Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Microelectronic Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mee

Review article

3D printed microfluidics and microelectronics

Ryan D. Sochol a,b,⁎, Eric Sweet c,d, Casey C. Glick c,d,e, Sung-Yueh Wu c,d, Chen Yang c,d,
Michael Restaino b, Liwei Lin c,d,1
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
b
Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA
d
Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center, USA
e
Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Submillimeter-scale domains offer wide-ranging benefits for chemical and biological fields, which have motivat-
Received 15 June 2017 ed researchers to develop a diversity of strategies for manufacturing integrated microfluidic systems. Historically,
Received in revised form 14 December 2017 microfluidic device construction has predominantly relied on micromachining technologies that are rooted in the
Accepted 16 December 2017
semiconductor and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) industries. These methodologies have enabled
Available online 21 December 2017
microfluidic platforms to be fabricated with fully integrated microelectronics – a critical requirement for applica-
Keywords:
tions such as electrophoresis and dielectrophoresis (DEP), surface acoustic wave (SAW) actuation, digital
Additive manufacturing microfluidics (e.g., via electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) phenomena), and on-chip electrochemical detec-
3D printing tion. Despite the distinguishing capabilities afforded by conventional microfabrication protocols, a number of in-
Microfluidics herent limitations have given rise to increasing interest in alternative approaches for microdevice construction in
Microelectronics the form of additive manufacturing or “three-dimensional (3D) printing”. Here we review recent progress in the
Lab-on-a-chip development of both 3D printed microfluidics and 3D printed microelectronics. We evaluate the distinctive ben-
efits and constraints associated with emerging 3D printing technologies with respect to the fabrication of both
microfluidic and microelectronic systems. Lastly, we examine the potential use of 3D printing-based approaches
for manufacturing microfluidic devices with integrated microelectronics.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2. Additive manufacturing approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.1. Extrusion-based 3D printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2. Stereolithography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3. Multijet modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3. Microfluidic systems via 3D printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1. 3D printed transfer molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2. Microfluidic systems via extrusion-based 3D printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3. Microfluidic systems via stereolithography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4. Microfluidic systems via multijet modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4. Microelectronics via 3D printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1. 3D printing of conductive materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2. 3D printing of semiconductor and other electronic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Author contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

⁎ Corresponding author at: 2147 Glenn L. Martin Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
E-mail addresses: rsochol@umd.edu (R.D. Sochol), lwlin@me.berkeley.edu (L. Lin).
1
5135 Etcheverry Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2017.12.010
0167-9317/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 53

1. Introduction
The controlled manipulation of fluids at submillimeter length scales
affords a multitude of advantages for applications in chemistry and biol-
ogy [1–3], including rapid thermal and biochemical diffusion times [4],
low reagent volumes [5], laminar flow profiles [6], precision handling
of microparticles (e.g., microbeads and living cells) [7,8], and controlled
regulation of microenvironmental characteristics [9,10]. To benefit from
these characteristics, researchers have utilized and/or adapted conven-
tional micromachining methods to fabricate fluidic systems at smaller
scales [11–13]. Initially, these protocols involved manufacturing
microfluidic devices comprised of standard semiconductor materials,
including silicon [14] and glass [15,16]; however, disadvantages associ-
ated with the use of such materials for microfluidic applications engen-
dered the predominant method for fabricating microfluidic devices in
the lab: soft lithography [17–19]. Building upon the elastomeric
replication methods developed at Bell Labs [20], Duffy et al. introduced
a technique for micromolding and bonding the silicone elastomer,
poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), to form enclosed channels for
transporting fluids [21]. An example of a soft lithography protocol for
micromolding a single layer of PDMS is shown in Fig. 1 – left, which con-
sists of five fundamental steps: (i) photoresist (e.g., SU-8) is spin-coated
onto a Si wafer; (ii) microchannel designs are photolithographically de-
fined (e.g., using a photomask and UV light); (iii) the exposed photore-
sist is chemically developed, which selectively removes undesired
photoresist; (iv) liquid PDMS is poured onto the Si wafer with patterned
photoresist, which serves as a negative master; and (v) after the
PDMS is thermally cured, the molded PDMS is removed from the Si
wafer, allowing individual devices to be cut and then punched
with holes at designated inlet/outlet port locations [22–24]. Following
this micromolding process, the PDMS devices can be bonded to a
substrate (e.g., a glass slide or another PDMS layer) using methods
including UV ozone or Oxygen plasma treatment to form enclosed
microchannels.
Soft lithography can also be extended to construct microfluidic de-
vices comprised of multiple discrete layers that are bonded together –
a process termed “multilayer soft lithography” [25,26]. The use of mul-
tiple layers allows for each tier to serve a distinct functionality. For
example, certain layers can operate as relatively rigid components,
while other layers can operate as flexible or deformable components
to yield fluidic routing capabilities that mimic those of electronic circuits
[27–29]. In addition to differences in physical or mechanical functions,
each layer can also be designed with distinct biochemical properties,
such as multilayer microfluidic systems comprised of an intervening
permeable layer that supports biochemical transport for biological stud-
ies [30–33]. Researchers have also developed methods to create non-
planar molds for PDMS micromolding, such as by executing multiple
photolithography steps [34] or using grayscale lithography techniques
[35–38]. These approaches are fundamental to applications including
microfluidic railing via microchannels with multiple heights [39–42]
and hydrodynamic arraying of cells in multilevel trapping structures
[43–45].

Fig. 1. Conceptual illustrations of a fabrication process for constructing a single-layer microfluidic system with integrated electronics. (Left) Soft lithography protocol for micromolding
poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS). (Right) Photolithography-based protocol for patterning metal electrodes, pads, and interconnects onto a glass substrate. (Bottom) The micromolded
PDMS is bonded to the metal-patterned glass substrate (e.g., via UV Ozone or O2 plasma treatment) to form enclosed microfluidic channels with integrated electronics.
54 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
Although researchers have demonstrated the use of solely fluidic
microdevices for diverse biochemical applications [46], the incorpora-
tion of microelectronics with microfluidics can greatly extend the capa-
bilities of self-contained lab-on-a-chip technologies. A variety of
techniques can be employed to integrate electronic components with
microfluidic systems. One approach involves the manual insertion of
conducting wire [47] or other electrode materials [48] into microfluidic
channels or ports. Alternatively, the protocols for soft lithography can be
adjusted to achieve PDMS bonding to a substrate with a planar electron-
ics layer, such as a glass slide [49] or PCB board [50]. An example proto-
col for fabricating a microfluidic device with embedded electrodes is
illustrated in Fig. 1. The process for fabricating the metal-patterned
glass substrate includes five key steps: (i) photoresist is spin-coated
onto a glass substrate; (ii) electrode designs are photolithographically
defined; (iii) a thin layer of a secondary metal to support electrode ad-
hesion is deposited (e.g., via physical vapor deposition (PVD) or
electroplating); (iv) a layer of a primary metal electrode is deposited;
and then (v) the substrate in chemically developed, resulting in liftoff
(i.e., removal) of the undesired photoresist-metal features (Fig. 1 –
right). Thereafter, micromolded PDMS can be bonded to the metal-
glass substrate, resulting in enclosed microchannels that interface
with metal electrodes, pads, and interconnects (Fig. 1 – bottom). To sup-
port this bonding process and the ultimate sealing of the microchannels,
researchers have also augmented conventional techniques with surface
treatments, such as adhesive layers [51], plasma surface modification
[52], dielectric barrier discharge [53], and modified Parylene layers [54].
An alternative approach for electronics integration is to augment the
microchannels directly (rather than the planar substrate) by fabricating
electroactive PDMS composites. Such composites can be achieved by
mixing liquid-phase PDMS with a conductive nanoparticle filler, such
as carbon black [55], silver [55], zinc [56], or carbon nanotubes [57],
prior to thermal curing. This technique allows for the assembly of verti-
cal sidewall electrodes directly in contact with the microfluidic channel
[58] and can also be used to place other active polymer composites ad-
jacent to microfluidic channels [59].
The ability to incorporate microelectronics into microfluidic systems
has enabled a wide range of on-chip capabilities. In a number of cases,
direct fluid contact with the electrodes is not required, such as for
electrode-generated heat sources [60–62] or cell manipulation via
magnetic fields [63–65]. Similarly, electrically generated effects can
be performed with isolated electrodes for applications including
fluorescence-activated cell sorting [66], electrorheological fluid [67]
and valve manipulation [68–70], and droplet electrocoalescence [71,
72]. For electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) – a process by which indi-
vidual microfluidic droplets can be manipulated by dielectrically alter-
ing their surface energy [73] – only partial electrode isolation is
required as fluid droplets remain in direct contact with a common
grounding electrode while isolated from control electrodes by a layer
of dielectric material [74,75]. In contrast, electrodes are directly inte-
grated into microfluidic systems when a direct conducting path into
the fluid is needed, such as for electrophoresis [76], dielectrophoresis
[77,78], fluid manipulation via electrokinetic effects [79,80], and hydro-
gel [81–83] and cell manipulation [84,85].
Although the aforementioned methods of microdevice construction
afford numerous benefits in terms of microscale precision and microelec-
tronics integration, limitations inherent to such protocols remain a
pervasive impediment to progress in chemical and biological fields [86].
A critical barrier for those outside of engineering fields is that gaining
access to the necessary equipment for device construction (e.g., in
microfabrication facilities) is often difficult, and may require considerable
technical training and high usage fees [87]. Furthermore, the clean room-
based procedures for Si wafer processing are typically executed manually,
which can be exceedingly cost, time, and labor-intensive [88]. These is-
sues are exacerbated when fabricating multilayer or multilevel device de-
signs that require distinct tiers to be manually aligned and/or assembled –
procedures that can diminish the precision and reproducibility associated
with microdevice manufacturing [89,90]. Thus, replicating microfluidic
and microelectronic advancements on-site can be challenging. Another
critical issue is the intrinsic restriction of monolithicity, which renders
relatively common features of macroscale fluidic components (e.g., circu-
lar channels with varying diameter, non-planar physical architectures,
etc.) difficult or impossible to achieve in microscale domains. This
monolithicity also constrains the assembly and packaging of microfluidic
systems to relatively planar geometries [91]. More significantly, planar
systems restrict the geometry of applied electromagnetic fields [92] as
planar electrodes cannot generate parallel electric fields [93] (e.g., a re-
quirement for optimal capacitive cell cytometry and droplet detection
[94]. Consequently, alternative micromanufacturing methods capable of
bypassing the aforementioned limitations could offer significant promise
for diverse academic and industrial fields. This potential has motivated re-
search into the use of additive manufacturing for microfluidic devices,
which has already begun to expand the general understanding of the in-
herent advantages – and key areas for further development – of 3D
printed microfluidic devices [95,96].
2. Additive manufacturing approaches
Additive manufacturing – widely referred to as “three-dimensional
(3D) printing” – encompasses a number of strategies for constructing
3D structures through point-by-point and/or layer-by-layer processes.
In general, computer-aided design (CAD) tools are used to generate a dig-
ital 3D model (e.g., in STL file format), which is then imported into
computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software corresponding to a spe-
cific 3D printer or 3D printing process. Lastly, the resulting 3D printing
code (e.g., G-code) is electronically imported into the 3D printer to enable
autonomous device construction. Although researchers have developed a
wide range of 3D manufacturing methodologies for applications through-
out broad academic and industrial fields (e.g., selective laser sintering,
laminated object manufacturing, and binder jetting), the micro/nanoscale
3D printing techniques with advantageous characteristics for lab-on-a-
chip systems stem from three fundamental approaches: (i) extrusion-
based 3D printing, such as fused deposition modelling and direct ink writ-
ing, (ii) stereolithography, and (iii) multijet (or polyjet) modelling.
2.1. Extrusion-based 3D printing
At present, extrusion or nozzle-based 3D printing technologies have
garnered the most interest across academic, industrial, and commercial
spaces. In 1988, S. Scott Crump introduced the first extrusion-based 3D
printing approach. Stemming from his experiences making a toy frog
(for his daughter) using a hot glue gun loaded with a mixture of polyeth-
ylene and candle wax, S. Scott Crump described and patented an
extrusion-based method termed “fused deposition modelling (FDM)”,
by which a 3D object is formed using dispensing heads (e.g., nozzles) to
directly deposit heated thermoplastic materials onto a substrate via a
point-to-point, layer-by-layer process (Fig. 2a) [97]. FDM – alternatively
referred to as “fused filament fabrication (FFF)” as FDM is Trademarked
by Stratasys, Ltd. – supports the 3D printing of a variety of thermoplastic
or thermosetting materials, such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS),
polylactic acid (PLA), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). In the late
1990s, Cesarano and Calvert adapted this concept to extrude and deposit
pseudoplastic materials [98], including ceramics and composites, via a
technique termed “robocasting”. Further extensions of these methodolo-
gies in which materials or “inks” are extruded through a nozzle and de-
posited point-to-point, layer-by-layer to generate 3D structures without
requiring thermal processing steps (i.e., heating or cooling) are character-
ized as “direct ink writing (DIW)” [99–101].
2.2. Stereolithography
In 1981, Hideo Kodama presented and demonstrated several strate-
gies for building 3D objects by exposing a liquid-phase photo-hardening
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 55

Fig. 2. Conceptual illustrations of fundamental additive manufacturing or “three-dimensional (3D) printing” approaches. (a) Extrusion-based printing, such as fused deposition modelling
(FDM) and direct ink writing (DIW). Materials are extruded through nozzles and deposited point-by-point, layer-by-layer to fabricate 3D structures. (b) Stereolithography (SLA). Focused
light induces localized photopolymerization (white) of a liquid-phase photocurable material (blue) point-by-point, layer-by-layer to fabricate 3D structures comprising cured material.
(c) Multijet Modelling (MJM). Multiple inkjets in parallel deposit microdroplets of photocurable materials (colors) and sacrificial support material (gray) simultaneously line-by-line,
layer-by-layer to fabricate 3D structures. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

polymer to light in layer-by-layer protocols [102]. Although he filed an
initial patent application, Kodoma did not file a full patent specification.
In 1984, Charles W. Hull filed a patent for a similar system, which he
termed a “stereolithography apparatus (SLA)” [103]. SLA 3D printing in-
volves using a bath of liquid-phase photoreactive material and focused
light to photocure (i.e., solidify) the material in specified locations in a
point-by-point, layer-by-layer fashion to ultimately fabricate a 3D ob-
ject comprising cured material (Fig. 2b) [103]. It should be noted that
the initialism “SLA” has since come to be used to describe the process,
rather than the apparatus; however, the initialism “SL” is often used in-
stead. In developing SLA, Hull also created the widely-used STL file for-
mat for 3D models, and pioneered the digital slicing and hatching (i.e.,
infill) approaches that underlie many 3D printing technologies. “Direct
Laser Writing (DLW)” – an extension of SLA in which two-photon ab-
sorption phenomena are harnessed to initiate spatially-controlled
photopolymerization at a single point in space – has enabled 3D
manufacturing with resolutions down to the 100 nm range [104]. Sub-
sequent adaptations of SLA have included: (i) the use of projection-
based photoexposure (e.g., via digital micromirror device (DMD) or dig-
ital light processing (DLP) technologies) to cure an entire layer at once
(in contrast to the point-by-point process inherent to the use of a fo-
cused laser); (ii) continuous-exposure versions of projection-based
concepts, such as continuous liquid interface production (CLIP) [105];
and recently, (iii) holographic approaches for curing entire volumes in
a single step [106].
2.3. Multijet modelling
In the early 1990s, Yamane et al. invented a technique for building
3D structures by inkjet printing a photosetting or thermosetting
56 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68

Fig. 3. Examples of using 3D printing to fabricate 3D molds for PDMS curing. (a) Concept of using a computer-aided design (CAD) file to 3D print a mold that allows for PDMS replica
molding [112]. (b) Illustrations of using multiple discrete 3D printed molding components (gray) to mold PDMS (blue), after which the 3D printed molds can be removed [117].
(c) Concept and results for creating a single-body PDMS device with an enclosed 3D microchannel via casting PDMS around a solid SLA-printed microchannel template, followed by
manual removal of the template [118]. (d) Concept and results for using double-sided molding procedures with 3D printed molds to fabricate male-female alignment structures for
assembling complex multilayer microfluidic systems with five distinct layers [119]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

material layer-by-layer [107], which combined with the simultaneous
printing of a sacrificial support material [108] and parallel dispensing
strategies [109], became the basis for “Multijet Modelling (MJM)” ap-
proaches. Referred to as either “Multijet” or “Polyjet” 3D printing,
MJM entails the use of high numbers of microscale inkjets in parallel
to simultaneously deposit microdroplets of photopolymer/photoplastic
materials and sacrificial support materials in a line-by-line, layer-by-
layer process (with continual UV photocuring) to produce 3D objects
(Fig. 2c). After completion of the 3D printing process, the support mate-
rial – typically a water-soluble gel-like material or a meltable wax – can
be removed through post-processing procedures [110,111].
3. Microfluidic systems via 3D printing
3.1. 3D printed transfer molding
One of the earliest examples of utilizing 3D printing technologies for
microfluidic applications involved shaping of elastomeric polymers
using a 3D printed mold [112]. McDonald et al. applied an earlier MJM
approach, referred to as “solid-object printing”, to 3D print various
molds for PDMS micromolding (Fig. 3a), enabling microfluidic systems
with serpentine channels and multilayered vias [112]. Subsequently, re-
searchers have extended this work to create molds using SLA [113] and
MJM [114]. In addition to patterning features using external molds, re-
searchers have also 3D printed molds of internal features, which can
be removed after PDMS curing [115–118]. For example, Hwang et al.
created multiple MJM 3D printed molds that can be assembled to sur-
round liquid-phase PDMS during the curing process, and then removed
thereafter (relying on the flexibility of PDMS) to create complex PDMS
channel architectures (Fig. 3b) [117]. Costa et al. used a similar 3D
printed template molding technique to create a “Thrombosis-on-a-
Chip” device by: (i) using SLA-printed 3D microchannel templates
(~ 120–400 μm in diameter) designed to mimic the shape of healthy
and diseased (narrowed) vascular structures; (ii) using the templates
for PDMS casting; and then (iii) removing the 3D printed templates to
leave behind empty microchannels within the solidified PDMS
(Fig. 3c) [118]. Additionally, Glick et al. introduced a double-sided mold-
ing procedure, which supports single-step fabrication of structures
including thin membranes as well as double-sided alignment structures
to decrease the time and labor associated with assembling multilayer
microfluidic systems with many distinct layers (Fig. 3d) [119]. Com-
pared to the concept of 3D printing an entire microfluidic system, the
use of 3D printing for fabricating molds provides several advantages:
(i) each mold can be used for the fabrication of multiple microfluidic de-
vices, saving on 3D printing times and costs, and (ii) the process is com-
patible with conventional microfluidic fabrication materials, most
notably PDMS [120–123]. The latter benefit allows for researchers to
employ similar micromolding procedures, yet achieve geometric char-
acteristics that would be exceedingly difficult to achieve using conven-
tional methods. Nonetheless, the molds are still limited in geometric
versatility by the requirement that they must be able to support
demolding processes. Thus, although 3D printed transfer molding pro-
cedures can overcome issues associated with clean room-based wafer
processing, many of the limitations associated with protocols subse-
quent to wafer mold fabrication remain.
3.2. Microfluidic systems via extrusion-based 3D printing
Among the types of extrusion-based 3D printing, FDM currently rep-
resents the most widely used approach for commercial desktop 3D
printing. Although a number of efforts have employed FDM to build flu-
idic systems [124–128], the inherent trade-off between feature resolu-
tion and fabrication time has limited its efficacy for microfluidics
manufacturing [95]. Instead, the use of extrusion-based 3D printing
for microfluidics applications has predominantly involved employing
DIW methods to deposit sacrificial materials or “fugitive inks” [101],
which can then be casted and subsequently removed. In particular,
the Jennifer Lewis group has pioneered a number of fugitive ink-based
DIW strategies for resolving 3D microfluidic systems. In one of the ear-
liest of these approaches, Therriault et al. presented a four-step protocol
for constructing 3D microfluidic networks: (i) DIW is employed to 3D
print a network comprised of a fugitive ink; (ii) the 3D printed network
is then casted with a surrounding liquid resin; (iii) the resin is solidified
via a curing process; and (iv) the fugitive ink is heated to support lique-
faction, enabling vacuum-based extraction to leave behind a 3D net-
work of hollow, interconnected microfluidic channels (Fig. 4a) [99].
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 57

Fig. 4. Approaches for fabricating 3D microfluidic networks via 3D printed sacrificial material or fugitive inks. (a) Concept of DIW of fugitive ink for casting to resolve a self-supporting
network of interconnected microfluidic channels [99]. (b) Omnidirectional DIW of a suspended fugitive ink that can be removed via vacuum to achieve a vascular-inspired microfluidic
network [130]. (c) DIW of a sacrificial carbohydrate glass to fabricate a 3D microfluidic mixer [132]. (d) Jetting of a sacrificial wax-based support material to fabricate 3D
microchannels and vias [134].

Wu et al. adapted this approach by applying an omnidirectional printing
technique [129] to print free-floating fugitive ink within a reservoir of a
photocurable hydrogel (Fig. 4b) [130]. After the printing process, the re-
searchers photocured the surrounding hydrogel and then evacuated the
liquid-phase fugitive ink via vacuum. The resulting system included
vascular-inspired 3D microchannels within the hydrogel matrix
(Fig. 4b) [130]. Using a similar approach, Miller et al. 3D printed a 3D
carbohydrate glass lattice; however, in this case, the 3D sacrificial net-
work was encapsulated with living cells and ECM before being dissolved
in media [131]. Gelber et al. also 3D printed sacrificial structures using a
carbohydrate glass fugitive ink, which was used to demonstrate a 3D
combinatorial fluid mixer (Fig. 4c) [132]. Kolesky et al. further extended
this approach in a combinational method than involved using DIW to
bioprint two distinct cell-laden gels adjacent to a fugitive ink, which
was ultimately removed and then lined with endothelial cells to emu-
late microvasculature [133]. It is important to note, however, that such
sacrificial approaches are not limited only to extrusion-based processes
as demonstrated by Li et al. employing wax jetting for sacrificial materi-
al deposition for subsequent casting (Fig. 4d) [134].
A significant advantage of conventional polymer filament-based
FDM for microfluidics is the ability to print using multiple filament ma-
terial extrusion heads [135], which Li et al. utilized to fabricate
microchannels with embedded membranes made from a porous mate-
rial in a single step for the detection of nitrate content in soil [136].
Notably, MacDonald et al. compared the accuracy and precision of
FDM-printed microfluidics with respect to alternative 3D printing ap-
proaches and observed that ~600 μm peak-to-peak surface abnormali-
ties in FDM-based microchannels – created using a ~ 300 μm-wide
extrusion nozzle – provided additional surface area for laminar flow in-
terfacial contact that expedited diffusive mixing [137]. Thus, FDM can be
employed to fabricate FDM-printed laminar flow microfluidic mixers;
however, the use of FDM-printed microfluidic devices should be re-
stricted to applications in which unintended multi-fluid mixing would
not negatively affect the performance of the device [137].
3.3. Microfluidic systems via stereolithography
In recent years, SLA has emerged as the predominant method by
which researchers 3D print entire microfluidic systems [138–142]. Au
et al. evaluated mail-order SLA-based microfluidic devices designed
with rectangular microchannels that varied in size, revealing channel
resolutions on the order of 300–400 μm and also presenting methods
to improve optical clarity (Fig. 5a) [90]. Concurrently, Shallan et al. pre-
sented the concept of using DMD projection-based SLA to fabricate 3D
microfluidic gradient and microdroplet generators (Fig. 5b) [138].
Bhargava et al. developed a number of discrete and reconfigurable ele-
ments, such as junctions as well as microfluidic resistors in the form of
750 × 750 μm2 microchannels with varying lengths (and therefore,
58 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
Fig. 5. SLA-based 3D printed microfluidic systems. (a) Mixing of three fluids in a 3D microfluidic device [90]. (b) A 3D printed microfluidic gradient generator [138]. (c) Discrete 3D printed
microfluidic elements connected to achieve fluidic mixing of two distinct fluids followed by droplet generation [139]. (d) A 3D printed microfluidic valve and a 3D printed multi-fluid
perfusion chamber comprising four integrated valves [141].
resistances) [139]. These elements were utilized for microfluidic appli-
cations including laminar mixing and droplet generation (Fig. 5c)
[139]. Macdonald et al. revealed that SLA-printed microchannels more
reliably and accurately replicated as-designed dimensions (~26 ± 20
μm wider) with lower surface roughness than those fabricated using
FDM (~ 109 ± 36 μm narrower) or Polyjet (~ 40 ± 36 μm narrower)
[137]. The results revealed that SLA offers an effective technology for
fabricating microfluidic devices for applications in which limited lami-
nar flow mixing is required, such as for diffusive particle separation
[137]. To support cell culture within a 3D printed microfluidic device,
Urrios et al. demonstrated the use of several types of DLP-based SLA to
fabricate microfluidic systems using a photocurable low-MW poly(eth-
ylene glycol) diacrylate (MW 250) (PEG-DA-250) [140]. In contrast to
the aforementioned systems with static components, Au et al. also pre-
sented 3D printed microfluidic valves with deformable membranes,
which were employed to create a peristaltic pump comprised of three
valves and a multi-fluid perfusion chamber comprised of four valves
(Fig. 5d) [141]. Other groups have since demonstrated additional SLA-
based valving capabilities for 3D printed microfluidic systems [142,143].
In terms of the maximum achievable feature resolution, SLA is the
only 3D printing approach that has been demonstrated, as of the writing
of this review, capable of fabricating microchannels with sub-100 μm
features, on a scale more comparable to that possible using conventional
microfluidics manufacturing techniques [144]. Using a commercially
available SLA resin, