Biomedical Microdevices

, 17:17 | Cite as

Microfluidic filtration and extraction of pathogens from food samples by hydrodynamic focusing and inertial lateral migration

  • Liviu Clime
  • Xuyen D. Hoa
  • Nathalie Corneau
  • Keith J. Morton
  • Christian Luebbert
  • Maxence Mounier
  • Daniel Brassard
  • Matthias Geissler
  • Sabah Bidawid
  • Jeff Farber
  • Teodor Veres
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Detecting pathogenic bacteria in food or other biological samples with lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices requires several sample preparation steps prior to analysis which commonly involves cleaning complex sample matrices of large debris. This often underestimated step is important to prevent these larger particles from clogging devices and to preserve initial concentrations when LOC techniques are used to concentrate or isolate smaller target microorganisms for downstream analysis. In this context, we developed a novel microfluidic system for membrane-free cleaning of biological samples from debris particles by combining hydrodynamic focusing and inertial lateral migration effects. The microfluidic device is fabricated using thermoplastic elastomers being compatible with thermoforming fabrication techniques leading to low-cost single-use devices. Microfluidic chip design and pumping protocols are optimized by investigating diffusive losses numerically with coupled Navier–Stokes and convective-diffusion theoretical models. Stability of inertial lateral migration and separation of debris is assessed through fluorescence microscopy measurements with labelled particles serving as a model system. Efficiency of debris cleaning is experimentally investigated by monitoring microchip outlets with in situ optical turbidity sensors, while retention of targeted pathogens (i.e., Listeria monocytogenes) within the sample stream is assessed through bacterial culture techniques. Optimized pumping protocols can remove up to 50 % of debris from ground beef samples while percentage for preserved microorganisms can account for 95 % in relatively clean samples. However, comparison between inoculated turbid and clean samples (i.e., with and without ground beef debris) indicate some degree of interference between debris inertial lateral migration and hydrodynamic focusing of small microorganisms. Although this interference can lead to significant decrease in chip performance through loss of target bacteria, it remains possible to reach 70 % for sample recovery and more than 50 % for debris removal even in the most turbid samples tested. Due to the relatively simple design, the robustness of the inertial migration effect itself, the high operational flow rates and fabrication methods that leverage low-cost materials, the proposed device can have an impact on a wide range of applications where high-throughput separation of particles and biological species is of interest.

Keywords

Inertial microfluidics Hydrodynamic focusing Microfluidic filtration Sample preparation Hot embossing Food safety inspection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Franco Pagotto and Karine Hébert (Health Canada) for providing us with the Listeria strain used in this study, Dr. Virginie Barrère, Dr. Geneviève Marchand and Dr. Dominic Lambert (Health Canada) for critical review of the manuscript, and Hélène Roberge (NRC) for SEM imaging. We also thank Réseau québécois de calcul de haute performance (RQCHP) for providing computational facilities. This study was co-funded by Health Canada and the National Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. H. Amini, E. Sollier, W.M. Weaver, D. Di Carlo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109(29), 11593–11598 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. A.A.S. Bhagat, S.S. Kuntaegowdanahalli, I. Papautsky, Microfluid. Nanofluid. 7(2), 217–226 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Boland, A.R. Latour, F.J. Stutzenberger, Handbook of bacterial adhesion: principles, methods and applications (Humana Press, Totowa, 2000)Google Scholar
  4. D. Brassard, L. Clime, K. Li, M. Geissler, C. Miville-Godin, E. Roy, T. Veres, Lab Chip 14, 4099–4107 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Y.-J. Chiu, S.H. Cho, Z. Mei, V. Lien, T.-F. Wu, Y.-H. Lo, Lab Chip 13(9), 1803–1809 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. L. Clime, B. Le Drogoff, S. Zhao, Z. Zhang, T. Veres, Int. J. Nanotechnol. 5(9–12), 1268–1305 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Di Carlo, Lab Chip 9(21), 3038–3046 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D. Di Carlo, D. Irimia, R.G. Tompkins, M. Toner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104(48), 18892–18897 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Escarpa, Lab Chip (2014). doi: 10.1039/C4LC00172A Google Scholar
  10. J.M. Farber, P.I. Peterkin, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. R. 55, 476–511 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. M. Geissler, S. Isabel, B. Voisin, C. Fauvel, M. Boissinot, M. G. Bergeron, T. Veres, J. Bioterr. Biodef. 3, 119-111-116 (2012).Google Scholar
  12. S.C. Hur, S.-E. Choi, S. Kwon, D. Di Carlo, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(4), 044101 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Isabel, M. Boissinot, I. Charlebois, C.M. Fauvel, L.-E. Shi, J.-C. Levesque, A.T. Paquin, M. Bastien, G. Stewart, E. Leblanc, S. Sato, M.G. Bergeron, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 1505–1512 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. R.F. Ismagilov, A.D. Stroock, P.J.A. Kenis, G. Whitesides, H.A. Stone, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76(17), 2376–2378 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. A.E. Kamholz, P. Yager, Biophys. J. 80, 155–160 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. L.A. Kuznetsova, W.T. Coakley, Biosens. Bioelectron. 22(8), 3883–3892 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. B.H. Lapizco-Encinas, B.A. Simmons, E.B. Cummings, Y. Fintschenko, Anal. Chem. 76(6), 1571–1579 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. W.W.-F. Leung, Centrifugal separation in biotechnology (Elsevier/Academic Press, Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar
  19. D.V. Lim, J.M. Simpson, E.A. Kearns, M.F. Kramer, Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18, 583–607 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Madou, J. Zoval, G. Jia, H. Kido, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 8, 601–628 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. D. Mark, S. Haeberle, G. Roth, F. von Stetten, R. Zengerle, Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 1153–1182 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. J.C. McDonald, G.M. Whitesides, Acc. Chem. Res. 35, 491–499 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Nasir, D.R. Mott, M.J. Kennedy, J.P. Golden, F.S. Ligler, Microfluid. Nanofluid. 11(2), 119–128 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Neethirajan, I. Kobayashi, M. Nakajima, D. Wu, S. Nandagopal, F. Lin, Lab Chip 11, 1574–1586 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. H.A. Nieuwstadt, R. Seda, D.S. Li, J.B. Fowlkes, J.L. Bull, Biomed. Microdev. 13(1), 97–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. E. Roy, M. Geissler, J.-C. Galas, T. Veres, Microfluid. Nanofluid. 11, 235–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. P.G. Saffman, J. Fluid. Mech. 22(2), 385–385 (1965)Google Scholar
  28. P.G. Saffman, J. Fluid. Mech. 31(1), 624–624 (1968)Google Scholar
  29. G. Segre, A. Silberberg, Nature 189, 209–209 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. K. Tanaka, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday. Trans. 1(74), 1879–1881 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. H. Wei, B.-H. Chueh, H. Wu, E.W. Hall, C.-W. Li, R. Schirhagl, J.-M. Lin, R.N. Zare, Lab Chip 11(2), 238–245 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Crown Copyright as represented by the National Research Council of Canada 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liviu Clime
    • 1
  • Xuyen D. Hoa
    • 1
  • Nathalie Corneau
    • 2
  • Keith J. Morton
    • 1
  • Christian Luebbert
    • 2
  • Maxence Mounier
    • 1
  • Daniel Brassard
    • 1
  • Matthias Geissler
    • 1
  • Sabah Bidawid
    • 2
  • Jeff Farber
    • 2
  • Teodor Veres
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research Council of CanadaBouchervilleCanada
  2. 2.Bureau of Microbial HazardsHealth CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations