In Vitro Synthetic Biology: Surface Modified, 3D Printed Molecular Machines - Coursework Example

In Vitro synthetic Biology: Surface Modified, 3D Printed Molecular Machines Name Student Number Institution Course Code Instructor Date In Vitro Synthetic Biology: Surface Modified, 3D Printed Molecular Machines Synthetic biologists have in the recent past majorly focused in bio-molecular engineering approaches to enhance capabilities in medical and environmental diagnostics. With embracing of technology in synthetic biology, 3D printing has gained substantial interest among potential applications for tissue development based on the concept of coming up with three-dimensional objects of virtually any shape (Ventora 2014). This review makes a critical discussion of 3D printing mainly on the filament fabrication print technology based on Marker Replicator 2X experimental 3D printer. Further, up to date applications of these prototyped microfluidic devices will be evaluated, as well as the advances in the production of microfluidic 3D structures in using three-dimensional printing options and the fabrication methods of this laser writing systems. Characterization of 3D printing material in respect to microfluidic and microdevices will be discussed. Further, surface contact angle analysis of 3D printed material using Goinometer will be elaborated with a critical analysis of the captive drop and pendant drop methods. Finally, synthetic biology in respect to microreactor for DNA transcription will be discussed as the final part of the literature review. 3D Printing and Applications Three-dimensional technologies has brought about in vitro development of model body organs to achieve replacement of lost organs or tissues by utilization of cell loading via layered architecture. In vitro application of 3D printing results to filament fabrication that gives rise to three-dimensional devices, organs and tissues (Slomovic, Pardee and Collins 2015). Filament fabrication printing involves a 3-dimensional object that extrudes a stream of heated thermoplastic material that is carefully positioned forming successive layers from bottom to top. The result is an image that has the 3 principal axes being linear giving rise to the creation of 3D in vitro representations of intended structures (Gross et al. 2014; Chia and Wu 2015). With hand-held reactive bathless printing process; it gives rise to 3D structures with layered architecture. By utilizing simple extrusion process of printing and bio-ink, creation of contained, layered and viable 3D structures is possible with the potential to consolidate cortical neuron subtypes in structured layers (Mertz 2013). On critically looking at the Makerbot Replicator 2X Experimental 3D Printer (User Manual, 2013), the resultant products are solid three-dimensional objects that have been made from MakerBot Filament. The design files are translated into instructions for the printer by being read by the machine via an SD card which contains the designs as per the expert’s specification. Au et al. (2016) indicate that before fabrication, the design is digitally built as a detailed 3D CAD file and stored, later transferred to be printed. The printer heats the filament while squeezing it out via the nozzle onto a heated surface and creates a solid object by applying layers upon layers through the process called Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) (Mertz 2013). 3D Printing has brought about a great revolution in medical diagnosis producing complex biomedical devices with the use of computer designs. From the time it was used as pre-surgical visualization models and tooling molds (Pennathur, Meinhart and Soh 2008), 3D Printing has evolved slowly to come up with one-of-a-kind devices, implants, diagnostic platforms, scaffolds for tissue engineering and drug delivery systems (Lo 2012; O’Neill et al. 2014). 3D-printed biopolymers have been combined with 3D printing technology giving great potential in the tissue engineering applications (Li et al. 2014). Further, the concepts have received tremendous attention resulting in the development of some research programs on materials systems available for 3D printing. According to Chia and Mu (2015), the ability to design and fabricate complex 3D biomedical devices has found relevance in tissue engineering. With increased improvement in technology, 3D printing finds significance in coming up with detailed diagnostic images in the field of medicine. This technology is utilized in the creation of three-dimensional biomedical devices employed in the restoration of 3D anatomic defects, complex organs reconstruction using intricate 3D microarchitecture, as well as scaffolds used in the differentiation of stem cell (Liu, Han and Czernuszka 2009). 