Acoustic enrichment found 63 CTC-containing cell clusters in 9 of 12 men with metastatic prostate cancer, while the CellSearch comparator system detected no clusters at all in the same patients’ blood (Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024). The same sound-based toolbox removed more than 99.999% of blood cells before isolating exosomes at 98.4% purity (Wu et al., PNAS 2017), and a 2024 acoustic trapping method reported 93% extracellular vesicle yield in 1 minute against 50% in 480 minutes for ultracentrifugation (Rufo et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2024). Speed is still the open question: the fastest acoustic sorters reported here run in the low thousands of events per second, below commercial FACS (see section 7). We aggregated data from Nature Methods, PNAS, Analytical Chemistry, Lab on a Chip, Science Advances, Scientific Reports, Cytotherapy, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, and review articles indexed in Europe PMC, with a narrower focus on cell sorting in flowing microchannels than our roundup of acoustic levitation and ultrasonic particle manipulation.
A note on vocabulary used throughout: “acoustic tweezers” are devices that use sound waves to push, trap or sort cells and particles without touching them. “Purity” is the share of the collected output that is the target cell type; “recovery” (or yield) is the share of the target cells in the input that end up in the output. A good device needs both.
TL;DR
- Absorbance-activated acoustic droplet sorting reached 1 kHz (1,000 droplets per second) with 98.5% recovery and 99.9% purity (Richter et al., Lab on a Chip 2022).
- A tilted-angle surface acoustic wave chip processed circulating tumor cell samples at 7.5 mL/h, up from about 1.2 mL/h in earlier work (Wu et al., Small 2018).
- Acoustic washing recovered 99% of red blood cells while removing 99% or more of albumin with a two-step loop wash (Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023).
- Acoustophoretic plasma separation left less than 0.01% of cells in the plasma, with analyte differences versus centrifuged plasma of 0.84% to 10.50% (Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025).
- HeLa cell viability was 90.4% with the acoustic field on versus 91.5% with it off (Li et al., PNAS 2015).
- Acoustic enrichment found 63 CTC-containing clusters in 9 of 12 prostate cancer patients; CellSearch found none (Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024).
- An integrated acoustic chip removed more than 99.999% of blood cells and isolated exosomes at 98.4% purity and 82.4% recovery (Wu et al., PNAS 2017).
- Oscillating microbubble arrays isolated exosomes at 93% purity from undiluted mouse whole blood in about 3 minutes, versus about 16 hours for conventional methods (Li et al., Science Advances 2025).
- Acoustic tweezers use 0.01 to 10 W/cm2, versus 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 W/cm2 for optical tweezers (Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018).
- An image-based acoustic sorter reached up to 400 cells per second at more than 92% purity and more than 90% viability (Nawaz et al., Lab on a Chip 2023).
- FACS sorting raised the oxidized-to-reduced glutathione ratio nearly 7-fold in sorted cells (Llufrio et al., Redox Biology 2018).
1. Throughput: Bulk Waves, Surface Waves and the Flow-Rate Gap
The acoustofluidics field splits into two device families, and the split shows up first in throughput. Bulk acoustic wave (BAW) devices vibrate a whole channel to set up a standing wave across it; surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices send waves along the surface of a piezoelectric chip, which gives finer control at smaller volumes. BAW devices reach about 10 mL/min, while SAW devices handle less than 1 mL/min (Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018). Most of the precision results in this roundup come from SAW chips; most of the volume results come from BAW.
