Cargando…

Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance

Microfluidic devices are frequently manufactured with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) due to its affordability, transparency, and simplicity. However, high-pressure flow through PDMS microfluidic channels lead to an increase in channel size due to the compliance of the material. As a result, longer resp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Turcitu, Tatiana, Armstrong, Curtis J. K., Lee-Yow, Niko, Salame, Maya, Le, Andy Vinh, Fenech, Marianne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10673418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004890
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi14112033
_version_ 1785140618026024960
author Turcitu, Tatiana
Armstrong, Curtis J. K.
Lee-Yow, Niko
Salame, Maya
Le, Andy Vinh
Fenech, Marianne
author_facet Turcitu, Tatiana
Armstrong, Curtis J. K.
Lee-Yow, Niko
Salame, Maya
Le, Andy Vinh
Fenech, Marianne
author_sort Turcitu, Tatiana
collection PubMed
description Microfluidic devices are frequently manufactured with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) due to its affordability, transparency, and simplicity. However, high-pressure flow through PDMS microfluidic channels lead to an increase in channel size due to the compliance of the material. As a result, longer response times are required to reach steady flow rates, which increases the overall time required to complete experiments when using a syringe pump. Due to its excellent optical properties and increased rigidity, Norland Optical Adhesive (NOA) has been proposed as a promising material candidate for microfluidic fabrication. This study compares the compliance and deformation properties of three different characteristic sized (width of parallel channels: 100, 40 and 20 µm) microfluidic devices made of PDMS and NOA. The comparison of the microfluidics devices is made based on the Young’s modulus, roughness, contact angle, channel width deformation, flow resistance and compliance. The experimental resistance is estimated through the measurement of the flow at a given pressure and a precision flow meter. The characteristic time of the system is extracted by fitting the two-element resistance-compliance (RC) hydraulic circuit model. The compliance of the microfluidics chips is estimated through the measurement of the characteristic time required for channels to achieve an output flow rate equivalent to that of the input flow rate using a syringe pump and a precision flow meter. The Young modulus was found to be 2 MPa for the PDMS and 1743 MPa for the NOA 63. The surface roughness was found to be higher for the NOA 63 than for the PDMS. The hydrophilicities of materials were found comparable with and without plasma treatment. The results show that NOA devices have lower compliance and deformation than PDMS devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10673418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106734182023-10-31 Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance Turcitu, Tatiana Armstrong, Curtis J. K. Lee-Yow, Niko Salame, Maya Le, Andy Vinh Fenech, Marianne Micromachines (Basel) Article Microfluidic devices are frequently manufactured with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) due to its affordability, transparency, and simplicity. However, high-pressure flow through PDMS microfluidic channels lead to an increase in channel size due to the compliance of the material. As a result, longer response times are required to reach steady flow rates, which increases the overall time required to complete experiments when using a syringe pump. Due to its excellent optical properties and increased rigidity, Norland Optical Adhesive (NOA) has been proposed as a promising material candidate for microfluidic fabrication. This study compares the compliance and deformation properties of three different characteristic sized (width of parallel channels: 100, 40 and 20 µm) microfluidic devices made of PDMS and NOA. The comparison of the microfluidics devices is made based on the Young’s modulus, roughness, contact angle, channel width deformation, flow resistance and compliance. The experimental resistance is estimated through the measurement of the flow at a given pressure and a precision flow meter. The characteristic time of the system is extracted by fitting the two-element resistance-compliance (RC) hydraulic circuit model. The compliance of the microfluidics chips is estimated through the measurement of the characteristic time required for channels to achieve an output flow rate equivalent to that of the input flow rate using a syringe pump and a precision flow meter. The Young modulus was found to be 2 MPa for the PDMS and 1743 MPa for the NOA 63. The surface roughness was found to be higher for the NOA 63 than for the PDMS. The hydrophilicities of materials were found comparable with and without plasma treatment. The results show that NOA devices have lower compliance and deformation than PDMS devices. MDPI 2023-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10673418/ /pubmed/38004890 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi14112033 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Turcitu, Tatiana
Armstrong, Curtis J. K.
Lee-Yow, Niko
Salame, Maya
Le, Andy Vinh
Fenech, Marianne
Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title_full Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title_fullStr Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title_short Comparison of PDMS and NOA Microfluidic Chips: Deformation, Roughness, Hydrophilicity and Flow Performance
title_sort comparison of pdms and noa microfluidic chips: deformation, roughness, hydrophilicity and flow performance
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10673418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004890
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi14112033
work_keys_str_mv AT turcitutatiana comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance
AT armstrongcurtisjk comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance
AT leeyowniko comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance
AT salamemaya comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance
AT leandyvinh comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance
AT fenechmarianne comparisonofpdmsandnoamicrofluidicchipsdeformationroughnesshydrophilicityandflowperformance