Table 1 Comparison of Various Cell Sorting Method
Research target | Sorting methods | Purity before sorting | Purity after sorting | Purity improvement | Recovery efficiency | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Circulating tumor cells | Centrifugal separation88 | – | – | – | 87.0% | 2.5 mL/min |
Cell-derived exosomes | Immunomagnetic sorting89 | 35.5% | 83.1% | 134.1% | 80.0% | 8 µL/min |
Osteoblasts & hMSCs* | Dielectrophoretic sorting90 | 50.0% | 87.0% & 84.0% | 168.0 & 174.0% | 67.0% & 92.0% | 5.4 µL/min |
Cord blood live cells | Cell stiffness differential sorting91 | 65.0% | 94.0% | 44.6% | 73.0% | 500 cell/s |
HeLa cells | SAW pulse sorting92 | 51.2% | 92.6% | 180.9% | 98.4% | 1200 cell/s |
HeLa cells | Piezoelectric actuators sorting93 | 37.7% | 83.8% | 122.6% | 97.7% | 1250 cell/s |
Regulatory T cells | 24 parallel piezo sorters94 | – | 95.0% |  | 64.0% | 12000 cell/s |
Large size H22 cells | Our work | 7.7% | 87.0% | 1129.6% | 90.9% | 1180 droplet/s 2.5 µL/min |
