4.3 Article

A computational and experimental study inside microfluidic systems: the role of shear stress and flow recirculation in cell docking

Journal

BIOMEDICAL MICRODEVICES
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 619-626

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10544-010-9414-5

Keywords

Microfluidic device; Computational fluid dynamic; Cell docking; Shear stress

Funding

  1. Progetto Roberto Rocca Collaboration
  2. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center
  3. Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology
  4. National Science Foundation
  5. National Institute of Health [HL092836, EB009196, DE019024]
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [R11-2008-044-01001-0]
  7. Korea Industrial Technology Foundation (KOTEF)
  8. National Research Foundation of Korea [R11-2008-044-01001-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, microfluidic devices containing microwells that enabled cell docking were investigated. We theoretically assessed the effect of geometry on recirculation areas and wall shear stress patterns within microwells and studied the relationship between the computational predictions and experimental cell docking. We used microchannels with 150 mu m diameter microwells that had either 20 or 80 mu m thickness. Flow within 80 mu m deep microwells was subject to extensive recirculation areas and low shear stresses (< 0.5 mPa) near the well base; whilst these were only presented within a 10 mu m peripheral ring in 20 mu m thick microwells. We also experimentally demonstrated that cell docking was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in 80 mu m thick microwells as compared to 20 mu m thick microwells. Finally, a computational tool which correlated physical and geometrical parameters of microwells with their fluid dynamic environment was developed and was also experimentally confirmed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available