4.3 Article

Blood diagnostics using sedimentation to extract plasma on a fully integrated point-of-care microfluidic system

Journal

ENGINEERING IN LIFE SCIENCES
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 333-339

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/elsc.201400077

Keywords

Blood separation; Diagnostics; Microfluidic systems; Point of care; Sedimentation

Funding

  1. European Union within European Regional development Fund through grant Innovative Economy [POIG.01.01.02-00-008/08]
  2. European Research Council Starting Grant [279647]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [279647] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blood is the richest source of diagnostic information. The growing interest in point-of-care analytics prompted several attempts to extract plasma from whole blood in simple diagnostic devices. The simplest method of separation is sedimentation. Here we show the first microfluidic system that uses sedimentation to extract plasma from undiluted blood and integrates execution of liquid assays on the extracted material. We present a microfluidic chip that accepts a small sample (27 mu L) of whole blood, separates up to 6 mu L of plasma, and uses metered volumes of plasma and of reagent (2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl-alpha-maltotrioside, CNP-G3) for a liquid enzymatic assay. With a custom designed channel, the system separates blood by sedimentation within few minutes of accepting the sample, mixes it with the reagent, and quantifies spectrophotometrically the product of the enzymatic reaction. As a model demonstration, we show a quantitative enzymatic alpha-amylase assay that is routinely used in diagnosis of pancreas diseases. The paper reports the design and characterization of the microfluidic device and the results of tests on clinically collected blood samples. The results obtained with the microfluidic system compare well to a reference bench-top analyzer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available