Sheath‐assisted focusing of microparticles on lab‐on‐a‐chip platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lab-on-a-chip (LOC) technologies can take advantage of sheath flows for particle/cell focusing before sensing or sorting. The integration of focusing with other microscale manipulation techniques (e.g., sorting) creates a trade-off between the throughput of the device and its performance. Therefore, exploring the effective parameters for cells/particles focusing enables us to improve the desired output of LOC devices. A common configuration for sheath-assisted focusing is Y junctions, which are parametrically studied in this paper. First, a computational model was developed and validated by comparing it with our experimental results. Using COMSOL Multiphysics modeling, the effects of multiple parameters were studied. These parameters include the sheath flow ratio (sheath flow over total flow), width ratio (width of the sheath inlet over the total width), junction angles, and particle size on the focusing width and the distribution of the particles within the focusing region. Then, the numerical data were used to develop two generalized linear models to predict the focusing width of the particles and the standard deviation of the position of the particles. The results showed that the focusing width is greatly impacted by the sheath flow rate ratio. Further, the standard deviation of the position of the particles, which represents the concentration of the particles, is mostly dependent on the flow rate ratio, width ratio, and particle size. Our results provide a better understanding of how the device geometrical and operational factors affect the position of the particles in the development of high-performance on-chip sensing and sorting of both cells and particles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".