ArticleMicromachines2021
Hemp-Based Microfluidics.
Article in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Hybrid Wound Scaffolds for Controlled Drug Delivery and Smart Wound Management: A Decade of Progress.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- A Rapid Prototyping Approach for Multi-Material, Reversibly Sealed Microfluidics.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Additive manufacturing and three-dimensional printing in obstetrics and gynecology: a comprehensive review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Review
- 3D-printed microrobots from design to translation.Nature communications · 2022Review
- Disposable paper-based microfluidics for fertility testing.iScience · 2022Review
- Toilet-based continuous health monitoring using urine.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Deep Learning-Enabled Technologies for Bioimage Analysis.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Paper and thread as media for the frugal detection of urinary tract infections (UTIs).Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
- Glioma-on-a-Chip Models.Micromachines · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemp is a sustainable, recyclable, and high-yield annual crop that can be used to produce textiles, plastics, composites, concrete, fibers, biofuels, bionutrients, and paper. The integration of microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (µPADs) with hemp paper can improve the environmental friendliness and high-throughputness of µPADs. However, there is a lack of sufficient scientific studies exploring the functionality, pros, and cons of hemp as a substrate for µPADs. Herein, we used a desktop pen plotter and commercial markers to pattern hydrophobic barriers on hemp paper, in a single step, in order to characterize the ability of markers to form water-resistant patterns on hemp. In addition, since a higher resolution results in densely packed, cost-effective devices with a minimized need for costly reagents, we examined the smallest and thinnest water-resistant patterns plottable on hemp-based papers. Furthermore, the wicking speed and distance of fluids with different viscosities on Whatman No. 1 and hemp papers were compared. Additionally, the wettability of hemp and Whatman grade 1 paper was compared by measuring their contact angles. Besides, the effects of various channel sizes, as well as the number of branches, on the wicking distance of the channeled hemp paper was studied. The governing equations for the wicking distance on channels with laser-cut and hydrophobic side boundaries are presented and were evaluated with our experimental data, elucidating the applicability of the modified Washburn equation for modeling the wicking distance of fluids on hemp paper-based microfluidic devices. Finally, we validated hemp paper as a substrate for the detection and analysis of the potassium concentration in artificial urine.
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.