Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Synchronized motion of gold nanoparticles in an optothermal trap

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Gold nanoparticles circle a hot anchor in lockstep

desk verdict A surprisingly clean optothermal phenomenology, but the synchronization claim needs a common-mode control before it can be taken as a new interparticle force. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15512 v3 pith:FLNADGC2 submitted 2024-11-23 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.soft

Ashutosh Shukla , Rahul Chand , Sneha Boby , G. V. Pavan Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.soft
keywords optothermaltrappinggoldnanoparticlesCTACsurfactantsynchronizedrotationaldiffusionopticalbindingthermophoresisthermo-osmoticflownanoparticleassembly
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 claims that a heated gold nanoparticle anchored to a glass coverslip acts as the core of an optothermal trap that, in the presence of the surfactant CTAC, confines other 400 nm gold nanoparticles to a ring about 1-2 µm away from the anchor. Once confined, the particles diffuse around the ring in a synchronized way: their angular positions remain highly correlated even when they are micrometers apart. The behavior vanishes if either the anchor particle or the surfactant is removed, so both are essential ingredients. The paper argues that the synchronization cannot be explained by optical binding or thermophoretic repulsion, and that the conventional computed forces do not reproduce the confinement, pointing to an unidentified surfactant-mediated repulsive interaction. If the claim holds, it would give a low-power way to create coordinated nanoparticle assemblies and would expand the force inventory of optothermal trapping.

What carries the argument

The anchor-particle-assisted optothermal trap: a 400 nm gold nanoparticle fixed to the substrate and resistively heated by a focused 532 nm beam, immersed in a 5 mM CTAC solution whose micelles and counterions set up an opto-thermoelectric field and a thermo-osmotic slip flow. The load-bearing measurement is the matrix of Pearson correlation coefficients between the time series of azimuthal angles of the trapped particles, extracted from 500 frames-per-second brightfield tracking; the disappearance of the synchronized motion in the anchor-removed and surfactant-removed controls is what ties the effect to the combined system. The force computation (scattering force from generalized Mie theory, opto-thermoelectric force, and thermo-osmotic drag from a finite-element flow solution) is used to argue that conventional forces cannot reproduce the observed ring radius, leaving the surfactant-mediated interaction as the missing ingredient.

What would settle it

Track a few 400 nm gold nanoparticles in the same chamber with the anchor laser off but with the sample placed on a slowly rotating stage (or with a global flow imposed); if their angular trajectories become correlated exactly like the trapped ones, then the observed synchronization is common-mode advection. Alternatively, recompute the Pearson correlation after time-shuffling the angular trajectories of the trapped particles; if the shuffled data produce coefficients as high as the measured ones, the synchronization is an artifact of slow angular drift rather than interparticle coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that a 400 nm gold nanoparticle attached to a glass coverslip and illuminated by a 532 nm laser creates an optothermal trap in which other 400 nm gold nanoparticles, suspended in 5 mM CTAC, are reproducibly confined to a radial shell about 1-2 µm from the anchor rather than at the beam focus. Within that shell the particles diffuse azimuthally, and their angular trajectories are strongly correlated across the assembly: Pearson correlation coefficients among pairs are high even at linear separations of 2-4 µm, more than four times the laser wavelength in the medium. The paper shows the effect is conditional on both ingredients: replace the surfactant with pure water and the particles follow out-of-plane circuitous flows; remove the anchor and they only hover near the beam. It then argues that the observed non-uniform spacing and long-range synchronization are inconsistent with optical binding (which would lock spacing to half-wavelength intervals) and with thermophoretic repulsion (which would produce equispaced assemblies), and that a computed force balance of scattering, opto-thermoelectric, and thermo-osmotic forces does not place particles at the observed radii. The conclusion is that an unidentified surfactant-mediated repulsive interaction, possibly hydrodynamic synchronization in the highly charged micellar medium, is responsible; the paper does not claim to know the mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the particles are synchronized by a repulsive force rests on the assumption that their correlated angular motion is not just all particles being carried by the same background flow or stage drift; the paper has no control that rules out such common-mode motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A surfactant optothermal trap can hold several gold nanoparticles in a synchronized rotating ring with no optical angular momentum, offering a low-power route to coordinated nanoscale assemblies.
  • The synchronization range of several micrometers is far beyond the half-wavelength spacing of optical binding, implying a new, longer-range force scale that any full model of surfactant optothermal trapping must explain.
  • Rotation direction is stochastic and insensitive to circular polarization, so such assemblies could behave as optically powered rotors whose handedness is set by their own conformation rather than by light.
  • Because the effect requires CTAC above its critical micellar concentration, the micellar charge environment becomes the tunable control parameter for particle coordination.
  • If the claim stands, the observations become a constraint: any future model of surfactant optothermal trapping must reproduce a ring radius of about 1-2 µm and synchronized azimuthal motion at multi-micrometer separations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not include a control for common-mode background motion, so the simplest alternative reading is that all trapped particles are advected by the same rotating thermo-osmotic or convective flow; a stage-drift reference or a non-interacting tracer bead would distinguish that from true interparticle synchronization.
  • If the correlation is hydrodynamic in origin, then reducing the Debye length by adding salt or changing the micelle concentration should shrink the synchronization range; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The computed forces place the equilibrium at about 0.6 µm while the measured ring is at 1-2 µm; matching the model to the measured radius would require adjusting the thermo-osmotic slip coefficient, which suggests that the slip flow, rather than a new pairwise force, may be the actual carrier of the apparent repulsion.
  • A simple null model—randomly shuffling the angular trajectories in time and recomputing Pearson correlations—would tell whether the reported high coefficients exceed the level expected from any smooth, slowly drifting angular motion; the paper does not report such a test.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of 400 nm gold nanoparticles in a 5 mM CTAC surfactant solution, trapped around a 532 nm laser-heated 400 nm gold anchor particle on a glass coverslip. The authors observe that diffusing nanoparticles are radially confined at distances of roughly 1 to 2 µm from the anchor, undergo azimuthal rotational diffusion, and that the angular trajectories of multiple trapped particles show high Pearson correlation coefficients even at 2 to 4 µm interparticle separations. The behavior is absent when either the anchor particle or the surfactant is removed (Fig. 2). The paper also reports spontaneous rotation of trapped assemblies (Fig. 5) and that the rotation direction is insensitive to circular polarization of the trapping beam (Fig. 6). Numerical estimates of optical scattering forces, opto-thermoelectric forces, and thermo-osmotic slip drag force are presented in Fig. 4, showing a computed in-plane equilibrium near 0.6 µm, while the authors explicitly state that the forces responsible for the synchronized motion are poorly understood and propose tentative hydrodynamic or electrostatic mechanisms.

Significance. If the synchronization observation is robust, the paper would document a qualitatively new collective dynamic in surfactant-assisted optothermal trapping: synchronized rotational diffusion of nanoparticles at micrometer separations around a heated anchor particle, with no net optical angular momentum input. The authors provide a clear qualitative demonstration through supplementary videos and trajectory figures, and their control experiments showing that the effect requires both the anchor and the surfactant are a useful step. The numerical force decomposition, while not capturing the synchronization mechanism, is a transparent attempt to exclude known forces such as optical binding and thermophoretic repulsion. The paper is honest about the absence of a quantitative mechanism. However, the central quantitative claim of synchronization currently rests on a correlation statistic that does not exclude common-mode rotational advection by a shared flow or stage drift; this needs a null control before the claim can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Synchronised Motion of Trapped Particles; Fig. 3c] The claim that high Pearson correlations among angular trajectories imply a micrometer-range repulsive interparticle force is not supported without excluding common-mode motion. All trapped particles orbit the same anchor and are subject to the same background flow, laser heating, and possible mechanical drift; a global rotation of the fluid or a slow drift of the sample stage would produce nearly identical angular displacements for all particles and hence high correlation with no interparticle interaction. The two controls in Fig. 2 (removal of anchor, removal of CTAC) change the trapping and flow conditions entirely and therefore cannot isolate synchronization from common-mode advection. The paper should provide a null control using a reference particle or fiducial outside the trap, subtract the instantaneous mean angle or mean angular velocity before computing pair correlations, and compare against a shuffled-trajectory null model. Without such an analysis, the central new claim—synchronized rotational diffusion—remains indistinguishable from a shared, non-interacting rotational drive.
  2. [Anchor Particle Driven Trapping; Supporting Information S8-S10] The quantitative statements about trapping radii and correlations are presented without error bars, numbers of experiments, or particle counts. The text states that the mean trapping radius lies between 1 and 1.5 µm with a decreasing trend for increasing anchor size, that the trapping radius reduces with laser power, and that angular correlations are smaller below the CTAC critical micellar concentration; none of these claims is accompanied by a statistical uncertainty or a statement of how many independent movies and particle trajectories were analyzed. Because these dependencies are part of the conclusions, the manuscript should report standard errors or confidence intervals and specify the analysis sample size for each condition.
  3. [Numerical Estimation of Forces; Fig. 4c] The computed force balance in Fig. 4c is used to argue that neither the opto-thermoelectric force nor the thermo-osmotic drag can explain the observed radial confinement, since the equilibrium position of the combined force is near 0.6 µm while the observed trapping radii are 1 to 2 µm. However, the calculation depends on free parameters—notably the thermo-osmotic slip coefficient χ and the beam waist w0—whose values and uncertainties are not given in the main text. A parameter sensitivity analysis is needed to show that the discrepancy between the computed equilibrium and the observed radii is outside the plausible parameter range. As written, the exclusion of known mechanisms is not yet quantitative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract begins with the fused word 'Opticaltweezers'; this typographical error should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 1a caption and Methods] The caption of Figure 1a states '100×, 1.4 NA' while the Methods section and the main text describe a '100×, 1.49 NA' oil-immersion objective; these values should be made consistent.
  3. [Synchronised Motion of Trapped Particles] The argument that thermophoretic repulsion is absent because the gold nanoparticles have uniform surface temperature is presented too categorically; thermophoresis of particles can also arise from interfacial property gradients even when the particle interior is isothermal. The claim should be softened or supplemented with a reference to the relevant colloidal thermophoresis literature.
  4. [Figure 3a] The figure would benefit from clearer labeling of the seven angular trajectories and the shaded region used for the correlation analysis; the current description 'A1 to A7 successively from the top' is easy to misread given the overlapping tracks.
  5. [References] Reference 84 lists 'others' instead of the full author list; the reference should be completed.
  6. [Overall] The manuscript frequently cites its own prior work (refs. 51, 55, 67, 71, 84) in contexts where independent studies would strengthen the discussion; this is not a correctness issue but the authors should ensure that the novelty of the synchronization observation is framed against the closest independent results, especially the recent report of correlated rotative oscillations in Ref. 84.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central observations are experimental and explicitly not derived from a fitted model.

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental observations—radial confinement and synchronized angular trajectories—and does not derive them from a fitted model. The force calculations in 'Numerical Estimation of Forces' use standard literature expressions for optical scattering, thermo-osmotic slip, and opto-thermoelectric forces, and are used only to exclude known mechanisms; the paper explicitly states that 'the forces responsible for the synchronized motion are poorly understood' and does not claim to reproduce the correlation from first principles. The high correlation coefficients in Fig. 3c are computed from tracking data, not from a model parameter fitted to them. Self-citations (refs 55, 67, 71) appear in methodological context (prior trapping demonstrations, temperature measurement, OTE force computation) and are not load-bearing for the new observation; the temperature measurement is cross-checked by an independent Mie-theory/Green's-function calculation. No fitted input is named as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is renamed. Possible confounding of synchronized motion by common-mode drift is a validity concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not reduce the inference to the definition of any quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observation is experimental and does not depend on fitted parameters; the free parameters listed belong to the secondary numerical force model that is used to show known forces cannot explain the data. The paper introduces no new particles, fields, or forces, but it relies on several domain assumptions about thermo-osmotic flow, OTE charge separation, and the validity of 2D tracking.

free parameters (2)
  • Thermo-osmotic slip coefficient χ = not stated in main text
    Used in the FEM force calculation (v_parallel = χ ∇_parallel T / T) and in the Stokes drag expression for the slip-flow force; the value is assumed from the literature and strongly influences the computed force balance in Figure 4c.
  • Beam waist w0 = approximately 1 µm
    Stated in the optical potential calculation as 'around 1µm'; the optical potential in Figure 4a and the resulting force estimate depend on this choice, with no uncertainty reported.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Generalized multiparticle Mie theory (MiePy) correctly computes the optical forces on 400 nm AuNPs near the anchor particle.
    Invoked in Methods, Electromagnetic Simulation, to produce the optical potential in Figure 4a; no code or parameter files are shipped to verify the implementation.
  • domain assumption Thermo-osmotic slip flow dominates over natural convection in the fluid flow around the heated anchor.
    Stated in Numerical Estimation of Forces: 'We focus on thermo-osmotic slip flow as it is the dominant contribution.' This assumption determines the computed drag force.
  • domain assumption The opto-thermoelectric force mechanism of Lin et al. 2018 (charge separation of CTAC micelles and chloride anions in a thermal gradient) applies.
    Used to compute the OTE force and to interpret surfactant-enhanced trapping (Numerical Estimation of Forces, Supporting Information S5).
  • ad hoc to paper Depletion interaction between particles is weaker than the OTE force and can be neglected.
    Stated in Numerical Estimation of Forces: 'this depletion interaction has been shown to be weaker than the OTE force ... Thus, we have not considered its contribution.'
  • domain assumption The 400 nm gold particles have uniform surface temperature and therefore do not experience thermophoretic repulsion.
    Used in Synchronised Motion section to rule out thermophoretic repulsion: 'owing to the high thermal conductivity of the gold nanoparticles, they have a uniform temperature across their surface.'
  • domain assumption The 2D brightfield tracking captures the true in-plane rotational motion of the particles.
    Tracking is performed on 2D images (Methods, Particle Tracking) without a 3D localization or a focus-locking check; out-of-plane excursions could bias the angular trajectories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synchronized motion of gold nanoparticles in an optothermal trap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLNADGC2

@misc{pith2026241115512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synchronized motion of gold nanoparticles in an optothermal trap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLNADGC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15512}
}
read the original abstract

Optical tweezers have revolutionized particle manipulation at the micro- and nanoscale, playing a critical role in fields such as plasmonics, biophysics, and nanotechnology. While traditional optical trapping methods primarily rely on optical forces to manipulate and organize particles, recent studies suggest that optothermal traps in surfactant solutions can induce unconventional effects such as enhanced trapping stiffness and increased diffusion. Thus, there is a need for further exploration of this system to gain a deeper understanding of the forces involved. This work investigates the behaviour of gold nanoparticles confined in an optothermal trap around a heated anchor particle in a surfactant (CTAC) solution. We observe unexpected radial confinement and synchronized rotational diffusion of particles at micrometre-scale separations from the anchor particle. These dynamics differ from known optical binding and thermophoretic effects, suggesting unexplored forces facilitated by the surfactant environment. This study expands the understanding of optothermal trapping driven by anchor plasmonic particles and introduces new possibilities for nanoparticle assembly, offering insights with potential applications in nanoscale fabrication and materials science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic figure. a) The optical schematic shows the dual-channel optical mi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamics of gold nanoparticles in different traps (corresponding to the Supple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synchronised motion of trapped gold nanoparticles. a) Angular positions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computation of Forces. a) Optical potential around the anchor AuNP calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rotation of the trapped particle assembly. a) Time series of particles showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trapping with circularly polarised light. a) shows the trajectory of one trapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M.; Bjorkholm, J

    (1) Ashkin, A.; Dziedzic, J. M.; Bjorkholm, J. E.; Chu, S. Observation of a Single-Beam Gradient Force Optical Trap for Dielectric Particles.Opt. Lett., OL 1986, 11, 288–290. (2) Grier, D. G. A Revolution in Optical Manipulation.Nature 2003, 424, 810–816. (3) Quidant, R.; Zelenina, A.; Nieto-Vesperinas, M. Optical Manipulation of Plasmonic Nanoparticles. ...

    work page 1986

  2. [6]

    Surface Interactions of Gold Nanoparticles Optically Trapped against an Interface.J

    (21) Andrén, D.; Odebo Länk, N.; Šípová-Jungová, H.; Jones, S.; Johansson, P.; Käll, M. Surface Interactions of Gold Nanoparticles Optically Trapped against an Interface.J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 16406–16414. 23 (22) Kim, J.; Martin, O. J. F. Surfactants Control Optical Trapping near a Glass Wall.J. Phys. Chem. C 2022, 126, 378–386. (23) Singh, R.; Adhi...

    work page 2019

  3. [7]

    (80) Anderson, J. L. Colloid Transport by Interfacial Forces.Annual Review of Fluid Me- chanics 1989, 21, 61–99. (81) Kotar, J.; Leoni, M.; Bassetti, B.; Lagomarsino, M. C.; Cicuta, P. Hydrodynamic synchronization of colloidal oscillators.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010, 107, 7669–7673. (82) Leyva,S.G.; Stoop,R.L.; Pagonabarraga,I.; T...

    work page 1989

  4. [141]

    Opto-Thermophoretic Manipulation and Construction of Colloidal Superstructures in Photocurable Hydrogels.ACS Appl

    (65) Peng, X.; Li, J.; Lin, L.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y. Opto-Thermophoretic Manipulation and Construction of Colloidal Superstructures in Photocurable Hydrogels.ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 3998–4004. (66) Lin, L.; Peng, X.; Zheng, Y. Reconfigurable Opto-Thermoelectric Printing of Colloidal Particles. Chemical Communications 2017, 53, 7357–7360. (67) Shukla,...

    work page 2018

  5. [333]

    (17) Wang, K.; Schonbrun, E.; Steinvurzel, P.; Crozier, K. B. Trapping and Rotating Nanoparticles Using a Plasmonic Nano-Tweezer with an Integrated Heat Sink. Nat Commun 2011, 2,

    work page 2011

  6. [469]

    All Optical Dynamic Nanomanipulation with Active Colloidal Tweezers

    (18) Ghosh, S.; Ghosh, A. All Optical Dynamic Nanomanipulation with Active Colloidal Tweezers. Nat Commun 2019, 10,

    work page 2019

  7. [656]

    Graphene-Based Opto- Thermoelectric Tweezers.Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2107691

    (54) Wang, X.; Yuan, Y.; Xie, X.; Zhang, Y.; Min, C.; Yuan, X. Graphene-Based Opto- Thermoelectric Tweezers.Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2107691. (55) Tiwari, S.; Khandelwal, U.; Sharma, V.; Kumar, G. V. P. Single Molecule Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering in a Single Gold Nanoparticle-Driven Thermoplasmonic Tweezer. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 11910–1...

    work page 2022

  8. [1020]

    M.; Masuhara, H.; Hofkens, J.; Bresolí-Obach, R

    (38) Huang, C.-H.; Louis, B.; Rocha, S.; Liz-Marzán, L. M.; Masuhara, H.; Hofkens, J.; Bresolí-Obach, R. Plasmonic Dipole and Quadrupole Scattering Modes Determine Op- tical Trapping, Optical Binding, and Swarming of Gold Nanoparticles.J. Phys. Chem. C 2024, 128, 5731–5740. (39) Kudo, T.; Yang, S.-J.; Masuhara, H. A Single Large Assembly with Dynamically ...

    work page 2024

Show all 17 references
  1. [1879]

    (52) Paul, D.; Chand, R.; Kumar, G. V. P. Optothermal Evolution of Active Colloidal Matter in a Defocused Laser Trap.ACS Photonics 2022, 9, 3440–3449. (53) Fränzl, M.; Cichos, F. Hydrodynamic Manipulation of Nano-Objects by Optically In- duced Thermo-Osmotic Flows.Nat Commun 2022, 13,

    2022

  2. [1902]

    Thermophoresis and Thermoelectricity in Sur- factant Solutions

    (77) Vigolo, D.; Buzzaccaro, S.; Piazza, R. Thermophoresis and Thermoelectricity in Sur- factant Solutions. Langmuir 2010, 26, 7792–7801. 29 (78) Rahman, M. A.; Saghir, M. Z. Thermodiffusion or Soret Effect: Historical Review. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 20...

    2010

  3. [1981]

    S.; Baffou, G.; McCloskey, D.; Quidant, R

    (74) Donner, J. S.; Baffou, G.; McCloskey, D.; Quidant, R. Plasmon-Assisted Optofluidics. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 5457–5462. (75) Jones, P. H.; Maragò, O. M.; Volpe, G.Optical Tweezers: Principles and Applications ; Cambridge University Press,

    2011

  4. [2015]

    Non-equilibrium properties of an active nanoparticle in a harmonic potential.Nature Communications 2021, 12,

    (76) Schmidt, F.; Šípová-Jungová, H.; Käll, M.; Würger, A.; Volpe, G. Non-equilibrium properties of an active nanoparticle in a harmonic potential.Nature Communications 2021, 12,

    2021

  5. [2891]

    Laser Trap- ping of Colloidal Metal Nanoparticles.ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3453–3469

    22 (13) Lehmuskero, A.; Johansson, P.; Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H.; Tong, L.; Käll, M. Laser Trap- ping of Colloidal Metal Nanoparticles.ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3453–3469. (14) Li, Z.; Käll, M.; Xu, H. Optical Forces on Interacting Plasmonic Nanoparticles in a Focused Gaussian Beam.Phys....

    2015

  6. [3657]

    L.; Righini, M.; Quidant, R

    (46) Juan, M. L.; Righini, M.; Quidant, R. Plasmon Nano-Optical Tweezers.Nature Photon 2011, 5, 349–356. (47) Righini, M.; Volpe, G.; Girard, C.; Petrov, D.; Quidant, R. Surface Plasmon Optical Tweezers: Tunable Optical Manipulation in the Femtonewton Range.Phys. Rev. Lett. 20...

    2011

  7. [3751]

    Phase Transition and Self-Stabilization of Light-Mediated Metal Nanoparticle Assemblies

    (36) Han, F.; Yan, Z. Phase Transition and Self-Stabilization of Light-Mediated Metal Nanoparticle Assemblies. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6616–6625. (37) Zhang, C.; Muñetón Díaz, J.; Muster, A.; Abujetas, D. R.; Froufe-Pérez, L. S.; Schef- fold, F. Determining Intrinsic Potentials and...

    2020

  8. [4191]

    (19) Devi, A.; Sikdar, B.; De, A. K. Revisiting Nonlinear Optical Trapping of a Single Nanoparticle Using Generalized Lorentz-Mie Theory. Physical Review A 2022, 105, 053529. (20) Wang, K.; Schonbrun, E.; Steinvurzel, P.; Crozier, K. B. Trapping and rotating nanoparticles usin...

    2022

  9. [5325]

    Rotational Dynamics of Indirect Optical Bound Particle Assembly under a Single Tightly Focused Laser.Opt

    (41) Tao, Y.; Yokoyama, T.; Ishihara, H. Rotational Dynamics of Indirect Optical Bound Particle Assembly under a Single Tightly Focused Laser.Opt. Express, OE 2023, 31, 3804–3820. (42) Kollipara, P. S.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, Y. Optical Manipulation Heats up: Present and Future of O...

    2023

Pith tools

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