ArticleMicromachines2018
Assessing the Reusability of 3D-Printed Photopolymer Microfluidic Chips for Urine Processing.
Article in Micromachines, 2018. 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 Technologies in Personalized Medicine, Nanomedicines, and Biopharmaceuticals.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Microfluidic Printing-Based Method for the Multifactorial Study of Cell-Free Protein Networks.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Microfluidics combined with fluorescenceFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Long-term cyclic use of a sample collector for toilet-based urine analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Bacterial Concentration Detection using a PCB-based Contactless Conductivity Sensor.Micromachines · 2019Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue on 3D Printed Microfluidic Devices.Micromachines · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is emerging as a method for microfluidic device fabrication boasting facile and low-cost fabrication, as compared to conventional fabrication approaches, such as photolithography, for poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) counterparts. Additionally, there is an increasing trend in the development and implementation of miniaturized and automatized devices for health monitoring. While nonspecific protein adsorption by PDMS has been studied as a limitation for reusability, the protein adsorption characteristics of 3D-printed materials have not been well-studied or characterized. With these rationales in mind, we study the reusability of 3D-printed microfluidics chips. Herein, a 3D-printed cleaning chip, consisting of inlets for the sample, cleaning solution, and air, and a universal outlet, is presented to assess the reusability of a 3D-printed microfluidic device. Bovine serum albumin (BSA) was used a representative urinary protein and phosphate-buffered solution (PBS) was chosen as the cleaning agent. Using the 3-(4-carboxybenzoyl)quinoline-2-carboxaldehyde (CBQCA) fluorescence detection method, the protein cross-contamination between samples and the protein uptake of the cleaning chip were assessed, demonstrating a feasible 3D-printed chip design and cleaning procedure to enable reusable microfluidic devices. The performance of the 3D-printed cleaning chip for real urine sample handling was then validated using a commercial dipstick assay.
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.