| Literature DB >> 27196904 |
J Israel Martínez-López1, Mauricio Mojica2, Ciro A Rodríguez3, Héctor R Siller4.
Abstract
Despite the copious amount of research on the design and operation of micromixers, there are few works regarding manufacture technology aimed at implementation beyond academic environments. This work evaluates the viability of xurography as a rapid fabrication tool for the development of ultra-low cost microfluidic technology for extreme Point-of-Care (POC) micromixing devices. By eschewing photolithographic processes and the bulkiness of pumping and enclosure systems for rapid fabrication and passively driven operation, xurography is introduced as a manufacturing alternative for asymmetric split and recombine (ASAR) micromixers. A T-micromixer design was used as a reference to assess the effects of different cutting conditions and materials on the geometric features of the resulting microdevices. Inspection by stereographic and confocal microscopy showed that it is possible to manufacture devices with less than 8% absolute dimensional error. Implementation of the manufacturing methodology in modified circular shape- based SAR microdevices (balanced and unbalanced configurations) showed that, despite the precision limitations of the xurographic process, it is possible to implement this methodology to produce functional micromixing devices. Mixing efficiency was evaluated numerically and experimentally at the outlet of the microdevices with performances up to 40%. Overall, the assessment encourages further research of xurography for the development of POC micromixers.Entities:
Keywords: ASAR; Point-of-Care; SAR; in-plane; lamination; low-cost; microfluidics; micromixer; rapid fabrication; splitting and recombination; xurography
Year: 2016 PMID: 27196904 PMCID: PMC4883396 DOI: 10.3390/s16050705
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Applications employing xurography and lamination as a manufacturing technology.
| Work (year) | * Ref | Function | Manufacture | ** Materials | Assembly |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weigl | [ | Cytometry and H-filter chambers | CO2 laser cutting, oxygen plasma treatment, lamination | PET sheets | Metal frame housing/double sided adhesive |
| Do Lago | [ | EP flow chamber/Electrospray tip | Laser printing, drilling, Gluing, Scissor cutting, lamination | Toner PET (acetate sheet) | Thermal lamination |
| Bartholomeusz (2006) | [ | Shadow mask, PDMS micromolding, coiled channel | Xurography, lamination, Sputtering | Rubylith, Vinyl, Polyester, Aluminium, Sandblast, glass | Thermal lamination |
| Greer | [ | DNA analysis well | Xurography, drilling and heat treatment | Double sided tape, glass slides, PEEK (Nanoport) | Adhesive, thermal bonding |
| Sundberg | [ | PCR disk platform | Xurography, Thermal lamination | PETG sheets, PTFE strips | Thermal lamination |
| Santana | [ | Mask for glass etching process (EP chamber) | Xurography | Vinyl | - |
| Kim | [ | Electrochemical biosensing | Xurography, Au sputtering, CO2 laser cutting | PET, double-sided tape, PMMA, Au | Cold lamination (machine) |
* Reference; ** Device conforming materials.
Cutting parameters assessment conditions for quality optimization (Layer 1).
| Setup | Nominal Microchannel Width | Nominal Microchannel Wall Width | Cutting Load | Cutting Passes | Material Nominal Depth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 750 | 500 | 0.8 | 2 | 75 |
| II | 750 | 500 | 1.0 | 1 | 75 |
| III | 750 | 500 | 1.0 | 1 | 50 |
| IV | 750 | 500 | 0.8 | 2 | 50 |
| V | 200 | 500 | 0.8 | 2 | 75 |
| VI | 200 | 500 | 1.0 | 1 | 75 |
| VII | 200 | 500 | 0.8 | 2 | 50 |
| VIII | 200 | 500 | 1.0 | 2 | 50 |
Nominal geometric features dimensions of T-micromixer.
| Geometric Feature | Setups I to IV, Nominal Dimension (μm) | Setup V to VIII, Nominal Dimension (μm) |
|---|---|---|
| 750 | 200 | |
| 1000 | 1000 | |
| 750 | 200 | |
| 1000 | 1000 | |
| 750 | 200 | |
| 1000 | 1000 | |
| 750 | 200 | |
| 750 | 200 | |
| 750 | 200 |
Figure 1Rapid fabrication methodology based on xurography patterning and lamination; (a) Layer 1 patterning and adhesion to substrate; (b) Layer 2 patterning and alignment; (c) Layer 3 patterning, alignment, and final assembly; (d) Exploded view of a sample microdevice.
