Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:47:37.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transport Model for Microfluidic Device for Cell Culture and Tissue Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2011

Niraj Inamdar ,
Linda Griffith  and
Jeffrey T. Borenstein
Niraj Inamdar
Affiliation:
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., Department of Biomedical Engineering, 555 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A
Linda Griffith
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Biological Engineering, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A
Jeffrey T. Borenstein
Affiliation:
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., Department of Biomedical Engineering, 555 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

In recent years, microfluidic devices have emerged as a platform in which to culture tissue for various applications such as drug discovery, toxicity testing, and fundamental investigations of cell-cell interactions. We examine the transport phenomena associated with gradients of soluble factors and oxygen in a microfluidic device for co-culture. This work focuses on emulating conditions known to be important in sustaining a viable culture of cells. Critical parameters include the flow and the resulting shear stresses, the transport of various soluble factors throughout the flow media, and the mechanical arrangement of the cells in the device. Using analytical models derived from first principles, we investigate interactions between flow conditions and transport in a microfluidic device. A particular device of interest is a bilayer configuration in which critical solutes such as oxygen are delivered through the media into one channel, transported across a nanoporous membrane, and consumed by cells cultured in another. The ability to control the flow conditions in this membrane bilayer device to achieve sufficient oxygenation without shear damage is shown to be superior to the case present in a single channel system. Using the results of these analyses, a set of criteria that characterize the geometric and transport properties of a robust microfluidic device are provided.

Keywords

fluidicsbiomedicalmicroelectro-mechanical (MEMS)
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1299: Symposium S – Microelectromechanical Systems—Materials and Devices IV , 2011 , mrsf10-1299-s09-17
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Carraro, A.andHsu, W.andKulig, K.M.andCheung, W.S.andMiller, M.L.andWeinberg, E.J.andSwart, E.F.andKaazempur-Mofrad, M.andBorenstein, J.T.andVacanti, J.P.andNeville, C., Biomed. Microdevices, 10, 795–805 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Borenstein, J.T., in Comprehensive Microsystems, edited by Gianchandani, Y.B., Tabata, O., and Zappe, H., (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2005) 2, pp. 541–584.Google Scholar
3. Kaazempur-Mofrad, M.R., Vacanti, J.P., Krebs, N.J., and Borenstein, J.T., Solid-State Sensor, Actuator and Microsystems Workshop, Hilton Head Island (2004).Google Scholar
4. Chen, Z., Kujawa, S.G., McKenna, M.J., Fiering, J.O., Mescher, M.J., Borenstein, J.T., Leary Swan, E.E., and Sewell, W.F., J. Controlled Release, 110, 1–19 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. LaVan, D.A., Lynn, D.M., and Langer, R., Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 1, 77–84 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Sia, S.K. and Whitesides, G.M., Electrophoresis, 24, 3563–3576 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Zeng, Y., Lee, T.S., Yu, P., Roy, P., and Low, H.T., J. Biomech. Eng., 128, 185–194 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Tanaka, Y., Yamato, M., Okano, T., Kitamori, T., and Sato, K., Meas. Sci. Technol., 17, 3167–3170 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Lee, P.J., Hung, P.J., and Lee, L.P., Biotechnol. Bioeng., 97, 1340–1346(2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Park, J., Berthiaume, F., Toner, M., Yarmush, M. L., Tilles, A. W., Biotechnol. Bioeng., 90, 632–644(2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hoganson, D.M., Anderson, J.L., Weinberg, E.F., Swart, E.J., Orrick, B.K., Borenstein, J.T., and Vacanti, J.P., J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 140, 990–995 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Borenstein, J.T., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 1139, 1139-GG02-01 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar