Skip to main content
. 2020 May 7;8:327. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00327

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

(A) The comparison of the hanging drop formation success rate using five different combinations of the holding layers: U0.25, U0.25/L0.1, U0.25/L0.25, U0.1/L0.1, U0.1/L0.25. The flow rate of air withdrawal was set to 0.9 mL/min. (B) The comparison of the success rate for different flow rates. The design of the holding layer was U0.25/L0.1. (C) The processing time of hanging drop formation when using various flow rates. All results were repeated three times (N = 3). (D) The internal pressure of the air chamber during operation of the PANDA system at different holding conditions: sealed holding layer (blue line), without holding layer (red line), and U0.25/L0.1 design of the holding layer (black line). The flow rate of air withdrawal was set to 0.9 mL/min.