Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of microfluidic platforms for diagnosis

From: Microfluidics-based strategies for molecular diagnostics of infectious diseases

Platforms Features compared with other platforms Driving forces Advantages Disadvantages References
LOCC Maximum application diversity
Best compatibility for technologies
High complexity
Weak reproducibility
Pressure gradient
Capillary effects
Electric fields
Magnetic fields
Lorentz forces
Acoustic wave
High-throughput, multiple, fast analysis
Small sample volume
Low power consumption
Efficient control and manipulation
Difficulty of fabricating, packaging interfacing
Difficulty of multiplexing and reuse
[21, 112,113,114,115,116]
LOAD Sole controlled by centrifugal forces
Highly independent and parallelized reactions
Centrifugal forces
Capillary forces
Euler forces
Coriolis forces
Easy to control
Easy and economical to design and fabricate
Multiple, independent and parallelized reactions
Limited available materials
Hard for small volumes
Difficulty of reuse
[39, 53, 60, 73,74,75]
μPADs Sole controlled by capillary forces
Hydrophilic and porous nature
Fold ability
Low-cost
Ease of use
Capillary forces Biocompatibility with various substrates
Lightweight, flexibility, fold ability, ease of use and availability
Low-cost
Imprecise and solo control of flow
Lack of detection speed and sensitivity
Difficulty of multiplexing and reuse
[133,134,135]
LFA Sole controlled by capillary forces
Pre-stored chemicals
Naked eye read out by color change
Low-cost
Capillary forces Fast
Low-cost
Easy to operate
Equipment-independent
Easy to fabricate and miniaturize
Solo assay
Hard for quantitative detection
Difficulty of multiplexing and reuse
Low throughput
[85, 137, 138]
  1. LOCC lab on a cartridge chip, LOAD lab on a disc, µPAD microfluidic paper-based analytical device, LFA lateral flow assay