Comparing Microfluidic Performance of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Platforms

TLDR

Three‑dimensional printing is a promising technology for fabricating microfluidic devices. The study aims to guide selection of 3D printing technology for specific microfluidic applications by discussing printer capabilities and limitations. The authors compared FDM, Polyjet, and DLP‑SLA printers by optimizing a Y‑junction microfluidic device for each and evaluating feature size, accuracy, laminar flow, and mixing performance. FDM produced channels down to 321 μm with rough surfaces, enabling micromixers with 71 % mixing; Polyjet achieved finer 205 μm channels and smoother surfaces but lower mixing, suitable for cell culture or droplet generators; DLP‑SLA yielded the finest 154 μm channels and 0.35 μm roughness, with minimal mixing, ideal for precise flow control.

Abstract

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.