4.5 Article

Systematic characterization of degas-driven flow for poly(dimethylsiloxane) microfluidic devices

期刊

BIOMICROFLUIDICS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3584003

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01CA120003]
  2. DOE [DE-AC05-06OR23100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Degas-driven flow is a novel phenomenon used to propel fluids in poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS)-based microfluidic devices without requiring any external power. This method takes advantage of the inherently high porosity and air solubility of PDMS by removing air molecules from the bulk PDMS before initiating the flow. The dynamics of degas-driven flow are dependent on the channel and device geometries and are highly sensitive to temporal parameters. These dependencies have not been fully characterized, hindering broad use of degas-driven flow as a microfluidic pumping mechanism. Here, we characterize, for the first time, the effect of various parameters on the dynamics of degas-driven flow, including channel geometry, PDMS thickness, PDMS exposure area, vacuum degassing time, and idle time at atmospheric pressure before loading. We investigate the effect of these parameters on flow velocity as well as channel fill time for the degas-driven flow process. Using our devices, we achieved reproducible flow with a standard deviation of less than 8% for flow velocity, as well as maximum flow rates of up to 3 nL/s and mean flow rates of approximately 1-1.5 nL/s. Parameters such as channel surface area and PDMS chip exposure area were found to have negligible impact on degas-driven flow dynamics, whereas channel cross-sectional area, degas time, PDMS thickness, and idle time were found to have a larger impact. In addition, we develop a physical model that can predict mean flow velocities within 6% of experimental values and can be used as a tool for future design of PDMS-based microfluidic devices that utilize degas-driven flow. (C) 2011 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3584003]

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