Engineers are from PDMS-land, Biologists are from Polystyrenia

Abstract

As the integration of microfluidics into cell biology research proceeds at an ever-increasing pace, a critical question for those working at the interface of both disciplines is which device material to use for a given application. While PDMS and soft lithography methods offer the engineer rapid prototyping capabilities, PDMS as a material has characteristics that have known adverse effects on cell-based experiments. In contrast, while polystyrene (PS), the most commonly used thermoplastic for laboratory cultureware, has provided decades of grounded and validated research conclusions in cell behavior and function, PS as a material has posed significant challenges in microfabrication. These competing issues have forced microfluidics engineers and biologists to make compromises in how they approach specific research questions, and furthermore, have attenuated the impact of microfluidics on biological research. In this review, we provide a comparison of the attributes of PDMS and PS, and discuss reasons for their popularity in their respective fields. We provide a critical evaluation of the strengths and limitations of PDMS and PS in relation to the advancement and future impact on microfluidic cell-based studies and applications. We believe that engineers have a responsibility to overcome any challenges associated with microfabrication, whether with PS or other materials, and that engineers should provide options and solutions that assist biologists in their experimental design. Our goal is not to advocate for any specific material, but provide guidelines for researchers who desire to choose the most suitable material for their application, and suggest important research directions for engineers working at the interface between microfabrication technology and biological application.

Hybrid PDMS/glass microfluidics for high resolution imaging and application to sub-wavelength particle trapping

“…Second, PDMS is biocompatible and rather inexpensive. [2][3][4][5] It is common to use PDMS to fabricate channels for the immersion of nanostructure for sensing applications, such as ring resonators and photonic crystals. [6][7][8][9] Unfortunately, PDMS also has some limitations, 10 in particular when considering high-resolution imaging.…”

Fabrication of scalable tissue engineering scaffolds with dual-pore microarchitecture by combining 3D printing and particle leaching

“…However, the scalability of the PVA mould printing and the scaffold casting process that we have demonstrated in our previous work [25], mean that the method proposed in this paper can generate dual-pore scaffolds with dimension relevant for the size required for creating artificial organs. We used the biocompatible and non-biodegradable elastomeric PDMS, which is widely used in biological and medical applications [28,29], to demonstrate the ease of fabrication to obtain different porous scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. It has already been shown that PDMS scaffolds have the potential to support long-term growth of liver cells [25].…”

Organ-on-a-Chip Platforms for Drug Delivery and Cell Characterization: A Review

“…Widely used PDMS materials need to be improved or replaced to achieve higher resistance to chemicals, as well as maintain high compatibility with soft lithography techniques and biological cells. (85) In terms of controllability, the automation of both organ-on-a-chip fabrication and screening need to be standardized and optimized. Bio-computer-aided design and manufacturing (Bio-CAD and Bio-CAM) should be introduced to accelerate the design flow of organ-on-a-chip systems.…”