2006-566: A BIOMEDICAL MICROSYSTEMS COURSE FOR ELECTRICAL

ENGINEERS

Erik Peterson, University of Cincinnati

ERIK T. K. PETERSON is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in electrical engineering at the University
of Cincinnati. His research interests include microfluidics and MEMS for chemical and biological
analyses. He was the teaching assistant for the Biomedical Microsystems course discussed in this
paper.

Ian Papautsky, University of Cincinnati

IAN PAPAUTSKY received his Ph.D. in bioengineering from the University of Utah in 1999. He
is currently a tenure-track Assistant Professor of in the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Cincinnati. His research and teaching
interests include application of MEMS and microfluidics to biology and medicine.

Page 11.7.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006

 A Biomedical Microsystems Course for Electrical Engineers

Introduction

Micromachining or Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technologies are considered an

enabling technology having revolutionary impact on many areas of science and engineering.
MEMS technologies are now being applied to health monitoring, diagnosis and therapeutic
applications, which are frequently referred to as BioMEMS or Biomedical Microsystems.
Biomedical Microsystems research includes biological, biomedical, biochemical, and
pharmaceutical analysis and synthesis using MEMS-based microsensors and microsystems.

To expose our undergraduate seniors and first-year graduate students to the emerging area of
Biomedical Microsystems, ECES607: Introduction to Biomedical Microsystems course was
offered at the University of Cincinnati. The course focused on the basic principles of MEMS
and microsensors, and their applications in biology and medicine. Topics covered included
biochips and lab-on-a-chip devices, microfluidics, biosensors, material biocompatibility, cell and
tissue engineering, and point-of-care medicine, including discussions of commercially-available
systems. Following last year’s course offering, surveys were conducted to assess student’s
opinions on the course content, delivery, and structure. We reported our preliminary results last
year.1 Now, in this recent offering, the course has been modified to address student feedback.
This paper reports on modifications to the course and draws comparisons with the last year’s
student feedback and course evaluations.

The Course

The “Introduction to Biomedical Microsystems” course introduces electrical engineers to the

rapidly emerging area of BioMEMS, and was described in detail previously.1 Briefly, the course
was designed to be ten weeks long, three hours per week, consisting of twenty 75 min lectures.
As a 600-level course it was dual-level, intended for the undergraduate seniors and first year
graduate students in the Electrical Engineering program. There were no prerequisites other than
senior class standing. Also, no background in MEMS or biomedical instrumentation was
assumed or required.

The objective of the course was to expose students to biomedical microsystems and to teach
them fundamental principles of MEMS applications in biology and medicine. Topics covered
included BioMEMS fabrication, microsensors for medical applications, biochips and lab-on-a-
chip (LOC) devices, microfluidics, biosensors, material biocompatibility, and cell/tissue
engineering. These topics are listed in Table 1.

The course was offered in parallel with the ECES608: Fundaments of MEMS, and thus was a
first exposure to MEMS for many of our students. Although topics of this course cover
microsystem design and fabrication, we did attempt to provide students with brief background in
Page 11.7.2
 Table 1. Topics covered in the “Introduction to Biomedical Microsystems” course.1

Week Topic
1 Applications of MEMS in Biology and Medicine
2 Fundamentals of microfabrication technologies for
biomedical microsystems
3 Working principles of pressure sensors
4 Pressure microsensors for clinical applications
5 Principles of microscale fluid flows
6 Microfluidic systems: valves, pumps and mixers
7 Biochips and Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) devices
8 Chemical sensors and biosensors
9 Biocompatibility
Microsystems for cell studies
10 Packaging of biomedical microsystems

relevant biological and medical topics. For students that desire a more in-depth treatment of
these topics, we offer a graduate course ECES707: Biomedical MEMS in the following quarter,
which covers the relevant biomedical and chemistry topics in much more detail.

The course used an existing MEMS textbook2 written for advanced undergraduate or entry-level
graduate engineering audience. The textbook was selected due to its coverage of microsystem
design topics as well as MEMS fundaments (e.g., fabrication, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.).
At the present time, there is no upper-level undergraduate BioMEMS textbook. The teaching
style also included the use of PowerPoint presentations and a whiteboard. To supplement these
materials, students were given journal articles to read related to the topics covered in class. The
strategy here was to expose students to the state-of-the-art and give them a flavor of what
happens in the research environment. The first article was a review, but by the end of the course
students were reading current research articles. Papers used in the most recent offering of the
course, as well as comments on their selection, are listed in Table 2.

This year, students were evaluated through six homework assignments, six 10-min pop quizzes, a
midterm exam, and a comprehensive final exam; graduate students also wrote a paper. For
graduate students, homework assignments comprised 20% of the final grade, with the midterm
and final exam weighing 25% and 30% respectively. The paper was worth 15%. Since
undergraduate students did not have a paper, homework and two exams each weighed an
additional 5% (i.e., 25% homework, 30% midterm, 35% final). Quizzes were worth 5% for both
student groups. An additional 5% were allocated to class participation.

Twenty two students, 10 undergraduate and 12 graduate, enrolled in the course. All three
programs within our department were represented, namely electrical engineering, computer
engineering, and computer science. The class had four female students (~18%). By comparison,
Page 11.7.3
 Table 2. List of supplemental journal paper used in the course.

Paper Topic Comments

Voldman et al.3 Applications of MEMS in A good stating point for students; provides a
Biology and Medicine brief methodical review of microfabrication
technologies and their applications in molecular
biology, cell biology, and biosensors; discusses
advantages and disadvantages of using
microfabrication
Melvas et al.4 Pressure microsensors for An example of conventional MEMS technologies
biomedical applications applied to medicine—an ultraminiature pressure
sensor specifically designed for intravascular
blood pressure measurements
Stroock et al.5 Microfluidics An example of a microfluidic mixer that can be
applied to mixing bioreagents in lab-on-a-chip
systems
Olsson et al.6 Microfluidic systems A valvless diffuser pump for microfluidic
pumping that can be used in lab-on-a-chip
systems
Lee et al.7 Biochips and Lab-on-a-Chip An example of a lab-on-a-chip device—plastic
(LOC) devices biochip for analysis of DNA
Tan et al.8 Microsystems for cell studies Discusses micro contact printing and polymer
casting, and illustrates how MEMS can be used
to study cell adhesion and traction forces

in the last year’s offering, 34 students took the course: 8 graduate and 26 undergraduate, of
which 4 were female students (~12%).

Addressing Student Feedback

On the last day of class, in last year offering, students were provided with an anonymous course
evaluation that asked a number of open ended questions. As discussed in our report last year,1
the overall student reaction to the course was generally favorable although mixed. Below, we
summarize student feedback and discuss how it was addressed in this year’s course offering.

Most of the students were enthusiastic about reading the supplemental research articles as they
provided a real world perspective. This was a new experience for most of the students, and was
quite different from what they have come to expect from other senior /first-year graduate level
courses. Thus, this aspect of the course was retained without modification. However, several
research articles from last year were replaced with articles we felt were more relevant to the
course lecture material.

Many students wanted to see more biology and chemistry, including more in-depth coverage of
biological applications. Some students felt that too much time was dedicated to the discussion of
Page 11.7.4
microfluidics, and that shortening the topic would allow for more discussion of biology and
chemistry. However, we feel that the coverage of microfluidics was appropriate, given its
importance in operation of biochips and LOCs which are an integral part of many Biomedical
Microsystems. Nevertheless, a research article dealing with plastic microfluidic biochips for
DNA analysis was added to supplement the lectures and to further illustrate the importance of
microfluidics in BioMEMS.

Graduate and undergraduate students had different opinions of the breadth and depth of the
course. Graduate students felt that the course did not cover the topics in enough depth. Most of
them were enthusiastic about the assigned research articles and thought there should have been
more. At the same time, undergraduate students felt overwhelmed by the amount of the material
covered in the course. They felt that the pace of the course was too fast for covering this much
new material. We believe the reason for this perception stems mainly from the interdisciplinary
nature of the course. The emerging field of Biomedical Microsystems or BioMEMS is a
synthesis of prior knowledge and therefore requires familiarity with other fields. However,
complete mastery of those fields is not reasonable. Ideally, other introductory courses in biology
and mechanics would cover the fundaments, which would permit this course to cover either more
material or perhaps more advanced topics in greater depth.

To make this year’s course more challenging, graduate students were required to write a 6 page
review paper on a topic relevant to biomedical microsystems and selected in consultation with
the instructor. Paper topics spanned a variety of biomedical microsystems, including biosensors,
microfluidic systems, lab-on-a-chip devices, drug delivery devices, and surgical
microinstrumentaion. Students were required to use a minimum of 4 independent journal
references (which they submitted with the paper) and had to follow the IEEE format for
conference proceedings9. The papers were evaluated based on six categories: organization and
clarity, background, methods, literature search, results, appropriate detail, and layout and
formatting.

To ensure that the undergraduate students were not overwhelmed by the material and to evaluate
course pace, we introduced 10-min long pop quizzes in the beginning of some lectures. These
quizzes were used to test understanding of concepts presented and discussed in class. Based on
the quiz results, topics identified as challenging were revisited during lectures. Representative
questions from quizzes are given below.

1. Draw two cross-sectional diagrams, one for positive photoresist and one for negative
photoresist, following UV exposure through a rectangular mask and development.

2. On the unlabeled axes below, draw a temperature curve on the left and a pressure curve on
the right during a typical embossing process. Label axes properly.

3. On the unlabeled axes below, draw stress-strain curves you might expect from PDMS
polymer (mostly silicone rubber) and from alumina (ceramic). Label axes properly.
Indicate: (a) Young’s Modulus, (b) Toughness, (c) Total stress.
Page 11.7.5
 4. List four actuation methods that you can use for actuating a membrane pump in a BioMEMS
device.

5. What is a reference electrode? List two materials commonly used as reference electrodes in
electrochemical sensors.

Course Evaluations

Important questions we wanted to answer were: How does student performance this year
compare with the last year? Did quizzes have an effect on student performance? To attempt to
answer these questions, we examined student grades and on the last day of class asked students
to respond to a number of open ended questions in an anonymous course evaluation. Nineteen
students responded to this informal qulitative survey. Responses to key questions are
summarized below.

In response to the question, “Where the objectives of the course met?” students responded:

• I believe the goals of the course were accomplished. We were introduced to various
biomedical microsystems and developed an understating of their applications in biology
and medicine
• Yes, we gained a clear insight into the applications of MEMS in biology and medicine
• Yes, but quite a lot of content in a short amount of time

To the question, “What was the best aspect of the course?” students responded:

• Quizzes and homework made the course more straight-forward

• Reading research articles provided a new prospective on and more in-depth
understanding of fabrication methods
• The course was organized well and easy to follow
• Very interesting material; I took the course to see if it was something I would like to
pursue; I enjoyed the topics covered and plan on taking more
• I gained an understating of the developing technology; good exposure to new
technologies in MEMS

To the question, “What would you suggest improving?” students responded:

• Too much time was spent discussing the basics of engineering mechanics before learning
about their applications
• More details in biological area
• Reading more articles appropriate to the progress of the course
• Too much time was spent on fundamentals of fabrication; more emphasis should be
placed on applications
• Microfluidics description – I had never seen any fluid dynamics and the textbook was not
very helpful
Page 11.7.6
Surveys revealed that the overall student reaction to the course, similar to that of the last year,
was generally favorable, although mixed. As last year, the majority of students felt that the goals
of the course were met. The use of research articles to supplement lecture materials worked very
well once again. Undergraduate students were enthusiastic about reading research articles, as
they provide a real word prospective and were quite different from what they used to seeing in
other courses. They felt that the number of articles was quite appropriate. Graduate students
also remained enthusiastic about the assigned research articles. However, even after having to
research a paper topic and identify a minimum of 4 appropriate journal papers, they still thought
there should have been more emphasis on the use of journal articles in the course. This was
similar to comment from graduate students last year.

This year more emphasis was placed on biology and less on microfluidics. Nevertheless, some
students still wanted to see more biology and chemistry and less microfluidics. A number of
students, particularly undergraduates, felt that the textbook did not adequately describe the fluid
mechanics needed to understand the microfluidic concepts discussed in class. Unfortunately, at
the present time, there is no upper-level undergraduate BioMEMS textbook; thus this concern
will need to be addressed with supplemental lecture materials in the next iteration of the course.

Students generally felt that the quizzes and homework assignments helped them learn the
material. However, the graduate students performed on average 12% better on quizzes than the
undergraduates. The overall weighted average score in this year’s course was approximately
81%, a 7% improvement over the last year. We believe that this improvement is due to engaging
students more in class, often through discussions following pop quizzes. It is interesting to note
that while the undergraduate performance was only marginally improved from ~72% last year to
~73% this year, graduate student performance increased from ~82% last year to ~87% this year.
A review of class records suggests that one factor contributing to the lower average score of the
undergraduate students this year was perhaps due to a greater number of missed quizzes and
homework assignments as compared to graduate students this year and also to the class
population last year. It also appears that the introduction of quizzes did not seem to help the
undergraduate students as much as it did for the graduate students. It appears that graduate
students performed better when they were challenged more.

Conclusions

Overall, we feel that the course has been improved compared to the previous offering. In the
next iteration, we plan to continue supplementing lecture materials with research articles, which
will be reviewed and updated with more recent publications as necessary. A potential idea for
the next offering of this course is to assign graduate students two research articles for every one
articles assigned to undergraduates, which we expect will put more emphasis on current journal
articles. Quizzes, while not having the effect we expect, led to more engaging discussions in the
class. We plan to continue to use quizzes in the next iteration of the course. Furthermore, we
will continue to revise and update our lecture materials and search for a textbook that is a better
match to our course needs.
Page 11.7.7
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and
Computers Science for supporting these efforts to develop and improve a new course to
introduce biomedical microsystems to electrical engineers.

References

1. I. Papautsky and E. T. K. Peterson, “Introducing biomedical microsystems into the electrical engineering
curriculum,” in Proc. ASEE Conference, Portland, OR, June 12-15, 2005, CD-ROM, 8 pages.
2. T.-R. Hsu, MEMS & Microsystems: Design and Manufacture. McGraw-Hill, .Boston, MA, 2002.
3. J. Voldman, M. L. Gray, and M. A. Schmidt, “Microfabrication in Biology and Medicine,” Annu. Rev. Biomed.
Eng., vol. 1, 401–425, 1999.
4. P. Melvas, E. Kalvesten and G. Stemme, “Media protected surface micromachined leverage beam pressure
sensor,” J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 11, 617–622, 2001.
5. A. D. Stroock, S. K. W. Dertinger, A. Ajdari, I. Mezic, H. A. Stone, G. M. Whitesides, “Chaotic Mixer for
Microchannels,” Science, vol. 295, 647-651, 2002.
6. A. Olsson, P. Enoksson, G. Stemme, and E. Stemme, “Micromachined Flat-Walled Valveless Diffuser Pumps,”
J. Microelectromech. Syst. vol. 6, 161-166, 1997.
7. G.-B. Lee, S. Chen, G. Huang, W. Sung, Y. Lin, “Microfabricated plastic chips by hot embossing methods and
their applications for DNA separations and detection,” Sensors Actuators B, vol. 75, pp. 142-148, 2001.
8. J. L. Tan, J. Tien, D. M. Pirone, D. S. Gray, K. Bhadriraju, and C. S. Chen, “Cells lying on a bed of
microneedles: An approach to isolate mechanical force,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 100, pp. 1484–1489, 2003.
9. http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/authors/transjnl/index.html

Page 11.7.8