Literature DB >> 28281349

Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms.

Niall P Macdonald1,2, Joan M Cabot1,2, Petr Smejkal2, Rosanne M Guijt3, Brett Paull1,2, Michael C Breadmore1,2.   

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a potential revolutionary technology for the fabrication of microfluidic devices. A direct experimental comparison of the three 3D printing technologies dominating microfluidics was conducted using a Y-junction microfluidic device, the design of which was optimized for each printer: fused deposition molding (FDM), Polyjet, and digital light processing stereolithography (DLP-SLA). Printer performance was evaluated in terms of feature size, accuracy, and suitability for mass manufacturing; laminar flow was studied to assess their suitability for microfluidics. FDM was suitable for microfabrication with minimum features of 321 ± 5 μm, and rough surfaces of 10.97 μm. Microfluidic devices >500 μm, rapid mixing (71% ± 12% after 5 mm, 100 μL/min) was observed, indicating a strength in fabricating micromixers. Polyjet fabricated channels with a minimum size of 205 ± 13 μm, and a surface roughness of 0.99 μm. Compared with FDM, mixing decreased (27% ± 10%), but Polyjet printing is more suited for microfluidic applications where flow splitting is not required, such as cell culture or droplet generators. DLP-SLA fabricated a minimum channel size of 154 ± 10 μm, and 94 ± 7 μm for positive structures such as soft lithography templates, with a roughness of 0.35 μm. These results, in addition to low mixing (8% ± 1%), showed suitability for microfabrication, and microfluidic applications requiring precise control of flow. Through further discussion of the capabilities (and limitations) of these printers, we intend to provide guidance toward the selection of the 3D printing technology most suitable for specific microfluidic applications.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28281349     DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  55 in total

1.  Moving from millifluidic to truly microfluidic sub-100-μm cross-section 3D printed devices.

Authors:  Michael J Beauchamp; Gregory P Nordin; Adam T Woolley
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 4.142

2.  Optimization of smartphone-based on-site-capable uranium analysis in water using a 3D printed microdevice.

Authors:  Kolsoum Dalvand; Sepideh Keshan Balavandy; Feng Li; Michael Breadmore; Alireza Ghiasvand
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.142

3.  Bioinspired reconfiguration of 3D printed microfluidic hydrogels via automated manipulation of magnetic inks.

Authors:  Amin Mansoorifar; Anthony Tahayeri; Luiz E Bertassoni
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 6.799

4.  3D-Printing of Functional Biomedical Microdevices via Light- and Extrusion-Based Approaches.

Authors:  Henry H Hwang; Wei Zhu; Grace Victorine; Natalie Lawrence; Shaochen Chen
Journal:  Small Methods       Date:  2017-12-19

5.  A novel abrasive water jet machining technique for rapid fabrication of three-dimensional microfluidic components.

Authors:  Ehsan Azarsa; Morteza Jeyhani; Amro Ibrahim; Scott S H Tsai; Marcello Papini
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 2.800

Review 6.  Advances in Optical Sensing and Bioanalysis Enabled by 3D Printing.

Authors:  Alexander Lambert; Santino Valiulis; Quan Cheng
Journal:  ACS Sens       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 7.711

7.  Custom 3D printer and resin for 18 μm × 20 μm microfluidic flow channels.

Authors:  Hua Gong; Bryce P Bickham; Adam T Woolley; Gregory P Nordin
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 6.799

8.  3D-printed miniaturized fluidic tools in chemistry and biology.

Authors:  C K Dixit; K Kadimisetty; J Rusling
Journal:  Trends Analyt Chem       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 12.296

9.  FDM 3D Printing of High-Pressure, Heat-Resistant, Transparent Microfluidic Devices.

Authors:  Valentin Romanov; Raheel Samuel; Marzieh Chaharlang; Alexander R Jafek; Adam Frost; Bruce K Gale
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 6.986

10.  Biocompatible PEGDA Resin for 3D Printing.

Authors:  Chandler Warr; Jonard Corpuz Valdoz; Bryce P Bickham; Connor J Knight; Nicholas A Franks; Nicholas Chartrand; Pam M Van Ry; Kenneth A Christensen; Gregory P Nordin; Alonzo D Cook
Journal:  ACS Appl Bio Mater       Date:  2020-02-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.