ArticleACS omega2024
Democratizing Access to Microfluidics: Rapid Prototyping of Open Microchannels with Low-Cost LCD 3D Printers.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining Operational Limits of Low-Cost MSLA 3D Printing for Microfluidic Systems: Resin Performance, Cell Compatibility, and Fluid Dynamics.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Rapid Fabrication of Biomimetic Perfusable Structures via Lift-Up Viscous Fingering.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Immune organoids for Africa: a roadmap for bridging the innovation gap in infectious diseases and cancer research.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
- From Fabrication to Flow: Impact of Print Orientation on Surface Qualities and Capillary-Driven Flow in Laser SLA-based Open Microchannels.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Organ-on-a-Chip and Lab-on-a-Chip Technologies in Cardiac Tissue Engineering.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Hydrophilic 3D-Printed Microfluidic Device for Emulsion Studies: Preliminary Observations on the Role of Naphthenic Acids in Coalescence.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Printable Photocurable Elastomer Composed of Hydroxyethyl Acrylate and Hydroxy Fatty Acid Derived from Waste Cooking Oil: An Innovative Strategy for Sustainable, Highly Flexible Resin Development.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An open source platform to automate the design, verification, and manufacture of 3D printed microfluidic devices.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Photobase-Catalyzed Thiol-ene Click Chemistry for Light-Based Additive Manufacturing.Polymer chemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microfluidics offer user-friendly liquid handling for a range of biochemical applications. 3D printing microfluidics is rapid and cost-effective compared to conventional cleanroom fabrication. Typically, microfluidics are 3D printed using digital light projection (DLP) stereolithography (SLA), but many models in use are expensive (≥$10,000 USD), limiting widespread use. Recent liquid crystal display (LCD) technology advancements have provided inexpensive (<$500 USD) SLA 3D printers with sufficient pixel resolution for microfluidic applications. However, there are only a few demonstrations of microfluidic fabrication, limited validation of print fidelity, and no direct comparisons between LCD and DLP printers. We compared a 40 μm pixel DLP printer (∼$18,000 USD) with a 34.4 μm pixel LCD printer (<$380 USD). Consistent with prior work, we observed linear trends between designed and measured channel widths ≥4 pixels on both printers, so we calculated accuracy above this size threshold. Using a standard IPA-wash resin and optimized parameters for each printer, the average error between designed and measured widths was 2.11 ± 1.26% with the DLP printer and 15.4 ± 2.57% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer. Printing with optimized conditions for a low-cost water-wash resin designed for LCD-SLA printers resulted in an average error of 2.53 ± 0.94% with the 34.4 μm LCD printer and 5.35 ± 4.49% with a 22 μm LCD printer. We characterized additional parameters including surface roughness, channel perpendicularity, and light intensity uniformity, and as an application of LCD-printed devices, we demonstrated consistent flow rates in capillaric circuits for self-regulated and self-powered delivery of multiple liquids. LCD printers are an inexpensive alternative for fabricating microfluidics, with minimal differences in fidelity and accuracy compared with a 40X more expensive DLP printer.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.