SHAHRIL RIZAL KASJOO - portal.unimap.edu.myportal.unimap.edu.my/portal/page/portal30/Lecture...

SHAHRIL RIZAL KASJOO NURJULIANA JUHARI SHAZLINA JOHARI NURUL IZZA MOHD NOR

EMT 445/2

UNDERGRADUATE FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1

(FYP1)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Final Year Project I (FYP1) at School of Microelectronic Engineering, UniMAP is a course that

has been designed to give an exposure to the final year students on how to conduct research project

in the area of microelectronic/electronic/photonics. Students are expected to apply the knowledge that

they have learned in the previous semesters, read related articles from reputable journals and have

interactive discussion with the supervisors. Each student is commonly supervised by one supervisor,

and it is also possible to have one co-supervisor if required.

Before the semester begins, the compilation of FYP titles is uploaded into the student’s portal.

Each student is required to choose only five project titles based on his/her programme. In the first week of the semester (week one), the list of the projects with respective students and supervisors is uploaded

into the portal. The performance and grading of the students for FYP1 are assessed based on the

proposal, progress report and Viva. Details of the assessment mark are shown in Table 1.1.

At the end of FYP1, students should be able to achieve THREE (3) COURSE OUTCOMES (COs) which are mapped to the respective PROGRAMME OUTCOMES (POs) as shown in Table 1.2.

The assessment components as mentioned earlier are used to measure these outcomes for every

student (either attain or not attain).

Table 1.1 : Distribution mark for FYP1

Assessment Supervisor (%) Examiner (%) Total Marks (%)

Proposal 10 - 10

Progress Report 50 20 70

Viva - 20 20

Overall Marks 60 40 100

Table 1.2 : Mapping between Programme Outcome (PO) and Course Outcome (CO) for FYP

Course Outcomes (COs) Programme Outcomes (POs) Possible Assessment CO1: Ability to interpret necessary engineering knowledge of selected final year project topic.

PO1 Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialization to the solution of complex engineering problems

Report: Introduction, Literature Review, Summary & Future Work, References

CO2: Ability to propose design of experiment using research-based knowledge to provide solutions of complex problems in final year project.

PO3 Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations

Proposal Report: Methodology

CO3: Ability to explain the final year project through effective communication and presentation.

PO10 Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions.

Rubric Viva (PO10)

CHAPTER 2

PROCESS FLOW OF FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1 (FYP1)

The duration of FYP1 is 14 weeks (one semester). During this period, students are compulsory

to attend the listed seminars as shown in Table 2.1. Students must take note all the important dates set

by the FYP coordinator such as proposal and progress report submission, and viva session. In FYP1,

students should be able to complete the earlier stage of the entire project. This includes the background

study and objectives of the project, literature review, the methodology used in the project, and the

expected finding or preliminary results. Details of the work flow of FYP1 are described in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 : Process flow of FYP1

Week Action Description W0 Students/ Supervisor Students is allowed to choose five (5) FYP title that

published in the portal. The selection of FYP title is based on the programme, RK05, RK86 & RK89.

W1 FYP Coordinator, Students & Supervisors

The FYP title, supervisor and student are published in the portal. Students are encouraged to meet your supervisor.

W3 FYP Coordinator & Students

Seminar 1: FYP Briefing (DK)


Seminar 2: Writing FYP Proposal (DK)


Seminar 3: Introduction to Mendeley (Reference Manager) (DK)


Seminar 4: Plagiarism (DK)

W7 Students & Supervisors

Submission of FYP proposal


Seminar 5: Thesis Writing Style (DK)


Seminar 6: Presentation Skill (DK)


Submission of progress report


Viva/Presentation

CHAPTER 3

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC & REPORT ORGANIZATION

The contribution marks or assessments for FYP1 are come from proposal, progress report and viva.

These assessments are based on rubric, and students are advised to read the assessment rubric. FYP1

proposal is mapped to the PO3 and the assessment rubric for proposal is shown in Table 3.1. The

assessment form for FYP1 proposal can be found in Appendix A.1.

