Experimental and numerical study on a novel microfluidic method to fabricate curcumin loaded calcium alginate microfibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this research, we first performed a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of the effects of the inlet solution's concentration and channel height to produce microfibres in a microfluidic system by COMSOL 5.3 to find the optimum ratio of sheath to core flow rate. It proved that the ratio of sheath to core flow rate should considered more than 1 to have jet regime in the microchannel. The results show that the level of Ca2+ diffusion in an alginate inlet solution has a direct and reverse correlation with the initial sheath solution's concentration and initial core solution's concentration, respectively. Secondly, the response surface methodology (RSM) in Design Expert 7.0.0, was used to investigate the effects of alginate and calcium chloride flow rates on the average microfibres' diameter. We found that the best value of Ca2+ concentration in the core flow to produce fine appropriate microfibres is 150 mol/m3. Then, we developed a microchip using lithography, in which a silicon wafer was etched vertically instead of using a SU‐8 photo resist on glass, causing a significant improvement in the quality of channels and mould. The SEM images revealed low roughness of fabricated micro‐channels, which was eye‐catching. Eventually, the possibility of using the microfibres as polymeric carriers for hydrophobic drugs was investigated, and then fluorescent microscopic images of the loaded fibres indicated that the drug is well‐loaded onto the fibres: the results are promising.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".