SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Overcoming technological barriers in microfluidics: Leakage testing.
Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flow Reactor for Sustainable Electrosynthesis Fabricated via Cost-Effective Electroplating and Adhesive Bonding.ChemSusChem · 2025Article
- 3D-Printed Microfluidic-Based Cell Culture System With Analysis to Investigate Macrophage Activation.Electrophoresis · 2025Article
- Development of a Tool for Verifying Leakage Detection in Microfluidic Systems.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Quantitative investigation of a 3D bubble trapper in a high shear stress microfluidic chip using computational fluid dynamics and L*A*B* color space.Biomedical microdevices · 2025Article
- Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- Next generation microfluidics: fulfilling the promise of lab-on-a-chip technologies.Lab on a chip · 2024Review
- Improving tumor microenvironment assessment in chip systems through next-generation technology integration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Bioengineered Kidney Tubules Efficiently Clear Uremic Toxins in Experimental Dialysis Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- A Systematic Analysis of Recent Technology Trends of Microfluidic Medical Devices in the United States.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Next-Generation Microfluidics for Biomedical Research and Healthcare Applications.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The miniaturization of laboratory procedures for Lab-on-Chip (LoC) devices and translation to various platforms such as single cell analysis or Organ-on-Chip (OoC) systems are revolutionizing the life sciences and biomedical fields. As a result, microfluidics is becoming a viable technology for improving the quality and sensitivity of critical processes. Yet, standard test methods have not yet been established to validate basic manufacturing steps, performance, and safety of microfluidic devices. The successful development and widespread use of microfluidic technologies are greatly dependent on the community's success in establishing widely supported test protocols. A key area that requires consensus guidelines is leakage testing. There are unique challenges in preventing and detecting leaks in microfluidic systems because of their small dimensions, high surface-area to volume ratios, low flow rates, limited volumes, and relatively high-pressure differentials over short distances. Also, microfluidic devices often employ heterogenous components, including unique connectors and fluid-contacting materials, which potentially make them more susceptible to mechanical integrity failures. The differences between microfluidic systems and traditional macroscale technologies can exacerbate the impact of a leak on the performance and safety on the microscale. To support the microfluidics community efforts in product development and commercialization, it is critical to identify common aspects of leakage in microfluidic devices and standardize the corresponding safety and performance metrics. There is a need for quantitative metrics to provide quality assurance during or after the manufacturing process. It is also necessary to implement application-specific test methods to effectively characterize leakage in microfluidic systems. In this review, different methods for assessing microfluidics leaks, the benefits of using different test media and materials, and the utility of leakage testing throughout the product life cycle are discussed. Current leakage testing protocols and standard test methods that can be leveraged for characterizing leaks in microfluidic devices and potential classification strategies are also discussed. We hope that this review article will stimulate more discussions around the development of gas and liquid leakage test standards in academia and industry to facilitate device commercialization in the emerging field of microfluidics.
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.