Download.Lab on a chip.
This review highlights the basic concepts of microfluidic biosensors. The first part is devoted to the review of the most recent developments on lab-on-a-chip technology, where functions that are inherent to the microfluidic channel, like mixing, reaction and separation have been redesigned to allow miniaturization of biological analysis for lab-on-a-chip systems. The second part is focused on the instrumentation and probes that are needed to provide adequate conditions for lab-on-a-chip devices. In particular, the physico-chemical manipulation of fluids and temperature control are shown to be crucial. The third part of the review is devoted to the application of microfluidic biosensors to environmental applications. Since real-world samples are generally complex and may contain several types of interfering species, the review ends with a section that focuses on the pre-treatments and methodologies needed for the on-chip analyses of real world samples. days after its July 11 return. The trustee’s service of this writ is unauthorized and void. (See Tratner v. Superior Court, supra, 191 Cal.App.2d 833, 838.) Although the writ was returned October 27, 1973, there was no actual “revival” of the writ pending the decision on this appeal. (Hollingsworth v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.2d 335, 337 [17 Cal.Rptr. 507].)
The September 17 order is reversed.
Files, P. J., and Dunn, J., concurred.
“A creditor, having obtained a judgment against the debtor, may, when the debtor is absent from the state or conceals himself to avoid seizure of property, have a writ of attachment issued to reach the debtor’s property wherever found in the state, whether or not the debtor is within the state at the time of issuing the writ.”
[fn. 1] 1. At the hearing on December 16, the court said: “Well, I would think that the best procedure is as I said in my original order and as you have in the original since the property has been seized.” This is a clear indication that the court had decided that the levy was sufficient. The minutes of the hearing show the court ruling “on behalf of the plaintiff” that the levy upon the box was adequate. The minute entry does not specify that it is “on behalf of” plaintiff,