Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Up-Converting Luminescent Nanoparticles as Probes of Surface Dynamics in Single Evaporating Microdroplets of Suspension

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Scattered light exposes nanoparticle shells as droplets dry

desk verdict Fresh experimental probe with an overreaching semi-empirical model; the quantitative surface-state claims need control experiments before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15833 v1 pith:WFUBLIH6 submitted 2024-12-20 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.soft

Yaroslav Shopa , Maciej Kolwas , Daniel Jakubczyk , Gennadiy Derkachov , Izabela Kamińska , Krzysztof Fronc , Tomasz Wojciechowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.soft
keywords up-conversionluminescencemicrodropletevaporationMiescatteringwhisperinggallerymodesnanoparticlesurfacelayerelectrodynamictrapphotophoresisGd2O3:Er3+nanoparticles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the surface of a single evaporating microdroplet of colloidal suspension can be tracked in real time by ordinary optical signals. As the droplet shrinks, nanoparticles are swept up by the retreating surface, and their progressive packing, from sparse coverage to saturation, layer collapse, and a gel-like shell, leaves a distinctive oscillatory fingerprint on scattered light and on up-converted luminescence. The authors propose a two-term scattering model: homogeneous-droplet Mie scattering with an effective refractive index, plus a surface-nanoparticle term modulated by the droplet's internal field at the 805 nm excitation wavelength. If that model is right, scattering and luminescence become a non-contact diagnostic of surface organization in drying droplets.

What carries the argument

The microdroplet acts as a spherical optical resonator whose whispering gallery modes concentrate the internal field near the surface. The load-bearing construction is the semi-empirical scattering formula of Eq. (7): homogeneous-droplet Mie scattering with an effective refractive index plus a surface-nanoparticle term whose amplitude is set by $N_{\mathrm{surf}}(R)$ and whose modulation is set by the internal field at 805 nm. The surface population is supplied by Eq. (3), which counts particles captured by the shrinking interface, and by a Gaussian distribution model whose width $\sigma$ describes surface-layer ordering. Photophoretic migration toward intensity minima is invoked to explain synchronization and desynchronization episodes in the oscillatory signals; together these pieces translate oscillation frequencies and amplitudes into statements about surface density, layer collapse, and surface-layer entropy.

What would settle it

Levitate two identical suspension droplets and record scattering at 515 nm while keeping the 805 nm excitation off or far below the photophoresis threshold for one of them; if Eq. (3) alone sets $N_{\mathrm{surf}}$, the inferred surface-density trend should be indistinguishable between the two droplets, whereas if photophoretic redistribution matters, the synchronized oscillation episodes, their frequency evolution, and the timing of layer collapse should all shift when excitation is present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the intensity of light scattered by a suspension microdroplet at wavelength $\lambda$ is not just the Mie scattering of a shrinking homogeneous sphere. It is the sum of an effective-medium term $I_{\mathrm{eff}}(\lambda,R,m_{\mathrm{eff}}(R))$ and a term proportional to the number $N_{\mathrm{surf}}(R)$ of nanoparticles in the surface layer, with that second term modulated by the intra-cavity field at 805 nm. $N_{\mathrm{surf}}(R)$ is taken to be the number of particles collected by the inward-moving interface during evaporation, growing roughly as the swept volume. This construction reproduces the long-time trends and the oscillation-frequency evolution of scattering at 515, 632, and 805 nm, and of up-conversion luminescence at several emission lines. The authors conclude that the observed surface saturation, repeated layer collapse, and eventual transition to a gel-like state are real structural events that the optical signals track, not artifacts of the effective-medium approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Eq. (3), which says the number of nanoparticles at the droplet surface is simply the number swept up by the shrinking interface during evaporation, with no quantitative treatment of sedimentation, electrostatic adsorption, aggregation, or the photophoretic migration the paper later invokes; if that count is wrong, the fitted factors in Eq. (7) and the surface-density readings in Figs. 7 and 8 lose their quantitative footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Oscillations in scattered light at non-absorbed wavelengths include a contribution from the evolving surface nanoparticle layer, so peak-frequency analysis can follow surface density.
  • When the surface nanoparticle population saturates and layers collapse, evaporation slows abruptly; the model links kinks in $dr/dt$ to structural transitions in the nanoparticle shell.
  • Luminescence amplitude, through $N_{\mathrm{surf}}$ and $\sigma$, provides a measure of surface-layer entropy via Eq. (11).
  • The 805 nm excitation itself modifies the nanoparticle distribution through photophoresis, making the droplet act like an optically nonlinear element in which one light beam affects another.
  • A broad maximum common to all luminescence lines is attributed to distributed feedback from the ordered nanoparticle distribution enhancing two-photon up-conversion, a stronger effect in luminescence than in scattering.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Eq. (7) survives independent surface imaging, a practical single-wavelength diagnostic becomes possible: monitor scattering at one non-absorbed wavelength and recover surface coverage from the oscillation envelope and frequency without multi-wavelength apparatus.
  • Eq. (3) ignores sedimentation, electrostatic adsorption, aggregation, and photophoresis; comparing droplets with equal initial concentration but different excitation power would separate these mechanisms and test the model's robustness.
  • The link between luminescence modulation amplitude and $\sigma$ suggests the same setup can act as a surface-order thermometer in other colloidal systems with stable up-converting or down-converting probes.
  • A direct test of photophoretic patterning would be to vary 805 nm intensity; if synchronization episodes scale with excitation power, the feedback mechanism is confirmed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental and modeling study of single levitated evaporating microdroplets of diethylene glycol (DEG) containing 353 nm Gd2O3:Er3+ nanoparticles. The authors measure the droplet radius by shadowgraphy, scattered light at 805, 632, and 515 nm, and up-converted luminescence at several wavelengths, and they propose a semi-empirical scattering model in which the scattered intensity is a sum of an effective-medium Mie term and a surface-nanoparticle term proportional to N_surf and modulated by the 805 nm internal field (Eq. 7). The surface population N_surf is described by a purely geometric interface-capture formula (Eq. 3), and the luminescence trend is described by a Gaussian resonance term (Eq. 10). On this basis the paper interprets the observed long-time trends and oscillation patterns as evidence for surface saturation, layer collapse, and a transition to a gel-like state.

Significance. If the quantitative interpretation were fully supported, the paper would offer a non-invasive optical diagnostic of nanoparticle surface organization during colloidal droplet drying, with potential relevance to aerosol science and spray-drying applications. The manuscript has several genuine strengths: Fig. 4 provides an external benchmark of the homogeneous Mie model against a pure DEG droplet; multiple scattering wavelengths and several up-conversion luminescence lines are followed simultaneously on the same droplet; and the spectral data are deposited in a public repository. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on a postulated surface-capture law and on fits whose parameters and uncertainties are not reported, so the evidence presented does not yet justify the strong conclusion that the theoretical modeling 'closely aligns' with the inferred surface-state sequence.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1, Eq. (3)] The central quantitative input, N_surf(R), is derived under the assumption that nanoparticles are collected only by the spherically symmetric inward-moving interface. This assumption is contradicted by the experimental conditions described in Section 2, where the 805 nm beam is deliberately applied from below to counteract sedimentation of the dense Gd2O3 nanoparticles, and by the photophoretic migration invoked later in Sections 5 and 6.3. With Stokes settling velocities of the order of 10 nm/s for these particles and experiment durations of several thousand seconds, vertical drift is comparable to the initial droplet radius, so N_surf is not a function of R alone but can depend on beam intensity, illumination direction, and illumination history. Because Eq. (3) feeds directly into Eq. (7) and Eq. (8), the inferred surface density n_surf and the saturation/collapse sequence shown in Figs. 7 and 8 inherit this bias. The manuscript should either model these transport processes quantitatively or explicitly restrict the claims that depend on the exact N_surf values.
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) is introduced as a postulate with free parameters α and β, and Section 6.3 adds an N_surf^2 retardation dependence; Eq. (10) similarly introduces constants a, b, σ, and μ. No fitted values, uncertainties, or residual plots are reported for any of these parameters, and the number of independent data points entering the fits is not stated. As a result, the 'very good agreement' in Figs. 7, 8, and 12 cannot be distinguished from a flexible fit to the same signals that are later interpreted as validation. Reporting the fitted parameter values, their uncertainties, and residual or chi-squared information is necessary to support the quantitative surface-state interpretation.
  3. [Section 6.1, Eq. (8) and Fig. 8] The comparison in Fig. 8 between the scattered flux density isca = Isca/R^2 and the modeled n_surf from Eq. (3) uses independently scaled ordinates and no quantitative agreement metric. Since isca is a raw flux density with arbitrary offset and scale, and n_surf has its own uncertain normalization through wNP (which the authors themselves note can be lower than the nominal value because of sedimentation in Section 2), the visual overlap does not independently validate Eq. (3). A quantitative comparison with error bars, or a fit of Eq. (8) to the measured isca with reported parameters, is needed.
  4. [Section 6.2 and Eq. (8)] The derivation of Eq. (8) neglects the refractive-index evolution meff(R), whereas the same section and Fig. 7 state that the increase of the effective refractive index explains the long-time average scattering trend. These statements need to be reconciled. If meff(R) changes substantially during evaporation, then isca = Isca/R^2 is not a clean proxy for n_surf, and the surface-density interpretation in Fig. 8 becomes ambiguous without a quantitative decomposition of the two effects.
  5. [Section 6.3 and Figs. 9-11] The interpretation that synchronization intervals correspond to the formation and decay of regular nanoparticle surface structures is not independently substantiated. The synchronized oscillations are also the intervals where the semi-empirical model with retardation was adjusted to reproduce the data, and no independent structural observable or a priori synchronization criterion is provided. To make the structural assignment load-bearing, the paper should offer a testable prediction of when synchronization should occur, for example from a NP-ordering model, and compare it with data that were not used to set the model parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The statement that up-conversion is a two-photon process and therefore 'enhances the resolution of observations' needs a brief explanation; higher-order intensity dependence does not by itself improve temporal or spatial resolution.
  2. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) and the surrounding text contain typographical artifacts in the definitions of ΩR and Ωx; please render the standing-wave expressions and the relations dR = 2π/ΩR, dx = π/Ωx cleanly.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for the surface nanoparticle number is inconsistent: Nsurf appears in Eq. (2), N_surf in Eqs. (3), (7), and (8), and N_surf again in Eq. (10); please unify the notation and define all symbols at first use.
  4. [Section 6.3] The sentence 'compare the purple line in Fig. (peak positions)' appears to refer to Fig. 11; please correct the cross-reference.
  5. [Fig. 9] The legend lists 'modelling of scattering @ 805 nm' but the caption does not identify which trace color corresponds to this modeling; please make the legend explicit.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The surface-density 'verification' in Sec. 6.1 reduces to a linear rescaling of the model input, and the scattering and luminescence models are fit to the same traces they are claimed to predict.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.1, Eq. (8), Fig. 8]
    "If we neglect the influence of the refractive index change/evolution and assume the long-time trend of Ieff ∝ R2, and we observe that the dynamics of Eqn. (7) is dominated by Nsurf(t), we can write: Isca(R) ≈ R2 + αNsurf. Then, from the long-term temporal variability of the flux density isca = Isca/R2, we should be able to grasp the main trends of the evolution of the surface NPs’ number density: nsurf ∝ isca. As can be seen in Fig. 8, the nsurf evolution obtained with Eqn. (3) is in a very good agreement with isca obtained from the experiment."

    Under Eq. (8), isca = Isca/R2 ≈ 1 + α Nsurf/R2. Since nsurf = Nsurf/(4πR2), this is isca ≈ 1 + 4πα nsurf. The comparison in Fig. 8 is therefore between nsurf from Eq. (3) and an affine function of the same nsurf(R) constructed from Eq. (8), with α adjusted from the scattering data. The claimed 'very good agreement' is installed by the model equation itself and cannot independently verify Eq. (3)'s surface-capture hypothesis; it is a linear rescaling of the model input, not an out-of-sample test.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Eq. (7); Sections 6.2–6.3, Figs. 7 and 11]
    "Now, it must be noticed that the second term in the Eqn. (4) does not hold well when N(R,x) is itself driven by the strong internal field at 805 nm line. In that case, we postulate a semi-empirical formula: Isca(λ,R) ≅ Ieff(λ,R,meff(R)) + [α Nsurf Ieff(805,R,meff(R)) + β Nsurf^2 ...]. Again, the proportionality factors α, β depend... It turns out, that the averaged Eqn. (7) predicts the observed trends quite well, as can be seen in Fig. 7."

    Eq. (7) is introduced as a postulate with free proportionality factors α and β that are set from the scattering data. The same traces are then said to be 'predicted' by Eq. (7) in Fig. 7, and in Fig. 11 the oscillatory peak positions are said to be 'reproduced' by the same equation. Because the amplitudes and the NP-interaction term were chosen from the very data being reproduced, the agreement is a measure of fit quality rather than independent validation of the surface-NP scattering mechanism.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.3, after Eq. (7)]
    "Furthermore, since it can be well expected that the migration of NPs introduces some lag in respect to the driving radiation intensity due to viscosity, some retardation had to be introduced into the second term. We found out that it is proportional to Nsurf^2, which seems to indicate the dependence on the NPs surface lattice stiffness (NPs mutual interactions)."

    This Nsurf^2 retardation term is not derived from an independent model; it is added after observing a misfit and its functional form is 'found out' from the data. Eq. (7) is then used to reproduce the oscillatory signals in Figs. 9 and 11. The agreement therefore includes a data-driven correction with no independent provenance, so the resulting 'reproduction' is partially forced by the added term.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 7, Eq. (10), Fig. 12]
    "Thus, the intensity of luminescence could be approximated as Ilumi = aNtot + b (Nsurf/(σ√(2π))) exp(−(x−μ)^2/(2σ^2)), where, a and b are constants. We confirmed with the fit (see Fig. 12) that Nsurf must be, in a way, accounted for twice..."

    Eq. (10) is a fitting form with free constants a and b, and the authors explicitly state that they 'confirmed with the fit' that Nsurf enters twice. The same fitted curve is then presented as the 'theoretical trend' in Fig. 12 and, in the conclusion, as part of 'theoretical modeling aligns well with experimental results.' This is a post-hoc fitted description of the luminescence maximum, not a prediction of an independent observable.

