Jump to main content
Jump to site search
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE Close the message box

Maintenance work is planned for Monday 16 August 2021 from 07:00 to 23:59 (BST).

Website performance may be temporarily affected and you may not be able to access some PDFs or images. If this does happen, refreshing your web browser should resolve the issue. We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.


Issue 7, 2014

Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography for the production of microfluidic devices

Author affiliations

Abstract

The vast majority of microfluidic devices are developed in PDMS by molding (“soft lithography”) because PDMS is an inexpensive material, has physicochemical properties that are well suited for biomedical and physical sciences applications, and design cycle lengths are generally adequate for prototype development. However, PDMS molding is tediously slow and thus cannot provide the high- or medium-volume production required for the commercialization of devices. While high-throughput plastic molding techniques (e.g. injection molding) exist, the exorbitant cost of the molds and/or the equipment can be a serious obstacle for device commercialization, especially for small startups. High-volume production is not required to reach niche markets such as clinical trials, biomedical research supplies, customized research equipment, and classroom projects. Crucially, both PDMS and plastic molding are layer-by-layer techniques where each layer is produced as a result of physicochemical processes not specified in the initial photomask(s) and where the final device requires assembly by bonding, all resulting in a cost that is very hard to predict at the start of the project. By contrast, stereolithography (SL) is an automated fabrication technique that allows for the production of quasi-arbitrary 3D shapes in a single polymeric material at medium-volume throughputs (ranging from a single part to hundreds of parts). Importantly, SL devices can be designed between several groups using CAD tools, conveniently ordered by mail, and their cost precisely predicted via a web interface. Here we evaluate the resolution of an SL mail-order service and the main causes of resolution loss; the optical clarity of the devices and how to address the lack of clarity for imaging in the channels; and the future role that SL could play in the commercialization of microfluidic devices.

Graphical abstract: Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography for the production of microfluidic devices

Supplementary files

Article information


Submitted
06 Dec 2013
Accepted
23 Jan 2014
First published
23 Jan 2014

Lab Chip, 2014,14, 1294-1301
Article type
Paper
Author version available

Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography for the production of microfluidic devices

A. K. Au, W. Lee and A. Folch, Lab Chip, 2014, 14, 1294 DOI: 10.1039/C3LC51360B

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.


Social activity

Search articles by author

Spotlight

Advertisements