Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 39 references

Bioinspired Microactuators Fabricated via One-step Meniscus-guided 3D Nanoprinting

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-step nanoprinting produces freestanding micropillars that reversibly grow ~10–15% under humidity, lift ~800× their own weight, and modulate reflection by ~33%.

desk verdict A genuine one-step fabrication result with persuasive controls, but the AuNP-rich basal-layer explanation contradicts the paper's own EDS and the quantitative claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12908 v1 pith:2TH5WNBO submitted 2026-08-13 physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.bio-ph

Seong-Jae Eom , Vasanthan Devaraj , Sunghyun Kwak , Hyeon-Seok Seo , Thomas Zentgraf , Won-Geun Kim , Jong-Min Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords meniscus-guided3Dnanoprintingmicroactuatorhumidity-responsiveactuationgoldnanoparticlespolyvinylpyrrolidonebioinspiredcompositeopticalmodulationmicropillar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that a single-step, meniscus-guided 3D nanoprinting process can make freestanding composite micropillars that act as reversible humidity-driven microactuators. The pillars are printed from gold nanoparticles capped with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), so the rigid nanoparticle skeleton and the hygroscopic polymer matrix form in one pass, with no assembly step. Under high humidity the pillars elongate by roughly 10–15% of their length and return when the humidity drops, surviving about 100 cycles without noticeable drift. The paper's central point is that this behavior requires both components together: polymer-only pillars soften and collapse, while gold-only pillars do not respond. If this claim holds, it gives a simple printing route to three-dimensional microactuators that can lift loads far beyond their own weight and modulate light.

What carries the argument

The central object is the printed composite micropillar: a ~10-µm-diameter, tens-of-micrometres-tall column of gold nanoparticles (~10 nm) embedded in a continuous PVP network. The process that makes it is meniscus-guided 3D nanoprinting, in which a femtoliter liquid meniscus at a glass micropipette tip evaporates as the stage moves, solidifying the ink into a freestanding pillar. The load-bearing mechanism is the synergy between the two phases: PVP absorbs water and swells, while the AuNP scaffold suppresses viscous flow and redistributes the swelling strain; an AuNP-rich basal region formed during printing delays, together with adhesion of the base to the substrate, acts as an approximately clamped anchor that redirects swelling into axial elongation rather than lateral spreading.

What would settle it

Measure the dry mass of a 50-µm pillar directly with a microbalance or resonant mass sensor; if it is far above 55 ng, the 800× load claim fails. Alternatively print identical pillars on a non-adhesive substrate and observe whether humidity produces collapse or spreading instead of axial elongation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a freestanding micropillar printed directly from PVP-coated gold nanoparticles behaves like a tiny muscle under humidity changes. Raising the relative humidity from about 50% to 98% makes the pillar swell along its axis by about 10–15%, and lowering it back restores the original length. Control experiments are the evidence: PVP-only pillars lose their shape and collapse, SiO2-nanoparticle pillars show almost no change, and sintered gold pillars are inert, whereas the AuNP-PVP composite elongates reversibly. The authors attribute this to a percolated gold nanoparticle network that carries mechanical load and confines the swelling of the hygroscopic PVP, combined with a clamped, gold-rich base that converts volumetric expansion into axial growth. They further demonstrate that the actuator lifts a substrate about 800 times its estimated own weight, that hinged variants convert axial swelling into bending, and that the motion can modulate visible reflectance by about 33%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole deformation mode assumes the pillar base stays clamped to the substrate by adhesion and that a stiff gold-rich basal layer forms during printing; if the base slips or that layer is absent, the same swelling would spread or collapse the pillar instead of elongating it, and the 800× load claim rests on an estimated rather than measured pillar mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reversible humidity-driven elongation of ~10–15% with sub-2-second response implies these pillars can act as fast, fatigue-resistant microactuators in environments where humidity changes naturally.
  • Because the actuation is printed in one step from a commercial AuNP ink, arbitrary 3D actuator geometries—straight pillars, hinges, folded structures, and arrays—can be written directly without lithography or assembly.
  • Hinged pillars show that axial swelling can be mechanically converted into bending, so the same material system can produce multiple motion modes from one printing recipe.
  • The optical-lever demonstration, with about 33% reflectance modulation, means the actuation can transduce humidity into a readable optical signal, a direct route to humidity sensors or tunable optical devices.
  • Load lifting up to roughly 800 times the pillar's estimated weight suggests the composite architecture preserves load-bearing strength while deforming, so these actuators can do mechanical work, not just change shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the Au-rich basal layer is an accidental product of printing delay, deliberately programming nanoparticle density gradients along a pillar could create designed strain distributions—bending, twisting, or folding—beyond the demonstrated hinge.
  • Editorial inference: the same ligand-as-actuator trick may generalize to other hygroscopic ligands or polymer coatings on noble-metal nanoparticles, turning existing colloidal inks into actuator inks without new chemistry.
  • Editorial inference: the load-lifting ratio depends on an estimated pillar mass of ~55 ng; a direct mass measurement would determine whether the true strength-to-weight performance is higher or lower than 800×.
  • Editorial inference: if the mechanism is general, arrays of these pillars could form reconfigurable surfaces whose collective height changes under humidity, opening alignment-free tunable optics; this is a logical next test, not a result of the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a one-step meniscus-guided 3D nanoprinting route to freestanding AuNP–PVP composite micropillars that act as humidity-driven microactuators. The central claim is that these pillars undergo reversible, large axial elongation (about 10–15% length change) under high humidity, while control pillars made of PVP alone, SiO2 nanoparticles, or sintered Au do not show this behavior. The paper further reports cycling stability over ~100 humidity cycles, actuation at ~0.5 Hz under breath-driven humidity variation, photothermal contraction, a hinged geometry that converts swelling into bending, load lifting estimated at ~800 times the pillar's own weight, and an optical lever demonstration with ~33% reflectance modulation. The mechanism is proposed to be constrained swelling: a rigid AuNP network prevents collapse while hygroscopic PVP provides volumetric expansion, with a stiff AuNP-rich basal layer and substrate clamping redirecting swelling into axial elongation.

Significance. If the central qualitative claim holds, the work is of clear interest to the microactuator and micro-optics communities because it demonstrates a one-step, assembly-free fabrication of freestanding composite actuators with reversible humidity response, verified by direct optical imaging and four comparative control structures. The paper's strengths include its simple fabrication, the systematic control experiments, the demonstration of multiple actuation modes (axial elongation, bending via hinges, photothermal contraction), and the integrated optical lever readout. However, the quantitative performance claims (10–15% strain, 100-cycle stability, 0.5 Hz response, 800x load lifting, 33% reflectance modulation) are supported only loosely, and the mechanistic explanation of the height-dependent actuation relies on an AuNP-rich basal layer whose evidence is contradictory with the EDS text and is not quantified. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's mechanistic story and for the credibility of its headline numbers, but they are addressable with additional measurements and a more circumspect presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Figs. 2d and 3f/g] The EDS maps in Fig. 2d are described in the text as showing Au and C 'distributed uniformly throughout the entire microactuator,' yet the explanation of the height-dependent response in Fig. 3f/g invokes 'an AuNP-rich basal region' that is said to be revealed by 'SEM/EDS analysis (Fig. 2d).' These statements contradict each other. No quantitative composition profile, cross-section, or line scan is provided for the basal region. Because this Au-rich layer is load-bearing for the claim that the normalized elongation decreases with pillar height and for the 'stiff anchor' mechanism, the discrepancy must be resolved and the basal-layer composition must be quantified with a dedicated measurement.
  2. [Section 2, Fig. 3e and Methods (Finite-element simulation)] The FEM model assumes a clamped base and uses a two-dimensional pillar of height 180 nm; the authors explicitly state that the predicted displacement remains on the nanometer scale and that the simulation is not intended to reproduce the micrometer-scale actuation. Consequently, the simulation cannot validate the proposed mechanism of clamped-base constraint and strain redistribution for the observed amplitudes; it is only an illustrative sketch. To support the mechanism, either a scale-appropriate model with measured material parameters or direct experimental evidence of the base boundary condition (e.g., base slip/tilt measurements) is needed.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 4a] The claim of '~100 cycles without degradation' is supported only by overlaying insets for cycles 0–10 and 90–100; no quantitative criterion is given for amplitudes, baseline drift, or variation across cycles, and the full 100-cycle trace is not presented with per-cycle values. Please provide a quantitative cycling-stability metric (e.g., percent amplitude retention, baseline drift, standard deviation) and show the data in a way that allows the reader to assess the claim.
  4. [Section 2, Fig. 5c/d and mass estimate] The load-lifting claim of 'approximately 800 times its own weight' depends on an estimated pillar mass of 55 ng derived from SEM packing density and on an InP substrate mass of ~100 μg with an unspecified torque correction. The mass is not directly measured, and the torque factor is not derived. Since this is a headline performance number, the uncertainty in the mass estimate and the torque calculation should be stated, or the claim should be replaced by a conservative bound (e.g., 'at least several hundred times').
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3h] The text states that the bioinspired microactuator shows 'an approximately linear response that scales with relative humidity,' but Fig. 3h only compares two RH values (50% and 98%) with the SiO2NP control; please clarify whether the linearity claim is based on additional data not shown in Fig. 3h.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'muscle-like performance' is used without a definition or comparison to literature values; consider replacing it with quantitative descriptors or a reference to a specific muscle-like metric.
  3. [Methods (Preparation of ink)] The ink description states the as-received solution has a gold concentration of 1 mg mL-1 and the final ink has a 'solid content of ~5 mg mL-1'; please clarify whether the 5 mg mL-1 includes PVP and other residuals, and report the final gold concentration after centrifugation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only minor illustrative-model circularity; the central actuation claim is experimentally self-contained.

  1. other [Section 2, finite-element simulation paragraph (after Fig. 3e), and Methods 'Finite-element simulation']
    "the deformation behavior is governed by axial symmetry and base clamping ... The simulations reveal that ... in the AuNP–PVP composite pillar (bioinspired microactuator), hygroscopic swelling is not confined to a single region but is spatially redistributed throughout the nanoparticle network, resulting in constrained and stable axial elongation."

    The FEM model takes the clamped base as an input ('A fixed constraint condition was applied to the base of the pillar to represent its adhesion to the substrate') and applies swelling only to PVP; the predicted 'constrained and stable axial elongation' is therefore a restatement of the modeling assumptions, not an independent derivation. The paper presents this as support for the mechanism that base clamping redirects swelling into axial elongation. The circularity is partial: the experimental elongation is measured, and the authors explicitly disclaim reproducing the micrometer magnitude, so the central fabrication/actuation claim does not reduce to the simulation.

full rationale

The paper's main claim is empirical: meniscus-guided 3D printing produces freestanding AuNP-PVP pillars that elongate reversibly under humidity, with control pillars (PVP-only, SiO2NP-only, sintered Au-only) behaving differently. No parameter is fitted to the actuation data and no predicted quantity is obtained by inverting a measured output, so the central result is not constructed from its own inputs. The FEM step is the only circularity-adjacent element: it assumes a clamped base and PVP-only swelling, then reports constrained axial elongation as a simulation outcome; however, the authors explicitly state that the simulation is intended to illustrate the deformation mode rather than reproduce the micrometer-scale magnitude, reducing the weight of this step. The height-dependent explanation invoking an AuNP-rich basal layer is weakened by the same Fig. 2d being described earlier as showing Au and C 'distributed uniformly throughout the entire microactuator'; that is an evidence-consistency concern, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to prior meniscus-printing work ([31]-[37]) are routine method citations and are not load-bearing because the present paper directly demonstrates the printing process and reports independent control experiments. Overall, outside the illustrative FEM restatement, no prediction reduces by construction to a fit or to a self-citation chain.

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

The central actuator concept rests on standard material properties (PVP hygroscopy, Au stiffness) and on two structural assumptions unique to this paper: effective clamping of the pillar base and the formation of an Au-rich basal layer. The FEM is illustrative only. The load-lifting metric additionally depends on an estimated pillar mass rather than a measured one.

free parameters (2)
  • Estimated pillar mass for a 50-micrometer-high actuator = ~55 ng
    Used to compute the '800 times its own weight' load-lifting claim; derived from assumed PVP molecular weight, 10 nm AuNP mass, and SEM-based packing density rather than direct weighing.
  • FEM model parameters = Pillar height 180 nm; AuNP diameter 15 nm; interparticle gap 3 nm
    Chosen to represent the observed packing while keeping the simulation 2D and computationally efficient; these are not fitted to experimental actuation data and the model does not reproduce the micrometer-scale displacement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PVP is hygroscopic and swells when it absorbs water, and desorbs when heated or dried.
    Fundamental material property on which the actuation mechanism relies; stated in the introduction and used throughout the mechanism discussion.
  • domain assumption Gold nanoparticles are non-swellable and form a percolated load-bearing network.
    Reinforcement mechanism; supported by control experiments (sintered Au and SiO2NP pillars show no actuation) but treated as an assumption in the composite model.
  • domain assumption The printed pillar base is anchored to the substrate, approximately clamped or partially clamped.
    Central to redirecting isotropic swelling into axial elongation; invoked in the mechanism text and as the fixed boundary condition in the FEM. If the base were free, the expected deformation mode would be different.
  • ad hoc to paper An AuNP-rich basal layer forms due to solvent evaporation at the nozzle tip during loading delays.
    Introduced post hoc to explain the height-dependent normalized response (decreasing with height); supported by EDS showing an Au-rich base but not independently controlled or varied.
  • ad hoc to paper A 2D finite-element model with fixed height 180 nm captures the essential strain localization physics.
    Authors state 2D is sufficient due to axial symmetry, but the model predicts only nanometer-scale displacements and is explicitly not validated against the experimental micrometer-scale motion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bioinspired Microactuators Fabricated via One-step Meniscus-guided 3D Nanoprinting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TH5WNBO

@misc{pith2026260812908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bioinspired Microactuators Fabricated via One-step Meniscus-guided 3D Nanoprinting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TH5WNBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12908}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a bioinspired microactuator fabricated via a one-step meniscus guided 3D nanoprinting technique. This technique directly produces a freestanding three dimensional composite architecture by integrating a rigid nanoparticle framework with a hygroscopic polymer matrix in a single, assembly free process. Inspired by the functional integration of rigid and compliant components in insect exoskeletal joint, our design synergistically combines load-bearing strength and humidity-driven swelling in a single microscale pillar. Comprehensive experiments, including comparative control structures and microscopic analysis, elucidated the actuation mechanism: the nanoparticle scaffold provides mechanical support while the polymeric phase provides volumetric expansion, yielding large reversible elongation under humidity with preserved structural integrity. The resulting AuNP PVP microactuator shows humidity responsive actuation at the microscale, with representative demonstrations of repeated humidity cycling and load lifting up to approximately 800 times its estimated own weight under the tested conditions. Variant geometries such as hinged pillars demonstrate how axial swelling can be converted into bending motion, and an optical configuration shows how actuation can modulate reflected light signals. This nanoprinting approach provides a simple strategy for constructing bioinspired soft microactuators with humidity-responsive deformation and potential applicability in microscale sensing, optical modulation, and adaptive microdevices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Optical photograph of an ant highlighting its articulated body structure. (b) Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of an ant neck joint, showing a rigid exoskeleton connected by a compliant membrane. (c) SEM image of an ant leg joint, illustrating a similar hard–soft joint architecture composed of a stiff exoskeleton and a flexible membrane. (d) Schematic illustration of a biological hard–soft interface, con… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. S. Algamili, M. H. Md. Khir, J. O. Dennis, A. Y. Ahmed, S. S. Alabsi, S. S. Ba Hashwan, M. M. Junaid, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 16

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Diller, FNT in Robotics 2011, 2, 143

    E. Diller, FNT in Robotics 2011, 2, 143. 19

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Fujita, Proc

    H. Fujita, Proc. IEEE 1998, 86, 1721

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    R. Li, D. Jin, D. Pan, S. Ji, C. Xin, G. Liu, S. Fan, H. Wu, J. Li, Y. Hu, D. Wu, L. Zhang, J. Chu, ACS Nano 2020, 14, 5233

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Fujita, H

    H. Fujita, H. Toshiyoshi, Microelectron. J. 1998, 29, 637

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    M. Ye, Y. Zhou, H. Zhao, Z. Wang, B. J. Nelson, X. Wang, Adv. Intell. Syst. 2023, 5, 2300311

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Y. Wang, T. Nitta, Y. Hiratsuka, K. Morishima, Sci. Robot. 2022, 7, eaba8212

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M. Z. Miskin, A. J. Cortese, K. Dorsey, E. P. Esposito, M. F. Reynolds, Q. Liu, M. Cao, D. A. Muller, P. L. McEuen, I. Cohen, Nature 2020, 584, 557

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    M. F. Reynolds, M. Z. Miskin, MRS Bulletin 2024, 49, 107

    2024

  2. [10]

    H. Gao, B. Ji, I. L. Jäger, E. Arzt, P. Fratzl, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100, 5597

    2003

  3. [11]

    Palagi, P

    S. Palagi, P. Fischer, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 113

    2018

  4. [12]

    Nguyen, B

    V. Nguyen, B. Lilly, C. Castro, J. Biomech. 2014, 47, 497

    2014

  5. [13]

    S. E. Naleway, J. R. A. Taylor, M. M. Porter, M. A. Meyers, J. McKittrick, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 59, 1143

    2016

  6. [14]

    Michels, E

    J. Michels, E. Appel, S. N. Gorb, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 1241

    2016

  7. [15]

    Jafarpour, Sh

    M. Jafarpour, Sh. Eshghi, A. Darvizeh, S. Gorb, H. Rajabi, J. R. Soc. Interface. 2020, 17, 20200378

    2020

  8. [16]

    Vittori, Interface Focus

    M. Vittori, Interface Focus. 2024, 14, 20230075

    2024

  9. [17]

    M. C. Saldívar, E. Tay, A. Isaakidou, V. Moosabeiki, L. E. Fratila-Apachitei, E. L. Doubrovski, M. J. Mirzaali, A. A. Zadpoor, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 7919

    2023

  10. [18]

    U. G. K. Wegst, H. Bai, E. Saiz, A. P. Tomsia, R. O. Ritchie, Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 23

    2015

  11. [19]

    B. Shin, J. Ha, M. Lee, K. Park, G. H. Park, T. H. Choi, K.-J. Cho, H.-Y. Kim, Sci. Robot. 2018, 3, eaar2629

    2018

  12. [20]

    M. Ma, L. Guo, D. G. Anderson, R. Langer, Science 2013, 339, 186

    2013

  13. [21]

    Zhang, J

    D. Zhang, J. Ding, Y. Zhou, J. Ju, Nanomaterials 2024, 14, 1544

    2024

  14. [22]

    Taccola, F

    S. Taccola, F. Greco, E. Sinibaldi, A. Mondini, B. Mazzolai, V. Mattoli, Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 1668

    2015

  15. [23]

    J. Mu, C. Hou, B. Zhu, H. Wang, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9503

    2015

  16. [24]

    Okuzaki, T

    H. Okuzaki, T. Kunugi, J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 1996, 34, 1747

    1996

  17. [25]

    J. Wei, S. Jia, J. Guan, C. Ma, Z. Shao, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 54417

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. He, J. Guo, X. Yang, B. Guo, H. Shen, RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 37744

    2021

  19. [27]

    Y. Qiu, M. Wang, W. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. V. Li, K. Pan, Nanoscale 2018, 10, 14060. 20

    2018

  20. [28]

    Troyano, A

    J. Troyano, A. Carné‐Sánchez, D. Maspoch, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1808235

    2019

  21. [29]

    Troyano, A

    J. Troyano, A. Carné‐Sánchez, J. Pérez‐Carvajal, L. León‐Reina, I. Imaz, A. Cabeza, D. Maspoch, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 15420

    2018

  22. [30]

    Schaffner, J

    M. Schaffner, J. A. Faber, L. Pianegonda, P. A. Rühs, F. Coulter, A. R. Studart, Nat Commun 2018, 9, 878

    2018

  23. [31]

    W. Kim, H. Kim, B. Ko, N. Jeon, C. Park, J. Oh, J. Rho, Small 2023, 19, 2303749

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kim, J.-M

    W.-G. Kim, J.-M. Lee, Y. Yang, H. Kim, V. Devaraj, M. Kim, H. Jeong, E.-J. Choi, J. Yang, Y. Jang, T. Badloe, D. Lee, J. Rho, J. T. Kim, J.-W. Oh, Nano Lett. 2022, 22, 4702

    2022

  25. [33]

    Jeong, H.-S

    M.-N. Jeong, H.-S. Seo, J. Choi, J.-H. Kim, S.-J. Eom, K. H. Sung, J.-S. Moon, V. C. Silalahi, J.-M. Lee, Synthetic Metals 2026, 317, 118075

    2026

  26. [34]

    M. Chen, J. Yang, Z. Wang, Z. Xu, H. Lee, H. Lee, Z. Zhou, S. Feng, S. Lee, J. Pyo, S. K. Seol, D. Ki, J. T. Kim, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1904073

    2019

  27. [35]

    J. Yang, X. Huan, Y. Liu, H. Lee, M. Chen, S. Hu, S. Cao, J. T. Kim, Nano Lett. 2022, 22, 7776

    2022

  28. [36]

    Kim, J.-H

    M. Kim, J.-H. Kim, M-N. Jeong, H.-S. Seo, S.-J. Eom, S. Y. Cho, J. S. Kim, S. Ahn, M. Y. Jeon, J.-M. Lee, Adv. Mater. Technol. 2025, 11, e01312

    2025

  29. [37]

    S. Gu, D. Heo, V. C. Silalahi, H. Lee, J.-M. Lee, Appl. Sci. Converg. Technol. 2025, 34, 87

    2025

  30. [38]

    Doshi, N

    S. Doshi, N. A. Güsken, G. Dijk, J. Carlström, J. E. Ortiz-Cárdenas, P. Suzuki, B. Li, P. M. Fordyce, A. Salleo, N. A. Melosh, M. L. Brongersma, Nature 2026, 649, 345

    2026

  31. [39]

    Jiang, A

    T. Jiang, A. Bhattacharya, M. Barkey, A. Aigner, L. Rohrer, T. Weber, J. Wang, S. A. Maier, A. Tittl, Adv Funct Materials 2026, 36, e16021. Supporting Information Supporting Information (S1 – S3 movies)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.