Cutting performance comparison with other setups.
| Setup | Plotter | Blade | Patterning Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graphtec CE5000-60 | CB09U (45°) | fload ≈ 0.8 N, | |
| Graphtec CE5000-60 | CB09U (45°) | fload ≈ 0.53 N, | |
| Graphtec CE5000-60 | CB09UA-1 (60°) | fload ≈ 0.8 N, | |
| Graphtec CE5000-60 | CB09UA-1 (60°) | fload ≈ 0.6 N, | |
| Silhouette Portrait | Ratchet 3-3T | Blade depth = 3, material depth = 5 |
Figure 2Schematic diagram; (a) T-micromixer (45° angle) shaped pattern cutting references (see Table 2 for details); (b) Balanced split and recombine (w = 1) micromixer (SAR); (c) Unbalanced (asymmetric) split and recombine micromixer (w = 2) (ASAR).
Layer by layer composition and function.
| Layer | Material | Function |
|---|---|---|
| PMMA | Substrate | |
| Vinyl | Formation of flow cell walls | |
| Acetate sheet | Formation of flow cell ceiling and delimitation of inlets and outlets | |
| Translucent vinyl | Sealing and delimitation of inlets and outlets |
Figure 3Rapid fabrication of T-micromixer (45°); (a) Cutting plotter holder and tool; (b) Photos of w = 200 μm device (left) and w = 750 μm (right); (c) 3D mapping of a w = 200 μm device (cases I to IV); (d) 3D mapping through confocal microscopy at an inlet of a w = 750 μm device (cases V to VIII); (e) T-micromixer sealing test; (f) Detail of laminar flow performance on a T-micromixer device.
Cutting parameter compensation for setups V to VIII.
| Reference | Nominal Dimension (μm) | Compensation (μm) |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | +55 | |
| 200 | +60 | |
| 200 | +55 | |
| 200 | +60 |
Figure 4Average dimensional deviation error (%) for a w = 750 μm microchannel T-micromixer design with three replicates (see Table 3 for details, red represents overcutting and blue undercutting; (a) Setup I; (b) Setup II; (c) Setup III; (d) Setup IV.
Figure 5Average dimensional deviation error (%) for w = 200 μm microchannel T-micromixer design with three replicates (see Table 3 for details, red represents overcutting and blue undercutting); (a) Setup V; (b) Setup VI; (c) Setup VII; (d) Setup VIII.
Figure 6Absolute average dimensional error E (%) for several setups (see Table 2 for details).
Figure 7Absolute average dimensional error E (%) for standalone and portable setups (Table 4).
Figure 8Mixing performance numerical analysis for a device with Re ≈ 0.7; (a) SAR micromixer (w = 1); (b) ASAR micromixer (w = 2); (c) Cross-sectional numerical mixing efficiency (M) for (balanced SAR) and unbalanced micromixers (ASAR).
Figure 9Passive micromixing in a xurography rapid fabricated microdevice for red (upper inlet) and clear blue (down inlet). The microchannels walls are conformed by the dark blue vinyl processed by xurography and lamination process; (a) SAR micromixer (w = 1); (b) ASAR micromixer (w = 2); (c) Windows delimited for evaluation of the experimental mixing efficiency (M); (d) Experimental mixing efficiency (Ms) at the output region of the circular based SAR and ASAR micromixers manufactured with xurography and lamination.