MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126416242 · doi:10.1109/jmems.2009.2036866

A Piezoactuated Droplet-Dispensing Microfluidic Chip

2009· article· en· W2126416242 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Jalal Ahamed, Sergey I. Gubarenko, Ridha Ben-Mrad, Pierre E. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microelectromechanical Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsPolydimethylsiloxaneMaterials sciencePiston (optics)MicrofluidicsFluidicsSoft lithographyRADIUSBendingMolding (decorative)Composite materialMechanical engineeringNanotechnologyOpticsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A microfluidic dispensing device that is capable of generating droplets with volumes varying between 1 nL and 50 pL at an ejection frequency of up to 6 kHz is presented. In this device, a piezoactuator pushes onto an elastic membrane via piston tips; the mechanical bending of the membrane generates a pressure pulse pushing droplets out. An analytical model was developed solving bending characteristics of a plate-actuated fluidic dispensing system and used to calculate the displaced volume. The model was extended to perform stress analysis to find the optimum piston tip radius by minimizing design stresses. The optimum piston tip radius was found to be 67% of the chamber radius. The actuation force estimated using the analytical model was then used as input to a finite element model of the dispenser. A detailed numerical analysis was then performed to model the fluid flow and droplet ejection process and to find critical geometric and operating parameters. Results from both models were used together to find the best design parameters. The device contains three layers, a silicon layer sandwiched between two polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) polymer layers. Silicon dry etching, together with PDMS soft lithography, was used to fabricate the chip. PDMS oxygen plasma bonding is used to bond the layers. Prototypes developed were successfully tested to dispense same-sized droplets repeatedly without unwanted droplets. The design allows easy expansion and simultaneous dispensing of fluids.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Microelectromechanical SystemsSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207