Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 28, 2026
07:51
High Throughput Microfluidic Rapid and Low Cost Prototyping Packaging Methods
Published on: December 23, 2013
Rapid prototyping polymers for microfluidic devices and high pressure injections
Elodie Sollier1, Coleman Murray, Pietro Maoddi
1Department of Bioengineering, Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. elodie.sollier@yahoo.fr
Lab on a Chip
|October 8, 2011
Summary
Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is common for microfluidic prototyping but deforms under high pressure. Alternatives like Thermoset Polyester (TPE), Polyurethane Methacrylate (PUMA), and Norland Adhesive 81 (NOA81) offer greater rigidity for demanding applications.
Area of Science:
- Materials Science
- Microfluidics Engineering
- Polymer Chemistry
Background:
- Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is widely used for rapid microfluidic device prototyping due to its cost-effectiveness and ease of fabrication.
- However, PDMS's low elastic modulus limits its use in high-pressure applications, causing significant channel deformation and affecting flow predictability.
- This deformation impacts applications such as stop-flow lithography and inertial microfluidics for cytometry.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review and assess alternative polymers to PDMS for rapid microfluidic prototyping.
- To evaluate materials like Thermoset Polyester (TPE), Polyurethane Methacrylate (PUMA), and Norland Adhesive 81 (NOA81) for high-pressure applications.
- To compare these alternatives against PDMS regarding mechanical properties, biocompatibility, solvent resistance, and fabrication ease.
Main Methods:
- Comparative experimental analysis of PDMS and alternative polymers (TPE, PUMA, NOA81).
- Characterization of material deformation and dynamic properties under high-pressure conditions.
- Evaluation of biocompatibility, solvent compatibility, and fabrication procedures for each material.
Main Results:
- PDMS exhibits significant channel geometry alteration under high pressure, impacting flow control and alignment precision.
- TPE, PUMA, and NOA81 demonstrate higher rigidity and better solvent resistance compared to PDMS.
- These alternative polymers offer improved performance for high-pressure microfluidic operations and commercialization potential.
Conclusions:
- Alternative polymers like TPE, PUMA, and NOA81 present viable, more robust options for microfluidic rapid prototyping, especially for high-pressure applications.
- These materials overcome the limitations of PDMS concerning mechanical stability and predictable performance.
- The selection of an alternative polymer should consider specific application needs such as bond strength, pressure tolerance, and commercial viability.
