ArticleMicromachines2025
Development of a Tool for Verifying Leakage Detection in Microfluidic Systems.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While submissions of microfluidic-based medical devices to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased in recent years, leakage remains a common but difficult failure mode to detect in microfluidic systems. Here, we have developed a sensitive tool to measure and verify leakages ranging from 0.1% to 10% in leakage detection systems, which can then be used to detect leak in microfluidic devices. Our methodology includes an analytical model that applies hydrodynamic resistance using different fluid-contacting elements (e.g., tubing, junctions, and connectors) to tune the leakage rate based on the application-specific acceptance criteria. We then used three polymer-based microfluidic systems to target leakage rates of approximately 0.1, 1.0, and 10%. The experimental uncertainties in Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) tubing were 23.08%, 13.64%, and 1.16%, respectively, while the PEEK-Coated Fused Silica (PEEKsil) tubing system had errors of 0.00%, 0.72%, and 1.59%, respectively, relative to the theoretical values for the same target leak rates. The commonly used commercial grade Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC) microfluidic chips produced errors of 7.69% and 5.05%, respectively, for target leakage rates of 0.24% and 1.88%. We anticipate that the proposed bench test method can be useful for device developers as a verification tool for leakage detection systems before assessing flow-mediated leakage failure modes in microfluidic medical devices.
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.