The practical benchmark is a blood tube. A tilted-angle standing SAW chip ran 7.5 mL of patient blood at 7.5 mL/h, which works out to roughly one hour per standard tube (7.5 mL / 7.5 mL/h = 1 h), and the authors describe it as up to a sevenfold improvement over the roughly 1.2 mL/h of the earlier design (Wu et al., Small 2018). Clinical blood processing sets a much higher bar: apheresis requires 30 to 80 mL/min (Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023), or 1,800 to 4,800 mL/h, which is 240 to 640 times the 7.5 mL/h chip.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Typical throughput, bulk acoustic wave (BAW) devices vs surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices | About 10 mL/min vs less than 1 mL/min | Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018 |
| Flow rate range of the AcouWash 2 acoustic cell washer (flow unstable at 900 µL/min) | 100 to 900 µL/min | Adler et al., Scientific Reports 2025 |
| Tumor cell separation throughput, tilted-angle SAW chip, 2018 design vs earlier design | 7.5 mL/h vs about 1.2 mL/h | Wu et al., Small 2018 |
| Acoustic cell washing, input flow rate | 45 mL/h | Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023 |
| Neuroblastoma cell separation from stem cell products, cell throughput | 100,000 cells/min | Olm et al., Scientific Reports 2019 |
| Required flow rate for clinical apheresis (blood component collection) | 30 to 80 mL/min | Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023 (citing Zhou and Papautsky 2020) |
Context note: several throughput benchmarks in this section predate 2023; the 2018 tilted-angle SAW figure is the most recent available data for that device class. The 2025 Analytical Chemistry review of the field (Godary et al.) cites one acoustofluidic device operating at 3 to 520 µL/min (Mendis et al.), still well below what apheresis requires.
2. Separation Purity and Recovery: Blood Components and Cell Washing
Acoustic separation works because cells differ in size, density and compressibility, and the acoustic radiation force pushes them toward or away from pressure nodes accordingly. The long-run record on blood components is strong: acoustic separation of platelets from red blood cells reached 99% platelet recovery (Petersson 2007, cited in Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019). The newer numbers are about whether that precision survives real manufacturing and clinical workflows.
Two recent studies suggest it does, with trade-offs. A cell-washing system for cell therapy production removed up to 90% of albumin in a single pass while recovering 99% of red blood cells, and a two-step loop pushed albumin removal to 99% or more with 99% recovery; washed adipose-derived stromal cells showed only two differentially expressed genes (Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023). An in-line plasma separator aimed at reducing blood loss in premature infants left fewer than 0.01% of cells in the plasma, yet still more residual cells than centrifugation (median 642 vs 205 per µL) (Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Separation efficiency for peripheral blood mononuclear cells (lymphocytes and monocytes), at up to 20 µL/min | 85% | Godary et al., Analytical Chemistry 2025 review (citing Alsved et al.) |
| Lymphocyte and monocyte enrichment from whole blood (fold increase) and recovery | 2,800-fold; 88% | Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019 review (citing Urbansky et al.) |
| Albumin removal with red blood cell recovery, single acoustic washing pass | Up to 90% removal; 99% recovery | Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023 |
| Albumin removal with cell recovery, two-step loop washing | 99% or more removal; 99% recovery | Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023 |
| Differentially expressed genes in stromal cells after loop washing vs input | 2 genes (HES4 and MIR-3648-1) | Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023 |
| Cells remaining in plasma after acoustophoretic separation | Less than 0.01% | Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025 |
| Median platelets per µL in plasma, acoustophoresis vs centrifugation | 20,477 vs 1,537 | Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025 |
| Difference in clinical chemistry results, acoustophoresis plasma vs centrifuged plasma (12 tests) | 0.84% (sodium, 95% CI 0.48-1.19) to 10.50% (AST, 95% CI 5.02-15.99) | Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025 |
Outlier note: the Nath study also found lower cell-free hemoglobin in acoustically separated plasma (range 0.0-0.2 g/L) than in centrifuged plasma (0.1-0.3 g/L), consistent with less red cell rupture (hemolysis), while platelet carryover was the clear weak point.
3. Cell Viability After Acoustic Exposure
Viability is where acoustic methods make their strongest case. Across sorter designs, frequencies and cell types, post-sort viability in the papers reviewed here sits between about 90% and 99%, and controlled comparisons show no meaningful loss versus unexposed cells. In a tumor cell separation study, viability was 90.4 ± 4.7% with the acoustic field on and 91.5 ± 7.6% with it off (Li et al., PNAS 2015).
The more careful tests look beyond survival. A 2013 study drove microglia through a 1.94 MHz field at up to 20 Vpp (volts peak-to-peak, a measure of drive voltage) and found no significant change in cell death, apoptosis, mitochondrial function or inflammatory response; cells spent about 1 second in the acoustic field (Burguillos et al., PLoS One 2013). Red blood cells held in an acoustic device for up to 30 minutes showed no change in viability (Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018). Most recent available data for the foundational biocompatibility work: Burguillos et al., 2013.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| HeLa cell viability, acoustic field on vs off | 90.4 ± 4.7% vs 91.5 ± 7.6% | Li et al., PNAS 2015 |
| Microglia cell death, unprocessed control vs 20 Vpp acoustic processing | 9.7 ± 5.7% vs 11.6 ± 6.9% (no significant difference) | Burguillos et al., PLoS One 2013 |
| Post-sort viability, acoustofluidic fluorescence-activated sorter (HeLa cells) | 99.18% | Nawaz et al., Analytical Chemistry 2015 |
| Normalized viability, standing-wave acoustic fluorescence sorter, relative to unsorted cells | 94.9 ± 2.0% | Ren et al., Small 2018 |
| Post-sort viability, acoustic droplet sorter with focused transducers | 93.5% | Zhong et al., Small 2021 |
| Dead cells after two-step acoustic tumor cell separation vs ice-incubated controls | 3.2% vs 8.2% | Undvall Anand et al., Analytical Chemistry 2021 |
| Necrotic cells after acoustic washing vs centrifuge washing (radiolabeled murine T lymphoblast cells) | 7% ± 2% vs 12% ± 3% (P = 0.0093) | Adler et al., Scientific Reports 2025 |
| T-cell proliferation at day 6, acoustically sorted vs non-sorted | 89.8 ± 5.0% vs 86.7 ± 4.3% (no significant difference) | Olm et al., Scientific Reports 2019 |
Context note: gentleness is not free. The same 2025 study found average cell recovery of 22% ± 10% with the acoustic washer versus 55% ± 2% with the centrifuge (P = 0.06, n = 5), so the cell-friendly method lost more cells (Adler et al., Scientific Reports 2025).
4. Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) Isolation from Blood
Circulating tumor cells are cancer cells shed into the bloodstream, and they are rare: usually in the range of 1 to 100 cells per mL of blood, hidden among millions of white blood cells (Li et al., PNAS 2015). Acoustic separation is label-free, meaning it does not depend on an antibody binding a surface marker, so it can in principle catch tumor cells that marker-based tests miss. A 2024 patient study is the strongest evidence of that in this roundup: acoustic enrichment found 63 CTC-containing cell clusters across 9 of 12 metastatic prostate cancer patients, and detected more CTCs than CellSearch in all 10 patients where both were run (Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024).
The limits are also visible. Patient CTCs ranged from 7 to 28 µm in diameter, so the smallest tumor cells overlap with white blood cells and can be lost, and the cohort was only 12 patients. Purity remains the hard part: a two-step BAW method achieved 459 ± 188-fold white blood cell depletion but recovered 42% of viable cancer cells (Undvall Anand et al., Analytical Chemistry 2021). Information on liquid biopsy methods here is technical, not clinical guidance.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Spiked cancer cell recovery, tilted-angle SAW (white blood cell removal about 90%) | More than 83% (83% to 96%) | Li et al., PNAS 2015 |
| CTCs found in metastatic breast cancer patient blood, first two patients (2 mL each) | 59 and 8 | Li et al., PNAS 2015 |
| Spiked cancer cell recovery at 7.5 mL/h | More than 86% | Wu et al., Small 2018 |
| CTC counts in 5 castration-resistant prostate cancer patients | 0.93 to 400 per mL | Wu et al., Small 2018 |
| Recovery and purity, acoustophoresis of spiked prostate cancer cells at 70 µL/min | 72.5-93.9% recovery; 79.6-99.7% purity | Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019 review (citing Augustsson 2012) |
| Patients with CTC counts above the healthy-control cutoff (13.8 cells per 6 mL) | 7 of 12 | Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024 |
| CTC-containing clusters detected, acoustic enrichment vs CellSearch | 63 clusters in 9 of 12 patients vs none | Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024 |
| White blood cell depletion and viable cancer cell recovery, two-step BAW (10,000 spiked cells) | 459 ± 188-fold; 42% | Undvall Anand et al., Analytical Chemistry 2021 |
Outlier note: median CTC diameter in the 2018 prostate cohort was 16.5 µm versus 11.8 ± 0.54 µm for white blood cells (Wu et al., Small 2018), and the 2024 patient study above reported a median of 17.0 µm. Size-based acoustic sorting depends on that gap.
