ArticleSLAS technology2025
Design and optimization of a fluid flow splitting device for low-flow applications.
Article in SLAS technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tolerances in microfluidic master molds: a comparison of 3D printing and micromilling.RSC advances · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidic devices are defined by the application of fluid flow to micron-scale features. Inherent to most experiments involving microfluidic devices is the need to precisely and reproducibly control fluid flow at the microliter scale, often through multiple inlet ports on a single device. While the number of fluid channels per device varies, perfusing multiple inputs requires either the use of multiple flow controllers (often syringe or peristaltic pumps) or the ability to evenly divide fluid across outlets. Towards the latter approach, while a handful of commercial systems exist for splitting fluid flow, these set-ups require significant financial investment, multiple flow control and sensing components, and restrict the user to a predetermined perfusion control system. Simple in-line splitting devices, such a manifolds or T junctions, fail to achieve flow splitting at low flow rates often used in microfluidic systems. To increase capabilities for flow-controlled experiments, we performed experimental analyses of the physical considerations governing even flow splitting under low flow, leading to the design of a microdevice (µ-Split) that can be directly inserted into existing microfluidic set-ups. The µ-Split allows for reproducible, even flow splitting from 10 uL/min to > 2.5 mL/min. By testing multiple device geometries in combination with multiphysics simulations, we identified the design and fabrication features underlying the splitting precision achieved by the µ-Split. Overall, this work provides a useful tool to simplify microfluidic experiments that require evenly divided flow streams, while minimizing the overall device footprint.
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.