Professional Documents
Culture Documents
General
plying the fluids: a syringe-pump methodology that dic-
tates the volume flow rates and a method whereby the
inlet fluid pressure is controlled. The flows are at low
Reynolds numbers for which the pressure gradient and
flow rate are linearly related in a single phase flow. Con-
sequently it might be expected that the two distinct
control methods, flow rate versus pressure, would lead
to the same details of drop formation. Instead, we
document distinct differences between these two
approaches for the multiphase flows of interest. Although
we have not yet succeeded in rationalizing all of these
differences, it is clear that the significant influence of
surface tension, which is known to introduce non-
linearities into the theoretical description (due to the Figure 1. Microfluidic setup for the two-phase flow in a
coupling of the shape and the fluid stresses, such as flow-focusing geometry. The channel height is 75 mm. (a)
pressure, in the boundary conditions) is likely to be the Side view. (b) Top view.
major contributor to the significant differences we have
identified between volume flow rate and pressure control
of drop formation in multiphase flows.
systems [18]. We assume that all of the fluid properties
In Section 2 we describe the experimental setup for the remain constant at their established values at room tem-
formation of water drops in oil streams. We then report in perature.
Section 3 the differences between the two methods by
varying the ratio of the dispersed to continuous phase The fluids are driven two ways: by static pressure and by
flow parameter, either the ratio of flow rates Qw/Qo or the a syringe pump. These methods are distinct since the use
ratio of applied pressures Pw/Po. In order to characterize of specified pressures sets up corresponding flow rates of
the drop formation process we report the droplet speed the two phases while a syringe pump maintains a speci-
U, frequency of droplet production f, distance between fied volume flow rate by appropriate adjustment of the
two consecutive drops d, and the drop length l (which is a force applied to the syringe, which changes the pressure
measure of the drop size). In the Section 4 we discuss in the fluid. Although in a single-phase flow these two
surface tension effects as a possible difference between types of experiment would be equivalent, the same is not
the two experiments. true in a multiphase flow since the shape of the fluid-fluid
interface, which is determined by the flow itself, compli-
cates the relationship between the pressure drop and the
2 Materials and methods flow rate. In the static pressure pumping approach the
fluids are placed in syringe tubes and the air pressure
The microfluidic experiments use relief molds that are
above the fluid is regulated. The pressure is controlled by
produced using common soft-lithography techniques
precision regulators (Bellofram Type 10) with a sensitivity
[17]. The experiments are performed using a flow-focus-
of 5 mPsi. The pressure is measured using a test gauge
ing geometry [3, 5] with a single input channel for both
(Wika) with a resolution of 150 mPsi. All pressures are
fluids. An illustration of the setup is shown in Fig. 1. The
reported relative to atmosphere. The syringes are con-
channel height is 75 mm, as measured by a profilometer,
nected to their respective inputs of either the dispersed or
the inlet channel width is 100 mm, and the outlet channel
the continuous phase channel. The syringe approach for
width is 100 mm with a 50 mm contraction. The channels
fluid delivery requires the choice of a tube diameter and
are made of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) and bonded
then uses standard motor-driven pumping to achieve a
to a thin sheet of PDMS by surface plasma treatment in
given flow rate.
air.
The fluids are mineral oil (viscosity n = 34.5 cSt at 407C The images are obtained using high-speed video at
and density r = 880 kg/m3) and deionized water for the frames rates O(1 10 kHz) as needed depending on the
continuous and dispersed phases respectively. The inter- experiment and drop speeds are determined by tracking
facial tension is estimated to be g = O(10) mN/m from the center of mass of individual drops using commercially
published data for surfactant-free mineral oil and water available software.
4 Discussion
In this section we present some ideas for rationalizing the
experimental results reported above. To the best of our
knowledge there are no general quantitative theories for
two-phase flow in a geometry such as the flow-focusing
configuration. In the special case that a very narrow
thread is formed at and downstream of the orifice, then
Ganan-Calvo et al. [2] have given quantitative models that
are in good agreement with the measurements. All the
results presented here are not in this regime. Furthermore,
in two-phase flows, the viscosity ratio l = mw/mo, where
mw,mo are the dispersed and continuous phase fluid dy-
namic viscosity, between the drops is a parameter and
our experiments have only considered one viscosity ratio,
while varying other parameters and considering two
methods of flow control.
We thank Unilever Research and the Harvard MRSEC [8] Braun, D., Libchaber, A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 188103.
(DMR-0213805) for support of this research. We also [9] Burns, M., Mastrangelo, C. H., Sammarco, T. S., Man, F. P.,
thank F. Jousse and colleagues at Unilever and Harvard Webster, J. R., et al., PNAS, 1996, 93, 55565561.
for helpful conversations. We thank D. Link for helpful [10] Okushima, S., Nisisako, T., Torii, T., Higuchi, T., Langmuir,
2004, 20, 99059908.
feedback on a draft of the paper.
[11] Utada, A., Lorenceau, E., Link, D. R., Kaplan, P. D., Stone, H.
A., Weitz, D. A., Science, 2005, 308, 537541.
Received February 28, 2005
[12] Jahn, A., Vreeland, W. N., Gaitan, M., Locascio, L. E., J. Am.
Revised June 8, 2005 Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 26742675.
Accepted July 6, 2005
[13] Shiu, J.-Y., Kuo, C.-W., Chen, P., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004,
126, 8096.
[14] Thorsen, T., Maerkl, S. J., Quake, S. R., Science, 2002, 298,
5 References 580.
[15] Cho, B. S., Schuster, T. G., Zhu, X., Chang, D., Smith, G. D.,
[1] Gan-Calvo, A. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 285288.
Takayama, S., Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 16711675.
[2] Gan-Calvo, A. M., Gordillo, J. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 87,
274501. [16] Groisman, A., Enzelberger, M., Quake, S. R., Science 2003,
300, 955958.
[3] Anna, S. L., Bontoux, N., Stone, H. A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003,
82, 364366. [17] McDonald, J. C., Duffy, D. C., Anderson, J. R., Chiu, D. T.,
Wu, H., Schueller, O. J. A., Whitesides, G. M., Electropho-
[4] Link, D. R., Anna, S. L., Weitz, D. A., Stone, H. A., Phys. Rev.
resis 2000, 21, 2740.
Lett. 2004, 92, 054503.
[5] Garstecki, P., Stone, H. A., Whitesides, G. M., Appl. Phys. [18] Cohen, I., Nagel, S. R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 88, 074501.
Lett. 2004, 85, 26492651. [19] Stone, H. A., Stroock, A. D., Ajdari, A., Annu. Rev. Fluid
[6] Thorsen, T., Roberts, R. W., Arnold, F. H., Quake, S. R., Phys. Mech. 2004, 36, 381411.
Rev. Lett. 2001, 86, 41634166. [20] Zheng, B., Roach, L. S., Ismagilov, R. F., J. Am. Chem. Soc.
[7] Zangmeister, R. A., Tarlov, M. J., Anal. Chem. 2004, 76, 3655. 2003, 125, 1117011171.