Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 399, Issue 4, pp 1473–1479 | Cite as

Comparison of separation performance of laser-ablated and wet-etched microfluidic devices

  • Christopher A. Baker
  • Rayford Bulloch
  • Michael G. Roper
Original Paper

Abstract

Laser ablation of glass allows for production of microfluidic devices without the need for hydrofluoric acid and photolithography. The goal of this study was to compare the separation performance of microfluidic devices produced using a low-cost laser ablation system and conventional wet etching. During laser ablation, cracking of the glass substrate was prevented by heating the glass to 300 °C. A range of laser energy densities was found to produce channel depths ranging from 4 to 35 μm and channel widths from 118 to 162 μm. The electroosmotic flow velocity was lower in laser-ablated devices, 0.110 ± 0.005 cm   s−1, as compared to wet-etched microfluidic chips, 0.126 ± 0.003 cm   s−1. Separations of both small and large molecules performed on both wet- and laser-ablated devices were compared by examining limits of detection, theoretical plate count, and peak asymmetry. Laser-induced fluorescence detection limits were 10 pM fluorescein for both types of devices. Laser-ablated and wet-etched microfluidic chips had reproducible migration times with ≤   2.8% relative standard deviation and peak asymmetries ranged from 1.0 to 1.8. Numbers of theoretical plates were between 2.8- and 6.2-fold higher on the wet-etched devices compared to laser-ablated devices. Nevertheless, resolution between small and large analytes was accomplished, which indicates that laser ablation may find an application in pedagogical studies of electrophoresis or microfluidic devices, or in settings where hydrofluoric acid cannot be used.

Keywords

Laser ablation Electrophoresis Microfluidic Separation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 DK080714). We would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Florida State University FormLab for their work in administering the laser etching facilities. We would also like to thank Dr. Eric Lochner in the Department of Physics at Florida State University for acquiring the SEM images.

References

  1. 1.
    Sanders GHW, Manz A (2000) TRAC-Trend Anal Chem 19:364–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gao J, Xu JD, Locascio LE, Lee CS (2001) Anal Chem 73:2648–2655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luk VN, Wheeler AR (2009) Anal Chem 81:4524–4530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foquet M, Korlach J, Zipfel W, Webb WW, Craighead HG (2002) Anal Chem 74:1415–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kopp MU, de Mello AJ, Manz A (1998) Science 280:1046–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hua ZS, Rouse JL, Eckhardt AE, Srinivasan V, Pamula VK, Schell WA, Benton JL, Mitchell TG, Pollack MG (2010) Anal Chem 82:2310–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meloon B, Gamliel N, Sevignani C, Ferracin M, Dumitru CD, Shimizu M, Zupo S, Dono M, Alder H, Bullrich F, Negrini M, Croce CM (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:9740–9744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marcus JS, Anderson WF, Quake SR (2006) Anal Chem 78:956–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okagbare PI, Soper SA (2009) Analyst 134:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duffy DC, McDonald C, Schueller OJA, Whitesides GM (1998) Anal Chem 70:4974–4984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen D, Du WB, Liu Y, Liu WS, Kuznetsov A, Mendez FE, Philipson LH, Ismagilov RF (2008) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:16843–16848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quake SR, Sherer A (2000) Science 290:1536–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thorsen T, Maerkl SJ, Quake SR (2002) Science 298:580–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JN, Park C, Whitesides GM (2003) Anal Chem 75:6544–6554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roman GT, McDaniel K, Culbertson CT (2006) Analyst 131:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makamba H, Kim JH, Lim K, Park N, Hahn JH (2003) Electrophoresis 24:3607–3619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harrison DJ, Fluri K, Seiler K, Fan Z, Effenhauser CS, Manz A (1993) Science 261:895–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klank H, Kutter JP, Geschke O (2002) Lab Chip 2:242–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pugmire DL, Waddell EA, Tarlov HR, LE MJ L (2002) Anal Chem 74:871–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yen MH, Cheng JY, Wei CW, Chuang YC, Young TH (2006) J Micromech Microeng 16:1143–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaffer CB, Brodeur A, Garcia JF, Mazur E (2001) Opt Lett 26:93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li Y, Itoh K, Watanabe W, Yamada K, Kuroda D, Nishii J, Jiang Y (2001) Opt Lett 26:1912–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sugioka K, Hanada Y, Midorikawa K (2010) Laser Photonics Rev 4:386–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baker CA, Roper MG (2010) J Chrom A 1217:4743–4748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang XH, Gordon MJ, Zare RN (1988) Anal Chem 60:1837–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hatch A, Kamholz AE, Hawkins KR, Munson MS, Schilling EA, Weigl BH, Yager P (2001) Nat Biotechnol 19:461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Breadmore MC, Wolfe KA, Arcibal IG, Leung WK, Dickson D, Giordano BC, Power ME, Ferrance JP, Feldman SH, Norris PM, Landers JP (2003) Anal Chem 75:1880–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song H, Ismagilov RF (2003) J Am Chem Soc 125:14613–14619CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. Baker
    • 1
  • Rayford Bulloch
    • 1
  • Michael G. Roper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations