Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36159671›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Overcoming technological barriers in microfluidics: Leakage testing.

Vania Silverio, Suvajyoti Guha, Armelle Keiser, Rucha Natu, Darwin R Reyes, Henne van Heeren, Nicolas Verplanck, Luke H Herbertson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Next-Generation Microfluidics for Biomedical Research and Healthcare Applications.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Vania SilverioInstituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores para os Microsistemas e as Nanotecnologias, INESC MN, Lisboa, Portugal.
Suvajyoti GuhaOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Armelle KeiserMicrofluidic Systems and Bioengineering Lab, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Technologies for Healthcare and Biology Division, CEA/LETI, Grenoble, France.
Rucha NatuOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Darwin R ReyesNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, United States.
Henne van HeerenEnablingMNT/The Microfluidics Association, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Nicolas VerplanckMicrofluidic Systems and Bioengineering Lab, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Technologies for Healthcare and Biology Division, CEA/LETI, Grenoble, France.
Luke H HerbertsonOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

biomedical devicesleakage testingliquid/gas leakmechanical integritymicrofluidicspressure decaystandards

Identifiers

PMID36159671
PMCPMC9490024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.