TinyLev: A multi-emitter single-axis acoustic levitator

Asier Marzo, , Adrian Barnes, and , and Bruce W. Drinkwater

Citation: Review of Scientific Instruments 88, 085105 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4989995

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4989995
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/rsi/88/8
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS 88, 085105 (2017)

TinyLev: A multi-emitter single-axis acoustic levitator

Asier Marzo,1,a) Adrian Barnes,2 and Bruce W. Drinkwater1
1 Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, United Kingdom
2 School of Physics, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TL, United Kingdom
(Received 13 June 2017; accepted 26 July 2017; published online 10 August 2017)
Acoustic levitation has the potential to enable novel studies due to its ability to hold a wide variety of
substances against gravity under container-less conditions. It has found application in spectroscopy,
chemistry, and the study of organisms in microgravity. Current levitators are constructed using
Langevin horns that need to be manufactured to high tolerance with carefully matched resonant
frequencies. This resonance condition is hard to maintain as their temperature changes due to trans-
duction heating. In addition, Langevin horns are required to operate at high voltages (>100 V) which
may cause problems in challenging experimental environments. Here, we design, build, and evaluate
a single-axis levitator based on multiple, low-voltage (ca. 20 V), well-matched, and commercially
available ultrasonic transducers. The levitator operates at 40 kHz in air and can trap objects above 2.2
g/cm3 density and 4 mm in diameter whilst consuming 10 W of input power. Levitation of water, fused-
silica spheres, small insects, and electronic components is demonstrated. The device is constructed
from low-cost off-the-shelf components and is easily assembled using 3D printed sections. Complete
instructions and a part list are provided on how to assemble the levitator. © 2017 Author(s). All article
content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4989995]

INTRODUCTION of surfactant solutions.38 Other applications include the for-

mation of levitated ice flakes,3 eutectic crystal growth in
Sound is a mechanical wave and as such it carries
molten metals,49 evaporation of binary liquids,54 the study
momentum that can act on particles due to acoustic radiation
of phase transitions,11 and the rapid crystallization8 or ion-
forces.7,9,15,18 When the forces exerted on an object are strong
ization35 of samples. Levitated samples do not need to be
enough and converge from all directions, the particles can be
held in a receptacle, providing benefits in accurate mass spec-
levitated and stably trapped.6
troscopy45 and Raman spectroscopy30 with specific cases for
Acoustic waves can trap particles of different materials
algae,47 blood cells,29 or droplet aggregations.32 In general,
and a wide range of sizes of millimetre dimensions. This is a
acoustic levitation is a useful and versatile tool in biomate-
significant difference with respect to optical trapping in which
rials research43 and chemistry31 and enables lab-on-a-drop
the particle size range is 0.01-10 µm and the materials need to
procedures.28
be dielectric or optically transparent.24 Also, acoustic trapping
The most common arrangement for acoustic levitators is
has a ratio of trapping force to input energy orders of magni-
a single-axis configuration46 for which there are two main
tude higher than optical manipulation.21 Magnetic levitation
types. The first is based on an acoustic transducer and a reflec-
can strongly hold samples in mid-air 10 but it only supports
tor, the separation distance and geometry of which are typi-
ferromagnetic materials. On the other hand, diamagnetic mate-
cally designed to act as a resonant cavity. On the other hand,
rials can be levitated by magnets that repel the sample;14 a frog
non-resonant levitators can be made using two separated and
was levitated in this way5 since water is slightly diamagnetic.
opposite emitters. Resonant devices are more efficient but are
However, this technique requires strong magnetic fields given
sensitive to changes in temperature and arrangement of the
the weak diamagnetism of most materials of interest. Other
elements. Both resonant and non-resonant levitators are driven
forms of levitation such as aerodynamic levitation53 agitate
with a sinusoidal excitation signal to generate a standing wave
and alter the samples in the process, and in electrostatic lev-
between their elements; this standing wave will trap particles
itation,23 the required control systems are complex and the
at its nodes.
sample materials are limited.
For resonant levitators, it was shown that a concave reflec-
The versatility of airborne acoustic levitation makes it
tor produced stronger trapping forces than a planar one27 and
a useful tool in container-less transportation,12,19 pharma-
that using a large radiation plate attached to the front of the
ceutics,4 nano-assemblies,34 and the levitation of biological
emitter provided more stability40 allowing the levitation of
samples29 or even small animals.36,52 Acoustic levitation of
liquids and study of samples in microgravity; these results
liquids can be used to study new fluid dynamics39 and mea-
have been validated in later research.48,50 Using a concave
sure their surface tension37,41 or the rheological properties
emitter increased significantly the efficiency of the levita-
tors,1 by locally concentrating the acoustic energy. However,
a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: amarzo a change in temperature affects the speed of sound and thus
@hotmail.com. detunes the resonance and reduces trapping strength;51 also

0034-6748/2017/88(8)/085105/6 88, 085105-1 © Author(s) 2017

085105-2 Marzo, Barnes, and Drinkwater Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 085105 (2017)

introducing large samples in the levitator can shift its resonant ultrasonic emitters. This is analogous to the translation from
frequency,44 leading to the need to adjust the system (e.g., the a single powerful lamp to an array of light-emitting diodes
cavity size or excitation signal). Also, non-linear behaviours (LEDs) that is now seen in, e.g., traffic lights, projectors,
such as second harmonic generation can reduce the trapping and spotlights to make devices durable, inexpensive, and reli-
force of resonant levitators.2 For improving the adaptability of able. In the sections titled Design and Results, we show
emitter-reflector levitators, a morphing reflector made of water the procedures followed to design TinyLev and evaluate its
or elastic materials has been demonstrated.13,16 performance.
Researchers employ non-resonant systems for versatile
and more stable levitators. These systems are typically com-
posed of two emitters opposed to each other.42 Using this DESIGN
approach, a levitator with an operating temperature range We will describe the design considerations for making a
of 40 to +40 °C was developed that required no calibration single-axis levitator using an array of small ultrasonic emit-
for the separation of the opposed emitters. ters. First, we analyse the available transducers which are the
All these previous levitators are based on single or elements that transform the electric signal into acoustic power.
opposed pairs of Langevin horns which are made of piezoelec- Second, we study how to spatially arrange the transducers to
tric disks clamped between a backing material and a resonating maximize trapping forces and the number of traps as well as
horn.20 They have the advantage of supporting high-voltages reducing parasitic reflections. Third, we present simple and
(typically 100-1000 V) leading to the generation of high acous- effective electronics to drive the transducers.
tic pressures with a single emitter. However, they have several
disadvantages that limit the widespread use of acoustic lev-
Field and force simulations
itation. First, Langevin horns are hard to tune to a specific
resonant frequency, for instance, Weber et al.42 reported that For simulating the generated complex acoustic pressure
dozens of horns were built and then the two with the closest (i.e., amplitude and phase) emitted by each transducer, we
frequency were picked. Second, the high-voltage required to used the piston source model,26 the contribution of each trans-
drive them is potentially dangerous. Third, as Langevin horns ducer in the array is then summed to obtain the total field.
typically heat up due to transduction inefficiency and their res- The force was calculated as the gradient of the Gor’kov poten-
onant behaviour is sensitive to temperature, they must be left tial.15 More details of the method can be found in Sec. 1 of the
to “warm-up” prior to operation and lose power after intense supplementary material.
functioning. We note that there is an additional effect due to reflections
On the other hand, phased arrays made of hundreds of that is not considered in this model but we consider that it can
ultrasonic transducers have been demonstrated to levitate small be ignored. To explore this assumption, a pulse-train of 4 cycles
electronic components.25 However, their capability to levitate was generated on the top array; the amplitude measured in the
a wider range of liquids and solids is still unproven and current bottom array had decayed to 86% (SD = 0.5%, 4 repetitions)
phased-arrays require complex custom electronics available after the first reflection on the top array (i.e., pulse emitted
only to a few research laboratories.17,21,25 from the top, reflected on the bottom, reflected on the top, and
Here, we present TinyLev, a single-axis non-resonant lev- measured at the bottom). The negligible influence of reflec-
itator made with off-the-shelf low-cost components (Fig. 1). tions is further supported by the good correspondence between
This levitator produces stable trapping, is robust to changes the simulated and experimental levitation forces (Fig. 2), the
in temperature and humidity, functions with low-voltage, is small difference in current consumption at different phase
easy to operate, and can operate for extended periods of time. differences between the top and bottom array (Sec. 2 of the
Instead of using one or two Langevin horns, we use 72 simple supplementary material), and the ability to move the levitated

FIG. 1. (a) TinyLev system composed

of the driver board and the single-
axis levitator with 72 transducers
(arranged as two surfaces, each con-
taining 36 transducers). Expanded
Polystyrene (EPS) particles are trapped
at its nodes. (b) Simulated acoustic field;
each circle represents a 10 mm diameter
transducer and the colour represents the
emitting phase of the transducers (two
driving signals are required to produce
vertical movement of the traps).
085105-3 Marzo, Barnes, and Drinkwater Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 085105 (2017)

Number of transducers
After exploring some of the possibilities, we decided to
use 36 transducers at each side (72 in total) as a compromise
between trapping force and cost/complexity. These transduc-
ers are arranged in rings of 6, 12, and 18 transducers which
come from the optimal circle packing in a hexagonal pattern
(Sec. 5 of the supplementary material); we removed the trans-
ducer in the centre to leave a hole for inserting a camera or
injector and alternatively as an exit route for falling drops.
As it will be seen later, this number of transducers generates
enough force to levitate samples of interest and keeps the man-
ufacturing process simple. More transducer can be added, and
the next ring would consist of 24 transducers. However, whilst
this will increase the trapping forces, it brings additional cost
and complexity. Also, it makes the spherical cap on which
FIG. 2. Simulated trapping strength performance as a function of the the transducers are placed more closed, resulting in a more
array separation. Note that in all cases each array surface consists of 36 resonant device.
close-packed transducers and the surfaces are curved to achieve a cen-
tral focus. (a) Maps of acoustic pressure for different array separations.
The same colour scale is used for each separation. Each circle represents Arrangement of the transducers
a 10 mm diameter transducer. (b) Trapping force as a function of array
separation. Langevin-horn levitators radiate sound from large surface
area horns or curved reflectors that naturally focus the acous-
samples across several nodes (Movie 1 of the supplementary tic waves. In contrast, TinyLev is made of arrays of small
material). transducers that achieve an acoustic focus by their orienta-
tion and distance. We analysed 4 focusing strategies as shown
in Fig. 3. Laying the transducers in flat surfaces allows for
Transducers a very simple construction, e.g., using a laser cut base-plate,
but the trapping force is too low for most applications (i.e.,
The main components of the levitator are the transducers,
2% of the trapping force performance compared to the best
elements that transform the electrical input signal into acoustic
configuration we explored). It is possible to focus the acous-
waves. For operating in air, transducers for distance measure-
tic energy of an array by electronically adjusting the phase
ment were found to provide good acoustic power, consistent
of the signals to increase the trapping force (i.e., 50%), but
resonant frequency, and are available at a low-price. Most of
this approach requires complex electronics capable of produc-
the commercially available transducers operate at 40 kHz. Air-
ing many independent signals. It is also possible to introduce
borne acoustic waves at that frequency have a wavelength of
fixed physical phase-delays by placing the transducers at set
8.65 mm at 25 °C which allows the levitation of samples of up
to ≈4 mm (half-wavelength).
We evaluated a selection of commercially available trans-
ducers and these are listed and evaluated in Sec. 2 of the
supplementary material. The key factor measured was the pres-
sure generated at a fixed distance under the same excitation
signal. Another important measure is the standard deviation
of the phase; transducers were found to output slightly off-
set signals even if they were fed with the same signal and the
acoustic pressure recorded at the same distance; this is prob-
ably due to manufacturing differences even within the same
batch.
Most transducers we evaluated are available in either
10 mm or 16 mm diameter. We decided to concentrate on
the 10 mm variants to reduce the experimental burden and
produce a compact device. Murata transducers are the best
option for 10 mm with the highest acoustic pressure levels and
the smallest phase deviation; however, Ningbo or Manorshi
10 mm transducers minimise cost and would only incur in a
3% reduction in trapping force due to their phase deviation
(SD = 14°). In Sec. 4 of the supplementary material, we show FIG. 3. Simulated effect of different focusing methods on the acoustic field:
(a) no focusing, (b) electronic phase focusing, (c) focusing by distance off-
how the standard deviation of the phase (assuming a zero mean sets, (d) focusing by distance offset and transducer orientation angle. Scale
Gaussian random variation) affects the trapping force of the is the same; each circle represents a 10 mm diameter transducer. (Bottom)
device shown in Fig. 1. Normalized trapping forces obtained with each arrangement.
085105-4 Marzo, Barnes, and Drinkwater Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 085105 (2017)

vertical distances;22 this strategy leads to the same perfor- RESULTS

mance as the electronic phase control approach. However, Trapping force
the best performing configuration is achieved by moving the
transducers vertically to obtain the focusing effect, then ori- The main performance measure of the levitator is the max-
enting the transducers so that their normal points towards imum density of the particles that it can levitate. If the particles
the focus. This final option ensures that a focus is achieved are in the Rayleigh regime (i.e., smaller than half the wave-
and the transducers insonify this focal point with maximum length), then the trapping force is proportional to the volume
intensity. so only the density limits the samples that can be levitated.
The separation of the upper and lower array surfaces also Samples were placed in the levitator and the voltage of the
affects the trapping forces that the device generates. In Fig. 2, excitation signal reduced until the sample fell from the trap. In
we show how different array separations affect the generated Fig. 4, we show the required voltage for samples of different
forces. In each case, the array surfaces are curved to achieve densities, i.e., isopropyl alcohol (0.79 g/cm3 ), water (1 g/cm3 ),
a geometric focus in the centre of the cavity. This means that, sugar (1.5 g/cm3 ), and fused silica (2.2 g/cm3 ).
as the array surface separation increases so does the radius of Denser objects were levitated (Sec. 10 of the supplemen-
curvature of the arrays surfaces. Note that in all cases, the trans- tary material), i.e., moulding sand (1.76 g/cm3 ), Blu Tack
ducers are close-packed over each array surface. We found that (2 g/cm3 ), pieces of ceramic (2.4 g/cm3 ), SOIC8 MOSFET
spreading out the transducers to produce a larger array surface (3 g/cm3 ), and sapphire spheres (3.9 g/cm3 ). However, the
reduced the z-force trapping force and increased reflections, agreement between the simulations and experiments decreased
so this was not explored further. Note that the z-force needs to notably. We hypothesized that this was caused because the
be the highest as it provides the levitation against gravity; the shape of the objects was irregular, the transducers were operat-
x and y forces may be smaller but are still important as they ing above its 20 Vpp maximum (i.e., outside the linear voltage-
provide lateral stability. to-amplitude regime), and some of the samples were sound
To manufacture the frame in which the transducers are absorbers. Some of the levitated samples are shown in Fig. 5.
mounted, we analysed various options. We selected 3D print-
ing since it easily allowed us to obtain accurate sockets for the
transducers that fix their position and orientation angle. 3D
printing the frame in one piece provides stability and simplic-
ity. The only way of 3D printing the frame in one piece is laying
it on the bed with the bowl-shaped array surfaces pointing
upwards (Sec. 6 of the supplementary material). This restrains
the curvature of the bowls as excessive overhang proved dif-
ficult to print. Although, the maximum longitudinal trapping
force was obtained with an array surface radius of curvature
of 4.5 cm, we selected the arrangement with 6 cm radius to
minimize undesired reflections, overhang, and to obtain more
functional traps. The realization of other arrangements can be
seen in Sec. 7 of the supplementary material.

Driving electronics
FIG. 4. Minimum excitation voltage for levitating samples of different
We use square waves as the excitation signal since they are densities. Error bars represent standard deviation measured over 4 drop tests.
somewhat easier to generate digitally compared to sinusoidal
waves. We note that exciting air-borne ultrasound transducers
with square waves is a common practice;21,33 since the trans-
ducers have a resonant behaviour, they act as notch filters and
the output is near-sinusoidal. In Sec. 8 of the supplementary
material, we show the excitation signal and the corresponding
transducer output for both a sinusoidal and the square wave
driver excitation signal.
We used an Arduino Nano to generate the square wave
signals and a L297N Dual H-Bridge motor driver to amplify
the signals. We use a push-pull configuration so the peak-to-
peak voltage that the transducers receive is double the input
voltage. The electronics can drive two channels with up to 70
Vpp and a phase resolution of π/12. One channel is kept at a
constant phase, while the other channel’s phase can be shifted FIG. 5. Levitated samples using TinyLev. (a) A 40 µl supersaturated solu-
tion of isopropyl and tin dioxide, 2.5 mm in diameter. (b) Ant, 6 mm long
to move the trapped particles upwards or downwards. Further
without the antennas. (c) Polylactic acid, 2 mm width fragments. (d) MOS-
details on the circuits are provided in Sec. 9 and Movie 1 of FET TC4427, 5 × 1.45 × 3.85 mm. (e) Ketchup and mustard, 3 mm wide. (f )
the supplementary material. Water, 3 mm wide. (g) Sugar crystal, 1 mm wide.
085105-5 Marzo, Barnes, and Drinkwater Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 085105 (2017)

A scaled-up version of TinyLev (i.e., BigLev) which was 160% 1 Andrade, M. A., Buiochi, F., and Adamowski, J. C., “Finite element analysis

larger and used 16 mm transducers can levitate samples of up and optimization of a single-axis acoustic levitator,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason.
to 6.5 g/cm3 (Fig. 7.2 of the supplementary material). Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 57(2), 469–479 (2010).
2 Andrade, M. A., Ramos, T. S., Okina, F. T., and Adamowski, J. C., “Nonlin-

ear characterization of a single-axis acoustic levitator,” Rev. Sci. Instrum.

85(4), 045125 (2014).
Robustness of the levitator 3 Bauerecker, S. and Neidhart, B., “Formation and growth of ice particles in

stationary ultrasonic fields,” J. Chem. Phys. 109(10), 3709–3712 (1998).

Tests with the levitator showed that it is easy to use and 4 Benmore, C. J. and Weber, J. K. R., “Amorphization of molecular liquids
operates effectively from the time of switch on over sustained of pharmaceutical drugs by acoustic levitation,” Phys. Rev. X 1(1), 011004
periods. Continuous levitation of solutions for more than (2011).
5 Berry, M. V. and Geim, A. K., “Of flying frogs and levitrons,” Eur. J. Phys.
2 h is shown in Sec. 11 of the supplementary material, with
18(4), 307 (1997).
experiments measuring the evaporation rate of sugary water 6 Brandt, E. H., “Acoustic physics: Suspended by sound,” Nature 413(6855),
and jelly. We placed a soldering iron (350 °C) at 5 mm from the 474–475 (2001).
7 Bruus, H., “Acoustofluidics 7: The acoustic radiation force on small
sample for 10 min and the sample remained stably trapped; this
shows robustness against local temperature changes in the air; particles,” Lab Chip 12(6), 1014–1021 (2012).
8 Cao, H. L., Yin, D. C., Guo, Y. Z., Ma, X. L., He, J., Guo, W. H., Xie,
also, it was possible to form droplets with an ultrasonic mister X.-Z., and Zhou, B. R., “Rapid crystallization from acoustically levitated
pointed towards the levitation area demonstrating tolerance to droplets,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(4), 3164–3172 (2012).
9 Doinikov, A. A., “On the radiation pressure on small spheres,” J. Acoust.
humidity (Sec. 12 of the supplementary material).
Soc. Am. 100(2), 1231–1233 (1996).
10 El Hajjaji, A. and Ouladsine, M., “Modeling and nonlinear control of

magnetic levitation systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 48(4), 831–838

CONCLUSION (2001).
11 Ermoline, A., Schoenitz, M., Hoffmann, V. K., and Dreizin, E. L.,
We have presented TinyLev, a single-axis non-resonant “Experimental technique for studying high-temperature phases in reac-
acoustic levitator capable of holding samples of interest in tive molten metal based systems,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75(12), 5177–5185
mid-air. The difference with previous work is that it is made (2004).
12 Foresti, D., Nabavi, M., Klingauf, M., Ferrari, A., and Poulikakos, D.,
of an array of multiple small transducers instead of one or two
“Acoustophoretic contactless transport and handling of matter in air,” Proc.
Langevin horns. This reduces sensitivity to temperature, low- Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110(31), 12549–12554 (2013).
ers the required voltage levels, and simplifies the manufacture 13 Foresti, D., Sambatakakis, G., Bottan, S., and Poulikakos, D., “Morphing

process so that anyone can manufacture it using readily avail- surfaces enable acoustophoretic contactless transport of ultrahigh-density
able components. Furthermore, it extends the levitation time matter in air,” Sci. Rep. 3, 3176 (2013).
14 Geim, A. K., Simon, M. D., Boamfa, M. I., and Heflinger, L. O., “Magnet
enabling experiments that were complicated to execute before. levitation at your fingertips,” Nature 400(6742), 323 (1999).
We believe that this work is a democratization of acoustic lev- 15 Gorkov, L. P., “Forces acting on a small particle in an acoustic field within

itation, a technology with enormous potential for multitude of an ideal fluid,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 140(1), 88 (1961).
16 Hong, Z. Y., Xie, W. J., and Wei, B., “Acoustic levitation with self-adaptive
applications (e.g., biotechnology, chemistry, or spectroscopy)
flexible reflectors,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82(7), 074904 (2011).
but previously constrained to a few research labs. We hope 17 Hoshi, T., Takahashi, M., Iwamoto, T., and Shinoda, H., “Noncontact tactile

that TinyLev helps more research labs or schools to have display based on radiation pressure of airborne ultrasound,” IEEE Trans.
access to acoustic levitation or even make it a standard science Haptics 3(3), 155–165 (2010).
18 King, L. V., “On the acoustic radiation pressure on spheres,” Proc. R. Soc.
experiment demonstration. A 147(861), 212–240 (1934).
19 Kozuka, T., Yasui, K., Tuziuti, T., Towata, A., and Iida, Y., “Noncontact

acoustic manipulation in air,” Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 1 46(7S), 4948

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL (2007).
20 Lin, S., “Study on the multifrequency Langevin ultrasonic transducer,”
See supplementary material for a document with the Ultrasonics 33(6), 445–448 (1995).
21 Marzo, A., Seah, S. A., Drinkwater, B. W., Sahoo, D. R., Long, B., and Sub-
model for the pressure and the force, the power consumption
ramanian, S., “Holographic acoustic elements for manipulation of levitated
of the system, the transducers’ analysis, the phase deviation
objects,” Nat. Commun. 6, 8661 (2015).
effects on the trapping force, the transducers’ packing, the 22 Marzo, A., Ghobrial, A., Cox, L., Caleap, M., Croxford, A., and Drinkwater,
placement of the pieces on the 3D printer, other arrangements B. W., “Realization of compact tractor beams using acoustic delay-lines,”
that were created, transducers’ response to different excitation Appl. Phys. Lett. 110(1), 014102 (2017).
23 Mauro, N. A. and Kelton, K. F., “A highly modular beamline electrostatic
signals, the driving board circuit, the dropping test for other levitation facility, optimized for in situ high-energy x-ray scattering studies
samples, an evaporation test, and a robustness test for humid- of equilibrium and supercooled liquids,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82(3), 035114
ity as well as temperature change. A video with instructions (2011).
24 Neuman, K. C. and Block, S. M., “Optical trapping,” Rev. Sci. Instrum.
of how to assemble and operate the levitator is also attached.
75(9), 2787–2809 (2004).
Finally, a zip file contains the 3D models (STL files) and the 25 Ochiai, Y., Hoshi, T., and Rekimoto, J., “Pixie dust: Graphics generated by
source code for the Arduino. levitated and animated objects in computational acoustic-potential field,”
ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG) 33(4), 85 (2014).
26 O’Neil, H., “Theory of focusing radiators,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 21(5),

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 516–526 (1949).

27 Oran, W. A., Berge, L. H., and Parker, H. W., “Parametric study of an

This project has been funded by the UK Engineering and acoustic levitation system,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 51(5), 626–631 (1980).
28 Priego-Capote, F. and de Castro, L., “Ultrasound-assisted levitation: Lab-
Physical Science Research Council (No. EP/N014197/1). All
on-a-drop,” TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 25(9), 856–867 (2006).
data needed to complete the study are contained within this 29 Puskar, L., Tuckermann, R., Frosch, T., Popp, J., Ly, V., McNaughton, D.,

paper. and Wood, B. R., “Raman acoustic levitation spectroscopy of red blood
085105-6 Marzo, Barnes, and Drinkwater Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 085105 (2017)

cells and Plasmodium falciparum trophozoites,” Lab Chip 7(9), 1125–1131 41 Trinh, E. H., Marston, P. L., and Robey, J. L., “Acoustic measurement of the

(2007). surface tension of levitated drops,” J. Colloid Interface Sci. 124(1), 95–103
30 Santesson, S., Johansson, J., Taylor, L. S., Levander, I., Fox, S., Sepaniak, (1988).
M., and Nilsson, S., “Airborne chemistry coupled to Raman spectroscopy,” 42 Weber, J. K. R., Rey, C. A., Neuefeind, J., and Benmore, C. J., “Acoustic

Anal. Chem. 75(9), 2177–2180 (2003). levitator for structure measurements on low temperature liquid droplets,”
31 Santesson, S. and Nilsson, S., “Airborne chemistry: Acoustic levitation in Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80(8), 083904 (2009).
chemical analysis,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 378(7), 1704–1709 (2004). 43 Weber, R. J., Benmore, C. J., Tumber, S. K., Tailor, A. N., Rey, C. A.,
32 Schenk, J., Tröbs, L., Emmerling, F., Kneipp, J., Panne, U., and Albrecht, M., Taylor, L. S., and Byrn, S. R., “Acoustic levitation: Recent developments
“Simultaneous UV/Vis spectroscopy and surface enhanced Raman scatter- and emerging opportunities in biomaterials research,” Eur. Biophys. J. 41(4),
ing of nanoparticle formation and aggregation in levitated droplets,” Anal. 397–403 (2012).
Methods 4(5), 1252–1258 (2012). 44 Wen-Jun, X. and Bing-Bo, W., “Resonance shift of single-axis acoustic
33 Seah, S. A., Drinkwater, B. W., Carter, T., Malkin, R., and Subramanian, levitation,” Chin. Phys. Lett. 24(1), 135 (2007).
S., “Correspondence: Dexterous ultrasonic levitation of millimeter-sized 45 Westphall, M. S., Jorabchi, K., and Smith, L. M., “Mass spectrometry of

objects in air,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 61(7), 1233– acoustically levitated droplets,” Anal. Chem. 80(15), 5847–5853 (2008).
1236 (2014). 46 Whymark, R. R., “Acoustic field positioning for containerless processing,”
34 Seddon, A. M., Richardson, S. J., Rastogi, K., Plivelic, T. S., Squires, Ultrasonics 13(6), 251–261 (1975).
A. M., and Pfrang, C., “Control of nanomaterial self-assembly in ultra- 47 Wood, B. R., Heraud, P., Stojkovic, S., Morrison, D., Beardall, J., and

sonically levitated droplets,” J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7(7), 1341–1345 McNaughton, D., “A portable Raman acoustic levitation spectroscopic sys-
(2016). tem for the identification and environmental monitoring of algal cells,” Anal.
35 Stindt, A., Albrecht, M., Panne, U., and Riedel, J., “CO laser ionization of Chem. 77(15), 4955–4961 (2005).
2
acoustically levitated droplets,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405(22), 7005–7010 48 Xie, W. J. and Wei, B., “Parametric study of single-axis acoustic levitation,”

(2013). Appl. Phys. Lett. 79(6), 881–883 (2001).

36 Sundvik, M., Nieminen, H. J., Salmi, A., Panula, P., and Hæggström, E., 49 Xie, W. J., Cao, C. D., Lü, Y. J., and Wei, B., “Eutectic growth under acoustic

“Effects of acoustic levitation on the development of zebrafish, Danio rerio, levitation conditions,” Phys. Rev. E 66(6), 061601 (2002).
embryos,” Sci. Rep. 5, 13596 (2015). 50 Xie, W. J. and Wei, B., “Dependence of acoustic levitation capabilities on
37 Tian, Y., Holt, R. G., and Apfel, R. E., “A new method for measuring liquid geometric parameters,” Phys. Rev. E 66(2), 026605 (2002).
surface tension with acoustic levitation,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66(5), 3349– 51 Xie, W. J. and Wei, B., “Temperature dependence of single-axis acoustic

3354 (1995). levitation,” J. Appl. Phys. 93(5), 3016–3021 (2003).

38 Tian, Y., Holt, R. G., and Apfel, R. E., “Investigation of liquid surface 52 Xie, W. J., Cao, C. D., Lü, Y. J., Hong, Z. Y., and Wei, B., “Acoustic method

rheology of surfactant solutions by droplet shape oscillations: Experiments,” for levitation of small living animals,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 89(21), 214102
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 187(1), 1–10 (1997). (2006).
39 Trinh, E. and Wang, T. G., “Large-amplitude free and driven drop-shape 53 Yarin, A. L., Brenn, G., Keller, J., Pfaffenlehner, M., Ryssel, E., and Tropea,

oscillations: Experimental observations,” J. Fluid Mech. 122, 315–338 C., “Flowfield characteristics of an aerodynamic acoustic levitator,” Phys.
(1982). Fluids 9(11), 3300–3314 (1997).
40 Trinh, E. H., “Compact acoustic levitation device for studies in fluid dynam- 54 Yarin, A. L., Brenn, G., and Rensink, D., “Evaporation of acoustically lev-

ics and material science in the laboratory and microgravity,” Rev. Sci. itated droplets of binary liquid mixtures,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 23(4),
Instrum. 56(11), 2059–2065 (1985). 471–486 (2002).