Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Scalable Size- and Shape-Selective Purification of Colloidal Building Blocks via Excluded Volume Interactions

T0 review · 4 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 By exploiting the finite width of the depletion-driven mixing–demixing transition, the paper shows that colloidal tetramers can be enriched fifteenfold over free spheres in a single sedimentation step, with sorting efficiency governed by…

desk verdict Solid experimental extension of the Bibette method to colloidal clusters, with a genuinely new shape-selectivity observation, but the statistics are thin and a settling control is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10759 v1 pith:X2ENLZOD submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.soft

Thomas Kainz , Isobel McSweeney , Andrei-Micea Top , Nicolas Bruder , David J. Pine , Andrea Dodero , Ullrich Steiner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft PACS 82.70.Dd
keywords colloidalsortingdepletioninteractionsclustersphaseseparationexcludedvolumeshapeselectivityhierarchicalassemblytetramerenrichment
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 tries to establish that depletion-driven phase separation—the same surfactant-micelle mechanism used to fractionate emulsions by size—can purify non-spherical colloidal clusters from the spheres they are built from, and can do so selectively by cluster shape. By mapping the mixing–demixing boundary for polystyrene spheres across three surfactants, the authors show the transition is a finite window of surfactant concentration, not a sharp threshold, and that this width can be exploited to isolate one component at size ratios as low as 1.6 in a single step. Applied to tetrahedral clusters of four spheres bound by an oil droplet, the method enriches tetramers roughly 15-fold in the sediment relative to uncoordinated spheres. The central new claim is that sorting efficiency depends on aggregate geometry: weakly fused, lobe-bearing tetramers with concave surface regions separate more efficiently than strongly fused, nearly spherical clusters, because excluded-volume overlap is larger when convex surfaces come into contact.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the excluded-volume (depletion) interaction between colloidal surfaces and surfactant micelles, quantified by the overlap of depletion volumes. When two convex surfaces approach, micelles are expelled from the gap, creating an osmotic pressure that pushes the objects together. The paper's geometric model counts the overlapping depletion volumes for three contact configurations: sphere–sphere (1 overlap unit), sphere–tetramer (3 or 4 units), and tetramer–tetramer (6 units in the face-to-face orientation). This hierarchy, together with the measured width of the mixing–demixing transition, is the device that carries the argument: it explains why clusters are sorted from spheres and why weakly fused, lobe-bearing tetramers are sorted more efficiently than fused, sphere-like clusters.

What would settle it

Under density-matched conditions that eliminate gravitational sedimentation, measure the tetramer-to-sphere ratio in the depleted sediment as a function of fusion degree. If the preferential enrichment of weakly fused tetramers disappears when sedimentation is removed, the claim that shape-dependent excluded-volume overlap drives sorting would be refuted; alternatively, directly measuring the depletion force between a single sphere and a tetramer across fusion states would test the predicted 1, 3–4, and 6 overlap-unit hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Depletion interactions, mediated by surfactant micelles, drive larger or more strongly overlapping colloidal objects to aggregate and sediment while smaller, less attractive objects remain suspended. The authors construct phase diagrams showing that the transition from mixed to demixed suspension occurs over a range of surfactant concentrations rather than at a single critical value. This transition width permits single-step purification of binary sphere mixtures at size ratios down to about 1.6 by choosing a surfactant concentration inside the transition window of one population and outside that of the other. For tetrameric colloidal clusters, the same procedure produces a sediment roughly 15 times enriched in tetramers relative to isolated spheres. The authors further show that the enrichment is shape-dependent: tetramers with four distinct lobes (low deformation) are recovered preferentially in the sediment, whereas highly fused, more spherical tetramers remain in the supernatant, consistent with a picture in which the number of overlapping depletion volumes scales with the contact geometry of convex surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the geometric excluded-volume overlap model captures the dominant sorting physics, so the observed enrichment differences reflect shape rather than size or unequal gravitational settling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Binary sphere mixtures at size ratios as low as about 1.6 can be purified in a single depletion step by selecting surfactant concentration within the transition window of one population and outside that of the other.
  • Tetrameric clusters are enriched roughly fifteenfold in the sediment relative to uncoordinated spheres under the tested conditions, and fully fused spherical tetramers can still be separated from free spheres by choosing parameters carefully.
  • Weakly fused, lobe-bearing tetramers sort more efficiently than strongly fused, spherical clusters, consistent with the number of overlapping depletion volumes set by contact geometry.
  • Separating clusters of different coordination numbers (trimers versus pentamers) was not achieved within statistical error, indicating that coordination-number sorting is harder than sphere-versus-cluster sorting and may require repeated steps or different conditions.
  • Repeating the segregation step should improve both yield and purity, making the method a practical purification route for colloidal building blocks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 15-fold enrichment is probably a lower bound on the true thermodynamic selectivity: because gravitational settling removes uncoordinated spheres from the supernatant, the observed sediment-to-supernatant ratio understates the shape advantage the geometric model predicts.
  • The geometric overlap hierarchy (1, 3–4, and 6 depletion-volume units) implies that mixtures of trimers, tetramers, and pentamers could in principle be separated from each other with a finer surfactant-concentration scan than the one used here, provided kinetic barriers are removed.
  • The transition-width concept should transfer to other depletants with different micelle sizes: smaller micelles should allow finer size discrimination because they shift the phase boundary more sharply, while larger micelles broaden the window and may ease purification of clusters with small effective-size differences.
  • A density-matched version of this protocol, which the authors suggest, would both test the shape-selectivity claim and provide a practical route to higher-purity cluster fractions for colloidal diamond assembly.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits Bibette-style depletion fractionation and applies it to purify colloidal clusters. The authors construct phase diagrams for three surfactants and five polystyrene sizes, identify a finite mixing-demixing transition window, use it to purify binary sphere mixtures at size ratios around 2.2 and (via fused clusters) around 1.6, and then apply the method to tetrameric clusters. They report a 15-fold enrichment of tetramers in the sediment and claim that sorting efficiency depends on aggregate geometry, with weakly fused anisotropic tetramers enriched over strongly fused spherical tetramers. A qualitative excluded-volume overlap hierarchy is proposed to rationalize the shape dependence.

Significance. If the key claims hold, this is a useful extension of the Bibette method to non-spherical and partially fused building blocks, with potential practical value for hierarchical assembly. The systematic phase diagrams over three surfactants and the explicit attention to the transition width are valuable; the geometric overlap model is parameter-free and is not fitted, and the authors are candid about kinetic and thermodynamic limitations, including rotational entropy and the possible role of gravitational sedimentation. However, the central shape-selectivity claim currently rests on an unsupported assumption about gravitational settling and on manual counts without reported error bars, so the significance cannot yet be fully assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Sample preparation; Fig. 4D] The assertion that "gravitational sedimentation is the same for all degrees of deformation because they originate from the same PS and TPM batches" is not justified and is physically questionable: clusters of equal mass but different shape have different orientationally averaged translational drag coefficients and hence different sedimentation velocities. Since the cluster-sorting experiment (0.8% w/v Triton X-100, 24 h) was not run with the vial-flipping or density-matched protocol described in the same section, the preferential enrichment of low-deformation tetramers in the sediment (Fig. 4D) could be caused, at least in part, by differential gravitational settling rather than by geometry-dependent excluded-volume interactions. A no-surfactant control, or a density-matched or vial-flipped repetition, is required to separate size and shape contributions; without it, the main claim of shape-selective sorting is not quantitatively established.
  2. [Fig. 4C,D; Tables S1-S3] The quantitative claims of a 15-fold tetramer enrichment and of fusion-state-dependent partitioning are based on manual SEM counting without reported error bars, confidence intervals, or numbers of independent replicate analyses. The statement that coordination-number differences are "within statistical error" is not supported by any statistical test. Please provide raw counts, replicate analyses, and error bars, or qualify the claims accordingly.
  3. [Fig. 2B,C,E; Eqs. (1)-(2)] The finite width of the mixing-demixing transition is a central element of the proposed single-step sorting protocol, but it is currently derived from a single visual classification into seven bins. The error bars in Fig. 2E are weighted standard deviations of that one binned series, not measures of run-to-run variability or measurement uncertainty. An independent, quantitative measure of turbidity or sediment height, with replicate samples, is needed to support the claim that the transition occurs over a finite, reproducible concentration window.
  4. [Abstract; Conclusions; Fig. S5] The abstract and conclusions claim size-ratio discrimination "as low as 1.6" in a single step, but the supporting experiment appears only in the supplementary material (Fig. S5) and is not quantified in the main text. Either present the main-text quantitative evidence or qualify the abstract to match what is demonstrated in the main text.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Please remove the placeholder text "Lorem ipsum" from the figure caption.
  2. [Conclusions] The unresolved reference "Fig. ref-fig:DepletionVolume" should be corrected to a proper citation or deleted.
  3. [§5, Sample preparation] The sentence "The reduced liquid volume due to the presence of the polystyrene coresulting from was accounted foen calculating salt and surfactant concentrations" is garbled and should be rewritten.
  4. [Discussion] The phrase "the effective excluded volume decreases from a factor of six to 3√4 (i.e., by a factor of 3.8)" is imprecise; since 6/4^(1/3) ≈ 3.8, the wording should be changed to "decreases by a factor of about 3.8" or similar.
  5. [Fig. 5A] The caption refers to a "15 nm micelle" while the text reports the F127 micelle diameter as 20 nm; please make these numbers consistent.
  6. [Section 2, cluster classification] The definitions of η_c and η_s are garbled ("Fig˙S3The size ratio η_s = b/a..."); please rewrite this passage for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sorting results are new measurements; the phase diagram is empirical and the geometric excluded-volume model is parameter-free.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central sorting claim from a fitted theory or from a load-bearing self-citation. The phase diagrams in Fig. 2E are direct measurements of the demixing window in surfactant concentration for monodisperse PS spheres; the subsequent binary-mixture separations and the tetramer/sphere separation are performed at surfactant concentrations selected from those measured windows. This is an application or consistency check, not a circular prediction. The excluded-volume overlap model in Fig. 5 is a geometric construction that counts contact points between spheres and idealized tetramers; it is not fitted to the enrichment data, and the paper explicitly labels it qualitative and notes that rotational entropy and kinetics are not included. The 15-fold tetramer enrichment and the fusion-state dependence in Fig. 4C,D are SEM-based counts, not outputs of the model. Self-citations to prior work on cluster synthesis and characterization are method references and do not carry the sorting claim. The only notable weakness is an unsupported physical assumption in the Experimental Section, namely that gravitational sedimentation is the same for all degrees of deformation because the clusters originate from the same PS and TPM batches; this could bias the shape-selective interpretation, but it is an empirical or correctness concern, not a circular derivation. No step in the paper's claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard depletion physics, literature values for micelle sizes, and an assumption that fusion state does not alter sedimentation; no free parameters are fitted to data, but the classification thresholds for deformation are hand-set and affect the headline shape-selectivity conclusion.

free parameters (2)
  • Fusion classification thresholds = eta_c in [0.6, 0.8] for medium deformation; low and high ranges not precisely specified
    The conclusion that weakly fused tetramers sort better than strongly fused ones depends on how tetramers are binned into low, medium, and high deformation; the bin edges are chosen by hand and not justified from first principles or error analysis.
  • Phase transition bin weights = 0 to 6 linear scale for N, M0-M4, Y
    The mean and width of the phase transition (Eq. 1-2) are computed by assigning integer weights to visually judged sediment and turbidity levels; this linearization is a modeling choice that affects the reported transition widths.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Depletion interactions are well described by Asakura-Oosawa excluded volume for the colloid-micelle mixtures used here
    The method relies on micelles acting as hard depletants; the paper notes deviations at nanoscale only when depletant size approaches colloid size (ref [26]), and here the micelles are much smaller.
  • domain assumption Micelle radii for F127, SDS, and Triton X-100 are as cited from literature
    Used to explain the shift in phase boundary between surfactants (Fig 2E); values are taken from refs [33-35] without measurement in this work.
  • domain assumption At 100 mM NaCl, the Debye screening length is below 1 nm, so Coulomb repulsion is negligible compared with depletion
    Stated in Results; ensures hard-sphere-like behavior of charge-stabilized PS colloids.
  • domain assumption Gravitational sedimentation affects all fusion states equally because they come from the same PS and TPM batches
    The authors state this in the Experimental Section to support shape-selectivity; if sedimentation rates differ by deformation state, the shape-sorting conclusion would be confounded.
  • domain assumption Clusters can be treated as rigid assemblies of hard spheres for the geometrical excluded-volume overlap estimates (Fig. 5)
    The geometric factors (6, 3, 1 depletion volumes) assume fixed contact configurations; the paper acknowledges rotation and kinetics are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Size- and Shape-Selective Purification of Colloidal Building Blocks via Excluded Volume Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2ENLZOD

@misc{pith2026260810759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Size- and Shape-Selective Purification of Colloidal Building Blocks via Excluded Volume Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2ENLZOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10759}
}
read the original abstract

Excluded-volume interactions, arising solely from steric constraints, play a crucial role in determining the structure, dynamics, and phase behaviour of colloidal suspensions. This is particularly important for non-spherical particles, where orientation-dependent effects also become significant. In this study, we employ depletion-driven phase separation to develop a scalable, size-selective method for purifying spherical and non-spherical colloidal clusters that exhibit an interplay of concave and convex surface areas. Phase diagrams of charge-stabilised polystyrene spheres ranging in size from 267 to 1008 nm demonstrate that the mixing-demixing transition occurs across a range of surfactant concentrations rather than at a single threshold. Taking advantage of this transition width enables the purification of a single component from binary mixtures at size ratios as low as 1.6 in a single step. When the same approach is applied to tetrameric colloidal clusters, these are enriched fifteenfold relative to uncoordinated spheres. Importantly, the efficiency of sorting depends not only on the effective size but also on the geometry of the aggregate. For instance, anisotropic, weakly fused clusters separate more efficiently than spherical aggregates because their concave surface curvature is reduced compared to unfused clusters. These findings establish excluded-volume-driven sorting as a practical and scalable route for purifying colloidal building blocks for hierarchical assembly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the colloidal sorting mechanism: (A) A surfactant is added to a binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) Scanning electron microscope images of three representative polystyrene col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Separation of binary PS colloidal mixtures with a size ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sorting of colloidal aggregates. Colloidal aggregates consisting of 1008 nm PS col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overlapping depletion volumes: (A) A 15 nm micelle and the excluded volume around a 267 nm polystyrene sphere (light purple). (B, C) Bringing two spheres into con￾tact causes their excluded volumes to overlap (shown in red). Images in (D-F) compare the overlapping depl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. C. K. Poon, Colloids as big atoms, Science 304 (2004) 830–831.doi: 10.1126/science.1096549

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1096549 2004

  2. [2]

    L. Kang, T. Gibaud, Z. Dogic, T. C. Lubensky, Entropic forces stabilize diverse emergent structures in colloidal membranes, Soft Matter 12 (2016) 386–401.doi:10.1039/C5SM02038G. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5SM02038G

    work page doi:10.1039/c5sm02038g 2016

  3. [3]

    Frenkel, Entropy-driven phase transitions, Physica A 154 (3) (1988) 424–440.doi:10.1016/0378-4371(88)90066-7

    D. Frenkel, Entropy-driven phase transitions, Physica A 154 (3) (1988) 424–440.doi:10.1016/0378-4371(88)90066-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0378-4371(88)90066-7 1988

  4. [4]

    Ballard, A

    N. Ballard, A. D. Law, S. A. F. Bon, Colloidal particles at fluid interfaces: behaviour of isolated particles, Soft Matter 15 (2019) 1186–1199.doi: 10.1039/C8SM02048E. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C8SM02048E 18

    work page doi:10.1039/c8sm02048e 2019

  5. [5]

    E. J. W. Verwey, J. T. G. Overbeek, Theory of the Stability of Lyophobic Colloids, Elsevier, 1948

    work page 1948

  6. [6]

    W. C. K. Poon, The physics of a model colloid–polymer mixture, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14 (2002) R859–R880

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    S. C. Glotzer, M. J. Solomon, Anisotropy of building blocks and their assembly into complex structures, Nature Materials 6 (2007) 557–562

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Onsager, The effects of shape on the interaction of colloidal particles, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51 (4) (1949) 627–659.doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1949.tb27296.x

    L. Onsager, The effects of shape on the interaction of colloidal particles, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51 (4) (1949) 627–659.doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1949.tb27296.x

    arXiv 1949

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    M. Doi, S. F. Edwards, The Theory of Polymer Dynamics, Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 1986

    1986

  2. [10]

    Avendaño, F

    C. Avendaño, F. A. Escobedo, Packing, entropic patchiness, and self-assembly of non-convex colloidal particles: A simulation perspec- tive, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 30 (2017) 62–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2017.05.005. URLhttps://www.sciencedi...

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Frenkel, Entropy-driven ordering in colloids, Physica A 263 (1999) 26– 38.doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(98)00487-5

    D. Frenkel, Entropy-driven ordering in colloids, Physica A 263 (1999) 26– 38.doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(98)00487-5

    1999 doi

  4. [12]

    V. N. Manoharan, Colloidal matter: Packing, geometry, and entropy, Sci- ence 349 (6251) (2015) 1253751.arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/ pdf/10.1126/science.1253751,doi:10.1126/science.1253751. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1253751

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Asakura, F

    S. Asakura, F. Oosawa, On interaction between two bodies immersed in a solution of macromolecules, The Journal of Chemical Physics 22 (7) (1954) 1255–1256.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/22/7/ 1255/18805169/1255_2_online.pdf,doi:10.1063/1.1740347. URLhttps://doi...

    1954 doi

  6. [14]

    H. N. W. Lekkerkerker, R. Tuinier, Colloids and the Depletion Interaction, Springer, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    H. N. W. Lekkerkerker, R. Tuinier, M. Vis, Colloids and the Depletion Interaction, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1026 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Cham, 2024.doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52131-7

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    J. V. Sanders, Colour of precious opal, Nature 204 (4964) (1964) 1151– 1153.doi:10.1038/2041151a0. URLhttps://www.academia.edu/download/48107817/ 2041151a020160816-12727-1nyt4dm.pdf 19

    1964

  9. [17]

    P. N. Pusey, W. van Megen, Phase behaviour of concentrated suspensions of nearly hard colloidal spheres, Nature 320 (6060) (1986) 340–342.doi: 10.1038/320340a0. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/320340a0

    1986 doi

  10. [18]

    Asakura, F

    S. Asakura, F. Oosawa, Interaction between particles suspended in solutions of macromolecules, Journal of Polymer Science 33 (126) (1958) 183–192.arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1002/pol.1958.1203312618,doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pol. 1958.1203312618. URLhtt...

    1958

  11. [19]

    J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 3rd Edition, Aca- demic Press, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    J. Bibette, Depletion interactions and fractionated crystallization for poly- disperse emulsion purification, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 147 (2) (1991) 474–478.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(91) 90181-7. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii...

    1991 doi

  13. [21]

    Steiner, A

    U. Steiner, A. Meller, J. Stavans, Entropy driven phase separation in bi- nary emulsions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4750–4753.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.74.4750. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4750

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    M. J. Rosen, J. T. Kunjappu, Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, 4th Edition, Wiley, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Vrij, Polymers at interfaces and the interactions in colloidal dispersions, Pure and Applied Chemistry 48 (1976) 471–483

    A. Vrij, Polymers at interfaces and the interactions in colloidal dispersions, Pure and Applied Chemistry 48 (1976) 471–483

    1976

  16. [24]

    X. Xing, L. Hua, T. Ngai, Depletion versus stabilization in- duced by polymers and nanoparticles: The state of the art, Cur- rent Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20 (1) (2015) 54–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2014.11.012. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    W. H. Briscoe, Depletion forces between particles immersed in nanofluids, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20 (1) (2015) 46–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2014.12.002. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1359029414001472

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    C. K. Ofosu, T. A. Wilcoxson, T.-L. Lee, W. D. Brackett, J. Choi, T. M. Truskett, D. J. Milliron, Assessing depletion attractions between colloidal 20 nanocrystals, Science Advances 11 (15) (2025) eadv2216.doi:10.1126/ sciadv.adv2216

    2025

  19. [27]

    Sacanna, W

    S. Sacanna, W. T. M. Irvine, P. M. Chaikin, D. J. Pine, Lock and key colloids, Nature 464 (2010) 575–578

    2010

  20. [28]

    M. He, J. P. Gales, É. Ducrot, Z. Gong, G.-R. Yi, S. Sacanna, D. J. Pine, Colloidal diamond, Nature 585 (7826) (2020) 524–529.doi:10.1038/ s41586-020-2718-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2718-6

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Kim, J.-B

    Y.-J. Kim, J.-B. Moon, H. Hwang, Y. S. Kim, G.-R. Yi, Advances in col- loidal building blocks: Toward patchy colloidal clusters, Advanced Materi- als 35 (4) (2023) 2203045.doi:10.1002/adma.202203045

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    K. Zhao, T. G. Mason, Directing colloidal self-assembly through roughness- controlled depletion attractions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 268301.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.268301. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.268301

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    R. J. Hunter, Foundations of Colloid Science, Oxford University Press, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Y. He, Y. Qiao, L. Ding, T. Cheng, J. Tu, Recent advances in droplet se- quential monitoring methods for droplet sorting, Biomicrofluidics 17 (6) (2023) 061501.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/bmf/article-pdf/ doi/10.1063/5.0173340/18208129/061501_1_5.0173340.pdf,doi:10. 1063/5....

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Gentile, G

    L. Gentile, G. De Luca, F. E. Antunes, C. O. Rossi, G. A. Ranieri, et al., Thermogelation analysis of f127-water mixtures by physical chemistry tech- niques, Appl. Rheol 20 (5) (2010) 52081–1

    2010

  26. [34]

    Mirgorod, A

    Y. Mirgorod, A. Chekadanov, T. Dolenko, Structure of micelles of sodium dodecyl sulphate in water: An x-ray and dynamic light scattering study, Chemistry journal of Moldova 14 (1) (2019) 107–119

    2019

  27. [35]

    Stubičar, J

    N. Stubičar, J. Matejaš, P. Zipper, R. Wilfing, Size, shape and internal structure of triton x-100 micelles determined by light and small-angle x- ray scattering techniques, in: Surfactants in solution, Springer, 1989, pp. 181–195

    1989

  28. [36]

    F. Li, D. P. Josephson, A. Stein, Colloidal assembly: The road from particles to colloidal molecules and crystals, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 50 (2) (2011) 360–388.arXiv:https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/anie.201001451, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/a...

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    Sacanna, D

    S. Sacanna, D. J. Pine, Shape-anisotropic colloids: Building blocks for complex assemblies, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 18 (2013) 484–488

    2013

  30. [38]

    A.Neophytou, D.Chakrabarti, F.Sciortino, Facileself-assemblyofcolloidal diamond from tetrahedral patchy particles via ring selection, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (48) (2021) e2109776118.doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109776118

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Baran, D

    Ł. Baran, D. Tarasewicz, D. M. Kamiński, W. Rżysko, Pursuing colloidal diamonds, Nanoscale 15 (2023) 10623–10633.doi:10.1039/D3NR01771K

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Q. Chen, S. C. Bae, S. Granick, Directed self-assembly of a colloidal kagome lattice, Nature 469 (2011) 381–384

    2011

  33. [41]

    J. Tong, S. Zang, X. Dou, X. Chen, C. Chen, Z. Xu, C. Ma, J. Huang, Surface-dictated sorting in colloidal mixtures, Journal of Colloid and Inter- face Science 717 (2026) 140421.doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2026.140421

    2026

  34. [42]

    van Kesteren, P

    S. van Kesteren, P. Diethelm, L. Isa, Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) for purifying colloidal clusters, Soft Matter 20 (13) (2024) 2881– 2886.doi:10.1039/D4SM00122B

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    M. P. Robin, R. K. O’Reilly, Strategies for preparing fluorescently labelled polymer nanoparticles, Polymer International 64 (2) (2015) 174–182. arXiv:https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10. 1002/pi.4842,doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.4842. URLhttps://scijourna...

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    S. Yang, S. Park, Y. Jung, Y. G. Kim, J. Lee, S.-H. Kim, Fractional crys- tallization of colloids by sequential tuning of depletion forces, Nature Com- munications 17 (2026) 2026.doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72000-y

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    Schindelin, I

    J. Schindelin, I. Arganda-Carreras, E. Frise, V. Kaynig, M. Longair, T. Pietzsch, S. Preibisch, C. Rueden, S. Saalfeld, B. Schmid, J.-Y. Tin- evez, D. J. White, V. Hartenstein, K. Eliceiri, P. Tomancak, A. Cardona, Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis, N...

    2012

  38. [46]

    van der Wel, R

    C. van der Wel, R. K. Bhan, R. W. Verweij, H. C. Frijters, Z. Gong, A. D. Hollingsworth, S.Sacanna, D.J.Kraft, Preparationofcolloidal organosilica spheres through spontaneous emulsification, Langmuir 33 (33) (2017) 8174– 8180.doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b01398. URLhttps://doi.or...

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Minelli, A

    C. Minelli, A. Sikora, R. Garcia-Diez, K. Sparnacci, C. Gollwitzer, M. Krumrey, A. G. Shard, Measuring the size and density of nanoparti- cles by centrifugal sedimentation and flotation, Anal. Methods 10 (2018) 22 1725–1732.doi:10.1039/C8AY00237A. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1039/...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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