3D printing finds various applications in medicine resulting in a number of benefits involving the customization and personalization of medical products, drugs and equipment; increased productivity; enhanced cost effectiveness, and enhanced collaboration. There has been growing interest in the field of microfluidics with the advancing steps in the capability of three-dimensional printing technologies for the production of complex 3D structures. O’Neill et al. (2014) have argued that ultrafast layers have brought about the development of methods for production of microfluidic channels within polymer material and glass or silicon through direct internal 3D writing. Microfluidic: The Use of 3D Printer in Making Microfluidic and Microdevices Microfluidic systems are valuable tools for utilization in the study of complex biological systems due to their ability to precisely control minimal volumes of fluid over short distances. O’Neill et al. (2014) stipulate that cell-based assays the likes of cytotoxicity, flow cytometry analysis; sorting, manipulation and imaging of cell are just some of the current applications of microfluidics in biology. Techniques of microfluidic allow control of fluid with precision, as well as particles at the nanoliter scale resulting in a facilitation of concurrent manipulation and cultured cells analysis, with an initial point of the single building to for larger populations and eventually tissues that are intact (Mehling and Tay 2014). Microfluidics also offers the advantage of imitating environments that resemble those encountered in vivo; this ensures that the experiments produce results which are not biased. The bias is avoided by creating an environment that brings out the possible implications of cell analysis. Multi fluidics is the science involving the study of fluids characteristics, their manipulation and the making of devices that perform fluid manipulations at micro scale (Roger, 2012). Microfluidic systems have been modified from single functioning devices to multifunctioning systems of fluid analysis. These systems are being used for a wide range of applications. MacDonald and Whitesides (2002) outline that the manufacturing methods have been carried out much recently with more use of poly (dimethylsiloxane) or PDMS which has its properties entirely distinct from other materials used more so silicon. PDMS has its advantages as optical transparency and elasticity (Au at al., 2016). Its ability to support components like valves has made it a possible material for research in this sector. Microfluidics has evolved from simple single function devices to multiple functions analytical devices. Various applications of these rapid prototyped microfluidic aspects in biology have proved positive significance (Bender and Garrell 2015). These include detection of viruses and neurotransmitters, studies in drug transport, mechanisms in cells and imaging of living organisms, as well as cell arrays. Three dimension printing methods have allowed for direct fabrication of microdevices in a single step (Chia and Wu 2015). However multistep methods of fabrications exist and they include injection molding, hot embossing and casting. 3D printing fabrication methodologies have not been widely utilized in the field of microfluidics. This has been caused by expensive high-resolution equipment and unavailability of necessary materials in 3D printing technology (Gross et al. 2014). Microfluidics as both a science and technology offers future revolutionary capabilities with applications in many fields ranging from engineering, biology to medicine. One of the main advantages of 3D printing is the simplification of the process which does not require the fabrication of an imitation nor broad labor measures. The ability to maintain and grow cells in vitro is an achievement in biological sciences. Mehling and Tay (2014) argue that the recent introduction of microfluidics has fought prior limitations in cell analysis bearing in mind that basic methods in dynamic cell analysis had been limited to techniques such as the handheld pipette and the use of the traditional dish. Microfluidic chips utilize membrane valves which like transistors’ in electronic devices they allow for similar spatial and temporal control of fluid flow and drug delivery and signaling factors to living cells (Mehling and Tay 2014). Microfluidics makes it possible for delivery of both chemical and mechanical signals thus allowing effective control over cultured cells. An important application of microfluidics is blood rheology in microchannels which has contributed much to the development of lab on chip devices for blood sampling and analysis (Keane and Badylak 2014). Blood being fluid with a rich amount of information on the physiological and pathological state of the human body gives good prospects in developing microdevices for the diagnosis of major diseases the likes of cancer, heart disorder and diabetes mellitus (Pinto et al. 2015). Sia and Kricka (2008) argue that microfluidics has brought a lot of impact on point of care diagnostics where the diagnosis is performed near the patient with no need for a clinical lab. This point of care diagnostics (POC), allow for low consumption of samples and reagents, bringing about fast turn-around time for analysis. These rapid testing methods will serve a positive purpose, resulting in swift intervention measures. Take the case where finding of high blood glucose by a patient with diabetes is rapidly acted upon by administration of necessary therapy measures. Earliest POC devices evolved to lateral flow test examples dip stick devices for pregnancy, cardiac diseases and HIV-1 which required addition of samples (Keane and Badylak 2014). POC devices employing microelectronic and microfluidic components have been lately developed to diagnose cardiac and infectious diseases. 3D Printing Material Printing material in 3D technology is critical and involves ones that give rise to elastic devices or intended objects for biological purposes (Keane and Badylak 2014). Microfluidic channels are usually fabricated in polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) using a combination of photolithography and soft lithography. O’Neill et al. (2014) have also cited that various important rapid prototyping processes in the industry, and the most important is stereo lithography (SL). SL allows for the production of complex three-dimensional forms in polymeric materials. In the 80s microfluidic devices were initially fabricated with silicon and glass, but later evolved to fabrication using ceramic and Teflon (Pennathur et al. 2008). Polymers the likes of ABS are now often used as materials for construction due to their low cost and simplicity of fabrication process which does not require utilization of chemicals. Standard replication methods for the manufacture of microfluidic devices such as hot embossing, casting and injection molding can be said to be multistep procedures since they require the advance making of a replica model before casting of the final device. This is unlike the fabrication method of 3D laser printing that is done in single steps. Kendall et al. (2014) in their paper on thermoplastic soft lithography stipulates that casting as a method of soft lithography extends advantages of elastomeric soft lithography to other thermoplastic materials like cyclic olefin copolymer (COC). The solvent casting technique allows for the inclusion of thermoplastic devices into the final microfluidic device. Micro injection molding of thermoplastic polymers is a developing process which brings about reduced cost of microfluidic devices. Attia, Marson, and Alcock (2009) argue that micro injection molding is a promising process for the manufacture of disposable microfluidic devices. They go ahead to define micro molding as the process of transferring micron precisions of metallic molds to prior molded polymeric devices. Micro injection molding involves a transfer of thermoplastic material into a heated barrel to melt and soften it before forcing it under pressure into a mold cavity. The material in turn freezes into the shape of the mold and is ejected as the cycle continues (Bourdon and Schneider 2002). The advantages of this process is its commercial practicability with prospects for further development in future, cost effectiveness for mass production, accurate shape replication, and low maintenance cost of equipment Polymers have proved a great advantage in manufacturing costs, fabrication complexity, operation temperatures, clean room facilities, optical properties and geometrical flexibility when compared glass for manufacturing microfluidic devices. Madou et al. (2001) however, stipulate that unsuccessful integration of pieces made with different insert manufacturing technologies to create a microdevice serve as a major drawback to microinjection molding as a process. Hot embossing is also a micro fabrication method used in developing microfluidics. It offers the advantage of low cost for embossing equipment, a simple process for replication and high structural quality, and is therefore well-suited for rapid prototyping and mass fabrication (Becker, Dietz and Dannberg 1998). In the embossing machine, the embossing tool and polymer substrate are heated separately under vacuum to a temperature just above that of the glass transition. The tool is then brought into contact with the substrate and embossed with a controlled force then allowed to cool. The embossing device is then separated from the substrate which now contains the expected feature. It is then processed by drilling holes and adding a cover lid to cover the channels (Sia and Whitesides, 2003). The following section looks into filaments which are critical materials in 3D printing. Filaments used in 3D Printing 3D filaments are a class of materials that are very critical in the coming up with 3D objects during printing of three-dimensional devices. Filaments are plastic materials utilized in 3D printing techniques to make 3D prints (Au et al. 2016). With advancement in FFF 3D printing, the next wave of evolution involves the plastic filaments utilized in coming up with 3D prints. Filaments utilized in 3D printing being evaluated here are ABS, PLA, HIPS and Makerbot Flexible filaments. ABS: ABS stands for Acrylontrile Butadiene Styrene and involves a combination of the three plastics (Au et al. 2016). The plastics are mixed in varying proportions to formulate ABS filament for different uses. The filament has been on market for long for industrial 3D printing as it melts consistently at approximately 225oC, which can be achieved comfortably by use of small and home-safe appliances. The filament is tough, but a bit flexible and becomes softer with higher temperatures. However, with extrusion temperatures utilized in a MakerBot, ABS remains fairly viscous (MakerBot 2013). Thus, the filament melts quickly within the extruder but does not drip during the movement process. ABS filament is well suited to withstand heat enough that it is utilized in making plastic components of the Replicator 2X’s extruders. ABS has a high glass transition temperature approximately 100oC which is the temperature limit where the plastic changes from solid state to a pliable state where it can lose its original shape (Au et al. 2016). Finally, ABS is dissolvable in acetone which is used widely and is a comparatively safe chemical, hence utilized in the smoothening of 3D prints surface. PLA: this stands for Polylactic acid which is a biodegradable plastic with impressive features that make it very useful for 3D printing (Au et al. 2016). This is a very different kind of thermoplastic manufactured from corn starch giving it a biodegradable characteristic, thus making it greener than ABS. It has a low thermal expansion rate hence, not in a position to twist a lot, as well as has no bad-smelling fumes (Keane and Badylak 2014). PLA filament is harder, slightly brittle and possesses a unique quality of snapping rather that bending, but that does not make it easy to break. The filament stays flexible for some time during the cooling process. The filament melts at 190oC to 210oC, and due to its sluggish flow, the filament can print more detailed objects at higher speeds (MakerBot 2013). The filament is especially great in producing sharp corners and has relatively glossy surface. Nevertheless, the extent of gloss depends on the color, vendor and print temperature. HIPS Filament: this is a combination of a High Impact Polystyrene material and another support 3D material. The material has a natural color and biodegradable hence very compatible with the human or animal body with no adverse effects (Pinto et al. 2015). HIPS filaments possess a curling and adhesive problem which can be rectified via utilization of a heated bed in the printing process. Thus, HIPS finds great relevance in 3D printing promoting the effective acquisition of three-dimensional structures. Makerbot Flexible Filament: this type of filament has brought about new opportunities in stretching the limits of 3D printing. MakerBot Flexible Filament is cool because it enhances the functional capabilities, thus promoting applications of 3D prints. The melting point is low at 60oC making it possible to adjust easily the prints being created (MarkerBot User Manual 2013). With the listed properties, the filament enables 3D printing to come up with objects like functional hinges, joints and items that can be shaped to comfortably fit the body. Surface Contact Angle Analysis of 3D Printed Material Surface tension and contact angles analysis is conducted between the liquid and the surface to predict the wettability, calculate the spreading coefficient and surface energy. The principles of surface contact angle analysis are pivotal in 3D printing about ensuring understating of how polymeric materials are deposited on a specific surface to come up with a three-dimensional device (Yuan and Lee 2013). Measurement of contact angles between liquid drops and surfaces can be measured directly from the angle formed at the contact of the liquid and the flat surface. The measurements are carried out by use of a manual goniometer which is an inexpensive instrument (Duncan et al. 2005). Goniometry involves optical type of geometry of the drop captured and analyzed. Drop shape analysis is the most convenient method of contact angle and surface tension. Fluids for analysis are loaded via utilization of a syringe and image is grabbed by use of a single snap shop or as a sequence of shots resulting in a movie (Becker, 2008). The resultant movie is stored as a database. A frame grabber is used in digitalization of data as 8-bit gray scale images which are analyzed for linear dimensions, contact angle and surface tension, as well as other data that can be derived from the results. This principle is conducted with the assumption that the drop is symmetric about a central vertical axis meaning that the direction of viewing the drop is irrelevant (Li et al. 2014). Further, the drop is assumed not to be in motion by the fact that viscosity or inertia is not acting in the shape determination. Thus, only the interfacial tension and gravity forces are acting to shape the drop. Drop shape analysis (DSA) involves image analysis to determine the contact angle from the shadow image of a sessile drop, as well as the surface tension or interfacial tension from the shadow objet of a pendant drop. Contact angle is given by the angle existing between the calculated drop shape function and the sample surface (Duncan et al. 2005). This parameter is critical as it reveals the surface tension and surface energy values. With the contact angle being greater than 90o, the liquid droplets are formed on the solid surface and when the angle is less than 90o, the liquid will spread out (Yuan and Lee 2013). For thin films to be formed on the surface from the liquid, the contact angle should tend to zero. Recording of a drop image is done by camera and then transferred to the drop shape analysis software. Then, a contour recognition is carried initially based on a grey-scale analysis of the image at hand. The second step involves a geometrical model that describes the drop which is fitted to the contour. Captive drop method involves a special arrangement for analyzing the contact angle between a liquid and a solid through the use of drop shape analysis. This method is very suitable for solids with high surface free energy where liquids spread put (Yuan and Lee 2013). Captive bubble method is also utilized in hydrogels like contact lenses that are inaccessible for the standard arrangement. The pendant drop involves when the drop is suspended from a needle within a bulk liquid or gaseous phase (Bender and Garrell 2015). The drop’s shape brings about a relationship between the surface tension or interfacial tension and gravity. Calculation of surface tension or interfacial tension in pendant drop method is calculated from the shadow image of the pendant drop via the DSA (Sia and Kricka 2008). Increase in pressure occurs in the drop due to the interfacial tension existing between the inner and outer phase. Synthetic Biology: Microreactor for DNA Transcription Biological experiments have been conducted since the early 20th, and with technological advancements, DNA sequencing have become a norm in the laboratories enhancing of encoding of DNA messages. In the world of science today, millions of experiments are conducted simultaneously for gene expression analysis with close to a billion gene expression for the coming generation DNA sequencing (Mehling and Tay 2014). Microreactor for DNA transcription has been taken a notch higher by 3D technology enabling the DNA to be effectively copied into messenger RNA for the production of protein. The experiments are high-throughput based on molecules that are tethered to a surface. Nevertheless, chemical reactions that occur in living cells incorporate untethered, free-floating molecules in aqueous solutions (Gross et al. 2014). In order for transcription to commence, enabled proteins are required to be brought into contact with activator proteins that bind to a specific sequence of DNA that is identified as enhancer regions. Upon contact, the RNA polymerase races along the DNA to transcribe the gene. Microreactor DNA transcription involves simple codes being turned into flesh and blood by assembling of a bundle of factors at the start of a gene (Bender and Garrell 2015). The assembled factors then trigger the initial phase of the process by reading off necessary information to come up with the protein. Various biochemical reactions occur at the same time depending on the cell type, cell cycle or even the external stimuli. Felbel et al. (2008) indicate that unraveling the complexity of biochemical reactions and its effect on human health calls for a great deal of experimental platforms to study large numbers of biochemical reactions concerning untethered, molecular and free floating compounds. Reverse transcription is performed within an integrated micro channel section before the amplification of the complementary DNA (cDNA), which is generated from the primary applied RNA sample (Felbel et al. 2008). One feature in this chip system involves the generation of a segmented flow for high quantity analysis of RT-PCR samples. This shows that the reactions can be carried out successfully in the microreactor with continuous and segmented flow regimes. Generally, microfluidics is under scrutiny for its prospect in medical diagnosis and other bio analysis as its size does manifest advantages over lab based applications (Ong, Zhang, Du and Fu, 2008). DNA amplification involves the production of many copies of a DNA sequence. This process allows for production of adequate DNA samples to be tested a technique that can be used to identify disease causing bacteria and viruses with high probability. With digital microfluidics many experimental samples are produced and analyzed on the same microfluidic chip therefore saving time and improving productivity (Sukhatme and Agarwal 2012). Application of technology in biological structures has resulted in enhanced synthetic biology that matches the complexity of native tissues and fabrication of artificial tissues (Chia and Wu 2015). 3D printing technology has allowed the fabrication of structures having arbitrary geometries, as well as heterogeneous material properties. Looking at the microreactor, it involves a heating plate having various zones of temperatures, as well as fluidic chip that can be interchanged with micro channels (Pinto et al. 2015). Temperature to support the reverse transcription zones, denaturation, hot start activation, extension and annealing are provided by the heating plates. In the fluidic chip, serpentine micro channel is found with integrated features for segmented sample stream generation, as well as dosing operations that is guided over the temperature zones in respect to the thermal protocol of RT-PCR (Keane and Badylak 2014). Thus, 3D printing has extensively revolutionized the concept of in vitro synthetic biology giving rise to applications that are useful in life. Reference List Attia, U., Marsona, S. and Alcock, J., 2009, Microinjection Molding of Polymer Microfluidic Devices. Microfluid. Nano Fluid, vol. 7, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1007/s10404-009-0421-x. Au, A., Huynh, W., Horowitz, L. and Folch, A., 2013, 3D-Printed Microfluidics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 55, pp. 2-22. Becker, H., 2008. Microfluidics: A Technology Coming of Age. Medical device Technology, vol. 19, pp. 21-24. Becker, H., Dietz, W., Dannberg, P., 1998, Microfluidic Manifolds by Polymer Hot Embossing for µ-Tas. Proceedings of Micro Total Analysis Systems. D.J. Harrison, A. van den Bern (Eds.), Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers, (pp. 253-256). Bender, B. and Garrell, R., 2015, Digital Microfluidic System with Vertical Functionality, Micromachines, vol. 6, pp. 1655-1674, doi.10.3390/mi6111448. Bourdon, R., Schneider, W., 2002, A systematic Approach to Microinjection Moulding, Business Briefing: Medical Device Manufacturing & Technology, pp. 1-3. Chia, H. and Wu, B., 2015. Recent Advances in 3D Printing of Biomaterials, Journal of Biological Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1-14. Duncan, B., Mera, R., Leatherdale, D., Taylor, M. and Musgrove, R., 2005, Techniques for Characterizing the Wetting, Coating and Spreading of Adhesives on Surfaces. NPL Report DEPC MPR-020. Middlesex: National Physical Laboratory. Felbel, J., Reichert, A., Kielpinski, M., Urban, M., Häfner, N., Dürst, M., Köhler, J.M., Weber, J. and Henkel, T., 2008, Technical Concept of a Flow-through Microreactor for In-situ RT-PCR. Eng. Life Sci., vol. 8, pp. 68-72. doi: 10.1002/elsc.200720222. Gross, B., Erkal, J., Lockwood, S., et al., 2014, Evaluation of 3D Printing and its Potential Impact on Biotechnology and the Chemical Sciences, Anal Chem, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 3240-3253. Keane, T. and Badylak, S., 2014, Biomaterial for Tissue Engineering Applications, Seminars Pediatr. Surg., vol. 23, pp. 112-118. Kendall, L., Michael S., Wilson, A. and DeVoe, L., 2014, Thermoplastic Soft Lithography, College Park, USA: University of Maryland. Li, X., Cui, R., Sun, L., Aifantis, K., Fan, Y., Feng, Q., Cui, F. and Watari, F., 2014, 3D-Printed Biopolymers for Tissue Engineering Application. International Journal of Polymer Science, vol. 2014, pp. 1-13. doi.10.1155/2014/829145. Liu, C., Han, Z. and Czernuszka, J., 2009, Gradient Collagen/nanohydroxyapatite Composite Scaffold: Development and Characterization, Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 661-669. Lo, R. (2012), Applications of Microfluidics in Bioprocesses. Journal of Bioprocess Biotech, vol. 2, no. e109, doi: 10.4172/2155-9821.1000e109. Madou, M., Lee, L., Koelling, K., Lai, S., Koh, C., Juang, Y., 2001, “Design and Fabrication of Polymer Microfluidic Platforms for Biomedical Applications.” Proceedings of the Annual Technical Conference, (ANTEC 2001), vol. 3, pp. 2534-2538. MakerBot User Manual, 2013, Replicator 2X Experimental 3D Printer User Manual. Brooklyn, NY: MakerBot Industries, LLC. McDonald, J. and Whitesides, G., 2002, Poly (dimethylsiloxane) as a Material for Fabricating Microfluidic Devices. Acc. Chem. Res. vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 491-499. Mehling, M. and Tay S., 2014, Microfluidic Cell Culture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 25, pp. 95-102. Mertz, L., 2013, Dream it, Design it, Print it in 3D: What can 3D Printing do for you? IEEE Pulse, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 15-21. O’Neill, P., Azouz, B., Vazquez, M., Liu, J., Marczak, S., Slouka, Z., Chang, C.H., Diamond, D. and Brabazon D., 2014, Advances in Three-dimensional Rapid Prototyping of Microfluidic Devices for Biological Applications, Bio-microfluidics, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 052112-1-052112-11. Ong, E. Zhang, H., Du, H., Fu, Y., 2008. Fundamental Principles and Applications of Microfluidic Systems, Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 13, pp. 2757-2773. Pennathur, S. Meinhart, C. and Soh, H., 2008, How to Exploit the Features of Microfluidics Technology. Lab Chip, vol. 8, pp. 20-22. Pinto, E., Faustino, V., Rodrigues, R., Pinho, D., Garcia, V., Miranda, M. and Lima, R., 2015, A Rapid and Low-Cost Nonlithographic Method to Fabricate Biomedical Microdevices for Blood Flow Analysis. Micromachines, vol. 6, pp. 121-135. Sia, S. and Kricka, L., 2008, Microfluidics and Point of Care Testing. Lab Chip, vol. 8, pp. 1982-1983. Sia, S.K., Whitesides, G., 2003, Microfluidic Devices Fabricated in PDMS for Biological Studies, Electrophoresis, vol. 24, no.21, pp. 3563-3576. Slomovic, S., Pardee, K. and Collins, J., 2015, Synthetic Biology Devices for In Vitro and In Vivo Diagnostics. PNAS, vol. 112, no. 47, pp. 14429-14435. Sukhatme, S. Agarwal, A., 2012, Digital Microfluidics: Techniques, their Applications and Advantages. Bioeng. Biomed. Sci., vol. S8, pp. 001. Ventora, C., 2014, Medical applications for 3D Printing: Current and projected Uses. P&T, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 704-711. Yuan, Y. and Lee, T., 2013, Contact Angle and Wetting Properties. In G. Bracco, & B. Holst (Eds.), Surface Science Techniques, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Read More

From the time it was used as pre-surgical visualization models and tooling molds (Pennathur, Meinhart and Soh 2008), 3D Printing has evolved slowly to come up with one-of-a-kind devices, implants, diagnostic platforms, scaffolds for tissue engineering and drug delivery systems (Lo 2012; O’Neill et al. 2014). 3D-printed biopolymers have been combined with 3D printing technology giving great potential in the tissue engineering applications (Li et al. 2014). Further, the concepts have received tremendous attention resulting in the development of some research programs on materials systems available for 3D printing.

According to Chia and Mu (2015), the ability to design and fabricate complex 3D biomedical devices has found relevance in tissue engineering. With increased improvement in technology, 3D printing finds significance in coming up with detailed diagnostic images in the field of medicine. This technology is utilized in the creation of three-dimensional biomedical devices employed in the restoration of 3D anatomic defects, complex organs reconstruction using intricate 3D microarchitecture, as well as scaffolds used in the differentiation of stem cell (Liu, Han and Czernuszka 2009).

3D printing finds various applications in medicine resulting in a number of benefits involving the customization and personalization of medical products, drugs and equipment; increased productivity; enhanced cost effectiveness, and enhanced collaboration. There has been growing interest in the field of microfluidics with the advancing steps in the capability of three-dimensional printing technologies for the production of complex 3D structures. O’Neill et al. (2014) have argued that ultrafast layers have brought about the development of methods for production of microfluidic channels within polymer material and glass or silicon through direct internal 3D writing.

Microfluidic: The Use of 3D Printer in Making Microfluidic and Microdevices Microfluidic systems are valuable tools for utilization in the study of complex biological systems due to their ability to precisely control minimal volumes of fluid over short distances. O’Neill et al. (2014) stipulate that cell-based assays the likes of cytotoxicity, flow cytometry analysis; sorting, manipulation and imaging of cell are just some of the current applications of microfluidics in biology. Techniques of microfluidic allow control of fluid with precision, as well as particles at the nanoliter scale resulting in a facilitation of concurrent manipulation and cultured cells analysis, with an initial point of the single building to for larger populations and eventually tissues that are intact (Mehling and Tay 2014).

Microfluidics also offers the advantage of imitating environments that resemble those encountered in vivo; this ensures that the experiments produce results which are not biased. The bias is avoided by creating an environment that brings out the possible implications of cell analysis. Multi fluidics is the science involving the study of fluids characteristics, their manipulation and the making of devices that perform fluid manipulations at micro scale (Roger, 2012). Microfluidic systems have been modified from single functioning devices to multifunctioning systems of fluid analysis.

These systems are being used for a wide range of applications. MacDonald and Whitesides (2002) outline that the manufacturing methods have been carried out much recently with more use of poly (dimethylsiloxane) or PDMS which has its properties entirely distinct from other materials used more so silicon. PDMS has its advantages as optical transparency and elasticity (Au at al., 2016). Its ability to support components like valves has made it a possible material for research in this sector. Microfluidics has evolved from simple single function devices to multiple functions analytical devices.

Various applications of these rapid prototyped microfluidic aspects in biology have proved positive significance (Bender and Garrell 2015).

Read More