Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

A Tuneable Magnetic Domain Wall Conduit Regulating Nanoparticle Diffusion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pairs of movable Bloch walls in an epitaxial ferrite garnet film create an open one-dimensional magnetic conduit in which submicrometer colloids feel a parabolic confining potential whose stiffness is set continuously by the applied field.

desk verdict A solid, useful demonstration of tunable parabolic confinement for submicron magnetic colloids; the two independent stiffness measurements agree, but the field-tunability curve rests on an unverified drag coefficient and the 75 nm extrapolation is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05039 v1 pith:CGTCVP6S submitted 2019-08-14 cond-mat.soft

Pietro Tierno , Tom H. Johansen , Jose M. Sancho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords DiffusionMagneticthinfilmsDomainwallsNanofluidicsColloidaltransportSingle-fileconfinementFerritegarnetfilm
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 shows that two movable Bloch walls in a ferrite garnet film can act as a virtual microfluidic channel for submicrometer magnetic particles in water. Particles levitated about 80 nm above the film by a polymer coating experience a nearly parabolic magnetic well in the direction across the walls, while they continue to diffuse freely along the walls. An external perpendicular field changes the width of the magnetic domains, so the stiffness of that parabolic well can be tuned continuously without changing the sample. The result matters because it offers an externally controllable, extended-area alternative to optical trapping for nanoscale colloids, and the paper puts it to work forming non-passing single files and reversible stripe condensates. On a sympathetic reading, the paper establishes a calibrated model system for controlled 1D diffusion rather than just another trapping demonstration.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic conduit formed by a pair of 180° Bloch walls, narrow transition regions where the magnetization rotates between opposite domains. The load-bearing identity is the local harmonic approximation $U_m(y) \approx \frac{1}{2} k_e y^2$, whose validity is checked by comparing two independent extractions of $k_e$. The theoretical device converting measured trajectories into stiffness is the overdamped Langevin solution $\langle \Delta y^2 \rangle = \frac{k_B T}{k_e} [1 - \exp(-2 k_e t/\zeta)]$, whose plateau directly gives $k_e$, while the position histogram gives the potential shape through the Boltzmann relation. The linear calibration $k_e(\lambda_+)$, with $\lambda_+$ proportional to the applied field in the linear regime, is what turns the domain-wall pair into a tuneable conduit.

What would settle it

Track a 360 nm particle in the conduit at $H_z = 620$ A/m while measuring its height above the film with an independent optical technique, then recompute the magnetostatic curvature at that measured height; if the recomputed stiffness differs from the reported $k_e = 0.042$–$0.044$ pN/µm by more than a few percent, the fixed-elevation assumption and the quantitative parabolic-calibration claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a ferrite garnet film with stripe domains, viewed at the elevation $z = h + d_p/2$ above the film, presents a magnetostatic potential whose minima lie under the centers of the majority domains and whose transverse profile is locally parabolic. A perpendicular field confines a particle to a narrow conduit between two Bloch walls, and the stiffness of the well can be extracted from the saturation of the transverse mean-squared displacement. The two independent determinations agree: $k_e = 0.042$ pN/µm from an overdamped Langevin fit and $k_e = 0.044$ pN/µm from Boltzmann-inverted position histograms, both at $H_z = 620$ A/m. The paper further establishes that $k_e$ grows linearly with the domain width $\lambda_+$, which is itself linear in $H_z$ over the working range, so the degree of confinement is set by one external control. This is presented as a general route to regulate the effective diffusive dimension of submicrometer colloids from two dimensions down to one.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every particle levitates at a fixed height of about 80 nm above the polymer coating with a fixed effective magnetic susceptibility, because this height was inferred from diffusion-coefficient matching rather than measured directly and the reported spring constants would shift if the height changed with particle size or field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single external field amplitude sets the confinement strength, so one garnet film acts as a reconfigurable array of 1D channels whose width is adjustable in real time.
  • At low linear density, strong enough fields force the colloids into non-passing single files; the 2D-to-1D crossover occurs at $H_z = 870$ A/m for 360 nm particles, with smaller particles needing stronger fields.
  • The field required for one-dimensional confinement grows exponentially as particle diameter decreases, and the fitted curve implies 75 nm particles would enter the single-file regime at the maximum usable field before the stripe domains deform.
  • An oscillating field periodically inverts the magnetic energy landscape, shuttling particles between neighboring domains and condensing them into parallel stripes whose solidified pattern can be stopped and reversed by controlling the field.
  • Because the parabolic approximation is validated by two agreeing stiffness measurements, the system can serve as an experimental testbed for predictions about confined and single-file diffusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The linear $k_e(\lambda_+)$ calibration means that measuring one MSD curve at a single field determines the trap stiffness everywhere in the linear regime, so users could skip per-field fitting.
  • Inference: The potential shape at the particle plane depends on the elevation set by the polymer spacer, so changing the spacer thickness should tune the same film to confine particles smaller than 270 nm or shift the 2D-to-1D crossover without stronger fields.
  • Inference: The exponential size–field extrapolation implies a practical floor near 75 nm for this film and field range; confining substantially smaller particles would likely require a thinner spacer, a higher-magnetization film, or lower temperature, none of which the paper tests.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a method to confine submicrometer superparamagnetic particles in water using pairs of Bloch walls in a ferrite garnet film (FGF). The particles diffuse freely along the conduit and experience an approximately parabolic potential in the transverse direction, with a stiffness ke that is reported to increase linearly with the width of the majority magnetic domain λ+, which is in turn tuned by an applied perpendicular field Hz. The authors extract ke from fits of the overdamped Langevin MSD (Eq. 4) at several fields, and verify the parabolic shape and stiffness at one field (Hz = 620 A/m) by Boltzmann-inverting the position histogram, obtaining ke = 0.042 pN/µm (MSD) and ke = 0.044 pN/µm (histogram). They also demonstrate a 2D-to-1D crossover to single-file diffusion as the field increases, and show field-controlled condensation of particles into striped patterns. The central quantitative claim is that the stiffness is continuously tunable by the applied field.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable and relatively simple platform for controlled 1D confinement of submicrometer colloids without topographic nanofabrication, with applications to diffusion studies and particle assembly. The paper has notable strengths: the spring constant is extracted from two independent observables (MSD plateau and position histogram) that agree within a few percent at one field, and the zero-field diffusion coefficients are consistent with Stokes-Einstein theory with a plausible wall correction. The use of an external field to tune the confinement in situ is a useful capability. However, the tunability curve ke(λ+) rests on an assumption about the constancy of the hydrodynamic drag coefficient across fields, which is not directly verified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Fig.3(a)-(b), Eq.(4)] The tunable-stiffness curve ke(λ+) is obtained by fitting Eq.(4) to the transverse MSDs while keeping ζ = 5.2×10^-3 pN·s/µm fixed at the zero-field value. This drag coefficient is measured from the zero-field diffusion coefficient D_FGF, and the particle elevation above the FGF is only inferred indirectly via a wall-correction factor that is referenced with an unresolved placeholder ('from the expression of f, ?'). The paper does not establish that the levitation height—and hence ζ—remains constant when Hz is varied, even though the magnetic force balance that sets the height changes with the applied field. If ζ varies with field, the extracted ke values in Fig.3(b) are systematically biased and the claimed linear ke(λ+) relation is not established. The position-histogram check at Hz = 620 A/m (Fig.3(c)) is ζ-independent, but it validates ke only at that single field. Please provide a ζ-independent determination of ke at several field values, or give a quantitative argument for the constancy of ζ across the field range.
  2. [Fig.4(b)-(c)] The crossover from 2D to 1D single-file motion is not defined operationally. The text states that 'by analyzing the particle distribution in Fig.4(b) we find that the crossover from 2d to 1d occurs for field amplitude Hz = 870A/m', but it does not specify the criterion (e.g., a threshold in the variance, the onset of non-passing behavior, or a change in the shape of P(y)). Without a precise definition, the crossover fields reported in Fig.4(c) for the three particle sizes are difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the exponential fit Hz = H0_z exp(−dp/β) uses only three data points (dp = 270, 360, 540 nm) with two adjustable parameters, so the extrapolated minimum particle size of 75 nm is fragile and should be presented with uncertainty estimates or supported by additional particle sizes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Size dependence paragraph] The phrase 'linear dependence of the potential stiffness with the applied field, Fig.2(b)' appears to reference the wrong figure; the stiffness-versus-field data is shown in Fig.3(b).
  2. [Table 1 and wall-correction paragraph] The citation for the wall-correction expression is incomplete: 'from the expression of f, ?' contains an unresolved placeholder. Please provide the correct reference or a full derivation so that the 80 nm elevation estimate is reproducible.
  3. [Text near Fig.4(b) inset] The sentence 'We also shown that the particle distribution P(x) along the channel...' should read 'We also show...'.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract describes 'size tunable magnetic channels', but the channel width is tuned by the applied field rather than by particle size; consider rewording to 'field-tunable magnetic channels'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parabolic-confinement claim is supported by independent MSD and position-histogram fits, and the tunable stiffness is measured, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is experimental: that submicrometer particles in a Bloch-wall conduit experience a local parabolic potential whose stiffness ke can be tuned with the applied field. The stiffness is extracted from two independent observables. First, transverse MSD curves are fit to Eq. (4), the exact overdamped-Langevin result for a harmonic well, with ke as a free parameter and a fixed drag coefficient zeta = 5.2e-3 pN·s/um. Second, at Hz = 620 A/m the position histogram is Boltzmann-inverted to recover the local potential, and a parabolic fit gives ke = 0.044 pN/um, close to the MSD-derived value ke = 0.042 pN/um. This agreement is genuine cross-validation: the histogram method does not use zeta or the MSD fit, so the parabolic-well interpretation is not forced by construction. The fixed zeta value does depend on an inferred 80 nm levitation height obtained from measured zero-field diffusion coefficients and a wall-correction factor, and the citation for that factor appears as an unresolved placeholder in the text; this is a missing-reference and potential-robustness issue, but it is not circular because the inferred height is a calibration input, not the quantity being predicted. The linear ke(lambda+) relation in Fig. 3(b) is a fit to measured values, and the exponential crossover fit in Fig. 4(c) is likewise empirical; neither is presented as a derived prediction from the fitted inputs. Self-citations to earlier ferrite-garnet-film work support the experimental platform and the stray-field model, but they do not supply the measured ke values or the parabolic-potential evidence. No uniqueness theorem or prior-result invocation is used to forbid alternatives. The paper therefore does not reduce its central claim to its own assumptions or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new parameters are invented by the paper beyond fitted quantities (ke, the exponential crossover fit, and an inferred elevation). The physical model uses standard magnetostatics, Langevin dynamics, and Boltzmann statistics. The magnetic conduit is a configuration of existing Bloch walls, not a new entity.

free parameters (3)
  • Transverse spring constant ke of the parabolic conduit = ke = 0.042 pN/µm (MSD fit) and 0.044 pN/µm (histogram fit) at Hz = 620 A/m
    Fitted as the sole adjustable parameter in Eq.(4) to the transverse MSD curves in Fig.3(a), and again by a parabolic fit to the Boltzmann-inverted position distribution in Fig.3(c). The reported ke vs lambda+ relation in Fig.3(b) depends on these fits.
  • Exponential fit parameters H0_z and beta for the 2D-to-1D crossover field = H0_z = 3158 A/m, beta = 285 nm
    Fit to three crossover-field values as a function of particle diameter in Fig.4(c). The extrapolated 75 nm minimum particle size derives from these parameters and carries no uncertainty estimate.
  • Average particle-surface elevation above the polymer-coated FGF = 80 nm
    Back-inferred by matching measured zero-field diffusion coefficients on the FGF to Stokes-Einstein theory using a wall-correction factor f (Table 1). Used to justify the shape and magnitude of the computed energy landscape.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The total magnetic field at a particle is the linear superposition of the applied field and the FGF stray field, and the induced dipole moment is m = V chi H_tot with effective volume susceptibility chi about 2.
    Used in the numerical energy landscape Um/kBT in Figs.2(a,c); chi is taken from ref 27 and linear superposition is implicit in the stray-field calculation.
  • domain assumption The transverse trapping potential is locally parabolic, Um(y) = (1/2) ke y^2.
    Assumed to derive Eq.(4) and to fit the MSD and position histograms; the assumption is tested by the independent potential inversion in Fig.3(c), which shows an approximately parabolic profile.
  • standard math The overdamped Langevin equations (1)-(2) with white noise satisfying the fluctuation-dissipation relation describe the particle motion.
    Used to derive the MSD formulas in Eqs.(3)-(4), following ref 39.
  • domain assumption Particles remain at a fixed elevation above the film, z = h + dp/2 (about 80 nm above the polymer layer), with negligible out-of-plane motion.
    The energy landscape and the wall-corrected diffusion coefficients in Table 1 assume this fixed elevation, which is inferred rather than directly measured.
  • domain assumption In the field range used (below 3 kA/m) the domain widths lambda+ and lambda- vary linearly with Hz and the total stripe period lambda stays constant.
    Justifies using lambda+ as a linear proxy for Hz when plotting ke and the 2D-to-1D crossover, as shown in Fig.1(c).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tuneable Magnetic Domain Wall Conduit Regulating Nanoparticle Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGTCVP6S

@misc{pith2026190805039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tuneable Magnetic Domain Wall Conduit Regulating Nanoparticle Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGTCVP6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05039}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate a general and robust method to confine on a plane strongly diffusing submicrometer particles in water by using size tunable magnetic channels. These virtual conduits are realized with pairs of movable Bloch walls (BWs) located within an epitaxially grown ferrite garnet film. We show that, once inside the magnetic conduit, the particles experience an effective local parabolic potential in the transverse direction, while freely diffusing along the conduit. The stiffness of the magnetic potential is determined as a function of field amplitude which varies the width of the magnetic channel, and precise control of the degree of confinement is demonstrated by tuning the applied field. The magnetic conduit is then used to realize single files of non-passing particles and to induce periodic condensation of an ensemble of particles into parallel stripes in a completely controllable and reversible manner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Image of a ferrite garnet film (FGF) on a gadolinium gallium garnet substrate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a,c) Color coded energy landscape Um/kBT of one submicrometer particle in absence of field, Hz = 0 (a), and under an applied field Hz = 620A/m (c). Continuous blue lines indicate the corresponding scaled potential Um − hUmi plotted at the particle elevation, z = 0.20λ. (b,d) Corresponding microscope snapshots of one 360nm particle with superimposed the trajectory (green line) for Hz = 0 (b), and Hz = 620A/m (d). Sc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Log-log plot of the mean square displacement (MSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Snapshot of a single file composed by 17 particles (360 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: series of microscope images of a small section (16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M.; Farokhzad, O

    Valencia, P. M.; Farokhzad, O. C.; Karnik, R.; Langer, R. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7, 623--629

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Grier, D. G. Nature 2003, 424, 810--816

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    B.; Jr, I

    Collin, D.; Ritort, F.; Jarzynski, C.; Smith, S. B.; Jr, I. T.; Bustamante, C. Nature 2005, 437, 231--234

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Ashkin, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1970, 24, 156--159

    work page 1970

  5. [5]

    M.; Mason, T

    Cheng, Z.; Chaikin, P. M.; Mason, T. G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 108303

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    P.; Bourdieu, L

    Faucheux, L. P.; Bourdieu, L. S.; Kaplan, P. D.; Libchaber, A. J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 74, 1504

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    P.; Vossen, D

    Hoogenboom, J. P.; Vossen, D. L. J.; Faivre-Moskalenko, C.; Dogterom, M.; van Blaaderen, A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 80, 4828--4830

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Padgett, M.; Leonardo, R. D. Lab Chip 2011, 11, 1196--1205

    work page 2011

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    M.; Jones, P

    Marag\`o, O. M.; Jones, P. H.; Gucciardi, P. G.; Volpe, G.; Ferrari, A. C. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2013, 8, 807–819

    2013

  2. [10]

    ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3453--3469

    Lehmuskero, A.; Johansson, P.; Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H.; Tong, L.; Kall, M. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3453--3469

    2015

  3. [11]

    Svoboda, K.; Block, S. M. Opt. Lett. 1994, 19, 930--932

    1994

  4. [12]

    M.; Bhatia, V

    Hansen, P. M.; Bhatia, V. K.; Harrit, N.; Oddershede, L. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1937–1942

    2005

  5. [13]

