4.7 Article

Comparison of different molds (epoxy, polymer and silicon) for microfabrication by hot embossing technique

Journal

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
Volume 163, Issue 1, Pages 233-241

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2012.01.043

Keywords

Hot embossing; Silicon mold; Epoxy mold; Topas-6017 COC mold

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the fabrication of microfluidic devices by hot embossing, secondary molds made from epoxy and other polymeric materials with high T-g are commonly used in lab-scale research and for short production runs of several hundred products. However, few studies have been conducted to compare the performance and efficacy of such molds compared to the master silicon mold. To allow such molds to be exploited fully, this study investigates the performance of silicon, epoxy and COC (TOPAS-6017 grade) molds to fabricate microchannels on COC (TOPAS-8007 grade) substrate using hot embossing. The degree of filling of the mold cavity during microfabrication was assessed. At the optimum embossing conditions (i.e. 100 degrees C, 2.94 kN load and 5 min loading time), all three molds had similar performance in terms of replication fidelity. However, at sub-optimum conditions (e.g. 80 degrees C), the silicon mold was the best in terms of mold cavity filling followed by COC and epoxy. For surface roughness and friction coefficient which are important factors affecting tool life, it was found that epoxy mold gives the lowest values followed by COC and silicon. The surface energy determined using contact angle measurements gave a similar trend with epoxy having the lowest surface energy (28 dyne/cm), followed by COC (33.52 dyne/cm) and silicon (71.63 dynedyne/cm). A lower surface energy will result in lower adhesion and friction coefficient between the polymer and mold, resulting in easier demolding. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available