4.5 Review

A review on wax printed microfluidic paper-based devices for international health

期刊

BIOMICROFLUIDICS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4991504

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paper-based microfluidics has attracted attention for the last ten years due to its advantages such as low sample volume requirement, ease of use, portability, high sensitivity, and no necessity to well-equipped laboratory equipment and well-trained manpower. These characteristics have made paper platforms a promising alternative for a variety of applications such as clinical diagnosis and quantitative analysis of chemical and biological substances. Among the wide range of fabrication methods for microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (mu PADs), the wax printing method is suitable for high throughput production and requires only a commercial printer and a heating source to fabricate complex two or three-dimensional structures for multipurpose systems. mu PADs can be used by anyone for in situ diagnosis and analysis; therefore, wax printed mu PADs are promising especially in resource limited environments where people cannot get sensitive and fast diagnosis of their serious health problems and where food, water, and related products are not able to be screened for toxic elements. This review paper is focused on the applications of paper-based microfluidic devices fabricated by the wax printing technique and used for international health. Besides presenting the current limitations and advantages, the future directions of this technology including the commercial aspects are discussed. As a conclusion, the wax printing technology continues to overcome the current limitations and to be one of the promising fabrication techniques. In the near future, with the increase of the current interest of the industrial companies on the paper-based technology, the wax-printed paper-based platforms are expected to take place especially in the healthcare industry. 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