Soft lithography fabrication of index-matched microfluidic devices for reducing artifacts in fluorescence and quantitative phase imaging

  • Diane N. H. Kim
  • Kevin T. Kim
  • Carolyn Kim
  • Michael A. Teitell
  • Thomas A. ZangleEmail author
Research Paper


Microfluidic devices are widely used for biomedical applications based on microscopy or other optical detection methods. However, the materials commonly used for microfabrication typically have a high refractive index relative to water, which can create artifacts at device edges and limit applicability to applications requiring high-precision imaging or morphological feature detection. Here we present a soft lithography method to fabricate microfluidic devices out of MY133-V2000, a UV-curable, fluorinated polymer with low refractive index that is close to that of water (n = 1.33). The primary challenge in the use of this material (and fluorinated materials in general) is the low adhesion of the fluorinated material; we present several alternative fabrication methods we have tested to improve inter-layer adhesion. The close match between the refractive index of this material and aqueous solutions commonly used in biomedical applications enables fluorescence imaging at microchannel or other microfabricated edges without distortion. The close match in refractive index also enables quantitative phase microscopy imaging across the full width of microchannels without error-inducing artifacts for measurement of cell biomass. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of low-refractive index microfluidics for biological applications requiring high-precision optical imaging.


Microfluidic device Microfabrication Refractive index Fluorescence imaging Quantitative phase imaging 



The authors would like to thank Yu-Chun Kung (NantWorks) for assistance in microfabrication and Dr. Ribas’s laboratory (UCLA) for providing cell lines. Mask and primary SU-8 mold fabrication was performed in the UCLA California NanoSystems Institute’s Integrated Systems Nanofabrication Cleanroom with the assistance of cleanroom staff. This work was supported by the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Broad Stem Cell Research Center at UCLA, and the National Institutes of Health (K25CA157940). This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. 114408.


  1. Andersson H, van den Berg A (2003) Microfluidic devices for cellomics: a review. Sensors Actuators B Chem 92:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baret JC et al (2009) Fluorescence-activated droplet sorting (FADS): efficient microfluidic cell sorting based on enzymatic activity. Lab Chip 9:1850–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolo D, Degre G, Nghe P, Studer V (2008) Microfluidic stickers. Lab Chip 8:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bon P, Maucort G, Wattellier B, Monneret S (2009) Quadriwave lateral shearing interferometry for quantitative phase microscopy of living cells. Opt Expr 17(15):13080–13094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bon P, Savatier J, Merlin M, Wattelier B, Monneret S (2012) Optical detection and measurement of living cell morphometric features with single-shot quantitative phase microscopy. J Biomed Opt 17:076004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budwig R (1994) Refractive index matching methods for liquid flow investigations. Exp Fluids 17:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byron ML, Variano EA (2013) Refractive-index-matched hydrogel materials for measuring flow-structure interactions. Exp Fluids 54:1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng Y-H, Chen Y-C, Brien R, Yoon E (2016) Scaling and automation of a high-throughput single-cell-derived tumor sphere assay chip. Lab Chip 16:3708–3717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi JW et al (2002) An integrated microfluidic biochemical detection system for protein analysis with magnetic bead-based sampling capabilities. Lab Chip 2:27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chun J, Zangle TA, Kolarova T, Finn RS, Teitell MA, Reed J (2012) Rapidly quantifying drug sensitivity of dispersed and clumped breast cancer cells by mass profiling. Analyst 137:5495–5498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung K, Crane MM, Lu H (2008) Automated on-chip rapid microscopy, phenotyping and sorting of C. elegans. Nat Methods 5:637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung C-C, Cheng I-F, Lin C-C, Chang H-C (2011a) Rapid quantification of bio-particles based on image visualisation in a dielectrophoretic microfluidic chip. Microfluid Nanofluid 10:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chung K, Kim Y, Kanodia JS, Gong E, Shvartsman SY, Lu H (2011b) A microfluidic array for large-scale ordering and orientation of embryos. Nat Methods 8:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung BG, Lee K-H, Khademhosseini A, Lee S-H (2012) Microfluidic fabrication of microengineered hydrogels and their application in tissue engineering. Lab Chip 12:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung K et al (2013) Structural and molecular interrogation of intact biological systems. Nature 497:332–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crocker JC, Grier DG (1996) Methods of digital video microscopy for colloidal studies. J Colloids Interface Sci 179:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dave FF, Hae Woon C, Burr Z, Jeremy KS, Jeffery JC, Susan VO, Lee LJ (2008) Femtosecond laser micromachining of dielectric materials for biomedical applications. J Micromech Microeng 18:035020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Carlo D, Wu LY, Lee LP (2006) Dynamic single cell culture array. Lab Chip 6:1445–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dittrich PS, Manz A (2006) Lab-on-a-chip: microfluidics in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghiglia DC, Pritt MD (1998) Two-dimensional phase unwrapping: theory, algorithms, and software, vol 4. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Giepmans BN, Adams SR, Ellisman MH, Tsien RY (2006) The fluorescent toolbox for assessing protein location and function. Science 312:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Golden AP, Tien J (2007) Fabrication of microfluidic hydrogels using molded gelatin as a sacrificial element. Lab Chip 7:720–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstein RM, Zebker HA, Werner CL (1988) Satellite radar interferometry: two-dimensional phase unwrapping. Radio Sci 23:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Groh W, Zimmermann A (1991) What is the lowest refractive index of an organic polymer? Macromolecules 24:6660–6663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heckele M, Schomburg WK (2004) Review on micro molding of thermoplastic polymers. J Micromech Microeng 14:R1–R14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang S-H, Huang K-S, Liou Y-M (2016) Simultaneous monitoring of oxygen consumption and acidification rates of a single zebrafish embryo during embryonic development within a microfluidic device. Microfluid Nanofluid 21:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jang J, Bae CY, Park J, Ye JC (2010) Self-reference quantitative phase microscopy for microfluidic devices. Opt Lett 35:514–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jovic A, Howell B, Takayama S (2009) Timing is everything: using fluidics to understand the role of temporal dynamics in cellular systems. Microfluid Nanofluid 6:717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kandel ME, Teng KW, Selvin PR, Popescu G (2017) Label-free imaging of single microtubule dynamics using spatial light interference microscopy. ACS Nano 11:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim DNH, Teitell MA, Reed J, Zangle TA (2015) Hybrid random walk-linear discriminant analysis method for unwrapping quantitative phase microscopy images of biological samples. J Biomed Opt 20:111211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirby BJ, Hasselbrink EF (2004) Zeta potential of microfluidic substrates: 1. Theory, experimental techniques, and effects on separations. Electrophoresis 25:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lam P, Wynne KJ, Wnek GE (2002) Surface-tension-confined microfluidics. Langmuir 18:948–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leonard DW, Meek KM (1997) Refractive indices of the collagen fibrils and extrafibrillar material of the corneal stroma. Biophys J 72:1382–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lue N, Popescu G (2006) Live cell refractometry using microfluidic devices. Opt Lett 31:2759–2761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazzoccoli JP, Feke DL, Baskaran H, Pintauro PN (2010) Mechanical and cell viability properties of crosslinked low-and high-molecular weight poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate blends. J Biomed Mater Res A 93:558–566Google Scholar
  36. McDonald JC, Whitesides GM (2002) Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for fabricating microfluidic devices. Acc Chem Res 35:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mir M et al (2011) Optical measurement of cycle-dependent cell growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:13124–13129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ntziachristos V (2006) Fluorescence molecular imaging. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 8:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nunes PS, Ohlsson PD, Ordeig O, Kutter JP (2010) Cyclic olefin polymers: emerging materials for lab-on-a-chip applications. Microfluid Nanofluid 9:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paguirigan A, Beebe D (2006) Gelatin based microfluidic devices for cell culture. Lab Chip 6:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pérez-Madrigal MM et al (2014) Thermoplastic polyurethane: polythiophene nanomembranes for biomedical and biotechnological applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:9719–9732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Popescu G, Park K, Mir M, Bashir R (2014) New technologies for measuring single cell mass. Lab Chip 14:646–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quake SR, Scherer A (2000) From micro- to nanofabrication with soft materials. Science 290:1536–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reed J et al (2011) Rapid, massively parallel single-cell drug response measurements via live cell interferometry. Biophys J 101:1025–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sackmann EK, Fulton AL, Beebe DJ (2014) The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research. Nature 507:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmit J, Creath K, Kujawinska M (1993) Spatial and temporal phase-measurement techniques: a comparison of major error sources in one dimension. Proc SPIE 1755:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Søndergaard JN et al (2010) Differential sensitivity of melanoma cell lines with BRAFV600E mutation to the specific Raf inhibitor PLX4032. J Trans Med 8:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sun J, Liu W, Li Y, Gholamipour-Shirazi A, Abdulla A, Ding X (2017) An on-chip cell culturing and combinatorial drug screening system. Microfluid Nanofluid 21:125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorsen T, Maerkl SJ, Quake SR (2002) Microfluidic large-scale integration. Science 298:580–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valero A, Merino F, Wolbers F, Luttge R, Vermes I, Andersson H, van den Berg A (2005) Apoptotic cell death dynamics of HL60 cells studied using a microfluidic cell trap device. Lab Chip 5:49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vickerman V, Blundo J, Chung S, Kamm R (2008) Design, fabrication and implementation of a novel multi-parameter control microfluidic platform for three-dimensional cell culture and real-time imaging. Lab Chip 8:1468–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wabuyele MB, Ford SM, Stryjewski W, Barrow J, Soper SA (2001) Single molecule detection of double-stranded DNA in poly (methylmethacrylate) and polycarbonate microfluidic devices. Electrophoresis 22:3939–3948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang MM et al (2005) Microfluidic sorting of mammalian cells by optical force switching. Nat Biotechnol 23:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weibel DB, Diluzio WR, Whitesides GM (2007) Microfabrication meets microbiology. Nat Rev Microbiol 5:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitesides GM (2006) The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature 442:368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xia Y, Whitesides GM (1998) Soft lithography. Annu Rev Mater Sci 28:153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yan Z, Huang X, Yang C (2017) Rapid prototyping of single-layer microfluidic PDMS devices with abrupt depth variations under non-clean-room conditions by using laser ablation and UV-curable polymer. Microfluid Nanofluid 21:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yeh C-H, Lin P-W, Lin Y-C (2009) Chitosan microfiber fabrication using a microfluidic chip and its application to cell cultures. Microfluid Nanofluid 8:115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yeo LY, Chang HC, Chan PP, Friend JR (2011) Microfluidic devices for bioapplications. Small 7:12–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zangle TA, Teitell MA (2014) Live-cell mass profiling: an emerging approach in quantitative biophysics. Nat Methods 11:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zangle TA, Mani A, Santiago JG (2009) On the propagation of concentration polarization from microchannel-nanochannel interfaces part II. Numerical and experimental study. Langmuir ACS J Surf Colloids 25:3909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zangle TA, Burnes D, Mathis C, Witte ON, Teitell MA (2013a) Quantifying biomass changes of single CD8 + T cells during antigen specific cytotoxicity. PLoS ONE 8:e68916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zangle TA, Chun J, Zhang J, Reed J, Teitell MA (2013b) Quantification of biomass and cell motion in human pluripotent stem cell colonies. Biophys J 105:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zare RN, Kim S (2010) Microfluidic platforms for single-cell analysis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceUCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Broad Stem Cell Research Center, California Nanosystems Institute, and Molecular Biology InstituteUCLALos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of Chemical Engineering and Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations