ArticleBiosensors2023
New Generation Dielectrophoretic-Based Microfluidic Device for Multi-Type Cell Separation.
Article in Biosensors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spiral microchannels with concave cross-section for enhanced cancer cell inertial separation.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Microfluidic Blood Separation: Key Technologies and Critical Figures of Merit.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Design of a Low-Frequency Dielectrophoresis-Based Arc Microfluidic Chip for Multigroup Cell Sorting.Micromachines · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study introduces a new generation of dielectrophoretic-based microfluidic device for the precise separation of multiple particle/cell types. The device features two sets of 3D electrodes, namely cylindrical and sidewall electrodes. The main channel of the device terminates with three outlets: one in the middle for particles that sense negative dielectrophoresis force and two others at the right and left sides for particles that sense positive dielectrophoresis force. To evaluate the device performance, we used red blood cells (RBCs), T-cells, U937-MC cells, and Clostridium difficile bacteria as our test subjects. Our results demonstrate that the proposed microfluidic device could accurately separate bioparticles in two steps, with sidewall electrodes of 200 µm proving optimal for efficient separation. Applying different voltages for each separation step, we found that the device performed most effectively at 6 Vp-p applied to the 3D electrodes, and at 20 Vp-p and 11 Vp-p applied to the sidewall electrodes for separating RBCs from bacteria and T-cells from U937-MC cells, respectively. Notably, the device's maximum electric fields remained below the cell electroporation threshold, and we achieved a separation efficiency of 95.5% for multi-type particle separation. Our findings proved the device's capacity for separating multiple particle types with high accuracy, without limitation for particle variety.
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.