Versatile and Low-Cost Fabrication of Modular Lock-and-Key Microfluidics for Integrated Connector Mixer Using a Stereolithography 3D Printing

Abstract

We present a low-cost and simple method to fabricate a novel lock-and-key mixer microfluidics using an economic stereolithography (SLA) three-dimensional (3D) printer, which costs less than USD 400 for the investment. The proposed study is promising for a high throughput fabrication module, typically limited by conventional microfluidics fabrications, such as photolithography and polymer-casting methods. We demonstrate the novel modular lock-and-key mixer for the connector and its chamber modules with optimized parameters, such as exposure condition and printing orientation. In addition, the optimization of post-processing was performed to investigate the reliability of the fabricated hollow structures, which are fundamental to creating a fluidic channel or chamber. We found out that by using an inexpensive 3D printer, the fabricated resolution can be pushed down to 850 µm and 550 µm size for squared- and circled-shapes, respectively, by the gradual hollow structure, applying vertical printing orientation. These strategies opened up the possibility of developing straightforward microfluidics platforms that could replace conventional microfluidics mold fabrication methods, such as photolithography and milling, which are costly and time consuming. Considerably cheap commercial resin and its tiny volume employed for a single printing procedure significantly cut down the estimated fabrication cost to less than 50 cents USD/module. The simulation study unravels the prominent properties of the fabricated devices for biological fluid mixers, such as PBS, urine and plasma blood. This study is eminently prospective toward microfluidics application in clinical biosensing, where disposable, low-cost, high-throughput, and reproducible chips are highly required.

Tesla Valve Microfluidics: The Rise of Forgotten Technology

“…Another advantage of passive components is their smaller footprint, making them suitable for micro-scale devices. These components also have a simple control operation, which can help reduce complexity in microfluidic systems [20,21]. TVs have been studied for their use as passive components in microfluidics because of their straightforward design and effective fluidic control.…”

Development of 3D printed click-and-fit modular microfluidics for an integrated electrochemical platform

“…Meanwhile, for the SFC type, the cylindrical inlet-outlet on the above surface of the platform has a diameter of 0.718 mm, designed to t the diameter of the syringe needle. The fabrication method and inspection were described in detail in (Anshori et al 2022). The channel dimension analysis of the platforms was carried out visually by observation and measurement using an optical microscope and ImageJ application.…”

“…The concentration of the potassium ferricyanide solution is varied into six values: 1, 2. Both platform designs were printed using a 3D printer with the following printing parameters: layer thickness of 0.05 mm, normal exposure time of 3 s, bottom exposure time of 35 s, bottom layers of 4, and off time of 1 s. The printing process took 29 minutes for the bottom part of both types, 29 minutes for the upper part of the TFC type, and 57 minutes for the upper part of the SFC type, with a horizontal printing orientation (Anshori et al 2022). Speci cally for the upper part of the SFC type, since there is a hole on each side of the platform (top and bottom), 75% of support was used on one side during the printing process to prevent the platform from collapsing during the printing process.…”

“…However, this technique requires a long process, complicated method, high cost, and often results in leakage on the platform due to a not evenly distributed pressure given during the fabrication process (Chen et al 2016). To overcome these problems, many studies relied on micro-milling and 3D printing methods (Anshori et al 2022;Prabowo et al 2022). This method offers a more accessible, simpler, and relatively shorter fabrication time (Gale et al 2018).…”

“…This method offers a more accessible, simpler, and relatively shorter fabrication time (Gale et al 2018). There are several variations of 3D printing methods, such as Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Robocasting, Multi-Jet Modelling (MJM), and Stereolithography (SLA) (Sharafeldin et al 2018;Anshori et al 2022). SLA method prints the platform layer by layer using a resin polymerized by UV light at a wavelength of about 405 nm.…”