5. Exosome and Extracellular Vesicle Separation
Exosomes are nanoscale vesicles (roughly 30 to 150 nm) released by cells and carrying proteins and RNA; they are hard to isolate because they are thousands of times smaller than blood cells. The conventional reference, ultracentrifugation, is slow and lossy: Table 1 of a 2023 review lists 5% to 50% yield and 23% to 70% purity for it, versus about 82% yield and 98% purity for acoustofluidics (Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023). The integrated acoustic chip behind that figure removed more than 99.999% of blood cells and processed 100 µL of whole blood in about 25 minutes (Wu et al., PNAS 2017).
The 2024-2025 work shifts from purity to speed and sample size. One acoustic disc method reported a 30-minute sample-to-answer time from 10 µL of blood, with 86% yield and a 120-fold purity increase (Naquin et al., Science Advances 2024). A 2025 design that its authors call a metamaterial (the same engineered-structure idea covered in our acoustic metamaterials roundup), built from 46,750 oscillating microbubbles, isolated 93% pure exosomes from undiluted mouse blood in about 3 minutes on a chip costing less than $1 (Li et al., Science Advances 2025).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Blood cell removal rate, integrated acoustofluidic exosome chip | More than 99.999% | Wu et al., PNAS 2017 |
| Exosome purity and recovery from whole blood (particles under 140 nm) | 98.4% purity; 82.4% recovery | Wu et al., PNAS 2017 |
| Exosome yield and purity, ultracentrifugation (literature range) | 5-50% yield; 23-70% purity | Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023 |
| Exosome yield and purity, ExoQuick precipitation kit (literature range) | 40-80% yield; 28-87% purity | Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023 |
| Extracellular vesicle yield and processing time, FLOAT acoustic trapping vs ultracentrifugation (urine) | 93% vs 50%; 1 min vs 480 min | Rufo et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2024 |
| Exosome yield and purity increase, ASCENDx acoustic disc | 86% yield; 120-fold purity increase | Naquin et al., Science Advances 2024 |
| Exosome purity and processing time, oscillating microbubble arrays vs conventional methods | 93% in about 3 min vs about 16 hours | Li et al., Science Advances 2025 |
| Vesicle yield, standing SAW nanofilter for vesicles under 200 nm | About 90% | Lan et al., Advanced Science 2025 review (citing Lee et al. 2015) |
Context note: the diagnostic results attached to these methods come from small sets. ASCENDx reported 95.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity for classifying cancer versus healthy samples, but on spectra from a small patient set (Naquin et al., Science Advances 2024), and the microbubble study used mouse blood only.
6. Operating Frequencies, Power and Forces
Acoustic tweezers occupy a gentle corner of the physics. They apply 0.01 to 10 W/cm2 of acoustic power, versus 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 W/cm2 for optical tweezers, at frequencies from 1 kHz to 500 MHz (Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018). The authors compare this with diagnostic ultrasound at 2 to 18 MHz and under 1 W/cm2; therapeutic ultrasound is a different regime entirely, as our HIFU tumor ablation statistics show. The forces involved are tiny: acoustic radiation forces on red blood cells are approximately 2 pN.
Frequency sets the scale of control. SAW devices used in cell biology generally operate at 10 to 400 MHz, with standing-wave wavelengths of 10 to 400 µm matched to cell sizes (He et al., Science Advances 2025). Power figures below are often given in dBm, a logarithmic unit where 24 dBm is about 251 mW and 33 dBm about 2 W. Transducer design matters as much as frequency: a focused-transducer droplet sorter runs below 20 Vpp, where other sorters are described as needing more than 200 Vpp (Zhong et al., Small 2021). For the hardware market behind these components, see our ultrasound transducer market statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Typical operating frequency range, BAW vs SAW devices | 100 kHz to 10 MHz vs 1 MHz to 1 GHz | Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019 review |
| Input power, acoustic tweezers vs optical tweezers | 0.01 to 10 W/cm2 vs 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 W/cm2 | Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018 |
| Drive voltage, focused-transducer acoustic droplet sorter vs other sorters | Below 20 Vpp vs more than 200 Vpp | Zhong et al., Small 2021 |
| SAW frequency range used in cell biology and matching wavelength | 10 to 400 MHz; 10 to 400 µm | He et al., Science Advances 2025 |
| BAW prostate CTC enrichment, prefocusing and separation fields | About 5 MHz and about 2 MHz | Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024 |
| Tilted-angle SAW CTC separation, frequency and power | 19.573 MHz; 37-38 dBm | Li et al., PNAS 2015 |
| Image-based focused traveling SAW sorter, frequency and power vs earlier standing SAW design | 135 MHz; about 1.9 W vs about 3.8 W | Nawaz et al., Lab on a Chip 2023 |
| Absorbance-activated droplet sorter, SAW frequency and power | 162 MHz; 251 mW (24 dBm) | Richter et al., Lab on a Chip 2022 |
Context note: heat is the usual constraint. The Burguillos study reported that 25 Vpp exceeded its 37 C temperature limit, and the 2025 microbubble array reported a temperature rise of only 1.92 C (Li et al., Science Advances 2025).
7. Acoustic Sorters vs FACS and Other Methods
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) is the reference instrument for sorting cells by fluorescent labels, and on raw speed it still wins. Commercial FACS exceeds 10,000 particles per second, while the first all-acoustic FACS system sorted 150 particles per second (Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019 review). SAW designs have since closed much of the gap: a standing-wave acoustic sorter held purity above 90% at 2,500 events per second, which its authors still describe as around one order of magnitude slower than commercial FACS (Ren et al., Small 2018).
The acoustic argument is about what happens to the cells, not speed. In astrocytes sorted with FACS (45 psi sheath pressure), the oxidized-to-reduced glutathione ratio rose nearly 7-fold, reactive oxygen species rose by about 50%, and the ADP/ATP ratio more than 4-fold (Llufrio et al., Redox Biology 2018). That study did not test acoustic sorting, so it is a FACS stress benchmark rather than a head-to-head result. Newer acoustic designs add capabilities FACS lacks, such as image-based decisions (Nawaz et al., Lab on a Chip 2023) and kHz droplet sorting (Richter et al., Lab on a Chip 2022).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput, commercial FACS vs first all-acoustic (BAW) FACS system | More than 10,000 vs 150 particles/s | Wu et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019 review |
| Throughput and purity, acoustofluidic fluorescence-activated sorter (HeLa cells) | About 1,200 events/s; 92.3 ± 3.39% | Nawaz et al., Analytical Chemistry 2015 |
| Throughput at which purity stays above 90%, standing-wave acoustic fluorescence sorter | 2,500 events/s | Ren et al., Small 2018 |
| Theoretical maximum sorting rate from 100 µs acoustic deflection time | 10,000 events/s | Ren et al., Small 2018 |
| Image-based acoustic sorting rate and purity | Up to 400 cells/s; more than 92% | Nawaz et al., Lab on a Chip 2023 |
| Acoustic droplet sorter throughput and purity (cell-laden droplets, 14.8% before sorting) | More than 1,000 events/s; up to 99.2% | Zhong et al., Small 2021 |
| Absorbance-activated acoustic droplet sorting rate, recovery and purity | 1 kHz; 98.5% recovery; 99.9% purity | Richter et al., Lab on a Chip 2022 |
| Oxidized-to-reduced glutathione ratio in FACS-sorted vs rapidly processed cells | Nearly 7-fold higher | Llufrio et al., Redox Biology 2018 |
Context note: speed comparisons mix label-based and label-free sorting, beads and cells. The 2018 standing-wave sorter above is the most recent available data for a direct acoustic-versus-FACS throughput statement. The 2025 Analytical Chemistry review (Godary et al.) reports a droplet sorter at 1,000 droplets/s and sorting of stem cell-derived beta cell clusters at up to 0.2 clusters/s, showing how far throughput varies with the object being sorted.
Summary: Acoustic Tweezers and Acoustofluidic Cell Sorting by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| CTC-containing clusters, acoustic enrichment vs CellSearch (12 prostate cancer patients) | 63 in 9 of 12 patients vs none | Magnusson et al., Analytical Chemistry 2024 |
| White blood cell depletion and viable cancer cell recovery, two-step BAW separation | 459 ± 188-fold; 42% | Undvall Anand et al., Analytical Chemistry 2021 |
| Absorbance-activated acoustic droplet sorting rate and purity | 1 kHz; 99.9% | Richter et al., Lab on a Chip 2022 |
| Tumor cell separation throughput, tilted-angle SAW chip | 7.5 mL/h | Wu et al., Small 2018 |
| Required flow rate for clinical apheresis | 30 to 80 mL/min | Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023 |
| Albumin removal with cell recovery, two-step acoustic washing | 99% or more; 99% | Sugier et al., Cytotherapy 2023 |
| Cells remaining in plasma after acoustophoretic separation | Less than 0.01% | Nath et al., Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025 |
| HeLa cell viability, acoustic field on vs off | 90.4% vs 91.5% | Li et al., PNAS 2015 |
| Post-sort viability, acoustofluidic fluorescence sorter | 99.18% | Nawaz et al., Analytical Chemistry 2015 |
| Necrotic cells, acoustic vs centrifuge washing | 7% vs 12% | Adler et al., Scientific Reports 2025 |
| Cell recovery, acoustic vs centrifuge washing | 22% vs 55% | Adler et al., Scientific Reports 2025 |
| Blood cell removal before exosome isolation | More than 99.999% | Wu et al., PNAS 2017 |
| Exosome purity and recovery, acoustofluidic chip | 98.4%; 82.4% | Wu et al., PNAS 2017 |
| Exosome yield, ultracentrifugation (literature range) | 5% to 50% | Hossein and Angeli, Biophysical Reviews 2023 |
| Extracellular vesicle yield and time, FLOAT vs ultracentrifugation | 93% in 1 min vs 50% in 480 min | Rufo et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2024 |
| Exosome purity and time, oscillating microbubble arrays | 93% in about 3 min | Li et al., Science Advances 2025 |
| Acoustic vs optical tweezers input power | 0.01-10 vs 1,000,000-10,000,000 W/cm2 | Ozcelik et al., Nature Methods 2018 |
| Acoustic sorter throughput with purity above 90% | 2,500 events/s | Ren et al., Small 2018 |
| Image-based acoustic sorting rate | Up to 400 cells/s | Nawaz et al., Lab on a Chip 2023 |
| Oxidized-to-reduced glutathione ratio, FACS-sorted vs rapidly processed cells | Nearly 7-fold higher | Llufrio et al., Redox Biology 2018 |
Methodology and Sources
We searched Europe PMC and the open web for peer-reviewed acoustofluidic separation studies and reviews, prioritized open-access full texts we could read in full, and, for figures taken from reviews, named the original study the review cites. Every value above was read in the cited paper or review during research for this update; two sources (Sugier 2023, Nath 2025) were read at abstract level only.
