Advertisement

Microfluidics and Nanofluidics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 521–527 | Cite as

Effect of relative particle size on large particle detachment from a microchannel

  • Nimisha Shukla
  • Kimberly H. Henthorn
Research Paper

Abstract

The detachment of a single rigid sphere in a cylindrical PDMS microchannel has been investigated for systems where the particle occupies greater than 50% of the channel cross-sectional area. The fluid velocity required to detach a particle adhering to a microchannel wall is a function of many variables; however, only the effect of particle size is considered in this paper. Experiments were performed for Reynolds numbers less than 0.1, and the ratio of particle diameter, d p, to channel dimension, D, was varied from 0.50 to 0.95 in a 230 μm channel. A nonionic surfactant (Tween 80) was used to minimize the effect of adhesive forces other than van der Waals forces. In addition, a simple force-balance model based on particle lift, buoyancy, drag, gravitational forces, and adhesion due to van der Waals forces has been developed to predict the velocity required for particle detachment. The predicted and experimentally measured velocities agree relatively well within the limit of experimental error. The detachment velocity was qualitatively found to increase with decreasing d p /D.

Keywords

Particle Detachment PDMS Adhesion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by the University of Missouri Research Board (Grant #2103) and Mo-Sci Corporation (Rolla, MO, USA).

References

  1. Abd-Elhady M, Rindt C, Wijers J, Steenhoven A (2002) Removal of particles from powdery fouled surfaces. Proc Twelfth Int Heat Trans Conf Grenoble 2:687–692Google Scholar
  2. Adamson A (1990) Physical chemistry of surfaces. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabrejos F (1991) Incipient motion of solid particles in pneumatic conveying. MS Thesis, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  4. Essaway A (2004) Microparticle detachment from surfaces by fluid flow. PhD Thesis, University of Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  5. Freitas R (1999) Nanomedicine, vol. I, Basic capabilities. Landes Bioscience, AustinGoogle Scholar
  6. Glasgow I, Zeringue H, Beebe D, Choi S, Lyman J, Chan N, Wheeler M (2001) Handling individual human embryos using microfluidics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 48(5):570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayden K, Park K, Sinclair J (2003) Effect of particle characteristics on particle pickup velocity. Powder Tech 131(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamm R (2002) Cellular fluid mechanics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 34:211–232CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Nguyen N, Wereley S (2002) Fundamentals and applications of microfluidics. Artech House, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Rimai D, DeMejo L, Bowen R, Morris J (1995) In: Mittal K (ed) Particles on surfaces: detection, adhesion, and removal. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Saffman P (1965) The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear flow. J Fluid Mech 22(2):385–400zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Salgado J, Horiuchi K, Dutta P (2006) A conductivity-based interface tracking method for microfluidic application. J Micromech Microeng 16:920–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sharp K (1996) Experimental investigation of liquid and particle laden liquid in microtubes. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  14. Stafford C, Forster A, Karim A, Amis E (2002) Combinatorial adhesion test: examples and discussion. NCMC-2 Meeting, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  15. Young D, Munson B, Okiishi T (1997) A brief introduction to fluid mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations