Two-Aperture Microfluidic Probes as Flow Dipoles: Theory and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A microfluidic probe (MFP) is a mobile channel-less microfluidic system under which a fluid is injected from an aperture into an open space, hydrodynamically confined by a surrounding fluid, and entirely re-aspirated into a second aperture. Various MFPs have been developed, and have been used for applications ranging from surface patterning of photoresists to local perfusion of organotypic tissue slices. However, the hydrodynamic and mass transfer properties of the flow under the MFP have not been analyzed, and the flow parameters are adjusted empirically. Here, we present an analytical model describing the key transport properties in MFP operation, including the dimensions of the hydrodynamic flow confinement (HFC) area, diffusion broadening, and shear stress as a function of: (i) probe geometry (ii) aspiration-to-injection flow rate ratio (iii) gap between MFP and substrate and (iv) reagent diffusivity. Analytical results and scaling laws were validated against numerical simulations and experimental results from published data. These results will be useful to guide future MFP design and operation, notably to control the MFP "brush stroke" while preserving shear-sensitive cells and tissues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".