Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 18;21(2):e0342823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342823

Hybrid passive micromixer using combined traditional microfabrication and 3D printing for gold nanoparticle synthesis

Yasser Aldaghestani 1,2, Andreas Schiffer 1,3,*, Anas Alazzam 1,2,*
Editor: Bonnie Gray4
PMCID: PMC12915908  PMID: 41706768

Abstract

This study introduces a novel hybrid passive micromixer that seamlessly integrates conventional microfabrication techniques with cost-effective 3D printing to facilitate the controlled synthesis of nanoparticles with high precision in size and morphology. The micromixer design combines a Y-junction microchannel fabricated using soft lithography with an embedded 3D-printed helical structure to enhance mixing efficiency. Notably, the helical structure was fabricated using a commercially available, cost-effective Digital Light Processing (DLP) 3D printer, demonstrating that high-performance microfluidic devices can be manufactured without reliance on expensive, specialized equipment. Numerical simulations were conducted to analyze the micromixer parametrically and to compare its performance to various micromixer designs reported in the literature. The results reveal the superiority of the mixing capabilities of the proposed mixer under laminar flow conditions. Experimental validation using dyed fluids and image analysis techniques confirmed the enhanced mixing performance of the hybrid micromixer, reaching a mixing efficiency of 92% at a Reynolds number of 1, with results closely matching the numerical predictions. The device was then used in the synthesis of gold nanoparticles, employing L-ascorbic acid as the reducing agent. Characterization of the synthesized nanoparticles via UV-Vis spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) demonstrated precise control over particle size and distribution, with gold nanoparticles ranging from 14 to 25 nm at a total flow rate of 5000 µL/min. This hybrid micromixer approach offers a scalable, efficient, and accessible platform for nanomaterial synthesis, with potential applications in fields such as drug delivery, biosensing, and catalysis.

Introduction

Microfluidic devices have emerged as powerful tools for the precise manipulation and control of fluids at the micro- and nanoscale, enabling complex operations to be integrated into compact lab-on-a-chip platforms [1,2]. These systems have been widely applied in areas such as nanomaterial synthesis [3], biomedical diagnostics [4], drug discovery [5], and cell separation and analysis [6,7]. The miniaturization of fluidic processes offers several advantages, including reduced reagent consumption, enhanced heat and mass transfer, improved reaction control, and the ability to produce uniform products with narrow size distributions [8–10].

Efficient mixing is a critical requirement in many microfluidic applications, particularly for chemical reactions and nanoparticle synthesis [11,12]. However, due to the laminar flow regime at low Reynolds numbers, mixing in microchannels is typically limited to slow molecular diffusion [13]. To overcome this limitation, a wide range of micromixer designs have been developed and are commonly classified as active or passive. Active micromixers employ external energy sources, such as acoustic [14–16], magnetic [17], or electric fields [18], to enhance mixing, whereas passive micromixers rely on channel geometries and surface features to induce chaotic advection and fluid interface stretching [19,20]. Although active mixers can achieve high mixing efficiencies, passive micromixers are often preferred due to their simplicity, ease of integration, and lack of external actuation requirements.

Passive micromixers have been widely employed for nanoparticle synthesis, including lamination-based designs, hydrodynamic flow-focusing devices, and Y- and T-junction configurations [21–25]. Microfluidic synthesis of nanoparticles offers improved control over particle size, morphology, and uniformity compared to batch processes, making it particularly attractive for producing nanoparticles with high-quality physicochemical properties [26]. However, several practical challenges remain. In particular, insufficient mixing and nanoparticle adhesion to microchannel walls can lead to particle heterogeneity, fouling, and channel clogging during continuous operation [27,28].

To overcome these limitations, 3D printing has emerged as a promising alternative method for fabricating microfluidic devices [29]. It enables easy and fast iterative prototyping and manufacturing, making it ideal for testing-based optimization. Additionally, 3D-printed devices do not require a cleanroom fabrication environment, reducing costs. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have played a pivotal role in advancing the fabrication of intricate and precise devices. Among these technologies, Material Extrusion [30], Vat Photopolymerization [31], and Material Jetting [32] stand out for their significant contributions.

Spiral and helical microchannel architectures provide an effective passive strategy for enhancing micromixing by exploiting curvature-induced Dean vortices, which generate strong transverse convection even at low Reynolds numbers [33,34]. In the context of continuous nanoparticle synthesis, enhanced micromixing shortens residence-time distributions and accelerates nucleation and early growth processes, resulting in more uniform particle sizes and improved reproducibility compared to straight-channel designs [35,36]. These advantages have motivated the use of spiral and helical geometries as robust passive micromixers for high-throughput nanoparticle production.

Building on these principles, Erfle et al. [37,38] employed two-photon polymerization (2PP) to fabricate advanced 3D microfluidic micromixers for lipid nanoparticle (LNP) synthesis, enabling precise control over complex mixing geometries that cannot be realized using conventional planar microfabrication. Their Coaxial Lamination Mixer (CLM) integrates coaxial injection, stretch-and-fold elements, and inlet filtering to significantly suppress fouling during nanoparticle synthesis [37]. Subsequently, the Horseshoe Lamination Mixer (HLM) achieved rapid and homogeneous mixing, producing monodisperse LNPs with particle sizes ranging from 42 to 166 nm and low polydispersity indices [38]. These studies demonstrate the potential of 3D printed microstructures/microchannels to enhance micromixing and nanoparticle synthesis performance; however, the need for specialized, high-cost 2PP fabrication restricts scalability and limits widespread adoption.

In this work, the development and fabrication of a hybrid passive micromixer are presented. It is termed “hybrid” because it integrates traditional microfabrication methods with cost-effective 3D printing and is designed for efficient gold nanoparticle synthesis. The microchannel was fabricated using soft lithography, while a 3D-printed helical structure was embedded within the channel to enhance mixing efficiency. Unlike previous studies that rely on costly 2PP 3D printers for high-resolution microstructures, the current design utilizes a cost-efficient DLP printer. This approach significantly reduces fabrication costs, making advanced microfluidic devices accessible to a broader range of researchers. The proposed micromixer addresses limitations associated with passive micromixers by incorporating a helical structure, facilitating the production of uniform and scalable nanoparticles. Numerical simulations were conducted to assess the efficiency of the hybrid passive micromixer, and experimental validation was performed using dye-based mixing studies.

Materials and methods

This section describes the methodology employed to design, fabricate, and characterize a hybrid passive micromixer incorporating a 3D-printed helical structure for enhanced fluid mixing. Detailed descriptions of the materials, fabrication protocols for the helical structure and microchannel, and experimental procedures for evaluating mixing efficiency and synthesizing gold nanoparticles are provided. Additionally, nanoparticle synthesis, purification, and characterization protocols, utilizing scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and UV-Vis spectroscopy, are outlined.

Materials

The following materials were utilized in the experiments: Silicon wafer (4-inch diameter, 500 µm thick), 3D printing Resin (JAMG HE Standard Plus Resin Grey), SU-8 2150 negative photoresist (MicroChem Corp, Newton, US), Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Sylgard 184, Dow Corning, Michigan, US), isopropanol (IPA) (absolute, > 99.8%, Sigma-Aldrich, USA), ethanol (absolute, > 99.8%, Sigma-Aldrich, USA), gold(III) chloride trihydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, purity ≥ 99.9%), L-ascorbic acid (Sigma-Aldrich), and deionized water (DI).

3D-printed helical structure

The fabrication of the helical structure, a key component in enhancing mixing efficiency within the microchannel, was achieved through DLP 3D printing using the ELEGOO Saturn 3 Ultra printer, which features a 19 x 24 µm XY resolution and a 405 nm UV light source. The chosen material for printing is JAMG HE Standard Plus Resin Grey, which is selected for its durability and precision in capturing complex geometries. The printing parameters were set according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, with a slice thickness of 0.01 mm and a bottom layer count of 7. The initial layer’s curing time was 40 s, and subsequent layers were cured for 6 s each, ensuring optimal solidity and dimensional accuracy. After printing, the structure was rinsed with ethanol to remove any excess resin and then subjected to UV post-curing to achieve the desired mechanical properties. The helix was designed using SolidWorks software, with a total length of 20 mm and an outer diameter of 0.5 mm. It had a round cross-section with a diameter of 0.2 mm and featured approximately 20 revolutions. The precise dimensions, designed in SolidWorks, are critical for ensuring an optimal fit within the microchannel, thereby maintaining the secure placement of the helical structure.

Fabrication of the entire microfluidic device by DLP alone was deemed impractical due to the difficulty of removing support material from enclosed channels, as well as the fact that all-printed channels exhibit higher surface roughness, dimensional variability in sub-100-µm gaps, and reduced transparency.

Microchannel design and fabrication

As depicted in Fig 1, the fabrication process of the hybrid microchannel incorporates a 3D element integrated within its structure. The microchannel consists of two components: a Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) channel, fabricated using standard soft lithography, and a DLP-printed helical structure made from a commercial photopolymer resin, which is an acrylate-based UV-curable resin that forms a crosslinked polymer network upon photopolymerization. The PDMS channel is created through conventional soft lithography techniques, which involve forming a replica mold on a silicon wafer using SU8–2150 photoresist. The SU8 layer, with a thickness of 500 µm, is fabricated using a direct lithography system (Dilase 650, KLOE), ensuring precise patterning and high aspect ratio capabilities.

Fig 1. Schematic illustration of the hybrid microchannel fabrication process.

Fig 1

The PDMS microchannel is produced by soft lithography, and the helical structure is fabricated by DLP 3D printing. The two parts are combined and bonded to a PDMS substrate to form the final device.

Before bonding the PDMS channel to the substrate, the 3D-printed helical structure was inserted into the channel using a press-fit assembly. The square channel cross-section (500 µm × 500 µm) was designed to exactly match the 500 µm outer diameter of the helical structure, resulting in a perfect dimensional match that enabled self-centering and stable alignment along the entire channel length. Additionally, the microchannel length was designed to be slightly longer than the helical structure to facilitate ease of insertion and handling during assembly. Therefore, the structure could be placed without the need for an external alignment system. The helical insert was manually positioned using tweezers, and its placement was visually verified under an optical microscope prior to sealing. To prevent axial migration of the helical structure during operation, a downstream constriction was incorporated at the end of the microchannel (Fig 2b). The channel width was locally reduced by 50 µm on each side, forming a 400 µm-wide restriction that is smaller than the outer diameter of the helical structure. This constriction provided stable axial retention of the helical structure at total flow rates up to 5000 µL/min, with no observable displacement during nanoparticle synthesis. No bonding between the structure and PDMS is required; the structure is physically captured by the channel walls/stop and subsequently encapsulated when the microchannel is oxygen-plasma bonded to the substrate. No surface treatment was applied to the 3D-printed structure; oxygen plasma was used exclusively to activate PDMS-PDMS bonding. Across the experiments reported here, no leakage or delamination of the encapsulated structure was observed. The design of the 3D-printed helical structure and the overall architecture of the hybrid passive micromixer are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Design and integration of the 3D-printed helical structure within the hybrid passive micromixer.

Fig 2

(a) Schematic illustration of the helical 3D-printed part, showing overall geometry and key dimensions, with an inset depicting the channel cross-section. (b) Schematic isometric view of the helical structure (c) Photograph of the 3D-printed element inserted into the microchannel, with an inset showing a microscopic image of the helical structure within the channel, demonstrating proper alignment and fit.

A hybrid fabrication approach combining soft lithography and DLP 3D printing was employed to exploit the complementary advantages of conventional microfabrication and additive manufacturing. Soft lithography was used to produce the straight microchannel, providing long, optically transparent channels with smooth walls and high dimensional fidelity, which facilitate imaging and inspection and enable robust, permanent bonding to the substrate. This approach minimizes fouling, delamination, and leakage, ensuring reliable operation under the applied flow conditions. The helical structure was fabricated via DLP 3D printing, allowing realization of its fully three-dimensional geometry, which is not achievable using conventional planar, mold-based techniques. DLP was preferred over 2PP due to its lower cost, higher throughput, and wider accessibility, while still providing sufficient resolution for this work. Typical DLP systems achieve feature resolutions of 25–50 µm, which meet the resolution requirements for the helical structure and channel geometry used in this study. Although 2PP offers much higher resolution (100–200 nm), such sub-micron precision is unnecessary for the feature sizes in this design and would significantly increase fabrication time and cost.

Microfluidic experiments

A series of experiments were conducted to evaluate the functionality of the fabricated microfluidic device. These experiments were designed to address two key aspects: first, to quantify the mixing performance within the microchannel, and second, to demonstrate the device’s capability for controlled nanoparticle synthesis.

Mixing characterization

Two fluids of distinct colors were injected into the hybrid microfluidic system to assess the mixing performance. These dyed water solutions were employed to visually quantify the mixing process within the channels. The experiments were conducted at flow rates of 30, 111, and 278 µL/min, corresponding to Reynolds numbers of 1, 3.7, and 9.27, respectively. The fluids were pumped through the microchannel using a NeMESYS syringe pump (Cetoni GmbH) equipped with 1 mL glass syringes. The microchannel was securely positioned on the stage of a Zeiss Axio Observer inverted microscope, with transmitted light utilized for observation. A high-speed Photron Fastcam SA-X2 camera, integrated with the microscope, was employed to capture the images.

Image analysis was performed in MATLAB to estimate the mixing performance within the microchannel. The captured images were first converted from the RGB color space to the CIELAB color space, allowing for more precise color analysis. The red channel intensity from designated lines across the image was then analyzed, with the number of lines determined by user input. The red channel was chosen because it provided the highest contrast and most reliable intensity variations for assessing mixing performance in the microchannel. This ensured better sensitivity, reduced noise from other channels, and simplified data processing while still accurately capturing mixing efficiency. Using MATLAB’s “ginput” function, points along the microchannel were selected, and the “improfile” function was used to extract intensity profiles along these lines. The extracted profiles were normalized against the initial profile (at the inlet), and variances were calculated as described in the methodology. Lower variances indicate more uniform mixing, making this technique a direct and effective tool for assessing the efficiency of microchannel mixing.

Nanoparticle synthesis

Gold nanoparticles are conventionally synthesized using macroscopic stirred vials or batch reactors, where particle size is mainly controlled by adjusting precursor concentration, reducing-agent stoichiometry, temperature, or reaction time. In such systems, mixing is achieved by bulk stirring. Since nanoparticle formation generally occurs in environments with millimeter- or centimeter-scale dimensions, local fluctuations in precursor concentration can develop, resulting in particle size heterogeneity and variation [39]. For example, Ekaputra et al. [40] reported that gold nanoparticles synthesized in stirred batch reactors using HAuCl₄ and L-ascorbic acid exhibited average diameters of approximately 20–40 nm at alkaline pH (pH 10–11), while larger particles of 200–300 nm were obtained under acidic conditions (pH 3–4), demonstrating that particle size in macroscopic systems is governed by solution chemistry rather than hydrodynamic control. By contrast, microfluidic synthesis operates under laminar flow conditions, where mixing and residence time are strongly influenced by channel geometry and flow rate. As a result, in microfluidic systems, particle formation can be modulated by adjusting flow-rate-controlled residence time while maintaining identical reactant concentrations, offering a different parameter space for controlling nanoparticle synthesis compared to conventional batch approaches.

The hybrid microchannel was used to synthesize gold nanoparticles by mixing gold precursor and reducing agent. The gold precursor was prepared by dissolving an accurately weighed amount of chloroauric acid (HAuCl₄) in deionized water to obtain a one mM solution. The solution was stirred at an ambient temperature until complete dissolution was achieved, resulting in a homogeneous mixture. In a separate procedure, a one mM solution of L-ascorbic acid was freshly prepared by dissolving a measured quantity of reagent-grade L-ascorbic acid in deionized water, followed by gentle stirring and brief sonication to ensure complete dissolution and the elimination of entrapped air bubbles. Both solutions were subsequently injected into a hybrid micromixer to facilitate the synthesis of gold nanoparticles. In this process, the mixing induced the reduction of Au³⁺ to Au⁰, a transformation that was visually evident through the characteristic color change.

The fabrication of gold nanoparticles was investigated at varying flow rates using the same hybrid micromixer. After each run, a thorough washing procedure was implemented to remove residual synthesis reagents and contaminants. All nanoparticle samples underwent a rigorous washing procedure designed to optimize their suitability for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis and ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy. This purification process effectively eliminates residual synthesis reagents, contaminants, and interfering by-products, thereby enhancing the quality and reliability of the obtained data. The refined nanoparticle suspension ensures more accurate and reproducible UV-Vis measurements by reducing baseline noise and minimizing scattering effects. Herein, the nanoparticle suspension was first centrifuged at 6000 RPM for 12 min, and the supernatant containing unwanted by-products was carefully removed by pipette. The resulting pellet was then redispersed in deionized water and subjected to four repeated centrifugation cycles to completely eliminate soluble impurities. In a subsequent step, the samples were washed with ethanol to facilitate rapid drying and minimize agglomeration. Finally, the purified samples were dried under ambient conditions to ensure the preservation of their structural integrity and subsequently analyzed using SEM (JEOL JSM-6710F FEG-SEM). UV-visible spectra of the collected samples were obtained using an INESA SHANGFEN L6S UV-visible spectrophotometer over the wavelength range of 400–700 nm.

Numerical simulation

This part outlines the numerical simulation approach taken to determine the performance characteristics of the proposed hybrid passive micromixer. The primary criterion for selecting a design is its mixing performance, which can be evaluated through mathematical modeling of fluid dynamics and mass transport of a diluted species, irrespective of the nature of the diluted species.

In the context of fluid mechanics, it is well-established that microfluidic channels operate under laminar flow conditions [41], characterized by a low Reynolds number (Re) as a consequence of their small size and reduced flow rates [42]. In laminar microflows, fluid streamlines remain predominantly parallel, mixing primarily governed by molecular diffusion driven by concentration gradients.

The mixing of the two fluids within the microchannel was modeled under steady-state conditions, following a methodology consistent with previous studies [43,44]. Since the primary objective is to evaluate mixing performance across different micromixer designs, steady-state analysis provides an effective framework by capturing the established flow and concentration fields.

The evolution of mixing, in the absence of chemical reactions and under steady-state conditions, is often described by the following advection-diffusion equation:

u·∇C=D∇2C  (1)

where D is the diffusion coefficient, C is the concentration of the diluted species. The influence of the fluid’s flow on the substance’s transport is represented by the convective term on the left, showing how the velocity field causes the concentration to be advected. Conversely, the right-hand side’s diffusion term captures the substance’s tendency to spread from high-concentration zones to low-concentration zones.

The numerical simulations were performed using the commercial finite element software COMSOL Multiphysics. The Laminar Flow and Transport of Diluted Species interfaces were employed to model incompressible laminar flow and advection-diffusion driven species transport under low Reynolds number conditions. These modules are well-suited for modeling low-Reynolds-number flows and mass transport in microfluidic devices. For the numerical simulations, the hybrid micromixer design was modeled using the same geometry and dimensions as those employed in the experimental setup. Specifically, the design consisted of a Y-junction microchannel incorporating an embedded helical structure, precisely replicating the geometric parameters and dimensions outlined in the fabrication section.

Selecting an appropriate mesh size is critical because it governs both numerical accuracy and computational cost. Accordingly, a mesh-sensitivity assessment was performed for the hybrid micromixer prior to the production simulations. Mesh dependence was quantified at Re = 1 using the mixing index evaluated at a fixed downstream location x = 6 mm. Based on this analysis, a mesh consisting of approximately seven million elements was found to yield mesh-independent results, with changes of less than 2% upon further refinement. This mesh was therefore adopted for all reported simulations. Additional details of the mesh-sensitivity study, including quantitative comparisons and mesh illustrations, are provided in Fig S1 in the S1 File. The domain was discretized with tetrahedral elements, with quadratic discretization for enhanced precision, and a minimum element size of 0.5 µm was imposed. As illustrated in Fig 3, particular attention was paid to regions where the helix structure is close to the main channel walls. The mesh was refined in these areas to accurately capture the potentially high velocity and concentration gradients within the narrow gaps, ensuring the resolution of complex flow patterns and the overall accuracy of the simulation.

Fig 3. The schematic representation of the hybrid device illustrates its geometry, dimensions, and computational mesh, which were used in the simulations conducted in this study.

Fig 3

This numerical study utilized water as the fluid medium, consistent with the experimental setup. The water was modeled with a viscosity of 0.001 Pa·s and a density of 1000 kg/m³. As shown in Fig 3, identical flow rates were imposed at both inlets, with tested values of 30, 111, and 278 µL/min, matching those used in the experimental study. A no-slip boundary condition was applied at the channel walls to simulate fluid-solid surface interaction. The outlet boundary was set to atmospheric pressure. The Codina method, a stabilization technique used in finite element simulations to prevent numerical instabilities in convection-dominated problems by minimizing unphysical oscillations and ensuring stable pressure and velocity calculations in incompressible flow, was employed to account for crosswind diffusion, ensuring a realistic representation of the mixing process [45]. Finally, for the diluted species boundary conditions, one inlet was supplied with pure water (0 mol/m³ species concentration), while the other received water with a 1 mol/m³ concentration of the same species (see Fig 3). This concentration difference drove the mixing process within the device.

The numerical model employed in this study was validated against previously published work [43], ensuring its accuracy and reliability. Detailed comparison, including specific parameters, validation data, and relevant references, can be found in section 2 in the S1 File.

Results and discussion

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the results obtained from numerical simulations and experimental validations of the proposed hybrid micromixer. The discussion is organized into two primary sections. First, a detailed characterization of the mixing performance is presented; in this section, mixing efficiency is evaluated as a function of the Reynolds number, and comparisons are made with the performance of conventional micromixer designs. Second, the application of the micromixer for the controlled synthesis of gold nanoparticles is investigated; this section focuses on how flow rate affects nanoparticle size and distribution, as determined by UV-Vis spectroscopy and SEM imaging.

Mixing characterization

The hybrid micromixer, combining a traditional Y-junction with a 3D-printed helical structure, has been subjected to a series of tests across three different Reynolds numbers (3.7, 18.2, and 37.04) to evaluate the efficacy of the hybrid micromixer in enhancing mixing performance. To quantify mixing efficiency in the numerical simulations, several cross-sectional planes normal to the main flow direction were defined at fixed axial locations along the mixing channel. The first cut plane was positioned at the inlet (x=0), where the two fluid species initially come into contact, followed by additional planes at x= 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 20 mm downstream of the inlet. At each cut plane, the spatial distribution of the solute species concentration across the channel cross-section was extracted, and the following formula was utilized:

η=1−σσmax  (2)

In this expression, η denotes the mixing performance, σ refers to the standard deviation of the solute species concentration in the cut plane at a specific measurement point and σmax indicates the standard deviation of the concentration at the inlet (x=0), corresponding to the fully unmixed initial condition. This approach enables a consistent evaluation of the progressive mixing performance along the axial direction of the micromixer.

This section presents the experimental results obtained from the physical prototype of the hybrid micromixer. The micromixer performance was examined under real-life conditions, and the outcomes were compared with the numerical predictions.

The numerical model is employed to compare the mixing performance of the hybrid microchannel with three conventional designs reported in the literature: the T-junction, Tesla-like, and caterpillar mixers. These designs were selected for benchmarking because they represent widely used passive micromixers with distinct mixing mechanisms, making them suitable for assessing the advantages of the hybrid structure. To ensure a fair comparison, the geometries of these conventional mixers were replicated from a previous study [43] and simulated under identical conditions using the procedure outlined in Section 3. As shown in Fig 4, the hybrid design achieves a significant mixing efficiency of approximately 66% within the first 5 mm of travel, demonstrating substantial improvements over the T-junction (+56%), Tesla-like (+53%) and the caterpillar mixer (+47%). The design advantage of the hybrid micromixer is particularly effective at low to moderate Reynolds numbers, where the helical structure optimizes fluid flow and reduces diffusion lengths, leading to significantly improved mixing outcomes compared to traditional designs. After the initial phase, the mixing performance of the hybrid design continues to increase more modestly. Yet, the performance gap between the hybrid design and conventional mixers remains substantial throughout the entire 20 mm channel length. After 20 mm of travel, the hybrid micromixer achieves an efficiency of > 80%, which is considerably higher than those reported for the T-junction (+ 64%), Tesla-like (+ 47%) and caterpillar mixer (+ 35%).

Fig 4. Design and mixing performance of passive micromixers.

Fig 4

(a) Schematic illustration of the design of different passive micromixers. (b) Predicted mixing performance of the hybrid micromixer compared to conventional micromixer designs at Re = 3.7.

