Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,647

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 178 of the 178 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microfluidic lab-on-a-chip platforms: requirements, characteristics and applications

Open access
Mark, Daniel, Haeberle, Stefan, Roth, Günter, von Stetten, Felix, Zengerle, Roland·2010·Chemical Society Reviews

Abstract

This critical review summarizes developments in microfluidic platforms that enable the miniaturization, integration, automation and parallelization of (bio-)chemical assays (see S. Haeberle and R. Zengerle, Lab Chip, 2007, 7, 1094-1110, for an earlier review). In contrast to isolated application-specific solutions, a microfluidic platform provides a set of fluidic unit operations, which are designed for easy combination within a well-defined fabrication technology. This allows the easy, fast, and cost-efficient implementation of different application-specific (bio-)chemical processes. In our review we focus on recent developments from the last decade (2000s). We start with a brief introduction into technical advances, major market segments and promising applications. We continue with a detailed characterization of different microfluidic platforms, comprising a short definition, the functional principle, microfluidic unit operations, application examples as well as strengths and limitations of every platform. The microfluidic platforms in focus are lateral flow tests, linear actuated devices, pressure driven laminar flow, microfluidic large scale integration, segmented flow microfluidics, centrifugal microfluidics, electrokinetics, electrowetting, surface acoustic waves, and dedicated systems for massively parallel analysis. This review concludes with the attempt to provide a selection scheme for microfluidic platforms which is based on their characteristics according to key requirements of different applications and market segments. Applied selection criteria comprise portability, costs of instrument and disposability, sample throughput, number of parameters per sample, reagent consumption, precision, diversity of microfluidic unit operations and the flexibility in programming different liquid handling protocols (295 references).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/b820557b

Cites

178 of 178 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 178 references

Cited by

See all 1,647

Metadata

Authors
Mark, D., Haeberle, S., Roth, G., von Stetten, F., & Zengerle, R.
Venue
Chemical Society Reviews
Published
2010
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
1153
ISSN
  • 0306-0012 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4744
OpenAlex
W2154347237
Cited by
1,647
References
178
FWCI
8.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microfluidic lab-on-a-chip platforms: requirements, characteristics and applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/b820557b
The paper
Mark, D., Haeberle, S., Roth, G., von Stetten, F., & Zengerle, R. (2010). Microfluidic lab-on-a-chip platforms: requirements, characteristics and applications. Chemical Society Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1039/b820557b

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.