ArticleACS nano2013
Effect of fabrication-dependent shape and composition of solid-state nanopores on single nanoparticle detection.
Article in ACS nano, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in integrated solid-state nanopore sensors.Lab on a chip · 2021Review
- Acoustofluidic centrifuge for nanoparticle enrichment and separation.Science advances · 2021Article
- Effect of single nanoparticle-nanopore interaction strength on ionic current modulation.Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical · 2020Article
- Controlled Focused Ion Beam Milling of Composite Solid State Nanopore Arrays for Molecule Sensing.Micromachines · 2019Article
- Multiple consecutive recapture of rigid nanoparticles using a solid-state nanopore sensor.Electrophoresis · 2018Article
- Covalent Modification of Silicon Nitride Nanopore by Amphoteric Polylysine for Short DNA Detection.ACS omega · 2017Article
- Optofluidic devices with integrated solid-state nanopores.Mikrochimica acta · 2016Article
- Fundamental studies of nanofluidics: nanopores, nanochannels, and nanopipets.Analytical chemistry · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Solid-state nanopores can be fabricated in a variety of ways and form the basis for label-free sensing of single nanoparticles: as individual nanoparticles traverse the nanopore, they alter the ionic current across it in a characteristic way. Typically, nanopores are described by the diameter of their limiting aperture, and less attention has been paid to other, fabrication-dependent parameters. Here, we report a comprehensive analysis of the properties and sensing performance of three types of nanopore with identical 50 nm aperture, but fabricated using three different techniques: direct ion beam milling, ion beam sculpting, and electron beam sculpting. The nanopores differ substantially in physical shape and chemical composition as identified by ion-beam assisted cross-sectioning and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Concomitant differences in electrical sensing of single 30 nm beads, such as variations in blockade depth, duration, and electric field dependence, are observed and modeled using hydrodynamic simulations. The excellent agreement between experiment and physical modeling shows that the physical properties (shape) and not the chemical surface composition determine the sensing performance of a solid-state nanopore in the absence of deliberate surface modification. Consequently, nanoparticle sensing performance can be accurately predicted once the full three-dimensional structure of the nanopore is known.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.