Display options
Cite
Macdonald NP, Cabot JM, Smejkal P, et al. Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms. Anal Chem. 2017;89(7):3858-3866doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136.
Macdonald, N. P., Cabot, J. M., Smejkal, P., Guijt, R. M., Paull, B., & Breadmore, M. C. (2017). Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms. Analytical chemistry, 89(7), 3858-3866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136
Macdonald, Niall P, et al. "Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms." Analytical chemistry vol. 89,7 (2017): 3858-3866. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136
Macdonald NP, Cabot JM, Smejkal P, Guijt RM, Paull B, Breadmore MC. Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms. Anal Chem. 2017 Apr 04;89(7):3858-3866. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136. Epub 2017 Mar 24. PMID: 28281349.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Anal Chem. 2017 Apr 04;89(7):3858-3866. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136. Epub 2017 Mar 24.

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

Analytical chemistry

Niall P Macdonald, Joan M Cabot, Petr Smejkal, Rosanne M Guijt, Brett Paull, Michael C Breadmore

Affiliations

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of Tasmania , Sandy Bay, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia.
  2. Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of Tasmania , Sandy Bay, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia.
  3. Pharmacy School of Medicine, University of Tasmania , Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia.

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

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.

Publication Types