Focused electrophoretic motion and selected electrokinetic dispensing of particles and cells in cross‐microchannels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrokinetic focusing and the resultant accelerated electrophoretic motion of polystyrene particles and red blood cells were visualized in microfluidic cross-channels. The experimentally measured width of the focused stream and the measured velocity increase of particles and cells at different voltage ratios follow the proposed analytical formula within the experimental error. The attained velocity increase is insensitive to the particle size, particle property (i.e., particle or cell), and particle trajectory. By solving the electrical potential field in the cross-channel at the experimental conditions, we demonstrate that the squeezed electrical field lines in the channel intersection determine the shape of the focused stream, and the nonuniform distribution of axial electrical field strength underlies the variation of particle/cell electrophoretic velocity through the focusing region. However, the dielectrophoretic force resulting from the nonuniform electrical field in the intersection seems to push the acceleration region of particles and cells slightly in the downstream direction. We have also achieved the single particle/cell dispensing by instantly triggering an electrical pulse perpendicular to the focused particulate flow in a double-cross microchannel. The electrokinetic manipulation of particle/cell in microchannels demonstrated in this work can be used for developing integrated lab-on-a-chip devices for studies of cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it