Abstract
Microfluidic devices are useful tools for a wide range of biomedical, industrial, and environmental applications. Hybrid microfluidic devices utilising more than two materials are increasingly being used for their capacity to produce unique structures and perform novel functions. However, an analysis of publications across the field shows that whilst hybrid microfluidic devices have been reported, there remains no system of classifying hybrid devices which could help future researchers in optimising material selection. To resolve this issue, we propose a system of classifying hybrid microfluidic devices primarily as containing either hybrid structural, chemical, or electrical components. This is expanded upon and developed into a hierarchy, with combinations of different primary components categorised into secondary or tertiary hybrid device groupings. This classification approach is useful as it describes materials that can be combined to create novel hybrid microfluidic devices.
Introduction
The term microfluidics describes the manipulation of tiny volumes of fluid within channels at the microscale (Akbari et al., 2023). Prior to the advent of microfluidics as a defined field, micro-sized channels were often contained within components of scientific and engineering instruments mostly unrelated to microfluidic applications (Ren et al., 2013; Convery and Gadegaard, 2019). Currently when compared with early microfluidics, microchannels with various geometries are used for many different applications and have huge potential for use within biomedical science (Ramachandraiah et al., 2017; David et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Pritchard et al., 2019; Guzniczak et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2022), industrial processing (Estrada-Osorio et al., 2024; Jayan et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Yi et al., 2024), environmental research (Hill et al., 2022; AlMashrea et al., 2024; Du and Yang, 2024; Sun et al., 2024) and increasingly reaching into other fields (Apoorva et al., 2024; Lei et al., 2024; Reyes et al., 2024). The manufacturing of these microchannels relies upon the use of appropriate techniques, equipment, and materials to produce microfluidic devices consistently and accurately (Ren et al., 2013; Gale et al., 2018; Scott and Ali, 2021; Akbari et al., 2023). New applications often require new channel geometries and the integration of novel components, and it is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that new manufacturing techniques and materials will be necessary to facilitate new microfluidic applications. Hybrid microfluidic devices, comprised of more than one type of material, can be used to meet these requirements. As part of the evaluation of the current state of microfluidic device manufacturing, this mini review focuses on hybrid microfluidic devices that utilise a combination of fabrication techniques and are comprised of at least two materials. Hybrid devices have been reviewed elsewhere but the reviews focus on a summary of the concepts of combining materials (Ren et al., 2013) or require substantial updating in line with current findings (Hou et al., 2017).
Materials and methods
This review expands upon two previous publications (Ren et al., 2013; Hou et al., 2017) that simply described material considerations for use in hybrid microfluidic devices, and for the first time provides a system of categorization of hybrid microfluidic devices. Between February and March 2024, literature searches of PubMed were performed using the following terms: “Hybrid microfluidic device,” “PDMS hybrid device,” “Composite microfluidic device,” “Glass hybrid device,” “PMMA hybrid device,” and “Polymer hybrid device” with a focus on relevant literature published since 2013.
Although this review aims to provide an update to previous hybrid device reviews, it is not an exhaustive list; examples of devices were chosen to demonstrate both the diversity in material choice and flexibility with which they can be combined for different applications. This was considered of particular importance as it is known that material selection impacts flow, biocompatibility and function of microfluidic devices (Nielsen et al., 2020). A range of papers with different applications were therefore included, and this review will aid researchers in material choice for future microfluidic device designs. The materials related to tubing and fluid connections were considered outside the scope of this review.
Outcomes
Hybrid microfluidic devices have previously been described in a variety of ways and do not have sub-categories to define related device compositions. We propose categorising hybrid microfluidic devices into three primary categories; composites as electrical components; composites as chemical components and composites as structural components.
When considering primary categories, hybrid devices can contain electrical components (comprehensively reviewed in (Tawade and Mastrangeli, 2024)) that are integrated and used as sensors or for performing functions such as organ-on-chip monitoring, or cell-matrix interactions within the microfluidic channel. Second, chemical components are integrated into hybrid devices in the form of surface coating materials (reviewed in (Tu et al., 2012)), or as catalysts (reviewed in (Solsona et al., 2019)) for chemical reactions and others. The third category is hybrid devices using composite materials as structural components. Here, two different materials are bonded together to form the walls of the microchannel or as one material acting as a filter within the microchannel, as well as for less functional reasons, such as one material simply acting as a support substrate. When the microfluidic device has a single function, they can be referred to as a primary hybrid device, but different combinations are possible and secondary (containing two types of hybrid components), and tertiary (containing all three types of hybrid components) are also possible to fabricate. This is presented schematically in Figure 1 where examples of microfluidic structures are depicted for each category. In the structural component bubble, an inertial focusing channel is shown and has been fabricated with two materials shown in yellow and red. The chemical components bubble shows a microchannel structure (red) with a functional coating (yellow) whereas the electrical component bubble depicts a microfluidic device with an integrated component (black circuit).
FIGURE 1
At least two different materials need to be incorporated for a device to be categorised as a primary hybrid microfluidic device and must form the microchannel walls to be considered a primary structural device. Hybrid devices can be considered primary electrical component devices where an electrical component is integrated but the channel is comprised of only one material. A primary chemical component can be considered a hybrid device where the microchannel is coated with a chemical reagent or the device itself is comprised of a functionalised material to perform the intended application. For the purposes of this review, devices containing reservoirs or those that require the introduction of reagents to the fluidic system are not classified as part of the chemical component category. All other hybrid devices can be considered as devices characterised as having combinations of these primary components and are therefore defined as secondary or tertiary hybrid devices. An extensive, but not exhaustive, list of example hybrid devices across the hierarchy is presented in sections A, B and C of Table 1 with discussions of specific devices of interest.
TABLE 1
| Hybrid device sub-category | Material | Composited with | Manufacturing technique(s) | Application(s) | Exemplar reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section A: Primary hybrid devices | |||||
| Structural | Photosensitive resin | Adhesive tape | DLP-3D printing and stacking | Demonstrating shear stress chip and hydrogel microsphere generation | Qiu et al. (2023) |
| PDMS | PMMA and adhesive tape | Photolithography and laser ablation | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Hassanpour-Tamrin et al. (2021) | |
| Glass | Stereolithography 3D-printing of moulds and casting | Droplet microfluidics, fluid mixing | Vedhanayagam et al. (2023) | ||
| Replica moulding, solvent assisted bonding | Solution exchange and interleukin-2 detection | Pramanik and Suzuki (2019) | |||
| PMMA, adhesive tape and glass | Laser ablation, stacking | Cell encapsulation | Enck et al. (2020) | ||
| PDMS membrane | Soft lithography and chemical etching | Mechanically active organ-on-a-chip | Huh et al. (2010) | ||
| Agarose/agar | Soft lithography and hydrogel injection | Complex gradient of diffusible molecules | Wu et al. (2006) | ||
| Hydrogel, glass, epoxy, and adhesive tape | Photopatterning and stacking | Multifunctional microfluidic systems | Beebe et al. (2000) | ||
| Hydrogel and PMMA | Soft lithography, moulding, laser ablation | 3D cell culture | Do et al. (2023) | ||
| Polycarbonate | Soft lithography | Cell culture | Chang et al. (2014) | ||
| Sol-gel method | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Suzuki et al. (2010) | |||
| Polyvinylchloride | |||||
| Polypropylene | |||||
| PMMA | |||||
| Soft-lithography, laser ablation and stacking | Production of monodisperse water-in-oil droplets | Nakatani et al. (2020) | |||
| Various thermoplastics | Carbon–nitrogen covalent bonding | Continuous flow polymerase chain reaction | Sivakumar et al. (2020) | ||
| poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) | Photolithography, moulding | 3D cell culture with a blood vessel architecture | Yuan et al. (2012) | ||
| PMMA and cotton | 3D printing, soft lithography, thermal bonding | Tumour-on-a-chip | Palacio-Castañeda et al. (2020) | ||
| PMMA | Silicon | Laser ablation | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Capodacqua et al. (2023) | |
| Silicon | Micromilling, stacking | Microbioreactors | Abaci et al. (2012) | ||
| Polyethylene terephthalate membrane | Micromilling, chemical bonding | Cytotoxicity of drug testing | Nguyen et al. (2019) | ||
| Polybutyl methacrylate | Laser ablation, micromilling, thermal fusion bonding | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Li et al. (2023) | ||
| Thermoplastic elastomers (various) | Laser ablation, thermal diffusion bonding | Organ-on-a-chip/real-time live-cell analysis | Busek et al. (2021) | ||
| Polycarbonate, polytetrafluoroethylene and aluminium | Stacking | Enrichment of exosomes | Hua et al. (2023) | ||
| Acrylate-based resin and adhesive tape | 3D-printing, stacking | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Razavi Bazaz et al. (2020) | ||
| Polyimide film | Laser ablation, stacking | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Thaweeskulchai and Schulte (2023) | ||
| Glass, photoresist | Dry film photoresist | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Fan et al. (2018) | ||
| Adhesive tape | Laser ablation, micromilling | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Ku et al. (2018) | ||
| SU-8 | Photolithographic techniques, laser ablation | Cell separation, medium exchange | Carvell et al. (2024) | ||
| Fluoroethylene propylene | Polyimide | Laser ablation, thermal bonding | Fluid mixing | Kim et al. (2016) | |
| Wax and polyolefins-based films | PMMA or PVC or glass | Laser ablation, thermal bonding | Various biochemical applications, demonstration of bacterial cultivation | Wei et al. (2023) | |
| Glass | Adhesive tape | Laser ablation, micromilling | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Ku et al. (2018) | |
| Silicon, aluminium oxide | Anodization of aluminium, deep reactive-ion etching, wet etching, clamping | Gas-permeable cultivation of HACaT-cells | Bunge et al. (2018) | ||
| Polyurethane-methacrylate | Polyurethane-methacrylate coated glass | Casting, conformal coating, UV curation | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Kuo et al. (2009) | |
| Polyvinyl chloride | Silicon | Laser ablation, jigsaw assembly | Separation of cells | Zhu et al. (2021) | |
| Chemical | PDMS | Hydrogel | Soft lithography | Cardiomyocyte culture | Annabi et al. (2013) |
| Zinc oxide quantum dots | Soft lithography | Temperature-sensitive microfluidic device | Zhou et al. (2009) | ||
| Polycaprolactone-collagen membrane and cyclic olefin copolymer | Micromilling, moulding, electrospinning | Lung-on-a-chip | Kanabekova et al. (2024) | ||
| Glass | Acrylate-based photo-co-polymers | Stereolithographic ‘3P-printing’ using a ‘Print-Pause-Print protocol’ | Not author defined | Ahmadianyazdi et al. (2023) | |
| Electrical | PMMA | Platinum electrodes | Micromilling, hot-embossing, wire embedding | Cell viability analysis | Eades et al. (2023) |
| Silicon | Gold nanoparticles | Combining extrusion printing and aerosol jet printing | Amperometric sensing of lactate in sweat | Du et al. (2024) | |
| Section B: Secondary hybrid devices | |||||
| Structural, electrical | PDMS | Glass, electrical components | Soft lithography and sputtering | Analyte separation or serotonin detection | Moraes et al. (2012),Shameli et al. (2012) |
| Etching, sputtering, soft lithography | Polymerase chain reaction | Kaigala et al. (2008) | |||
| Anisotropic etching of an amorphous bulk material | Various | Mu et al. (2009) | |||
| Various, but mostly the incorporation of electrodes in chip | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Qiu et al. (2003),Li et al. (2008),Zhou et al. (2010) | |||
| Casting | Concentration of analyte | Matsui et al. (2007) | |||
| Photolithography, etching, stacking | DNA sequencing | Blazej et al. (2006) | |||
| Soft lithography, spin coating, aerosol printing of nanoparticles inside microfluidic structures | Authors demonstrated bipolar electrode experiments; other applications possible | Broccoli et al. (2023) | |||
| Photolithography, sputtering, reactive ion etching, printed circuit board | Cell-scale precise temperature control | Lei et al. (2019) | |||
| Glass, polyimide, electrical components | Photolithography, spin coating, electrode patterning | Droplet digital nucleic acid amplification | Coelho et al. (2023) | ||
| PMMA, glass, electrical components | Photolithography, hole punch, mechanical pressure assembly | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Pérez-Sosa et al. (2022) | ||
| SU-8, electrical components | Photolithography | Microparticle manipulation | Guo et al. (2010) | ||
| Lactate monitoring | Wu et al. (2005) | ||||
| Polycarbonate, electrical components | Soft lithography | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Kuo et al. (2003) | ||
| SU-8 and polycarbonate | Soft lithography, moulding and hot embossing | Single cell and manipulation | Chartier et al. (2003) | ||
| SU-8 and quartz | Spin-coating and soft-lithography | Isolectric focusing of proteins | Ou et al. (2009) | ||
| Polyimide, graphene electrodes | Laser ablation, stacking | Wearable devices, point-of-care diagnostics | Thaweeskulchai and Schulte (2022) | ||
| Glass, silicon, polyimide | Stacking, printed circuit board technology | Detection of magnetically labelled protein | Wu et al. (2010) | ||
| Glass | Silicon | Photolithography and wet chemical etching | Polymerase chain reaction | Wang and Burns (2009) | |
| Polycarbonate film | Glass fibres, Mediprene OF 400M, electrical components | Photolithography, micromachining, or injection moulding | Extraction of nucleic acids from blood | Brassard et al. (2019) | |
| Structural, chemical | PDMS | Agar | Casting and layering | Investigating the oviposition behaviour of Drosophila | Leung et al. (2015) |
| Soft lithography | Investigating associative learning behaviour of C. elegans | Zhu et al. (2023) | |||
| Agar and glass | Replica moulding and stacking | Single cell dynamic studies | Wong et al. (2010) | ||
| Poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid coated glass | Soft lithography, electrospinning | In situ monitoring of stem cells | Hesari et al. (2016) | ||
| Poly-2-hydroxy ethyl methacrylate | Micromoulding, casting | Used to replicate a perfusion microfluidic-based cell culture device | Santaniello et al. (2015) | ||
| Glass and hydrogel | Photolithography, gel casting | Hydrogel matrix degradability-dependent 3D cell invasion models | Trappmann et al. (2017) | ||
| Device 1: Polycarbonate track-etched membrane | Soft lithography, plasma treatment, electroplating, engraving, stacking | In vivo detection of small extracellular vesicles | Cong et al. (2024) | ||
| Device 2: indium-oxide coated glass, nickel materials | |||||
| Chromatography paper | Wax printing, PDMS casting | Detection of Campylobacter jejuni | Chen et al. (2023) | ||
| PMMA | Poly-2-hydroxy ethyl methacrylate | Micromoulding, casting | Used to replicate a perfusion microfluidic-based cell culture device | Santaniello et al. (2015) | |
| Paper | Laser ablation and clamping | Detection of IgG | Sanjay et al. (2020) | ||
| Polyethylene terephthalate and paper | Laser ablation and stacking | Detection of cyclamate | Liu et al. (2023) | ||
| Detection of potassium from whole blood | Tseng et al. (2022) | ||||
| Paper and glass | Laser ablation, thermal bonding | Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay | Abate et al. (2020) | ||
| Adhesive tape and polyethersulfone membrane | Laser ablation, stacking | Cleaning of urea/‘Lab-on-a-chip’ | Gupta et al. (2023) | ||
| Polymer supports | Cell-containing bioinks or hydrogels | 3D-printing | 3D cell culture models | Richard et al. (2020) | |
| Cell culture | Krakos et al. (2023) | ||||
| Silicon | Perfouoro copolymer and biomolecules | Photolithography, reactive ion etching, biomolecule conjugation | Detection of carcinoembryonic antigen | Washburn et al. (2009) | |
| Glass | Polycaprolactone | Oxygen radical exposure of masks composited with glass microfibres | ‘Lab-on-a-chip’, demonstrated colorimetric assay for protein quantification | Bandara et al. (2018) | |
| PDMS and enzyme-contained hydrogel | Hard and soft lithography, surface activation of glass, enzyme immobolisation | Multi-enzymatic reactions | Simon et al. (2019) | ||
| PDMS and poloxamer | Photolithography, channel coating | Deterministic lateral displacement-dependent cell isolation from breastmilk | Hawkins et al. (2024) | ||
| Photocurable resin | Hydrogel, polystyrene, well plates | Micromilling, 3D printing | Segregated coculture of cells | Berry et al. (2017) | |
| Cloth | Paper, metal-organic frameworks composited with molecularly imprinted polymers | Printing, ‘origami-folding process’, clamping | Colorimetric detection of gonyautoxin | Xiang et al. (2024) | |
| Section C: Tertiary hybrid devices | |||||
| Structural, chemical and electrical components | PDMS | Paper, glass, electrical components | Soft lithography, laser ablation, stacking | Detection of N. meningitidis | Dou et al. (2014) |
| Hole-punching, soft-lithography, laser ablation | Detection of S. aureus and S. enterica | Zuo et al. (2013) | |||
| PMMA | Polymethacrylic acid (as a copolymer), glass, paper and electrode components | Free radical polymerisation and casting of copolymer and dry casting on glass. Biosensor integration into the device | Detection of creatine | Tzianni et al. (2022) | |
| Polyethylene terephthalate and paper | Laser ablation and stacking | Urine and blood analysis | Laurenciano et al. (2021) | ||
| Microelectrode, carbon nanofibers-decorated gold nanoporous structures | Laser ablation, micromilling, electrode modification | Detection of prostate-specific antigen | Felici et al. (2023) | ||
| Electrical components, aluminium, rubber | Electrode functionalisation, laser ablation, stacking | Detection of miR-122 and potential for diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury | Roychoudhury et al. (2023) | ||
| Electrical components, silicon, glass | Laser ablation, stacking, solvent-assisted bonding | Blood lysate preparation | Haque et al. (2023) | ||
| Glass | Shape memory copolyacrylate, electrical components | Micromoulding, photolithography, casting | Particle separation | Yang et al. (2018) | |
Categorisation of hybrid microfluidic devices.
Note: ‘Lab-on-a-chip’ refers to a generic application and is included where the author has not stated a particular application. Abbreviations: digital light processing (DLP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), ultraviolet (UV).
Section A of Table 1 lists microfluidic devices that can be categorised as a primary hybrid device and can be further divided into devices containing structural, chemical, or electrical hybrid components. Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) are two of the most commonly used substrates in hybrid microfluidic device manufacture owing to their biocompatibility, flexibility in application, capacity to bond to a wide range of materials and cost-effectiveness (Nielsen et al., 2020). PDMS substrates can be easily modified to generate relatively complex 3D structures employing the widely used technique of soft lithography. However, although PDMS has proven a useful material for many applications, microchannels constructed of PDMS have been shown to absorb small molecules and deform under fluid pressure (Raj M and Chakraborty, 2020). These two issues can impact device functionality where the correct microchannel architecture or the quantification of biomolecules are critical for the application (Hou et al., 2017; Nielsen et al., 2020; Raj M and Chakraborty, 2020). PMMA, on the other hand, does not deform under fluid pressure, can be fully optically transparent, and has higher chemical inertness and greater biocompatibility than PDMS (Gencturk et al., 2017). Despite being one of the most widely used materials in microfluidic devices for cell biology applications, PMMA is not as versatile as PDMS when it comes to generating complex microchannel architectures (Gencturk et al., 2017). Other substrate materials have been used for structural hybrid devices, but their use may be limited by cost, complexity of fabrication technique or issues relating to chemical or biological compatibility. Glass generally has higher costs than thermoplastics but retains excellent biocompatibility, optical transparency and robustness (Hou et al., 2017). Likewise, despite some advantages, silicon lacks optical transparency and photosensitive resins often have poor biocompatibility (Ren et al., 2013; Hou et al., 2017).
As listed in Table 1, hybrid devices utilising PDMS often use soft-lithography and hybrid devices utilising PMMA often use laser ablation for manufacture. Laser ablation is a low-cost, highly replicable fabrication technique and can be used to cut or, etch PMMA at a much higher throughput rate than the use of soft lithography with PDMS (Gencturk et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2017). Generally, where hybrid devices in section A of Table 1 are categorized as having primary electrical or chemical components, a chemically or biologically inert material was used for the microchannel structure to act as a scaffold material for the chemical or electrically compatible material in order to perform their function.
Section B of Table 1 lists secondary hybrid microfluidic devices where materials have been combined to produce a structural channel whilst also simultaneously providing an electrical or chemical functionality. Similarly to primary component hybrid devices, the majority of listed devices are comprised of polymer materials as a base substrate and are often combined with glass, but more recently a range of other materials such as paper, hydrogels and other inorganic materials have also been used. Hydrogels have been used as bioscaffolds (Trappmann et al., 2017) for cell attachment whereas paper has been used as a fluid carrier (Chen et al., 2023). The photoresist SU-8 has extremely high biocompatibility and has historically been utilised as a critical material in microelectronics (Nemani et al., 2013). In some secondary hybrid devices, the coating of microchannels is used to convey a chemical functionality to an otherwise relatively chemical inert microchannel (Hesari et al., 2016) or may contain bioink materials for cell culture (Richard et al., 2020).
The third category, tertiary hybrid microfluidic devices, contain all three of the components discussed previously and a range of examples are listed in section C of Table 1. As before, polymers and glass are the primary substrate materials used in fabrication. Many of these devices utilise the electronic components purely as biosensors although some are used to generate electrical fields to enable a specific function in the device. It is of note that tertiary hybrid devices often have greater complexity and by definition are comprised of more materials than those classified as primary or secondary hybrid devices.
Conclusion
Many microfluidic devices are comprised of at least two materials, but modern multifunctional devices often use more. This review provides an important, but not exhaustive, review of current hybrid material microfluidic devices and proposes a new categorisation system for devices made of multiple materials. Whilst hybrid devices have not previously been systemically categorised, this review aims to provide a new approach to describe intra- and intergroup commonalities, and an insight into why different materials were selected for combination. The development of devices using multiple, diverse materials to achieve complex functionality requires the use of a range of manufacturing techniques, and this review further aims to aid researchers in their selection of materials for future hybrid device fabrication. We acknowledge that as microfluidic device functions increase in complexity with the integration of more materials this review may require updating in the future.
Statements
Author contributions
TC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing–original draft. PB: Supervision, Writing–review and editing. AF: Supervision, Writing–review and editing. HB: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Medical Research Scotland (grant number 50167-2019) and internal research funding from NHS National Services Scotland.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbaciH. E.DevendraR.SmithQ.GerechtS.DrazerG. (2012). Design and development of microbioreactors for long-term cell culture in controlled oxygen microenvironments. Biomed. Microdevices14 (1), 145–152. 10.1007/s10544-011-9592-9
2
AbateM. F.AhmedM. G.LiX.YangC.ZhuZ. (2020). Distance-based paper/PMMA integrated ELISA-chip for quantitative detection of immunoglobulin G. Lab a Chip20 (19), 3625–3632. 10.1039/d0lc00505c
3
AhmadianyazdiA.MillerI. J.FolchA. (2023). Tunable resins with PDMS-like elastic modulus for stereolithographic 3D-printing of multimaterial microfluidic actuators. Lab a Chip23 (18), 4019–4032. 10.1039/d3lc00529a
4
AkbariZ.RaoufiM. A.MirjalaliS.AghajanlooB. (2023). A review on inertial microfluidic fabrication methods. Biomicrofluidics17 (5), 051504. 10.1063/5.0163970
5
AlMashreaB. A.AlmehdiA. M.DamiatiS. (2024). Simple microfluidic devices for in situ detection of water contamination: a state-of-art review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.12, 1355768. 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1355768
6
AnnabiN.SelimovićŠ.Acevedo CoxJ. P.RibasJ.Afshar BakooshliM.HeintzeD.et al (2013). Hydrogel-coated microfluidic channels for cardiomyocyte culture. Lab a Chip13 (18), 3569–3577. 10.1039/c3lc50252j
7
ApoorvaS.NguyenN. T.SreejithK. R. (2024). Recent developments and future perspectives of microfluidics and smart technologies in wearable devices. Lab. Chip24, 1833–1866. 10.1039/d4lc00089g
8
BandaraG. C.HeistC. A.RemchoV. T. (2018). Patterned polycaprolactone-filled glass microfiber microfluidic devices for total protein content analysis. Talanta176, 589–594. 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.08.031
9
BeebeD. J.MooreJ. S.BauerJ. M.YuQ.LiuR. H.DevadossC.et al (2000). Functional hydrogel structures for autonomous flow control inside microfluidic channels. Nature404 (6778), 588–590. 10.1038/35007047
10
BerryS. B.ZhangT.DayJ. H.SuX.WilsonI. Z.BerthierE.et al (2017). Upgrading well plates using open microfluidic patterning. Lab a Chip17 (24), 4253–4264. 10.1039/c7lc00878c
11
BlazejR. G.KumaresanP.MathiesR. A. (2006). Microfabricated bioprocessor for integrated nanoliter-scale Sanger DNA sequencing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.103 (19), 7240–7245. 10.1073/pnas.0602476103
12
BrassardD.GeisslerM.DescarreauxM.TremblayD.DaoudJ.ClimeL.et al (2019). Extraction of nucleic acids from blood: unveiling the potential of active pneumatic pumping in centrifugal microfluidics for integration and automation of sample preparation processes. Lab a Chip19 (11), 1941–1952. 10.1039/c9lc00276f
13
BroccoliA.VollertsenA. R.RoelsP.van VugtA.van den BergA.OdijkM. (2023). Nanoparticle printing for microfluidic applications: bipolar electrochemistry and localized Raman sensing spots. Micromachines (Basel).14 (2), 453. 10.3390/mi14020453
14
BungeF.van den DriescheS.VellekoopM. J. (2018). PDMS-free microfluidic cell culture with integrated gas supply through a porous membrane of anodized aluminum oxide. Biomed. Microdevices20 (4), 98. 10.1007/s10544-018-0343-z
15
BusekM.NøvikS.AizenshtadtA.Amirola-MartinezM.CombriatT.GrünznerS.et al (2021). Thermoplastic elastomer (TPE)-Poly(Methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) hybrid devices for active pumping PDMS-free organ-on-a-chip systems. Biosens. (Basel).11 (5), 162. 10.3390/bios11050162
16
CapodacquaF. M. C.VolpeA.GaudiusoC.AnconaA. (2023). Bonding of PMMA to silicon by femtosecond laser pulses. Sci. Rep.13 (1), 5062. 10.1038/s41598-023-31969-y
17
CarvellT.BurgoyneP.MilneL.CampbellJ. D. M.FraserA. R.BridleH. (2024). Human leucocytes processed by fast-rate inertial microfluidics retain conventional functional characteristics. J. R. Soc. Interface21 (212), 20230572. 10.1098/rsif.2023.0572
18
ChangC.-W.ChengY.-J.TuM.ChenY.-H.PengC.-C.LiaoW.-H.et al (2014). A polydimethylsiloxane–polycarbonate hybrid microfluidic device capable of generating perpendicular chemical and oxygen gradients for cell culture studies. Lab. Chip14 (19), 3762–3772. 10.1039/c4lc00732h
19
ChartierI.BoryC.FuchsA.FreidaD.ManaresiN.RutyM.et al (2003) Fabrication of hybrid plastic-silicon microfluidic devices for individual cell manipulation by dielectrophoresis. Proceedings Volume 5345, Microfluidics, BioMEMS, and Medical Microsystems II. 10.1117/12.530705
20
ChenY.HuY.LuX. (2023). An integrated paper microfluidic device based on isothermal amplification for simple sample-to-answer detection of Campylobacter jejuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.89 (7), e0069523. 10.1128/aem.00695-23
21
CoelhoB. J.NetoJ. P.SieiraB.MouraA. T.FortunatoE.MartinsR.et al (2023). Hybrid digital-droplet microfluidic chip for applications in droplet digital nucleic acid amplification: design, fabrication and characterization. Sensors (Basel)23 (10), 4927. 10.3390/s23104927
22
CongX.-Z.FengJ.ZhangH.-J.ZhangL.-Z.LinT.-Y.ChenG.et al (2024). Microfluidic device-based in vivo detection of PD-L1-positive small extracellular vesicles and its application for tumor monitoring. Anal. Chem.96 (6), 2658–2665. 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c05418
23
ConveryN.GadegaardN. (2019). 30 years of microfluidics. Micro Nano Eng.2, 76–91. 10.1016/j.mne.2019.01.003
24
DavidP.PeterA.BarbaraM.RandyA.SannaM.MengZ.et al (2019). High-throughput microfluidic cell sorting platform (MICS). Protoc. Exch. 10.21203/rs.2.10282/v1
25
DoT. D.PhamU. T.NguyenL. P.NguyenT. M.BuiC. N.OliverS.et al (2023). Fabrication of a low-cost microfluidic device for high-throughput drug testing on static and dynamic cancer spheroid culture models. Diagn. (Basel)13 (8), 1394. 10.3390/diagnostics13081394
26
DouM.DominguezD. C.LiX.SanchezJ.ScottG. (2014). A versatile PDMS/paper hybrid microfluidic platform for sensitive infectious disease diagnosis. Anal. Chem.86 (15), 7978–7986. 10.1021/ac5021694
27
DuX. Y.YangJ. Y. (2024). Biomimetic microfluidic chips for toxicity assessment of environmental pollutants. Sci. Total Environ.919, 170745. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170745
28
DuY.ReitemeierJ.JiangQ.BappyM. O.BohnP. W.ZhangY. (2024). Hybrid printing of fully integrated microfluidic devices for biosensing. Small20 (5), 2304966. 10.1002/smll.202304966
29
EadesJ.AudiffredJ. F.FincherM.ChoiJ. W.SoperS. A.MonroeW. T. (2023). A simple micromilled microfluidic impedance cytometer with vertical parallel electrodes for cell viability analysis. Micromachines (Basel)14 (2), 283. 10.3390/mi14020283
30
EnckK.RajanS. P.AlemanJ.CastagnoS.LongE.KhalilF.et al (2020). Design of an adhesive film-based microfluidic device for alginate hydrogel-based cell encapsulation. Ann. Biomed. Eng.48 (3), 1103–1111. 10.1007/s10439-020-02453-9
31
Estrada-OsorioD. V.Escalona-VillalpandoR. A.GurrolaM. P.Chaparro-SánchezR.Rodríguez-MoralesJ. A.ArriagaL. G.et al (2024). Abiotic, hybrid, and biological electrocatalytic materials applied in microfluidic fuel cells: a comprehensive review. ACS Meas. Sci. Au4 (1), 25–41. 10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.3c00044
32
FanY.LiuS.ZhangY. (2018). Direct bonding of polymer/glass-based microfluidic chips with dry film photoresist. Microsyst. Technol.24 (3), 1659–1665. 10.1007/s00542-017-3541-3
33
FeliciE.RegiartM. D.PereiraS. V.OrtegaF. G.AngnesL.MessinaG. A.et al (2023). Microfluidic platform integrated with carbon nanofibers-decorated gold nanoporous sensing device for serum PSA quantification. Biosens. (Basel).13 (3), 390. 10.3390/bios13030390
34
GaleB. K.JafekA. R.LambertC. J.GoennerB. L.MoghimifamH.NzeU. C.et al (2018). A review of current methods in microfluidic device fabrication and future commercialization prospects. Inventions3 (3), 60. 10.3390/inventions3030060
35
GencturkE.MutluS.UlgenK. O. (2017). Advances in microfluidic devices made from thermoplastics used in cell biology and analyses. Biomicrofluidics11 (5), 051502. 10.1063/1.4998604
36
GuoH.ZhaoP.XiaoG.ZhangZ.YaoJ. (2010). Optical manipulation of microparticles in an SU-8/PDMS hybrid microfluidic chip incorporating a monolithically integrated on-chip lens set. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.16 (4), 919–926. 10.1109/jstqe.2009.2033212
37
GuptaU.KumarN.LataA.SinghP.ArunR. K. (2023). Bio-inspired self-pumping microfluidic device for cleaning of urea using reduced graphene oxide (rGO) modified polymeric nanohybrid membrane. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.241, 124614. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124614
38
GuzniczakE.OttoO.WhyteG.WilloughbyN.JimenezM.BridleH. (2020). Deformability-induced lift force in spiral microchannels for cell separation. Lab. Chip20 (3), 614–625. 10.1039/c9lc01000a
39
HaqueM. E.CondeA. J.MacPhersonW. N.KnightS. R.CarterR. M.Kersaudy-KerhoasM. (2023). A microfluidic finger-actuated blood lysate preparation device enabled by rapid acoustofluidic mixing. Lab a Chip23 (1), 62–71. 10.1039/d2lc00968d
40
Hassanpour-TamrinS.Sanati-NezhadA.SenA. (2021). A simple and low-cost approach for irreversible bonding of polymethylmethacrylate and polydimethylsiloxane at room temperature for high-pressure hybrid microfluidics. Sci. Rep.11 (1), 4821. 10.1038/s41598-021-83011-8
41
HawkinsJ.BrowneE. P.ArcaroK. F.SunY. (2024). Rapid cell isolation in breastmilk in a non-clinical setting by a deterministic lateral displacement device and selective water and fat absorption. Lab a Chip24 (3), 604–614. 10.1039/d3lc00899a
42
HesariZ.SoleimaniM.AtyabiF.SharifdiniM.NadriS.WarkianiM. E.et al (2016). A hybrid microfluidic system for regulation of neural differentiation in induced pluripotent stem cells. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A104 (6), 1534–1543. 10.1002/jbm.a.35689
43
HillC.WilloughbyN.BridleH. (2022). Efficient high-concentration dewatering of Chlorella vulgaris utilising spiral inertial microfluidics. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.18, 101014. 10.1016/j.biteb.2022.101014
44
HouX.ZhangY. S.SantiagoG. T.-dAlvarezM. M.RibasJ.JonasS. J.et al (2017). Interplay between materials and microfluidics. Nat. Rev. Mater.2 (5), 17016. 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.16
45
HuaX.ZhuQ.LiuY.ZhouS.HuangP.LiQ.et al (2023). A double tangential flow filtration-based microfluidic device for highly efficient separation and enrichment of exosomes. Anal. Chim. Acta1258, 341160. 10.1016/j.aca.2023.341160
46
HuhD.MatthewsB. D.MammotoA.Montoya-ZavalaM.HsinH. Y.IngberD. E. (2010). Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip. Science328 (5986), 1662–1668. 10.1126/science.1188302
47
JayanH.YinL.XueS.ZouX.GuoZ. (2024). Raman spectroscopy-based microfluidic platforms: a promising tool for detection of foodborne pathogens in food products. Food Res. Int.180, 114052. 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114052
48
KaigalaG. V.HoangV. N.StickelA.LauzonJ.ManageD.PilarskiL. M.et al (2008). An inexpensive and portable microchip-based platform for integrated RT–PCR and capillary electrophoresis. Analyst133 (3), 331–338. 10.1039/b714308g
49
KanabekovaP.DauletkanovB.BekezhankyzyZ.ToktarkanS.MartinA.PhamT. T.et al (2024). A hybrid fluorescent nanofiber membrane integrated with microfluidic chips towards lung-on-a-chip applications. Lab a Chip24 (2), 224–233. 10.1039/d3lc00751k
50
KimH.MinK.-I.InoueK.ImD. J.KimD.-P.YoshidaJ.-i. (2016). Submillisecond organic synthesis: outpacing Fries rearrangement through microfluidic rapid mixing. Science.352 (6286), 691–694. 10.1126/science.aaf1389
51
KrakosA.CieślakA.HartelE.ŁabowskaM. B.KulbackaJ.DetynaJ. (2023). 3D bio-printed hydrogel inks promoting lung cancer cell growth in a lab-on-chip culturing platform. Microchim. Acta190 (9), 349. 10.1007/s00604-023-05931-8
52
KuX.ZhuangG.LiG. (2018). A universal approach for irreversible bonding of rigid substrate-based microfluidic devices at room temperature. Microfluid. Nanofluidics22 (2), 17. 10.1007/s10404-018-2039-3
53
KuoJ. S.NgL.YenG. S.LorenzR. M.SchiroP. G.EdgarJ. S.et al (2009). A new USP Class VI-compliant substrate for manufacturing disposable microfluidic devices. Lab. Chip9 (7), 870–876. 10.1039/b818873d
54
KuoT.-C.CannonD. M.ShannonM. A.BohnP. W.SweedlerJ. V. (2003). Hybrid three-dimensional nanofluidic/microfluidic devices using molecular gates. Sensors Actuators A Phys.102 (3), 223–233. 10.1016/s0924-4247(02)00394-1
55
LaurencianoC. J. D.TsengC.-C.ChenS.-J.LuS.-Y.TayoL. L.FuL.-M. (2021). Microfluidic colorimetric detection platform with sliding hybrid PMMA/paper microchip for human urine and blood sample analysis. Talanta231, 122362. 10.1016/j.talanta.2021.122362
56
LeiX.YeW.SafdarinF.BaghaeiS. (2024). Microfluidics devices for sports: a review on technology for biomedical application used in fields such as biomedicine, drug encapsulation, preparation of nanoparticles, cell targeting, analysis, diagnosis, and cell culture. Tissue Cell87, 102339. 10.1016/j.tice.2024.102339
57
LeiZ.XieD.MbogbaM. K.ChenZ.TianC.XuL.et al (2019). A microfluidic platform with cell-scale precise temperature control for simultaneous investigation of the osmotic responses of multiple oocytes. Lab a Chip19 (11), 1929–1940. 10.1039/c9lc00107g
58
LeungJ. C.Taylor-KamallR. W.HillikerA. J.RezaiP. (2015). Agar-polydimethylsiloxane devices for quantitative investigation of oviposition behaviour of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Biomicrofluidics9 (3), 034112. 10.1063/1.4922737
59
LiO.-L.TongY.-L.ChenZ.-G.LiuC.ZhaoS.MoJ.-Y. (2008). A glass/PDMS hybrid microfluidic chip embedded with integrated electrodes for contactless conductivity detection. Chromatographia68 (11), 1039–1044. 10.1365/s10337-008-0808-y
60
LiY.XuF.liuJ.ZhangQ.FanY. (2023). Rapid-release reversible bonding of PMMA-based microfluidic devices with PBMA coating. Biomed. Microdevices26 (1), 6. 10.1007/s10544-023-00690-y
61
LiuC.-C.KoC.-H.FuL.-M.JhouY.-L. (2023). Light-shading reaction microfluidic PMMA/paper detection system for detection of cyclamate concentration in foods. Food Chem.400, 134063. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134063
62
LuM.LezzarD. L.VörösE.ShevkoplyasS. S. (2019). Traditional and emerging technologies for washing and volume reducing blood products. J. Blood Med.10, 37–46. 10.2147/jbm.s166316
63
MatsuiT.FranzkeJ.ManzA.JanasekD. (2007). Temperature gradient focusing in a PDMS/glass hybrid microfluidic chip. Electrophoresis28 (24), 4606–4611. 10.1002/elps.200700272
64
MoraesF. C.LimaR. S.SegatoT. P.CesarinoI.CetinoJ. L. M.MachadoS. A. S.et al (2012). Glass/PDMS hybrid microfluidic device integrating vertically aligned SWCNTs to ultrasensitive electrochemical determinations. Lab a Chip12 (11), 1959–1962. 10.1039/c2lc40141j
65
MuX.LiangQ.HuP.RenK.WangY.LuoG. (2009). Laminar flow used as "liquid etch mask" in wet chemical etching to generate glass microstructures with an improved aspect ratio. Lab. Chip9 (14), 1994–1996. 10.1039/b904769g
66
NakataniM.TanakaY.OkayamaS.HashimotoM. (2020). A simplified PDMS microfluidic device with a built-in suction actuator for rapid production of monodisperse water-in-oil droplets. ELECTROPHORESIS41 (24), 2114–2121. 10.1002/elps.202000105
67
NemaniK. V.MoodieK. L.BrennickJ. B.SuA.GimiB. (2013). In vitro and in vivo evaluation of SU-8 biocompatibility. Mater. Sci. Eng. C33 (7), 4453–4459. 10.1016/j.msec.2013.07.001
68
NguyenT.JungS. H.LeeM. S.ParkT.-E.AhnS.-k.KangJ. H. (2019). Robust chemical bonding of PMMA microfluidic devices to porous PETE membranes for reliable cytotoxicity testing of drugs. Lab a Chip19 (21), 3706–3713. 10.1039/c9lc00338j
69
NielsenJ. B.HansonR. L.AlmughamsiH. M.PangC.FishT. R.WoolleyA. T. (2020). Microfluidics: innovations in materials and their fabrication and functionalization. Anal. Chem.92 (1), 150–168. 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04986
70
OuJ.GlawdelT.RenC. L.PawliszynJ. (2009). Fabrication of a hybrid PDMS/SU-8/quartz microfluidic chip for enhancing UV absorption whole-channel imaging detection sensitivity and application for isoelectric focusing of proteins. Lab a Chip9 (13), 1926–1932. 10.1039/b821438g
71
Palacio-CastañedaV.KooijmanL.VenzacB.VerdurmenW. P. R.Le GacS. (2020). Metabolic switching of tumor cells under hypoxic conditions in a tumor-on-a-chip model. Micromachines (Basel)11 (4), 382. 10.3390/mi11040382
72
Pérez-SosaC.Peñaherrera-PazmiñoA. B.RoseroG.BourguignonN.AravelliA.BhansaliS.et al (2022). Novel reproducible manufacturing and reversible sealing method for microfluidic devices. Micromachines (Basel)13 (5), 650. 10.3390/mi13050650
73
PramanikS. K.SuzukiH. (2019). Microfluidic device with a push–pull sequential solution-exchange function for affinity sensing. Microfluid. Nanofluidics23 (2), 19. 10.1007/s10404-019-2188-z
74
PritchardR. H.ZhukovA. A.FullertonJ. N.WantA. J.HussainF.la CourM. F.et al (2019). Cell sorting actuated by a microfluidic inertial vortex. Lab a Chip19 (14), 2456–2465. 10.1039/c9lc00120d
75
QiuH.YanJ.SunX.LiuJ.CaoW.YangX.et al (2003). Microchip capillary electrophoresis with an integrated indium tin oxide electrode-based electrochemiluminescence detector. Anal. Chem.75 (20), 5435–5440. 10.1021/ac034500x
76
QiuJ.LiJ.GuoZ.ZhangY.NieB.QiG.et al (2023). 3D printing of individualized microfluidic chips with DLP-based printer. Materials16 (21), 6984. 10.3390/ma16216984
77
Raj MK.ChakrabortyS. (2020). PDMS microfluidics: a mini review. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.137 (27), 48958. 10.1002/app.48958
78
RamachandraiahH.SvahnH. A.RussomA. (2017). Inertial microfluidics combined with selective cell lysis for high throughput separation of nucleated cells from whole blood. RSC Adv.7 (47), 29505–29514. 10.1039/c7ra02992f
79
Razavi BazazS.RouhiO.RaoufiM. A.EjeianF.AsadniaM.JinD.et al (2020). 3D printing of inertial microfluidic devices. Sci. Rep.10 (1), 5929. 10.1038/s41598-020-62569-9
80
RenK.ZhouJ.WuH. (2013). Materials for microfluidic chip fabrication. Accounts Chem. Res.46 (11), 2396–2406. 10.1021/ar300314s
81
ReyesD. R.EschM. B.EwartL.NasiriR.HerlandA.SungK.et al (2024). From animal testing to in vitro systems: advancing standardization in microphysiological systems. Lab. Chip24 (5), 1076–1087. 10.1039/d3lc00994g
82
RichardC.NeildA.CadarsoV. J. (2020). The emerging role of microfluidics in multi-material 3D bioprinting. Lab a Chip20 (12), 2044–2056. 10.1039/c9lc01184f
83
RoychoudhuryA.DearJ. W.Kersaudy-KerhoasM.BachmannT. T. (2023). Amplification-free electrochemical biosensor detection of circulating microRNA to identify drug-induced liver injury. Biosens. Bioelectron.231, 115298. 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115298
84
SanjayS. T.LiM.ZhouW.LiX.LiX. (2020). A reusable PMMA/paper hybrid plug-and-play microfluidic device for an ultrasensitive immunoassay with a wide dynamic range. Microsyst. Nanoeng.6, 28. 10.1038/s41378-020-0143-5
85
SantanielloT.YanY.TocchioA.MartelloF.MilaniP.LenardiC. (2015). A room-temperature bonding technique for the packaging of hydrogel-based hybrid microfluidic devices. Microfluid. Nanofluidics19 (1), 31–41. 10.1007/s10404-015-1544-x
86
ScottS. M.AliZ. (2021). Fabrication methods for microfluidic devices: an overview. Micromachines12 (3), 319. 10.3390/mi12030319
87
ShameliS. M.GlawdelT.LiuZ.RenC. L. (2012). Bilinear temperature gradient focusing in a hybrid PDMS/glass microfluidic chip integrated with planar heaters for generating temperature gradients. Anal. Chem.84 (6), 2968–2973. 10.1021/ac300188s
88
SimonD.ObstF.HaefnerS.HeroldtT.PeiterM.SimonF.et al (2019). Hydrogel/enzyme dots as adaptable tool for non-compartmentalized multi-enzymatic reactions in microfluidic devices. React. Chem. Eng.4 (1), 67–77. 10.1039/c8re00180d
89
SivakumarR.TrinhK. T. L.LeeN. Y. (2020). Heat and pressure-resistant room temperature irreversible sealing of hybrid PDMS-thermoplastic microfluidic devices via carbon-nitrogen covalent bonding and its application in a continuous-flow polymerase chain reaction. RSC Adv.10 (28), 16502–16509. 10.1039/d0ra02332a
90
SolsonaM.VollenbroekJ. C.TregouetC. B. M.NieuwelinkA. E.OlthuisW.van den BergA.et al (2019). Microfluidics and catalyst particles. Lab a Chip19 (21), 3575–3601. 10.1039/c9lc00318e
91
SunZ.MaC.YuC.LiZ. (2024). Microplastic separation and enrichment in microchannels under derivative electric field gradient by bipolar electrode reactions. Sci. Rep.14 (1), 4626. 10.1038/s41598-024-54921-0
92
SuzukiY.YamadaM.SekiM. (2010). Sol–gel based fabrication of hybrid microfluidic devices composed of PDMS and thermoplastic substrates. Sensors Actuators B Chem.148 (1), 323–329. 10.1016/j.snb.2010.04.018
93
TawadeP.MastrangeliM. (2024). Integrated electrochemical and optical biosensing in organs-on-chip. ChemBioChem.25 (3), e202300560. 10.1002/cbic.202300560
94
ThaweeskulchaiT.SchulteA. (2022). Diode laser and polyimide tape enables cheap and fast fabrication of flexible microfluidic sensing devices. Micromachines (Basel).13 (12), 2214. 10.3390/mi13122214
95
ThaweeskulchaiT.SchulteA. (2023). Basic guide to multilayer microfluidic fabrication with polyimide tape and diode laser. Micromachines (Basel).14 (2), 324. 10.3390/mi14020324
96
TrappmannB.BakerB. M.PolacheckW. J.ChoiC. K.BurdickJ. A.ChenC. S. (2017). Matrix degradability controls multicellularity of 3D cell migration. Nat. Commun.8 (1), 371. 10.1038/s41467-017-00418-6
97
TsengC.-C.LuS.-Y.ChenS.-J.WangJ.-M.FuL.-M.WuY.-H. (2022). Microfluidic aptasensor POC device for determination of whole blood potassium. Anal. Chim. Acta1203, 339722. 10.1016/j.aca.2022.339722
98
TuQ.WangJ.-C.ZhangY.LiuR.LiuW.RenL.et al (2012). Surface modification of poly(dimethylsiloxane) and its applications in microfluidics-based biological analysis. Rev. Anal. Chem.31 (3-4), 177–192. 10.1515/revac-2012-0016
99
TzianniΕ. I.MoutsiosI.MoschovasD.AvgeropoulosA.GovarisK.PanagiotidisL.et al (2022). Smartphone paired SIM card-type integrated creatinine biosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron.207, 114204. 10.1016/j.bios.2022.114204
100
VedhanayagamA.GolfettoM.RamJ. L.BasuA. S. (2023). Rapid micromolding of sub-100 µm microfluidic channels using an 8K stereolithographic resin 3D printer. Micromachines (Basel)14 (8), 1519. 10.3390/mi14081519
101
WangC.WengG.LiJ.ZhuJ.ZhaoJ. (2024). A review of SERS coupled microfluidic platforms: from configurations to applications. Anal. Chim. Acta1296, 342291. 10.1016/j.aca.2024.342291
102
WangF.BurnsM. A. (2009). Performance of nanoliter-sized droplet-based microfluidic PCR. Biomed. Microdevices11 (5), 1071–1080. 10.1007/s10544-009-9324-6
103
WashburnA. L.GunnL. C.BaileyR. C. (2009). Label-Free quantitation of a cancer biomarker in complex media using silicon photonic microring resonators. Anal. Chem.81 (22), 9499–9506. 10.1021/ac902006p
104
WeiY.WangT.WangY.ZengS.HoY.-P.HoH.-P. (2023). Rapid prototyping of multi-functional and biocompatible parafilm®-based microfluidic devices by laser ablation and thermal bonding. Micromachines14 (3), 656. 10.3390/mi14030656
105
WongI.AtsumiS.HuangW. C.WuT. Y.HanaiT.LamM. L.et al (2010). An agar gel membrane-PDMS hybrid microfluidic device for long term single cell dynamic study. Lab. Chip10 (20), 2710–2719. 10.1039/c004719h
106
WuA.WangL.JensenE.MathiesR.BoserB. (2010). Modular integration of electronics and microfluidic systems using flexible printed circuit boards. Lab. Chip10 (4), 519–521. 10.1039/b922830f
107
WuH.HuangB.ZareR. N. (2006). Generation of complex, static solution gradients in microfluidic channels. J. Am. Chem. Soc.128 (13), 4194–4195. 10.1021/ja058530o
108
WuM.-H.CaiH.XuX.UrbanJ. P. G.CuiZ.-F.CuiZ. (2005). A SU-8/PDMS hybrid microfluidic device with integrated optical fibers for online monitoring of lactate. Biomed. Microdevices7 (4), 323–329. 10.1007/s10544-005-6074-y
109
XiangJ.QiJ.HuD.WangC.WangL.WuY.et al (2024). Molecularly imprinted metal-organic frameworks assisted cloth and paper hybrid microfluidic devices for visual detection of gonyautoxin. J. Hazard. Mater.469, 133969. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133969
110
XieY.DaiL.YangY. (2022). Microfluidic technology and its application in the point-of-care testing field. Biosens. Bioelectron. X10, 100109. 10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100109
111
YangS. H.ParkJ.YounJ. R.SongY. S. (2018). Programmable microfluidic logic device fabricated with a shape memory polymer. Lab a Chip18 (18), 2865–2872. 10.1039/c8lc00627j
112
YiH.FuT.MaD.ZhuC.MaY. (2024). Spontaneous transfer of droplets across a microfluidic liquid-liquid interface. Langmuir40, 5508–5517. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c00047
113
YuanB.JinY.SunY.WangD.SunJ.WangZ.et al (2012). A strategy for depositing different types of cells in three dimensions to mimic tubular structures in tissues. Adv. Mater.24 (7), 890–896. 10.1002/adma.201104589
114
ZhouJ.RenK.ZhengY.SuJ.ZhaoY.RyanD.et al (2010). Fabrication of a microfluidic Ag/AgCl reference electrode and its application for portable and disposable electrochemical microchips. ELECTROPHORESIS31 (18), 3083–3089. 10.1002/elps.201000113
115
ZhouJ.YanH.ZhengY.WuH. (2009). Highly fluorescent poly(dimethylsiloxane) for on-chip temperature measurements. Adv. Funct. Mater.19 (2), 324–329. 10.1002/adfm.200801064
116
ZhuJ.WangY.TangS.SuH.WangX.DuW.et al (2023). A PDMS–agar hybrid microfluidic device for the investigation of chemical–mechanical associative learning behavior of C. elegans. Micromachines14 (8), 1576. 10.3390/mi14081576
117
ZhuZ.WuD.LiS.HanY.XiangN.WangC.et al (2021). A polymer-film inertial microfluidic sorter fabricated by jigsaw puzzle method for precise size-based cell separation. Anal. Chim. Acta1143, 306–314. 10.1016/j.aca.2020.11.001
118
ZuoP.LiX.DominguezD. C.YeB. C. (2013). A PDMS/paper/glass hybrid microfluidic biochip integrated with aptamer-functionalized graphene oxide nano-biosensors for one-step multiplexed pathogen detection. Lab. Chip13 (19), 3921–3928. 10.1039/c3lc50654a
Summary
Keywords
hybrid, microfluidic device, microfluidics, manufactoring, fabrication, materials
Citation
Carvell T, Burgoyne P, Fraser AR and Bridle H (2024) Categorising hybrid material microfluidic devices. Front. Lab. Chip. Technol. 3:1412290. doi: 10.3389/frlct.2024.1412290
Received
04 April 2024
Accepted
30 April 2024
Published
13 May 2024
Volume
3 - 2024
Edited by
Nan Zhang, University College Dublin, Ireland
Reviewed by
Yiqiang Fan, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Carvell, Burgoyne, Fraser and Bridle.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Helen Bridle, h.l.bridle@hw.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.