| Literature DB >> 31243326 |
S R A Kratz1,2, C Eilenberger1,2, P Schuller1,2, B Bachmann1,2,3, S Spitz1,2, P Ertl4,5, M Rothbauer6,7.
Abstract
In the advent of affordable photo- and soft-lithography using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), low cost multi-step microfabrication methods have become available to a broad scientific community today. Although these methods are frequently applied for microfluidic prototype production in academic and industrial settings, fast design iterations and rapid prototyping within a few minutes with a high degree of flexibility are nearly impossible. To reduce microfluidic concept-to-chip time and costs, a number of alternative rapid prototyping techniques have recently been introduced including CNC micromachining, 3D printing and plotting out of numeric CAD designs as well as micro-structuring of thin PDMS sheets and pressure sensitive adhesives. Although micro-structuring of pressure sensitive adhesives promises high design flexibility, rapid fabrication and simple biochip assembly, most adhesives are toxic for living biological systems. Since an appropriate bio-interface and proper biology-material interaction is key for any cell chip and organ-on-a-chip system, only a limited number of medical-grade materials are available for microfluidic prototyping. In this study, we have characterized four functional biomedical-grade pressure sensitive adhesives for rapid prototyping (e.g. less than 1 hour) applications including structuring precision, physical and optical properties as well as biocompatibilities. While similar biocompatibility was found for all four adhesives, significant differences in cutting behavior, bonding strength to glass and polymers as well as gas permeability was observed. Practical applications included stability testing of multilayered, membrane-integrated organ-on-a-chip devices under standard cell culture conditions (e.g. 2-3 weeks at 37 °C and 100% humidity) and a shear-impact up to 5 dynes/cm2. Additionally, time- and shear-dependent uptake of non-toxic fluorescently labelled nanoparticles on human endothelial cells are demonstrated using micro-structured adhesive-bonded devices. Our results show that (a) both simple and complex microdevices can be designed, fabricated and tested in less than 1 hour, (b) these microdevices are stable for weeks even under physiological shear force conditions and (c) can be used to maintain cell monolayers as well as 3D cell culture systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31243326 PMCID: PMC6594959 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45633-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(A) Process flow and (B) time investment for rapid prototyping of pressure sensitive biomedical adhesives (PSAs).
Composition of biomedical grade tapes.
| Name | Total thickness | Layer thickness | Adhesives thickness | Adhesives type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARcare 92712® | 48.26 μm | 12.7 μm polyester | 17.78 μm | MA-93 acrylic pressure sensitive |
| ARcare 90445® | 81.28 μm | 25.4 μm polyester | 27.94 μm | AS-110 acrylic medical grade |
| ARcare 90106® | 142.24 μm | 25.4 μm polyester | 58.42 μm | MA-69 acrylic hybrid medical grade |
| ARseal 90880® | 142.24 μm | 50.8 μm polypropylene | 45.72 μm | SR-26 silicone adhesive |
Figure 2Comparison between numerical design and actual dimensions of microfluidic structures out of double-sided pressure sensitive biomedical adhesives after plotter rapid prototyping. Data points are presented as mean values ± SD for n = 3.
Figure 3Comparison between manufacturer’s height specifications and actual microstructure height of (A) Super clear PDMS foil 250 µm (B) ARcare 92712, (C) ARcare 90445, (D) ARcare 90106 and (E) ARseal 90880 directly after bonding and after exposure to cell culture conditions for 7 days (100% humidity, 37 °C and 5% CO2). Data points are presented as mean values ± SD for n = 3.
Figure 4(A) Tensile force: glass-PSA-glass (B) tensile force: glass-PSA-membrane-PSA-glass (C) tensile force: glass-PSA-membrane-PSA-glass and (D) shear force-to-failure characterization of ARcare and ARseal pressure sensitive adhesives for glass and porous membrane bonding substrates. Data points are presented as mean values ± SD for n = 3.
Figure 5(A) Oxygen: where in a circular structure with a wall thickness of 1 mm (blue units in mm) oxygen is measured by micro sensor (green) and (B) vapor permeability of biomedical pressure sensitive adhesives: where medium (red) evaporation is measured through rectangular structure with a wall thickness of 3 mm (blue all units in mm) Data points are presented as mean values for n = 4. For mean values ± SD see SI Fig. 4.
Figure 6Optical characterization of ARcare and ARseal pressure sensitive adhesives and PDMS for (A) Absorbance spectra and (C,D) autofluorescence spectra at three commonly used excitation wavelengths for fluorophores applied to cell-based assays. Data points are presented as mean values for n = 4. For mean values ± SD see SI Fig. 3.
Figure 7Biocompatibility of biomedical-grade pressure sensitive adhesives including (A) metabolic activity Data bars are mean values ± SD for n = 3 (B) viability and (C) adhesion of BeWo b30 epithelial cells. Viability is expressed as percentage of living cells normalized to control glass substrates after 24 and 48 h post-seeding.
Figure 8(A) CFD simulation of shear stress within a PSA rapid prototyped microfluidic biochip perfused with either 20 µl/min (top) and 10 µl/min flow (bottom), and simulated shear-force over distance and channel width (bottom panels). (B) Time-lapse microscopy of HUVEC endothelial cell adhesion starting 10 minutes post-seeding. (C,D) Impact of exposure time (C) and shear (D) on uptake of non-toxic fluorescent polystyrene 250 nm nanoparticles on confluent HUVEC endothelial cells. Data points are presented as mean values ± SD for n = 4.
Comparison between ARcare and ARseal biomedical-grade pressure sensitive adhesive tapes.
| Pressure Sensitive Adhesive | ARcare 92712 | ARcare 90445 | ARcare 90106 | ARseal 90880 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % max. tolerance (channel size in µm) | 16.6 (@250) | 19.9 (@200) | 10.1 (@350) | 17.1 (@200) |
| % channel height tolerance by manual bonding/2 kN bonding pressure | 5.2/5.6 | 16.7/2.4 | 36.1/7.5 | 8.0/5.7 |
| tensile strength glass incubated at 37 °C [MPa] | 0.7 | 0.76 | 0.41 | 0.78 |
| tensile strength PET membrane at 37 °C [MPa] | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0 | 0.68 |
| shear force glass [MPa] | 1.44 | 3.23 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
| shear force PET membrane [MPa] | 2.34 | 2.79 | 0.51 | 0.56 |
| oxygen permeability (ranked 1 best 4 worst) | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| vapor permeability (ranked 1 best 4 worst) | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| cell adhesion | + | + | + | − |
| cell metabolism | + | + | + | ~ |
| cell viability | + | + | + | + |