Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36838135›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2023

A Scalable, Modular Degasser for Passive In-Line Removal of Bubbles from Biomicrofluidic Devices.

Hannah B Musgrove, Amirus Saleheen, Jonathan M Zatorski, Abhinav Arneja, Chance John Luckey, Rebecca R Pompano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Hannah B MusgroveDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Amirus SaleheenDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Jonathan M ZatorskiDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Abhinav ArnejaDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Chance John LuckeyDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Rebecca R PompanoDepartment of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8644-9313

Funding

A spatially organized microphysiological model of a human lymph nodeU01EB029127 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI POMPANO, REBECCA R · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NCATS NIH HHS U01EB029127NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB029127NIBIB NIH HHS U01EB029127
6 · The paper itself

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

3D printingbubble removalbubble trapCNC machinedFDM printingmicrofluidics

Identifiers

PMID36838135
PMCPMC9964747

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.