4.5 Article

Impact of tortuous flow on bacteria streamer development in microfluidic system during filtration

期刊

BIOMICROFLUIDICS
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4863724

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The way in which bacterial communities colonize flow in porous media is of importance, but basic knowledge on the dynamic of these phenomena is still missing. The aim of this work is to develop microfluidic experiments in order to progress in the understanding of bacteria capture in filters and membranes. PDMS microfluidic devices mimicking filtration processes have been developed to allow a direct dynamic observation of bacteria across 10 or 20 mu m width microchannels. When filtered in such devices, bacteria behave surprisingly: Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus accumulate in the downstream zone of the filter and form large streamers which oscillate in the flow. In this study, streamer formation is put in evidence for bacteria suspension in non nutritive conditions in less than 1 h. This result is totally different from the one observed in same system with inert particles or dead bacteria which are captured in the bottleneck zone and are accumulated in the upstream zone. Observations within different flow geometries (straight channels, connected channels, and staggered row pillars) show that the bacteria streamer development is influenced by the flow configuration and, particularly by the presence of tortuosity within the microchannels zone. These results are discussed at the light of 3D flow simulations. In confined systems and in laminar flow, there is secondary flow (z-velocities) superimposed to the streamwise motion (in xy plane). The presence of the secondary flow in the microsystems has an effect on the bacterial adhesion. A scenario in three steps is established to describe the formation of the streamers and to explain the positive effect of tortuous flow on the development kinetics. (C) 2014 AIP Publishing LLC.

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