Circular shaped microelectrodes for single cell electrical measurements for lab-on-a-chip applications
Abstract
The impedimetric sensing techniques for single cell characterization have witnessed growing interest due to their high sensitivity and widespread applications. However, adapting the method to different biological measurements in microfluidic environments under various input conditions can result in feeble signal detection leading to a drastic decrease in the sensor sensitivity. The reduced signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) hinders the signal differentiation, sensor accuracy and prohibits fully integrated point-of-care applications. Here, we address the sensitivity enhancement for microfluidic impedimetric sensing of micron and submicron-sized microparticles by exploring novel circular shape electrodes in a simulation study. The influence of radial electrode parameters on differential electrical signal is systematically analyzed in COMSOL Multiphysics using spherical particles ranging from 0.75 µm to 5 µm in diameter. Detailed analysis revealed the strong impact of the circular shape microelectrode geometry and the electrode gap on the signal strength, resulting SNR, and device sensitivity for multiple bioparticles detection. Specifically, ˃ 50 dB improvement in SNR was enabled by optimizing the circular electrode geometrical parameters. Our proposed sensing modality can be adapted for nanoparticles detection by further optimizing the microfluidic device parameters.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Circular shape microelectrodes with radii optimized according to the type of analyzed cells improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the electric signal in single-particle detection.
“Also, circular shape microelectrodes with radii optimized according to the type of the analyzed cells improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the electric signal in single-particle detection [27].”
From Trends in single-impact electrochemistry for bacteria analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trends in single-impact electrochemistry for bacteria analysis
Smida, H., Langlard, A., Ameline, D., Thobie-Gautier, C., Boujtita, M., & Lebègue, E. (2023) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-023-04568-z · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Farooq, A., Butt, N. Z., & Hassan, U.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Lahore University of Management Sciences (PK)
- Corresponding author
- Hassan, Umer
- Venue
- Biomedical Microdevices
- Published
- 2021-07-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 35-35
- ISSN
- 1387-2176 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-8781
- OpenAlex
- W3175610368
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biomedical Microdevices (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Electrochemistry › Electrochemical Analysis and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
- Keywords
- impedimetric sensing, single-cell detection, microfluidic sensor, signal-to-noise ratio, electrode geometry optimization, electrode gap, spherical particles, nanoparticle detection, lab-on-a-chip, point-of-care testing
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Microelectrodes, Microfluidics, Microfluidic Analytical Techniques, Lab-On-A-Chip Devices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
