Skip to main content
AIP Publishing Selective Deposit logoLink to AIP Publishing Selective Deposit
. 2019 Aug 9;31(8):082003. doi: 10.1063/1.5113516

Cell trapping in Y-junction microchannels: A numerical study of the bifurcation angle effect in inertial microfluidics

Scott J Hymel 1,2,1,2, Hongzhi Lan 3, Hideki Fujioka 2, Damir B Khismatullin 1,2,1,2,a),
PMCID: PMC6688893  PMID: 31406457

Abstract

The majority of microfluidic technologies for cell sorting and isolation involve bifurcating (e.g., Y- or T-shaped junction) microchannels to trap the cells of a specific type. However, the microfluidic trapping efficiency remains low, independently of whether the cells are separated by a passive or an active sorting method. Using a custom computational algorithm, we studied the migration of separated deformable cells in a Y-junction microchannel, with a bifurcation angle ranging from 30° to 180°. Single or two cells of initially spherical shape were considered under flow conditions corresponding to inertial microfluidics. Through the numerical simulation, we identified the effects of cell size, cytoplasmic viscoelasticity, cortical tension, flow rate, and bifurcation angle on the critical separation distance for cell trapping. The results of this study show that the trapping and isolation of blood cells, and circulating tumor cells in a Y-junction microchannel was most efficient and least dependent on the flow rate at the bifurcation angle of 120°. At this angle, the trapping efficiency for white blood cells and circulating tumor cells increased, respectively, by 46% and 43%, in comparison with the trapping efficiency at 60°. The efficiency to isolate invasive tumor cells from noninvasive ones increased by 32%. This numerical study provides important design criteria to optimize microfluidic technology for deformability-based cell sorting and isolation.

I. INTRODUCTION

The structure and remodeling dynamics of the cytoskeleton can be altered in diseased cells, leading to changes in cell deformability and motility.1 For example, carcinoma cells become highly deformable and invasive after the “epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition” due to the replacement of cytoskeletal keratins with vimentin.2–6 If the cells with altered mechanical phenotype (“mechanotype”) are present in blood, deformability-based microfluidics can isolate them from normal cells and other cellular components of whole blood7–9 and then measure their mechanotype.10,11 Together with low sample volume requirement, these features make this technology advantageous for diagnostics of cancer,9 blood diseases,12 and systemic inflammation.13

In microfluidic sorting, cells with different viscoelasticity and size are separated across the flow because they drift to different lateral positions during perfusion in the microchannel.14,15 This is the essence of passive cell sorting methods that rely on the hydrodynamic force and the overall geometry of the channel (i.e., hydrodynamic filtration,6,16,17 deterministic flow,18,19 inertial flow20–26). The lateral separation of the cells can also be achieved by active sorting methods that use external forces (i.e., magnetic fields,27–30 dielectrophoresis,31,32 acoustic fields,33–36 and optical forces37,38). Active sorting has a higher sensitivity and specificity but lack throughput, relatively expensive, and has an increased risk of contamination.39–41 Passive sorting is label-free, has higher throughput, and is easier to operate. However, this approach requires significant theoretical work to identify the design criteria for efficient isolation of cells.

Both active and passive methods utilize microchannels with Y- and other type of junctions to trap the separated cells in channel branches (daughter channels). The efficiency to isolate the cells of a specific type from a heterogeneous suspension of cells (e.g., blood), referred to as “trapping efficiency,” critically depends on how far the cells are separated in both longitudinal (along the flow) and lateral directions before they reach the junction. Low trapping efficiency (25% for passive and up to 55% for active methods) remains a big issue for microfluidic cell sorting.17,35,36,42,43 The trapping efficiency is often artificially increased by spiking the blood with cells of interest (e.g., cancer cells) along with decreasing the blood hematocrit.9,23,33,44–47 Such manipulations of the biological samples make microfluidic sorting less clinically reliable, especially for cancer diagnostics where the goal is to isolate rate circulating tumor cells (CTCs).9 This issue points out that current microfluidic devices cannot efficiently trap the cells into channel branches even with a large separation distance between the cells achieved.47

In inertial microfluidics, where the cell suspension is subjected to a flow at a Reynolds number (Re) between 1 to 100,20,48 separation between the cells is achieved by a hydrodynamic lift force.17,49 The lateral equilibrium position is strongly influenced by cell size, but it is also a function of the cell’s mechanical properties, thus allowing the use of inertial microfluidics for deformability-based cell sorting.14,24,47 Different channel geometry (straight, curved, spiral, alternating curves, pillars, ridges, and contraction/expansion) has been explored to improve cell sorting by this technology, but the outlet design remains largely unchanged.19,25,43,50–55

As demonstrated by Audet56 and Roberts,57 partitioning of rigid particles in a Y-junction channel significantly depends on the bifurcation angle (angle between diverging daughter channels). Despite its importance, the effect of the bifurcation angle on cell trapping has not been systematically explored. Levine58 studied the flow distribution in a dog mesentery with a narrow range of bifurcation angles (30°–80°) under Stokes and low inertia (Re < 200) flow conditions. Jaggi44 analyzed the separation of red blood cells (RBCs) from whole blood in a microchannel with an asymmetric 90° T-junction (one side channel stemming from the main channel) under low inertial flow conditions. Most inertial microfluidic devices with Y-junction outlets have utilized a bifurcation angle of 60° or 90°.59–64 The Stokes flow regime was used in experimental analysis of cell separation in Y-junction channels with a bifurcation angle of 45°, 60°, 90°, or 120°.42,57,65–71

Theoretical work on particle, droplet, or cell separation in a Y-junction channel has been focused on Stokes flow, which is a reasonable assumption for transit of blood cells through microvasculature.72 Simple analytical models have been suggested to predict the distribution of red blood cells, treated as rigid particles, in a capillary network with a fixed bifurcation angle (90°).73,74 Adam75 described the mathematical relationship between the bifurcation angle and radii of the bifurcating vessels. Computational studies were focused on identifying flow profiles in Y- or T-junction channels with different bifurcation angles (from 30° to 180°) and/or Re but without the presence of cells or other particulates.76–79 More recent computational work has been on the migration of a single rigid or deformable particle in a straight channel,14 Y-junction channel with a fixed bifurcation angle of 90°,80–83 or 180° T-junction channel.84 Only a few studies were about hydrodynamic pairwise interactions of cells for different channel geometries.15,84,85 A lot of attention was on modeling suspension flow through a straight channel,24 a Y-junction with a fixed bifurcation angle of 45°, 60°, or 90°,86–89 or a 90° or 180° T-junction channel,90–93 without analysis of individual particles or cells. While the bifurcation angle has a small effect on red blood cell distribution or flow resistance in microvasculature,77,94 where Re ≪ 1, it becomes an important factor in inertial microfluidics.77

In our computational work, we modeled pairwise cell migration into daughter channels of a symmetric Y-junction microchannel at different bifurcation angles (from 30° to 180°) and flow conditions. The cells with different deformability and size are considered under the assumption that they are already separated in the parent channel by either a passive or active sorting method. The objective of our study is to identify the critical longitudinal and lateral cell-to-cell separation distances for trapping of circulating cells (red blood cells or RBCs, white blood cells or WBCs, and CTCs).

II. METHODS

A. Computational model

The passive migration of deformable, viscoelastic cells in a microchannel was simulated by a custom fully three-dimensional computational algorithm, known as VECAM.95,96 In this algorithm, the cell surface and intracellular interfaces (e.g., between the nucleus and cytoplasm) are tracked by the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method. The velocity field in the computational domain was determined from the solution of the continuity and Navier-Stokes equations with the values of physical parameters averaged over each mesh element containing multiple phases,

u=0,ρut+uu=Tp+μcu+uT+f. (1)

Since the problem was to simulate cell migration in channels wider than the cell size, with the cells located far from the channel walls, the core phase of the cell (nucleus) and the adhesive force were not considered in this study. Thus, we modeled the cell cytoplasm as a one-phase viscoelastic continuum which had a Newtonian fluidlike component (cytosol) characterized by shear viscosity μc and polymeric component (cytoskeleton) characterized by shear viscosity μcs. The cytoskeleton is a source of cell viscoelasticity and an important contributor to the interfacial (cortical) tension of the cell. The viscoelasticity of the cytoskeleton was described in VECAM by the Giesekus constitutive relation,

λTt+(u)T(u)TT(u)T+λαμcsT2=μcsu+(u)T,μcs=λG. (2)

Here, u = (u, v, w) is the velocity vector, ρ is the mass density, T is the extra stress tensor that represents the cytoskeletal contribution to the intracellular stress, p is the thermodynamic pressure, G is the shear elastic modulus of the cytoskeleton, and λ is the cytoplasmic relaxation time. The cytoplasmic viscosity μcp = μc + μcs and μc = μext = 1 cP, where μext is the shear viscosity of the extracellular fluid, which is assumed to be a Newtonian fluid. Since we do not investigate the effects of shear thinning on cell deformation, the Giesekus mobility factor α was assumed to be zero in the current study, thus reducing the Giesekus model to the Oldroyd-B fluid one.

The cortical tension force per unit volume f was calculated in each mesh element by the continuous surface force (CSF) method using the following formula:

f=σκcn, (3)

where σ is the cortical tension; n = ∇c/||∇c|| is the outward unit normal; κ = κ(t, x) = −·n is the local mean curvature; c = c(t, x) is the concentration function that takes the value of 1 inside the cell, between 0 and 1 at the interface and 0 outside the cell; and x = (x, y, z) is the position vector in the Cartesian coordinate system. We assumed that all phases had the same mass density and neglected gravity.

B. Rheological model of a living cell

It is important to mention that the model of a viscoelastic cell with cortical tension has been previously used by us to simulate the passive migration and hydrodynamic interactions of blood cells in a straight channel14,15 and by others to study micropipette aspiration or microcirculation of blood cells.97–99 Single-phase viscoelastic cell models have been employed for both theoretical and experimental analysis of WBCs, CTCs, and RBCs.1,97,99–103 While the liquid capsule model (a Newtonian fluid with an infinitesimally thin elastic solid membrane) is preferred for modeling the rheological behavior of RBCs,100,104 it is only valid for describing the cell in which there exists a clear separation between the cytoskeleton and the plasma membrane. Experimental evidence, however, points out that hemoglobin, which makes 95% of the RBC internal structure, aggregates and forms strong bonds with spectrin in the RBC cortical layer with aging of RBCs.105–107 Therefore, in “old” RBCs, which are more present in blood than “young” RBCs, cell deformability is strongly dependent on bulk viscoelastic properties rather on surface elasticity, a feature of the capsule model. Hemoglobin aggregation and binding to the cell membrane also characterize RBCs in blood diseases such as sickle cell disease.12,108 WBCs and CTCs are nucleated cells with a dense three-dimensional cytoskeleton tightly attached to their cortical layer. Viscoelasticity of these cells is always defined by its bulk, as we discussed previously.1,96

C. Simulation setup

The microchannel geometry of our computational model with a single inlet and two outlets is shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). Before placing the cells, fully developed flow with a constant pressure gradient (−dP/dx) was established by imposing the plane Poiseuille flow solution for the inlet velocity (Table I), zero pressure at the outlets, and no-slip conditions at the walls. The Reynolds number was calculated using the inlet velocity U, extracellular fluid viscosity μext and density ρext, and the hydraulic diameter of the inlet Dh,

Re=ρextUDhμext,Dh=4×AreaPerimeter. (4)

FIG. 1.

FIG. 1.

Geometry of the computational model. (a) 3D view of the Y-junction channel used in numerical simulations. L, L1, L2 are the total length of the system (entrance channel and its branches) and the lengths of the entrance and branched channels, respectively. W1 and W2 are the widths of the entrance and branched channels. H is the height of the channels. The angle of the Y-junction (bifurcation) is denoted as θ. (b) Schematic picture of the channel midplane showing initial placement of cells. D is the diameter for the cell that is initially spherical. X is the initial separation distance between the cells in the flow direction. Z is the initial offset distance of the cell’s center from the centerline. (c) Illustration of three different scenarios for cell migration through channel branches: (1) subcritical, when both cells are in the same branch; (2) critical, where one of the cells is stuck at the junction; and (3) supercritical, when the cells travel into separate branches.

TABLE I.

Channel dimensions and flow properties used for simulations.

Re = 1 Re = 10
Centerline velocity, U (cm/s) 1.43 14.29
Extracellular fluid viscosity, μext (Pa s) 0.001
Extracellular fluid density, ρext (kg/m3) 1000
Total channel length, L (μm) 350
Entrance channel length, L1 (μm) 140
Entrance channel width, W1 (μm) 70
Daughter channel width, W2 (μm) 35
Channel height, H (μm) 70

The single cell migration or the migration of two cells separated longitudinally by distance X and laterally by distance Z* = 2ZR1R2 [Fig. 1(b)] was then simulated. The lateral separation distance is negative when the centroid-to-centroid distance 2Z is less than R1 + R2. One cell was positioned above the centerline and the other one symmetrically below the centerline, with distance Z between the cell centroid and the flow centerline (offset distance) [Fig. 1(b)]. Focusing the cells at the centerline and then positioning above and below the centerline are used in active sorting methods.109 Cells being stacked vertically, horizontally spaced, and angled with respect to one another are typical configurations in magnetophoretic cell separation.30 We assumed that the offset distance was unrelated to the hydrodynamic lateral position to account for the effect of the external forces in active sorting.110 The centroid of the cells was initially located at least 30 µm away from the inlet to prevent any perturbations that might arise from the inlet flow conditions. The transient perturbations of fully developed flow caused by cell placement in the entrance (parent) channel may lead to an unexpected drift of the leading cell toward the centerline. This transient drift was short (∼10 time steps at Re = 10 and 30 steps at Re = 1) and did not exceed 0.06% of the offset distance.

In the single cell simulation, the cytoskeletal viscosity was fixed at 10 Pa s, but deformability of the cell varied due to the differences in the relaxation time and Reynolds number, as shown in Table II. According to Eq. (4), the apparent cytoplasmic viscosity changed with time as

μcp+=μc+μcsμcμc+μcs+1μcμc+μcs1et/λ. (5)

Since the time to reach the junction did not exceed 10 ms for all the flow conditions used in this study, Eq. (5) predicts that the apparent viscosity of the “stiff” cell with G = μcs/λ = 1000 Pa and λ = 0.01 s was 6.32 Pa s at this instant. For the “soft” cell with G = 50 Pa and λ = 0.2 s, the apparent viscosity was 0.49 Pa s, which was at least 13 times less than the apparent viscosity of the “stiff” cell.

TABLE II.

Material properties of idealized cell used for simulations.

Soft Stiff
Cytoskeletal shear elasticity, G (Pa) 50 1000
Cytoplasmic relaxation time, λ (s) 0.2 0.01
Cytoskeletal viscosity, μcs (Pa s) 10 10
Cortical tension, σ (pN/μm) 30
Density, ρ (kg/m3) 1000

Figure 1(c) shows three scenarios (subcritical, critical, or supercritical) for pairwise cell migration. In the single cell simulation, the cell was either stranded at the junction in the subcritical case or moved to an upper or a lower daughter channel at above the critical value of offset distance Z. The junction tip was sharp in most simulations, but we also investigated the effect of the curved tip junction on cell trapping, as done in other computational studies.81,82,87,111 The curved tip was a semicircle. Its radius increased linearly with the bifurcation angle from 2 μm up to 7 μm to replicate the geometries of the other studies.

D. Mesh refinement

All the data were produced on a computational mesh with cubic grid elements of 1.094 µm in size (64 elements per 70 µm, fine mesh). Additionally, the following sizes of the grid elements were tested in the single cell case at U = 14.29 cm/s (Re = 10): 2.188 µm (coarse mesh) and 0.729 µm (finest mesh). The finest mesh simulation ran seven times slower than the fine mesh but improved the accuracy by less than 8%, as measured by the percent difference in the single-cell Zcrit. The Zcrit difference was 37% between the coarse and finest meshes.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Single-cell simulation

Figure 2(a) shows shape changes of a single soft cell traveling in a Y-junction channel. The critical offset distance Zcrit for cell entrance into one of the daughter channels was identified by using the vertical asymptote of the time vs initial distance curve [Fig. 2(b)] based on the fact that the time to enter a daughter channel became very large when the cell was stranded at the junction. Interestingly, this asymptote was shifted to the right with an increase in cell diameter. This likely occurred due to the increased interaction of a larger cell with its surroundings, leading to the deviation of the cell centroid from the initial flow streamline. This effect may also explain why Zcrit increased with the cell size [Fig. 2(c)]. For any cell size considered, Zcrit decreased with the bifurcation angle until reaching a local minimum at 120°.

FIG. 2.

FIG. 2.

Analysis of single cell migration through the Y-junction channel. (a) Snapshots of a cell traveling through a 90° bifurcating channel. (b) Time course for cell migration through a 45° junction as a function of the offset distance for different particle diameters. The dotted line refers to an asymptote of the time course curve for the 8 μm diameter cell used to determine the critical offset distance (Zcrit). The shaded region identifies the subcritical distance range for the 8 μm diameter cell. [(c) and (d)] Critical offset distance as a function of the bifurcation angle for (c) different cell diameters and (d) different cell elasticities and flow velocities. (e) Effects of cell elasticity, flow velocity, and cell diameter on the cell deformability in a Y-junction channel. (f) Change in critical offset distance between a sharp (red) and a curved junction (blue) for different bifurcation angles. The triangle marks the critical distance for the T-junction channel.

Interestingly, blood vessel branching theory75 predicts that the optimal angle between mother and daughter vessels is close to 120°. According to this theory, the optimal angles between the first daughter and mother vessels (ϕ1) and between the second daughter and mother vessels (ϕ2) depend on the radii of the mother (r0), first daughter (r1), and second daughter vessels (r2) as follows:

cos(ϕ1)=r04+r14(r03r13)4/32r02r12,cos(ϕ2)=r04+r24(r03r23)4/32r02r22. (6)

We can apply this cylindrical vessel analysis to our problem using the XZ-plane of our Y-junction channel, i.e., our r1 = r2 = W2/2 = 17.5 μm and r0 = W1/2 = 35 μm. Then, Eq. (6) gives θ = ϕ1 + ϕ2 ≈ 126°.

The way the stiff cell responded to different flow conditions changed when the bifurcation angle transitioned through 120°. For example, Zcrit increased with Re at an angle less than 120°, but the opposite behavior was seen at an angle greater than 120° [Fig. 2(d), compare red and green lines]. Zcrit for the soft cell decreased monotonically with the angle at Re = 10 [Fig. 2(d), orange line]. However, at Re = 1, it had a local minimum at 120° [Fig. 2(d), blue]. When the stiff cell relaxation time increased to the value of the soft cell (0.2 s), the critical offset distance changed with the angle similar to that of the soft cell but was much smaller in magnitude (compare orange and gold lines for Re = 10 and blue and purple lines for Re = 1).

Figure 2(e) plots the cell deformation index (DI) vs the bifurcation angle at the instant when the cell just moved beyond the junction,

DI=b/a, (7)

where a and b are the lengths of minor and major axes of the cell. DI changed with the angle only when the cell was soft and the flow velocity was sufficiently high (Re = 10). In this case, DI increased from its minimal value of 1.7 at 30° to the maximal value of 2.4 at 105° [orange line in Fig. 2(e)]. The “shape-dependent migration”112 at which more deformable particles experience a larger deviation from streamlines may explain why the soft cell has a larger Zcrit than the stiff one [Fig. 2(d)]. The results shown in Figs. 2(d) and 2(e) indicate that more deformable cells are more sensitive to changes in flow rate and bifurcation angle. Thus, previous Stokes flow analysis of rigid particle migration in bifurcating vessels and channels72 may not be applicable to describe the behavior of deformable cells.

When the junction tip was curved, Zcrit of the soft cell dropped. It continued to decrease with the bifurcation angle until reaching the sharp tip value at 180° [compare blue and red lines in Fig. 2(f)]. This result suggests that fabricated microchannels that have rough and sharp edges at their junctions may be inefficient in cell sorting because of high probability of cell capture at the junctions. Blood vessels have much smoother, curved bifurcation tips than microchannel junctions, which has an important physiological value in preventing excessive blood cell accumulation that can cause vessel blockage and tissue hypoxia.

B. Two-cell simulation: Identical cells

Figure 3(a) shows snapshots of two initially separated cells that moved into separate daughter channels. The leading cell (blue) disturbs the flow near the trailing cell (red), and if the separation distance between the cells is below the critical value, it forces the trailing cell to move in its wake into the same daughter channel. With an increase in the separation distance, the trailing cell may be stranded at the junction (critical case) or move into the daughter channel separate from that of the leading cell (supercritical case). As in the single-cell simulation, we used the time vs distance curves to identify the critical conditions for migration of two cells into separate daughter channels [compare red and orange lines in Fig. 3(b)]. These conditions include critical values of the longitudinal separation and offset distances, Xcrit and Zcrit.

FIG. 3.

FIG. 3.

Migration of two identical cells through the Y-junction. (a) Snapshots of two cells at X = 5 μm and Z = 2.2 μm traveling into separate branched channels at 90°. (b) The time taken by cells to travel to branched channels for the three scenarios illustrated in Fig. 1(c). The region left of the dotted green line has both cells traveling to the same branched channel. The region right of the dashed blue line has each cell traveling to a separate branched channel. Xcrit (Zcrit) is the critical value of X (Z) for cell separation. (c) Two-cell Xcrit as a function of the bifurcation angle at Z = 1 μm and (d) two- and single-cell Zcrit as a function of the bifurcation angle at X = 5 and 10 μm for different diameters of the stiff cell. (e) Changes in Zcrit of two soft cells due to an increase in X from 5 to 10 μm and curving the junction.

The effects of cell size and bifurcation angle on the critical separation distances of two identical stiff cells at Re = 10 are displayed in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d). Both Xcrit and Zcrit reached local minima at 120° and decreased with a decrease in cell diameter. As evident from Fig. 3(c), Xcrit reached a lower limit of ∼2 μm at the offset distance Z = 1 μm. This means that the population of stiff cells cannot be split in a Y-junction microchannel if they are located close to the centerline and spaced longitudinally by less than 2 μm. When the cells were fully separated in the lateral direction [Zcrit > (R1 + R2)/2], the lower limit for Xcrit decreased to zero across all bifurcation angles. If the longitudinal distance between the cells increased from 5 μm to 10 μm, Zcrit changed from 1.3 μm to 0.9 μm at 120° [red and black dotted lines in Fig. 3(d)]. Due to hydrodynamic interaction between the cells, the critical offset distance for pairwise migration was much less than that of the single cell (Zcrit = 0.18 μm, compare red and orange lines).

The soft cells were less sensitive to the longitudinal separation distance than the stiff ones [compare red and black lines in Figs. 3(d) and 3(e)]. Curving the junction tip slightly reduced the critical offset distance of these cells at a bifurcation angle less than 120° and had no effect on this distance at 120° or above [red and blue lines in Fig. 3(e)].

C. Two-cell simulation: Nonidentical cells

Figure 4 displays the critical offset distance for nonidentical cells. First, we kept the diameter of the leading cell, D1, at 14 μm and varied the trailing cell diameter, D2, from 14 to 8 μm. Both the cells had the same mechanical properties (they were stiff cells). For all bifurcation angles excluding 120°, there was a significant variation in Zcrit with the trailing cell diameter [Fig. 4(a)]. However, Zcrit reached its minimal value of 1.3 µm and did not change with D2 at 120°. From these data, we can conclude that (1) if the cells are identical and not well separated, a 120° Y-junction microchannel will be able to split the cells into two equal populations and (2) if the cells have two different radii (R1, R2) and are laterally separated by a distance no less than Zcrit*=2ZcritR1R2=2.6μmR1R2, they will migrate into and thus be trapped in separate daughter channels of this microchannel. Note that Zcrit* is negative because R1 + R2 > 2Zcrit. This means that the cells do not need to be fully separated in the lateral direction to be sorted at a 120° junction: it is sufficient to have the lateral distance between the cell centroids greater than 2.6 μm and a small gap between the cells in the longitudinal direction.

FIG. 4.

FIG. 4.

Effects of cell diameter (a), cytoskeletal shear elasticity (b), and cytoplasmic shear viscosity (c) on Zcrit at U = 14.29 cm/s and X = 5 μm for different bifurcation angles. The viscosity (μcp) was kept constant at 10 Pa s in (a) and (b). The shear elasticity (G) was kept constant at 1000 Pa in (c). Subscripts “1” and “2” refer to the leading and trailing cells, respectively. Subscript “1, 2” indicates identical values of cell properties.

Second, we considered the same-diameter cells that had different cytoskeletal shear elasticity but equal cytoplasmic viscosity [Fig. 4(b)] or different viscosity but equal shear elasticity [Fig. 4(c)]. When the leading cell was stiff, and the trailing cell was soft, Zcrit reached a local minimum at 120°, but its minimal value (1.5) was greater than that of two identical stiff cells [compare orange and blue lines in Fig. 4(b)]. With the soft cell leading and stiff cell trailing, the local minimum was not observed, and Zcrit was greater than that of identical soft cells at 90° or higher (compare red and green lines). The tenfold difference in the cytoplasmic viscosity between the leading and trailing cells had a minimal effect on Zcrit for an angle between 30° and 105° [Fig. 4(c)]. However, the critical offset distance was sensitive to the cytoplasmic viscosity at higher angles. Specifically, at an angle between 120° and 150°, the lowest and highest Zcrit were for identical cells with low (1 Pa s) and high (10 Pa s) viscosity, respectively (compare red and blue bars). With the leading cell of high viscosity and the trailing cell of low viscosity, Zcrit was slightly below the critical offset distance for identical high-viscosity cells (compare orange and blue bars). The critical offset distance further decreased when the leading and trailing cells were of low and high viscosity, respectively (green bars).

Figure 5 shows the effect of flow velocity (Reynolds number) on trapping of identical and nonidentical cells in a bifurcating microchannel. Two cases considered, U = 1.43 cm/s (Re = 1) and U = 14.29 cm/s (Re = 10), are, respectively, at the lower end and in the intermediate range of flow velocities used in inertial microfluidics. As seen in Fig. 5(a), it is difficult to sort highly deformable cells by this approach: the critical offset distance was highest for two identical soft cells and monotonically decreased with the bifurcation angle at Re = 10 [blue line in Fig. 5(a)]. If all the cells are highly deformable, then the Y-junction microchannel with an angle between 135° and 180° is best suited for their sorting. When Re = 1, a local minimum at 120° reappeared and there was not much of a difference in Zcrit between identical soft and stiff cells (compare orange and green lines). Thus, the trapping efficiency of inertial microfluidics becomes less sensitive to cell deformability at the lower end of its velocities.

FIG. 5.

FIG. 5.

Critical offset distance as a function of bifurcation angle (a), leading-to-trailing cell elasticity ratio (b), and leading-to-trailing cell cortical tension ratio (c) at different flow conditions (U = 1.43 cm/s and 14.29 cm/s). In (a), the leading and trailing cells are identical. In (b) and (c), the trailing cell elasticity and cortical tension are kept fixed.

A trend of increasing Zcrit with the flow velocity continued in a small angle junction microchannel when the identical cells were replaced with the cells of different shear elasticity [red and blue bars in Fig. 5(b)]. However, the effect of flow velocity was minimal at 120°: for a pair of cells with an elasticity ratio of 25 or 50 (the leading cell was stiffer), Zcrit was between 1.6 and 1.7 for Re = 1 and 10 (gold bars). Thus, with the use of 120° junction microchannels, the efficiency of inertial microfluidics for isolation of soft cells from stiff ones becomes independent on the flow velocity. The cortical tension has a similar effect on Zcrit as the shear elasticity [Fig. 5(c)]. The only difference is that Zcrit slightly decreased with the leading-to-trailing cell cortical tension ratio at 120° and Re = 10 (gold bars). This indicates that inertial microfluidics can sort the cells different in cortical tension better at higher velocity.

D. Application to circulating cells

In the last simulation, the pairwise migration of RBCs, WBCs, noninvasive breast cancer cells (MCF-7 cell line), and invasive breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231 line) in a Y-junction microchannel has been studied at different bifurcation angles and Re = 1. Table III shows the material properties used to describe these cells in the computational model. Without knowing the cytoplasmic viscosity and the relaxation time of breast cancer cells, their shear elasticity G was estimated from the measured values of the average modulus of elasticity (E)113 by using the following formula: G = E/3.

TABLE III.

Material properties of blood and circulating tumor cells used in the numerical simulation.

RBC WBC Noninvasive cancer cell Invasive cancer cell
(Erythrocyte) (Neutrophil) (MCF-7) (MDA-MB-231) References
Diameter, D (μm) 8 8.5 18 18 11, 12, 114, and 115
Shear elasticity, G (Pa) 41 276.5 270.5 135.25 113, 115, and 116
Relaxation time, λ (s) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 1 and 12
Cytoskeletal viscosity, μcs (Pa s) 7 47 46 23

For all pairs of cells considered, the critical offset distance was lowest at 120° (Fig. 6). This confirms that the most effective trapping of separated blood cells and CTCs can be achieved in a microchannel with a 120° junction. At this angle, WBCs and RBCs moved to different daughter channels if their center-to-center transverse distance 2Z was as less as 1.4 μm (red bar). This strong effect was due to a significant difference in cytoskeletal shear elasticity between WBCs and RBCs. For the MDA-MB-231/RBC, MCF-7/RBC, MDA-MB-231/WBC, and MCF-7/WBC pairs, this distance was slightly higher: 2.0–2.6 μm (blue, orange, green, and brown bars). These cell pairs differ in both shear elasticity and cell size (MCF-7/RBC, MDA-MB-231/RBC, MDA-MB-231/WBC) or in cell size only (MCF-7/WBC). The separation and trapping of invasive MDA-MB-231 cells from noninvasive MCF-7 cells required a much larger center-to-center distance: 4.2 μm (black bar). This cell pair has the same diameter and a moderate difference in shear elasticity.

FIG. 6.

FIG. 6.

Critical offset distance for isolation of RBCs, WBCs, and circulating breast cancer cells (noninvasive: MCF-7 and invasive: MDA-MB-231) in a Y-junction microchannel with angles from 60° to 150°, according to the computational model.

When compared to the standard 60° Y-junction microchannel, the trapping efficiency in the 120° microchannel has been improved by (Zcrit60°Zcrit120°)/Zcrit60°×100%=46.2% for the WBC/RBC pair, 42.9% for the MDA-MB-231/RBC pair, 54.5% for the MCF-7/RBC pair, 47.8% for the MDA-MB-231/WBC pair, 45.8% for the MCF-7/WBC pair, and 32.3% for the MDA-MB-231/MCF-7 pair.

IV. CONCLUSION

A simple and controllable way for deformability-based pairwise sorting and isolation of circulating cells is through the use of a Y-junction microchannel. The current devices that use this approach have a 45°, 60°, or 90° junction and require large separation distances to move the cells of different mechanotype into different daughter channels. This leads to low trapping efficiency. Our computational model predicted that the trapping efficiency could be significantly increased at the bifurcation angle of 120°. We demonstrated that this angle was optimal for isolating CTCs and blood cells such as RBCs and WBCs. Our numerical simulation also showed that Y-junction microfluidics was most effective for sorting of the cells that differed in cytoskeletal shear elasticity, cytoplasmic viscosity, cortical tension, and/or size. This work illustrates the need and ability of computational modeling in optimizing the design of microfluidic technology for cell sorting and isolation. Our future work will focus on modeling deformability-based cell sorting in inertial microfluidics with initial random separation distance between the cells, different geometries of the junction (asymmetric, more than two daughter channels) and its tip, and accounting for multiple distinct phases (nucleus, cytoplasm, etc.) in bulk rheology of the cell.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. U54GM104940), the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 1301286 and 1438537), and the Louisiana Board of Regents [LEQSF(2011-14)-RD-A-24]. This research was supported in part using high performance computing (HPC) resources and services provided by Technology Services at Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, as well as Louisiana Optical Network Infrastructure.

There are no conflicts to declare.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Khismatullin D. B., “The cytoskeleton and deformability of white blood cells,” Curr. Top. Membr. 64, 47 (2009). 10.1016/s1063-5823(09)64003-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Coughlin M. F., Bielenberg D. R., Lenormand G., Marinkovic M., Waghorne C. G., Zetter B. R., and Fredberg J. J., “Cytoskeletal stiffness, friction, and fluidity of cancer cell lines with different metastatic potential,” Clin. Exp. Metastasis 30, 237 (2013). 10.1007/s10585-012-9531-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guck J., Schinkinger S., Lincoln B., Wottawah F., Ebert S., Romeyke M., Lenz D., Erickson H. M., Ananthakrishnan R., Mitchell D., Kas J., Ulvick S., and Bilby C., “Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence,” Biophys. J. 88, 3689 (2005). 10.1529/biophysj.104.045476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cross S. E., Jin Y. S., Rao J., and Gimzewski J. K., “Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 780 (2007). 10.1038/nnano.2007.388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Seltmann K., Fritsch A. W., Kas J. A., and Magin T. M., “Keratins significantly contribute to cell stiffness and impact invasive behavior,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 18507 (2013). 10.1073/pnas.1310493110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Qi D. P., Gill N. K., Santiskulvong C., Sifuentes J., Dorigo O., Rao J. Y., Taylor-Harding B., Wiedemeyer W. R., and Rowat A. C., “Screening cell mechanotype by parallel microfiltration,” Sci. Rep. 5, 17595 (2015). 10.1038/srep17595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lee G. H., Kim S. H., Ahn K., Lee S. H., and Park J. Y., “Separation and sorting of cells in microsystems using physical principles,” J. Micromech. Microeng. 26, 013003 (2016). 10.1088/0960-1317/26/1/013003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shevkoplyas S. S., Yoshida T., Munn L. L., and Bitensky M. W., “Biomimetic autoseparation of leukocytes from whole blood in a microfluidic device,” Anal. Chem. 77, 933 (2005). 10.1021/ac049037i [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zou D. and Cui D. X., “Advances in isolation and detection of circulating tumor cells based on microfluidics,” Cancer Biol. Med. 15, 335 (2018). 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2018.0256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gossett D. R., Tse H. T. K., Lee S. A., Ying Y., Lindgren A. G., Yang O. O., Rao J. Y., Clark A. T., and Di Carlo D., “Hydrodynamic stretching of single cells for large population mechanical phenotyping,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 7630 (2012). 10.1073/pnas.1200107109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nyberg K. D., Hu K. H., Kleinman S. H., Khismatullin D. B., Butte M. J., and Rowat A. C., “Quantitative deformability cytometry: Rapid, calibrated measurements of cell mechanical properties,” Biophys. J. 113, 1574 (2017). 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.06.073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tomaiuolo G., “Biomechanical properties of red blood cells in health and disease towards microfluidics,” Biomicrofluidics 8, 051501 (2014). 10.1063/1.4895755 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ellett F., Jorgensen J., Marand A. L., Liu Y. M., Martinez M. M., Sein V., Butler K. L., Lee J., and Irimia D., “Diagnosis of sepsis from a drop of blood by measurement of spontaneous neutrophil motility in a microfluidic assay,” Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 207 (2018). 10.1038/s41551-018-0208-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lan H. Z. and Khismatullin D. B., “A numerical study of the lateral migration and deformation of drops and leukocytes in a rectangular microchannel,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 47, 73 (2012). 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2012.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lan H. and Khismatullin D. B., “Numerical simulation of the pairwise interaction of deformable cells during migration in a microchannel,” Phys. Rev. E 90, 012705 (2014). 10.1103/physreve.90.012705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jin C., McFaul S. M., Duffy S. P., Deng X., Tavassoli P., Black P. C., and Ma H., “Technologies for label-free separation of circulating tumor cells: From historical foundations to recent developments,” Lab Chip 14, 32 (2014). 10.1039/c3lc50625h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Di Carlo D., Edd J. F., Irimia D., Tompkins R. G., and Toner M., “Equilibrium separation and filtration of particles using differential inertial focusing,” Anal. Chem. 80, 2204 (2008). 10.1021/ac702283m [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kruger T., Holmes D., and Coveney P. V., “Deformability-based red blood cell separation in deterministic lateral displacement devices—A simulation study,” Biomicrofluidics 8, 054114 (2014). 10.1063/1.4897913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Holmes D., Whyte G., Bailey J., Vergara-Irigaray N., Ekpenyong A., Guck J., and Duke T., “Separation of blood cells with differing deformability using deterministic lateral displacement,” Interface Focus 4, 20140011 (2014). 10.1098/rsfs.2014.0011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Martel J. M. and Toner M., “Inertial focusing in microfluidics,” Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 16, 371 (2014). 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-121813-120704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lashgari I., Ardekani M., Banerjee I., Russom A., and Brandt L., “Inertial migration of spherical and oblate particles in straight ducts,” J. Fluid Mech. 819, 540 (2017). 10.1017/jfm.2017.189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bhagat A. A. S., Kuntaegowdanahalli S. S., and Papautsky I., “Inertial microfluidics for continuous particle filtration and extraction,” Microfluid. Nanofluid. 7, 217 (2009). 10.1007/s10404-008-0377-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tanaka T., Ishikawa T., Numayama-Tsuruta K., Imai Y., Ueno H., Yoshimoto T., Matsuki N., and Yamaguchi T., “Inertial migration of cancer cells in blood flow in microchannels,” Biomed. Microdevices 14, 25 (2012). 10.1007/s10544-011-9582-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang J., Yan S., Yuan D., Alici G., Nguyen N. T., Warkiani M. E., and Li W. H., “Fundamentals and applications of inertial microfluidics: A review,” Lab Chip 16, 10 (2016). 10.1039/c5lc01159k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Masaeli M., Sollier E., Amini H., Mao W. B., Camacho K., Doshi N., Mitragotri S., Alexeev A., and Di Carlo D., “Continuous inertial focusing and separation of particles by shape,” Phys. Rev. X 2, 031017 (2012). 10.1103/physrevx.2.031017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Di Carlo D., Irimia D., Tompkins R. G., and Toner M., “Continuous inertial focusing, ordering, and separation of particles in microchannels,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 18892 (2007). 10.1073/pnas.0704958104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kim S., Han S. I., Park M. J., Jeon C. W., Joo Y. D., Choi I. H., and Han K. H., “Circulating tumor cell microseparator based on lateral magnetophoresis and immunomagnetic nanobeads,” Anal. Chem. 85, 2779 (2013). 10.1021/ac303284u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Modak N., Datta A., and Ganguly R., “Cell separation in a microfluidic channel using magnetic microspheres,” Microfluid. Nanofluid. 6, 647 (2009). 10.1007/s10404-008-0343-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zborowski M. and Chamers J. J., “Rare cell separation and analysis by magnetic sorting,” Anal. Chem. 83, 8050 (2011). 10.1021/ac200550d [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alam M., Golozar M., and Darabi J., “Modelling and simulation of particle-particle interaction in a magnetophoretic bio-separation chip,” Phys. Fluids 30, 042001 (2018). 10.1063/1.5022582 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pethig R., “Dielectrophoresis: Status of the theory, technology, and applications (vol 4, 022811, 2010),” Biomicrofluidics 4, 039901 (2010). 10.1063/1.3474458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li Y. L., Dalton C., Crabtree H. J., Nilsson G., and Kaler K. V. I. S., “Continuous dielectrophoretic cell separation microfluidic device,” Lab Chip 7, 239 (2007). 10.1039/b613344d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li P., Mao Z. M., Peng Z. L., Zhou L. L., Chen Y. C., Huang P. H., Truica C. I., Drabick J. J., El-Deiry W. S., Dao M., Suresh S., and Huang T. J., “Acoustic separation of circulating tumor cells,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 4970 (2015). 10.1073/pnas.1504484112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chen Y., Li S., Gu Y., Li P., Ding X., Wang L., McCoy J. P., Levine S. J., and Huang T. J., “Continuous enrichment of low-abundance cell samples using standing surface acoustic waves (SSAW),” Lab Chip 14, 924 (2014). 10.1039/c3lc51001h [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lenshof A., Ahmad-Tajudin A., Jaras K., Sward-Nilsson A. M., Aberg L., Marko-Varga G., Malm J., Lilja H., and Laurell T., “Acoustic whole blood plasmapheresis chip for prostate specific antigen microarray diagnostics,” Anal. Chem. 81, 6030 (2009). 10.1021/ac9013572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Petersson F., Aberg L., Sward-Nilsson A. M., and Laurell T., “Free flow acoustophoresis: Microfluidic-based mode of particle and cell separation,” Anal. Chem. 79, 5117 (2007). 10.1021/ac070444e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mauritz J. M. A., Tiffert T., Seear R., Lautenschlager F., Esposito A., Lew V. L., Guck J., and Kaminski C. F., “Detection of plasmodium falciparum-infected red blood cells by optical stretching,” J. Biomed. Opt. 15, 030517 (2010). 10.1117/1.3458919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Grier D. G., “A revolution in optical manipulation,” Nature 424, 810 (2003). 10.1038/nature01935 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Almeida M., Garcia-Montero A. C., and Orfao A., “Cell purification: A new challenge for biobanks,” Pathobiology 81, 261 (2014). 10.1159/000358306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tomlinson M. J., Tomlinson S., Yang X. B., and Kirkham J., “Cell separation: Terminology and practical considerations,” J. Tissue Eng. 4, 204173141247269 (2013). 10.1177/2041731412472690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hou H. W., Lee W. C., Leong M. C., Sonam S., Vedula S. R. K., and Lim C. T., “Microfluidics for applications in cell mechanics and mechanobiology,” Cell. Mol. Bioeng. 4, 591 (2011). 10.1007/s12195-011-0209-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Blattert C., Jurischka R., Tahhan I., Schoth A., Kerth P., and Menz W., “Separation of blood in microchannel bends,” in Conference Proceedings of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (IEEE, 2004), Vol. 4, p. 2627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kuntaegowdanahalli S. S., Bhagat A. A. S., Kumar G., and Papautsky I., “Inertial microfluidics for continuous particle separation in spiral microchannels,” Lab Chip 9, 2973 (2009). 10.1039/b908271a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jaggi R. D., Sandoz R., and Effenhauser C. S., “Microfluidic depletion of red blood cells from whole blood in high-aspect-ratio microchannels,” Microfluid. Nanofluid. 3, 47 (2007). 10.1007/s10404-006-0104-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tanaka T., Ishikawa T., Numayama-Tsuruta K., Imai Y., Ueno H., Matsuki N., and Yamaguchi T., “Separation of cancer cells from a red blood cell suspension using inertial force,” Lab Chip 12, 4336 (2012). 10.1039/c2lc40354d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hur S. C., Henderson-MacLennan N. K., McCabe E. R. B., and Di Carlo D., “Deformability-based cell classification and enrichment using inertial microfluidics,” Lab Chip 11, 912 (2011). 10.1039/c0lc00595a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Guo Q., Duffy S., and Ma H., Microfluidic Technologies for Deformability-Based Cell Sorting (Springer, 2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Amini H., Lee W., and Di Carlo D., “Inertial microfluidic physics,” Lab Chip 14, 2739 (2014). 10.1039/c4lc00128a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Segre G. and Silberberg A., “Radial particle displacements in Poiseuille flow of suspensions,” Nature 189, 209 (1961). 10.1038/189209a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhang J., Yan S., Sluyter R., Li W. H., Alici G., and Nguyen N. T., “Inertial particle separation by differential equilibrium positions in a symmetrical serpentine micro-channel,” Sci. Rep. 4, 4527 (2014). 10.1038/srep04527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nivedita N. and Papautsky I., “Continuous separation of blood cells in spiral microfluidic devices,” Biomicrofluidics 7, 054101 (2013). 10.1063/1.4819275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang J., Li M., Li W. H., and Alici G., “Inertial focusing in a straight channel with asymmetrical expansion-contraction cavity arrays using two secondary flows,” J. Micromech. Microeng. 23, 085023 (2013). 10.1088/0960-1317/23/8/085023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Park J. S., Song S. H., and Jung H. I., “Continuous focusing of microparticles using inertial lift force and vorticity via multi-orifice microfluidic channels,” Lab Chip 9, 939 (2009). 10.1039/b813952k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wang G. H., Crawford K., Turbyfield C., Lam W., Alexeev A., and Sulchek T., “Microfluidic cellular enrichment and separation through differences in viscoelastic deformation,” Lab Chip 15, 532 (2015). 10.1039/c4lc01150c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wang G. H., Turbyfield C., Crawford K., Alexeev A., and Sulchek T., “Cellular enrichment through microfluidic fractionation based on cell biomechanical properties,” Microfluid. Nanofluid. 19, 987 (2015). 10.1007/s10404-015-1608-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Audet D. M. and Olbricht W. L., “The motion of model cells at capillary bifurcations,” Microvasc. Res. 33, 377 (1987). 10.1016/0026-2862(87)90029-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Roberts B. W. and Olbricht W. L., “The distribution of freely suspended particles at microfluidic bifurcations,” AIChE J. 52, 199 (2006). 10.1002/aic.10613 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Levine R. and Goldsmith H. L., “Particle behavior in flow through small bifurcations,” Microvasc. Res. 14, 319 (1977). 10.1016/0026-2862(77)90029-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Tay H. M., Yeo D. C., Wiraja C., Xu C. J., and Hou H. W., “Microfluidic buffer exchange for interference-free micro/nanoparticle cell engineering,” J. Visualized Exp. 113, e54327 (2016). 10.3791/54327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sonmez U., Jaber S., and Trabzon L., “Super-enhanced particle focusing in a novel microchannel geometry using inertial microfluidics,” J. Micromech. Microeng. 27, 065003 (2017). 10.1088/1361-6439/aa6b18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kwon T., Yao R. J., Hamel J. F. P., and Han J., “Continuous removal of small nonviable suspended mammalian cells and debris from bioreactors using inertial microfluidics,” Lab Chip 18, 2826 (2018). 10.1039/c8lc00250a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Warkiani M. E., Khoo B. L., Wu L. D., Tay A. K. P., Bhagat A. A. S., Han J., and Lim C. T., “Ultra-fast, label-free isolation of circulating tumor cells from blood using spiral microfluidics,” Nat. Protoc. 11, 134 (2016). 10.1038/nprot.2016.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lee D. J., Brenner H., Youn J. R., and Song Y. S., “Multiplex particle focusing via hydrodynamic force in viscoelastic fluids,” Sci. Rep. 3, 3258 (2013). 10.1038/srep03258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hou H. W., Warkiani M. E., Khoo B. L., Li Z. R., Soo R. A., Tan D. S. W., Lim W. T., Han J., Bhagat A. A. S., and Lim C. T., “Isolation and retrieval of circulating tumor cells using centrifugal forces,” Sci. Rep. 3, 1259 (2013). 10.1038/srep01259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Geislinger T. M. and Franke T., “Sorting of circulating tumor cells (MV3-melanoma) and red blood cells using non-inertial lift,” Biomicrofluidics 7, 044120 (2013). 10.1063/1.4818907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Yang S., Undar A., and Zahn J. D., “A microfluidic device for continuous, real time blood plasma separation,” Lab Chip 6, 871 (2006). 10.1039/b516401j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Nam J., Namgung B., Lim C. T., Bae J. E., Leo H. L., Cho K. S., and Kim S., “Microfluidic device for sheathless particle focusing and separation using a viscoelastic fluid,” J. Chromatogr. A 1406, 244 (2015). 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.06.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Dellimore J. W., Dunlop M. J., and Canham P. B., “Ratio of cells and plasma in blood flowing past branches in small plastic channels,” Am. J. Physiol. 244, H635 (1983). 10.1152/ajpheart.1983.244.5.h635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rosenbluth M. J., Lam W. A., and Fletcher D. A., “Analyzing cell mechanics in hematologic diseases with microfluidic biophysical flow cytometry,” Lab Chip 8, 1062 (2008). 10.1039/b802931h [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lima R., Fernandes C. S., Dias R., Ishikawa T., Imai Y., and Yamaguchi T., Microscale Flow Dynamics of Red Blood Cells in Microchannels: An Experimental and Numerical Analysis (Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011). [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Leble V., Lima R., Dias R., Fernandes C., Ishikawa T., Imai Y., and Yamaguchi T., “Asymmetry of red blood cell motions in a microchannel with a diverging and converging bifurcation,” Biomicrofluidics 5, 044120 (2011). 10.1063/1.3672689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Doyeux V., Podgorski T., Peponas S., Ismail M., and Coupier G., “Spheres in the vicinity of a bifurcation: Elucidating the Zweifach-Fung effect,” J. Fluid Mech. 674, 359 (2011). 10.1017/s0022112010006567 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Obrist D., Weber B., Buck A., and Jenny P., “Red blood cell distribution in simplified capillary networks,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 368, 2897 (2010). 10.1098/rsta.2010.0045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Enden G. and Popel A. S., “A numerical study of the shape of the surface separating flow into branches in microvascular bifurcations,” J. Biomech. Eng. 114, 398 (1992). 10.1115/1.2891401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Adam J. A., “Blood vessel branching: Beyond the standard calculus problem,” Math. Mag. 84, 196 (2011). 10.4169/math.mag.84.3.196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wang X. Q., Mujumdar A. S., and Yap C., “Effect of bifurcation angle in tree-shaped microchannel networks,” J. Appl. Phys. 102, 073530 (2007). 10.1063/1.2794379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Yang J., Pak Y. E., and Lee T. R., “Predicting bifurcation angle effect on blood flow in the microvasculature,” Microvasc. Res. 108, 22 (2016). 10.1016/j.mvr.2016.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Bramley J. S. and Dennis S. C. R., “The numerical-solution of two-dimensional flow in a branching channel,” Comput. Fluids 12, 339 (1984). 10.1016/0045-7930(84)90014-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ahmed G. M. Y. and Singh A., “Numerical simulation of particle migration in asymmetric bifurcation channel,” J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 166, 42 (2011). 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2010.10.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Xu Y., Tian F., Li H., and Deng Y., “Red blood cell partitioning and blood flux redistribution in microvascular bifurcation,” Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 024001 (2012). 10.1063/2.1202401 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Xiong W. J. and Zhang J. F., “Two-dimensional lattice Boltzmann study of red blood cell motion through microvascular bifurcation: Cell deformability and suspending viscosity effects,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 11, 575 (2012). 10.1007/s10237-011-0334-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Barber J. O., Alberding J. P., Restrepo J. M., and Secomb T. W., “Simulated two-dimensional red blood cell motion, deformation, and partitioning in microvessel bifurcations,” Ann. Biomed. Eng. 36, 1690 (2008). 10.1007/s10439-008-9546-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Wang Y. L., Do-Quang M., and Amberg G., “Viscoelastic droplet dynamics in a Y-shaped capillary channel,” Phys. Fluids 28, 033103 (2016). 10.1063/1.4943110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ollila S. T. T., Denniston C., and Ala-Nissila T., “One- and two-particle dynamics in microfluidic T-junctions,” Phys. Rev. E 87, 050302 (2013). 10.1103/physreve.87.050302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Barber J. O., Restrepo J. M., and Secomb T. W., “Simulated red blood cell motion in microvessel bifurcations: Effects of cell-cell interactions on cell partitioning,” Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 2, 349 (2011). 10.1007/s13239-011-0064-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Chesnutt J. K. W. and Marshall J. S., “Effect of particle collisions and aggregation on red blood cell passage through a bifurcation,” Microvasc. Res. 78, 301 (2009). 10.1016/j.mvr.2009.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Hyakutake T., Tominaga S., Matsumoto T., and Yanase S., “Numerical study on flows of red blood cells with liposome-encapsulated hemoglobin at microvascular bifurcation,” J. Biomech. Eng. 130, 011014 (2008). 10.1115/1.2838024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Li X., Popel A. S., and Karniadakis G. E., “Blood-plasma separation in Y-shaped bifurcating microfluidic channels: A dissipative particle dynamics simulation study,” Phys. Biol. 9, 026010 (2012). 10.1088/1478-3975/9/2/026010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Ye T. and Peng L. N., “Motion, deformation, and aggregation of multiple red blood cells in three-dimensional microvessel bifurcations,” Phys. Fluids 31, 021903 (2019). 10.1063/1.5079836 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Sherwood J. M., Holmes D., Kaliviotis E., and Balabani S., “Spatial distributions of red blood cells significantly alter local haemodynamics,” PLoS One 9, e100473 (2014). 10.1371/journal.pone.0100473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Clavica F., Homsy A., Jeandupeux L., and Obrist D., “Red blood cell phase separation in symmetric and asymmetric microchannel networks: Effect of capillary dilation and inflow velocity,” Sci. Rep. 6, 36763 (2016). 10.1038/srep36763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Hyakutake T. and Nagai S., “Numerical simulation of red blood cell distributions in three-dimensional microvascular bifurcations,” Microvasc. Res. 97, 115 (2015). 10.1016/j.mvr.2014.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Kaliviotis E., Sherwood J. M., and Balabani S., “Partitioning of red blood cell aggregates in bifurcating microscale flows,” Sci. Rep. 7, 44563 (2017). 10.1038/srep44563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Pries A. R., Ley K., Claassen M., and Gaehtgens P., “Red-cell distribution at microvascular bifurcations,” Microvasc. Res. 38, 81 (1989). 10.1016/0026-2862(89)90018-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Khismatullin D. B. and Truskey G. A., “Three-dimensional numerical simulation of receptor-mediated leukocyte adhesion to surfaces: Effects of cell deformability and viscoelasticity,” Phys. Fluids 17, 031505 (2005). 10.1063/1.1862635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Khismatullin D. B. and Truskey G. A., “Leukocyte rolling on P-selectin: A three-dimensional numerical study of the effect of cytoplasmic viscosity,” Biophys. J. 102, 1757 (2012). 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.03.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Dong C., Skalak R., Sung K. L., Schmid-Schonbein G. W., and Chien S., “Passive deformation analysis of human leukocytes,” J. Biomech. Eng. 110, 27 (1988). 10.1115/1.3108402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Shojaei-Baghini E., Zheng Y., and Sun Y., “Automated micropipette aspiration of single cells,” Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41, 1208 (2013). 10.1007/s10439-013-0791-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Zhou C., Yue P., and Feng J. J., “Simulation of neutrophil deformation and transport in capillaries using Newtonian and viscoelastic drop models,” Ann. Biomed. Eng. 35, 766 (2007). 10.1007/s10439-007-9286-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Lim C. T., Zhou E. H., and Quek S. T., “Mechanical models for living cells—A review,” J. Biomech. 39, 195 (2006). 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Takeishi N., Imai Y., Yamaguchi T., and Ishikawa T., “Flow of a circulating tumor cell and red blood cells in microvessels,” Phys. Rev. E 92, 063011 (2015). 10.1103/physreve.92.063011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Bronkhorst P. J. H., Streekstra G. J., Grimbergen J., Nijhof E. J., Sixma J. J., and Brakenhoff G. J., “A new method to study shape recovery of red blood cells using multiple optical trapping,” Biophys. J. 69, 1666 (1995). 10.1016/s0006-3495(95)80084-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Guillou L., Dahl J. B., Lin J. G., Barakat A. I., Husson J., Muller S. J., and Kumar S., “Measuring cell viscoelastic properties using a microfluidic extensional flow device,” Biophys. J. 111, 2039 (2016). 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.09.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Huber D., Oskooei A., Solvas X. C. I., DeMello A., and Kaigala G. V., “Hydrodynamics in cell studies,” Chem. Rev. 118, 2042 (2018). 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Rifkind J. M. and Nagababu E., “Hemoglobin redox reactions and red blood cell aging,” Antioxid. Redox Signaling 18, 2274 (2013). 10.1089/ars.2012.4867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Mazzulla S., Schella A., Gabriele D., Baldino N., Sesti S., Perrotta E., Costabile A., and de Cindio B., “Oxidation of human red blood cells by a free radical initiator: Effects on rheological properties,” Clin. Hemorheol. Microcirc. 60, 375 (2015). 10.3233/ch-141841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Huang Y. X., Wu Z. J., Mehrishi J., Huang B. T., Chen X. Y., Zheng X. J., Liu W. J., and Luo M., “Human red blood cell aging: Correlative changes in surface charge and cell properties,” J. Cell. Mol. Med. 15, 2634 (2011). 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2011.01310.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Evans E. A. and Mohandas N., “Membrane-associated sickle hemoglobin: A major determinant of sickle erythrocyte rigidity,” Blood 70, 1443 (1987), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3663941. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Gossett D. R., Weaver W. M., Mach A. J., Hur S. C., Tse H. T., Lee W., Amini H., and Di Carlo D., “Label-free cell separation and sorting in microfluidic systems,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 397, 3249 (2010). 10.1007/s00216-010-3721-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Cheng I. F., Froude V. E., Zhu Y., Chang H. C., and Chang H. C., “A continuous high-throughput bioparticle sorter based on 3D traveling-wave dielectrophoresis,” Lab Chip 9, 3193 (2009). 10.1039/b910587e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Wang T., Rongin U., and Xing Z. X., “A micro-scale simulation of red blood cell passage through symmetric and asymmetric bifurcated vessels,” Sci. Rep. 6, 20262 (2016). 10.1038/srep20262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.El-Kareh A. W. and Secomb T. W., “A model for red blood cell motion in bifurcating microvessels,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 26, 1545 (2000). 10.1016/s0301-9322(99)00096-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Coceano G., Yousafzai M. S., Ma W., Ndoye F., Venturelli L., Hussain I., Bonin S., Niemela J., Scoles G., Cojoc D., and Ferrari E., “Investigation into local cell mechanics by atomic force microscopy mapping and optical tweezer vertical indentation,” Nanotechnology 27, 065102 (2016). 10.1088/0957-4484/27/6/065102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Arya S. K., Lee K. C., Bin Dah’alan D., Daniel, and Rahman A. R. A., “Breast tumor cell detection at single cell resolution using an electrochemical impedance technique,” Lab Chip 12, 2362 (2012). 10.1039/c2lc21174b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Calzado-Martin A., Encinar M., Tamayo J., Calleja M., and Paulo A. S., “Effect of actin organization on the stiffness of living breast cancer cells revealed by peak-force modulation atomic force microscopy,” ACS Nano 10, 3365 (2016). 10.1021/acsnano.5b07162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Li Q. S., Lee G. Y. H., Ong C. N., and Lim C. T., “AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells,” Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 374, 609 (2008). 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.07.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Physics of Fluids are provided here courtesy of American Institute of Physics

RESOURCES