Desktop micromilled microfluidics
Micromilling is a proven method for prototyping microfluidic devices; however, high overhead costs, large machine footprints, an esoteric software stack, and nonstandard device bonding protocols may be hampering the widespread adoption of micromilling in the greater microfluidics community. This research exploits a free design-to-device software chain and uses it to explore the applicability of a new class of inexpensive, desktop micromills for fabricating microfluidic devices out of polycarbonate. We present an analysis framework for stratifying micromill’s spatial accuracy and surface quality. Utilizing this we concluded milling geometries directly on the substrate is advantageous to making molds out of the substrate, in terms of accuracy and minimum feature size. Moreover, we proposed a general procedure to calculate feedrate and spindle-speed for any sub-millimeter endmill based on a recommended load percentage. We also established stepover is the major parameter in determining the surface quality rather than spindle-speed and feedrate, showing low-cost mills are able to deliver high-quality surface finishes. Ultimately, we clarified the suitability of low-cost micromills and a cost-efficient assembly method in the field of microfluidics by demonstrating rate- and size-controlled microfluidic droplet generation.
KeywordsMicrofluidics Micromilling Low cost Microfabrication Droplet microfluidics
We like to thank Mohammadreza Rasouli from Biomat’X research laboratories at McGill University who provided a detailed pricing information on photolithography. We also like to thank Christopher Rodriguez and Sarah Nemsick for the image processing of the microfluidic droplet generation and graphic design, respectively. This work was supported by the NSF Living Computing Project Award \(\#1522074\) and NSF CAREER Award \(\#1253856\).
Supplementary material 2 (mp4 3623 KB)
- Ayoib A, Hashim U, Arshad MM, Thivina V (2016) Soft lithography of microfluidics channels using su-8 mould on glass substrate for low cost fabrication. In: 2016 IEEE EMBS conference on biomedical engineering and sciences (IECBES). IEEE, pp 226–229Google Scholar
- Brower K, White AK, Fordyce PM (2017) Multi-step variable height photolithography for valved multilayer microfluidic devices. J Vis Exp (119):e55276–e55276Google Scholar
- Harper CA (2000) Modern plastics handbook: handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Huang H, Densmore D (2014) Fluigi: microfluidic device synthesis for synthetic biology. ACM J Emerg Technol Comput Syst (JETC) 11(3):26Google Scholar
- Lashkaripour A, Abouei Mehrizi A, Rasouli M, Goharimanesh M (2015) Numerical study of droplet generation process in a microfluidic flow focusing. J Comput Appl Mech 46(2):167–175Google Scholar
- Lee K, Dornfeld DA (2004) A study of surface roughness in the micro-end-milling processGoogle Scholar
- Rasouli M, Abouei Mehrizi A, Lashkaripour A (2015) Numerical study on low reynolds mixing oft-shaped micro-mixers with obstacles. Transp Phenom Nano Micro Scales 3(2):68–76Google Scholar
- Solutions H (2016) Helical machining guidebook. Helical Solutions, LLC, GorhamGoogle Scholar
- Tang J, Guo H, Zhao M, Yang J, Tsoukalas D, Zhang B, Liu J, Xue C, Zhang W (2015) Highly stretchable electrodes on wrinkled polydimethylsiloxane substrates. Sci Rep 5(16):527Google Scholar