Slashdot Mirror
'Lab On a Chip' Made From Paper and Tape
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at Harvard University have developed a microfluidic device using ordinary paper and tape. Squares of paper are layered and connected with adhesive tape, channeling liquid horizontally and vertically in a very small area. Each square of paper has been treated with photoresist material, which creates channels that funnel liquid into tiny wells containing certain proteins or antibodies. The fluid interacts with that area of the paper and turns the well a certain color. It can, for example, detect varying concentrations of glucose. Lead researcher George Whitesides says such paper 'lab on a chip' tests may lead to a cost-effective, portable, and accurate method for diagnosing diseases in countries lacking reliable health care. The research appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science."
So they're the ones who have been stealing all the paper and tape from the supply cabinet!
Millions in grant money and this is what they come up with? Paper and tape?
Instead of regular tape, you could use duct tape.
In my experience, "ordinary paper" is generally not the same thing as "treated with photoresist material, which creates channels that funnel liquid into tiny wells containing certain proteins or antibodies."
I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it's not the paper or tape that will be making up the bulk of the testing device's price.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
So that's where Macgyver went! I always new he could do better than the Phoenix foundation. I hear he's also developing a paperclip hypodermic.
"...such paper "lab on a chip" tests may lead to a cost-effective, portable, and accurate method for diagnosing diseases in countries lacking reliable health care."
How about a cost-effective, portable, and accurate method in countries where we're used to overpaying for the NON-cost-effective methods?
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
The third world has been using test strips fine for the last n years. These 3D paper things don't seem to really be any easier to use or really cheaper to make.
Just because they're made from paper and tape does not mean they can be made in a mud hut. The critical part is treating the carrier with the reactants still requires a clean lab environment.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
. . . I briefly skimmed the article, and neither a "Mullet" nor a "Swiss Army Knife" was mentioned.
Those are the two of the critical ingredients in Macgyver Stew.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Don't hold your breath. While the chip itself might be cheap to manufacture, its going to run into the same problems that have plagued immunochromatographic diagnostic technologies for years:
1. Antibodies are extremely expensive relative to other reagents that can be used (acid fast staining for mycobacteria, nucleic acid stains for plasmodia and other parasites, etc).
2. Its impossible to get a measure of the "confidence" of a measurement using this type of technology, so verifying results requires performing a completely different diagnostic test. But if you have no idea which tests gave confident results and which did not, how do you know which results to verify?
3. Cell-phone cameras are useless for quantitative analysis, especially ones that would need high dynamic range and high accuracy
4. Quality control and assurance is a bitch. Ask any epidemiologist that has experience working with malaria RDTs in the field. Some of them last 6 months, some last 1 month on the shelf.
5. In high-burden areas for certain diseases, using a disposable test methodology becomes extremely cost-ineffective.
While this might be interesting for things like simple urine tests or blood sugar tests, diagnosing infectious diseases represents a massive challenge for technologies like this. There's a reason we still use century-old microscopy-based technologies for diagnosing things like active TB and malaria even though they suck. I don't blame the researchers, they do good work and aren't focused on building a real product. Its the journalists that somehow make the leap between "we can detect glucose" and "revolutionary diagnostic technology."
And yes, IAABME.