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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |