Team:TU Delft-Leiden/Project/Gadget/Microfluidics

Microfluidics

Intro paragraph about microfluidics

Protocol

Materials:
Mold (PDMS, Photoresist, lasercut, or similar)
PDMS
PDMS Catalyst
Microscope Cover Slips
Tygon Tubing

Equipment:
Vacuum Pump
Plasma Preen Machine
Hole Cutter
Stove

Protocol:

- Mix PDMS and catalyst with a ratio 9:1 by weight, mix thoroughly (typically, about 10-15g is needed for one device)

- Construct a tray out of foil around the mold
- Pour pdms mixture into mold to a thickness of 5-10mm

- De-gas mixture in a vacuum pump for ~20 minutes or until no bubbles are visible

- Place in an 80C stove for 10 minutes
- Cut out device from the mold with a scalpel
- Peel the device off the mold with a pair of tweezers
- Cut holes for tubing (through the top down)

- Clean a slide with ethanol and water, and dry thoroughly with a nitrogen gun

- Place PDMS plus clean cover slip in a petri dish and plasma activate for ~10s

- Press PDMS and coverslip together, making sure a full seal is made
- Brush a thin line of PDMS around the seams and place in stove at 80C for 10 minutes
- Insert tubing into device

Mother Machine

Microfluidics Device for Electron Transfer

Since the final vision for Electrace is for a product which can be used by non-scientists in the field, microfluidics is a central part of this. It was therefore important to prototype a microfluidics device with built in electrodes. A proof-of-principle device was constructed and tested with cyclic voltammetry to determine whether measurable currents could be produced.

Incorporating electrodes adds to the complexity of the microfluidics device, especially since both carbon electrods and silver/silver chloride electrodes need to be built in. Several options were explored, including the injection of carbon paste into the device as describes in this paper [], and the use of silver/silver chloride wire inserts.

Finally, the use of screen printed electrodes produced by Dropsens [] was chosen. These were to be embedded into the PDMS of the microfluidics device, providing a reservoir where the electrodes would be in contact with the fluid.

Paper Microfluidics

Paper microfluidics offer a simple, low cost method for employing some of the advantages of microfluidics for analytics purposes. Disposable analytical devices can be made easily and quickly with no specialised equipment. We plan to combine a paper microfluidic device with our Electrace e coli, and printed electrodes, to create a “test strip” for our analyte, which can be used to measure the voltage output of our biosensor. There are several methods that can be employed to create a paper microfluidic device. The two we chose to look at due to their simplicity and potential for good results were FLASH (Andres W. Martinez et al) - which utilises a form of photolithography, and a method utilising Parafilm, by E. M. Dunfield et al.

Parafilm Method

We first tested the Parafilm method, as described here. This involves stacking a piece of filter paper, a heat resistant mask (in the shape of the desired fluid channels) and a layer of parafilm, and applying heat and pressure to this stack. The principle is that the parafilm melts, and is forced into the filter paper, creating a hydrophobic area. The mask prevents the parafilm entering the paper, thus this area remains hydrophilic - providing the fluid channels. A regular clothes iron was used to provide heat, and pressure was provided by simply pressing down on the iron. We tested several types of paper, including tissue paper, coffee filter, filter paper (?) and Whattman grade 1) thicker grades of paper resulted in failure, as the parafilm would not fully penetrate the paper. Best results were had with the coffee filter paper.

With a heat press, such as those used to print images on to t-shirts, more heat and pressure could be applied in a consistent manner, likely improving results even in thicker grades of paper, however such a device was not accessible. Whilst we has some degree of success with this method, it had several shortcomings which made us move onto the second method, namely:
- Didn’t work with thicker grade of pressure (with our methods)
-Some parafilm “leakage” across the edges of the mask, results in a degree of imprecision in the creation of the channels.
-The need to cut out the mask limits its ability to be used for complex shapes and small dimensions, particular if access to a laser cutter or similar is not possible.

FLASH Method

The FLASH method employs SU-8 photoresist to create the hydrophobic areas in the paper. Photoresist is an epoxy which polymerises when exposed to light. The PACE method involves soaking the paper in photoresist, placing a mask over the paper (inkjet printed onto transparency film) exposing to UV. The UV polymerises the photoresist not covered by the mask, creating a hydrophobic paper/epoxy composite. The paper can then be rinsed in acetone to remove all un-set photoresist from the masked areas, creating the hydrophilic channels.

First we tested whether undiluted SU-8 could fully penetrate the filter paper. Three types of paper were tested: coffee filters, a thin grade filter paper, and Whattman grade 1. The photoresist was applied to a sample of each with a small paint brush and visual inspection was used to check whether each sample had become fully saturated with the resin. Full saturation was not possible with thick papers such as the Whattman grade 1.

A batch of SU-8 soaked filter paper was made up and dried, and cut into 20x40mm samples strips. Each strip was to be tested for its hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties (and thus determining if the photoresist had worked as intended) by pipetting a small drop of loading dye on to the paper. One strip was soaked in a bath of acetone and rinsed with ethanol prior to any UV Exposure as a negative control. All of the SU-8 appeared to be washed off, as the paper resumed its original hydrophilic properties. A second strip was exposed to sunlight for 15 minutes before being soaked in acetone and rinsed with ethanol. This strip remained hydrophobic. Various UV were tested, however it is important to note that the optimal wavelength for th SU-8 is 365nM, so the UV source should be as close to this as possible - several of the UV sources tested were unsuccessful. Finally a 370nM lamp (name of device?) was used for exposure of 5 minutes.

After exposure, the sample was placed on a ~90°c hotplate, where an instantaneous change of colour was noted. The sample was left on the hot plate for 5 minutes to cure. This was also carried out with a masked sample, which was equally successful. A clear colour difference could be observed between the masked and unmasked areas.

To test the microfluidic strips, a drop of loading dye was applied to the end of the channel on the sample, where it moved up the channel through capillary action. The progress from capillary action was fairly slow however. Paper microfluidics hold great potential for low cost diagnostic devices, and could one day be used with a system such as Electrace. However the need for a way of immobilising cells in the device, and to incorporate electrodes, amongst other challenges, made the use of paper microfluidics unfeasible for the scope of the project, so further development was terminated.