4.5 Article

Flow reproducibility of whole blood and other bodily fluids in simplified no reaction lateral flow assay devices

期刊

BIOMICROFLUIDICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.4979815

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1500236]
  2. University Research Council Interdisciplinary Program from the University of Cincinnati
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [1500236] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The no reaction lateral flow assay (nrLFA) uses a simplified LFA structure with no conjugate pad and no stored reagents. In the nrLFA, the capillary-based transport time or distance is the key indicator, rather than the outcome of a biochemical reaction. Hence, the calibration and reproducibility of the nrLFA device are critical. The capillary flow properties of several membrane types (nitrocellulose, nylon, cellulose acetate, polyethersulfone, and polyvinylidene difluoride) are evaluated. Flow rate evaluations of MilliporeSigma Hi-Flow (TM) Plus (HF075, HF135 and HF180) nitrocellulose membranes on nrLFA are performed using bodily fluids (whole blood, blood plasma, and artificial sweat). The results demonstrate that fluids with lower viscosity travel faster, and membranes with slower flow rate exhibit higher capability to distinguish fluids with different viscosities. Reproducibility tests of nrLFA are performed on HF075, demonstrating excellent reproducibility. The coefficient of variation for blood coagulation tests performed with the nrLFA using induced coagulation was 5% for the plasma front and 2% for the RBC front. The effects of variation in blood hematocrit and sample volume are also reported. The overall results indicate that the nrLFA approach has a high potential to be commercially developed as a blood monitoring point-of-care device with simple calibration capability and excellent reproducibility. Published by AIP Publishing.

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

4.5
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