Fused Deposition Modeling 3 D Printing for ( Bio ) analytical Device Fabrication

In this work, the use of fused deposition modeling (FDM) in a (bio)analytical/lab-on-a-chip research laboratory is described. First, the specifications of this 3D printing method that are important for the fabrication of (micro)devices were characterized for a benchtop FDM 3D printer. These include resolution, surface roughness, leakage, transparency, material deformation, and the possibilities for integration of other materials. Next, the autofluorescence, solvent compatibility, and biocompatibility of 12 representative FDM materials were tested and evaluated. Finally, we demonstrate the feasibility of FDM in a number of important applications. In particular, we consider the fabrication of fluidic channels, masters for polymer replication, and tools for the production of paper microfluidic devices. This work thus provides a guideline for (i) the use of FDM technology by addressing its possibilities and current limitations, (ii) material selection for FDM, based on solvent compatibility and biocompatibility, and (iii) application of FDM technology to (bio)analytical research by demonstrating a broad range of illustrative examples. I t is safe to say that scientists working in research laboratories are generally not self-sufficient when it comes to conducting experiments, regardless of the field of interest. For example, we all are dependent on external suppliers for consumables and labware, which means that these materials must be ordered periodically and in a timely fashion, often in bulk, and stored somewhere before use. If experiments involve lab-on-a-chip technology and instrumental techniques, we must often turn to a workshop when it comes to things such as customizing a microscope stage (for positioning a lab-chip, for example) or having clamping devices or alignment tools made. If the workshop is busy (as workshops often are), our experiment is delayed. Resorting to temporary solutions such as duct tape to align and fix components to do that experiment anyway generally just leads to additional delay. The iterative development of a (bio)analytical device using “rapid” prototyping approaches can be slowed significantly too if we are dependent on external partners or companies to perform certain processing steps. All these are recurring issues, or annoyances at the very least, to which we have often had to resign ourselves in the prototypical microfluidics laboratory. The bigger problem is, of course, that these inconveniences cause us to be inefficient against our will, meaning they cost time and money. Can we envision a world where we can shed our experimental dependence on these kinds of external factors? Perhaps we canat least if we can master the new additive manufacturing techniques that constitute 3D printing. 3D printing is not a new technology, as it has been used in some industrial settings for over 30 years. However, 3D printing systems have tended to be very specialized and expensive until recently, making them relatively inaccessible for most potential end users. In addition, early equipment was often not very user-friendly, with long and relatively unreliable printing processes being typical. The history of 3D printing, as well as a comparative description of a number of different 3D printing approaches, has been nicely summarized in recent reviews. In the past few years, we have seen a rapid increase in publications on the use of 3D printing in (bio)analytical and microfluidics research. It has been used for the fabrication of channels, sample cartridges, and masters for replication of channels in poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), hydrophobic patterning in paper microfluidics, and fabrication of labware and customized setups. Furthermore, 3D-printed materials have been studied to some extent with respect to their physical properties and biocompatibility in cellor tissue-based assays. As optical transparency is often a problem with 3D-printed lab-chip devices, incorporation of glass slides into these devices has also been reported. These advances have been achieved with different 3D printing approaches, namely, Received: March 6, 2017 Accepted: June 6, 2017 Published: June 19, 2017 Article