Progress report for FYP1 is mapped to PO1 and PO3. The components of the progress report that are

used to assess PO1 are Introduction, Literature Review, Summary & Future Work, and References. For

PO3, the assessment is based on Methodology. All marks are given by the supervisor and examiner.

The portion marks from supervisor and examiner can be found in Table 1.1. Table 3.2 shows the

assessment rubric for FYP1 progress report. The assessment form for FYP1 progress report is attached

in Appendix A.1.

The last assessment that contributes to the overall FYP1 mark is the Viva session which is mapped to

PO11. The students should be able to present, explain and communicate effectively their FYP1

progress report during the viva session. Table 3.3 shows the assessment rubric for FYP1 viva.

Table 3.1 : The assessment rubric for FYP1 proposal

Table 3.2 : Assessment Rubric for FYP1 Progress Report

Criteria Range Marks

Project Background 30%

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are exceptionally well stated. 20-30

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are satisfactory. 10-19

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are unclear. 0-9

Literature Reviews 30%

The supporting literature is very relevant and is well reviewed 20-30

The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. 10-19

The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is poorly reviewed 0-9

Management 30%

Excellent planning, outstanding time management and contingency planning. 20-30

Adequate planning, proper time management and contingency planning 10-19

Poor planning, poor time management with no contingency planning 0-9

Writing Format 10%

Minor spelling or grammatical errors, professional writing style of research report. 7-10

Some spelling or grammatical errors, average writing style. 4-6

A lot of spelling or grammatical errors, unstructured writing style. 0-3

Total /100

Signature and stamp of supervisor: Date:

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REPORT Score Description

5 (Outstanding)

• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive.

• The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and importance are exceptionally well stated.

• The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically.

• The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail.

• The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions are very insightful.

• The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent with the list of references.

4 (Good)

• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive.

• The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and importance are clearly stated.

• The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and

the discussions are insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and

include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list of references.

3 (Adequate)

• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,

objectives, scope and importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is

reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in

general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather

ineffectively, and the discussions lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings

and do not mention the significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not consistent with the list of references

2 (Poor)

• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,

objectives, scope and importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is

reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are

described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively,

and there are insignificant or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do

not include the significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are not reliable and most citations are not consistent with the list of references.

1 (Very Poor)

• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,

objectives, scope and importance are unsuccessfully stated.

• The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly.

• The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly.

• The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no discussions.

• The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very inconsistent with the list of references.

Table 3.3 : The assessment rubric for Viva

Criteria 1 Not Acceptable

2 Poor

3 Average

4 Good

5 Outstanding

Score

Delivery

Interrupted, not smooth, not perceptible and unable to answer the questions given.

Quite articulate, marginally smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given

Quite articulate, quite smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given

Articulate, smooth, perceptible and able to answer to answer most of the questions given

Very articulate, very smooth, highly perceptible and able to answer all the questions given

Technical Content

Very poor technical content, with weak hypothesis and reasoning

Poor technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning

Moderate technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning

Good technical content, with fine hypothesis and reasoning

Outstanding technical content, with excellent hypothesis and reasoning.

Organization

Not well organized and not in sequence and slides not running smoothly

Quite well organized and in sequence and slides run fairly smoothly

Well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.

Very well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.

Outstanding organized and in sequence and slides runs very smoothly.

Total MarkS

Signature & Stamp: Date:

3.1 FYP1: PROPOSAL AND PROGRESS REPORT ORGANIZATION

Students are need to follow the guideline set by the FYP coordinator for writing FYP1 proposal

and FYP1 progress report. The organization of the proposal report must have minimum 15 pages and

Appendix A.2 shows the template for the proposal. For the FYP1 progress report, there is no limitation

of page, however students are encouraged to write < 30 pages. Appendix A.2 shows the template for

FYI progress report.

For the format writing, the proposal and progress report should be typed, one and half-spaced,

on one side of the paper and only using Microsoft Word 2000 or latest. However, single-spacing is

recommended for figure/table captions. Students are encouraged to use the font, Times New Roman.

The font size for the general text is 12 points. For the Table and Figure, the word Figure and Table is

numbered in Arabic numeral (i.e Figure 1.0, and Table 1.0) and its caption placed below and above

the figure or table of font 12, single-spacing, respectively. The explanation of figure and table comes

first before attach the figure and table in the report.

The contains of the proposal must have the following items;

1. Introduction (1-2 pages) 2. Literature Review (4-5 pages) 3. Problem Statement (1 page) 4. Objectives and Scopes (1 page) 5. Methodology (1 page) 6. Gantt Chart 7. References (Use IEEE format)

The FYP1 progress report must have the following criteria;

1. Introduction - Aims and motivations (Brief of Introduction) - Problem Statements - Objectives - Scope of Study (Detail about the objectives) - Organization of report (Chapter 1/2/3…)

2. Literature Review - Introduction - Main Body

- Sub-topic 1/2/3… - Conclusion

3. Methodology - Introduction - Main Body

- Sub-topic 1/2/3… - Conclusion

4. Results & Summary 5. References (Use IEEE format)

EMT 445/2

UNDERGRADUATE

FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1

APPENDIX A.1

(Assessment Form)

• Proposal (SV) • Progress Report (SV & Examiner) • Viva (Examiner)

SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS (UNIMAP)

FYP I Proposal

Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your supervisor. Supervisor, please write the intended mark and tabulate all marks. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title :

Criteria Range Marks

Project Background 30%

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are exceptionally well stated. 20-30

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are satisfactory. 10-19

The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are unclear. 0-9

Literature Reviews 30%

The supporting literature is very relevant and is well reviewed 20-30

The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. 10-19

The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is poorly reviewed 0-9

Management 30%

Excellent planning, outstanding time management and contingency planning. 20-30

Adequate planning, proper time management and contingency planning 10-19

Poor planning, poor time management with no contingency planning 0-9

Writing Format 10%

Minor spelling or grammatical errors, professional writing style of research report. 7-10

Some spelling or grammatical errors, average writing style. 4-6

A lot of spelling or grammatical errors, unstructured writing style. 0-3

Total /100


Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME. (FYP1).Proposal.1a



FYP Progress Report Form

Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your supervisor. Supervisor, please write and tabulate the intended marks in Section A. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title : Supervisor :

Comment (should be reflected to the marks given) :


Section A: Assessment of Final Report (100 Marks)

Criteria

PO

Weight

Score

Total 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction

PO 1 4

Literature

PO 1 7

Methodology

PO 3 4

Summary & Future Work

PO 1 4

References

PO 1 1

Total

20 /100

Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME.(TL).rev17a – FYP1 Progress Report (Supervisor)Form

ASSESSMENT OF FINAL REPORT Score Description

5 (Outstanding)

• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are exceptionally well stated. • The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically. • The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail. • The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions

are very insightful. • The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance

and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent

with the list of references.

4 (Good)

• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are clearly stated. • The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and the discussions are

insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and include significance and

limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list

of references.

3 (Adequate)

• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather ineffectively, and the

discussions lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings and do not mention the

significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work.

• The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not consistent with the list of references

2 (Poor)

• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively, and there are

insignificant or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do not include the

significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.


1 (Very Poor)

• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are unsuccessfully stated. • The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly. • The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly. • The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no

discussions. • The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of

current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very

inconsistent with the list of references.



FYP Progress Report Form

Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your examiner. Examiner, please write and tabulate the intended marks in Section A. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title : Supervisor :

Comment (should be reflected to the marks given) :


Section A: Assessment of Final Report (100 Marks)

Criteria

PO

Weight

Score

Total 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction

PO 1 4

Literature

PO 1 7

Methodology

PO 3 4

Summary & Future Work

PO 1 4

References

PO 1 1

Total

20 /100

Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME.(TL).rev17a – FYP1 Progress Report Form (Examiner)

ASSESSMENT OF FINAL REPORT Score Description

5 (Outstanding)

• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are exceptionally well stated. • The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically. • The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail. • The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions

are very insightful. • The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance

and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent with

the list of references.

4 (Good)

• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are clearly stated. • The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and the discussions are

insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and include significance and

limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list of

references.

3 (Adequate)

• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather ineffectively, and the discussions

lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings and do not mention the

significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not

consistent with the list of references

2 (Poor)

• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively, and there are insignificant

or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do not include the

significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.


1 (Very Poor)

• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and

importance are unsuccessfully stated. • The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly. • The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly. • The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no

discussions. • The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of

current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very

inconsistent with the list of references.

SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEEERING

EMT445 FYP 1 Viva

Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your examiner. Examiner, please write the intended mark and tabulate all marks. Student Name: Project Title: Matrix No (Program): Supervisor:

Criteria 1 Not Acceptable

2 Poor

3 Average

4 Good

5 Outstanding

Score

Delivery

Interrupted, not smooth, not perceptible and unable to answer the questions given.

Quite articulate, marginally smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given

Quite articulate, quite smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given

Articulate, smooth, perceptible and able to answer to answer most of the questions given

Very articulate, very smooth, highly perceptible and able to answer all the questions given

Technical Content

Very poor technical content, with weak hypothesis and reasoning

Poor technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning

Moderate technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning

Good technical content, with fine hypothesis and reasoning

Outstanding technical content, with excellent hypothesis and reasoning.

Organization

Not well organized and not in sequence and slides not running smoothly

Quite well organized and in sequence and slides run fairly smoothly

Well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.

Very well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.

Outstanding organized and in sequence and slides runs very smoothly.

Total MarkS

Signature & Stamp: Date:

SOME. (FYP).Viva.rev1c

EMT 445/2

UNDERGRADUATE FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1

APPENDIX A.2 • Proposal Template • Progress Report Template

School of Microelectronic Engineering

EMT445/2 Final Year Project I Proposal

Academic Session XXXXX

Your Project Title

Name:

Matric No.:

Supervisor:

Your proposal must contain the following sections:

1. Introduction (1-2 pages)

2. Literature Review (4-5 pages)

3. Problem Statement (1 page)

4. Objectives and Scopes (1 page)

5. Methodology (1 page)

6. Gantt Chart

7. References (Use IEEE format)

ii

YOUR TITLE IN CAPITAL LETTER, BOLD

by

Your Name

(MATRIX NO)


UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS

MONTHYEAR

iii

Table of Contents Note: To update, right click > Update field > Update entire table

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ i

1.1 Aims and motivation ...............................................................................................i

1.2 Overview of ... ........................................................................................................i

1.3 Overview2 of ... ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.1 Overview of ... ........................................................................................... i 1.3.2 Overview 2 of ... .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.4 Report structure ......................................................................................................i

Chapter 2 Literature review ....................................................................................... iii

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... iii

2.2 Sub-topics ............................................................................................................ iii 2.2.1 Technique 1:... ........................................................................................ iii 2.2.2 Technique 2:... ........................................................................................ iii

2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................................................. iv

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... iv

3.2 Sub-topics ............................................................................................................ iv 3.2.1 Preparation of... ...................................................................................... iv 3.2.2 Development of... .................................................................................... iv

3.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 4 Results & Summary ................................................................................... v

4.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................v

4.2 To probe further .....................................................................................................v

References vi

Chapter 1 Introduction

Note: Copy and paste the title and subtitles to create a new chapter. Subtitles should be

numbered up to 2 decimal places (eg 1.2.1). Any more than that is excessive, restructure

your report if that occurs

1.1 Aims and motivation A reliable and non-destructive purification of cell population is necessary to obtain reproducible data on the cell analysis. In order to establish the state-of-the-art, a review of the cell/particle trapping and sorting techniques has been presented, covering work done by other research groups. Electrical trapping [1-3], microfluidics [4-6], mechanical [7-9] and <-

Note: Reference should be added through EndNote. Select your reference in EndNote

Library, and click insert citations

1.2 Overview of ...

1.2.1 Overview of ...

1.3 Report structure This report is separated into several chapters covering different aspects of the research. An overview of different techniques and procedures currently used ... Note: Copy and paste below for adding more equations. Equation can be written using Microsoft’s built in editor or MathType Sample for writing equation:

( 1.1 )

( 1.2 )

where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature. This is how to quote the equation Error! Reference source not found.Note: Equation can be referenced through Insert>Cross reference> Reference type: ( >Insert reference to: Only label and number> Click on insert as hyperlink>Click Insert Note: Copy and paste below for adding more tables

21 12 2m v kT=

21 12 2m v kT=

ii

Table 1.1 Predicted root-mean-square (RMS) displacement of a range of polystyrene particles in two dimensions after 1 second

Boltzmann constant (JK-1) 1.38x10-23

Temperature (K) 293

Viscosity (Pas) 0.001

Polystyrene particle diameter (µm) RMS displacement (µm) after 1 second

1 1.71 3 0.57 6 0.29 8 0.21

Figure 1.1 A schematic showing a spherical particle near a surface Note: Copy and paste above for adding more figure Note: Figure and Table can be referenced through Insert>Cross reference> Reference type:Figure or Table>Insert reference to: Only label and number> Click on insert as hyperlink>Click Insert Example: Figure 1.1Table 1.1

D

z

z=0

R

dz

iii

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Sub-topics There are multiple ways of fabricating... It can be categorised into 5 main techniques... 2.2.1 Technique 1:... The first technique comprises of... 2.2.2 Technique 2:... . . .

2.3 Conclusion

iv

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Sub-topics In the process of fabricating... there are a few steps need to be taken into account... 3.2.1 Preparation of... The ... is first prepared via... 3.2.2 Development of... . . .

3.3 Conclusion

v

Chapter 4 Results & Summary

4.1 Summary

4.2 To probe further The investigation carried out in this project has laid ..... this work will lead to many exciting avenues of research in the future.

vi

References

[1] C.-F. Chou and F. Zenhausern, "Electrodeless dielectrophoresis for micro total analysis systems," IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 22, pp. 62-7, 2003.

[2] S. Fiedler, S. G. Shirley, T. Schnelle, and G. Fuhr, "Dielectrophoretic sorting of particles and cells in a microsystem," Analytical Chemistry, vol. 70, pp. 1909-1915, 1998.

[3] P. R. C. Gascoyne and J. V. Vykoukal, "Dielectrophoresis-based sample handling in general-purpose programmable diagnostic instruments," in Proceedings of the

IEEE, 2004, pp. 22-42.

[4] Y. Bo, L. Guo-an, F. Xue, W. Wei, C. Ling-xin, and W. Yi-ming, "A microfluidic device based on gravity and electric force driving for flow cytometry and fluorescence activated cell sorting," Lab on a Chip, vol. 4, pp. 603-7, 2004.

[5] H. Dongeun, G. Wei, Y. Kamotani, J. B. Grotberg, and S. Takayama, "Microfluidics for flow cytometric analysis of cells and particles," Physiological Measurement, vol. 26, pp. 73-98, 2005.

[6] L. Gwo-Bin, I. H. Chen, K. Bin-Jo, H. Guan-Ruey, H. Bao-Herng, and L. Hui-Fang, "Hydrodynamic focusing for a micromachined flow cytometer," Transactions of the

ASME. Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 123, pp. 672-9, 2001.

[7] H. Andersson and A. V. D. Berg, "Microfluidic devices for cellomics: A review," Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical, vol. 92, pp. 315-325, 2003.

[8] R. Bashir, D. Akin, R. Gomez, H. Li, W. J. Chang, and A. Gupta, "From bioMEMS to bionanotechnology: integrated biochips for the detection of cells and microorganisms," in Biomicroelectromechanical Systems (BioMEMS) Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003, pp. 117-24.

[9] A. Y. Fu, H.-P. Chou, C. Spence, F. H. Arnold, and S. R. Quake, "An integrated microfabricated cell sorter," Analytical Chemistry, vol. 74, pp. 2451-2457, 2002.

SHAHRIL RIZAL KASJOO - portal.unimap.edu.myportal.unimap.edu.my/portal/page/portal30/Lecture...

Documents

Transcript of SHAHRIL RIZAL KASJOO - portal.unimap.edu.myportal.unimap.edu.my/portal/page/portal30/Lecture...