ArticleMicromachines2022
Constant-Power versus Constant-Voltage Actuation in Frequency Sweeps for Acoustofluidic Applications.
Article in Micromachines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Supplying a piezoelectric transducer with constant voltage or constant power during a frequency sweep can lead to different results in the determination of the acoustofluidic resonance frequencies, which are observed when studying the acoustophoretic displacements and velocities of particles suspended in a liquid-filled microchannel. In this work, three cases are considered: (1) Constant input voltage into the power amplifier, (2) constant voltage across the piezoelectric transducer, and (3) constant average power dissipation in the transducer. For each case, the measured and the simulated responses are compared, and good agreement is obtained. It is shown that Case 1, the simplest and most frequently used approach, is largely affected by the impedance of the used amplifier and wiring, so it is therefore not suitable for a reproducible characterization of the intrinsic properties of the acoustofluidic device. Case 2 strongly favors resonances at frequencies yielding the lowest impedance of the piezoelectric transducer, so small details in the acoustic response at frequencies far from the transducer resonance can easily be missed. Case 3 provides the most reliable approach, revealing both the resonant frequency, where the power-efficiency is the highest, as well as other secondary resonances across the spectrum.
Indexed as
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.