Literature DB >> 21979377

Rapid prototyping polymers for microfluidic devices and high pressure injections.

Elodie Sollier1, Coleman Murray, Pietro Maoddi, Dino Di Carlo.   

Abstract

Multiple methods of fabrication exist for microfluidic devices, with different advantages depending on the end goal of industrial mass production or rapid prototyping for the research laboratory. Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) has been the mainstay for rapid prototyping in the academic microfluidics community, because of its low cost, robustness and straightforward fabrication, which are particularly advantageous in the exploratory stages of research. However, despite its many advantages and its broad use in academic laboratories, its low elastic modulus becomes a significant issue for high pressure operation as it leads to a large alteration of channel geometry. Among other consequences, such deformation makes it difficult to accurately predict the flow rates in complex microfluidic networks, change flow speed quickly for applications in stop-flow lithography, or to have predictable inertial focusing positions for cytometry applications where an accurate alignment of the optical system is critical. Recently, other polymers have been identified as complementary to PDMS, with similar fabrication procedures being characteristic of rapid prototyping but with higher rigidity and better resistance to solvents; Thermoset Polyester (TPE), Polyurethane Methacrylate (PUMA) and Norland Adhesive 81 (NOA81). In this review, we assess these different polymer alternatives to PDMS for rapid prototyping, especially in view of high pressure injections with the specific example of inertial flow conditions. These materials are compared to PDMS, for which magnitudes of deformation and dynamic characteristics are also characterized. We provide a complete and systematic analysis of these materials with side-by-side experiments conducted in our lab that also evaluate other properties, such as biocompatibility, solvent compatibility, and ease of fabrication. We emphasize that these polymer alternatives, TPE, PUMA and NOA, have some considerable strengths for rapid prototyping when bond strength, predictable operation at high pressure, or transitioning to commercialization are considered important for the application.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21979377     DOI: 10.1039/c1lc20514e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lab Chip        ISSN: 1473-0189            Impact factor:   6.799


  50 in total

1.  Non-polydimethylsiloxane devices for oxygen-free flow lithography.

Authors:  Ki Wan Bong; Jingjing Xu; Jong-Ho Kim; Stephen C Chapin; Michael S Strano; Karen K Gleason; Patrick S Doyle
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 14.919

2.  High-throughput single-microparticle imaging flow analyzer.

Authors:  Keisuke Goda; Ali Ayazi; Daniel R Gossett; Jagannath Sadasivam; Cejo K Lonappan; Elodie Sollier; Ali M Fard; Soojung Claire Hur; Jost Adam; Coleman Murray; Chao Wang; Nora Brackbill; Dino Di Carlo; Bahram Jalali
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Prototyping of poly(dimethylsiloxane) interfaces for flow gating, reagent mixing, and tubing connection in capillary electrophoresis.

Authors:  Qiyang Zhang; Maojun Gong
Journal:  J Chromatogr A       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 4.759

4.  Inexpensive, rapid prototyping of microfluidic devices using overhead transparencies and a laser print, cut and laminate fabrication method.

Authors:  Brandon L Thompson; Yiwen Ouyang; Gabriela R M Duarte; Emanuel Carrilho; Shannon T Krauss; James P Landers
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 5.  Biomarker detection for disease diagnosis using cost-effective microfluidic platforms.

Authors:  Sharma T Sanjay; Guanglei Fu; Maowei Dou; Feng Xu; Rutao Liu; Hao Qi; XiuJun Li
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 4.616

6.  Engineering fluid flow using sequenced microstructures.

Authors:  Hamed Amini; Elodie Sollier; Mahdokht Masaeli; Yu Xie; Baskar Ganapathysubramanian; Howard A Stone; Dino Di Carlo
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  A hybrid microfluidic platform for cell-based assays via diffusive and convective trans-membrane perfusion.

Authors:  Elizaveta Vereshchagina; Declan Mc Glade; Macdara Glynn; Jens Ducrée
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 2.800

8.  Long-range forces affecting equilibrium inertial focusing behavior in straight high aspect ratio microfluidic channels.

Authors:  Amy E Reece; John Oakey
Journal:  Phys Fluids (1994)       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.521

9.  Robust manufacturing of lipid-polymer nanoparticles through feedback control of parallelized swirling microvortices.

Authors:  Michael J Toth; Taeyoung Kim; YongTae Kim
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 6.799

10.  Simple replica micromolding of biocompatible styrenic elastomers.

Authors:  Mark D Borysiak; Kevin S Bielawski; Nathan J Sniadecki; Colin F Jenkel; Bryan D Vogt; Jonathan D Posner
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2013-07-21       Impact factor: 6.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.