- Magnusson et al., Acoustic Enrichment of Heterogeneous Circulating Tumor Cells and Clusters from Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients, Analytical Chemistry 2024
- Ozcelik et al., Acoustic tweezers for the life sciences, Nature Methods 2018
- Wu et al., Acoustofluidic separation of cells and particles, Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2019
- Hossein and Angeli, A review of acoustofluidic separation of bioparticles, Biophysical Reviews 2023
- Godary et al., Acoustofluidics: Technology Advances and Applications from 2022 to 2024, Analytical Chemistry 2025
- Lan et al., Microfluidic Nanoparticle Separation for Precision Medicine, Advanced Science 2025
- He et al., Acoustic technologies for the orchestration of cellular functions for therapeutic applications, Science Advances 2025
- Li et al., Acoustic separation of circulating tumor cells, PNAS 2015
- Wu et al., Circulating Tumor Cell Phenotyping via High-Throughput Acoustic Separation, Small 2018
- Undvall Anand et al., Two-Step Acoustophoresis Separation of Live Tumor Cells from Whole Blood, Analytical Chemistry 2021
- Wu et al., Isolation of exosomes from whole blood by integrating acoustics and microfluidics, PNAS 2017
- Naquin et al., Acoustic separation and concentration of exosomes for nucleotide detection: ASCENDx, Science Advances 2024
- Rufo et al., High-yield and rapid isolation of extracellular vesicles by flocculation via orbital acoustic trapping: FLOAT, Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2024
- Li et al., Oscillating microbubble array-based metamaterials for rapid isolation of high-purity exosomes, Science Advances 2025
- Burguillos et al., Microchannel acoustophoresis does not impact survival or function of microglia, leukocytes or tumor cells, PLoS One 2013
- Adler et al., Centrifuge-free cell radiolabeling using acoustophoresis, Scientific Reports 2025
- Olm et al., Label-free neuroblastoma cell separation from hematopoietic progenitor cell products using acoustophoresis, Scientific Reports 2019
- Sugier et al., Feasibility of an acoustophoresis-based system for a high-throughput cell washing, Cytotherapy 2023 (abstract)
- Nath et al., Acoustophoresis-based blood sampling and plasma separation for potentially minimizing sampling-related blood loss, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2025 (abstract)
- Nawaz et al., Acoustofluidic Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorter, Analytical Chemistry 2015
- Ren et al., Standing Surface Acoustic Wave (SSAW)-Based Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorter, Small 2018
- Nawaz et al., Image-based cell sorting using focused travelling surface acoustic waves, Lab on a Chip 2023
- Richter et al., Acoustic sorting of microfluidic droplets at kHz rates using optical absorbance, Lab on a Chip 2022
- Zhong et al., Acoustofluidic Droplet Sorter Based on Single Phase Focused Transducers, Small 2021
- Llufrio et al., Sorting cells alters their redox state and cellular metabolome, Redox Biology 2018
- Data watch: this is a research field, not a market, so there is no industry-wide adoption or market-size figure here, and we did not include one. Many landmark benchmarks (Li 2015, Wu 2017, Ozcelik 2018, Ren 2018) are older than three years and remain the most recent available data for their specific metric. Figures quoted from the 2019 and 2023 reviews come from studies those reviews cite; where a review did not give the original year, we name the original author only. Device results are mostly from spiked cell lines and small patient sets (12 patients in Magnusson 2024, 5 in Wu 2018), so they are not clinical performance figures. Reported purity and recovery depend heavily on spike ratio, flow rate and power, which makes cross-study comparison approximate. A 2026 Analyst paper on a focused traveling SAW chip for red and white blood cell sorting (Deng et al., volume 151) was not accessible in full text and was excluded. The FLOAT paper gives 20 mL in its abstract but 100 mL in its introduction as the ultracentrifugation baseline volume, and the 1,000-cell result in Undvall Anand 2021 reports 247-fold depletion in the abstract but 282-fold in the results; we used neither disputed figure as a headline.
- Last updated: October 25, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the next Analytical Chemistry acoustofluidics review and new 2026 Lab on a Chip CTC and exosome studies are indexed in Europe PMC.