The mixing performance of the proposed hybrid micromixer was benchmarked against representative passive micromixers reported in the literature. At a channel length of 5 mm and Re = 0.01, reported mixing indices for conventional passive designs range from 0.27 to 0.90, whereas the present hybrid micromixer achieves a mixing index of 0.99. At Re = 1, literature values typically fall between 0.13 and 0.54, while the proposed design maintains a higher mixing index of 0.73, demonstrating superior mixing performance under both diffusion-dominated and inertia-influenced conditions. A detailed comparison is provided in Table S1 in the S1 File.

Fig 5 (a, b) shows images of the hybrid microchannel captured during experiments performed at flow rates of 30 µL/min (a) and 111 µL/min (b), corresponding to Re = 1 and 3.7, respectively. The helical structure’s influence on mixing is visually apparent, as it induces a swirling motion within the flow, giving rise to eddies that play a significant role in enhancing the mixing process. The presence of these eddies indicates the dynamic interplay between the fluid streams, further facilitated by the helical attachment, which disrupts the laminar flow and promotes thorough mixing. Moreover, Fig 5 (c, d) present magnified views of the mixing region within the hybrid micromixer at flow rates of 30 µL/min (Re = 1) and 111 µL/min (Re = 3.7), respectively. The experimental images in the upper panels illustrate the flow evolution of the two-colored inlet streams, while the corresponding numerical simulations shown below depict the spatial distribution of the normalized concentration field. In the numerical model, one inlet stream is assigned a concentration of 1 mol/m³ and the other 0 mol/m³; therefore, the resulting mixed concentration lies between 0 and 1 mol/m³, where a normalized concentration value of 0.5 corresponds to fully mixed conditions (100% mixing efficiency). The appearance of intermediate concentration values (yellow regions) at early axial locations reflects rapid onset of mixing rather than partial mixing. In addition, snapshots of the concentration contours are provided at several downstream channel lengths for both flow conditions, enabling a direct comparison of the mixing evolution along the micromixer. Consistent with Fig 4, the concentration contours demonstrate progressive homogenization along the channel length, with complete mixing achieved downstream as chaotic advection induced by the helical structure generates strong rotational flow, eddies, and enhanced transverse transport.

Fig 5. Experimental and numerical evaluation of hybrid micromixer performance.

Fig 5

Images taken during experiments conducted at flow rates of 30 µL/min (a) and 111 µL/min (b) with magnified views (c, d) of the mixing region contrasted against numerical predictions of mixing efficiency, and spatial snapshots of the concentration contours at different cut planes. (e) Quantitative comparison of mixing performance between experimental and simulated results. (f) Predicted results of mixing performance of the hybrid micromixer compared to a conventional Y-junction micromixer (without the 3D element).

Fig 5(e) presents the mixing performance of the hybrid microchannel across two flow rates, corresponding to Reynolds numbers of 1 and 3.7 for both experiments and simulations. The results demonstrate strong agreement between the experimental findings and the simulation outcomes, indicating a rapid increase in mixing within the initial 6 mm, followed by a more gradual progression. The maximum deviation between the simulation and experiment was 6% at the outlet, which occurred at Re = 1. The slight drop in mixing performance observed at Re = 3.7 compared to Re = 1 can be attributed to the reduced residence time of the fluid streams, which consequently limits mass transfer by diffusion. The consistency between experimental results and simulation data confirms the accuracy of the simulations in capturing these crucial aspects of fluid dynamics, which is essential for optimizing microfluidic designs for enhanced mixing.

Fig 5(f) compares the predicted mixing performance of the hybrid passive micromixer (red) to that achieved by the conventional Y-junction microchannel without the helix included (blue) at a downstream position of 20 mm across Re = 1–50. The straight Y-junction is included here as a baseline reference geometry to isolate and quantify the mixing enhancement introduced by the embedded 3D-printed helical structure, rather than as a benchmark against state-of-the-art passive micromixers. The hybrid design demonstrates superior performance, maintaining efficiency above 70% over the tested range of flow rates. In comparison, the Y-junction microchannel experiences a slight decline in mixing efficiency as the Reynolds number increases from 1 to 5, after which the efficiency remains nearly constant over the remaining range (Re = 5–50). This is due to reduced fluid residence time, which limits molecular diffusion at higher flow velocities. Comparative benchmarking against more advanced passive micromixer designs, including Tesla-like and caterpillar mixers, is presented separately in Fig 4 and summarized in Table S1 in the S1 File. Experimental observations of fluid streams in the Y-junction micromixer at different Re numbers are presented in S4 Fig in the S1 File. Notably, at Re = 1, the hybrid micromixer design achieves a superior mixing efficiency of 92%. As the Reynolds number increases further to intermediate values (Re is 5–15), a gradual decline in mixing efficiency is observed. However, with a further increase in the Reynolds number beyond Re = 15, the mixing efficiency improves steadily and reaches values above 95% at higher Reynolds numbers (approximately 40–50). The observed trend in mixing performance can be attributed to the balance between diffusion-dominated and convection-dominated mixing within the microchannel. At low Reynolds numbers, molecular diffusion serves as the primary mixing mechanism, and the low flow velocity allows sufficient time for diffusion to enhance mixing efficiency. However, as Re increases from 5 to 15, the velocity rises, reducing the residence time of fluid elements within the channel. Since the flow remains laminar, convective mixing remains relatively weak, and molecular diffusion alone becomes insufficient to maintain high mixing efficiency, leading to a decline in performance. With a further increase in Re to 50, inertial effects become more pronounced, promoting the development of secondary flow structures or mild disturbances that enhance mixing. This improvement is likely due to the formation of Dean vortices or chaotic advection, which facilitate greater fluid interaction and improve mixing efficiency despite the higher flow rate.

Gold nanoparticle synthesis

The hybrid micromixer was used to synthesize gold nanoparticles, which requires a thorough mixing between the gold precursor, HAuCl₄ (chloroauric acid), and the reducing agent, L-ascorbic acid (LASC). The helical geometry ensures efficient interaction between the reactants, facilitating the reduction of Au³ ⁺ ions to Au⁰, leading to the formation of gold nanoparticles. The precursor and the reducing agent are introduced into the device through separate inlets at equal flow rates, with concentrations set at 1 mM for each. Flow rates of 200, 500, 1000, 2000, and 5000 µL/min were tested to optimize the synthesis process.

The UV-Vis spectra of gold nanoparticles synthesized at varying flow rates demonstrate a clear correlation between flow rate, surface plasmon resonance (SPR) peak position, and peak broadness, as shown in Fig 6. At the highest flow rate (5000 µL/min, blue line), the SPR peak is sharp and centered at 528.5 nm, indicative of smaller nanoparticles with a narrow size distribution. As the flow rate decreases, the peaks progressively move toward longer wavelengths, which are closer to the red region of the visible spectrum to 536.5 nm (2000 µL/min, yellow), 548 nm (1000 µL/min, green), 547.5 nm (500 µL/min, orange), and 553 nm (200 µL/min, black), consistent with larger nanoparticle sizes or aggregation at slower flow rates. Concurrently, the peaks broaden significantly at lower flow rates (e.g., 200 µL/min), suggesting increased polydispersity or aggregation due to extended growth times. Notably, the near-identical peak positions for 500 µL/min (547.5 nm) and 1000 µL/min (548 nm) hint at potential kinetic limitations or experimental variability at intermediate flow rates, warranting further study. These findings suggest that the flow rate is a crucial parameter for controlling nanoparticle size and uniformity, with higher flow rates being optimal for applications requiring small, monodisperse particles. Lower flow rates might be preferred when larger particles are desired, albeit with less precise size control. This understanding is particularly valuable for optimizing synthesis conditions to achieve gold nanoparticles with specific size characteristics for targeted applications.

Fig 6. UV-Vis analysis of collected samples at different flow rates.

Fig 6

(a) Collected samples at different total flow rates (200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 μL/min), (b) UV-Vis spectra of five different total flow rates.

SEM images of gold nanoparticles synthesized at a flow rate of 500 μL/min reveal particles with significant size variations, as shown in Fig 7 (a-b). The particles exhibit irregular, quasi-spherical morphologies with sizes ranging from 30 to 127 nm. Such a broad size distribution correlates well with the previous UV-Vis data in Fig 6, where the 500 μL/min sample showed a broader absorption peak, a direct consequence of the polydispersity observed in the SEM images. The formation of such varied particle sizes at this flow rate (500 μL/min) can be attributed to the relatively slower reaction kinetics, allowing different growth stages to occur simultaneously. Some particles have more time to grow while new nucleation sites are still forming, resulting in the observed heterogeneous size distribution.

Fig 7. Effect of Total Flow Rate on the Morphology and Size Distribution of Gold Nanoparticles.

Fig 7

SEM images of gold nanoparticles synthesized at total flow rates of 500 μL/min (a, b), 2000 μL/min (d, e), and 5000 μL/min (g, h) at different magnifications. Corresponding particle size distributions obtained from SEM analysis are shown for total flow rates of 500 μL/min (c), 2000 μL/min (f), and 5000 μL/min (i), with mean particle diameters and standard deviations indicated.

The SEM images of gold nanoparticles synthesized at 2000 μL/min are presented in Fig 7 (d, e), showing a more monodisperse size distribution than the sample synthesized at 500 μL/min. The particles are predominantly spherical, with smooth surfaces and diameters ranging from approximately 20–50 nm. This narrow size distribution aligns with the sharper, more intense UV-Vis absorption peak observed for the 2000 μL/min sample. The higher flow rate enables faster mixing and more homogeneous reaction conditions, promoting uniform nucleation and growth of the nanoparticles. The smaller average size at 2000 μL/min can be attributed to the shorter residence time, which limits particle growth.

Fig 7 (g, h) presents the SEM images of gold nanoparticles synthesized at a high flow rate of 5000 μL/min, showcasing well-defined quasi-spherical nanoparticles with a remarkably narrow size distribution averaging 14–25 nm. This exceptional mono-dispersity elegantly supports our earlier UV-Vis spectroscopic data, where the sharp absorption peaks indicated uniform particle populations. The synthesis kinetics at this elevated flow rate proved crucial, as the rapid flow facilitated simultaneous nucleation events while minimizing variations in growth periods. This uniformity is illustrated across different scales; the lower magnification image, Fig 7(g), provides a comprehensive view of the particle population’s consistency, while the higher magnification image, Fig 7(h), reveals intricate details of individual particle morphology, both confirming the exceptional size control achieved. The microscopic evidence firmly establishes that elevated flow rates in microfluidic synthesis create ideal conditions for producing monodisperse gold nanoparticles through precise control over nucleation and growth mechanisms, marking a significant advancement in the synthesis of uniform nanomaterials for precise applications.

Particle diameters were measured in ImageJ after pixel-to-nanometer calibration; for each condition, n = 150 nanoparticles were sampled from multiple, non-overlapping fields of view, and the corresponding size histograms are provided in Fig 7. The distributions were unimodal and shifted to smaller sizes with increasing flow rate, yielding 85 ± 21 nm at 500 µL/min, 35 ± 6 nm at 2000 µL·min ⁻ ¹, and 19 ± 2 nm at 5000 µL·min ⁻ ¹ (mean ± STD). A progressive narrowing of the distributions at higher flow verifies the SEM observations and is consistent with the UV–Vis spectra, which exhibit a blue shift and peak narrowing of the surface-plasmon resonance with increasing flow rate. Operationally, no fouling or clogging was observed. Moreover, after each run, a brief gold-etchant rinse was applied to remove residual nanoparticle sediment from the microchannel and 3D-printed structure, maintaining stable performance throughout.

Conclusion

This study developed a hybrid passive micromixer by integrating traditional soft lithography microfabrication techniques with cost-effective 3D printing to enhance mixing efficiency for nanoparticle synthesis. The microchannel was fabricated from PDMS using soft lithography, and a 3D-printed helical structure, produced with an affordable DLP printer, was embedded within the channel. Additionally, numerical simulations were conducted to optimize the micromixer design and operational parameters, with the helical structure demonstrating superior mixing capabilities under laminar flow conditions. Experimental validation was performed using dyed fluids, and mixing efficiency was quantitatively assessed through MATLAB-based image analysis. The hybrid micromixer exhibited enhanced mixing performance, with results aligning closely with simulation predictions. Notably, the hybrid micromixer achieved a mixing efficiency of 92% at Re = 1 and 83% at Re = 3.7. This significantly surpasses the performance of conventional passive micromixers at Re = 3.7, where a T-mixer achieves only 19% mixing efficiency (a 337% improvement by our design), a Tesla-like mixer reaches 39% (a 113% improvement), and a caterpillar mixer achieves 55% (a 51% improvement).

Gold nanoparticles were synthesized within the micromixer using L-ascorbic acid as the reducing agent, and the products were characterized through UV-Vis spectroscopy and SEM. The synthesized gold nanoparticles ranged in size from 14 to 25 nm at a total flow rate of 5000 µL/min, demonstrating precise control over the nanoparticle size distribution. This hybrid micromixer approach provides a scalable, efficient, and cost-effective platform for nanoparticle synthesis, with potential applications in nanotechnology and materials science.

Operational robustness was also evaluated. Across all runs, including the highest tested flow rate of 5000 µL/min, no fouling, clogging, leakage, or delamination was observed. The permanent bonding and smooth, optically clear channel walls helped suppress particle deposition, and a brief gold-etchant rinse after each run effectively removed residual nanoparticles from the microchannel and the helical structure, restoring baseline conditions.

Despite the promising results, this study has several limitations. The current work focused exclusively on gold nanoparticle synthesis using L-ascorbic acid, leaving the micromixer’s performance with other materials and reactions unexamined. Furthermore, the size of the 3D-printed structure is constrained by the minimum resolution of the DLP printer, which may limit the design’s scalability and versatility.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary information including mesh independence study, numerical model validation, comparison of mixing performance of passive micromixers reported in the literature, and Y-shaped micromixer performance.

(DOCX)

pone.0342823.s001.docx (979.4KB, docx)
S2 File. Data.

(XLSX)

pone.0342823.s002.xlsx (247.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Auroux P-A, Iossifidis D, Reyes DR, Manz A. Micro total analysis systems. 2. Analytical standard operations and applications. Anal Chem. 2002;74(12):2637–52. doi: 10.1021/ac020239t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vilkner T, Janasek D, Manz A. Micro total analysis systems. Recent developments. Anal Chem. 2004;76(12):3373–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Martins GM, Braga FC, de Castro PP, Brocksom TJ, de Oliveira KT. Continuous flow reactions in the preparation of active pharmaceutical ingredients and fine chemicals. Chem Commun (Camb). 2024;60(24):3226–39. doi: 10.1039/d4cc00418c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hallström E, Kandavalli V, Wählby C, Hast A. Rapid label-free identification of seven bacterial species using microfluidics, single-cell time-lapse phase-contrast microscopy, and deep learning-based image and video classification. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0330265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yuan S, Yuan H, Hay DC, Hu H, Wang C. Revolutionizing Drug Discovery: The Impact of Distinct Designs and Biosensor Integration in Microfluidics-Based Organ-on-a-Chip Technology. Biosensors (Basel). 2024;14(9):425. doi: 10.3390/bios14090425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pappas D. Microfluidics and cancer analysis: cell separation, cell/tissue culture, cell mechanics, and integrated analysis systems. Analyst. 2016;141(2):525–35. doi: 10.1039/c5an01778e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gu L, Liu H, Wang L, Fan H, Zheng X, Xu T, et al. Rapid high-throughput isolation and purification of chicken myoblasts based on deterministic lateral displacement microfluidic chips. PLoS One. 2024;19(12):e0301309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yeo LY, Chang H-C, Chan PPY, Friend JR. Microfluidic devices for bioapplications. Small. 2011;7(1):12–48. doi: 10.1002/smll.201000946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mark D, Haeberle S, Roth G, von Stetten F, Zengerle R. Microfluidic lab-on-a-chip platforms: requirements, characteristics and applications. Chem Soc Rev. 2010;39(3):1153–82. doi: 10.1039/b820557b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sista R, Hua Z, Thwar P, Sudarsan A, Srinivasan V, Eckhardt A, et al. Development of a digital microfluidic platform for point of care testing. Lab Chip. 2008;8(12):2091–104. doi: 10.1039/b814922d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee C-Y, Chang C-L, Wang Y-N, Fu L-M. Microfluidic mixing: a review. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(5):3263–87. doi: 10.3390/ijms12053263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ward K, Fan ZH. Mixing in microfluidic devices and enhancement methods. J Micromech Microeng. 2015;25(9):094001. doi: 10.1088/0960-1317/25/9/094001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Waqas M, Palevicius A, Jurenas V, Pilkauskas K, Janusas G. Design and Investigation of a Passive-Type Microfluidics Micromixer Integrated with an Archimedes Screw for Enhanced Mixing Performance. Micromachines (Basel). 2025;16(1):82. doi: 10.3390/mi16010082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ghorbani Kharaji Z, Bayareh M, Kalantar V. A review on acoustic field-driven micromixers. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering. 2021;19(6):553–69. doi: 10.1515/ijcre-2020-0188 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Agha A, Alazzam A, Abu-Nada E. Acoustofluidic polymer micropillars for efficient micromixing and nanoparticle synthesis. International Journal of Engineering Science. 2026;219:104430. doi: 10.1016/j.ijengsci.2025.104430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Agha A, Abu-Nada E, Alazzam A. Integration of acoustic micromixing with cyclic olefin copolymer microfluidics for enhanced lab-on-a-chip applications in nanoscale liposome synthesis. Biofabrication. 2024;16(4):045004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rida A, Gijs MAM. Manipulation of self-assembled structures of magnetic beads for microfluidic mixing and assaying. Anal Chem. 2004;76(21):6239–46. doi: 10.1021/ac049415j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chang C-C, Yang R-J. Electrokinetic mixing in microfluidic systems. Microfluid Nanofluid. 2007;3(5):501–25. doi: 10.1007/s10404-007-0178-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Buchegger W, Wagner C, Lendl B, Kraft M, Vellekoop MJ. A highly uniform lamination micromixer with wedge shaped inlet channels for time resolved infrared spectroscopy. Microfluid Nanofluid. 2010;10(4):889–97. doi: 10.1007/s10404-010-0722-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sudarsan AP, Ugaz VM. Multivortex micromixing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(19):7228–33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507976103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karnik R, Gu F, Basto P, Cannizzaro C, Dean L, Kyei-Manu W, et al. Microfluidic platform for controlled synthesis of polymeric nanoparticles. Nano Lett. 2008;8(9):2906–12. doi: 10.1021/nl801736q [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lu M, et al. Microfluidic hydrodynamic focusing for synthesis of nanomaterials. Nano Today. 2016;11(6):778–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Han J, Zhu Z, Qian H, Wohl AR, Beaman CJ, Hoye TR, et al. A simple confined impingement jets mixer for flash nanoprecipitation. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(10):4018–23. doi: 10.1002/jps.23259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ying Y, Chen G, Zhao Y, Li S, Yuan Q. A high throughput methodology for continuous preparation of monodispersed nanocrystals in microfluidic reactors. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2008;135(3):209–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2007.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kumar SL. Microfluidics Technology for Nanoparticles and Equipment. Emerging Technologies for Nanoparticle Manufacturing. Springer International Publishing; 2021. 67–98. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50703-9_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Maeki M, Fujishima Y, Sato Y, Yasui T, Kaji N, Ishida A, et al. Understanding the formation mechanism of lipid nanoparticles in microfluidic devices with chaotic micromixers. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hamdallah SI, Zoqlam R, Erfle P, Blyth M, Alkilany AM, Dietzel A, et al. Microfluidics for pharmaceutical nanoparticle fabrication: The truth and the myth. Int J Pharm. 2020;584:119408. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cai S, Erfle P, Dietzel A. A digital twin of the coaxial lamination mixer for the systematic study of mixing performance and the prediction of precipitated nanoparticle properties. Micromachines (Basel). 2022;13(12):2076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aldaghestani Y, Homsi R, Alazzam A, Schiffer A. 3D printed microfluidic devices for nanoparticle fabrication: a review. Prog Addit Manuf. 2025;10(10):7291–310. doi: 10.1007/s40964-025-01140-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Waldbaur A, Rapp H, Länge K, Rapp BE. Let there be chip—towards rapid prototyping of microfluidic devices: one-step manufacturing processes. Anal Methods. 2011;3(12):2681. doi: 10.1039/c1ay05253e [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Melchels FPW, Feijen J, Grijpma DW. A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(24):6121–30. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Amin R, Knowlton S, Hart A, Yenilmez B, Ghaderinezhad F, Katebifar S, et al. 3D-printed microfluidic devices. Biofabrication. 2016;8(2):022001. doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/8/2/022001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ngo IL, Lai TK, Choi HJ, Le HTT, Kim GM, Dang TD. A study on mixing performance of dean flows through spiral micro-channel under various effects. Physics of Fluids. 2020;32(2). doi: 10.1063/1.5142884 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yang H, Akinoglu EM, Guo L, Jin M, Zhou G, Giersig M, et al. A PTFE helical capillary microreactor for the high throughput synthesis of monodisperse silica particles. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2020;401:126063. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Panariello L, Damilos S, du Toit H, Wu G, Radhakrishnan ANP, Parkin IP, et al. Highly reproducible, high-yield flow synthesis of gold nanoparticles based on a rational reactor design exploiting the reduction of passivated Au(iii). React Chem Eng. 2020;5(4):663–76. doi: 10.1039/c9re00469f [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rahman MT, Rebrov EV. Microreactors for gold nanoparticles synthesis: from faraday to flow. Processes. 2014;2(2):466–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Erfle P, Riewe J, Bunjes H, Dietzel A. Goodbye fouling: a unique coaxial lamination mixer (CLM) enabled by two-photon polymerization for the stable production of monodisperse drug carrier nanoparticles. Lab Chip. 2021;21(11):2178–93. doi: 10.1039/d1lc00047k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Erfle P, Riewe J, Cai S, Bunjes H, Dietzel A. Horseshoe lamination mixer (HLM) sets new standards in the production of monodisperse lipid nanoparticles. Lab Chip. 2022;22(16):3025–44. doi: 10.1039/d2lc00240j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang L, Chen Q, Ma Y, Sun J. Microfluidic methods for fabrication and engineering of nanoparticle drug delivery systems. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2020;3(1):107–20. doi: 10.1021/acsabm.9b00853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Annur S, Santosa SJ, Hidayat Aprilita N. pH dependence of size control in gold nanoparticles synthesized at room temperature. Orient J Chem. 2018;34(5):2305–12. doi: 10.13005/ojc/340510 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Whitesides GM. The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature. 2006;442(7101):368–73. doi: 10.1038/nature05058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cai G, et al. A review on micromixers. Micromachines. 2017;8(9):274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Enders A, et al. 3D printed microfluidic mixers-a comparative study on mixing unit performances. Small. 2019;15(2):e1804326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zheng Y, Liu Y, Tang C, Liu B, Zou H, Li W, et al. Mixing performance analysis and optimal design of a novel passive baffle micromixer. Micromachines (Basel). 2024;15(2):182. doi: 10.3390/mi15020182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Codina R. A discontinuity-capturing crosswind-dissipation for the finite element solution of the convection-diffusion equation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 1993;110(3–4):325–42. doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(93)90213-h [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bonnie Gray

1 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Alazzam,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2026 11:59PM. Please respond to all comments from all reviewers. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bonnie Gray

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[This work was supported by the System on Chip Lab, Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Khalifa University of Science & Technology.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Your striking image file will represent your article upon publication on the PLOS ONE homepage. The image must be derived from a figure or supporting information file from your manuscript. Ideally, striking images should be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel images that do no contain additional text, scale bars, or arrows.

Please also keep in mind that PLOS's Creative Commons Attribution License applies to striking images. As such, please do not submit any figures or photos that have been previously copyrighted unless you have express written permission from the copyright holder to publish under the CCAL license. You can read more about PLOS’s Creative Commons License on our homepage: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Review: PONE-D-25-52946 - Hybrid Passive Micromixer Using Combined Traditional Microfabrication and 3D Printing for Gold Nanoparticle Synthesis

The authors did a nice research on different aspects of the synthesis of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) through a hybrid microfluidic device. They used a combined fabrication method for a microfluidic chip, soft-lithography and DLP for the Y-junction mixer including helical structure to enhance mixing. To support the design optimization they ran numerical simulations and experimental validation, and reached a mixing efficiency of 92% at a Reynolds number of 1 by using passive mixers to achieve mixing at low Reynolds numbers.

The manuscript is not accepted at this stage and needs to be revised based on the following comments. It is suggested that the authors keep the nature of the research paper different from a review paper and need to address point-by-point answers for the following comments.

Introduction

The introduction needs to be rewritten. It is too long and not categorized well for different topics of microfluidics, passive, active mixers, current limitations, advantages of microfluidics for NPs applications, fabrication methods and the role of 3D printing to improve mixing, geometry of micromixers, etc…. You don’t have to talk about all in detail like a review paper. Combine ones in shorter sentences and highlight the contribution of the paper. Avoid redundancy and back and forth discussion, at the very end of introduction you talked about passive micromixers again! The content of such interdisciplinary topic is too much for a research paper. From fabrication, to fluid mechanics, to synthesis, types of mixers, etc.!

The second paragraph of the introduction jumps from active/passive micromixer to the synthesis of nanoparticles. A transition is needed. Also, the following paragraph starting with However, needs to be followed in the same paragraph.

DLP-Softlithography is a better term. Parallelism for technology instead of DLP-PDMS (one technology the other material)

Design and fabrication

hybrid passive micromixer: Hybrid in terms of what?

Adding two dashed blocks in Figure-1 for PDMS fabrication AND DLP printing would makes the fab procedure more clear in a glance.

Section 2.3

In the 3rd line you said PDMS microchannels. Please add the material for the DLP printed helical structure too. What is the backbone of the resin? This would clarify the next discussions about PDMS-PDMS bonding.

How did the authors manage alignment for embedding the helix structure in the microchannels? What setup adjustment was taken using Dilase? I see you used A 50 μm stop feature. Label that in Fig2-b and elaborate how that helps prevent axial migration? Instead of insertion into microchannels, couldn’t you directly 3D print the helical structure on the PDMS microchannel??

It’s better to add the target resolution when DLP and 2PP are compared, in the paragraph before section 2.4

Table 1 could be moved to the supplementary and the best efficiencies be cited in one sentence in the main text. This is not a review paper.

Figure 5 shows the max of mixing performance happens at 20 mm, whereas the concentration contours in Fig6 d shows the samples are mixed to 30% of the initial concentration after 4mm. Figure 6C show two yellow (35%) at two locations. Please clarify and also provide spatial snap shots of the concentration at different locations along the channel.

Figure 6f: What is the justification for the minimum of mixing performance at Re=20?? If the authors attribute it to the diffusion-dominated vs convection-dominated flow at this point, have you looked at the concentration contours at Re 20?

What is the coordinate/location of the cut plane? It’s important to show that/mention that for the performance graphs. Additional x(or y) information along the mixing channel is required for “a cross-sectional plane was established after each mixing element…” and “solute species' concentration in the cut plane at a specific measurement point”. What is the coordinates of that point???

Figure 7 needs to be revised for the legend, units of flowrates on the graph although mentioned in the caption.

Figure 8: One of the SEM scale bars in “d” or “e” must be wrong for the same flow rate of 2000ul/min.

Is the optimized synthesis of AuNPs, ranging from 12‒30 nm, for a total flow rate of 5000 μl/min?

Can the authors introduce a parameter based on the size and flow rate for a more generic NPs synthesis?

Any statistical analysis for the printed chips?

Editorial

Proof read for typos. (Typo : neMESYS syringe pump , missing period after “and reduced transparency” )

Reviewer #2: This paper details a method for producing laminar-flow in-plane and out-of-plane mixers using a mixture of conventional microlithography and 3D Printing. It makes a point for helical channels for improved mixing which required a stereolithography processing step on top of the microlithographically produced channel. The paper is relatively straight-forward in manner and the techniques demonstrated have both been demonstrated before, albeit not with specifically this focus. The authors chose a bit unconventional application scope for this channel setup, i.e., the reduction synthesis of gold nanoparticles which requires mixing two solutions (a metal salt and the reductant).

A couple of suggestions should be addressed before considering this manuscript for publication.

Remove the section on the NS equation - this can be referenced as the equation is not required here. We know which equation the solver needs to solve. As this is a case of diffusive mixing, Talor-Aris dispersion should be considered here more so than the fundamental simplified NS equation. However, neither of this is relevant for the manuscript at hand.

Mixing performances of the designs is compared numerically only and references to experimental validations are given. However, Figure 6f should compare the performance to a Tesla mixer rather than a straight Y-channel which is not used for mixing so much anymore.

Lastly, please compare the particle synthesis against a macroscopic experiment in a stirred vial which is de facto standard of how these syntheses are conducted today. Here, the diameter variation can only be varied by stoichiometry and not by flow rates which is a strong reason for choosing the microfluidic approach.

Overall, this is an interesting study. Albeit not ground-breaking, it will surely find its place in the literature as it shows an interesting advantage of hybrid manufacturing in microfluidics.

The reviewer suggest publications after revision.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bastian E. Rapp

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 18;21(2):e0342823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342823.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jan 2026

Reviewer#1, Comment # 1: The introduction needs to be rewritten. It is too long and not categorized well for different topics of microfluidics, passive, active mixers, current limitations, advantages of microfluidics for NPs applications, fabrication methods and the role of 3D printing to improve mixing, geometry of micromixers, etc…. You don’t have to talk about all in detail like a review paper. Combine ones in shorter sentences and highlight the contribution of the paper. Avoid redundancy and back and forth discussion, at the very end of introduction you talked about passive micromixers again! The content of such interdisciplinary topic is too much for a research paper. From fabrication to fluid mechanics, to synthesis, types of mixers, etc.!. The second paragraph of the introduction jumps from active/passive micromixer to the synthesis of nanoparticles. A transition is needed. Also, the following paragraph starting with However, needs to be followed in the same paragraph. DLP-Softlithography is a better term. Parallelism for technology instead of DLP-PDMS (one technology the other material).

Author response: We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. The Introduction has been substantially revised, condensed, and reorganized to improve clarity, coherence, and focus, while avoiding review-style depth and redundancy. The revised Introduction now follows a clear logical flow: the first paragraph introduces the general advantages and applications of microfluidic systems; the second paragraph focuses on micromixing challenges under laminar flow and distinguishes between active and passive micromixers; the third paragraph narrows the discussion to passive micromixers for nanoparticle synthesis and outlines current limitations; the fourth and fifth paragraphs introduce additive manufacturing and helical/spiral geometries as effective passive mixing strategies; the sixth paragraph reviews recent 3D-printed micromixers and identifies scalability limitations of high-cost 2PP approaches; and the final paragraphs clearly highlight the contribution of this work by presenting a cost-effective hybrid DLP-soft lithography micromixer for gold nanoparticle synthesis. In addition, terminology has been corrected to “DLP-soft lithography,” transitions between topics have been improved, and redundant discussions have been removed. Please see the revised Introduction on pages 3-5.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 2: Hybrid in terms of what?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for clarification. The term “hybrid” refers to the integration of two fabrication approaches, namely a PDMS microchannel fabricated by soft lithography and a DLP-printed helical insert that induces chaotic advection in addition to diffusive mixing. This definition has now been explicitly explained in the revised introduction section, please see page 5 lines 7-9.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 3: Adding two dashed blocks in Figure-1 for PDMS fabrication AND DLP printing would makes the fab procedure more clear in a glance.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. Figure 1 has been updated to visually separate the PDMS soft-lithography process and the DLP-based fabrication of the helical structure using dashed outlines. Please see figure 1 in the revised manuscript.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 4: Section 2.3 In the 3rd line you said PDMS microchannels. Please add the material for the DLP printed helical structure too. What is the backbone of the resin? This would clarify the next discussions about PDMS-PDMS bonding.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. Section 2.3 has been revised to explicitly describe the material of the DLP-printed helical structure. The manuscript now states that the microchannel consists of a PDMS channel and a DLP-printed helical structure fabricated from a commercial acrylate-based UV-curable photopolymer resin forming a crosslinked polymer network. Please check page 7 line 10-13.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 5: How did the authors manage alignment for embedding the helix structure in the microchannels? What setup adjustment was taken using Dilase?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Alignment of the helical structure within the PDMS microchannel was achieved through a design based self-alignment approach rather than an external alignment setup. The channel cross-section and length were designed to closely match the outer diameter and length of the 3D-printed helix, enabling a self-centering interference fit during insertion. The structure was manually inserted using tweezers, and correct placement was verified under an optical microscope prior to sealing the device. Additional details have been included in the revised manuscript to clarify this procedure (page 8, line 5-13).

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 6: I see you used A 50 μm stop feature. Label that in Fig2-b and elaborate how that helps prevent axial migration?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Figure 2b has been revised to explicitly label the 50 µm width reduction at the downstream end of the channel. In addition, Section 2.3 has been expanded to clarify the mechanical role of this constriction. Please check page 8 line 13 to page 9 line 1. ________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 7: Instead of insertion into microchannels, couldn’t you directly 3D print the helical structure on the PDMS microchannel??

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. While direct DLP printing of the helical structure onto a PDMS substrate could be considered, it presents several practical challenges, including unreliable adhesion between the cured resin and PDMS, surface contamination that hinders oxygen plasma activation and bonding to the microchannel layer, and difficulty in removing support material without damaging the substrate. In addition, direct printing inside the microchannels is not feasible, as DLP printing requires a planar build surface and optical access, and uncured resin cannot be reliably removed from the microchannel. For these reasons, the helical structure was fabricated separately and subsequently integrated into the PDMS microchannel.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 8: It’s better to add the target resolution when DLP and 2PP are compared In the paragraph before section

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly include the typical resolution ranges of both DLP (25-50 µm) and two-photon polymerization (100-200 nm), and to clarify that the resolution provided by DLP is sufficient for the target geometry used in this work, whereas the higher resolution of 2PP is not required. Please see the revised text on page 10, line 7-12.

________________________________________

Reviewer#2, Comment # 9: Table 1 could be moved to the supplementary and the best efficiencies be cited in one sentence in the main text. This is not a review paper.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. Following this recommendation, Table 1 has been moved to Supplementary Information (now Table S1). The main text has been revised to concisely summarize only the key benchmarking results by citing the best reported mixing efficiencies from the literature and directly comparing them with the performance of the proposed hybrid micromixer. Please see the revised text on page 19, line 5-11.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 10: Figure 5 shows the max of mixing performance happens at 20 mm, whereas the concentration contours in Fig6 d shows the samples are mixed to 30% of the initial concentration after 4mm. Figure 6C show two yellow (35%) at two locations. Please clarify and also provide spatial snap shots of the concentration at different locations along the channel.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this ambiguity and apologize for the confusion caused by not clearly defining the normalized concentration scale in the original manuscript. In the numerical model, one inlet stream is assigned a concentration of 1 mol/m³ and the other 0 mol/m³; therefore, a normalized concentration of 0.5 corresponds to fully mixed conditions (100% mixing efficiency). This definition has now been explicitly added to the manuscript, and Figure 5 has been revised to include a normalized concentration color bar, and spatial snapshots of the concentration contours at different cut planes for both cases. Please see the revised text on page 20, line 7-21.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 11: Figure 6f: What is the justification for the minimum of mixing performance at Re=20?? If the authors attribute it to the diffusion-dominated vs convection-dominated flow at this point, have you looked at the concentration contours at Re 20?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful question. As discussed in the manuscript, the local minimum in mixing performance around Re=15 is attributed to the balance between diffusion-dominated and convection-influenced mixing. At this Reynolds number, the increase in flow velocity reduces residence time, while inertial effects and secondary flow structures induced by the helical geometry are not yet sufficiently developed to compensate, leading to a temporary reduction in mixing efficiency. Regarding the concentration contours, these were necessarily examined, as the mixing efficiency is directly computed from the spatial distribution of solute concentration extracted on multiple cross-sectional planes along the channel. The contours at Re =15 show less effective transverse homogenization compared to both lower Re (diffusion-dominated) and higher Re (inertia-assisted) cases, consistent with the observed trend in Figure 5f. To better resolve this behavior and confirm the trend, we have extended the analysis to a wider Reynolds number range (Re=0-50) and investigated more Re numbers, as shown in the updated Figure 5f. We believe this explanation clarifies the physical origin of the observed minimum. Please see the revised text on page 22 line 13-22.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 12: What is the coordinate/location of the cut plane? It’s important to show that/mention that for the performance graphs. Additional x(or y) information along the mixing channel is required for “a cross-sectional plane was established after each mixing element…” and “solute species' concentration in the cut plane at a specific measurement point”. What is the coordinates of that point???

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly define the locations of the cross-sectional cut planes used to evaluate mixing efficiency. The axial positions of all measurement planes along the channel are now clearly stated, including the inlet reference plane. Please refer to the revised text on page 17, line 12 to page 18, line 3 for details.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 13: Figure 7 needs to be revised for the legend, units of flowrates on the graph although mentioned in the caption.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Figure 6 has been revised to explicitly include the flow-rate units directly in the plot legend. Each curve is now labeled with its corresponding total flow rate including units (µL/min). Please see the revised figure on page 25.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 14: Figure 8: One of the SEM scale bars in “d” or “e” must be wrong for the same flow rate of 2000ul/min.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for carefully examining Figure 7. The scale bars in panels (d) and (e) were originally correct and reflected images acquired at different SEM magnifications for the same flow rate (2000 µL/min). Consequently, the scale bar in panel (e) appears larger relative to the field of view than in panel (d), which is consistent with the increased magnification. However, to improve clarity and maintain visual consistency with the SEM images presented for other flow rates, we have revised the scale bar in panel (e) to 50 µm. This modification was made for clearer comparison and does not affect the interpretation of the results. Please see figure 7 located on page 26.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 15: Is the optimized synthesis of AuNPs, ranging from 12‒30 nm, for a total flow rate of 5000 μl/min?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. Within the scope of this work, using the specific helical mixer design and the selected gold precursor and reducing agent concentrations, a total flow rate of 5000 μL/min was identified as the optimized condition for synthesizing gold nanoparticles with an average size of approximately 19 nm, within an overall size range of 14-25 nm.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 16: Can the authors introduce a parameter based on the size and flow rate for a more generic NPs synthesis?

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. While introducing a generalized parameter linking nanoparticle size and flow rate is an interesting direction, nanoparticle formation is strongly influenced by system-specific factors such as reaction chemistry, precursor concentration, and nucleation and growth kinetics. As a result, the relationship between flow rate and particle size is not readily universal. In this work, we therefore focus on demonstrating flow rate as an effective tuning parameter for gold nanoparticle synthesis under fixed chemical conditions. Establishing a generalized parameter applicable across different nanoparticle systems would require a broader, systematic study beyond the scope of the present work.________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 17: Any statistical analysis for the printed chips?

Author response: The primary focus of this work is the development of a hybrid system for nanoparticle fabrication. The 3D-printed helical structure was designed based on established literature to enhance mixing within the microchannel, and the channel dimensions were matched to the helical structure to ensure proper integration. These dimensions were chosen considering the resolution limits of the DLP 3D printer and our previous work, which established conditions suitable for the desired flow rates and nanoparticle synthesis. While statistical analysis of the printed geometry was not performed, we provide detailed statistical analysis of the nanoparticles produced using these chips, which directly reflects the functional performance of the system.

________________________________________

Reviewer#1, Comment # 18: Editorial Proofread for typos. (Typo: neMESYS syringe pump, missing period after “and reduced transparency”)

Author response: We thank the reviewer for the editorial suggestions. The manuscript has been carefully proofread in its entirety. The specific issues noted by the reviewer, including the capitalization of “NeMESYS syringe pump” and the missing period after “and reduced transparency,” have been corrected. In addition, further typographical and formatting issues were addressed throughout the manuscript, including spacing before citations, unit formatting (e.g., µL/min), capitalization consistency, and minor punctuation errors. These revisions were purely editorial and did not affect the scientific content.

________________________________________

Reviewer#2, Comment # 1: Remove the section on the NS equation - this can be referenced as the equation is not required here. We know which equation the solver needs to solve. As this is a case of diffusive mixing, Talor-Aris dispersion should be considered here more so than the fundamental simplified NS equation. However, neither of these is relevant for the manuscript at hand.

Author response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have removed the exp

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0342823.s004.docx (35KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bonnie Gray

29 Jan 2026

Hybrid Passive Micromixer Using Combined Traditional Microfabrication and 3D Printing for Gold Nanoparticle Synthesis

PONE-D-25-52946R1

Dear Dr. Alazzam,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bonnie Gray

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Adding a label on the template printed by Dilase 3D in the soft lithography step of Figure 1 will be more clarifying.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job ironing out the last details and the paper is now ready for publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bastian E. Rapp

**********

Acceptance letter

Bonnie Gray

PONE-D-25-52946R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Alazzam,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bonnie Gray

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supplementary information including mesh independence study, numerical model validation, comparison of mixing performance of passive micromixers reported in the literature, and Y-shaped micromixer performance.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0342823.s001.docx (979.4KB, docx)
    S2 File. Data.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0342823.s002.xlsx (247.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0342823.s004.docx (35KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES