4.5 Article

Photolithography-free PDMS stamps for paper microdevice fabrication

期刊

RAPID PROTOTYPING JOURNAL
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 361-367

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-01-2017-0011

关键词

Rapid prototyping; 3D printing; Microdevice; Paper-based; PDMS; Wax stamping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - This paper aims to investigate the applicability of 3D-printed molds to be used as a substitute for photolithography in the formation of polymer-based stamps. It proposes leveraging 3D printing as a rapid prototyping tool to be applied to microfluidic fabrication. Design/methodology/approach - Different designs are created using computer-aided design (CAD) software and printed via Makerbot 3D printer. The molds serve as negative reliefs for a PDMS stamp. The stamp is used to apply paraffin wax to chromatography paper, creating hydrophobic barriers and hydrophilic channels. The minimum functional channel widths and barrier widths are determined for the method. Findings - The method is demonstrated to be effective for bypassing the more cost-prohibitive photolithography approach for rapid paper microdevice fabrication. This approach produces functional channels that can be used for on-chip analytical assays. The minimum functional barrier widths and minimum functional channel widths are in good agreement with other published methods for paper-based microchannel fabrication. Research limitations/implications - The approach cannot generate the high-resolution structures possible with photolithography. Therefore, if higher resolutions are needed for a particular application, this approach is not the best. Practical implications - The simplicity of the approach introduces an affordable method to create disposable devices that can be used at the point of testing. Originality/value - The paper satisfies a need for inexpensive, rapid prototyping of paper-based devices. The method is simple and can be used as a tool for introducing labs to microfluidics research.

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