full rationale

The paper's homogeneous-droplet Mie treatment is genuinely benchmarked against a pure DEG droplet (Fig. 4), so the circularity is not total. However, the load-bearing surface-NP term is not independently validated. Section 6.1's 'very good agreement' between nsurf from Eq. (3) and isca is self-definitional: Eq. (8) relates isca linearly to Nsurf/R2, i.e. to nsurf, so the comparison is an affine rescaling of the model input. The scattering model Eq. (7) is a semi-empirical postulate with fitted α, β and an added Nsurf^2 retardation chosen from the data, yet it is described as predicting/reproducing the same traces. Eq. (10) is explicitly fit to the luminescence data and then used as the 'theoretical trend.' These steps reduce the central surface-saturation/collapse/gel-transition reading to the fitted model, although the qualitative evaporation-rate drop and the Mie resonance structure provide independent support. Hence a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate; the result is not fully forced by a self-citation chain, but the principal quantitative claims are fit-to-data rather than out-of-sample predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on a small set of postulates: a surface-collection formula for N_surf, a postulated scattering formula with fitted proportionality factors, and a fitted luminescence formula. None of these are derived from first principles or independently measured. They are accompanied by established tools (Mie theory, effective medium) that are not the source of uncertainty.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha scattering proportionality factor = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. 7; adjusted to match scattered intensities at 515, 632, and 805 nm; no values or uncertainties given.
  • beta NP scattering exponent = not reported
    Proportionality exponent in the NP term of Eq. 7; said to be 'consistent' for different wavelengths but not derived or reported.
  • N_surf retardation exponent = 2
    'We found out that it is proportional to N_surf^2' (Sec. 6.3); chosen to reproduce the lag between NP response and driving field.
  • a luminescence offset constant = not reported
    Constant in Eq. 10 fitted to luminescence time traces (Fig. 12).
  • b luminescence resonance amplitude = not reported
    Constant in Eq. 10 fitted to luminescence time traces (Fig. 12).
  • sigma surface NP distribution width = not reported
    Gaussian width in Eqs. 2 and 10; affects the resonance maximum and modulation amplitude; inferred from fits rather than measured.
  • mu surface NP mean spacing = not reported
    Gaussian mean in Eq. 2; used to compare NP spacing with the standing-wave period; not independently measured.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Mie theory for a homogeneous sphere
    Used in Secs. 4-5 to compute far-field scattering and internal field; benchmarked against a pure DEG droplet in Fig. 4.
  • domain assumption Effective medium approximation with a volume-fraction mixing rule
    Secs. 5-6 use Eqs. 5-6 to assign a single effective refractive index to the near-surface layer, neglecting inter-NP scattering in the effective-medium term.
  • ad hoc to paper N_surf(R) is set solely by interface inward movement (Eq. 3)
    Assumes every particle from the evaporated volume ends up in the surface layer, with no competing transport or adsorption kinetics; the authors themselves call it 'simplistically modelled'.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian surface NP distribution (Eq. 2)
    The surface layer is approximated as a Gaussian in distance along the circumference; no microscopic derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Photophoretic migration to field minima
    Invoked in Secs. 5 and 6.3 to explain synchronized oscillations and NP ordering, but no direct force calculation or independent measurement is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Luminescence functional form with a Gaussian resonant term (Eq. 10)
    Postulated form fitted to data; the claim that N_surf must be 'accounted for twice' is justified by fitting, not by a derivation from up-conversion kinetics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Up-Converting Luminescent Nanoparticles as Probes of Surface Dynamics in Single Evaporating Microdroplets of Suspension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WFUBLIH6

@misc{pith2026241215833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Up-Converting Luminescent Nanoparticles as Probes of Surface Dynamics in Single Evaporating Microdroplets of Suspension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WFUBLIH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15833}
}
read the original abstract

We have investigated the optically measurable properties of single evaporating microdroplets of suspensions containing up-converting luminescent nanoparticles (Gd2O3:Er3+), levitated in a linear electrodynamic trap. These microdroplets served as spherical optical resonators, with their resonance properties influenced by the distribution and interactions of nanoparticles (NPs) acting as nanoprobes. Using a combination of light scattering theories, we examined the evolution of the microdroplet radius, nanoparticle surface organization, and effective refractive index during evaporation. Up-conversion luminescence, driven by 805 nm excitation, enhanced the resolution of these observations. Key findings reveal that the increasing NP density in the surface layer leads to surface saturation, followed by transitions to a gel-like state through successive layer formation and collapse. Scattering and luminescence signals exhibit complex oscillatory behaviors linked to resonance phenomena and nanoparticle migration driven by photophoretic forces. Theoretical modeling closely aligns with experimental trends, confirming the interplay between NP distribution and optical resonance properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Due to low luminescence light intensity, th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Scattered light intensity in the far field, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The scattered light intensity maxima observed in the far-field versus the size parameter correspond to resonances of the internal field (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Color-coding corresponding. The violet solid line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: It can be observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shalaev, ed., Optical Properties of Nanost ructured Random Media, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002

    V.M. Shalaev, ed., Optical Properties of Nanost ructured Random Media, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44948-5

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-44948-5 2002

  2. [2]

    Iannacchione, A

    G. Iannacchione, A. Pal, Bio-colloidal Drying D roplets: Current Trends and Future Perspectives on Image Processing Applications, Acad. Lett. (2021). https://doi.org/10.20935/al2661

    work page doi:10.20935/al2661 2021

  3. [3]

    Arakawa, J.H

    A. Arakawa, J.H. Jung, C.M. Wu, Toward unificat ion of the multiscale modeling of the atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11 (2011) 3731–3742. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3731- 2011

    work page doi:10.5194/acp-11-3731- 2011

  4. [4]

    Tao, M.W

    W.K. Tao, M.W. Moncrieff, Multiscale cloud syst em modeling, Rev. Geophys. 47 (2009) 1–

