ArticleBiomicrofluidics2023
Blood component separation in straight microfluidic channels.
Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Microfluidic Plasma Separation Technologies for Point-of-Care Diagnostics: Moving Beyond Conventional Centrifugation.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Towards practical point-of-care quick, ubiquitous, integrated, cost-efficient molecular diagnostic Kit (QUICK) PCR for future pandemic response.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Review
- Ultra-low extracorporeal volume microfluidic leukapheresis is safe and effective in a rat model.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Recent developments in microfluidic passive separation to enable purification of platelets for transfusion.Biomicrofluidics · 2024Review
- Dean vortex-enhanced blood plasma separation in self-driven spiral microchannel flow with cross-flow microfilters.Biomicrofluidics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Separation of blood components is required in many diagnostic applications and blood processes. In laboratories, blood is usually fractionated by manual operation involving a bulk centrifugation equipment, which significantly increases logistic burden. Blood sample processing in the field and resource-limited settings cannot be readily implemented without the use of microfluidic technology. In this study, we developed a small footprint, rapid, and passive microfluidic channel device that relied on margination and inertial focusing effects for blood component separation. No blood dilution, lysis, or labeling step was needed as to preserve sample integrity. One main innovation of this work was the insertion of fluidic restrictors at outlet ports to divert the separation interface into designated outlet channels. Thus, separation efficiency was significantly improved in comparison to previous works. We demonstrated different operation modes ranging from platelet or plasma extraction from human whole blood to platelet concentration from platelet-rich plasma through the manipulation of outlet port fluidic resistance. Using straight microfluidic channels with a high aspect ratio rectangular cross section, we demonstrated 95.4% platelet purity extracted from human whole blood. In plasma extraction, 99.9% RBC removal rate was achieved. We also demonstrated 2.6× concentration of platelet-rich plasma solution to produce platelet concentrate. The extraction efficiency and throughput rate are scalable with continuous and clog-free recirculation operation, in contrast to other blood fractionation approaches using filtration membranes or affinity-based purification methods. Our microfluidic blood separation method is highly tunable and versatile, and easy to be integrated into multi-step blood processing and advanced sample preparation workflows.
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.