3D printing has the potential to significantly change the field of microfluidics. The ability to fabricate a complete microfluidic device in a single step from a computer model has obvious attractions, but it is the ability to create truly three dimensional structures that will provide new microfluidic capability that is challenging, if not impossible to make with existing approaches. This critical review covers the current state of 3D printing for microfluidics, focusing on the four most frequently used printing approaches: inkjet (i3DP), stereolithography (SLA), two photon polymerisation (2PP) and extrusion printing (focusing on fused deposition modeling). It discusses current achievements and limitations, and opportunities for advancement to reach 3D printing's full potential.

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.

CE has been alive for over two decades now, yet its sensitivity is still regarded as being inferior to that of more traditional methods of separation such as HPLC. As such, it is unsurprising that overcoming this issue still generates much scientific interest. This review continues to update this series of reviews, first published in Electrophoresis in 2007, with updates published in 2009 and 2011 and covers material published through to June 2012. It includes developments in the field of stacking, covering all methods from field amplified sample stacking and large volume sample stacking, through to isotachophoresis, dynamic pH junction and sweeping. Attention is also given to online or inline extraction methods that have been used for electrophoresis.

One of the most cited limitations of capillary and microchip electrophoresis is the poor sensitivity. This review continues to update this series of biannual reviews, first published in Electrophoresis in 2007, on developments in the field of online/in‐line concentration methods in capillaries and microchips, covering the period July 2016–June 2018. It includes developments in the field of stacking, covering all methods from field‐amplified sample stacking and large‐volume sample stacking, through to isotachophoresis, dynamic pH junction, and sweeping. Attention is also given to online or in‐line extraction methods that have been used for electrophoresis.