Literature DB >> 24510161

Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography for the production of microfluidic devices.

Anthony K Au1, Wonjae Lee, Albert Folch.   

Abstract

The vast majority of microfluidic devices are developed in PDMS by molding ("soft lithography") because PDMS is an inexpensive material, has physicochemical properties that are well suited for biomedical and physical sciences applications, and design cycle lengths are generally adequate for prototype development. However, PDMS molding is tediously slow and thus cannot provide the high- or medium-volume production required for the commercialization of devices. While high-throughput plastic molding techniques (e.g. injection molding) exist, the exorbitant cost of the molds and/or the equipment can be a serious obstacle for device commercialization, especially for small startups. High-volume production is not required to reach niche markets such as clinical trials, biomedical research supplies, customized research equipment, and classroom projects. Crucially, both PDMS and plastic molding are layer-by-layer techniques where each layer is produced as a result of physicochemical processes not specified in the initial photomask(s) and where the final device requires assembly by bonding, all resulting in a cost that is very hard to predict at the start of the project. By contrast, stereolithography (SL) is an automated fabrication technique that allows for the production of quasi-arbitrary 3D shapes in a single polymeric material at medium-volume throughputs (ranging from a single part to hundreds of parts). Importantly, SL devices can be designed between several groups using CAD tools, conveniently ordered by mail, and their cost precisely predicted via a web interface. Here we evaluate the resolution of an SL mail-order service and the main causes of resolution loss; the optical clarity of the devices and how to address the lack of clarity for imaging in the channels; and the future role that SL could play in the commercialization of microfluidic devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24510161      PMCID: PMC4362723          DOI: 10.1039/c3lc51360b

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


  3 in total

Review 1.  Lab-on-a-Foil: microfluidics on thin and flexible films.

Authors:  Maximilian Focke; Dominique Kosse; Claas Müller; Holger Reinecke; Roland Zengerle; Felix von Stetten
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 6.799

2.  SmartBuild-a truly plug-n-play modular microfluidic system.

Authors:  Po Ki Yuen
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 6.799

3.  Polymer microfluidic devices.

Authors:  Holger Becker; Laurie E Locascio
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2002-02-11       Impact factor: 6.057

  3 in total
  84 in total

1.  Desktop aligner for fabrication of multilayer microfluidic devices.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Zeta Tak For Yu; Dalton Geraldo; Shinuo Weng; Nitesh Alve; Wu Dun; Akshay Kini; Karan Patel; Roberto Shu; Feng Zhang; Gang Li; Qinghui Jin; Jianping Fu
Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.523

2.  Three-dimensional printed millifluidic devices for zebrafish embryo tests.

Authors:  Feng Zhu; Joanna Skommer; Niall P Macdonald; Timo Friedrich; Jan Kaslin; Donald Wlodkowic
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.800

3.  Assessment of the biocompatibility of three-dimensional-printed polymers using multispecies toxicity tests.

Authors:  Feng Zhu; Timo Friedrich; Dayanthi Nugegoda; Jan Kaslin; Donald Wlodkowic
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.800

4.  Moving from millifluidic to truly microfluidic sub-100-μm cross-section 3D printed devices.

Authors:  Michael J Beauchamp; Gregory P Nordin; Adam T Woolley
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 4.142

5.  Ultrarapid detection of pathogenic bacteria using a 3D immunomagnetic flow assay.

Authors:  Wonjae Lee; Donghoon Kwon; Boram Chung; Gyoo Yeol Jung; Anthony Au; Albert Folch; Sangmin Jeon
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 6.  Micromilling: a method for ultra-rapid prototyping of plastic microfluidic devices.

Authors:  David J Guckenberger; Theodorus E de Groot; Alwin M D Wan; David J Beebe; Edmond W K Young
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2015-06-07       Impact factor: 6.799

7.  3D-Printed Fluidic Devices for Nanoparticle Preparation and Flow-Injection Amperometry Using Integrated Prussian Blue Nanoparticle-Modified Electrodes.

Authors:  Gregory W Bishop; Jennifer E Satterwhite; Snehasis Bhakta; Karteek Kadimisetty; Kelsey M Gillette; Eric Chen; James F Rusling
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 8.  The upcoming 3D-printing revolution in microfluidics.

Authors:  Nirveek Bhattacharjee; Arturo Urrios; Shawn Kang; Albert Folch
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 6.799

9.  High sensitivity automated multiplexed immunoassays using photonic crystal enhanced fluorescence microfluidic system.

Authors:  Yafang Tan; Tiantian Tang; Haisheng Xu; Chenqi Zhu; Brian T Cunningham
Journal:  Biosens Bioelectron       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 10.618

10.  3D-printed miniaturized fluidic tools in chemistry and biology.

Authors:  C K Dixit; K Kadimisetty; J Rusling
Journal:  Trends Analyt Chem       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 12.296

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.