4.6 Article

Optimization of Oligomer Stamping Technique for Normally Closed Elastomeric Valves on Glass Substrate

期刊

MICROMACHINES
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/mi14091659

关键词

microfluidics; PDMS; pneumatic valve; electrical impedance; plasma bonding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, an oligomer stamping technique for selective bonding of normally closed valves is optimized for PDMS devices on glass substrates. The process is quantitatively characterized using contact angle and blister bursting testing measurements, and recommendations are made for plasma treatment conditions, microstamping technique, and valve construction. The glass-PDMS devices demonstrate electrical isolation and sealing capability under a pulsed actuation scheme.
Microscale elastomeric valves are an integral part of many lab-on-chip applications. Normally closed valves require lower actuation pressures to form tight seals, making them ideal for portable devices. However, fabrication of normally closed valves is typically more difficult because the valve structure must be selectively bonded to its substrate. In this work, an oligomer stamping technique for selective bonding of normally closed valves is optimized for bonding of PDMS devices on glass substrates. Contact angle and blister bursting testing measurements are used to quantitatively characterize the oligomer stamping process for the first time, and recommendations are made for plasma treatment conditions, microstamping technique, and valve construction. Glass-PDMS devices are ideal for lab-on-chip systems that integrate electrodes on the rigid glass substrate. Here, integrated electrodes are used to assess valve performance, demonstrating electrical isolation in excess of 8 M omega over the biologically relevant frequency range in the closed state. Further, electrical measurement is used to demonstrate that the valve design can operate under a pulsed actuation scheme, sealing to withstand fluid pressures in excess of 200 mbar.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据