ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of Tasmania , Sandy Bay, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia.
Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of Tasmania , Sandy Bay, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia.
Anal Chem. 2017 Apr 4;89(7):3858-3866. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136. Epub 2017 Mar 24.
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.
三维（3D）打印技术已成为制造微流控器件的一种潜在革命性技术。通过使用 Y 型微流控器件对三种主导微流控的 3D 打印技术进行了直接的实验比较，该设计针对每种打印机进行了优化：熔融沉积成型（FDM）、Polyjet 和数字光处理立体光刻（DLP-SLA）。从特征尺寸、精度和批量制造适用性方面评估了打印机的性能；研究了层流以评估它们在微流控中的适用性。FDM 适合微加工，最小特征尺寸为 321 ± 5 μm，表面粗糙度为 10.97 μm。观察到 >500 μm 的微流控器件具有快速混合（5 mm 后 71% ± 12%，100 μL/min），表明其在制造微混合器方面具有优势。Polyjet 制造的通道最小尺寸为 205 ± 13 μm，表面粗糙度为 0.99 μm。与 FDM 相比，混合度降低（27% ± 10%），但 Polyjet 打印更适合不需要分流的微流控应用，例如细胞培养或液滴发生器。DLP-SLA 制造的最小通道尺寸为 154 ± 10 μm，正结构（如软光刻模板）的尺寸为 94 ± 7 μm，粗糙度为 0.35 μm。除了低混合度（8% ± 1%）之外，这些结果还表明其适用于微加工和需要精确控制流量的微流控应用。通过进一步讨论这些打印机的功能（和限制），我们旨在为选择最适合特定微流控应用的 3D 打印技术提供指导。
