Microfabrication Bonding Process Optimization for a 3D Multi-Layer PDMS Suspended Microfluidics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microfluidic systems have received increased attention due to their wide variety of applications, from chemical sensing to biological detection to medical analysis. Microfluidics used to be fabricated by using etching techniques that required cleanroom and aggressive chemicals. However, another microfluidic fabrication technique, namely, soft lithography, is less expensive and safer compared to former techniques. Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) has been widely employed as a fabrication material in microfluidics by using soft lithography as it is transparent, soft, bio-compatible, and inexpensive. In this study, a 3D multi-layer PDMS suspended microfluidics fabrication process using soft lithography is presented, along with its manufacturing issues that may deteriorate or compromise the microsystem’s test results. The main issues considered here are bonding strength and trapped air-bubbles, specifically in multi-layer PDMS microfluidics. In this paper, these two issues have been considered and resolved by optimizing curing temperature and air-vent channel integration to a microfluidic platform. Finally, the suspended microfluidic system has been tested in various experiments to prove its sensitivity to different fluids and flow rates.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".