- #1
MSM
- 12
- 0
- TL;DR Summary
- Determining the ideal path length for the fluid channel for in-situ SAXS measurement
Hello,
I plan to run an experiment using SAXS for in-situ solution phase reaction analysis. We will use a glass micro-fluidic chip due to experimental limitation reasons. I am looking for the optimal path length for these channels (fluid channel depth).
My understanding is that we need to minimize the glass layer signal and maximize the fluid layer (channel depth) transmission for best results (correct me if I am wrong). The transmission factor decreases with increasing thickness, T ~ exp (-Ad) where A is the linear attenuation coefficient and d is the path length. So having a thinner glass layer is better, but this depends on the fabrication limitations. My question is regarding the fluid channel depth, which is the region of interest. If we were able to have a chip fabricated with a glass layer of 1 to 2 mm (0.5 to 1 mm each side), is it favorable to maximize the fluid channel depth (e.g 1 mm), or have a thinner channel depth (e.g 0.5 mm). In other words, the ideal combination of glass layer thickness vs channel depth. I used the equation stated above to determine the maximum thickness the glass layer can be to allow reasonable transmission (we are aiming ~30%). The more, the better. Obviously due to fabrication limitations, its very difficult to have a glass chip very thin will still being mechanically stable.
Best
I plan to run an experiment using SAXS for in-situ solution phase reaction analysis. We will use a glass micro-fluidic chip due to experimental limitation reasons. I am looking for the optimal path length for these channels (fluid channel depth).
My understanding is that we need to minimize the glass layer signal and maximize the fluid layer (channel depth) transmission for best results (correct me if I am wrong). The transmission factor decreases with increasing thickness, T ~ exp (-Ad) where A is the linear attenuation coefficient and d is the path length. So having a thinner glass layer is better, but this depends on the fabrication limitations. My question is regarding the fluid channel depth, which is the region of interest. If we were able to have a chip fabricated with a glass layer of 1 to 2 mm (0.5 to 1 mm each side), is it favorable to maximize the fluid channel depth (e.g 1 mm), or have a thinner channel depth (e.g 0.5 mm). In other words, the ideal combination of glass layer thickness vs channel depth. I used the equation stated above to determine the maximum thickness the glass layer can be to allow reasonable transmission (we are aiming ~30%). The more, the better. Obviously due to fabrication limitations, its very difficult to have a glass chip very thin will still being mechanically stable.
Best