Flow distributor
11207682 · 2021-12-28
Assignee
Inventors
Cpc classification
B01J19/0093
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L3/502707
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01F2101/2204
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01J2219/00896
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01D15/10
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L2300/0864
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L2300/0867
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L2400/086
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01F2101/23
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L2300/0816
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01F33/3012
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01L3/502746
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
International classification
B01L3/00
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
B01J19/00
PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
Abstract
A distributor is described for distributing a fluid flow from a smaller to a more broad fluid flow. It comprises a fluid input and a plurality of fluid outputs, and a channel structure in between the fluid input and the plurality of fluid outputs. The channel structure comprises alternatingly bifurcating channel substructures and common channel substructures wherein the substructures are arranged so that fluid exiting different channels from a bifurcating channel substructure mixes in a subsequent common channel substructure, and whereby fluid channels of the bifurcating channel substructure are arranged such that these do not contact the subsequent common channel substructure at the edges thereof.
Claims
1. A distributor for distributing a fluid flow from a smaller fluid plug to a more broad fluid plug, said distributor comprising a fluid input and a plurality of fluid outputs, and a channel structure in between the fluid input and the plurality of fluid outputs, the channel structure comprising alternatingly bifurcating channel substructures and common channel substructures wherein said substructures are arranged so that fluid exiting different channels from a bifurcating channel substructure mixes in a subsequent common channel substructure, wherein at least one common channel substructure comprises a common channel filled with a plurality of pillar elements arranged spaced from each other, and whereby fluid channels of the bifurcating channel substructure are arranged such that these do not contact the subsequent common channel substructure at the edges thereof.
2. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein the common channel substructure is arranged such that its length axis is substantially perpendicular to a net forward flow of the structure and said edges of the common channel substructure correspond with the end points of the length axis.
3. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pillar elements in at least one common channel are pillar elements aligned in an even number of rows wherein the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every nth row match the outlets of the preceding bifurcation channels, while the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n ith row match the centerlines of the pillars in the following row.
4. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein each of the common channel substructures is filled with a plurality of pillar elements arranged spaced from each other.
5. The distributor according to claim 4, wherein for each common channel, the pillar elements are aligned in an even number n of rows wherein the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every nth row match the outlets of the preceding bifurcation channels, while the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n-lth row match the centerlines of the pillars in the following row.
6. The distributor according to claim 5, wherein the number of rows of pillar elements in a common channel substructure closer to the inlet is higher than the number of rows of pillar elements in a common channel substructure nearer to the outlet.
7. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein the pillar structures have a rectangular, diamond-like or ellipsoidal shape.
8. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein no pillar structures are present in the common channel of the common channel substructures.
9. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein the number of fluid outputs is (2m) with m a natural number.
10. The distributor according to claim 1, wherein the distributor is part of a chemical reactor.
11. A microfluidic structure comprising a distributor according to claim 1.
12. The microfluidic structure according to claim 11, the microfluidic structure being a separation structure for a chromatographic system.
13. The microfluidic structure according to claim 11, the microfluidic structure being part of a chemical reactor.
14. A chromatographic system comprising a microfluidic structure according to claim 11.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10) Any reference signs in the claims shall not be construed as limiting the scope.
(11) In the different drawings, the same reference signs refer to the same or analogous elements.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS
(12) The present invention will be described with respect to particular embodiments and with reference to certain drawings, but the invention is not limited thereto but only by the claims. The drawings described are only schematic and are non-limiting. In the drawings, the size of some of the elements may be exaggerated and not drawn on scale for illustrative purposes. The dimensions and the relative dimensions do not correspond to actual reductions to practice of the invention.
(13) Furthermore, the terms first, second and the like in the description and in the claims, are used for distinguishing between similar elements and not necessarily for describing a sequence, either temporally, spatially, in ranking or in any other manner. It is to be understood that the terms so used are interchangeable under appropriate circumstances and that the embodiments of the invention described herein are capable of operation in other sequences than described or illustrated herein.
(14) Moreover, the terms top, under and the like in the description and the claims are used for descriptive purposes and not necessarily for describing relative positions. It is to be understood that the terms so used are interchangeable under appropriate circumstances and that the embodiments of the invention described herein are capable of operation in other orientations than described or illustrated herein.
