ArticleMicromachines2020
Experimental Investigation of Air Compliance Effect on Measurement of Mechanical Properties of Blood Sample Flowing in Microfluidic Channels.
Article in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pulsatile Flow-Modulation Microfluidic Sensor for Simultaneous Monitoring of Red Blood Cell Aggregation and Viscosity-Sensitive Time Constant.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Investigation of Red Cell Sedimentation Using Blood Shear Stress and Blood Flow Image in a Capillary Chip.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Biosensing of Haemorheological Properties Using Microblood Flow Manipulation and Quantification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Microfluidic Systems for Blood and Blood Cell Characterization.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Micro/Nano Devices for Blood Analysis, Volume II.Micromachines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Air compliance has been used effectively to stabilize fluidic instability resulting from a syringe pump. It has also been employed to measure blood viscosity under constant shearing flows. However, due to a longer time delay, it is difficult to quantify the aggregation of red blood cells (RBCs) or blood viscoelasticity. To quantify the mechanical properties of blood samples (blood viscosity, RBC aggregation, and viscoelasticity) effectively, it is necessary to quantify contributions of air compliance to dynamic blood flows in microfluidic channels. In this study, the effect of air compliance on measurement of blood mechanical properties was experimentally quantified with respect to the air cavity in two driving syringes. Under periodic on-off blood flows, three mechanical properties of blood samples were sequentially obtained by quantifying microscopic image intensity (<I>) and interface (α) in a co-flowing channel. Based on a differential equation derived with a fluid circuit model, the time constant was obtained by analyzing the temporal variations of β = 1/(1-α). According to experimental results, the time constant significantly decreased by securing the air cavity in a reference fluid syringe (~0.1 mL). However, the time constant increased substantially by securing the air cavity in a blood sample syringe (~0.1 mL). Given that the air cavity in the blood sample syringe significantly contributed to delaying transient behaviors of blood flows, it hindered the quantification of RBC aggregation and blood viscoelasticity. In addition, it was impossible to obtain the viscosity and time constant when the blood flow rate was not available. Thus, to measure the three aforementioned mechanical properties of blood samples effectively, the air cavity in the blood sample syringe must be minimized (V
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.