. 1100977108

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    U. K. Krieger, C. Marcolli, J. P. Reid, Exploring the com- plexity of aerosol particle properties and processes us- ing single particle techniques, Chemical Society Reviews 41 (19) (2012) 6631–6662. doi:10.1039/C2CS35082C

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    R. F. Wuerker, H. Shelton, R. Langmuir, Electrodynamic containment of charged particles, Journal of Applied Physics 30 (3) (1959) 342–349. doi:10.1063/1.1735165

    1959 doi

  34. [42]

    W. Guan, J. H. Park, P. S. Krsti ¨A‡, M. A. Reed, Non- vanishing ponderomotive ac electrophoretic effect for par- ticle trapping, Nanotechnology 22 (24) (2011) 245103. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/22/24/245103

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    T. J. Kwak, H. Lee, S. W. Lee, J. C. Woehl, W.-J. Chang, Size-selective particle trapping in dielectrophoretic cor- ral traps, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 125 (11) (2021) 6278–6286. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c10592

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Millen, P

    J. Millen, P. Fonseca, T. Mavrogordatos, T. Mon- teiro, P. Barker, Cavity cooling a single charged levi- tated nanosphere, Physical review letters 114 (12) (2015) 11 123602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.123602

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    G. P. Conangla, A. W. Schell, R. A. Rica, R. Quidant, Motion control and optical interrogation of a levitat- ing single nitrogen vacancy in vacuum, Nano Letters 18 (6) (2018) 3956–3961. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett. 8b01414

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    G. P. Conangla, R. A. Rica, R. Quidant, Extending vac- uum trapping to absorbing objects with hybrid paul- optical traps, Nano Letters 20 (8) (2020) 6018–6023. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02025

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    D. S. Bykov, M. Meusburger, L. Dania, T. E. Northup, Hybrid electro-optical trap for experiments with levi- tated particles in vacuum, Review of Scientific Instru- ments 93 (7) (2022) 073201. doi:10.1063/5.0096391

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    C. A. Carlson, X. S. Udad, Q. Owen, A. P. Amin-Patel, W.-J. Chang, J. C. Woehl, Dc corral trapping of sin- gle nanoparticles and macromolecules in solution, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (16) (2022) 164201. doi:10.1063/5.0087039

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    P. A. Quinto-Su, A microscopic steam engine imple- mented in an optical tweezer, Nature communications 5 (1) (2014) 5889. doi:10.1038/ncomms6889

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    I. Alda, J. Berthelot, R. A. Rica, R. Quidant, Trapping and manipulation of individual nanoparticles in a pla- nar paul trap, Applied Physics Letters 109 (16) (2016) 163105. doi:10.1063/1.4965859

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Riccardi, O

    M. Riccardi, O. J. Martin, Electromagnetic forces and torques: From dielectrophoresis to optical tweezers, Chemical Reviews 123 (4) (2023) 1680–1711. doi:10. 1021/acs.chemrev.2c00576

    2023

  44. [52]

    P. H. Jones, O. M. Marag` o, G. Volpe, Optical Tweez- ers: Principles and Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2015. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107279711

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    N. G. Green, H. Morgan, Dielectrophoresis of submi- crometer latex spheres. 1. experimental results, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry B 103 (1) (1999) 41–50. doi: 10.1021/jp9829849

    1999 doi

  46. [54]

    Siler, P

    M. Siler, P. J´ akl, O. Brzobohat` y, J. Jezek, P. Zem´ anek, Anomalous behavior of a three-dimensional, optically trapped, super-paramagnetic particle, in: Optical Trap- ping and Optical Micromanipulation XI, Vol. 9164, SPIE, 2014, pp. 475–482. doi:10.1117/12.2062148

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    Toyabe, T

    S. Toyabe, T. Sagawa, M. Ueda, E. Muneyuki, M. Sano, Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion and validation of the generalized jarzynski equality, Nature physics 6 (12) (2010) 988–992. doi: 10.1038/nphys1821

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    D. B. Allan, T. Caswell, N. C. K. C. M. van der Wel, R. W. Verweij, trackpy: Trackpy v0.5.0, Zenodo (2021) 1doi:10.5281/zenodo.4682814

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    G. D. Vanrossum, J. M. DeBoer, Interactively testing remote servers using the python programming language, CWI quarterly 4 (1991) 283–304. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 60577375

    1991

  50. [58]

    Sch¨ affer, S

    E. Sch¨ affer, S. F. Nørrelykke, J. Howard, Surface forces and drag coefficients of microspheres near a plane surface measured with optical tweezers, Langmuir 23 (7) (2007) 3654–3665. doi:10.1021/la0622368

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    Bonvin, L

    E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Da- nia, D. S. Bykov, M. Teller, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, M. Frimmer, Hybrid paul-optical trap with large opti- cal access for levitated optomechanics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10131 (2023). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312. 10131

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    Pesce, P

    G. Pesce, P. H. Jones, O. M. Marag` o, G. Volpe, Opti- cal tweezers: theory and practice, The European Phys- ical Journal Plus 135 (2020) 1–38. doi:10.1140/epjp/ s13360-020-00843-5

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Kumar, J

    A. Kumar, J. Bechhoefer, Exponentially faster cooling in a colloidal system, Nature 584 (2020) 64–68. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2560-x

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    B´ erut, A

    A. B´ erut, A. Arakelyan, A. Petrosyan, S. Ciliberto, R. Dillenschneider, E. Lutz, Experimental verification of Landauer’s principle linking information and ther- modynamics, Nature 483 (7388) (2012) 187–189. doi: 10.1038/nature10872

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    Ciliberto, Experiments in stochastic thermodynamics: Short history and perspectives, Physical Review X 7 (2) (2017) 021051

    S. Ciliberto, Experiments in stochastic thermodynamics: Short history and perspectives, Physical Review X 7 (2) (2017) 021051. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021051

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Blickle, C

    V. Blickle, C. Bechinger, Realization of a micrometre- sized stochastic heat engine, Nature Physics 8 (2) (2012) 143–146. doi:10.1038/nphys2163

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez,´E. Rold´ an, L. Dinis, D. Petrov, J. M. R. Parrondo, R. A. Rica, Brownian carnot engine, Nature Physics 12 (1) (2016) 67–70. doi:10.1038/nphys3518

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    I. A. Mart ´ ınez, A. Petrosyan, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, E. Trizac, S. Ciliberto, Engineered swift equilibration of a brownian particle, Nature physics 12 (9) (2016) 843–846. doi:10. 1038/nphys3758

    2016

  59. [68]

    L. B. Pires, R. Goerlich, A. L. da Fonseca, M. Debiossac, P.-A. Hervieux, G. Manfredi, C. Genet, Optimal time- entropy bounds and speed limits for brownian thermal shortcuts, Physical Review Letters 131 (9) (2023) 097101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.097101

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    Ib´ anez, C

    M. Ib´ anez, C. Dieball, A. Lasanta, A. Godec, R. A. Rica, Heating and cooling are fundamentally asymmetric and evolve along distinct pathways, Nature Physics 20 (1) (2024) 135–141. doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02269-z

    2024 doi

  61. [1188]

    doi:10.1063/1.1723398

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.