Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
a
b
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Shared Pin A
Shared Pin A
c
d
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Shared Pin B
Shared Pin A
Shared Pin A
e
f
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Droplet 1
Droplet 2
Shared Pin B
Shared Pin A
Shared Pin B
Shared Pin A
Fig. 6.2
Six pin-assignment configurations that are analyzed in Cases (2.a)
(2.c) and Cases
(3.a)
(3.e): ( a ) Case (2.a); ( b ) Case (2.b); ( c ) Case (2.c); ( d ) Case (3.a); ( e ) Case (3.c); and ( f )Case
(3.d)
(2.c) Pin A is connected to E 1C or E 2C : Without loss of generality, we assume that
Pin A is connected to E 1C .AnexampleisshowninFig. 6.2 c. Droplet 1 can be
freely moved in any non-diagonal directions, while Droplet 2 can be moved to
the electrodes that are controlled by Pin G, Pin H, and Pin I. Thus, for the droplet
pair, the number of all possible concurrent movements is = 12. No unwanted
movement or splitting will occur for these 12 concurrent movements.
Based on the above analysis for Cases (2.a) (2.c), we find that when two CEGs
share one control pin, and electrodes in the same CEG do not share any control
pin, unwanted movement or splitting of droplet will not occur. The number of all
possible concurrent movements for the droplet pair varies from 10 to 16. Even
though in Cases (2.b) and (2.c) the flexibilities of droplet movements are not as high
as direct-addressing biochips, they are still adequate for the concurrent manipulation
of droplets.
Finally, we assume that CEG 1 and CEG 2 share two pins (Pin A and Pin B). Then
we have the following scenarios, exhaustively enumerated by Cases (3.a) (3.e):
Search WWH ::




Custom Search