Figure 15 shows the transient of the distribution of the temperature rise,
, at the bottom surface of the microfluidic channel within a
area in the center of the device, displayed in pseudo-color. The top panel represents the numerical simulation results and the bottom panel represents the experimental results. In the numerical simulation, the
increased significantly until
s, after which it hardly increased at all. In contrast, the experimental results showed a gradual increase in
up to
s. Moreover, the experimental results showed some temperature difference between the electrode and glass substrate, whereas the simulation results showed uniform
distributions. The reason for this difference may be attributed to the fact that the numerical simulation model ignored the thickness of the metal electrode (300 nm). The difference in the heat capacity between the metal and glass may be responsible for the difference in the rate of temperature rise. However, since heat transport by conduction was dominant in microfluidic channels, there was actually little temperature difference between the electrode surface and the glass surface, as shown in the experimental results.
Figure 16 shows the transient of the averaged
with respect to the
area in the center of the bottom surface of the microfluidic channel, comparing the experimental and numerical simulation results. In the experiment, as can be seen from the transient behavior of the
in
Figure 16, the temperature field in the device nearly reached a steady state in
s, whereas in the numerical simulation, it reached a steady state in
s. The difference in the time history of the
between the two may be due to the fact that the numerical simulation did not take into account the effect of heat dissipation from both lateral sides of the device (relative to the flow direction). Another factor to consider is the validity of the values for
and
. In this study, the values of
and
were estimated using reasonable empirical formulas that took into account the length scales under analysis and were roughly of the order of magnitude of 2–3 digits [
46]. On the other hand, in previous reports on numerical simulation of Joule heating within the microfluidic channel [
23,
24], the value of the heat transfer coefficient
was significantly higher than what is typically expected from natural convection of air, ranging from
W/(m
2∙K). A value of
W/(m
2∙K) is on the same order of magnitude as that observed in boiling heat transport phenomena. The setting of various parameter values used for boundary conditions could potentially have a non-negligible effect on the evaluation of the temperature field. Nakano et al. [
24] have pointed out that the results of temperature field analysis through numerical simulation largely depend on the determination of
values. In the modeling of thermofluid analysis, it is believed that physically reasonable assumptions are crucial for constructing models which contribute to the accurate understanding of phenomena.