ArticlePolymers2020
Polymer Microchannel and Micromold Surface Polishing for Rapid, Low-Quantity Polydimethylsiloxane and Thermoplastic Microfluidic Device Fabrication.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Emerging Trends in Microfluidic Biomaterials: From Functional Design to Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Rapid prototyping of PMMA-based microfluidic spheroid-on-a-chip models using micromilling and vapour-assisted thermal bonding.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Polymer Micro/Nanofabrication and Manufacturing.Polymers · 2023Article
- 3D-Printed Microfluidic Chip for Real-Time Glucose Monitoring in Liquid Analytes.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polymer-based micromolding has been proposed as an alternative to SU-8 micromolding for microfluidic chip fabrication. However, surface defects such as milling marks may result in rough microchannels and micromolds, limiting microfluidic device performance. Therefore, we use chemical and mechanical methods for polishing polymer microchannels and micromolds. In addition, we evaluated their performance in terms of removing the machining (milling) marks on polymer microchannel and micromold surfaces. For chemical polishing, we use solvent evaporation to polish the sample surfaces. For mechanical polishing, wool felt polishing bits with an abrasive agent were employed to polish the sample surfaces. Chemical polishing reduced surface roughness from 0.38 μm (0 min, after milling) to 0.13 μm after 6 min of evaporation time. Mechanical polishing reduced surface roughness from 0.38 to 0.165 μm (optimal pressing length: 0.3 mm). As polishing causes abrasion, we evaluated sample geometry loss after polishing. Mechanically and chemically polished micromolds had optimal micromold distortion percentages of 1.01% ± 0.76% and 1.10% ± 0.80%, respectively. Compared to chemical polishing, mechanical polishing could better maintain the geometric integrity since it is locally polished by computer numerical control (CNC) miller. Using these surface polishing methods with optimized parameters, polymer micromolds and microchannels can be rapidly produced for polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) casting and thermoplastic hot embossing. In addition, low-quantity (15 times) polymer microchannel replication is demonstrated in this paper.
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.