ArticleEngineering in life sciences2017
Parametric studies on droplet generation reproducibility for applications with biological relevant fluids.
Article in Engineering in life sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D printing in microfluidics: experimental optimization of droplet size and generation time through flow focusing, phase, and geometry variation.RSC advances · 2024Article
- Flexible Toolbox of High-Precision Microfluidic Modules for Versatile Droplet-Based Applications.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Design automation of microfluidic single and double emulsion droplets with machine learning.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Versatility and stability optimization of flow-focusing droplet generatorsLab on a chip · 2023Article
- Experimental studies on droplet characteristics in a microfluidic flow focusing droplet generator: effect of continuous phase on droplet encapsulation.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2021Article
- Machine learning enables design automation of microfluidic flow-focusing droplet generation.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the great potential of droplet based microfluidic technologies for routine applications in industry and academia has been successfully demonstrated over the past years, its inherent potential is not fully exploited till now. Especially regarding to the droplet generation reproducibility and stability, two pivotally important parameters for successful applications, there is still a need for improvement. This is even more considerable when droplets are created to investigate tissue fragments or cell cultures (e.g. suspended cells or 3D cell cultures) over days or even weeks. In this study we present microfluidic chips composed of a plasma coated polymer, which allow surfactants-free, highly reproducible and stable droplet generation from fluids like cell culture media. We demonstrate how different microfluidic designs and different flow rates (and flow rate ratios) affect the reproducibility of the droplet generation process and display the applicability for a wide variety of bio(techno)logically relevant media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.