| Literature DB >> 30404282 |
Yong He1,2,3, Qing Gao4,5, Wen-Bin Wu6,7, Jing Nie8,9, Jian-Zhong Fu10,11.
Abstract
As a pump-free and lightweight analytical tool, paper-based microfluidic analytical devices (μPADs) attract more and more interest. If the flow speed of μPAD can be programmed, the analytical sequences could be designed and they will be more popular. This reports presents a novel μPAD, driven by the capillary force of cellulose powder, printed by a desktop three-dimensional (3D) printer, which has some promising features, such as easy fabrication and programmable flow speed. First, a suitable size-scale substrate with open microchannels on its surface is printed. Next, the surface of the substrate is covered with a thin layer of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) to seal the micro gap caused by 3D printing. Then, the microchannels are filled with a mixture of cellulose powder and deionized water in an appropriate proportion. After drying in an oven at 60 °C for 30 min, it is ready for use. As the different channel depths can be easily printed, which can be used to achieve the programmable capillary flow speed of cellulose powder in the microchannels. A series of microfluidic analytical experiments, including quantitative analysis of nitrite ion and fabrication of T-sensor were used to demonstrate its capability. As the desktop 3D printer (D3DP) is very cheap and accessible, this device can be rapidly printed at the test field with a low cost and has a promising potential in the point-of-care (POC) system or as a lightweight platform for analytical chemistry.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; flow speed programming; paper-based microfluidic analytical devices (μPADs)
Year: 2016 PMID: 30404282 PMCID: PMC6190020 DOI: 10.3390/mi7070108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Fabrication process of microfluidic analytical device: (a) Substrate fabrication process; (b) Recyclable fabrication process of the hydrophilic cellulose powder channels.
Figure 2Comparison between the PDMS coated substrate and uncoated substrate: (a) PH test on the fabricated microfluidic device; (b) PDMS uncoated substrate washed by water after PH test (inset: water contact angle image of PDMS uncoated substrate); (c) PDMS coated substrate washed by water after PH test (inset: water contact angle image of PDMS coated substrate).
Figure 3Cellulose powder channels fabricated with different proportion: (a) Comparison between the fabricated channels; (b) Blue dye was dropped to test the channels’ quality.
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopy of cellulose powder in fabricated device and Whatman No. 1: (a) Microstructure of cellulose powder under microscope (50×); (b) Microstructure of cellulose powder under microscope (200×); (c) Microstructure of chromatography paper Whatman No. 1 under microscope (50×); (d) Microstructure of chromatography paper Whatman No. 1 under microscope (200×); (e) A dying test on a μ3DPAD with a channel of 4 mm width; (f) Gray value distribution of the dye in the channel.
Figure 5Resolution of μ3DPADs: (a) The resolution of the hydrophilic channels and the channel’s image under the microscope (100×); (b) The resolution of the hydrophobic barriers and the barrier's image under the microscope (100×).
Figure 6Relationship between channel depth and flow time: (a) The flow trend of red dye in 8 channels with a gradient depth; (b) Quantitative analysis on the relationship between channel depth and flow time; (c) The linear relationship of speed and the depth.
Dye flow time in channels with different depth.
| Channel Depth (mm) | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flow time1 (s) | 42.80 | 75.90 | 117.10 | 158.00 | 187.70 | 231.10 | 274.50 | 310.00 |
| Flow time2 (s) | 42.20 | 81.10 | 123.60 | 165.30 | 198.20 | 245.50 | 280.30 | 320.30 |
| Flow time3 (s) | 41.40 | 75.20 | 116.40 | 158.40 | 200.80 | 246.50 | 282.70 | 321.50 |
| Flow time4 (s) | 40.20 | 84.70 | 125.50 | 167.60 | 196.20 | 243.20 | 290.70 | 313.30 |
| The average flow time (s) | 41.65 | 79.23 | 120.65 | 162.33 | 195.73 | 241.58 | 282.05 | 316.28 |
| Standard deviation | 1.12 | 4.50 | 4.58 | 4.86 | 5.67 | 7.12 | 6.72 | 5.53 |
Figure 7Flow speed control in 3D channels. The left channel and the right channel all have four segments with the different depth and the same segment length.
Flow time of two channels.
| Position | Depth of the Left Channel (mm) | Depth of the Right Channel (mm) | Flow Time in the Left Channel (s) | Flow Time in the Right Channel (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First step | 2 | 1 | 68 | 46 |
| Second step | 1 | 2 | 98 | 99 |
| Third step | 2 | 1.5 | 155 | 140 |
| Fourth step | 1.5 | 2 | 189 | 190 |
Figure 8The encapsulation of the microfluidic analytical device: (a) Model graph of the device in closed state; (b) Model graph of the device in open state; (c) Dropping indicating solution in physical model in open state; (d) Dropping test solution in physical model in open state; (e) Physical model graph of the device in closed state.
Figure 9Time-lapse image of two different dyes diffusing in the fabricated Y device: (a) Microfluidic Y device with two different fluid path lengths; (b) Microfluidic Y device with the same path length.
Nitrite concentration of samples 1–7 and their corresponding gray intensity.
| Sample | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gray intensity | 82 | 77 | 73 | 67 | 64 | 59 | 55 |
| Nitrite concentration, mg/L | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Figure 10Colorimetric assay of nitrite via color-reaction by using microfluidic analytical device: (a) Image of the testing microfluidic analytical device; (b) Curve for nitrite ion.