ArticleACS applied materials & interfaces2025
Evaluating the Potential of Microdroplet Flow in Two-Phase Biocatalysis: A Systematic Study.
Article in ACS applied materials & interfaces, 2025. 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.
- A Review on Micromixers, Microdroplet Generators and Their Integration.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Microdroplet Systems for Gene Transfer: From Fundamentals to Future Perspectives.Micromachines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two-phase biocatalysis in batch reactions often suffers from inefficient mass transfer, inconsistent reaction conditions, and enzyme inactivation issues. Microfluidics offer uniform and controlled environments ensuring better reproducibility and enable efficient, parallel processing of many small-scale reactions, making biocatalysis more scalable. In particular, the use of microfluidic droplets can increase the interfacial area between the two phases and can therefore also increase reaction rates. For these reasons, slug flow has been extensively used in two-phase biocatalysis in recent years. However, microdroplet flow has been largely neglected for this application despite its great potential. In this work, we performed biphasic biocatalysis in microfluidic droplets, both in microdroplets and slugs, as well as in batch, and systematically investigated the effect of various reaction parameters on the outcome of the reaction. We show that microdroplet flow outperforms the more commonly used batch and slug flow configurations for most reaction conditions by providing shorter substrate diffusion paths and larger interfacial area for the reaction. The potential trade-off between maximized mass transfer and possibly higher enzyme inactivation rates in small droplets with large surface-to-volume ratios was also investigated for the first time, and a pipeline was established to allow evaluation in other reactions. Finally, the effect of surfactant necessary for microdroplet stabilization was also investigated in all reaction setups for the first time, and it was shown that a properly selected surfactant can have a positive effect at low concentrations by creating more stable emulsions and smaller droplets, thus increasing the interfacial area between the two phases.
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.