ArticleACS sustainable chemistry & engineering2025
Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Microfluidic Devices for Glucose Detection.
Article in ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering, 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.
- Environmental Impact of Synthetic Cell Technology: Review of Life Cycle Assessment Data for Feedstocks and Production Methods.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026Review
- Organ-on-chip (OoC) and nano-biomaterials: next generation of precision oral and dental healthcare research.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare must balance safety, efficiency, and effectiveness with affordability and accessibility. Microfluidic devices offer low-cost, portable solutions for point-of-care testing, miniaturizing lab functions on chips through microchannels for quick diagnostics, retaining resolution and sensitivity with minimal reagent use. However, their environmental sustainability is uncertain, with concerns about production scale-up, risks from disposability, and the impact of alternative raw materials or manufacturing techniques compared to traditional soft lithography based on polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). We conducted a cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment (LCA) of three glucose-detection devices, a PDMS device via soft lithography, a paper device via wax stamping, and a polylactic acid (PLA) device via 3D printing, for both laboratory-scale and commercial-scale production. For lab-scale production, the paper device had the lowest environmental impact across most impact categories, while the PLA device had the highest. However, for commercial-scale production, by transitioning from 3D printing to injection molding, the PLA device performed best overall, while PDMS performed the worst. For both scales, material and energy use were key contributors, with minimal impact from the use phase. This study highlights the importance of considering environmental impacts at multiple scales and shows the added value of using LCA to guide design and production for early-stage technologies.
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.