Microfluidics and the Elusive Lab-on-a-Chip
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- One of the science’s big dreams has been to leverage these technologies to radically miniaturize and encapsulate the laboratory: the Lab-on-a-Chip
People have been pouring a lot of time and resources into the space. There are thousands of papers published on microfluidics. And it does offer tantalizing promise.
But it is also littered with many commercial failures ... and one very big fraud.
In this video, we take a look at the microfluidics industry, its pursuit of a mythic ideal, and why they have so far failed.
Links:
- The Asianometry Newsletter: asianometry.com
- Patreon: / asianometry
- The Podcast: anchor.fm/asianometry
- Twitter: / asianometry
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
It's nice to see you discuss this topic! My first internship had me working for a startup that had designed a Lab-on-a-Chip that had the purpose to bring Lithium measurements for bipolar patients to the point of care. Bipolar disorder is treated by using Lithium, but it has a narrow bandwidth within which it is effective. Too little, and it doesn't have an effect. Too much, and it can be poisonous. Patients treated with Lithium are therefore typically confined to staying close enough to their hospital to regularly have their Lithium values checked.
The LoC developed by the startup company I did the internship for brought this check to the patient. By just applying a drop of their blood and waiting a few minutes, the LoC would use the principle of electrophoresis to separate ions in the drop of blood and then determine the level of each type inside the blood, Lithium in particular. While the results were mostly for indicative purposes only, it did allow the patient a lot more freedom of movement. Only if the LoC results went 'out of bounds' could they consult their doctor to take immediate action, but the patient could be proactive about it and do so at home, or while on vacation (which the LoC allowed them do take!).
It may be a small application without a big market behind it, but I do believe that the quality-of-life improvement this particular LoC offered is more than worth the investment in the techniques behind it.
check out companies like illumina, oxford nanopore, and 10x genomics. microfluidics is a huge component of genomic sequencing
Don't listen to people with cartoon girls avatars. They don't know what they are talking about.
@@interests3279 Well, in this particular case, they do. Microfluidics is essential to modern DNA sequencing.
I tried doing some electrophoresis nanofluidics during my PhD and one of the biggest challenges was bonding my top substrate to my bottom substrate. I really needed two glass substrates to allow the electric field to penetrate the liquid, because a silicon substrate would just cause strong capacitive coupling.
And bonding two glass substrates with a nanoscale cavity in between is really really really hard! First of all: both of your substrates have to be incredibly flat in order to allow cavities to form. Second: you need to deal with the wringing effect that also occurs in guage blocks. Third: you need to evacuate the air between your substrates during bonding, because you always need a thin substrate to allow you to use a 100x microscope and those substrates flex quite easily. Fourth: most literature on substrate bonding is a variation on anodic bonding, where an electric field assists in pulling the two substrates together, but it always requires some electrode nearby.
In the end, the only viable candidate I found was sodium silicate bonding, the same technique as the one that was used in the experiments of a Nobel laureate (the experiments in question weren't the ones he had won the Nobel prize for though). As luck would have it, my professor managed to get some students of this Nobel laureate professor to give us a Zoom seminar on their work. When I asked about details and recipes on the silicate bonding, professor X got his knickers in a twist about me trying to get valuable IP from his students (said recipes had already just been published in an addendum to a PhD thesis, his student just sent me a link to it afterwards). 😂 It was both hilarious and sad that a Nobel laureate from a top-5 ranking university was trying to hold back published information from a first year PhD student - from a university that's over 50 places lower on the Shanghai ranking list! - for fear of his own lab losing the monopoly on successfully pulling off a technique. That was the day I learned that the system of "first author gets all the credit" impedes the entire process of reproduction and building upon other people's work.
Other than the bonding, I'd say that a major impediment to microfluidics research is the fact that small scale production of chips in a research clean room facility is prohibitively expensive time wise. In order for a researcher to freely experiment with a device, they need to know that they can easily procure a new one if they contaminate or break the device they have on hand. As a PhD student, you have to design, produce, test, experiment with and clean each and every single device you make. And if you are to stand any chance of getting published in today's climate, you need positive results on a novel enough experiment. And if you want to meet your publishing quota, you need to do most of the work all by yourself. That's the real reason why micro- and nanofluidics are not taking off: it takes way too damn long to build enough devices to get to a workable experiment.
I also concur: lab-on-a-chip is not happening anytime soon. The natural development path really is to have more and more chip-in-a-lab devices, which might one day be integrated into a lab-on-a-chip. But you need to prove and improve all the individual components before you can assemble them into a VLSI-like system.
There's another lab-on-a-chip concept that involves more biological instead of physical/chemical interaction. Growing tiny tissue clusters and then subjecting them to specific treatment (medicines, bacteria, chemicals, etc) produces an observable output that can help accelerate and unblock several new therapies that are either too expensive or risky to trial on human subjects.
ORGANOIDS!!!! This is what I do
@@kok2315 any interesting channels or resources i could check out? Thx😊
I think the Theranos event did set back the industry by a bit, because it did decrease capital inflows as the investors are more wary.
Not only that, but all the money they raised itself didn't go for startups that could have gone right. They took also time from that industry to move forward
Absolutely. A relative of mine works at an (actual) blood test company and they are very interested in solving this problem. But since Theranos, it's become incredibly hard to get funding for it, even if you try to solve it legitimately and have the track record to back up your claim of knowing how to develop and provide blood tests. Kinda sad because the technology has a lot of potential.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I had never heard of Lab on a Chip - even while Theranos was advertising - until it blew up into a huge scandal that every news report covered.
So, while it did some damage in the short term, it may have actually helped the industry long-term by bringing awareness of the technology to the general public. When I started looking into Theranos to see what the story was about, it was pretty apparent in most coverage that I read, in spite of the fraud by Holmes, that the science behind the technology was in fact valid and being pursued by some of the world's premiere research institutions. Now I try to keep tabs on the industry, excited for the next real breakthrough.
I think the tech-knowledgeable investors are still going at this field. There have been quite a few impressive breakthroughs in specific areas of testing since this affair. Nothing as ridiculously grandiose as Holmes' BS. Theranos duped a lot of outsiders who's looking to make $$$. Notice she either failed or didn't go after health-technology focused investors.
The biggest issue with microfluidics in the diagnostics (DX) space, excluding the limited cases where they are already used, is that they don't really do anything BETTER than current technologies. Most current DX systems already handle essentially all of the sample prep, sample control, and specific tets run. The operator just checks the tube of blood, scans the barcode, and inserts it into the system. The system handles the rest, right down to uploading the results.
Microfluidics emphasizes the concept of multiplexing tests, but there is little to no value in running unnecessary tests. An assay that runs 100 different tests when only two are needed is only worth those two tests; the other 98 are just wasted costs. Most modern DX systems will multiplex a handful (up to a dozen or so) of tests together which would logically be run together (e.g.multiplexing IgG, IgM, and Antigen tests for a particular infection). There are only so many tests that can be logically grouped together.
Lastly, for some DX tests, the usable concentration of analytes is so low that you can run into issues with minimum sample volume. This is especially true if a quantitative or semi-quantitative result is desired, rather than a simple binary result.
That reminds me of how most of the successful commercial development in the parallel computing space so far has been in single instruction multiple data (SIMD) processors, rather than multiple instruction single data (MISD). The former performs the same operation on a hundred samples simultaneously, while the latter performs a hundred different operations on the same sample. Most of the time, the former is more useful.
"Better" comes in a lot of ways.
The lab on chip is dirt cheap compared to big machines.
They also require no specially trained people to go around fixing and calibrating. No one going around cleaning and sterilizing.
Then there's the drastic reduction in electricity needed to run tests.
And let's keep in mind that if you have a box of 500 loc's, you can have 500 people being tested at once.
you mentioned flow cytometry briefly but it's a really interesting field, my mother worked as researcher for one of the most prominent experts in that field for over 20 years. flow cytometry is most useful because it can quickly and reliably count cells and other objects when they have a low concentration in a fluid that makes other methods impractical.
I use flow cytometry in my research all the time. It’s still a sorely misunderstood and under-utilised technique outside of medical research.
We have that iStat device at my hospital. It is useful but I wouldn't call it "lab quality," it's mainly helpful for giving us an approximate answer very quickly e.g. when we have someone come in who might be in diabetic ketoacidosis and we want to do a blood chemistry. We still pretty much always send blood to the regular lab for definitive results.
I'm uncomfortable with manufacturer's claims of "Lab Quality". They muddy the water on these issue and it is interesting Abbot's i-Stat product webpage plaster a warning to me "BASED ON YOUR CURRENT LOCATION, THE CONTENT ON THIS PAGE MAY NOT BE RELEVANT FOR YOUR COUNTRY." Which probably meant Health Canada called their bullshit and restricted their approved labeling for medical device. I'm reasonably confident that their equipment can do a good job of accurate measurement ...but what is the quality of what they are measuring? I am not confident that a few drops of whole blood can be reliably reflect the actual intravenous status of patient. A pointless test given the sample limitation IMO, hope they put more money into speeding up and reducing the cost of actual lab testing.
I'm a strong believer in the "KISS" principle: keep it simple, stupid. The problem in today's academia is that researcher's main task is to get published, and get published in the most prestigious journal, if at all possible. As a result, they are too often compelled to do "hero" experiments, that are extremely complex, and require multi-million dollar labs full of the latest equipment. When it comes to transferring that to a commercial product that is low cost and easy to mass produce, they are completely clueless. They are just not trained to think about those things. Successful commercial products generally adhere to the KISS principle. The glucose test does one thing, and one thing only. I'm currently working on a (very) low-cost, optical fiber sensing technology. The couple of papers I've published have attracted next to zero attention, and I'm not surprised, and yet I can get 100 times better resolution than all other papers in the field, at a 1000x smaller cost, but talking about cost in an academic paper is a big taboo. You can talk about "potentially" low cost, but an actual low cost, high performance device won't get you published in Nature Photonics, because there is no "big science" in it. Making things simpler is just not considered "advanced" science. This, despite the fact that technologies such as the IC started off as very simple devices. In fact, it is their simplicity, compared with bulk circuits, that made them so successful. Complexity was added later, but only because the process was, at its core, very simple. If the technology is complex and difficult to start with, it will never make it commercially because you can never get to mass production and high yields. So I think microfluidics is suffering from that disease. I've followed the field for 20 years, and considered using the technology, but it is actually very complex. I will stick to my little fiber optic sensors: easy to make, easy to mass produce, and extremely low cost due to all the cost reduction brought about by the massive deployment of optical fibers in the past 40 years. But I can tell you, convincing investors about it is THE most difficult thing in the world. They'd rather go with a fancy AI app. One more.
Sounds like you should hire Elizabeth to do your marketing and investor relations. I hear she’s not that busy these days.
I’d love a link to the papers!
this comment, a complaint about research impact and publication bias in a field that isn't even microfluidics, has an order of magnitude more likes than any other at present.
@@jeremycahill4662 right, just saying things people like to hear
@@lucas2nded461 I'm not even unsympathetic to the basic point -- I do some work on democratization and access projects for frugal biotech -- but the commenter's comparison to photonics seems very hollow. Applied life sci and physical sci are subject to substantially different pressures. There's actually pretty strong momentum at present for papers on cheap and open biotech. Even if it's only begrudgingly acknowledged by the academic publishing cabal.
Damn. Where do you work? This content is so diverse, and so deep.
As a MEMS student, excellent video.
We're all students of memes.
I worked in years for microfluidics (under dr Ramsey and Henly- check the lit they’re big guys) I was an undergrad at the time so no papers for me. I don’t really think this is more than a dead end frankly. I tried so hard to solve a few problems. There are some surprising issues that make this much harder than you think.
Though it’s fascinating. I’m sure some of the early IC guys lost faith too. So take my opinion with a grain of salt. I worked on 2 phase separation - the first separated on hydrophobic proteins vs drag then injected into another CE separation where it separated based on charge vs drag.
The big problem is the mixing problem and the non-orthogonal nature of those two methods.
And it is surely not “self powered”
We ran 10kV through it. In other words a crap ton. Small currents. But you require the voltage to create the electro-osmotic flow. The glass (borosilicate) becomes all negative charged because that’s what borosilicate does. Then the water being a dipole lines up the positive part to interact with the walls, all the positive outside water molecules run to ground . Because they are all the outside water in the “channel” they drag the rest of the water with mass flow.
So the channels have to be small.
We separated proteins from single cells. Normally if you do genetics on a biopsy you are analyzing the genetics of ALL the cells which are all doing different things.
Doing a single cell let’s you see what one cell is doing.
We also did DNA sequencing, by passing dna through a small pore and reading the resistance as it passes through one at a time. DNA has a negative charge so you can do this.
But clogging.
Dear god clogging . 95% of my time was Declogging my chips. It took days to make a batch of chips
By hand buy using old photolithography methods.
If one clogged, which happened all the f-Ing time it could take days and days and days to unclog.
Maybe it was dust. Maybe some of the salt came out of solution in your buffer solution, you would stare under a microscope for hours and hours and pass solvents through the channel to try and dissolve the clog and it never freaking worked
I’d be happy to have my “paper” (honors thesis) that explains things at a much lower lever since I started from fundamentals and worked
My way up. Mostly because I had a lot of pages to fill, wanted to show I understood the science, and the post doc assigned me a problem he couldn’t solve which was sorta a jerk move. So my “paper” had no “nove” findings and useless for anything other than the honors on
My degree. Anything I tried he’d condescendingly say I tried that. So I would scour research looking for ideas and I’m convinced the problem isn’t solvable on the purest sense. Smaller gate channels might help but then you run into lithography errors cutting such narrow channels and even more clogging. If only it didn’t take weeks to make more chips.
Ultrasonic for unglogging? What would happen?
A channel that opens it's full length to clean out.
is it possible to use a normal inkjet printhead (the resolution is already in the 10s of micrometers) and etching to produce micro fluidic devices? similar to how pcbs are made?
Currently working on organ on chip model, and the chip in the lab is such a true thing, the amount of equipment you require to develop one, its better to optimize conventional methods but LoC holds great potential for diagnosis in the medical field. Great video by the way
This is a great and succinct summary of the technology and industry! I studied this for years and it’s as good as many introduction chapters of phd thesis I’ve read!
The guy's really good, isn't he!
deterministic lateral displacement reminds me of tesla valves, straight up magic
I prefer compliant mechanism one-way valves.
Hello! Thank you for these videos. I find them to be very calming yet very intriguing. I often have problems staying focused on any type of content, but these videos are very interesting and keeps me glued. The topics you bring up are great and you always seem to be well versed yet down to earth, really makes me curious to learn more about the topics. Keep it up :)
Hey this is what I am working on at my job! We're a start up called Lightcast Discovery and I work there as a software developer, the potential is amazing.
Keep an eye on this field around early next year, we'll be making some very big announcements.
Just for some anecdotal historical perspective, the potential of LOC was amazing when I was a software developer in lab automation... 23 years ago 🙂 Best wishes for the success of your endeavours!
@@JonWallis123 Everything is impossible until it isn't anymore :) I wish I could say more but due to the NDA, I cannot, but what I will say is that what we are doing was absolutely not possible 23 years ago, which is what makes this so exciting. If the potential was amazing then, just think of what we can do with it now!
But we are building off the hard work of people like you, so thank you for the encouragement. I remain hopeful that this succeeds, not neccessarily for the companies profits but for all the good it will bring.
I've been aware of MEMs, photonics, and (non micro) fluidics, for decades. This is a great intro, to microfluidics, for a general audience. Like most things, its more evolutionary, than revolutionary. Hopefully, Theranos did derail things, too much. Still a better investment than crypto.
Hi. I have been very impressed with the quality of the videos that you have been producing. I am very keen to learn what are the questions that you pose to yourself when you research an entirely foreign and new topic? You would try to dig into these topics to what extent? I would be much obliged if you can make a video to discuss the methodology you adopt in researching a topic. Thank you very much.
Well done review. I worked on the product development that used a few technologies you described in the video with some success. But "thanks" to Theranos it was impossible to get funding for further development.
Over all very accurate review.
Without the relatively simple blood glucose test strip, I'd probably be dead now!
Lab-on-a-Chip was "The Next Big Thing" when I was working in laboratory automation 23 years ago.
Super great video, concise yet very in depth, easy to understand! Awesome job!
Great show really informative and so well put together
Thank you for the service you are doing to the world with this channel and newsletter.
Man, your tech reviews are mind-blowing!
7:55 See? Sharks with lasers on their heads aren’t the Bad Guys they are made out to be.
Just a suggestion, but I'd LOVE to see a video on josephson junctions and the josephson voltage standard. I think something that's so obscure, but so incredibly fundamental that it defines something most of us work with on a daily basis warrants a video. =) But I'm sure you've already got a huge list of topics you want to cover.
An example of microfluids on chip is DNA sequencing on a chip: nanoporetech
I remember this was going to be the next big thing about 30 years ago when I was just out of college.
Lab on a chip already exists. A number of POC devices uses LOC technology but often it's fairly basic stuff.
A big issue with LOC is typically the price of the device. Commercial lab analysis is all about price and just reducing the amount of chemicals necessary isn't saving enough money.
Thank you Asianometry, for introducing this technological concept of microfluidics to me and perhaps some others seeing this well produced short video for the first time. This topic is new to me.
Corning developed microfluidic devices in glass as early as the mid-1960s for use in pneumatic logic circuits. They sold them into the late 1980s if I'm not mistaken.
Thanks Asianometry, great Video. As a scientist working in the field, I like to make you aware that there a many microfludic based test for many diseases these days. For HIV here is a list from WHO: extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/211220_prequalified_IVD_product_list.pdf . Nearly all modern automated devices for medical diagnostic are using internally microfludics. However the periphery is usually makro sized, so that you end up with a bench-top device an not small chip. However I totally agree today we have a "Chip-on-the-Lab" more than a "Lab-on-the-Chip".
You might want to check Cuehealth's device. It is cellphone sized device without much sample prep required.
Some of the principles you mentioned have entire books written on them that are very thick and very dry. Great job on zeroing in on the important stuff and bringing the whole story together in such a short video 👍
really liked the general overview of the whole topic, and while you touched on digital microfluidic biochips, it's a whole interesting concept in its own, it addresses a lot of problems in traditional microfluidic biochips, but also have its own set of shortcomings, a lot of good work is being done on it now.
What a rabbit hole. Who knew it would lead down to that mega fraud. Nice video and it kept me interested. Hope to hear more
15:57 " The Chip on a Lab remains elusive" 🤔🤔 Hmmm, yes
Before I started the video, I wanted to comment immediately about Elizabeth Holmes. 0:44 seconds in, and a picture of Holmes shows up. I cannot get Elizabeth Holmes out of my head whenever microfluidics is discussed.
Great video about an interesting topic, as usual :)
At first glance, deterministic lateral displacement can be easily explained by fluid dynamics, or just make an experiment yourself:
On a stormy day, try to shield yourself from the wind by standing behind an advertising pillar - or any large, perpendicular, cylindrical object at your disposal. You will find, that the wind speed behind that object is in fact larger than the wind speed blowing at its front.
Due to Bernoullis law, an increase in speed of a fluid results in a decrease in static pressure. An object subjected to different levels of pressure experiences a force towards the lower pressure zone (think of buyoyanci).
The magnitude of that force is determined by the size of the area affected, therefore large particles experience a stronger force than smaller ones (assuming spheric particles, this factors in with radius squared)
But the inertia of the particles counteracts this force. The inertia factors in with radius to the third power, therefore the resulting acceleration of smaller particles towards the zone of lower pressure is larger than that of larger particles, assuming their density being similar.
You know there's a crisis brewing in science, when a random TH-cam comment can explain in simple terms what top scientists in high paying positions can't ;)
I love your use of the mountain streams joining in Taiwan's Toroko National Park to visualize laminar flow :D
Nice video, I know the video have a limited time, but maybe discussing drop based micro fludics was worth noting as it has the potential of being conuntitative analysis for the samples.
Holy crap, wouldn't expect my Ph.D topic (and startup job) covered so well by someone outside the field!
Very nice field you explored similar to MEMS
@Asianometry i have a question and i would appreciate your answer. Do you research about the subjects you make videos(sepetially the ones on tech stuff) or is it part your field of study, and if it is the latter and if you dont mind whats ur field of study/research/work, because u seem well rounded in many topics(espetially microships, but also material sciences ,optics, pharma, tech, ai.. and even economics) but you also able to post frequently which i suppose leave you with little time to possibly research ur videos ?
Thanks, this is a good review of the field. As a researcher in this field, I can say that the technology to miniaturize regular tests is there but the big question is economics. This is especially important when i-Stat already offers a lot of these advantages. Instead of making lab-on-a-chip, microfluidics will evolve to process biological samples which are erstwhile hard to process or result in poor yield by conventional bench-top technology.
7:05 I like when she look at sample without the eyepiece!
Oxford Nanopore voltrax should be in this video. Way more advanced than the examples
Thanks!
Never miss a video. Great content from a neat perspective.
The number of papers is far higher than 2000, that figure was year on year. It's in the tens of thousands. Otherwise nice video - I'm a biomedical engineer working in this field.
An established market, but lots of potential here. Would be great to see more of these LoC's in the household to take away some of the "market" of medical professionals.
We are growing organoid in the chips and the major breakthrough was when the 3D printers got sufficient resolution to be able to print the molds (200um features). Otherwise there is absolutely zero tasks for microfluidics which can’t be done on the multiwell plates.
Reminds me about the recent xkcd comic about the universe wasting effort on fluid dynamics.
To hell with that, I'm subscribing to this channel, at last.
And thank you for all these videos!
This is your 2nd video I've watched. I dont subscribe to many channels but your videos are very well done. Im in.
Your videos should be shown in schools
Might be expensive but spamming sensors and chips distributed to up the scale of required data sets to monitor the entire human body (or anyliving entity)? Having a larger compute with AI overstructure can organize these sub structures like a broodmother with a swarm of sensors/SoC's in a body?
I've wondered, with microfluidics and the way fluid channels can be used for controlled chemical reactions with fluidic logic gates, would it be possible to use the technology for recreational or "fun" purposes?
Great review, thanks!
Thank you for this video! It helped my research for a school project
I am 40 and this is a new stream of science that I am falling in love with…Can I switch to this industry after studying….what can I do?
Was the blooper at the end deliberate?
We have a NanoOne 3D printer to custom make chips in our lab, the integration to the rest of the processes is super simple since the new chips have pumps and sensors integrated and all connectors are printed instead of glued on !
Just like MEMS packaging it solves the integration for us.
Great as always
Great topic ! 🤗
TAM = Total Addressable Market
For classic organic synthesis this method gives high yields. Compare it to a bulk method...every molecule have to shake hands inside a big hall, but if you restrict them to a hall-way, it gets easier.. aka higher yields
great educational video thank you
is there any way to take parasights out fast enough through blood tranfusion of yourself recieving your blood without parasights
It think that a lot of people including you look on this topic from the wrong perspective.
If there are chemical tasks to be done then the (main) functionality does not lay in the chip itself but of course the chemicals used and this is the area where research has to go into and not the chip itself that is just performing supportive and/or protecting tasks. This is the case because as you rightfully point out a lot of tasks in both detection and especially in preperation just cant be provided with a chip and need a lab anyway. The only way to work around this is developing analytical chemicals that perform these tasks since they are the only part here that can be scaled down with no differences/ loss in functionality.
But since investors, politicans etc. just see the word "chip" and ignore the "lab" part ...
theres yet much time needed I guess.
The fortnight laser shark glider made up for the lack of one punch man reference after mentioning “sitama”try
Possibly, it would be worthwhile to have one chip to perform all of the tests that are now performed on different chips. A single fab is less expensive than several even when it fabricates a more complex chip.
Man, you’re such a geek : - )) Love your work.
Excellent video
Bruh finally a channel about real engineering
Great video.
hey jon i was wondering if you could do a video on the progress of chinese domestic CPU/GPU makers and compare them with Nvidia
Very good! Thank you!
Microfluidics was used for high throughput RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. I think it worked well in this case because there was a need for large batches of a single test. Far from a lab on a chip, but there have been some practical applications.
Love you channel. Thx
15:57 : "Chip on a lab"
10:10 Good job little chip.
There's a bigger reason these don't work out so well - after you've placed all these super sensitive structures and devices on a wafer....how do you dice the darn thing without applying chemicals or water that'll break or clog the device? This is where Stealth Dicing holds a big edge on other methods - without the need for chemicals like ablation lasers or plasma, nor the water jet and vibration of a blade saw, the NIR-Laser's use of creating internal cracks within the silicon has been an important step in helping that industry. I worked with such "lab on a chip" concept, but it had problems - the NIR can't function through metals, and since most traditional schematic to layout designers placed PCM's and other test structures along the dicing lane with the assumption they'd just use a blade saw, their miracle on a chip turned into a nightmare, and the most awkward five minute teams meeting meltdown I've ever seen, as their senior engineer just screamed **** repeatedly and started crying... There would be no "remasking" - this was supposed to be it, and they'd blown all their money on prototypes that hadn't foreseen the backend issues, and now they had the world's most sophisticated lab-on-a-chip, but no one in the world could properly(and cleanly) singulate the darn thing.
Microfluidics research in microgravity is very promising
Sharks with frickin laser beams!!! Thank you for the call back
this is incredible technology, thanks for posting!
Over 2000 papers? I can easily see 10,000 in that graph above (and maybe even more).
Sharks with frickin laser beams!
Why are they shooting for a whole lab on a chip given that you need to be specialized for each field of medicine?
Apparently because the economics of chip fabrication - It's cheaper to produce ten million chips that does a hundred tests than it is to produce thousands to a million chips for each of a hundred different tests. The first chip of a new product is insanely expensive, but if you produce enough the price drops through the floor.
spectroscopy I think will eventually be the gold standard when it comes to diagnostics
new micro fluidics machine idea this is your goal
Fascinating
Thank you for the laser shark.
Innovators: 'Been there done that'; study & manage your surface tension of the fluid and the "Surface Energy" of the device and you'll do well, cheers !
QUALITY video 👍
I used to work on microfluidics back to the graduate school.
Tesla valve....and micro hydraulics... Think of the heath application.
Capillary electrophoresis is fairly established in bio labs but I don't know if you could put that on a chip. The chip would have to be very long I guess.
The intestines are long but in a smaller area
@@terrafirma9328 Yeah I think that would mess with the electric field though.
Oh god he said Laminar Flow. Where is Destin from SmarterEveryDay 😂