4.5 Article

Mathematical analysis of oxygen transfer through polydimethylsiloxane membrane between double layers of cell culture channel and gas chamber in microfluidic oxygenator

期刊

MICROFLUIDICS AND NANOFLUIDICS
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 285-296

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10404-013-1142-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Singapore-MIT Alliance of Research and Technology
  2. Croucher Foundation
  3. Early Career Scheme of Hong Kong Research Grant Council [RGC124212]
  4. National Science Foundation [EFRI-0735997, STC-0902396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For successful cell culture in microfluidic devices, precise control of the microenvironment, including gas transfer between the cells and the surrounding medium, is exceptionally important. The work is motivated by a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic oxygenator chip for mammalian cell culture suggesting that the speed of the oxygen transfer may vary depending on the thickness of a PDMS membrane or the height of a fluid channel. In this paper, a model is presented to describe the oxygen transfer dynamics in the PDMS microfluidic oxygenator chip for mammalian cell culture. Theoretical studies were carried out to evaluate the oxygen profile within the multilayer device, consisting of a gas reservoir, a PDMS membrane, a fluid channel containing growth media, and a cell culture layer. The corresponding semi-analytical solution was derived to evaluate dissolved oxygen concentration within the heterogeneous materials, and was found to be in good agreement with the numerical solution. In addition, a separate analytical solution was obtained to investigate the oxygen pressure drop (OPD) along the cell layer due to oxygen uptake of cells, with experimental validation of the OPD model carried out using human umbilical vein endothelial cells cultured in a PDMS microfluidic oxygenator. Within the theoretical framework, the effects of several microfluidic oxygenator design parameters were studied, including cell type and critical device dimensions.

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

4.5
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