↓ Skip to main content

Fifty years of dielectrophoretic cell separation technology

Overview of attention for article published in Biomicrofluidics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Fifty years of dielectrophoretic cell separation technology
Published in
Biomicrofluidics, June 2016
DOI 10.1063/1.4954841
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In 1966, Pohl and Hawk [Science 152, 647-649 (1966)] published the first demonstration of dielectrophoresis of living and dead yeast cells; their paper described how the different ways in which the cells responded to an applied nonuniform electric field could form the basis of a cell separation method. Fifty years later, the field of dielectrophoretic (DEP) cell separation has expanded, with myriad demonstrations of its ability to sort cells on the basis of differences in electrical properties without the need for chemical labelling. As DEP separation enters its second half-century, new approaches are being found to move the technique from laboratory prototypes to functional commercial devices; to gain widespread acceptance beyond the DEP community, it will be necessary to develop ways of separating cells with throughputs, purities, and cell recovery comparable to gold-standard techniques in life sciences, such as fluorescence- and magnetically activated cell sorting. In this paper, the history of DEP separation is charted, from a description of the work leading up to the first paper, to the current dual approaches of electrode-based and electrodeless DEP separation, and the path to future acceptance outside the DEP mainstream is considered.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 24%
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 37 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 59 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Materials Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Chemistry 5 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 46 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#9,701,493
of 31,634,113 outputs
Outputs from Biomicrofluidics
#339
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,895
of 329,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomicrofluidics
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,634,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.