Low-powered optical ‘nanotweezers’ allow for manipulating fragile biological samples
September 18, 2012

Experimental setup schematic showing laser source, microscope, and imaging detector and spectrometer. The inset illustrates the two different sample configurations that were explored; red arrows correspond to the input polarization directions and black arrows depict the propagation vector. (Credit: University of Illinois College of Engineering)
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have demonstrated for the first time how low-power “optical nanotweezers” can be used to trap, manipulate, and probe nanoparticles, including fragile biological samples.
“We already know that plasmonic nanoantennas enhance local fields by up to several orders of magnitude, and thus, previously showed that we can use these structures with a regular laser source to make very good optical tweezers,” explains, Kimani Toussaint, Jr., assistant professor of mechanical science and engineering at Illinois.
“This is exciting because, for the first time, we’re showing that, the near-field optical forces can be enhanced even further, without doing anything extra in terms of fabrication, but rather simply by exploiting the high-peak powers associated with using a femtosecond (fs) optical source.
“We used an average power of 50 microwatts to trap, manipulate, and probe nanoparticles. This is 100x less power than what you would get from a standard laser pointer.”
In their recent paper, “Femtosecond-pulsed plasmonic nanotweezers” published in the September 17 issue of Scientific Reports (open access), the researchers describe how a femtosecond-pulsed laser beam significantly augments the trapping strength of gold bowtie nanoantenna arrays (BNAs), and provide the first demonstration of use of femtosecond (fs) source for optical trapping with plasmonic nanotweezers.
“Our system operates at average power levels approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the expected optical damage threshold for biological structures, thereby making this technology very attractive for biological (lab-on-a-chip) applications such as cell manipulation,” added Toussaint, who is also an affiliate faculty member in the Department of Bioengineering and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
“This system offers increased local diagnostic capabilities by permitting the probing of the nonlinear optical response of trapped specimens, enabling studies of in vitro fluorescent-tagged cells, or viruses using a single line for trapping and probing rather than two or more laser lines.”
“We present strong evidence that a fs source could actually augment the near-field optical forces produced by the BNAs, and most likely, other nanoantenna systems, as well. To our knowledge, this has never been demonstrated,” said Brian Roxworthy, a graduate student in Toussaint’s PROBE (Photonics Research of Bio/nano Environments) lab group and first author of the paper.
According to Roxworthy, the demonstration of controlled particle fusing could be important for creating novel nanostructures, as well as for enhancing the local magnetic field response, which will be important for the field of magnetic plasmonics.
The paper also demonstrated enhancement of trap stiffness of up to 2x that of a comparable continuous-wave (CW) nanotweezers and 5x that of conventional optical tweezers that employ a fs source; successful trapping and tweezing of spherical particles ranging from 80-nm to 1.2-um in diameter, metal, dielectric, and both fluorescent and non- fluorescent particles; enhancement of two-photon fluorescent signal from trapped microparticles in comparison to the response without the presence of the BNAs; enhancement of the second-harmonic signal of ~3.5x for the combined nanoparticle-BNA system compared to the bare BNAs; and fusing of Ag nanoparticles to the BNAS.
Comments (6)
by Amit
Another answer to Richard Smalley’s point about the impossibility of physical manouvering of nanoscale objects due to the “fat fingers” and “sticky fingers” problem.
by Amit
For context: see, Drexler-Smalley Debate.
by Bri
It’s amazing the pessimism to Drexlers ideas. Another example of what Ray calls linear thinking. Nano technology is taking off like a bullet. The things that Drexlers proposes seem more and more near term and less like science fiction.
by MysticMonkeyGuru
They are not. Drexlerian nanotech has proven to be a total bust by experts such as Richard Jones, who’s argument against the near-term feasibility of molecular assemblers remains strong as ever. Drexler’s nano-quackery simply got the physics wrong.
by Editor
Amit, good point re “fat fingers” (see The Drexler-Smalley debate on molecular assembly)
by Bri
Scotty, lock them in with the tractor beams. This type of manipulation will become essential to nano manufacturing.