Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34081787›Full record

ReviewElectrophoresis2021

Particle trapping in electrically driven insulator-based microfluidics: Dielectrophoresis and induced-charge electrokinetics.

Victor H Perez-Gonzalez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Electrophoresis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Victor H Perez-GonzalezTecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences, Monterrey, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-4503-7774

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrokinetically driven insulator-based microfluidic devices represent an attractive option to manipulate particle suspensions. These devices can filtrate, concentrate, separate, or characterize micro and nanoparticles of interest. Two decades ago, inspired by electrode-based dielectrophoresis, the concept of insulator-based dielectrophoresis (iDEP) was born. In these microfluidic devices, insulating structures (i.e., posts, membranes, obstacles, or constrictions) built within the channel are used to deform the spatial distribution of an externally generated electric field. As a result, particles suspended in solution experience dielectrophoresis (DEP). Since then, it has been assumed that DEP is responsible for particle trapping in these devices, regardless of the type of voltage being applied to generate the electric field-direct current (DC) or alternating current. Recent findings challenge this assumption by demonstrating particle trapping and even particle flow reversal in devices that prevent DEP from occurring (i.e., unobstructed long straight channels stimulated with a DC voltage and featuring a uniform electric field). The theory introduced to explain those unexpected observations was then applied to conventional "DC-iDEP" devices, demonstrating better prediction accuracy than that achieved with the conventional DEP-centered theory. This contribution summarizes contributions made during the last two decades, comparing both theories to explain particle trapping and highlighting challenges to address in the near future.

Indexed as

Microfluidic Analytical TechniquesMicrofluidicsElectrophoresisLab-On-A-Chip DevicesDielectrophoresisElectrokineticsElectrophoresisLab-on-a-chipMicrofluidics

Identifiers

PMID34081787
PMCPMC9291494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.