Table 1 Comparison of fluidic channels manufactured by different 3D printing technologies
From: The recent development and applications of fluidic channels by 3D printing
3D printing | materials | advantages | limitations | surface roughness | resolution | chip complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
stereolithography | photosensitive resin/polymers | high resolution, good surface finish, little topological restriction | small volume (1PP), slow build time (2PP), high optical absorption required, cytotoxic, low throughput | ~2 μm | 25–300 μm < 1 μm for 2PP | high |
selective laser sintering | powders of metal, polymer, ceramics | high resolution, fully automated | non-transparent, remaining powder precursor in small cavities | dependent on the powder size (on the order of 10–100 μm) | 1–150 μm | moderate |
fused deposition modeling | thermoplastics | cheap, ease of support removal, little topological restriction, fully automated | slow build time, low accuracy, non-transparent, poor gas permeability, | 3–43 μm | 100–400 μm | low |
inkjet | photocurable polymers | fast build time, multiple materials | tedious removal of support, low accuracy | < 1 μm | 20–100 μm | high |
bioprinting | bioink, hydrogels | multiple materials | low build time, low viscous solution, low accuracy | 10–330 μm | 5–100 μm | high |