4.4 Article

Study on stair-step liquid triggered capillary valve for microfluidic systems

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6439/aab40c

关键词

capillary flow; capillary trigger valve; deep reactive ion etching; finite volume method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In lab-on-a-chip systems, various microfluidic technologies are being developed to handle fluids at very small quantities, e.g. in the scale of nano-or pico-liter. To achieve autonomous fluid handling at a low cost, passive fluidic control, based on the capillary force between the liquid and microchannel surface, is of the utmost interest in the microsystem. Valves are an essential component for flow control in many microfluidic systems, which enables a sequence of fluidic operations to be performed. In this paper, we present a new passive valve structure for a capillary driven microfluidic device. It is a variation of a capillary trigger valve that is amenable to silicon microfabrication; it will be referred to as a stair-step liquid triggered valve. In this paper, the valve functionality and its dependencies on channel geometry, surface contact angle, and surface roughness are studied both experimentally and with numerical modeling. The effect of the contact angle was explored in experiments on the silicon microfabricated valve structure; a maximal working contact angle, above which the valve fails to be triggered, was demonstrated. The fluidic behavior in the stair-step channel structure was further explored computationally using the finite volume method with the volume-of-fluid approach. Surface roughness due to scalloping of the sidewall during the Bosch etch process was hypothesized to reduce the sidewall contact angle. The reduced contact angle has considerable impacts on the capillary pressure as the liquid vapor interface traverses the stair-step structure of the valve. An improved match in the maximal working contact angle between the experiments and model was obtained when considering this surface roughness effect.

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

4.4
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