ArticleMicromachines2025
Design and Performance Analysis of Spiral Microchannels for Efficient Particle Separation Using Inertial Microfluidics.
Article in Micromachines, 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.
- An inertial-based spiral device for separating rare tumor cells from liquid biopsies.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
- 3D-Printed Closed-Channel Spiral Inertial Microfluidic Device for Size-Based Particle Separation.Micromachines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate separation in microfluidic devices is crucial for biomedical applications; however, enhancing their performance remains challenging due to computational and experimental constraints. This study aims to optimize microfluidic devices by systematically refining spiral microchannel configurations for the segregation of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and red blood cells (RBCs) through detailed variable analysis and resource-efficient techniques. The spiral design was developed into six variations, considering loop numbers (2, 3, and 4), aspect ratios (2.333, 3.333, and 5), spiral radii (5, 6, and 7 mm), flow rates (1.5, 2, and 3 mL/min), surface roughness levels (0, 0.5, and 1 μm), and particle sizes (12, 18, and 24 μm). Simulations were conducted in COMSOL Multiphysics and evaluated using the Taguchi method to determine the optimal configuration, reducing the analysis set from 216 to 27 through an efficient experimental design approach. The results identified the optimal structure as having an aspect ratio of 3.333, four loops, a spiral radius of 6-7 mm, a flow rate of 3 mL/min, a surface roughness of 1 μm, and a particle diameter of 24 μm. Among the evaluated parameters, aspect ratio (61.2%) had the most significant impact, followed by the number of loops (13.9%) and flow rate (9.4%). The optimized design demonstrated high separation efficiency and purity, achieving 97.5% and 97.6%, respectively. The fabrication process involved 3D-printing the channel mold, followed by polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) casting, validating the durability and scalability of the proposed design. This study integrates simulation and experimental results, providing a robust framework for developing next-generation microfluidic devices and advancing diagnostic and targeted therapeutic applications.
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.