4.4 Review

Flow control in paper-based microfluidic device for automatic multistep assays: A focused minireview

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 2761-2770

Publisher

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-016-0161-z

Keywords

Paper-based Microfluidic Device; Multistep Assays; Fluidic Time Delays; Flow Control; Diagnosis

Funding

  1. Global Research Laboratory through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) -Ministry of Science, ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) and Future Planning [NRF-2015K1A1A2033054]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  3. Korean government (MEST) [2011-0017322]
  4. Chungnam National University
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0017322, 2015K1A1A2033054] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although lateral flow tests (LFTs) are easy-to-use diagnostics, they have fundamental limitations for sequential multistep assay that can be reduced to a single chemical reaction step. Paper-based microfluidic devices have attracted considerable attention for use in automatic multi-step assays because paper can be an excellent platform to control sequential fluid flow without external equipment. This review focuses on recent developments on how to control flow rate in paper-based microfluidic devices for automating sequential multi-step assays. The aim of this review is to discuss the limitations of LFTs and potential paper-based microfluidic devices for automated sequential multi-step assays in developing countries; and the existing fluidic control technologies for sequential multi-step assays. In addition, we present future challenges for commercialization of paper-based microfluidic devices to perform automatic multi-step assays.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available