Unately, this is second). Luckily, this is not a problem our the proper (in the level of microliters per not an issue for the proper operation of for remedy, operation volumetric flow price deviations don’t influence changes of don’t have an effect on adjustments mainly because theof our answer, because the volumetric flow price deviationsthe shape with the veof the shape in the Ionomycin site velocity flows in laminar, and flows are laminar, and consequently locity profile in CC so long as profileare CC as extended asconsequently don’t have an effect do not have an impact on the correct development value from the Reynolds number calon the correct development of a gradient. The median of a gradient. The median value in the Reynolds number calculated from experimentally determined flow rates is Re = 1.44, culated from experimentally determined flow rates is Re = 1.44, which confirms the deep which confirms the deep laminar regime with the chip operation. laminar regime from the chip operation.Figure three. The experimentally determined values of volumetric flow prices in CC to get a device sloped Figure 3. The experimentally determined values of volumetric flow prices in CC to get a device sloped at an angle of 30 . at an angle of 30In Figure 4, simulated velocity profiles are compared with an algebraic remedy In Figure four, the rectangular duct (Equationcompared Poiseuille number, Po = 23.09, in the NSE for simulated velocity profiles are (7)). The with an algebraic solution of the NSE for the rectangular duct (Equation (7)). The Poiseuille quantity, Po = 23.09, for the for the rectangular duct was calculated as outlined by the formula provided by Shah and rectangular duct was calculated according toof the relative velocity prediction error for the London . The imply and median values the formula offered by Shah and London . The imply and median values of1.0 relative velocity prediction error for the CCreached CC cross-section A (Figure 2) had been the and 0.93 , respectively. Its maximal worth crosssection A (Figure 2) wereobserved fluid velocity prediction error wasvalueabout 0.03 . The 16.8 , but the minimal 1.0 and 0.93 , respectively. Its maximal only reached 16.eight , however the minimal the relative error of your simulation is presented in Figure five. Hesperadin Description distribution of observed fluid velocity prediction error was only about 0.03 . The distribution of your relative error of your simulation is presented in Figure five.Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER Review Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER Assessment Appl. Sci. 2021, 11,7 of 13 7 of 13 7 ofFigure 4. Comparison of benefits of your simulation (red dots) with the algebraic remedy from the NSE Figure four. Comparison of results on the simulation (red dots) together with the algebraic solution from the NSE (surface Comparison of results A the simulation (red chamber. Figure four.plot). The cross-section of by means of the culture dots) with all the algebraic resolution with the NSE (surface plot). The cross-section A via the culture chamber. (surface plot). The cross-section A via the culture chamber.Figure The distribution in the relative error of the simulation . The cross-section by means of the Figure 5.five. The distributionof the relative error on the simulation . The cross-section AA by means of culture chamber. the culture chamber. Figure five. The distribution of your relative error on the simulation . The cross-section A through the culture chamber.The biggest distinction among the simulation benefits along with the algebraic remedy with the largest distinction amongst the simulation outcomes and the.