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    D. Zang, S. Tarafdar, Y.Y. Tarasevich, M. Dutta Choudhury, T. Dutta, Evaporation of a Droplet: From physics to applications, Phys. Rep. 804 (2019) 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.01.008 2019

  6. [6]

    Diveky, S

    M.E. Diveky, S. Roy, J.W. Cremer, G. David, R. Signorell, Assessing relative humidity dependent photoacoustics to retrieve mass accommodation coefficients of single optically trapped aerosol particles, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21 (2019) 4721–4731. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CP06980H

    work page doi:10.1039/c8cp06980h 2019

  7. [7]

    Parviz, D

    B.A. Parviz, D. Ryan, G.M. Whitesides, Using Se lf-Assembly for the Fabrication of Nano- Scale Electronic and Photonic Devices, IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag. 26 (2003) 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1109/TADVP.2003.817971

    work page arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Bruning, C.D

    M.A. Bruning, C.D. Ohl, A. Marin, Soft cavitati on in colloidal droplets, Soft Matter 17 (2021) 1861–1872. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0sm02002h

    work page doi:10.1039/d0sm02002h 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Symes, R.M

    R. Symes, R.M. Sayer, J.P. Reid, Cavity enhance d droplet spectroscopy: Principles, perspectives and prospects, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 6 (2004) 474. https://doi.org/10.1039/b313370b

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    L. Cai, J. Pan, Y. Zhao, J. Wang, S. Xiao, Whi spering Gallery Mode Optical Microresonators: Structures and Sensing Applications, Phys. Status Solidi Appl. Mater. Sci. 217 (2020) 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201900825

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Jakubczyk, M

    D. Jakubczyk, M. Kolwas, G. Derkachov, K. Kolw as, Surface States of Microdroplet of Suspension, J. Phys. Chem. C 113 (2009) 10598–10602. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9007812

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Kolwas, K

    M. Kolwas, K. Kolwas, G. Derkachov, D. Jakubcz yk, Surface diagnostics of evaporating droplets of nanosphere suspension: Fano interference and surface pressure, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17 (2015) 6881–6888. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cp00013k

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Adamson, T.A

    A.W. Adamson, T.A. Adamson, A.P. Gast, Physica l Chemistry of Surfaces, Wiley, 1997. https://books.google.pl/books?id=rK4PAQAAMAAJ

    1997

  6. [14]

    Ryckelynck, S

    M. Ryckelynck, S. Baudrey, C. Rick, A. Marin, F. Coldren, E. Westhof, A.D. Griffiths, Using droplet-based microfluidics to improve the catalytic properties of RNA under multiple-turnover conditions, Rna 21 (2015) 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.048033.114

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Wo źniak, G

    M. Wo źniak, G. Derkachov, K. Kolwas, J. Archer, T. Wojciechowski, D. Jakubczyk, M. Kolwas, Formation of Highly Ordered Spherical Aggregates from Drying Microdroplets of Colloidal Suspension, Langmuir 31 (2015) 7860–7868. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b01621

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Lohmann, F

    U. Lohmann, F. Friebel, Z.A. Kanji, F. Mahrt, A.A. Mensah, D. Neubauer, Future warming exacerbated by aged-soot effect on cloud formation, Nat. Geosci. 13 (2020) 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0631-0

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Li, W.K.-M

    Z. Li, W.K.-M. Lau, V. Ramanathan, G. Wu, Y. D ing, M.G. Manoj, J. Liu, Y. Qian, J. Li, T. Zhou, J. Fan, D. Rosenfeld, Y. Ming, Y. Wang, J. Huang, B. Wang, X. Xu, S. ‐S. Lee, M. Cribb, F. Zhang, X. Yang, C. Zhao, T. Takemura, K. Wang, X. Xia, Y. Yin, H. Zhang, J. Guo, P.M. Zha...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Rezaei, R.R

    M. Rezaei, R.R. Netz, Airborne virus transmiss ion via respiratory droplets: Effects of droplet evaporation and sedimentation, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 55 (2021) 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2021.101471

    2021

  11. [19]

    Jakubczyk, G

    D. Jakubczyk, G. Derkachov, W. Bazhan, E. Łusa kowska, K. Kolwas, M. Kolwas, Study of microscopic properties of water fullerene suspensions by means of resonant light scattering analysis, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 37 (2004) 2918–2924. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022- 3727/37/20/021

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Kolwas, K

    M. Kolwas, K. Kolwas, D. Jakubczyk, G. Derkach ov, Collective scattering of light on gold nanospheres dispersed in diethylene glycol microdroplet, Acta Phys. Pol. A 131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.131.288

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Kolwas, D

    M. Kolwas, D. Jakubczyk, J. Archer, T. Do Duc, Evolution of mass, surface layer composition and light scattering of evaporating, single microdropletes of SDS/DEG suspension. Shrinking droplet surface as the micelles generator, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 258 (2021) 10...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Derkachov, D

    G. Derkachov, D. Jakubczyk, K. Kolwas, K. Piek arski, Y. Shopa, M. Wo źniak, Dynamic light scattering investigation of single levitated micrometre-sized droplets containing spherical nanoparticles, Measurement 158 (2020) 107681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107681

    2020

  15. [23]

    Sreejith, J

    S. Sreejith, J. Ajayan, J.M. Radhika, N. V. Um a Reddy, M. Manikandan, Recent advances in nano biosensors: An overview, Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 236 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.115073

    2024

  16. [24]

    Shopa, M

    Y. Shopa, M. Kolwas, I. Kami ńska, G. Derkachov, K. Nyandey, T. Jakubczyk, T. Wojciechowski, A. Derkachova, D. Jakubczyk, Luminescent nanoparticles in a shrinking spherical cavity – probing the evaporating microdroplets of colloidal suspension – optical lattices and structural...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Wo źniak, J

    M. Wo źniak, J. Archer, T. Wojciechowski, G. Derkachov, T. Jakubczyk, K. Kolwas, M. Kolwas, D. Jakubczyk, Application of a linear electrodynamic quadrupole trap for production of nanoparticle aggregates from drying microdroplets of colloidal suspension, J. Instrum. 14 (2019) P...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Davis, A History of Single Aerosol Partic le Levitation, Aerosol Sci

    E.J. Davis, A History of Single Aerosol Partic le Levitation, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 26 (1997) 212–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829708965426

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    M.B. Hart, V. Sivaprakasam, J.D. Eversole, L.J . Johnson, J. Czege, Optical measurements from single levitated particles using a linear electrodynamic quadrupole trap, Appl. Opt. 54 (2015) F174. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.54.00f174

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Kami ńska, D

    I. Kami ńska, D. Elbaum, B. Sikora, P. Kowalik, J. Mikulski, Z. Felcyn, P. Samol, T. Wojciechowski, R. Minikayev, W. Paszkowicz, W. Zaleszczyk, M. Szewczyk, A. Konopka, G. Gruzeł, M. Pawlyta, M. Donten, K. Ciszak, K. Zajdel, M. Frontczak-Baniewicz, P. St ępie ń, M. Łapi ński, ...

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Riefler, T

    N. Riefler, T. Wriedt, U. Fritsching, Flexible Piezoelectric Drop-On-Demand Droplet Generation, in: Proc. ILASS–Europe 2017. 28th Conf. Liq. At. Spray Syst., Universitat Politècnica València, Valencia, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4995/ILASS2017.2017.4846

    2017

  22. [30]

    Shopa, D

    I. Shopa, D. Jakubczyk, I. Kami ńska, G. Derkachov, T. Wojciechowski, K. Fronc, Evaporation of levitating microdroplets containing nanoparticles: luminescent Gd2O3:Er3+, illumination with 806 nm laser from below via optical fiber, Mendeley Data (2024). https://doi.org/10.17632...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Sorensen, Light scattering by fractal agg regates: A review, Aerosol Sci

    C.M. Sorensen, Light scattering by fractal agg regates: A review, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 648–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820117868

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Bohren, D.R

    C.F. Bohren, D.R. Huffman, Absorption and Scat tering of Light by Small Particles, Wiley,

  25. [33]

    radius-square-law

    D. Jakubczyk, M. Kolwas, G. Derkachov, K. Kolw as, M. Zientara, Evaporation of micro- droplets: The “radius-square-law” revisited, Acta Phys. Pol. A 122 (2012). https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.122.709

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Tzarouchis, A

    D. Tzarouchis, A. Sihvola, Light Scattering by a Dielectric Sphere: Perspectives on the Mie Resonances, Appl. Sci. 8 (2018) 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8020184

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Chýlek, J.D

    P. Chýlek, J.D. Pendleton, R.G. Pinnick, Inter nal and near-surface scattered field of a spherical particle at resonant conditions, Appl. Opt. 24 (1985) 3940. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.24.003940

    1985 doi

  28. [36]

    Machfuudzoh, T

    I. Machfuudzoh, T. Hinamoto, F.J. García de Ab ajo, H. Sugimoto, M. Fujii, T. Sannomiya, Visualizing the Nanoscopic Field Distribution of Whispering-Gallery Modes in a Dielectric Sphere by Cathodoluminescence, ACS Photonics 10 (2023) 1434–1445. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphoto...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Mätzler, MATLAB Functions for Mie Scatterin g and Absorption, IAP Res Rep 2002–08 (2002) 1139–1151

    C. Mätzler, MATLAB Functions for Mie Scatterin g and Absorption, IAP Res Rep 2002–08 (2002) 1139–1151. http://arrc.ou.edu/~rockee/NRA_2007_website/Mie-scattering-Matlab.pdf

    2002

  30. [38]

    Arnold, R

    S. Arnold, R. Ramjit, D. Keng, V. Kolchenko, I . Teraoka, MicroParticle photophysics illuminates viral bio-sensing, Faraday Discuss. 137 (2008) 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1039/B702920A

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    L. Dong, D. Johnson, Surface Tension of Charge -Stabilized Colloidal Suspensions at the Water−Air Interface, Langmuir 19 (2003) 10205–10209. https://doi.org/10.1021/la035128j

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    Ngo, R.G

    D. Ngo, R.G. Pinnick, Suppression of scatterin g resonances in inhomogeneous microdroplets, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1352. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.11.001352

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000276

    doi

  34. [42]

    Kolwas, D

    M. Kolwas, D. Jakubczyk, G. Derkachov, K. Kolw as, Interaction of optical Whispering Gallery Modes with the surface layer of evaporating droplet of suspension, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 131 (2013) 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.03.009

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    Gobel, A

    G. Gobel, A. Lippek, T. Wriedt, K. Bauckhage, MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF LIGHT SCATTERING BY INHOMOGENEOUS SPHERES, in: Proc. Second Int. Symp. Radiat. Transf., Begellhouse, Connecticut, 1997: pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1615/ICHMT.1997.IntSymLiqTwoPhaseFlowTranspPhenCHTRadTra...

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    A.V. Lazo, P. Rathie, On the entropy of contin uous probability distributions (Corresp.), IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24 (1978) 120–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1978.1055832

    1978

  37. [45]

    Archer, M

    J. Archer, M. Kolwas, M. Wo źniak, D. Jakubczyk, K. Kolwas, G. Derkachov, T. Wojciechowski, Sodium dodecyl sulfate microaggregates with diversely developed surfaces: Formation from free microdroplets of colloidal suspension, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (2019) 39. https://doi.org/10...

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Kher-Alden, S

    J. Kher-Alden, S. Maayani, L.L. Martin, M. Dou vidzon, L. Deych, T. Carmon, Microspheres with Atomic-Scale Tolerances Generate Hyperdegeneracy, Phys. Rev. X 10 (2020) 031049. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031049

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Righini, Y

    G.C. Righini, Y. Dumeige, P. Féron, M. Ferrari , G.N. Conti, D. Ristic, S. Soria, Whispering Gallery Mode microresonators: Fundamentals and applications, Riv. Del Nuovo Cim. 34 (2011) 435–488. https://doi.org/10.1393/ncr/i2011-10067-2

    2011 doi

  40. [1998]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527618156

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.