(15) It is to be noticed that the term “comprising”, used in the claims, should not be interpreted as being restricted to the means listed thereafter; it does not exclude other elements or steps. It is thus to be interpreted as specifying the presence of the stated features, integers, steps or components as referred to, but does not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps or components, or groups thereof. Thus, the scope of the expression “a device comprising means A and B” should not be limited to devices consisting only of components A and B. It means that with respect to the present invention, the only relevant components of the device are A and B.
(16) Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus, appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places throughout this specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment but may. Furthermore, the particular features, structures or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner, as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from this disclosure, in one or more embodiments.
(17) Similarly it should be appreciated that in the description of exemplary embodiments of the invention, various features of the invention are sometimes grouped together in a single embodiment, figure, or description thereof for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure and aiding in the understanding of one or more of the various inventive aspects. This method of disclosure, however, is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed invention requires more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive aspects lie in less than all features of a single foregoing disclosed embodiment. Thus, the claims following the detailed description are hereby expressly incorporated into this detailed description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment of this invention.
(18) Furthermore, while some embodiments described herein include some, but not other features included in other embodiments, combinations of features of different embodiments are meant to be within the scope of the invention, and form different embodiments, as would be understood by those in the art. For example, in the following claims, any of the claimed embodiments can be used in any combination.
(19) In the description provided herein, numerous specific details are set forth. However, it is understood that embodiments of the invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, structures and techniques have not been shown in detail in order not to obscure an understanding of this description.
(20) Where in embodiments of the present invention reference is made to a “bifurcating distributor”, reference is made to a distributor wherein the flow paths in the distributor never contact each other again, once they bifurcated. Where in embodiments of the present invention reference is made to “bifurcating” reference is made to the splitting of a channel in a number of sub-channels.
(21) Where in embodiments of the present invention reference is made to a “radially interconnected distributor”, after each split, all channels contact each other again by ending up in a common channel.
(22) In a first aspect, the present invention relates to a distributor for distributing a fluid flow from a smaller fluid plug to a more broad fluid plug. Such a distributor may be used for any suitable application such as for example in chromatographic applications, although embodiments are not limited thereto. The distributor comprises a fluid input and a plurality of fluid outputs, and a channel structure in between the fluid input and the plurality of fluid outputs. The channel structure comprises alternatingly bifurcating channel substructures and common channel substructures wherein said substructures are arranged so that fluid exiting different channels from a bifurcating channel substructure mixes in a subsequent common channel substructure. Fluid channels of the bifurcating channel substructure furthermore are arranged such that these do not contact the subsequent common channel substructure at the edges thereof. In other words, the fluid channels of the bifurcating channels end in the common channel substructure in such a way that fluid flowing from that channel at the exit of that channel can flow in two directions in the common channel. The common channel substructure may be considered as being arranged such that its length axis is perpendicular to a net forward flow of the structure and such that the edges of the common channel substructure correspond with the end points of the common channel substructure along the length axis.
(23) Distributors according to embodiments of the present invention can be referred to as mixed mode distributors. At least one common channel substructure may comprise a common channel filled with a plurality of pillar elements arranged spaced from each other. Such pillar elements may be any suitable pillar elements for use in microfluidic channels such as for example rectangular shaped pillar elements, but also circular shaped pillar elements, hexagonal shaped pillar elements, diamond shaped pillar elements, elliptical shaped pillar elements, etc. In some embodiments, all common channel substructures may be filled with pillar elements. The distribution of the pillar elements and the type of pillar elements used may be the same or may be different for all common channel substructures. The distributor may be made in commonly used materials for distributors. Furthermore, the dimensions of the channels and pillar elements used may be as known for distributors.
(24) In particular embodiments wherein pillar elements are used in the common channel, the plurality of pillar elements in at least one common channel may be pillar elements aligned in an even number of rows wherein the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n.sup.th row match the outlets of the preceding bifurcation channels, while the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n−1.sup.th row match the centerlines of the pillars in the following row. The radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n.sup.th row match the outlets of the preceding bifurcation channels, while the radial positions of the centerlines of the different inter-pillar element spaces at every n−1.sup.th row match the centerlines of the pillars in the following row.
(25) In some embodiments, the number of rows of pillar elements in a common channel substructure closer to the inlet is higher than the number of rows of pillar elements in a common channel substructure nearer to the outlet. By way of illustration, embodiments of the present invention not being limited thereto, an exemplary distributor 100 is shown in
(26) In one aspect, the present invention also relates to a microfluidic structure comprising a distributor as described above. The microfluidic structure further may comprise a further channel section, such as for example a separation channel section. In some embodiments, a second distributor also may be used, similar to the first or different thereof, for reducing the width of the fluid plug again. Features and advantages of the distributor described in the first aspect also are applicable to the microfluidic structure as a whole. One example of a microfluidic structure according to this aspect is a separation structure for a chromatographic system.
(27) In a further aspect, the present invention also relates to a chromatographic system comprising a microfluidic structure as described above. More generally, the present invention also relates to a chemical reactor comprising such a microfluidic structure.
(28) By way of illustration, embodiments of the prevent invention not being limited thereto, a quantitative assessment of the advantage of mixed mode distributors of particular examples of embodiments of the present invention are discussed, by comparing the dispersion characteristics to representatives of the bifurcating and radially interconnected distributors. The assessment was performed numerically using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Unless mentioned otherwise, all distributors had the same inlet and the same number of outlet ports and are subject to the same flow rate, i.e. a typical flow rate for microfabricated LC columns. To allow investigating a high number of conditions and geometries in a reasonable time, all simulations were done in 2-D, neglecting the additional dispersion one can expect from the top and bottom wall that are present in practice. Including this effect would have added an extra variable and would have consumed roughly a 10- to 100-fold of computational time (depending on the selected aspect ratio of the channels). It has furthermore been demonstrated in literature that the additional 3D dispersion can be considered as an independent extra term, especially when the channels have a high aspect-ratio, i.e. when the channels that are significantly deeper than wider, which is anyhow the condition resulting from a design aiming at a minimal distributor volume (keeping the depth of the channels constant). Since the extra dispersion from the top and bottom wall contribution can be expected to be proportional to the time spend in the distributor, and since this grows from BF over MM to the RI-distributor, it can be inferred the addition of this effect will only enhance the presently observed differences.
(29)
(30)
(31) The fluid used in the simulations was liquid water. The flow rate was chosen so that a linear velocity of approximately 0.25 mm/s was achieved in the reaction channel following the distributor (a practically relevant linear velocity for microchip chromatography). The species that was traced during the simulations was water as well. This mixture of water in water was given a viscosity of 1.003 cP and a self-diffusivity of 10.sup.−9 m.sup.2/s.
(32) Before discussing the results, first the numerical methods are discussed that are used for simulating. All simulations were performed with Ansys® Workbench version 16.2 from Ansys, Inc., purchased from Ansys Benelux, Wavre, Belgium. Within this software platform all flow domains were drawn with Ansys® Design Modeler and meshed with Ansys® Meshing. All simulations were performed with Ansys® Fluent.
(33) The mesh size was chosen such that the shortest flow domain contained 10 mesh cells. The mesh consisted of quadrilateral cells. To check mesh independency, a mesh containing cells half the original size, resulting in a quadruple cell count, was used. For the 500 μm wide BF-distributor, the difference in plate height recorded with this finer mesh was only 3.5% smaller than for the original mesh. It was therefore concluded the original mesh yields sufficient accuracy, at least for the present study.
(34) The solver used fulfilled following conditions. First, the velocity fields were computed solving the Navier-Stokes equations using the segregated pressure-based steady-state solver. For the spatial discretization, the least squares cell-based method was used to calculate concentration gradients, the coupled scheme for pressure-velocity coupling, the second order interpolation scheme for pressure and second order upwind scheme for momentum. Boundary conditions were set to wall for the side walls and sides of the flat-rectangular pillars, the inlet plane was put at a fixed mass-flow rate and the outlet plane were set to outflow. The porous zone was set to interior.
(35) Subsequently, the 100 mesh cells of the injection box were patched with 1% species. The transient solver, with first order implicit temporal discretization and second order upwind scheme for spatial discretization, was then used to solve the convection diffusion equation yielding the transient concentration field of species band migrating through the flow domain. A fixed time stepping method with 10000 steps of size 1.10.sup.−6 s was used.
(36) All simulations were performed on Dell Power Edge R210 Rack Servers each equipped with an Intel Xeon x3460 processor (clock speed 2.8 GHz, 4 cores) and 16 Gb, 1333 MHz ram memory, running on Windows server edition 2008 R2 (64-bit). Simulations of the steady-state velocity field in the aforementioned geometries took about 1 hour, while the transient species concentration field simulations took about 24 hours.
(37) For each simulation, the mass fraction of species passing the “monitor” line (see red lines in
σ.sub.t.sup.2=∫(t−
wherein c(t) is the mass fraction of species as a function of time. From these values, the volumetric variance (σ.sub.v.sup.2) can be calculated with
σ.sub.v.sup.2=σ.sub.t.sup.2.Math.F.sup.2
(38) Using σ.sub.v.sup.2 (which contains information of F) instead of σ.sub.t.sup.2 as a measure of the peak width eliminates the influence the flow rate has on the observed (time-based) peak width.
(39) Initial Comparison.
(40) In a first set of simulations, the goal was to determine which of the four considered distributor types has the best performance in the absence of clogging.
(41) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 RI MM.sub.I MM.sub.II BF
(42) Table 1 shows the numerical values for
(43) Also shown in Table 1 are the pressure drops over the distributors. Here, the RI distributor is more advantageous, because the flow is very rapidly divided over many flow paths so that the local velocity (which obviously is highest at the inlet) drops rapidly. This is not the case in the BF-distributor, where the highest flow rates (F/2 after first bifurcation, F/4 after 2.sup.nd bifurcation, . . . ) are maintained over the longest distance (=length of flow-through channels). As a consequence, the BF-distributor requires a larger pressure-drop. The two MM-type distributors have even a larger pressure drop, because of the presence of the contact zones generating an extra pressure drop.
(44) If the extra pressure-drop of the MM-distributor would be an issue, designs are available wherein the flow-through channels are widest near the inlet and become narrower towards the exits. The optimal variation of the channel width will depend on the compromise between the extra dispersion and the pressure drop.
(45) The next set of simulations mainly aimed at determining which of the two new distributors (MM.sub.I or MM.sub.II) performs best in the presence of clogging. For these measurements, the porous zone in the red boxes shown in
(46) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 RI MM.sub.I MM.sub.II BF
(47)
(48) On the other hand, the clogging has hardly any effect on the peak shape for the RI-distributor. The peak width (σ.sub.v.sup.2=0.271 nL.sup.2), mean elution time, and symmetry are all almost identical to the results obtained without clogging. This confirms the excellent ability of RI-type distributors to cope with local clogging events, which is due to its strong radial mixing and the many different flow paths the fluid can take to circumvent the clogged area.
(49) Again, the MM-distributors show an intermediate behavior. However, whereas the MM.sub.II-distributor performs close to the unfavorable behavior of the BF-distributor (the σ.sub.v.sup.2 increased to 0.532 nL.sup.2), the MM.sub.I-distributor performs better (σ.sub.v.sup.2=0.223 nL.sup.2). Here again, the explanation can be found in the geometry of the distributors. The contact zones in the MM.sub.II-distributor are minimally small and reduced to a single flow-through channel, giving the fluid only limited possibility to compensate for errors. In the MM.sub.I-distributor, three of such channel layers are present in each contact zone, giving the fluid much more time to redistribute across the entire width of the distributor. To understand this further, it is instructive to compare the bands leaving the MM.sub.I- and MM.sub.II-distributors in
(50) Since the MM.sub.II-distributor is outperformed by the BF-distributor under ideal circumstances (no clogging) and by the MM.sub.II-distributor when clogging is possible, it was decided to omit this design from all further calculations.
(51) For the three distributors that remained under consideration (BF, RI, and MM.sub.I), the effect of the flow rate on the volumetric variance σ.sub.v.sup.2 of the bands leaving the distributor was examined. These simulations were conducted in the absence of clogging, to obtain the most simple and direct insight. Five different flow rates were applied to each of the distributors: 1.32 μL/min (corresponding to the optimal linear velocity of 0.25 mm/s for chromatography in the reaction channel following the distributor), 1.98 μL/min, 2.64 μL/min, 3.96 μL/min, and 5.28 μL/min. The results of these calculations are shown in
(52) It is also striking to observe that the σ.sub.v.sup.2-values are nearly independent of the applied flow rate for all three distributors. Trying to explain this, we considered the analytical expression for the dispersion in a single microfluidic channel. Admittedly, the latter may only be a very crude representation of the flow-through channels in the distributors, but the availability of an analytical expression at least allows to understand some of the dispersion dynamics. The volumetric variance of a band travelling through a straight tube under fully-developed and dispersion dominated laminar flow conditions is given by:
(53)
(54) Where α is a constant depending on the geometry of the tube (α= 1/105 for a channel formed between two parallel plates) and (β=15πD.sub.m/F.
(55) Using Eq. (1) to calculate σ.sub.v.sup.2 as a function of F, with d.sub.tube=2.5 μm, D.sub.m=1.10.sup.9 m.sup.2/s and L the length of the flow path from the inlet to any of the outlet points (RI=26.5 μm, BF=25.125 μm, MM.sub.I=56.125 μm) shows that the dispersion in the flow-through channels is not fully-developed yet (i.e., σ.sub.v.sup.2/L is not yet a constant). In other words, the flow rate is so high that the factor between straight brackets in Eq. (1) still varies in a nearly inversely proportional way with F, thus approximately compensating for the linear F-dependency preceding the straight brackets. This then explains the near-constant σ.sub.v.sup.2-values in
(56) Since the flow rate obviously doesn't have a significant influence on σ.sub.v.sup.2, all subsequent simulations were done at a flow rate of 1.32 μL/min, as this corresponds to a practically relevant linear velocity.
(57) To assess how the final distributor width affects the conclusions from the previous sections (no clogging case), the σ.sub.v.sup.2 was measured for different channel widths, again in the absence of clogging. The change in channel width was achieved by adding or eliminating layers to the distributors and by increasing or decreasing the number of outlets, in other words, the dimensions of the flow-through channels and the flat-rectangular pillars in the bed and the last rows of pillars in the distributor were kept the same. Note that, whereas the RI-distributor can have any number of outlets, the MM.sub.I- and BF-distributors can only have 2.sup.n outlets, with n an integer. Moreover, when fewer than 8 outlets are considered, there is no difference between the MM.sub.I- and BF-distributor. Hence, for the MM.sub.I- and BF-distributor 3 cases were studied: 250 μm (8 outlets), 500 μm (16 outlets), and 1000 μm (32 outlets) wide final channels, while for the RI-distributor, the same 3 cases were studied, as well as an additional two cases of 375 μm (12 outlets) and 750 μm (24 outlets). The flow rate was scaled in proportion with the final distributor width, as each distributor is assumed to feed into a reaction or separation bed with a width equal to that of the distributor and we wanted to keep the linear velocity in this bed the same for all considered channel widths. The results of these simulations are shown in
(58) Given the absence of clogging, the BF-distributor has the lowest σ.sub.v.sup.2 in each case, the RI-distributor has the highest, and the MM.sub.I produces variances that are larger the BF-distributor, but much smaller than those produced by the RI-distributors. The latter becomes more and more outspoken at the largest distributor widths, because the σ.sub.v.sup.2-values produced by the RI-distributor shows a proportionally greater increase with the distributor width than the MM.sub.I- and BF-distributors. This is quantified by the power equation that can be fitted through the data points of each distributor type. As can be noted from the fittings in
(59) The fact that the MM.sub.I- and BF-distributors have a variance that increases with a power close to 2 (σ.sub.v.sup.2˜width.sup.2) is very beneficial, because the dispersion in the bed itself, can under conditions of a constant linear velocity, also be expected to vary according to width.sup.2. This implies the relative contribution of the distributor to the overall dispersion will remain the same when trying to use ever wider channels. Obviously, this is a highly beneficial characteristic. The near-4th power dependency of the RI-distributor implies a totally different behavior, as the relative contribution of the distributor (increasing with width.sup.4) to the total dispersion will eventually always overwhelm that of the bed (increasing with width.sup.2).
(60) Finally, the sensitivity to clogging of the different distributor types (BF, RI, and MM.sub.I) was studied in more detail by considering step changes in the percentage of clogging degree in the porous zone indicated in
(61) As can be seen in
(62) The variance produced by the MM.sub.I-distributor at 0% clogging is almost double that of the BF-distributor at 0.026 μL.sup.2 but this value rises much less steeply with the degree of clogging than the BF-distributor. As a consequence, the σ.sub.v.sup.2 of the MM.sub.I-distributor drops below that of the BF-distributor at approximately 15% clogging. After this point, the MM.sub.I-distributor stays the lowest of the three distributors until 75% clogging, where it briefly rises above the RI-distributor before falling back down to 0.031 μL.sup.2 at 80% clogging.
(63) The unexpected drop in the variance produced by of the MM.sub.I that occurs at 80% clogging can be explained as follows. Considering the small amount of species that enters the clogged channel (see dashed oval in
(64) A similar effect occurs in the BF-distributor (cf. the species in the clogged channel leaving only very slowly), but is overshadowed by the asymmetry of the band that leaves the BF-distributor (
(65) Obviously, the pattern of overtaking curves observed in