Biofunctionalization of Glass‐ and Paper‐Based Microfluidic Devices: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biofunctionalization of microchannels is of great concern in the fabrication of microfluidic devices. Different substrates such as glass slides, papers, polymers, and beads require different biofunctionalization approaches granting the utilization of microfluidics in several biomedical applications. Covalent immobilization of biomolecules inside the microchannels is achieved by chemical modification of the surface such as silanization or introducing different coupling agents. Although creating biointerfaces that are covalently bonded to the microchannel surface necessitates multiple steps of surface modification and incubation times, it bestows a robust biointerface capable of withstanding high shear stresses and harsh conditions without dissipating the biofunctionality. Regarding the applications that do not require robustness and long‐term stability, noncovalent attachment of biomolecules such as van der Waals and hydrophobic interactions are adequate to successfully create a functional biointerface. This review summarizes the various biofunctionalization approaches used in the most common microfluidic substrates: glass and paper. In addition, several biofunctionalization examples are proposed and described in detail along with their associated applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".