ArticleMicromachines2026
A Self-Centering, Blade-Assisted, Electrowetting-Enabled Strategy for Precise Droplet Splitting on Open Digital Microfluidic Platforms.
Article in Micromachines, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Droplet splitting technology on open digital microfluidic platforms still faces significant challenges in terms of process complexity, the degree of automation, and operating conditions, which hinder its further development. This study proposes a fully automated method for precise droplet splitting based on printed circuit boards with open-coplanar asymmetric electrodes and a slippery liquid-infused porous surface. This method uses simple square electrodes arranged in a 3 × 5 array, combined with low-adhesion blade-assisted cutting and electrowetting-on-dielectric to drive droplet splitting, enabling accurate, stable, and repeatable automated droplet splitting on an open digital microfluidic platform. It has the advantages of a simple method, easy maintenance and integration, and high automation. This study systematically investigated the effects of droplet volume, applied voltage, blade thickness, cutting speed, and electrode shape on droplet splitting performance. We developed an active droplet position calibration method based on a simple 3 × 3 square electrode array combined with an enveloping voltage configuration strategy. For droplets with a volume of 10 μL, the positioning error can be controlled to within 0.06 mm, representing a reduction of more than 95% compared to the conventional EWOD free drive method. The experimental results show that to achieve stable and approximately equal-volume droplet splitting, the cutting speed needs to exceed the critical value related to the blade thickness. Among the square, zigzag, and hexagonal electrode shapes tested, the square electrode required the lowest splitting voltage. When the blade thickness is 0.3 mm, the droplets can be successfully split at a minimum voltage of 165 V. After increasing the splitting voltage to 400 V, the droplet splitting time was reduced from 5.57 s to 0.27 s, with a reduction of 95.2%, which significantly improves droplet splitting efficiency. This method provides a practical, stable, automated, and precise droplet splitting method for sample preparation, biochemical reactions, and portable droplet analysis systems.
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.