Microfluidics and Nanofluidics

, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp 763–774 | Cite as

Performance analysis of a folding flow micromixer

  • Z. Chen
  • M. R. Bown
  • B. O’Sullivan
  • J. M. MacInnes
  • R. W. K. Allen
  • M. Mulder
  • M. Blom
  • R. van’t Oever
Research Paper

Abstract

The performance of a folding flow micromixer in the Stokes flow regime is investigated computationally and experimentally. Consistency with a previously derived general scaling relation is demonstrated and the geometric parameters in the scaling relation are determined for this mixer. Measured data from a second similar mixer are correctly predicted using the scaling relation, thus showing that the approach allows quantitative prediction of mixing. This paper focuses on the errors associated with such predictions. Basic errors, expressed as variations in the standard deviation of the concentration profile, were estimated to be −10% for the computation and −30% for the experiment at the highest values of Péclet number considered. It is shown that this experimental error was mostly due to depth averaging of the spectroscopic technique used for concentration measurement at the high Péclet numbers. However, extra uncertainty is associated with chip fabrication tolerances and this was investigated further. Measurements at the outlet of nine different mixer chips of notionally identical design revealed variations in mixing of ±26%. This variation was attributed to misalignment of the glass layers determining the geometry of the mixer in the chip. Thus, the combination of measurement error and misalignment means predictions of the concentration standard deviation for the mixer may get non-uniformity wrong by up to 50%. Ensuring a required uniformity, however, simply requires adding a few further elements to the mixer to allow for this uncertainty. Application of the scaling relation to mixer design is highlighted by a discussion of the options available for improving the performance of the experimental mixer.

References

  1. Bringer MR, Gerdts CJ, Song H, Tice JD, Ismagilov RF (2004) Microfluidic systems for chemical kinetics that rely on chaotic mixing in droplets. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 362:1087–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bessoth FG, deMello AJ, Manz A (1999) Microstructure for efficient continuous flow mixing. Anal Commun 36:213–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen H, Meiners J-C (2004) Topologic mixing on a microfluidic chip. Appl Phys Lett 84(12):2193–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Glasgow I, Aubry N (2003) Enhancement of microfluidic mixing using time pulsing. Lab Chip 3:114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gray BL, Jaeggi D, Mourlas NJ, van Drieënhuizen BP, Williams KR, Maluf NI, Kovacs GTA (1999) Novel interconnection technologies for integrated microfluidic systems. Sensors and Actuators 77:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hessel V, Lowe H, Schonfeld F (2005) Micromixers—a review on passive and active mixing principles. Chem Eng Sci 60:2479–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Howell PB, Mott DR, Fertig S, Kaplan CR, Golden JP, Oran ES, Ligler FS (2005) A microfluidic mixer with grooves placed on the top and bottom of the channel. Lab Chip 5:524–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koch M, Chatelain D, Evans AGR, Brunnschweiler A (1998) Two simple micromixers based on silicon. J Micromech Microeng 8:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee SW, Lee SS (2005) Microfabrication of the split and recombination micromixer and the effect of its cross-sectional rotation. Proceedings 3rd international conference on microchannels and minichannels, June 13–15, Toronto, Canada, ICMM2005–75187Google Scholar
  10. Munson MS, Yager P (2004) Simple quantitative optical method for monitoring the extent of mixing applied to a novel microfluidic mixer. Anal Chim Acta 507:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacInnes JM (2002) Computation of reacting electrokinetic flow in microchannel geometries. Chem Eng Sci 57:4539–4558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacInnes JM, Allen RWK (2005) Mixing strategies for flow in microchannel devices. Proceedings 7th world congress of chemical engineering, July 11–15, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. MacInnes JM, Du X, Allen RWK (2003) Prediction of electrokinetic and pressure flow in a microchannel T-junction. Phys Fluids 15(7):1992–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacInnes JM, Chen Z, Allen RWK (2005) Investigation of alternating-flow mixing in microchannels. Chem Eng Sci 60:3453–3467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacInnes JM, Vikhansky A, Allen RWK (2007) Numerical characterisation of folding flow microchannel mixers. Chem Eng Sci 62:2718–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nguyen N-T, Wu Z (2005) Micromixers—a review. J Micromech Microeng 15:R1–R16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ottino JM, Wiggins S (2004) Foundations of chaotic mixing 1. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 362:937–970CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Park S-J, Kim JK, Park J, Chung S, Chung C, Chang JK (2004) Rapid three-dimensional passive rotation micromixer using the breakup process. J Micromech Microeng 14:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schonfeld F, Hessel V, Hofmann C (2004) An optimised split-and-recombine micro-mixer with uniform ‘chaotic’ mixing. Lab Chip 4:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simonnet C, Groisman A (2005) Chaotic mixing in a steady flow in a microchannel. Phys Rev Lett 94:134501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stroock AD, Dertinger SKW, Ajdari A, Mezic I, Stone HA, Whitesides GM (2002) Chaotic mixer for microchannels. Science 295:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Veenstra TT, Lammerink TSJ, Elwenspoek MC, van den Berg A (1999) Characterization method for a new diffusion mixer applicable in micro flow injection analysis systems. J Micromech Microeng 9:199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Chen
    • 1
  • M. R. Bown
    • 1
  • B. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • J. M. MacInnes
    • 1
  • R. W. K. Allen
    • 1
  • M. Mulder
    • 2
  • M. Blom
    • 2
  • R. van’t Oever
    • 2
  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Micronit MicrofluidicsEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations