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 | |
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 | |
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 | |
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 |