Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Helical locomotion in dilute suspensions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper claims that dilute suspensions of neutrally buoyant spheres raise the drag-coefficient ratio of a rotating helix and can increase a force-free helical swimmer's speed by more than 60 percent, via stresslet-mediated hydrodynamic…

desk verdict A well-executed study that replaces fixed-obstacle models with force-free stresslets, with honest but unresolved sensitivity to the assumed uniform particle distribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17476 v1 pith:JJUBXVHP submitted 2024-11-26 physics.flu-dyn

Albane Théry , Andres Zambrano , Eric Lauga , Roberto Zenit This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords helicalpropulsiondilutesuspensionsdraganisotropystressletresistive-forcetheoryslender-bodymicroswimmerlowReynoldsnumber
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

The paper is trying to establish that suspended particles help, not hinder, helical swimmers: in a dilute suspension of neutrally buoyant spheres, the drag anisotropy of a rotating helix increases with particle concentration, and a free-swimming artificial helix translates faster, by more than 60 percent at optimal pitch angles. The proposed reason is hydrodynamic rather than rheological: each freely suspended sphere generates a stresslet in the flow around the helix, and the averaged stresslet disturbance raises the ratio of perpendicular to parallel drag. Experiments with a rheometer-mounted helix and with magnetically actuated free swimmers, together with modified resistive-force and slender-body theories, are marshaled to support this. If correct, the result means flagellated bacteria and artificial microswimmers can travel farther per rotation in particle-rich fluids, and it gives a design rule for tuning helix geometry and particle size.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stresslet, the leading-order flow disturbance created by a small force-free sphere in a straining flow, with strength $S_{ij} = \frac{20}{6}\pi\mu d^3(\partial_i u_j + \partial_j u_i)$ (Eq. (6)). The paper inserts this stresslet into two frameworks: modified resistive-force theory for an infinite cylinder, where averaging over uniformly distributed spheres gives closed-form drag-coefficient changes (Eq. (8)), and slender-body theory (SBT) discretized along the helix, where random sphere draws, Eq. (B3), supply the averaged disturbance. The stresslet changes the parallel and perpendicular drag coefficients unequally, raising their ratio and therefore the propulsion speed at fixed rotation.

What would settle it

Measure the local particle concentration in a thin cylindrical shell around a rotating helix, by particle imaging or index-matched tracking, while recording torque and thrust; if the shell's volume fraction departs from the bulk $\phi$, the uniform-distribution stresslet average in Eq. (7) is violated and the predicted $\xi$ increase would not match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dilute suspension of neutrally buoyant spheres enhances helical propulsion by changing the drag coefficient ratio $\xi = \xi_\perp/\xi_\parallel$: measured forces and torques on a rotating, non-translating helix, converted to $\xi_{F\Gamma}$ by Eq. (5), rise with particle volume fraction $\phi$ by up to 15% at $\phi=0.20$ for small particles, and a force-free helical swimmer translates up to 60% faster at $\phi=0.15$ for pitch angles near 40--46 degrees. The paper accounts for this with a model in which each freely suspended sphere contributes a stresslet disturbance to the helix flow, averaged over a uniform spatial distribution; the analytical cylinder limit, Eq. (8), and numerical slender-body simulations reproduce the measured enhancement, while a fixed-obstacle porous-medium model does not.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes suspended spheres remain uniformly distributed around the helix, with a probability density that does not change as the helix moves; if the rotating flow pushes particles away or gathers them near the filament, the predicted drag-ratio increase changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A rotating helix held at fixed angular speed produces more thrust per unit torque in a suspension than in a clean fluid, so the same motor or magnetic actuation gives faster propulsion.
  • The speed gain is geometry-dependent: pitch angles near 40--46 degrees benefit most, small particles relative to the filament radius give the largest effect, and particles comparable to the filament radius give almost none.
  • The fixed-obstacle porous-medium picture, which predicts a strong increase at tiny volume fractions, does not match the data; force-free suspended spheres are the relevant model for dilute suspensions.
  • For biological swimmers in heterogeneous media, suspended particles can be a source of enhanced motility even when the suspension's viscosity is Newtonian and shear-rate independent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If shear-induced migration depletes the region near the helix, the uniform-distribution average in Eq. (7) overestimates the stresslet contribution; experiments with larger particles or longer rotation times should show less enhancement than the model predicts.
  • Editorial inference: The same stresslet mechanism should apply to other low-Reynolds-number swimmers whose bodies create strong straining flows, such as waving sheets or flexible flagella, provided the suspended particles are small and force-free; this is a testable extension of the paper's model.
  • Editorial inference: Because contributions from spheres can be positive or negative depending on position, deliberately structuring the particle distribution around a swimmer, for example by confinement or external forcing, could either amplify or suppress propulsion speed beyond the uniform-suspension prediction.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines two experimental setups (a helix held fixed while the suspension rotates, and a free-swimming magnetic helix) with resistive-force theory and slender-body theory to study helical locomotion in dilute suspensions of neutrally buoyant spheres. The central claim is that the drag coefficient ratio ξ, which controls helical propulsion efficiency, increases with particle volume fraction by up to 15%, and that force-free helical swimmers translate faster in suspensions, with speed increases exceeding 60% for optimal pitch angles at φ=0.15. The theory attributes the enhancement to the stresslet disturbance flows of force-free suspended spheres, and it contrasts the predictions with the much larger enhancements predicted by stationary-obstacle (Brinkman) models. The authors report qualitative and, in places, quantitative agreement between the modified SBT simulations and the experiments over a range of pitch angles, particle sizes, and volume fractions.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes a concrete and physically plausible mechanism---force-free stresslet reflections from suspended particles---for enhanced helical propulsion in suspensions, and it provides an experimentally grounded alternative to effective-medium or fixed-obstacle models that are known to overpredict the effect. The study is valuable because it spans controlled experiments and a parameter-free analytical/numerical model, and it quantifies how the enhancement depends on helix geometry, particle size, and concentration. The inclusion of two independent experimental configurations (fixed helix and free swimmer) strengthens the case that the effect is generic. The main limitations are the absence of uncertainty quantification and the untested assumption of a uniform particle distribution, both of which affect the strength of the quantitative claims rather than the existence of the qualitative trend.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II B and Fig. 4, Fig. 6] No error bars, confidence intervals, or replicate counts are reported on any measured quantity, yet the paper's headline results are quantitative: a 15% increase in ξFΓ at φ=20% (Section II B) and speed increases over 60% at φ=0.15 (Section IV A 2). Without uncertainty quantification, the concentration dependence and the claimed geometry dependence (e.g., the non-monotonic optimum at θ=60°) cannot be distinguished from scatter, especially where the reported changes are small (for a/R=0.06, Fig. 8 shows changes of only a few percent). The authors should provide at least standard deviations or confidence bands for the key data in Figs. 3, 4, and 6.
  2. [Section III A 3, Eq. (7); Appendix B, Eq. (B3); Section III B 3] The theoretical predictions assume that the suspended spheres are uniformly distributed in space around the helix, with a probability density P(x_s) that is independent of the helix motion (Eq. (7) and the random draws in Eq. (B3)), subject only to hard-core exclusion. The paper's own Section III B 3 states that the propulsion efficiency is 'critically sensitive' to the spatial distribution of the spheres, and the rotating-rod flow is a configuration in which shear-induced particle migration is known to occur (Ref. [49]). Since a single sphere can either increase or decrease the drag coefficient ratio depending on its position (Fig. 5), any migration-induced depletion or accumulation near the helix could change the sign or magnitude of the averaged stresslet contribution. The experiments do not measure the local particle concentration profile near the helix, so the quantitative agreement in Figs. 3, 4a, and 6d could in principle be an artifact of the uniform-distribution assumption. The authors should measure the particle profile, include a non-uniform distribution in the model, or provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis over plausible non-uniform profiles.
  3. [Section IV B and Fig. 6d] The head drag coefficient is fitted to the Newtonian swimming data and then held fixed when predicting the suspension speeds. The drag on a finite head moving through a suspension should itself increase with particle concentration, so this fitted parameter may absorb part of the suspension effect and bias the predicted speed enhancement. The manuscript should either justify the constancy of the head drag with an independent measurement or demonstrate that the predicted speed increases in suspensions are robust to a concentration-dependent head drag.
  4. [Section IV A 2 and Fig. 6e] The text reports 'quantitative agreement' between the free-swimmer experiments and the modified SBT predictions, but the experimental speed increases (>60% for θ=40°,46° at φ=0.15) appear substantially larger than the no-head SBT prediction of 10--30% at φ=0.2 shown in Fig. 6e, and the with-head predictions in Fig. 6d are not quantified. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., residuals, relative errors, or a table of predicted versus measured U(φ)/U(0) for each pitch angle) to support the agreement claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout, captions of Figs. 4 and 8] The symbol d is defined in the text as the particle radius (30, 125, 300 μm), but the figure captions label the same quantity as d=60 μm, d=250 μm, and d=600 μm, which are diameters. Use a consistent notation (e.g., d for radius and 2d for diameter) to avoid a factor-of-two ambiguity.
  2. [Appendix A, sentence before Eq. (A4)] The phrase 'in the limit of an asymptotically slender filament a/Λ → ∞' should read a/Λ → 0, since slenderness means the filament radius is much smaller than its length.
  3. [Fig. 6e inset] The inset plotting U(φ)/U(0) versus θ lacks explicit axis labels, making it difficult to read the geometry dependence; please label the axes and state the value of φ.
  4. [Abstract and Section IV A 2] The abstract states 'speed increases over 60% for optimal geometries' without specifying the pitch angles; the body identifies θ=40° and 46° at φ=0.15. State the geometry in the abstract or at least in the corresponding results sentence to avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stresslet-based predictions are parameter-free and are checked against independent force/torque and swimming experiments; the only fitted coefficient is the Newtonian head drag, which is calibrated on the φ=0 baseline and does not encode the suspension enhancement.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The experimental proxy ξ_FΓ in Eq. (5) is defined from measured forces and torques, but it is not used to construct the theory; it is only a data-reduction formula. The RFT prediction in Eqs. (7)-(8) is obtained by averaging the standard stresslet disturbance of a freely suspended sphere (Eq. (6)) over a stated uniform spatial distribution with hard-core exclusion r_s > a+d; no suspension measurements are used as inputs, and the Newtonian coefficients ξ_|| = 2πμ/log(2L/a), ξ_⊥ = 2ξ_|| are standard textbook values rather than fitted parameters. The slender-body simulations (Eq. (B3)) likewise draw spheres from a stated uniform distribution and compute the stresslet reflections, yielding forces and torques that are then compared with the experimental data in Figs. 3 and 4 rather than fitted to them. In the free-swimmer section, the only fitted quantity is the constant head drag, which is determined from the Newtonian (φ=0) speed data; the suspension speed predictions are obtained by adding the SBT-computed stresslet forces to the force balance. Thus the predicted increase in U(φ)/U(0) is carried by the stresslet mechanism, not by the baseline fit. The paper explicitly acknowledges, in Section III B 3, that the propulsion efficiency is sensitive to the spatial distribution of the suspended spheres; this is an honest modeling limitation about a potentially incorrect assumption, not a circular step in which the prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [16], [27], [50], [53]) are used for standard formulas, equipment design, or prior empirical results, and none of them is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central claim. Therefore the central claim, that force-free suspended particles increase helical drag anisotropy and swimming speed, is derived from an independent stresslet model and tested against external measurements, with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard microhydrodynamic building blocks (stresslets, stokeslets, slender-body theory) and on two domain assumptions: the suspension is dilute enough to neglect sphere-sphere interactions, and the spheres are uniformly distributed around the helix. The only fitted parameter is the head drag coefficient, calibrated to Newtonian data and reused for suspension predictions. No new physical entities are introduced. The uniform-distribution assumption is the most fragile because rotating-rod flows are known to cause particle migration, and the paper cites that very effect in reference [49] without accounting for it.

free parameters (1)
  • Head drag coefficient = Fitted per helix geometry to Newtonian (phi=0) swimming data
    In Section IV B, a constant drag coefficient for the swimmer head is fit for each geometry to the experimental U(Omega) data at phi=0 (dashed black line in Fig. 6d), then assumed unchanged in the suspension to predict speed increases.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Low Reynolds number and Stokes flow
    All experiments are conducted at Re < 0.1, and the theory uses Stokes flow singularities, stokeslets, and stresslets throughout.
  • domain assumption Dilute suspension, sphere-sphere hydrodynamic interactions neglected
    Stated in Section III A 3: the suspension is sufficiently dilute that screening interactions between spheres are neglected. Volume fractions up to phi=0.2 are used, which is moderate and may strain this assumption.
  • standard math Freely suspended spheres are force-free and respond as stresslets with strength Eq. (6)
    The stresslet strength for a sphere in an ambient linear flow is a standard microhydrodynamic result (Refs. [57,58]), used in Eq. (6) and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Spheres are uniformly distributed around the cylinder or helix
    Equation (7) averages the single-sphere contribution over a uniform distribution P(x_s), and the SBT simulation draws spheres randomly and uniformly. The paper notes in Section III B 3 that results depend critically on the distribution, but it does not model or measure nonuniform distributions or particle migration.
  • domain assumption First-reflection approximation: sphere sees the unperturbed helix flow, helix feels only the sphere's reflected stresslet flow
    The method of reflections is described in Section III A 2, keeping only the first reflection. This is valid for small spheres relative to helix length but neglects higher-order reflections and the modification of the sphere's response by the helix's own disturbance.
  • standard math Helix is a slender body representable by a line of stokeslets (RFT) or Lighthill slender-body theory
    Classical resistive-force theory and Lighthill's slender-body theory are used, with the stated constraints of slenderness a << L and weak bending.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helical locomotion in dilute suspensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJUBXVHP

@misc{pith2026241117476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helical locomotion in dilute suspensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJUBXVHP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17476}
}
abstract

Motivated by the aim of understanding the effect of media heterogeneity on the swimming dynamics of flagellated bacteria, we study the rotation and swimming of rigid helices in dilute suspensions experimentally and theoretically. We first measure the torque experienced by, and thrust force generated by, helices rotating without translating in suspensions of neutrally buoyant particles with varying concentrations and sizes. Using the ratio of thrust to drag forces $\xi$ as an empirical proxy for propulsion efficiency, our experiments indicate that $\xi$ increases with the concentration of particles in the fluid, with the enhancement depending strongly on the geometric parameters of the helix. To rationalize these experimental results, we then develop a dilute theoretical approach that accounts for the additional hydrodynamic stress generated by freely suspended spheres around the helical tail. We predict similar enhancements in the drag coefficient ratio and propulsion at a given angular speed in a suspension and study its dependence on the helix geometry and the spatial distribution of the suspended spheres. These results are further reinforced by experiments on freely swimming artificial swimmers, which propel faster in dilute suspensions, with speed increases over $60 \%$ for optimal geometries. Our findings quantify how biological swimmers might benefit from the presence of suspended particles, and could inform the design of artificial self-propelled devices for biomedical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17476 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental setup. (a) Schematic of helix geometry, with connecting rod at the top used to interface with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characterization of fluids with different particle sizes. (a) Viscosity vs. shear rate for Silicone oil DMS-T31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized forces F/(µΩR 2 ) (a,b) and torques Γ/(µΩR 3 ) (c,d) as a function of the pitch angle θ, with tan θ = 2πR/λ, for several particle volume fractions ϕ (particles have a 30 µm radius). Results in (a,c) show forces and torques on thin helices, a/R = 0.06, and (b,d) on thicker ones with a/R = 0.13. Filled symbols represent experimental measurements, dashed lines represent the Newtonian slender-body theory, and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change in coefficient ratio ξFΓ(ϕ)/ξFΓ(0) as a function of volume fraction ϕ for multiple particle radii d, (a,b) d = 30 µm, (c) d = 125 µm, (d) d = 300 µm.; in all cases, a/R = 0.13. Experiments: symbols. The dashed and dotted lines show comparisons with theory: (a) p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Modified resistive-force theory (top) and slender-body theory (bottom) in the presence of suspended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experiments and predictions for the speed of a force-free helical swimmer moving through a suspension. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized swimming speed, U/Uϕ=0, as a function of particle volume fraction, ϕ. Data from this study: (■, •, ▲, ▼) for θ = 60o and different angular velocities Ω. Data from [34]: (▷,◁) for C. elegans in a monolayer of mono-dispersed glass particles . Data from [33]: (…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Change in coefficient ratio for various helix geometries for a thinner helix with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Raw data for the swimming speed U in experiments for different helix geometries, particle volume fractions ϕ and angular velocities Ω. The dashed lines at ϕ = 0 show the SBT simulation with a fitted drag force from the head. The solid lines show the speed increase pred…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    W. Pan, B. Caswell, and G. E. Karniadakis, Rheology, Microstructure and Migration in Brownian Colloidal Suspensions, Langmuir 26, 133 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    The helix geometry is shown schematically in Fig

    Force and torque measurements In all experiments, the helix is held stationary while the tank rotates, with no translation of the helix. The helix geometry is shown schematically in Fig. 1a. The radius R = 4.5 mm and length L = 65 mm are constant, and we vary the pitch angle by modifying the pitch length λ. Given that tan θ = 2πR/λ, the set of pitch angle...

  3. [2]

    We measure the effective viscosities µ′ of the 30 and 125 − µm suspensions and obtain that, for a given volume fraction, they do not depend on the imposed shear rate (see Fig

    Rheological characterization of the suspensions To prepare the suspensions, we mix solid spherical particles with high-viscosity fluids and choose particle- fluid pairs such that the particles are neutrally buoyant. We measure the effective viscosities µ′ of the 30 and 125 − µm suspensions and obtain that, for a given volume fraction, they do not depend o...

  4. [3]

    3 for various helical geometries: pitch length λ and filament radius a

    Force and torque data The experimental forces F and torques Γ at different particle concentrations ϕ are shown in Fig. 3 for various helical geometries: pitch length λ and filament radius a. The forces and torques are normalized by µΩR2 and µΩR3 respectively, where the viscosity µ is taken to be that of the Newtonian fluid (not the effective viscosity). W...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Propulsion through a matrix of stationary obstacles Our experiments reveal a marked increase in the drag anisotropy, and hence in the efficiency of helical propulsion, in a suspension. Intuitively, we expect this change to originate in the hydrodynamic interactions between the helix and the suspended particles, as contacts are rare in dilute suspensions a...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Interaction of a cylinder with a single freely suspended sphere First, we focus on the change in drag anisotropy for a cylinder and develop a modified resistive-force theory (RFT) that accounts for the hydrodynamic perturbation around a straight flagellum moving parallel and perpendicular to its axis in a suspension. In a Newtonian fluid, the flow induced...

    work page

  7. [6]

    2 log Λ2 4(a + d)2 + 1 + −8Λ2(a + d)2 − 3Λ4 (4(a + d)2 + Λ2)2 # , δξ⊥(ϕ) = 5ϕξ(0) ⊥ 32πµ

    Cylinder in a dilute suspension In the case of a distribution of spheres, we next assume that the suspension is sufficiently dilute so that we neglect the screening hydrodynamic interaction between spheres. The modified drag for a suspension is then obtained by averaging the effect of a single sphere over all their possible positions, weighted by the volu...

    work page

  8. [7]

    (8) predicts an increase in the drag anisotropy of a cylinder, and an improvement in helical propulsion, in a suspension

    Results: RFT predictions in a dilute suspension Our modified resistive-force theory in Eq. (8) predicts an increase in the drag anisotropy of a cylinder, and an improvement in helical propulsion, in a suspension. We compare these predictions from Eq. (8) with the experimental data in Fig. 4a, taking the bulk drag coefficients for the surrounding fluid alo...

    work page

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    When the rotation Ω of the helix is imposed along its axis and no translation occurs, uh(s) is known everywhere

    Model and implementation In the bulk fluid, Lighthill’s SBT relates the local velocity of a segment of the helix at arclength s, uh(s), and the local force per unit length fh(s) in the form uh(s) = 1 4πµ (I − tt) · fh(s) + 1 8πµ Z r≥δ 1 r + rr r3 · fh(s′)ds′, (9) where δ = a√e...

  2. [9]

    We compare these predictions (solid lines) to the experimental data (filled circles) in Fig

    Numerical results With this computational model, we can reproduce the experimental set-up where the helix rotates at imposed rate Ω without moving ( U = 0) and perform a new force balance using the modified local velocities on the helix to obtain the total forceF and torque Γ ...

  3. [10]

    We perform slender-body simulations in the presence of a single sphere and compute the corresponding drag coefficient ratio

    Influence of the position of the spheres To get further physical insight, and as in the case of RFT for a cylinder, we now investigate the effect of the spatial location of the spheres relative to the helix in SBT. We perform slender-body simulations in the presence of a singl...

  4. [11]

    Experimental setup Our experimental setup consists of a force-free swimmer with a cylindrical head and a helical tail that is externally actuated by a rotating magnetic field. As a result, a constant angular velocity Ω is imposed along its axis, in the z-direction, and we meas...

  5. [12]

    Speed increase for a free swimmer: experiments The measured swimmer speeds in a suspension are shown in Fig. 6c,d. First, we measure the swimming velocity U for a given pitch angle at different angular velocities Ω, with results for θ = 60◦ plotted in Fig. 6c; swimming speeds ...

  6. [13]

    Bray, Cell Movements: From Molecules to Motility (Garland Science, 2000)

    D. Bray, Cell Movements: From Molecules to Motility (Garland Science, 2000)

    2000

  7. [14]

    G. J. Sibona, Evolution of microorganism locomotion induced by starvation, Phys. Rev. E 76, 10.1103/phys- reve.76.011919 (2007)

    2007 doi

  8. [15]

    Wadhwa and H

    N. Wadhwa and H. C. Berg, Bacterial motility: machinery and mechanisms, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 161 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    J. S. Guasto, R. Rusconi, and R. Stocker, Fluid mechanics of planktonic microorganisms, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44, 373 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    Miyata, R

    M. Miyata, R. C. Robinson, T. Q. P. Uyeda, Y. Fukumori, S.-i. Fukushima, S. Haruta, M. Homma, K. Inaba, M. Ito, C. Kaito, K. Kato, T. Kenri, Y. Kinosita, S. Kojima, T. Minamino, H. Mori, S. Nakamura, D. Nakane, K. Nakayama, M. Nishiyama, S. Shibata, K. Shimabukuro, M. Tamakosh...

    2020

  11. [18]

    A. J. T. M. Mathijssen, N. Figueroa-Morales, G. Junot, E. Cl´ ement, A. Lindner, and A. Z¨ ottl, Oscillatory surface rheotaxis of swimming e. coli bacteria, Nat. Commun. 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-11360-0 (2019)

    2019 doi

  12. [19]

    Dcunha, R

    R. Dcunha, R. S. Hussein, H. Ananda, S. Kumari, S. K. Adiga, N. Kannan, Y. Zhao, and G. Kalthur, Current insights and latest updates in sperm motility and associated applications in assisted reproduction, Reprod. Sci. 29, 7 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    N. I. Wisnoski and J. T. Lennon, Scaling up and down: movement ecology for microorganisms, Trends Microbiol. 31, 242 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    A. C. H. Tsang, E. Demir, Y. Ding, and O. S. Pak, Roads to smart artificial microswimmers, Advanced Intelligent Systems 2, 10.1002/aisy.201900137 (2020)

    2020 doi

  15. [22]

    Pauer, O

    C. Pauer, O. du Roure, J. Heuvingh, T. Liedl, and J. Tavacoli, Programmable design and performance of modular magnetic microswimmers, Adv. Mater. 33, 10.1002/adma.202006237 (2021)

    2021 doi

  16. [23]

    B.-W. Park, J. Zhuang, O. Yasa, and M. Sitti, Multifunctional bacteria-driven microswimmers for targeted active drug delivery, ACS Nano 11, 8910 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    J. Min, Y. Yang, Z. Wu, and W. Gao, Robotics in the gut, Advanced Therapeutics 3, 10.1002/adtp.201900125 15 (2019)

    2019 doi

  18. [25]

    Bunea and R

    A.-I. Bunea and R. Taboryski, Recent advances in microswimmers for biomedical applications, Micromachines 11, 1048 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Lauga and T

    E. Lauga and T. R. Powers, The hydrodynamics of swimming microorganisms, Rep. Progr. Phys. 72, 096601 (2009)

    2009

  20. [27]

    J. Du, J. P. Keener, R. D. Guy, and A. L. Fogelson, Low-reynolds-number swimming in viscous two-phase fluids, Phys. Rev. E 85, 036304 (2012)

    2012

  21. [28]

    Lauga, The Fluid Dynamics of Cell Motility , Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)

    E. Lauga, The Fluid Dynamics of Cell Motility , Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Theves, J

    M. Theves, J. Taktikos, V. Zaburdaev, H. Stark, and C. Beta, Random walk patterns of a soil bacterium in open and confined environments, Europhys. Lett. 109, 28007 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Heddergott, T

    N. Heddergott, T. Kr¨ uger, S. B. Babu, A. Wei, E. Stellamanns, S. Uppaluri, T. Pfohl, H. Stark, and M. Engstler, Trypanosome motion represents an adaptation to the crowded environment of the vertebrate bloodstream, PLoS Pathog. 8, e1003023 (2012)

    2012

  24. [31]

    K. M. Ottemann and J. F. Miller, Roles for motility in bacterial–host interactions, Mol. Microbiol. 24, 1109 (1997)

    1997

  25. [32]

    Denissenko, V

    P. Denissenko, V. Kantsler, D. J. Smith, and J. Kirkman-Brown, Human spermatozoa migration in microchannels reveals boundary-following navigation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 8007 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    L. J. Fauci and R. Dillon, Biofluidmechanics of reproduction, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38, 371 (2006)

    2006

  27. [34]

    R. J. Roselli and K. R. Diller, Rheology of Biological Fluids, in Biotransport: Principles and Applications , edited by R. J. Roselli and K. R. Diller (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2011) pp. 107–168

    2011

  28. [35]

    P. E. Arratia, Life in complex fluids: Swimming in polymers, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 110515 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    S. E. Spagnolie and P. T. Underhill, Swimming in complex fluids, Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. 14, 381 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    S. E. Spagnolie, Complex Fluids in Biological Systems: Experiment, Theory, and Computation (Springer New York, 2015)

    2015

  31. [38]

    Li and A

    G. Li and A. M. Ardekani, Undulatory swimming in non-newtonian fluids, J. Fluid Mech. 784, R4 (2015)

    2015

  32. [39]

    G´ omez, F

    S. G´ omez, F. A. God ´ ınez, E. Lauga, and R. Zenit, Helical propulsion in shear-thinning fluids, J. Fluid Mech. 812, R3 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Demir, N

    E. Demir, N. Lordi, Y. Ding, and O. S. Pak, Nonlocal shear-thinning effects substantially enhance helical propul- sion, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 111301 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Kamdar, S

    S. Kamdar, S. Shin, P. Leishangthem, L. F. Francis, X. Xu, and X. Cheng, The colloidal nature of complex fluids enhances bacterial motility, Nature 603, 819 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    X. N. Shen and P. E. Arratia, Undulatory Swimming in Viscoelastic Fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 208101 (2011)

    2011

  36. [43]

    C. Datt, L. Zhu, G. J. Elfring, and O. S. Pak, Squirming through shear-thinning fluids, J. Fluid Mech. 784, 10.1017/jfm.2015.600 (2015)

    2015 doi

  37. [44]

    Kamdar and X

    S. Kamdar and X. Cheng, Swimming faster despite obstacles: a universal mechanism behind bacterial speed enhancement in complex fluids, Microbial cell 9, 139 (2022)

    2022

  38. [45]

    Jung, Caenorhabditis elegans swimming in a saturated particulate system, Phys

    S. Jung, Caenorhabditis elegans swimming in a saturated particulate system, Phys. Fluids 22, 031903 (2010)

    2010

  39. [46]

    Juarez, K

    G. Juarez, K. Lu, J. Sznitman, and P. E. Arratia, Motility of small nematodes in wet granular media, Europhys. Let. 92, 44002 (2010)

    2010

  40. [47]

    A. E. Patteson, A. Gopinath, M. Goulian, and P. E. Arratia, Running and tumbling with E. coli in polymeric solutions, Sci. Rep. 5, 15761 (2015)

    2015

  41. [48]

    J.-S. Park, D. Kim, J. H. Shin, and D. A. Weitz, Efficient nematode swimming in a shear thinning colloidal suspension, Soft Matter 12, 1892 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    R. L. Hoffman, Discontinuous and Dilatant Viscosity Behavior in Concentrated Suspensions. I. Observation of a Flow Instability, Trans. Soc. Rheol. 16, 155 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    E. S. G. Shaqfeh, On the rheology of particle suspensions in viscoelastic fluids, AIChE J. 65, e16575 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Semwogerere, J

    D. Semwogerere, J. F. Morris, and E. R. Weeks, Development of particle migration in pressure-driven flow of a Brownian suspension, J. Fluid Mech. 581, 437 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    H. C. Fu, T. R. Powers, and C. W. Wolgemuth, Theory of Swimming Filaments in Viscoelastic Media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 258101 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    E. E. Riley and E. Lauga, Enhanced active swimming in viscoelastic fluids, Europhys. Lett. 108, 34003 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    D. R. Hewitt and N. J. Balmforth, Taylor’s swimming sheet in a yield-stress fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 828, 33 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    S. V. Narayanan, D. L. Koch, and S. Hormozi, A swimming bacterium in a two-fluid model of a polymer solution (2024), 2404.03540

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. M. Leshansky, Enhanced low-Reynolds-number propulsion in heterogeneous viscous environments, Phys. Rev. E 80, 051911 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Leiderman and S

    K. Leiderman and S. D. Olson, Swimming in a two-dimensional brinkman fluid: Computational modeling and regularized solutions, Phys. Fluids 28, 10.1063/1.4941258 (2016). 16

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Nganguia and O

    H. Nganguia and O. S. Pak, Squirming motion in a brinkman medium, J. Fluid Mech. 855, 554 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Y. Chen, N. Lordi, M. Taylor, and O. S. Pak, Helical locomotion in a porous medium, Phys. Rev. E 102, 10.1103/physreve.102.043111 (2020)

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Boyer, O

    F. Boyer, O. Pouliquen, and ´E. Guazzelli, Dense suspensions in rotating-rod flows: normal stresses and particle migration, J. Fluid Mech. 686, 5 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    F. A. God ´ ınez, O. Ch´ avez, and R. Zenit, Note: Design of a novel rotating magnetic field device, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 066109 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    P. M. Kulkarni and J. F. Morris, Suspension properties at finite Reynolds number from simulated shear flow, Phys. Fluids 20, 040602 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    I. E. Zarraga, D. A. Hill, and D. T. Leighton, Jr., The characterization of the total stress of concentrated suspensions of noncolloidal spheres in Newtonian fluids, J. Rheol. 44, 185 (2000)

    2000

  57. [65]

    Linares-Guerrero, M

    E. Linares-Guerrero, M. L. Hunt, and R. Zenit, Effects of inertia and turbulence on rheological measurements of neutrally buoyant suspensions, J. Fluid Mech. 811, 525 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    R. G. Cox, The motion of long slender bodies in a viscous fluid Part 1. General theory, J. Fluid Mech. 44, 791 (1970)

    1970

  59. [67]

    Rodenborn, C.-H

    B. Rodenborn, C.-H. Chen, H. L. Swinney, B. Liu, and H. P. Zhang, Propulsion of microorganisms by a helical flagellum, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, E338 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    I. D. Howells, Drag due to the motion of a newtonian fluid through a sparse random array of small fixed rigid objects, J. Fluid Mech. 64, 449 (1974)

    1974

  61. [69]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. J. Karrila, Microhydrodynamics: principles and selected applications , Butterworth-Heinemann series in chemical engineering (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991)

    1991

  62. [70]

    Guazzelli, J

    ´E. Guazzelli, J. F. Morris, and S. Pic, A Physical Introduction to Suspension Dynamics , Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Gray and G

    J. Gray and G. J. Hancock, The Propulsion of Sea-Urchin Spermatozoa, J. Exp. Biol. 32, 802 (1955)

    1955

  64. [72]

    Lighthill, Flagellar Hydrodynamics, SIAM Rev

    J. Lighthill, Flagellar Hydrodynamics, SIAM Rev. 18, 161 (1976)

    1976

  65. [73]

    M. K. Jawed and P. M. Reis, Dynamics of a flexible helical filament rotating in a viscous fluid near a rigid boundary, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 034101 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Kudrolli and B

    A. Kudrolli and B. Ramirez, Burrowing dynamics of aquatic worms in soft sediments, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 25569 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    G. K. Batchelor and J. T. Green, The determination of the bulk stress in a suspension of spherical particles to order c2, J. Fluid Mech. 56, 401 (1972)

    1972

  68. [76]

    R. H. Davis and N. A. Hill, Hydrodynamic diffusion of a sphere sedimenting through a dilute suspension of neutrally buoyant spheres, J. Fluid Mech. 236, 513 (1992). 17 Appendix A: Modified resistive-force theory in a dilute suspension We detail in this section the modified res...

    1992

  69. [77]

    Suspended sphere in the background flow of a stokeslet We compute the disturbance flow from a suspended sphere of radius d at xs when a singularity stokeslet is placed at x = 0

    Interaction between a cylinder and a single sphere a. Suspended sphere in the background flow of a stokeslet We compute the disturbance flow from a suspended sphere of radius d at xs when a singularity stokeslet is placed at x = 0. The sphere creates a stresslet located at xs ...

  70. [78]

    1 + 5ξ(0) ⊥ d3 12πµΛ3 3ϕ 4πd3 4Λ3I( a + d L ) # = ξ(0) ⊥

    Suspension of many spheres For a dilute suspension of non-interacting spheres at xs, x1, ..., xn, we follow classical work [63, 64] and write ξ|| = ξ(0) || 1 + Z Z Z V P(xs)δξ||(xs)dxs , (A15) with P(xs) the probability of finding a sphere at xs. Taking uniformly distributed s...

  71. [79]

    Here Ω is the externally imposed angular velocity, and U is the translational velocity along the helix long axis

    Discretized Lighthill slender-body theory The position of the helix and corresponding local velocity are respectively xH (t) and uh(t), xh(t) =    R cos(t tan θ/R) −R sin(t tan θ/R) t and uh(t) =    −ΩR sin(t tan θ/R) −ΩR cos(t tan θ/R) U , (B1) with −L/2 < t < L/2. ...

  72. [80]

    (B3) 22 Appendix C: Additional experimental data

    In a suspension In a suspension, we use the expression for the modified local flow given in the main text and average it uq s(ϕ) = ϕVol 4πd3/3 1 Ns NsX k=1 uq s(xk s ). (B3) 22 Appendix C: Additional experimental data

  73. [81]

    8 additional experimental data for a thin helix witha/R = 0.06, as opposed to a/R = 0.13 as in the main body of the text

    Coefficient ratio for thin helices We show in Fig. 8 additional experimental data for a thin helix witha/R = 0.06, as opposed to a/R = 0.13 as in the main body of the text. The thin helices are less responsive to changes in particle concentration. While the drag coefficient ra...

  74. [82]

    These are the same pitch angles considered for the fixed rotation helix, discussed in section II B

    Swimmer speed for all geometries In addition to the measurements of swimming speed forθ = 60o, experiments were conducted for swimmers with helical angles θ = {34◦, 40◦, 46◦, 60◦, 74◦}. These are the same pitch angles considered for the fixed rotation helix, discussed in secti...

Pith tools

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