4.7 Article

A robust electrical microcytometer with 3-dimensional hydrofocusing

期刊

LAB ON A CHIP
卷 9, 期 22, 页码 3177-3184

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b912214a

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Homeland Security
  2. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (BioMEMS Resource Center) [P41 EB002503]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [P41EB002503] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we present a device to electrically count blood cell populations using an AC impedance interrogation technique in a microfabricated cytometer (microcytometer). Specifically, we direct our attention to obtaining the concentration of human CD4+ T lymphocytes (helper T cells), which is a necessary method to diagnose patients for HIV/AIDS and to give an accurate prognosis on the effectiveness of ARV (anti-retroviral) drug treatments. We study the effectiveness of a simple-to-fabricate 3-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic focusing mechanism through fluidic simulations and corresponding experiments to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of impedance pulses caused by particle translocation and ensure lower variance in particle translocation height through the electrical sensing region. We found that the optimal 3D sheath flow settings result in a 44.4% increase in impedance pulse signal-to-noise ratio in addition to giving a more accurate representation of particle size distribution. Our microcytometer T cell counts closely with those found using an industry-standard flow cytometer for the concentration range of over three orders of magnitude and using a sample volume approximately the size of a drop of blood (similar to 20 mu L). In addition, our device displayed the capability to differentiate between live and dead/dying lymphocyte populations. This microcytometer can be the basis of a portable, rapid, inexpensive solution to obtaining live/dead blood cell counts even in the most resource-poor regions of the world.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据