    M.; Oddershede, L

    Bosanac, L.; Aabo, T.; Bendix, P. M.; Oddershede, L. B. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 1486–1491

    2008

  6. [14]

    Nature 2010, 467, 692--695

    Krishnan, M.; Mojarad, N.; Kukura, P.; Sandoghdar, V. Nature 2010, 467, 692--695

    2010

  7. [15]

    Cui, B.; Diamant, H.; Lin, B.; Rice, S. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 258301

    2004

  8. [16]

    A.; Prieve, D

    Bevan, M. A.; Prieve, D. C. Langmuir 2000, 16, 9274–9281

    2000

  9. [17]

    C.; Sellmyer, D

    Das, B.; Balasubramanian, B.; Manchanda, P.; Mukherjee, P.; Skomski, R.; Hadjipanayis, G. C.; Sellmyer, D. J. Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 1132--1137

    2016

  10. [18]

    Nanoscale Res

    Akbarzadeh, A.; Samiei, M.; Davaran, S. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 144

    2012

  11. [19]

    Banobre-Lopez, M.; Teijeiro, A.; Rivas, J. Rep. Prac. Oncol. Radiother. 2013, 18, 397--400

    2013

  12. [20]

    M.; Weig, C.; Oswald, P.; Frey, E.; Fischer, P.; Liedl, T

    Maier, A. M.; Weig, C.; Oswald, P.; Frey, E.; Fischer, P.; Liedl, T. Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 1132–1137

    2016

  13. [21]

    Yellen, B.; Hovorka, O.; Friedman, G. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 8860–8864

    2005

  14. [22]

    E.; Felton, S.; Pihl, J.; Svedlindh, P.; Berner, S.; Lidbaum, H.; Oscarsson, S

    Gunnarsson, K.; Roy, P. E.; Felton, S.; Pihl, J.; Svedlindh, P.; Berner, S.; Lidbaum, H.; Oscarsson, S. Adv. Mater. 2005, 17, 1730–1734

    2005

  15. [23]

    F.; Metlushko, V.; Ilic, B.; Cantoni, M.; Petti, D.; Brivio, S.; Bertacco, R

    Donolato, M.; Gobbi, M.; Vavassori, P.; Deryabina, M.; Hansen, M. F.; Metlushko, V.; Ilic, B.; Cantoni, M.; Petti, D.; Brivio, S.; Bertacco, R. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 2706–2710

    2010

  16. [24]

    Ehresmann, A.; Lengemann, D.; Weis, T.; Albrecht, A.; Langfahl-Klabes, J.; Gollner, F.; Engel, D. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 5568–5573

    2011

  17. [25]

    Rapoport, E.; Montana, D.; Beach, G. S. Lab Chip 2012, 12, 4433--4440

    2012

  18. [26]

    F.; Pillai, P

    Demir\"ors, A. F.; Pillai, P. P.; Kowalczyk, B.; Grzybowski, B. A. Nature 2013, 503, 99–103

    2013

  19. [27]

    H.; van IJzendoorn, L

    van Ommering, K.; Nieuwenhuis, J. H.; van IJzendoorn, L. J.; Koopmans, B.; Prins, M. W. J. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 142511

    2006

  20. [28]

    S.; Laczkowski, P.; Nguyen, V

    Torres, W. S.; Laczkowski, P.; Nguyen, V. D.; Sanchez, J. C. R.; Vila, L.; Marty, A.; Jamet, M.; Attan\'e, J. P. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 4016--4022

    2014

  21. [29]

    H.; Swagten, H

    Franken, J. H.; Swagten, H. J. M.; Koopmans, B. Nature Nanotech. 2012, 7, 499--503

    2012

  22. [30]

    Nano Lett

    Phung, T.; Pushp, A.; Thomas, L.; Rettner, C.; Yang, S.-H.; Ryu, K.-S.; Baglin, J.; Hughes, B.; Parkin, S. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 835--841

    2015

  23. [31]

    Nano Lett

    Gu, Q.; Falk, A.; Wu, J.; Ouyang, L.; Park, H. Nano Lett. 2007, 7, 363--366

    2007

  24. [32]

    Jiang, X.; Thomas, L.; Moriya, R.; Parkin, S. S. P. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 96--100

    2011

  25. [33]

    D.; Weatherill, K

    West, A. D.; Weatherill, K. J.; Hayward, T. J.; Fry, P. W.; Schrefl, T.; Gibbs, M. R. J.; Adams, C. S.; Allwood, D. A.; Hughes, I. G. Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 4065--4069

    2012

  26. [34]

    M.; Johansen, T

    Helseth, L.; Fischer, T. M.; Johansen, T. H. Phys. Rev. E 2003, 67, 042401

    2003

  27. [35]

    H.; Fischer, T

    Tierno, P.; Sagues, F.; Johansen, T. H.; Fischer, T. M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2009, 11, 9615--9625

    2009

  28. [36]

    H.; Pan, A

    Johansen, T. H.; Pan, A. V.; Galperin, Y. M. Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 060402

    2013

  29. [37]

    V.; Tierno, P

    Straube, A. V.; Tierno, P. Europhys. Lett. 2013, 103, 28001

    2013

  30. [38]

    Low Reynolds Number Hydrodynamics; Noordhoff International Publishing: Leyden, The Netherlands, 1973

    Happel, J.; Brenner, H. Low Reynolds Number Hydrodynamics; Noordhoff International Publishing: Leyden, The Netherlands, 1973

    1973

  31. [39]

    C.; Uhlenbeck, G

    Wang, M. C.; Uhlenbeck, G. E. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1945, 17, 323--342

    1945

  32. [40]

    Diffusion in zeolites and other microporous solids; Wiley: New York, 1992

    K\"arger, J., Ruthven, D., Eds. Diffusion in zeolites and other microporous solids; Wiley: New York, 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    L.; Keynes, R

    Hodgkin, A. L.; Keynes, R. D. J. Physiol. 1955, 128, 28--60

    1955

  34. [42]

    Dvoyashkin, M.; Bhase, H.; Mirnazari, N.; Vasenkov, S.; Bowers, C. R. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 2200--2204

    2014

  35. [43]

    R.; Sekar, P.; Dvoyashkin, M.; Bowers, C

    Dutta, A. R.; Sekar, P.; Dvoyashkin, M.; Bowers, C. R.; Ziegler, K. J.; Vasenkov, S. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 13346--13349

    2015

  36. [44]

    Das, A.; Jayanthi, S.; Deepak, H. S. M. V.; Ramanathan, K. V.; Kumar, A.; Dasgupta, C.; Sood, A. K. ACS Nano 2010, 4, 1687

    2010

  37. [45]

    Science 2000, 287, 625--627

    Wei, Q.-H.; Bechinger, C.; Leiderer, P. Science 2000, 287, 625--627

    2000

  38. [46]

    Lutz, C.; Kollmann, M.; Bechinger, C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 026001

    2004

  39. [47]

    V.; Nelissen, K.; Misko, V

    Lucena, D.; Tkachenko, D. V.; Nelissen, K.; Misko, V. R.; Ferreira, W. P.; Farias, G. A.; Peeters, F. M. Phys. Rev. E 2012, 85, 031147

    2012

  40. [48]

    Siems, U.; Kreuter, C.; Erbe, A.; Schwierz, N.; Sengupta, S.; Leiderer, P.; Nielaba, P. Sci. Rep. 2012, 2, 1015

    2012

  41. [49]

    K\"arger, J. Phys. Rev. A 1992, 45, 4173--4174

    1992

  42. [50]

    K\"arger, J. Phys. Rev. E 1993, 47, 1427--1428

    1993

  43. [51]

    Helseth, L. E. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 093501

    2007

  44. [52]

    D., Tom H., Ed

    Johansen, S. D., Tom H., Ed. Magneto-Optical Imaging; Springer: Netherlands, 2004

    2004

  45. [53]

    Klein, T.; Dorroh, D.; Li, Y.; Wang, J. P. J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 109, 07D506

    2011

  46. [54]

    single file

    Helseth, L. E.; Fischer, T. M.; Johansen, T. H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 208302 mcitethebibliography Version.tex0000664000000000000000000007415113524751702011743 0ustar rootroot [journal=nalefd,manuscript=article] achemso [version=3] mhchem bm color xcolor red blue * [1] #1 ...

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.