Theoretically, this complexity and variability in conclusions implies that parameters used in achieving mixing quality will not always be independent but inversely related to each other (Wolfgang et al., 1999). Practically, all laboratory experimenter are admonished to be very watchful in guiding the fluid mixers in order to achieve uniform outflow of micro channels. Major Findings: Results are in three sections though they all centre round mixing quality. On mixing quality and loss pressure, results revealed that in the presence of large range of volume flow, there is tendency of quality mixing can be achieved if the conditions of proper combination of slit and micro channels are adhered to. This implies that experimenters must be proactive in their choice of micro channel selection. Similarly, Hessel et al. (2005) point out that “quality mixing can be accomplished by time-pulsing flow owing to a periodical change of pumping.” On the parallelization of mixing elements, results showed that reactants achieve high volume flow when channel depths are increased in a single mixing unit. This implies that when using one single mixing unit, parallelization of mixing which ensures increased volume flow in specified regions of >.700mL/h cannot be realized. On the actual volume flow as it relates to quality mixing, the results showed that there could be deviations on the volume flow depending on the mixer array. This assertion is however disagreed by Omega (1995) who posits that in a fully laminar system, there is supposed to be constant mixing quality whenever mixing is done over an entire flow range. Weaknesses and Strengths: In the methodology, what was supposed to be an experimentation ended up using too many secondary data and comparative assumptions. For instance instead of the researchers monitoring the mixing time, they stated, “the mixing time cannot be directly measured by the test reaction. Instead a comparison was made for mixing elements having various channel widths.” It will be noted that any element of mixing is highly important in the results achieved in any micro-mixers experiment. However, the researchers choose comparative assumption. On the use of secondary data, it is admitted that secondary data helps in making qualitative analysis of data highly valid. however in the actual collection of data, it is important that there is a distinction drawn between primary data collection and secondary data collection. If for nothing at all, the researchers could have different sections of their project report, depicting these two variations. The research report has a number of strengths. For instance the presentation of data was very vivid amidst the use of diagrams and figures to elaborate all points. Again, the entire report was well segmented, making the use of the document very easy to follow. For instance the researchers used sub-topics to differentiate new ideas. Suggestions The beauty of all research work is that they are a continuous process. This means that there is always room for improvement and advancement. To this end, some few suggestions are made towards the future improvement of the research work. It is suggested that future researches should make clearer distinction on active and passive mixing principles.