4.5 Article

Streamline-based microfluidic devices for erythrocytes and leukocytes separation

Journal

JOURNAL OF MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 1029-1038

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JMEMS.2008.924274

Keywords

blood; microelectromechanical devices

Funding

  1. National Space Biomedical Research Institute [NCC 9-58]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we report two devices for the continuous size-based separation of particles, such as blood cells, which is an important step for on-chip blood preparation. Unlike previously demonstrated passive fluidic devices for particle separation, the local geometry of the bifurcated side channels was used as a design parameter. The design of the devices was based on 2-D fluidic simulation of a T-shaped model. This novel approach was proved to be effective in predicting device performance. The critical particle size for separation was clearly defined in the bifurcated region by simulation under the established theoretical framework. We validated the operation principle of the devices by separating 5- and 10-mu m polystyrene beads. Human leukocytes were also successfully separated from erythrocytes with 97% efficiency. The separation region of the device had a small footprint for the separation of particles in micrometer range, which makes this device a good candidate to be integrated into a lab-on-a-chip system. The particles were collected in different exit channels after they were separated, which facilitated further sensing and processing. Similar to cross-flow filters, particles were separated perpendicular to the flow direction. The filtering effect was achieved with the collection zones established by the fluidic field. Clogging was minimized by designing the minimal channel width of the devices larger than the largest particle diameter. Solvent exchange could be accomplished for particles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available