ArticleMicromachines2023
A Scalable, Modular Degasser for Passive In-Line Removal of Bubbles from Biomicrofluidic Devices.
Article in Micromachines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Injury-on-a-chip for modelling microvascular trauma-induced coagulation.Lab on a chip · 2025Article
- Continuous flow delivery system for the perfusion of scaffold-based 3D cultures.Lab on a chip · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bubbles are a common cause of microfluidic malfunction, as they can perturb the fluid flow within the micro-sized features of a device. Since gas bubbles form easily within warm cell culture reagents, degassing is often necessary for biomicrofluidic systems. However, fabrication of a microscale degasser that can be used modularly with pre-existing chips may be cumbersome or challenging, especially for labs not equipped for traditional microfabrication, and current commercial options can be expensive. Here, we address the need for an affordable, accessible bubble trap that can be used in-line for continuous perfusion of organs-on-chip and other microfluidic cultures. We converted a previously described, manually fabricated PDMS degasser to allow scaled up, reproducible manufacturing by commercial machining or fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing. After optimization, the machined and 3D printed degassers were found to be stable for >2 weeks under constant perfusion, without leaks. With a ~140 µL chamber volume, trapping capacity was extrapolated to allow for ~5-20 weeks of degassing depending on the rate of bubble formation. The degassers were biocompatible for use with cell culture, and they successfully prevented bubbles from reaching a downstream microfluidic device. Both degasser materials showed little to no leaching. The machined degasser did not absorb reagents, while the FDM printed degasser absorbed a small amount, and both maintained fluidic integrity from 1 µL/min to >1 mL/min of pressure-driven flow. Thus, these degassers can be fabricated in bulk and allow for long-term, efficient bubble removal in a simple microfluidic perfusion set-up.
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.