ArticleMicromachines2020
Evaluation of Performance and Tunability of a Co-Flow Inertial Microfluidic Device.
Article in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous On-Chip Cell Washing Using Viscoelastic Microfluidics.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Particles Separation in Microfluidic Devices.Micromachines · 2020Article
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
Microfluidics has gained a lot of attention for biological sample separation and purification methods over recent years. From many active and passive microfluidic techniques, inertial microfluidics offers a simple and efficient method to demonstrate various biological applications. One prevalent limitation of this method is its lack of tunability for different applications once the microfluidic devices are fabricated. In this work, we develop and characterize a co-flow inertial microfluidic device that is tunable in multiple ways for adaptation to different application requirements. In particular, flow rate, flow rate ratio and output resistance ratio are systematically evaluated for flexibility of the cutoff size of the device and modification of the separation performance post-fabrication. Typically, a mixture of single size particles is used to determine cutoff sizes for the outlets, yet this fails to provide accurate prediction for efficiency and purity for a more complex biological sample. Thus, we use particles with continuous size distribution (2-32 μm) for separation demonstration under conditions of various flow rates, flow rate ratios and resistance ratios. We also use A549 cancer cell line with continuous size distribution (12-27 μm) as an added demonstration. Our results indicate inertial microfluidic devices possess the tunability that offers multiple ways to improve device performance for adaptation to different applications even after the devices are prototyped.
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.