Chemical-PDMS binding kinetics and implications for bioavailability in microfluidic devices
Open accessAbstract
Microfluidic organ-on-chip devices constructed from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) have proven useful in studying both beneficial and adverse effects of drugs, supplements, and potential toxicants. Despite multiple advantages, one clear drawback of PDMS-based devices is binding of hydrophobic chemicals to their exposed surfaces. Chemical binding to PDMS can change the timing and extent of chemical delivery to cells in such devices, potentially altering dose-response curves. Recent efforts have quantified PDMS binding for selected chemicals. Here, we test a wider set of nineteen chemicals using UV-vis or infrared spectroscopy to characterize loss of chemical from solution in two setups with different PDMS-surface-to-solution-volume ratios. We find discernible PDMS binding for eight chemicals and show that PDMS binding is strongest for chemicals with a high octanol-water partition coefficient (log P > 1.85) and low H-bond donor number. Further, by measuring depletion and return of chemical from solution over tens to hundreds of hours and fitting these results to a first order model of binding kinetics, we characterize partitioning into PDMS in terms of binding capacities per unit surface area and both forward and reverse rate constants. These fitted parameters were used to model the impact of PDMS binding on chemical transport and bioavailability under realistic flow conditions and device geometry. The models predict that PDMS binding could alter in-device cellular exposures for both continuous and bolus dosing schemes by up to an order of magnitude compared to nominal input doses.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
PDMS absorbs small hydrophobic molecules in its bulk material, a well-known issue for OoCs.
“A well-known issue of PDMS application for OoCs is the absorption of small hydrophobic molecules in the bulk material (Auner et al., 2019; van Meer et al., 2017)”
From Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility (2024) · cites this paper as Auner et al., 2019
PDMS has a disadvantage: its hydrophobicity limits the application of PDMS in chemical screening because PDMS may bind or absorb hydrophobic molecules.
“Despite this, PDMS has a disadvantage, namely, its hydrophobicity, which limits the application of PDMS in chemical screening because PDMS may bind or absorb hydrophobic molecules163.”
From Tumor-on-a-chip: from bioinspired design to biomedical application (2021) · cites this paper as [163]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 87
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [7]Jo BH, Van Lerberghe LM, Motsegood KM and Beebe DJ, J. Microeletromech. Syst., 2009, 9, 76– 81.
- [13]D. HN and A. FP, J. Appl. Toxicol., 2011, 33, 265– 272.21935973
- [29]Pei R-J, Sato M, Yuri T, Danbara N, Nikaido Y and Tsubura A, In Vivo, 2003, 17, 349– 357. 12929590
- [34]Dieras V, Oncology, 1997, 11, 31– 33. 9364539
- [48]Gao X and Chorover J, Environ. Chem., 2012, 9, 148– 157.
- [50]Gervais T and Jensen KF, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2006, 61, 1102– 1121.
- [51]Byron G, Daniel C, Xiaoyi H, A. R. Pand Carla W, J. Mol. Recognit., 1999, 12, 293– 299.10556877
- [56]Baltussen E, Sandra P, David F and Cramers C, J. Microcolumn Sep., 1999, 11, 737– 747.
- Authors
- Auner, A. W., Tasneem, K. M., Markov, D. A., McCawley, L. J., & Hutson, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hutson, M. Shane
- Venue
- Lab on a Chip
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 864-874
- ISSN
- 1473-0189 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-0197
- PMC
- PMC6512955
- OpenAlex
- W2912840511
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 3.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Lab on a Chip (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (8357360)
- National Cancer Institute (U01 CA202229-01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
- Keywords
- bioavailability, microfluidic drug delivery, octanol-water partition coefficient, hydrophobic compounds, binding capacity, chemical transport modeling, bolus dosing, continuous dosing, dose-response relationship
- MeSH terms
- Binding Sites, Biological Availability, Dimethylpolysiloxanes, Kinetics, Molecular Structure, 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