Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41597877›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2026

The Clausius-Mossotti Factor in Dielectrophoresis: A Critical Appraisal of Its Proposed Role as an 'Electrophysiology Rosetta Stone'.

Ronald Pethig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Micromachines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ronald PethigInstitute for Integrated Micro and Nano Systems, School of Engineering & Electronics, The University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9797-145X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Clausius-Mossotti (CM) factor underpins the theoretical description of dielectrophoresis (DEP) and is widely used in micro- and nano-scale systems for frequency-dependent particle and cell manipulation. It has further been proposed as an "electrophysiology Rosetta Stone" capable of linking DEP spectra to intrinsic cellular electrical properties. In this paper, the mathematical foundations and interpretive limits of this proposal are critically examined. By analyzing contrast factors derived from Laplace's equation across multiple physical domains, it is shown that the CM functional form is a universal consequence of geometry, material contrast, and boundary conditions in linear Laplacian fields, rather than a feature unique to biological systems. Key modelling assumptions relevant to DEP are reassessed. Deviations from spherical symmetry lead naturally to tensorial contrast factors through geometry-dependent depolarisation coefficients. Complex, frequency-dependent CM factors and associated relaxation times are shown to inevitably arise from the coexistence of dissipative and storage mechanisms under time-varying forcing, independent of particle composition. Membrane surface charge influences DEP response through modified interfacial boundary conditions and effective transport parameters, rather than by introducing an independent driving mechanism. These results indicate that DEP spectra primarily reflect boundary-controlled field-particle coupling. From an inverse-problem perspective, this places fundamental constraints on parameter identifiability in DEP-based characterization. The CM factor remains a powerful and general modelling tool for micromachines and microfluidic systems, but its interpretive scope must be understood within the limits imposed by Laplacian field theory.

Indexed as

Clausius–Mossotti factordielectrophoresisLaplace’s equationpolarization and local field theory

Identifiers

PMID41597877
PMCPMC12844034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.