Kelsey M. Leong, Aileen Y. Sun, Mindy L. Quach, Carrie H. Lin, Cosette A. Craig, Felix Guo, Timothy R. Robinson, Megan M. Chang and Ayokunle O. Olanrewaju*,
{"title":"Democratizing Access to Microfluidics: Rapid Prototyping of Open Microchannels with Low-Cost LCD 3D Printers","authors":"Kelsey M. Leong, Aileen Y. Sun, Mindy L. Quach, Carrie H. Lin, Cosette A. Craig, Felix Guo, Timothy R. Robinson, Megan M. Chang and Ayokunle O. Olanrewaju*, ","doi":"10.1021/acsomega.4c0777610.1021/acsomega.4c07776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Microfluidics offer user-friendly liquid handling for a range of biochemical applications. 3D printing microfluidics is rapid and cost-effective compared to conventional cleanroom fabrication. Typically, microfluidics are 3D printed using digital light projection (DLP) stereolithography (SLA), but many models in use are expensive (≥$10,000 USD), limiting widespread use. Recent liquid crystal display (LCD) technology advancements have provided inexpensive (<$500 USD) SLA 3D printers with sufficient pixel resolution for microfluidic applications. However, there are only a few demonstrations of microfluidic fabrication, limited validation of print fidelity, and no direct comparisons between LCD and DLP printers. We compared a 40 μm pixel DLP printer (∼$18,000 USD) with a 34.4 μm pixel LCD printer (<$380 USD). Consistent with prior work, we observed linear trends between designed and measured channel widths ≥4 pixels on both printers, so we calculated accuracy above this size threshold. Using a standard IPA-wash resin and optimized parameters for each printer, the average error between designed and measured widths was 2.11 ± 1.26% with the DLP printer and 15.4 ± 2.57% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer. Printing with optimized conditions for a low-cost water-wash resin designed for LCD-SLA printers resulted in an average error of 2.53 ± 0.94% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer and 5.35 ± 4.49% with a 22 μm LCD printer. We characterized additional parameters including surface roughness, channel perpendicularity, and light intensity uniformity, and as an application of LCD-printed devices, we demonstrated consistent flow rates in capillaric circuits for self-regulated and self-powered delivery of multiple liquids. LCD printers are an inexpensive alternative for fabricating microfluidics, with minimal differences in fidelity and accuracy compared with a 40X more expensive DLP printer.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsomega.4c07776","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.4c07776","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Microfluidics offer user-friendly liquid handling for a range of biochemical applications. 3D printing microfluidics is rapid and cost-effective compared to conventional cleanroom fabrication. Typically, microfluidics are 3D printed using digital light projection (DLP) stereolithography (SLA), but many models in use are expensive (≥$10,000 USD), limiting widespread use. Recent liquid crystal display (LCD) technology advancements have provided inexpensive (<$500 USD) SLA 3D printers with sufficient pixel resolution for microfluidic applications. However, there are only a few demonstrations of microfluidic fabrication, limited validation of print fidelity, and no direct comparisons between LCD and DLP printers. We compared a 40 μm pixel DLP printer (∼$18,000 USD) with a 34.4 μm pixel LCD printer (<$380 USD). Consistent with prior work, we observed linear trends between designed and measured channel widths ≥4 pixels on both printers, so we calculated accuracy above this size threshold. Using a standard IPA-wash resin and optimized parameters for each printer, the average error between designed and measured widths was 2.11 ± 1.26% with the DLP printer and 15.4 ± 2.57% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer. Printing with optimized conditions for a low-cost water-wash resin designed for LCD-SLA printers resulted in an average error of 2.53 ± 0.94% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer and 5.35 ± 4.49% with a 22 μm LCD printer. We characterized additional parameters including surface roughness, channel perpendicularity, and light intensity uniformity, and as an application of LCD-printed devices, we demonstrated consistent flow rates in capillaric circuits for self-regulated and self-powered delivery of multiple liquids. LCD printers are an inexpensive alternative for fabricating microfluidics, with minimal differences in fidelity and accuracy compared with a 40X more expensive DLP printer.