
table of contents ![]() The authors demonstrated the principle of doublet streaming and described the ensuing … '); |
Biology Articles » Bioengineering » A bubble-driven microfluidic transport element for bioengineering » Article
Article
|
![]() |
[1]
|
,
, and
are dimensionless Green`s functions of point force, dipole, and (a projection of) hexadecapole singularities placed at the bubble center, taking into account the presence of a wall. Explicit expressions for all of these contributions are found in refs. 28 and 30 (P.M. and S.H., unpublished work). The leading-order term is the stokeslet Green's function (the flow induced by a point force, such as a small particle falling in a liquid):
![]() |
[2]
|
, and a stokeslet doublet
(28). The standoff distance of the bubble center to the wall is called hb here. The subtraction sign is valid for j = z (stokeslet perpendicular to the wall), and the addition sign is valid for a stokeslet parallel to the wall. The flow field (2) fulfills no-slip boundary conditions at the wall, as does the complete flow (1), whose streamline pattern is shown in Fig. 2.
The far-field characteristic of this flow is dominated by that of
, derived from Eq. 2 for r ≫ r′ >> a, which results in
![]() |
[3]
|
We now propose a method to obtain modified streaming flows, shifting the focus from inducing deformation and rupture of cells or vesicles to transporting these objects over the substrate, a first step toward a microfluidic device useful, e.g., in cytometry. Microbubbles can be used for this purpose as well: The bubble oscillation induces a streaming flow not only around itself, but also around any other object nearby, in particular a solid particle at a position p. Amin and Riley (25) calculated this Stokes flow and concluded that its leading-order singularity is another point force (stokeslet) flow, but now with the force oriented parallel to the wall (Fig. 3) rather than perpendicular
![]() |
[4]
|
is the flow generated by a unit point force parallel to the wall, with coordinates relative to the particle position (rp = x - p). This calculation shows that the strength of the flow induced by the particle relative to that of the bubble is s = 3/8 × (a/L)4D3/(D2 - 1)2 × 2/sin(ΔΦ). Such a parallel stokeslet flow field, shown in Fig. 3, is very different from that of Fig. 2. The far-field behavior for radial flow derived from Eq. 4 is
![]() |
[5]
|
The presence of a solid object has profound consequences for the overall steady-flow field, which is the superposition of the bubble and particle streaming fields: (i) the cylindrical flow field symmetry is broken, (ii) the streamlines are not closed anymore, and (iii) the far-field decay is now dominated by the 1/r2 behavior of the stokeslet parallel to the wall, increasing the reach of the flow field.
The flow field of the bubble/particle combination (which we shall call a doublet) is easily obtained in the present small scale regime, where inertial forces are negligible compared to viscous forces (Stokes regime). The superposition principle allows for linear combination of the flow fields generated by different sources, here the bubble and the particle. As a first approximation, we do not take into account the deformation of the particle streamlines induced by the finite size of the bubble (where the bubble streaming actually is dominant). The streamlines are computed from the integration of the doublet flow field
by using a Runge–Kutta–Fehlberg algorithm. For given initial conditions, the streamline shape depends only on the relative strength, s, of the constituent flow fields.
An example calculation of a (three-dimensional) streamline of the complete streaming field is shown in Fig. 4. The circle and arrow represent the bubble and particle, respectively. On the bubble side of the doublet, the streamline vortex loops are still discernible. A spiraling motion leads the streamline around the bubble, and the radial amplitude is damped. Close to the particle, the streamline revolves around the particle position until asymptoting toward a streamline of the far field shown in Fig. 3.
The characteristics of doublet streaming can be observed when a suspended particle approaches a bubble attached to the wall. Fig. 5 shows a large bubble that has “caught” a quartz particle, which remains almost stationary (vibrating slightly) at one of the stagnant flow positions of the pure bubble flow field (Fig. 2). The stationary position of the particle is reminiscent of recent work on the self-organization of much larger particles (0.8 mm in diameter) in a vibrated liquid (31) (that flow is, however, not driven by bubbles, and is characterized by different streaming patterns). A doublet is thus formed. Fig. 6 shows an experimentally observed trajectory (dashed) of a vesicle that approaches this doublet. Indeed, the small vesicle undergoes just the sequence of events simulated by the trajectory in Fig. 4: it bounces off the bubble, is transported around, and is then expelled on the particle side of the doublet, where it leaves the field of view. A second, larger vesicle, whose trajectory is also shown in Fig. 6, gets too close to the particle itself, where the shear forces tear it apart (cross in Fig. 6). Images of this event can be seen in Fig. 5: the ruptured vesicle material is ejected from the doublet as a jet of liquid (arrows in Fig. 5) with a velocity and direction that agrees with the simulations of the doublet singularities. The agreement remains qualitative, both because of missing experimental information (hp could not be measured) and approximations in the theory [the particle is not a sphere, but disk-shaped, and its distance from the bubble is small enough to result in significant contributions from higher-order terms in Amin and Riley's (25) formalism].
We have thus established that directional motion of micrometer-sized vesicles in steady streaming flow is possible. The controlled break-up of the vesicle in Fig. 5 (at a well defined position induced by a well controlled flow field) suggests a direct application in cell homogenization (32), where the desire is a gentle, controlled opening of the cell wall to release cell or- ganelles of smaller scale without destroying them.
At lower acoustic intensity, rupture events should cease altogether and transport will be dominant. To move cells or vesicles over larger distances, several doublets could pass the objects on to each other. A simulation of the flow generated by two adjacent doublets with parallel orientations (Fig. 7) shows that the fluid particles are indeed “handed over” from bubble to bubble. The same will then happen to any approximately passive tracer particle or substance.
The integration of doublets in microfluidic devices is a natural next step, which could be achieved by various experimental designs. We propose a simple solution involving two construction elements: small patches of hydrophobic material on a hydrophilic substrate, and etched protrusions of the substrate (Fig. 8). Bubbles will preferentially attach to the patches, and the protrusions play the role of the particles in the doublet simulations discussed above. Because of the capillary pressure inside a bubble, micrometer-sized bubbles tend to lose gas to the surrounding liquid by diffusion. For bubbles larger than a few micrometers and liquid saturated with air, this process is slow compared to the transport time scales considered here. For smaller bubbles, the loss of gas is counteracted by the oscillation itself: at sufficiently large driving amplitude, the net effect of oscillatory motion is a net gain of gas over a cycle. This process is called rectified diffusion and can be used to achieve a stable equilibrium bubble size (33).
The simulations indicate that it is not essential for the transport whether the particle is attached to the substrate or not. An alternative design would have holes instead of the hydrophobic patches, so that gas can be added or removed from below, allowing for an active control of bubble size. Etching, milling of holes, and wettability patterning are standard techniques today (34–36) and should pose no problem for the suggested sizes of patches and particles of several tens of micrometers. We currently investigate these and similar designs in collaboration with A. van den Berg (University of Twente and MESA+ Center for Micro- and Nanotechnology).
How do microacoustic devices using bubble–particle doublets compare to more “conventional” microfluidic microelectromechanical systems? The most striking feature of our bubble-driven design is that it operates in bulk liquid and does not need microchannels. The relatively large bulk liquid volume is disadvantageous if the liquid processed is valuable (as in some lab-on-a-chip applications). When the medium is inexpensive, however, forgoing microchannels makes the device significantly simpler and cheaper. Without having to etch a large number of microchannels, such a device can easily process a large number of cells or similar microobjects through many parallel transport lines, applying the same forces to each of the objects. Moreover, microchannels or microcapillaries may be clogged by suspended particles (37), which is not an issue here. The speed of transport can be varied easily and interactively by changing amplitude and frequency of the ultrasound. The velocities achievable here (at least several millimeters per second) compare favorably with the highest typically achieved in other microfluidic devices (38). Larger driving pressure amplitudes will increase the obtainable velocities further.
The most promising applications for bubble-driven microfluidics lie in the manipulation of biological materials, such as in cell sorting, cell fusion, or vesicle fusion. Microbubbles provide not only an effective transport mechanism but at the same time exert large localized shear forces whenever the transported object comes near a bubble. As these forces are sufficient to open pores in lipid membranes (23), drug delivery or gene transfection simultaneous to transport becomes possible. An application close at hand and discussed before is gentle, controlled cell homogenization (32).
rating: 2.50 from 2 votes | updated on: 31 Oct 2006 | views: 3211 |
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Disclaimer & Privacy