There has been a growing interest in the application of microfluidic systems to a variety of technical areas, including such diverse fields as biochemical analysis, medical diagnostics, chemical synthesis, and environmental monitoring. For example, use of microfluidic systems for acquiring chemical and biological information presents certain advantages. In particular, microfluidic systems permit complicated biochemical reactions and processes to be carried out using very small volumes of fluid. In addition to minimizing sample volume, microfluidic systems increase the response time of reactions and reduce reagent consumption. Furthermore, when conducted in microfluidic volumes, a large number of complicated biochemical reactions and/or processes may be carried out in a small area, such as in a single integrated device. Examples of desirable applications for microfluidic technology include analytical chemistry; chemical and biological synthesis, DNA amplification; and screening of chemical and biological agents for activity, among others.
Traditional methods for constructing microfluidic devices have used surface micromachining techniques borrowed from the silicon fabrication industry. According to these techniques, microfluidic devices have been constructed in a planar fashion, typically covered with a glass or other cover material to enclose fluid channels. Representative devices are described, for example, in some early work by Manz, et al. (Trends in Anal. Chem. (1990) 10(5): 144-149; Advances in Chromatography (1993) 33: 1-66). These publications describe microfluidic devices constructed using photolithography to pattern channels on silicon or glass substrates, followed by application of surface etching techniques to remove material from a substrate to form channels. Thereafter, a cover plate is typically to the top of an etched substrate to enclose the channels and contain a flowing fluid.
More recently, a number of methods have been developed that allow microfluidic devices to be constructed from plastic, silicone or other polymeric materials. Fabrication methods include micromolding of plastics or silicone using surface-etched silicon as the mold material (see, e.g., Duffy et al., Anal. Chem. (1998) 70: 4974-4984; McCormick et al., Anal. Chem. (1997) 69: 2626-2630); injection-molding; and micromolding using a LIGA technique (see, e.g., Schomburg et al., Journal of Micromechanical Microengineering (1994) 4: 186-191), as developed at the Karolsruhe Nuclear Research Center in Germany and commercialized by MicroParts (Dortmund, Germany). LIGA and hot-embossing techniques have also been demonstrated by Jenoptik (Jena, Germany). Imprinting methods in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) have also been described (see, e.g., Martynova et al., Anal. Chem. (1997) 69: 4783-4789). These various techniques are typically used to fashion planar (i.e., two dimensional, or 2-D) structures that require some sort of cover to enclose microfluidic channels. Additionally, these techniques do not lend themselves to rapid prototyping and manufacturing flexibility. Moreover, the tool-up costs for such techniques are often quite high and can be cost-prohibitive
A more recent method for constructing microfluidic devices uses a KrF laser to perform bulk laser ablation in fluorocarbons that have been compounded with carbon black to cause the fluorocarbon to be absorptive of the KrF laser (see, e.g., McNeely et a., “Hydrophobic Microfluidics,” SPIE Microfluidic Devices & Systems I/I, Vol. 3877 (1999)). This method is reported to reduce prototyping time; however, the addition of carbon black renders the material optically impure and presents potential chemical compatibility issues. Additionally, the reference is directed only to planar structures.
When working with fluids in conventional macroscopic volumes, achieving effective mixing between two or more fluid streams is a relatively straightforward task. Various conventional strategies may be employed to induce turbulent regions that cause fluid streams to mix rapidly. For example, active stirring or mixing elements (e.g., mechanically or magnetically driven) may be employed. Alternatively, special geometries may be employed in flow channels to promote mixing without the use of moving elements. One common example of the use of special geometries includes the addition of baffles to deflect flowing fluid streams and thereby promote turbulence.
Applying conventional mixing strategies to microfluidic volumes is generally ineffective, impractical, or both. To begin with, microfluidic systems are characterized by extremely high surface-to-volume ratios and correspondingly low Reynolds numbers (less than 2000) for most achievable fluid flow rates. At such low Reynolds numbers, fluid flow within most microfluidic systems is squarely within the laminar regime, and mixing between fluid streams is motivated primarily by the phenomenon of diffusion—typically a relatively slow process. In the laminar regime, using conventional geometric modifications such as baffles is generally ineffective for promoting mixing. Moreover, the task of integrating moveable stirring elements and/or their drive means in microfluidic devices would be prohibitively difficult using conventional means due to volumetric and/or cost constraints, in addition to concerns regarding their complexity and reliability. In light of these limitations, it would be desirable to provide a microfluidic mixer that could rapidly mix fluid streams without moving parts, in a minimal space, and at a very low construction cost. An ideal fluid mixer would further be characterized by minimal dead volume to facilitate mixing of extremely small fluid volumes.
Passive microfluidic mixing devices have been constructed in substantially planar microfluidic systems where the fluids are allowed to mix through diffusion (e.g., Bokenkamp, et al., Analytical Chemistry (1998) 70(2): 232-236. In these systems, fluid mixing occurs at the interface of the fluids, which is commonly small relative to the overall volume of the fluids. Thus, mixing occurs in such devices very slowly.
Another passive microfluidic mixer has been proposed by Erbacher and Manz in WIPO International Application Number PCT/EP96/02425 (Publication Number WO 97/00125), published Jan. 3, 1997. There, a flow cell for mixing of at least two flowable substances includes multiple fluid distribution troughs (one for each substance) leading to a fan-like converging planar flow bed, all disposed between fluid inlets and an outlet. One limitation of the disclosed mixing apparatus is that its components (e.g., supply channels, distribution troughs, and flow bed) are fabricated by conventional surface micromachining techniques such as those used for structuring semiconductor materials and lithographic-galvanic LIGA process, with their attendant drawbacks mentioned above. A further limitation of the disclosed mixing apparatus are that its components consume a relatively large volume, thus limiting the ability to place many such mixers on a single device and providing a large potential dead volume.
A so-called “microlaminar mixer” is provided in U.S. Pat. No. 6,264,900 to Schubert, et al. There, an improved nozzle includes a microfabricated guide that supplies multiple distinct fluid layers to an external collecting tank or chamber. Various reactive fluid streams are kept spatially separated until they emerge from the guide, specifically to prevent the starting components from coming into contact with one another within the device. One limitation of the disclosed nozzle-type system is that its “guide” component is fabricated with conventional surface micromachining techniques with their attendant drawbacks. A further limitation of this nozzle-type system is that it would be highly impractical, if not impossible, to integrate such components into a single microfluidic device for further manipulation of the resulting fluid following the mixing step.
Alternative mixing methods have been developed based on electrokinetic flow. Devices utilizing such methods are complicated, requiring electrical contacts within the system. Additionally these systems only work with charged fluids, or fluids containing electrolytes. Finally, these systems require voltages that are sufficiently high to cause electrolysis of water, thus causing problems with bubble formation is a problem and collecting samples without destroying them.
In light of the limitations of conventional microfluidic mixers, there exists a need for robust mixers capable of rapidly and thoroughly mixing a wide variety of fluids within a minimal volume in a microfluidic environment. Such mixer designs would preferably be amenable to rapid, low cost fabrication in both low and high volumes, would be suitable for prototyping and large-scale manufacturing, and would permit further processing of fluids downstream of any mixing region(s).
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds