| Literature DB >> 35711385 |
Leire Etxeberria1,2,3, Unai Aguilera1, Pablo Garcia de Madinabeitia1, Alberto Saez1, Ane M Zaldua2, José L Vilas-Vilela3,4, Luis Fernández1, Andreu Llobera1.
Abstract
Luer slip is one of the gold standards for chip-to-world interface in microfluidics. They have outstanding mechanical and operational robustness in a broad range of applications using water and solvent-based liquids. Still, their main drawbacks are related to their size: they have relatively large dead volumes and require a significant footprint to assure a leak-free performance. Such aspects make their integration in systems with high microchannel density challenging. To date, there has been no geometrical optimization of the Luer slips to provide a solution to the mentioned drawbacks. This work aims to provide the rules toward downscaling the Luer slips. To this effect, seven variations of the Luer slip male connectors and five variations of Luer slip female connectors have been designed and manufactured focusing on the reduction of the size of connectors and minimization of the dead volumes. In all cases, female connectors have been developed to pair with the corresponding male connector. Characterization has been performed with a tailor-made test bench in which the closure force between male and female connectors has been varied between 7.9 and 55 N. For each applied closure force, the test bench allows liquid pressures to be tested between 0.5 and 2.0 bar. Finally, the analysis of a useful life determines the number of cycles that the connectors can withstand before leakage.Entities:
Keywords: LoC devices; Luer slip connectors; microfluidic connectors; tube-to-chip connection; useful life
Year: 2022 PMID: 35711385 PMCID: PMC9194524 DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.881930
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med Technol ISSN: 2673-3129
Figure 1(A) Male and (B) female Luer connector drawings.
Description of the designs for male and female connectors in mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male 1 | 3.440 | 4.021 | 8.400 | 2.100 | 4.426 | 0.250 |
| Male 2 | 2.011 | 4.200 | 1.050 | 2.213 | 0.125 | |
| Male 3 | 3.016 | 6.300 | 1.575 | 3.320 | 0.188 | |
| Male 4 | 4.021 | 4.200 | 2.100 | 4.426 | 0.250 | |
| Male 5 | 4.021 | 6.300 | 2.100 | 4.426 | 0.250 | |
| Male 6 | 4.021 | 8.400 | 1.050 | 4.426 | 0.250 | |
| Male 7 | 4.021 | 8.400 | 1.575 | 4.426 | 0.250 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Female 1 | 3.440 | 4.248 | 8.400 | 3.843 | 6.356 | 0.250 |
| Female 2 | 2.124 | 4.200 | 1.922 | 3.178 | 0.125 | |
| Female 3 | 3.186 | 6.300 | 2.882 | 4.767 | 0.188 | |
| Female 4 | 4.248 | 4.200 | 3.843 | 6.356 | 0.250 | |
| Female 5 | 4.248 | 6.300 | 3.483 | 6.356 | 0.250 | |
|
| ||||||
|
|
| |||||
| Female 1 | Male 1, 6 and 7 | Male 4 and 5 | ||||
| Female 2 | Male 2 | - | ||||
| Female 3 | Male 3 | - | ||||
| Female 4 | Male 4 | Male 1, 5, 6 and 7 | ||||
| Female 5 | Male 5 | Male 1, 4, 6 and 7 | ||||
Figure 2Images of the test bench including the chip with male connectors and female connectors in red.
Figure 3Experimental setup. (A) Schematic drawing of the test bench, (B) Image of the setup.
Actuation force values.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 1 | 7.9 ± 0.5 |
| 2 | 15.8 ± 0.4 |
| 3 | 23.6 ± 0.4 |
| 4 | 31.5 ± 0.4 |
| 5 | 39.3 ± 0.4 |
| 6 | 47.2 ± 0.4 |
| 7 | 55.0 ± 0.4 |
Figure 4CAD image of the chip containing male connectors.
Machining requirements for Male connectors in Ertalyte.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male 1 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 4.12 ± 0.05 | 4.48 ± 0.05 | 2.10 ± 0.05 |
| Male 2 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 2.03 ± 0.05 | 2.22 ± 0.05 | 1.05 ± 0.05 |
| Male 3 | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 3.08 ± 0.05 | 3.35 ± 0.05 | 1.57 ± 0.05 |
| Male 4 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 4.12 ± 0.05 | 4.23 ± 0.05 | 2.10 ± 0.05 |
| Male 5 | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 4.12 ± 0.05 | 4.35 ± 0.05 | 2.10 ± 0.05 |
| Male 6 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 4.12 ± 0.05 | 4.48 ± 0.05 | 1.05 ± 0.05 |
| Male 7 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 4.12 ± 0.05 | 4.48 ± 0.05 | 1.58 ± 0.05 |
Machining requirements for Female connectors in Ketron PEEK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female 1 | 8.4 ± 0.1 | 3.79 ± 0.05 | 4.28 ± 0.05 | 11.50 ± 0.05 |
| Female 2 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 1.92 ± 0.05 | 2.17 ± 0.05 | 11.50 ± 0.05 |
| Female 3 | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 2.40 ± 0.05 | 3.59 ± 0.05 | 11.50 ± 0.05 |
| Female 4 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 4.04 ± 0.05 | 4.28 ± 0.05 | 11.50 ± 0.05 |
| Female 5 | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 3.91 ± 0.05 | 4.28 ± 0.05 | 11.50 ± 0.05 |
Figure 5Optical profilometer image of a male connector.
Figure 6Images obtained with Nikon Eclipse 80i optical microscopy. (A) Male connector, (B) Female connector.
Measured dimensions of Male connectors.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male 1 | 8.50 | +0.1 | 4.10 | −0.02 | 4.48 | +0.01 | 2.10 | +0.01 |
| Male 2 | 4.17 | −0.03 | 2.10 | +0.07 | 2.24 | +0.02 | 1.1 | +0.05 |
| Male 3 | 6.24 | −0.06 | 3.12 | +0.04 | 3.38 | +0.03 | 1.73 | +0.16 |
| Male 4 | 4.19 | −0.01 | 4.12 | +0.01 | 4.27 | +0.05 | 2.15 | +0.05 |
| Male 5 | 6.26 | −0.04 | 4.12 | +0.01 | 4.38 | +0.03 | 2.08 | −0.02 |
| Male 6 | 8.47 | +0.07 | 4.10 | −0.02 | 4.51 | +0.03 | 1.01 | −0.04 |
| Male 7 | 8.42 | +0.02 | 4.09 | −0.03 | 4.51 | +0.03 | 1.63 | +0.05 |
Measured dimensions of Female connectors.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female 1 | 8.39 | −0.01 | 3.76 | −0.03 | 4.19 | −0.09 | 11.54 | +0.04 |
| Female 2 | – | – | – | – | 2.17 | +0.01 | 11.46 | −0.04 |
| Female 3 | 6.31 | +0.01 | – | – | 3.53 | −0.06 | 11.5 | +0.01 |
| Female 4 | 4.23 | +0.03 | 4.07 | +0.03 | 4.24 | −0.04 | 11.49 | −0.01 |
| Female 5 | 6.31 | +0.01 | – | – | 4.22 | −0.06 | 11.47 | −0.03 |
Results for minimum closure force required to hold on 2.0 bar fluidic pressure for each possible connector combination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male 1 | 47.2 ± 0.4N | Not compatible | Not compatible | 39.3 ± 0.4N | 39.3 ± 0.4 N |
| Male 2 | Not compatible | 31.5 ± 0.4 N | Not compatible | Not compatible | Not compatible |
| Male 3 | Not compatible | Not compatible | 15.8 ± 0.4N | Not compatible | Not compatible |
| Male 4 | 23.6 ± 0.4 N | Not compatible | Not compatible | 23.6 ± 0.4 N | 47.2 ± 0.4N |
| Male 5 | 47.2 ± 0.4 N | Not compatible | Not compatible | 2.0 bar fluidic pressure not reached | 55.0 ± 0.4 N |
| Male 6 | 55.0 ± 0.4N | Not compatible | Not compatible | 55.0 ± 0.4 N | 55.0 ± 0.4N |
| Male 7 | 39.3 ± 0.4N | Not compatible | Not compatible | 2.0 bar fluidic pressure not reached | 47.2 ± 0.4 N |
Figure 7Number of cycles before leakage at 2 bar fluidic pressure for each possible connector combination.