↓ Skip to main content

Continuous flow nanoparticle concentration using alternating current‐electroosmotic flow

Overview of attention for article published in Electrophoresis, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Continuous flow nanoparticle concentration using alternating current‐electroosmotic flow
Published in
Electrophoresis, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/elps.201300287
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Achieving real-time detection of environmental pathogens such as viruses and bacterial spores requires detectors with both rapid action and a suitable detection threshold. However, most biosensors have detection limits of an order of magnitude or more above the potential infection threshold, limiting their usefulness. This can be improved through the use of automated sample preparation techniques such as preconcentration. In this paper, we describe the use of AC electroosmosis to concentrate nanoparticles from a continuous flow. Electrodes at an optimized angle across a flow cell, and energized by a 1 kHz signal, were used to push nanoparticles to one side of a flow cell, and to extract the resulting stream with a high particle concentration from that side of the flow cell. A simple model of the behavior of particles in the flow cell has been developed, which shows good agreement with experimental results. The method indicates potential for higher concentration factors through cascading devices.

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 26 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 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 62%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 May 2014.
All research outputs
#28,599,837
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from Electrophoresis
#4,250
of 5,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,313
of 377,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Electrophoresis
#28
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 377,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.