4.3 Article

Inertial microfluidics for sheath-less high-throughput flow cytometry

期刊

BIOMEDICAL MICRODEVICES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 187-195

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10544-009-9374-9

关键词

Microfluidics; Flow cytometry; Cell counting

资金

  1. University of Cincinnati Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology
  2. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [T42/OH008432-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow cytometer is a powerful single cell analysis tool that allows multi-parametric study of suspended cells. Most commercial flow cytometers available today are bulky, expensive instruments requiring high maintenance costs and specially trained personnel for operation. Hence, there is a need to develop a low cost, portable alternative that will aid in making this powerful research tool more accessible. In this paper we describe a sheath-less, on-chip flow cytometry system based on the principle of Dean coupled inertial microfluidics. The design takes advantage of the Dean drag and inertial lift forces acting on particles flowing through a spiral microchannel to focus them in 3-D at a single position across the microchannel cross-section. Unlike the previously reported micro-flow cytometers, the developed system relies entirely on the microchannel geometry for particle focusing, eliminating the need for complex microchannel designs and additional microfluidic plumbing associated with sheath-based techniques. In this work, a 10-loop spiral microchannel 100 A mu m wide and 50 A mu m high was used to focus 6 A mu m particles in 3-D. The focused particle stream was detected with a laser induced fluorescence (LIF) setup. The microfluidic system was shown to have a high throughput of 2,100 particles/sec. Finally, the viability of the developed technique for cell counting was demonstrated using SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. The passive focusing principle and the planar nature of the described design will permit easy integration with existing lab-on-a-chip (LOC) systems.

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

4.3
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