Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Magnetophoresis of Weakly Magnetic Nanoparticle Suspension Around a Wire

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weakly magnetic nanoparticles cluster around a magnetized wire at roughly 0.25 T, below the uniform-field threshold, and the clusters speed their capture.

desk verdict New data on weakly magnetic nanoparticle magnetophoresis around a wire, but the clustering claim rests on a suspicious concentration-dependent force law and circular fitting. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10018 v1 pith:FTBYUB3Y submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mohd Bilal Khan , Peter Rassolov , Jamel Ali , Theo Siegrist , Munir Humayun , Hadi Mohammadigoushki This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnetophoresishigh-gradientmagneticseparationweaklynanoparticlesfield-inducedclusteringparamagneticdiamagneticPecletnumbermultiphysicssimulation
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 tries to establish that the strong field gradient around a wire, the geometry at the heart of high-gradient magnetic separation, makes weakly magnetic nanoparticles cluster and get captured at field strengths far below what uniform-field theory predicts. Experiments show paramagnetic manganese-oxide nanoparticles migrating to the wire's high-gradient flanks, driving secondary vortices, and depleting from the bulk at rates that grow with concentration, field strength, and wire diameter; diamagnetic bismuth-oxide particles are instead repelled along the flanks and captured near the top of the wire, with depletion that slows for larger wires. Because simulations using the laboratory-measured particle sizes underpredict the depletion, the authors re-fit larger particle-size distributions and read the required shift as evidence of field-induced clustering, with paramagnetic clustering inferred to begin near 0.25 T rather than the roughly 0.6-1 T predicted when the standard coupling and aggregation parameters exceed one. Diamagnetic particles also show a slight clustering tendency at 1 T, which the authors present as previously unreported. The practical stakes are that wire-based magnetic separators could collect weakly magnetic colloids, such as rare-earth or transition-metal oxide suspensions, more efficiently than single-particle models suggest.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a 2D finite-element multiphysics simulation coupling Maxwell-Ampère magnetostatics for the field around the ferromagnetic wire, the Navier-Stokes equations with a Kelvin magnetic body force, and a convective-diffusion mass balance in which particle drift is driven by the concentration-dependent Kelvin force $F_{mp} = (4\pi/3) \Delta\chi R_p^3 c/\mu_0 (\mathbf{B}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{B}$. The paper's operational definition of clustering is indirect: simulations are re-run with a fitted three-species particle-size distribution, and the fitted shift toward larger, heavier particles under an applied field is the evidence for cluster formation. The comparison target is the uniform-field theory given by the coupling parameter $\Gamma = \pi \Delta\chi^2 B^2 R_p^3 / (9 \mu_0 k_B T)$ and the aggregation number $N^* = \sqrt{\phi_0 e^{\Gamma-1}}$, whose $\Gamma > 1$ and $N^* > 1$ criteria predict a much higher onset than the field-gradient case shows.

What would settle it

Two measurements would settle it: imaging the fluid around the wire at 0.25 T (for instance dark-field or fluorescence microscopy of the PEG-coated particles) to see whether clusters actually form at that field, and measuring the magnetophoretic velocity of individual particles at increasing local concentrations, since the velocity should not rise with concentration if the concentration-dependent force law behind the clustering inference is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that magnetophoresis of weakly magnetic nanoparticle suspensions near a magnetized wire is governed by field-induced particle clustering, and that clustering begins at lower magnetic fields than uniform-field models predict. Paramagnetic manganese-oxide nanoparticles are attracted to the flanks of the wire, where the field gradient is strongest, and the resulting momentum transfer creates symmetric secondary vortices that accelerate depletion of particles from the whole cuvette; reproducing the measured depletion curves numerically requires fitted particle sizes well above the vendor radii and the zero-field DLS sizes, which the authors interpret as magnetic-field-induced clusters. The fitted size distribution for paramagnetic particles shifts toward larger sizes already at 0.25 T (Table III), whereas the theoretical criteria $\Gamma > 1$ and $N^* > 1$, evaluated for the sizes actually present, predict clustering only above roughly 0.6-1 T. The authors attribute the gap to the wire's strong field gradient and the flows it generates, which are absent from the uniform-field theory. For diamagnetic bismuth-oxide particles the magnetic force is repulsive along the flanks but attractive near the top of the wire, and at 1 T the fitted distribution shifts slightly toward larger sizes, a weak field-induced clustering of diamagnetic nanoparticles that the paper reports as new.

Load-bearing premise

The case for low-field clustering rests on the model's assumption that a particle's magnetic pull grows with the local concentration of suspended particles, so if that force law is not physical, the fitted clusters and the 0.25 T threshold are artifacts of the simulation rather than measured facts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wire-based magnetic separators should capture weakly paramagnetic nanoparticles starting near 0.25 T, roughly a third to a quarter of the field the uniform-field criteria require, because the wire's gradient itself promotes cluster formation.
  • Capture efficiency should increase with initial concentration, since higher concentrations produce more and larger clusters; this makes normalized depletion curves concentration-dependent, in contrast to low-gradient magnetophoresis results.
  • Diamagnetic nanoparticle suspensions can be collected at high gradients and 1 T despite a repulsive magnetic force, through weak gradient-assisted clustering and attraction to the low-gradient region atop the wire.
  • Larger wires enhance paramagnetic capture (surface area wins over the weaker local gradient), while for diamagnetic particles larger wires suppress capture; adding a second or third wire improves recovery by only about 10 percent.
  • Models of high-gradient magnetic separation should treat the effective particle size as growing with field strength, concentration, and wire diameter rather than as a fixed input.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive control the paper does not report: the same colloids in a uniform 0.25-0.5 T field with no wire present should show no clustering, which would isolate the gradient's role in lowering the onset threshold.
  • Because the clusters are inferred from fitted size distributions rather than observed, an in-situ size or structure measurement during magnetophoresis would be the strongest test; the zero-field DLS reported in the paper cannot see clusters that exist only under field.
  • The concentration-dependent force law in Eq. (6) implies a positive feedback loop, in which particles near the wire move faster as they concentrate and thereby accelerate depletion even without true clusters; separating that feedback from genuine aggregation is an open modeling question.
  • The same gradient-assisted clustering should apply to other weakly magnetic colloids, such as rare-earth or transition-metal oxide suspensions relevant to resource recovery, which would make wire-based separators attractive well below 1 T; the paper does not test this.
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. This manuscript combines optical absorbance experiments with 2D COMSOL simulations to study magnetophoresis of weakly magnetic MnO2 and Bi2O3 nanoparticle suspensions around a ferromagnetic wire in a closed cuvette. The authors vary initial concentration, magnetic field strength, wire diameter, and number of wires, and report depletion rates, vortex patterns, and fitted three-species particle size distributions. They conclude that field-induced clustering of paramagnetic particles enhances magnetophoresis and starts near 0.25 T, below uniform-field theoretical predictions, and that diamagnetic particles may cluster at 1 T.

Significance. If the clustering claims were supported, the work would extend HGMS concepts to weakly magnetic nanoparticles and motivate new models of aggregation in strong field gradients. The manuscript provides a wide parametric experimental data set, validates the computed magnetic field against an analytic solution, includes DLS characterization, and reports supplementary movies. However, the central quantitative results depend on a nonstandard force law and on indirect fitting evidence for clustering, so the significance cannot be assessed until the model and inference are corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (6)] The Kelvin force in Eq. (6) is written as F_mp = (4π/3) Δχ R_p^3 c/μ0 (B·∇)B, with the suspension concentration c multiplying the single-particle force. The standard expression for a single particle contains no c. With Eq. (6), the magnetophoretic velocity u_p becomes proportional to c, so the particle flux in Eq. (7) should contain a term of order c^2; Eq. (8) instead uses a flux proportional to c. The same spurious concentration factor enters the magnetic Peclet number in Eqs. (10)-(11). Because the artifact is active only when (B·∇)B is nonzero, the zero-field calibration in Table I does not constrain it. The simulations should be rerun with the standard force law before the concentration scaling, the fitted size distributions in Tables II-IV, and the inferred clustering can be considered reliable.
  2. [IV.D, Tables II-IV] The central claim of field-induced clustering at approximately 0.25 T is not obtained from direct observation but from shifts in the fitted three-species particle size distributions. No replicate runs, error bars, or goodness-of-fit statistics are reported, and the criterion for onset of clustering is not defined. Given that the fitting procedure can absorb model error by moving the radii and mass fractions, the observed shifts may be fitting degeneracy rather than physical cluster formation. Independent evidence, such as in-situ DLS, microscopy, or scattering measurements under the applied field, and a statistical significance test for the fitted shifts, are needed.
  3. [IV.B, Table I] The zero-field calibration does not protect the field-dependent fits, since the problematic concentration dependence in Eq. (6) is activated only when a field gradient is present. Moreover, the DLS no-field hydrodynamic radii (R_p ≈ 320±20 nm for MnO2 and ≈330±30 nm for Bi2O3) are larger than the largest fitted radii in Table I (250 nm and 160 nm for 100 mg/L), so the statement that the inferred distributions are consistent with DLS is not quantitatively justified without reporting uncertainties on the fitted multimodal distributions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (1)] The symbol A is used for current density without being defined; this is unconventional and should be clarified, since A usually denotes the magnetic vector potential.
  2. [III.B, Eq. (6)] The quantity Δχ is described as a molar susceptibility difference, but it appears in expressions involving particle radius and concentration; the units and whether the intended quantity is volume or molar susceptibility should be stated explicitly.
  3. [IV.C.1] The text switches between surface-averaged and volume-averaged normalized concentration (Fig. 3 vs Fig. 4); the averaging convention should be consistent and defined once.
  4. [IV.B, Eq. (9)] The statement Pe_g ≈ O(10^-5) is given without the values used for density difference, viscosity, and temperature; a short calculation or reference table would make the estimate checkable.
  5. [References] Reference 42 is listed as submitted; if it has appeared by the time of revision, the published citation should be provided.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed low-field clustering threshold is read off fitted particle-size distributions, and Eq. (6)'s concentration-dependent Kelvin force lets the fit absorb an artificial concentration scaling; the central clustering claim reduces to the fitting procedure.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C.1 (Tables I–II) and Section IV.D (Table III)]
    "However, both experimental observations and numerical simulations in the presence of wire (see Table III) indicate that field-induced cluster formation begins at significantly lower magnetic field strengths, around B=0.25 T."

    Table III is not an experimental observable; it is the particle-size distribution that was optimized so that simulations match the measured depletion curves. The onset field is therefore defined by where the fitted radii and mass fractions begin to grow (e.g., the 250/300 nm classes at 0.25 T versus 200/250 nm at 0 T in Table III). Interpreting this fitted shift as 'field-induced cluster formation' and reporting the threshold as a finding restates the fitting procedure rather than testing it independently.

  2. other [Section III.B, Eqs. (6) and (8)]
    "Fmp = 4π/3 Δχ R_p^3 c / μ0 (B·∇)B; F_d = −6πμ R_p u_p ... Nb = (2 R_p^2 Δχ / (9 μ0 η)) c (B·∇)B + (2 R_p^2 ∇ρ / (9 η)) c g."

    The standard Kelvin force on a single particle contains no suspension concentration c; inserting c into F_mp makes the implied magnetophoretic velocity u_p = F_mp/(6πμ R_p) proportional to c, whereas the boundary flux in Eq. (8) uses the conventional single-c form. The two equations are mutually inconsistent. Because the only evidence for clustering is the fitted growth of R_p under field, an artificial concentration coupling in the force law can be absorbed by the fitting procedure as apparent particle growth, so the clustering claim is not independent of this model input.

full rationale

The magnetic-field validation against the closed-form analytical solution is self-contained, and the zero-field sedimentation fits have independent DLS support; those parts do not show circularity. The central claim, however, does: the paper infers field-induced clustering solely because simulations require larger fitted radii and mass fractions under a field than at B = 0 (Tables II–IV), and then the same fitted distributions are used to locate the onset at B ≈ 0.25 T. That is a fitted input presented as a finding, and the concentration-dependent Kelvin force in Eq. (6) makes the fit even less trustworthy because the artificial c-coupling can be absorbed as apparent size growth. The comparison with the Γ and N* uniform-field criteria is external and not itself circular, but the claimed gradient-induced lowering of the threshold is not independently established. The self-citation to Ref. 42 is peripheral and not load-bearing. Overall, the central clustering discovery reduces to the fitting procedure, so the circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central clustering claim rests entirely on per-condition fitted particle size distributions and on an ad hoc concentration-dependent Kelvin force. No direct measurement of clusters is provided. The relative permeability of the wire and susceptibility values are taken from prior literature, but the key physics that produces the headline result is the fitted sizes.

free parameters (2)
  • Three-species particle size distribution (mass fractions and radii) per experimental condition = e.g., MnO2 at C0=100 mg/L, B=0 T: 0.75/0.15/0.10 at 100/200/250 nm; at B=1 T: 0.70/0.20/0.10 at 150/500/800 nm (Tables…
    The distribution is varied to make simulation concentration-depletion curves best match experiments. Shifts in these fitted values are then interpreted as evidence of field-induced clustering.
  • Effective particle size increase parameter (implicit in the fitted distributions) = Varies per condition, e.g., largest MnO2 radius rises from 250 nm at B=0 to 800 nm at B=1 T for C0=100 mg/L
    This is the quantity that carries the clustering inference; it is not measured directly.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 2D cross-section simulation adequately represents the 3D cuvette and wire geometry
    Stated in Section III: '3D simulation of the full apparatus are computationally cost-prohibitive.'
  • domain assumption Beer-Lambert calibration remains valid over the two-hour experiment despite acknowledged settling and potential calibration drift
    Section II.D explicitly notes that 'potential changes in the calibration over the course of the experiment (typically two hours) were not accounted for.'
  • domain assumption Particles are irreversibly captured at all cuvette walls and wire surface via the boundary flux N_b
    Equation (8) defines a capture flux with no sticking coefficient or re-entrainment, implying total capture on contact.
  • ad hoc to paper The Kelvin force on a single nanoparticle is proportional to the local suspension concentration c
    Equation (6) uses F_mp = (4π/3) Δχ R_p^3 c/μ0 (B·∇)B, a nonstandard concentration-dependent force that drives the observed concentration scaling.
  • ad hoc to paper Shift in fitted particle size distribution corresponds to physical field-induced clustering rather than fitting degeneracy
    Section IV.D interprets the increasing fitted radii in Tables II-IV as cluster formation, without direct imaging or in-situ sizing.
  • domain assumption DLVO-type interparticle forces are ignored in the dimensionless clustering theory but invoked post hoc to explain diamagnetic clustering
    Section IV.D states that 'DLVO-type interactions... were not explicitly considered' in the Γ, N* framework, yet they are later used to rationalize diamagnetic aggregation.
invented entities (1)
  • Field-induced nanoparticle clusters (aggregates)
    purpose: To explain why simulations require larger effective particle sizes to match magnetophoresis data and to support the claim of a lowered clustering threshold
    Clusters are never directly imaged or sized in situ. The only evidence is the fitted size distribution changes in Tables II-IV and the enhanced depletion in uniform-field controls (Fig. S7), both interpreted through the same simulation model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetophoresis of Weakly Magnetic Nanoparticle Suspension Around a Wire." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTBYUB3Y

@misc{pith2026250610018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetophoresis of Weakly Magnetic Nanoparticle Suspension Around a Wire},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTBYUB3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10018}
}
read the original abstract

We present a combined experimental and numerical study into the magnetophoresis behavior of weakly magnetic nanoparticle suspensions in the vicinity of a wire under a non-uniform magnetic field and negligible inertia. The experiments were conducted within a closed rectangular cuvette, with a wire positioned between the poles of an electromagnet. Two types of nanoparticles, paramagnetic manganese oxide and diamagnetic bismuth oxide, were studied across a broad range of concentrations (10-100 mgL), magnetic field strengths (0.25-1 T), and wire diameters (0.8-3.17 mm). Our experimental findings reveal that upon the application of a magnetic field, paramagnetic nanoparticles experience a strong, attractive force toward the wire periphery. This force generates vortices and secondary flows around the wire, depleting particles from the bulk of the cuvette and concentrating them near the wire surface. The magnetophoresis dynamics of paramagnetic nanoparticles are shown to scale with their initial concentration, wire diameter, and the strength of the external magnetic field. In contrast, diamagnetic nanoparticles exhibit markedly different behavior, with their magnetophoresis dynamics showing minimal dependence on initial concentration and magnetic field strength, while being inversely proportional to the wire diameter. Multiphysics numerical simulations complement the experimental observations, revealing the formation of field-induced particle clusters in weakly paramagnetic nanoparticles, which enhance magnetophoresis. Additionally, the critical magnetic field threshold for the onset of cluster formation is found to be lower than those predicted by theoretical models for clustering in uniform magnetic fields. Under specific conditions, including high magnetic field strengths and elevated nanoparticle concentrations, diamagnetic nanoparticles appear to undergo field-induced clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) The top view of the experimental setup consisting of the camera, light source, magnet and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) The 2D simulated magnetic flux density around the wire with a diameter of 0.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Control experiments to assess particle sedimentation rate. The spatio-temporal evolution of (a) MnO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Spatio-temporal evolution of particle concentrations measured in experiments (top row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) The spatio-temporal evolution of bismuth oxide concentration measured in experiments (top row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Temporal evolution of normalized particle concentrations for paramagnetic (a), and diamagnetic (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The temporal evolution of normalized averaged concentration in the cuvette for paramagnetic particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) The spatio-temporal evolution of particle concentration around the wires in experiments (top row), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Surface plots of non-dimensional coupling parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  4. [4]

    S. Li, M. Wang, Z. Zhu, Q. Wang, X. Zhang, H. Song, D. Cang, Application of superconducting hgms technology on turbid wastewater treatment from converter, Separation and purification technology 84 (2012) 56--62

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Tseng, C.-C

    J.-Y. Tseng, C.-C. Chang, C.-W. Tu, M.-H. Yuan, C.-Y. Chang, C.-F. Chang, Y.-H. Chen, J.-L. Shie, D.-R. Ji, B.-L. Liu, et al., Application of high-gradient magnetic separation for the recovery of super-paramagnetic polymer adsorbent used in adsorption and desorption processes, Processes 11 (3) (2023) 965

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    C. Yang, S. Li, Z. Guo, J. Kong, Application and prospect of superconducting high gradient magnetic separation in disposal of micro-fine tailings, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 275, IOP Publishing, 2017, p. 012044

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    S. P. Schwaminger, P. Fraga-Garc \' a, M. Eigenfeld, T. M. Becker, S. Berensmeier, Magnetic separation in bioprocessing beyond the analytical scale: from biotechnology to the food industry, Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology 7 (2019) 233

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    S. S. Leong, S. P. Yeap, J. Lim, Working principle and application of magnetic separation for biomedical diagnostic at high-and low-field gradients, Interface focus 6 (6) (2016) 20160048

    work page 2016

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    J. Cui, E. Forssberg, Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review, Journal of hazardous materials 99 (3) (2003) 243--263

    2003

  2. [10]

    Sattler, H

    K. Sattler, H. J. Feindt, Thermal separation processes: principles and design, John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Manouchehri, K

    H.-R. Manouchehri, K. Hanumantha Rao, K. Forssberg, Review of electrical separation methods: part 1: fundamental aspects, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 17 (2000) 23--36

    2000

  4. [12]

    Svoboda, Magnetic techniques for the treatment of materials, Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    J. Svoboda, Magnetic techniques for the treatment of materials, Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Svoboda, T

    J. Svoboda, T. Fujita, Recent developments in magnetic methods of material separation, Minerals Engineering 16 (9) (2003) 785--792

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kemsheadl, J

    J. Kemsheadl, J. Ugelstad, Magnetic separation techniques: their application to medicine, Molecular and cellular Biochemistry 67 (1985) 11--18

    1985

  7. [15]

    Nithya, A

    R. Nithya, A. Thirunavukkarasu, A. B. Sathya, R. Sivashankar, Magnetic materials and magnetic separation of dyes from aqueous solutions: a review, Environmental Chemistry Letters 19 (2) (2021) 1275--1294

    2021

  8. [16]

    Munaz, M

    A. Munaz, M. J. Shiddiky, N.-T. Nguyen, Recent advances and current challenges in magnetophoresis based micro magnetofluidics, Biomicrofluidics 12 (3) (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Rassolov, J

    P. Rassolov, J. Ali, T. Siegrist, M. Humayun, H. Mohammadigoushki, Magnetophoresis of paramagnetic metal ions in porous media, Soft Matter 20 (11) (2024) 2496--2508

    2024

  10. [18]

    T. A. Butcher, J. Coey, Magnetic forces in paramagnetic fluids, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35 (5) (2022) 053002

    2022

  11. [19]

    T. H. Boyer, et al., The force on a magnetic dipole, Am. J. Phys 56 (8) (1988) 688--692

    1988

  12. [20]

    X. Xue, E. P. Furlani, Template-assisted nano-patterning of magnetic core--shell particles in gradient fields, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 16 (26) (2014) 13306--13317

    2014

  13. [21]

    Oberteuffer, High gradient magnetic separation, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 9 (3) (1973) 303--306

    J. Oberteuffer, High gradient magnetic separation, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 9 (3) (1973) 303--306

    1973

  14. [22]

    Hayashi, F

    S. Hayashi, F. Mishima, Y. Akiyama, S. Nishijima, Development of high gradient magnetic separation system for a highly viscous fluid, IEEE transactions on applied superconductivity 20 (3) (2010) 945--948

    2010

  15. [23]

    Y. Kim, J. Song, D. Yang, J. Lee, Y. Park, D. Kang, H. Lee, Effects of filter shapes on the capture efficiency of a superconducting high-gradient magnetic separation system, Superconductor Science and Technology 26 (8) (2013) 085002

    2013

  16. [24]

    S. N. Podoynitsyn, O. N. Sorokina, A. L. Kovarski, High-gradient magnetic separation using ferromagnetic membrane, Journal of Magnetism and magnetic Materials 397 (2016) 51--56

    2016

  17. [25]

    Huang, X

    S. Huang, X. Zhang, M. Tafu, T. Toshima, Y. Jo, Study on subway particle capture by ferromagnetic mesh filter in nonuniform magnetic field, Separation and Purification Technology 156 (2015) 642--654

    2015

  18. [26]

    J. Zeng, X. Tong, F. Yi, L. Chen, Selective capture of magnetic wires to particles in high gradient magnetic separation, Minerals 9 (9) (2019) 509

    2019

  19. [27]

    Ngomsik, A

    A.-F. Ngomsik, A. Bee, M. Draye, G. Cote, V. Cabuil, Magnetic nano-and microparticles for metal removal and environmental applications: a review, Comptes Rendus. Chimie 8 (6-7) (2005) 963--970

    2005

  20. [28]

    Hwang, M

    J. Hwang, M. Takayasu, F. Friedlaender, G. Kullerud, Application of magnetic susceptibility gradients to magnetic separation, Journal of applied physics 55 (6) (1984) 2592--2594

    1984

  21. [29]

    W. Ge, A. Encinas, E. Araujo, S. Song, Magnetic matrices used in high gradient magnetic separation (hgms): A review, Results in physics 7 (2017) 4278--4286

    2017

  22. [30]

    Benhal, M

    P. Benhal, M. Garba, J. Ali, T. Siegrist, M. Humayun, H. Mohammadigoushki, Dynamics of transition metal ion transport in high-gradient magnetic fields, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 129 (15) (2025) 3401--3410

    2025

  23. [31]

    J. R. Stephens, J. S. Beveridge, M. E. Williams, Analytical methods for separating and isolating magnetic nanoparticles, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 14 (10) (2012) 3280--3289

    2012

  24. [32]

    Cowen, F

    C. Cowen, F. Friedlaender, Single wire model of high gradient magnetic separation processes iii, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 13 (5) (1977) 1483--1485

    1977

  25. [33]

    Friedlaender, M

    F. Friedlaender, M. Takayasu, J. Rettig, C. Kentzer, Particle flow and collection process in single wire hgms studies, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 14 (6) (1978) 1158--1164

    1978

  26. [34]

    McNeese, P

    W. McNeese, P. Wankat, F. Friedlaender, T. Nakano, M. Takayasu, Viscosity effects in single wire hgms studies, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 15 (6) (1979) 1520--1522

    1979

  27. [35]

    Wankat, J

    P. Wankat, J. Hwang, D. Beckemeyer, F. Friedlaender, Removal of paramagnetic particles from single wire hgms, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 20 (5) (1984) 1177--1179

    1984

  28. [36]

    Krafcik, P

    A. Krafcik, P. Babinec, M. Babincova, I. Frollo, High gradient magnetic separation with involved basset history force: Configuration with single axial wire, Powder Technology 347 (2019) 50--58

    2019

  29. [37]

    Bilgili, C

    H. Bilgili, C. Kele s , T. Abbasov, Modeling of the particle build-up evolution on a single-wire magnetic capture from axial stream flow, Magnetochemistry 8 (2) (2022) 15

    2022

  30. [38]

    Nameni, M

    A. Nameni, M. Nazari, M. M. Shahmardan, M. Nazari, V. Mashayekhi, Separation and trapping of magnetic particles by insertion of ferromagnetic wires inside a microchip: Proposing a novel geometry in magnetophoresis, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 560 (2022) 169424

    2022

  31. [39]

    Watson, Theory of capture of particles in magnetic high-intensity filters, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 11 (5) (1975) 1597--1599

    J. Watson, Theory of capture of particles in magnetic high-intensity filters, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 11 (5) (1975) 1597--1599

    1975

  32. [40]

    F. Chen, K. A. Smith, T. A. Hatton, A dynamic buildup growth model for magnetic particle accumulation on single wires in high-gradient magnetic separation, AIChE journal 58 (9) (2012) 2865--2874

    2012

  33. [41]

    Choomphon-anomakhun, A

    N. Choomphon-anomakhun, A. D. Ebner, M. Natenapit, J. A. Ritter, Simulation of dynamic magnetic particle capture and accumulation around a ferromagnetic wire, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 428 (2017) 493--505

    2017

  34. [42]

    Svoboda, F

    J. Svoboda, F. Friedlaender, H. Fu, S. Luan, Single wire particle collection with magnetic field components along wire axis, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 24 (6) (1988) 2419--2421

    1988

  35. [43]

    Friedlaender, M

    F. Friedlaender, M. Takayasu, A study of the mechanisms of particle buildup on single ferromagnetic wires and spheres, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 18 (3) (1982) 817--821

    1982

  36. [44]

    Takayasu, R

    M. Takayasu, R. Gerber, F. Friedlaender, The collection of strongly magnetic particles in hgms, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials 40 (1-2) (1983) 204--214

    1983

  37. [45]

    Rassolov, J

    P. Rassolov, J. Ali, T. Siegrist, M. Humayun, H. Mohammadigoushki, Magnetophoresis of paramagnetic nano-particles in suspensions under magnetic field gradients, submitted

  38. [46]

    D. R. Lide, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, Vol. 85, CRC press, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    Shrestha, B

    S. Shrestha, B. Wang, P. Dutta, Nanoparticle processing: Understanding and controlling aggregation, Advances in colloid and interface science 279 (2020) 102162

    2020

  40. [48]

    Bouguer, Essai d'optique sur la gradation de la lumi \`e re, Claude Jombert, 1729

    P. Bouguer, Essai d'optique sur la gradation de la lumi \`e re, Claude Jombert, 1729

  41. [49]

    Beer, Bestimmung der absorption des rothen lichts in farbigen fl \"u ssigkeiten, Annalen der Physik 162 (5) (1852) 78--88

  42. [50]

    Huang, D

    J. Huang, D. D. Gray, B. F. Edwards, Thermoconvective instability of paramagnetic fluids in a nonuniform magnetic field, Physical Review E 57 (5) (1998) 5564

    1998

  43. [51]

    S. S. Leong, Z. Ahmad, J. Lim, Magnetophoresis of superparamagnetic nanoparticles at low field gradient: hydrodynamic effect, Soft Matter 11 (35) (2015) 6968--6980

    2015

  44. [52]

    Iacovita, J

    C. Iacovita, J. Hurst, G. Manfredi, P. Hervieux, B. Donnio, J. Gallani, M. Rastei, Magnetic force fields of isolated small nanoparticle clusters, Nanoscale 12 (3) (2020) 1842--1851

    2020

  45. [53]

    Kralj, D

    S. Kralj, D. Makovec, Magnetic assembly of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle clusters into nanochains and nanobundles, ACS nano 9 (10) (2015) 9700--9707

    2015

  46. [54]

    E. W. Chuan Lim, R. Feng, Agglomeration of magnetic nanoparticles, The Journal of chemical physics 136 (12) (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Medvedeva, Y

    I. Medvedeva, Y. Bakhteeva, S. Zhakov, A. Revvo, I. Byzov, M. Uimin, A. Yermakov, A. Mysik, Sedimentation and aggregation of magnetite nanoparticles in water by a gradient magnetic field, Journal of nanoparticle research 15 (2013) 1--8

    2013

  48. [56]

    P. J. Vikesland, R. Rebodos, J. Bottero, J. Rose, A. Masion, Aggregation and sedimentation of magnetite nanoparticle clusters, Environmental Science: Nano 3 (3) (2016) 567--577

    2016

  49. [57]

    Tsouris, T

    C. Tsouris, T. Scott, Flocculation of paramagnetic particles in a magnetic field, Journal of colloid and interface science 171 (2) (1995) 319--330

    1995

  50. [58]

    Faraudo, J

    J. Faraudo, J. S. Andreu, C. Calero, J. Camacho, Predicting the self-assembly of superparamagnetic colloids under magnetic fields, Advanced Functional Materials 26 (22) (2016) 3837--3858

    2016

  51. [59]

    Faraudo, J

    J. Faraudo, J. S. Andreu, J. Camacho, Understanding diluted dispersions of superparamagnetic particles under strong magnetic fields: a review of concepts, theory and simulations, Soft Matter 9 (29) (2013) 6654--6664

    2013

  52. [60]

    J. S. Andreu, J. Camacho, J. Faraudo, Aggregation of superparamagnetic colloids in magnetic fields: the quest for the equilibrium state, Soft Matter 7 (6) (2011) 2336--2339

    2011

  53. [61]

    J. Liu, E. Lawrence, A. Wu, M. Ivey, G. Flores, K. Javier, J. Bibette, J. Richard, Field-induced structures in ferrofluid emulsions, Physical review letters 74 (14) (1995) 2828

    1995

  54. [62]

    De Las Cuevas, J

    G. De Las Cuevas, J. Faraudo, J. Camacho, Low-gradient magnetophoresis through field-induced reversible aggregation, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 112 (4) (2008) 945--950

    2008

  55. [63]

    S. S. Leong, Z. Ahmad, S. C. Low, J. Camacho, J. Faraudo, J. Lim, Unified view of magnetic nanoparticle separation under magnetophoresis, Langmuir 36 (28) (2020) 8033--8055

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.