Advertisement

Characterization of transport in microfluidic gradient generators

  • Bryan R. Gorman
  • John P. Wikswo
Research Paper

Abstract

We present a two-dimensional model that describes the concentration profile of a class of previously reported microfluidic devices which are of particular interest in cellular taxis research. The devices generate stable concentration gradients by mixing and dividing two or more external inputs into a large number of discrete streams. This study focuses specifically on modeling the confluence of the discrete streams in a long chamber. We derive a closed-form solution for gradient generators with any arbitrary number of sampling streams. By relating the physical dimensions to the Péclet number, we create a model independent of flow rate and therefore dependent only on the specific nature of the boundary condition provided by the upstream network. As a result, the modeling method we propose may help evaluate the effectiveness of competing gradient generation schemes. Finally, our analytical work introduces a framework for developing simple design rules of interest to experimentalists working with these devices.

Keywords

Microfluidics Gradient generation Chemotaxis Convection–diffusion mass transport Péclet number 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Hwang for programming assistance. We are further indebted to Drs. G. Kane Jennings, Dmitry Markov, and Robert Roselli for reviewing early drafts of this manuscript. The Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE) at Vanderbilt graciously provided computational resources. We acknowledge support from the NSF-sponsored VaNTH ERC, the Systems Biology/Bioengineering Undergraduate Research Experience (SyBBURE), the Vanderbilt Institute for Integrative Biosystems Research and Education (VIIBRE), NIH Grant 5U01AI061223, and a Whitaker Foundation Special Opportunity Award.

References

  1. Beard DA (2001) Taylor dispersion of a solute in a microfluidic channel. J Appl Phys 89:4667–4669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behar T, Schaffner A, Colton C, Somogyi R, Olah Z, Lehel C, Barker J (1994) GABA-induced chemokinesis and NGF-induced chemotaxis of embryonic spinal cord neurons. J Neurosci 14:29–38Google Scholar
  3. Boyden S (1962) The chemotactic effect of mixtures of antibody and antigen on polymorphonuclear leucocytes. J Exp Med 115:453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell K, Groisman A (2007) Generation of complex concentration profiles in microchannels in a logarithmically small number of steps. Lab Chip (in print).  doi:10.1039/b610011b
  5. Chatwin PC, Sullivan PJ (1982) The effect of aspect ratio on longitudinal diffusivity in rectangular channels. J Fluid Mech 120:347–358MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen JM, Horng TL, Tan WY (2006) Analysis and measurements of mixing in pressure-driven microchannel flow. Microfluid Nanofluid 2:455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deen WM (1998) Analysis of transport phenomena. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dertinger SKW, Chiu DT, Jeon NL, Whitesides GM (2001) Generation of gradients having complex shapes using microfluidic networks. Anal Chem 73:1240–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris H (1954) Role of chemotaxis in inflammation. Physiol Rev 34:529–562Google Scholar
  10. Irimia D, Liu SY, Tharp WG, Samadani A, Toner M, Poznansky MC (2006a) Microfluidic system for measuring neutrophil migratory responses to fast switches of chemical gradients. Lab Chip 6:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irimia D, Geba DA, Toner M (2006b) Universal microfluidic gradient generator. Anal Chem 78:3472–3477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeon NL, Dertinger SKW, Chiu DT, Choi IS, Stroock AD, Whitesides GM (2000) Generation of solution and surface gradients using microfluidic systems. Langmuir 16:8311–8316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeon NL, Baskaran H, Dertinger SKW, Whitesides GM, de Water LV, Toner M (2002) Neutrophil chemotaxis in linear and complex gradients of Interleukin-8 formed in a microfabricated device. Nat Biotechnol 20:826–830Google Scholar
  14. Kamholz AE, Yager P (2002) Molecular diffusive scaling laws in pressure-driven microfluidic channels: Deviation from one-dimensional Einstein approximations. Sens Actuator B Chem 82:117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamholz AE, Schilling EA, Yager P (2001) Optical measurement of transverse molecular diffusion in a microchannel. Biophys J 80:1967–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin F, Saadi W, Rhee SW, Wang SJ, Mittal S, Jeon NL (2004) Generation of dynamic temporal and spatial concentration gradients using microfluidic devices. Lab Chip 4:164–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy P (2001) Chemokines and the molecular basis of cancer metastasis. N Engl J Med 345:833–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nguyen NT, Wu ZG (2005) Micromixers—a review. J Micromech Microeng 15:R1–R16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pantankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhoads DS, Nadkarni SM, Song L, Voeltz C, Bodenschatz E, Guan JL (2005) Using microfluidic channel networks to generate gradients for studying cell migration. Methods Mol Biol 294:347–357Google Scholar
  21. Sager J, Young M, Stefanovic D (2006) Characterization of transverse channel concentration profiles obtainable with a class of microfluidic networks. Langmuir 22:4452–4455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sai J, Walker G, Wikswo J, Richmond A (2006) The IL sequence in the LLKIL motif in CXCR2 is required for full ligand-induced activation of Erk, Akt, and chemotaxis in HL60 cells. J Biol Chem 281:35931–35941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Squires TM, Quake SR (2005) Microfluidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Rev Mod Phys 77:977–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stone HA, Stroock AD, Ajdari A (2004) Engineering flows in small devices: Microfluidics toward a lab-on-a-chip. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 36:381–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vianello F, Papeta N, Chen T, Kraft P, White N, Hart W, Kircher M, Swart E, Rhee S, Palu G, Irimia D, Toner M, Weissleder R, Poznansky M (2006) Murine B16 melanomas expressing high levels of the chemokine stromal-derived factor-1/CXCL12 induce tumor-specific T cell chemorepulsion and escape from immune control. J Immunol 176:2902–2914Google Scholar
  26. Walker GM, Sai JQ, Richmond A, Stremler M, Chung CY, Wikswo JP (2005) Effects of flow and diffusion on chemotaxis studies in a microfabricated gradient generator. Lab Chip 5:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang Y, Mukherjee T, Lin Q (2006) Systematic modeling of microfluidic concentration gradient generators. J Micromech Microeng 16:2128–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu ZG, Nguyen NT (2005) Convective-diffusive transport in parallel lamination micromixers. Microfluid Nanofluid 1:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu X, Chu L, Chueh B, Shen M, Hazarika B, Phadke N, Takayama S (2004) Arrays of horizontally-oriented mini-reservoirs generate steady microfluidic flows for continuous perfusion cell culture and gradient generation. Analyst 129:1026–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zicha D, Dunn GA, Brown AF (1991) A new direct-viewing chemotaxis chamber. J Cell Sci 99:769–775Google Scholar
  31. Zigmond SH, Sullivan SJ (1979) Sensory adaptation of leukocytes to chemotactic peptides. J Cell Biol 82:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt Institute for Integrative Biosystems Research and EducationVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular Physiology and BiophysicsVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physics and AstronomyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations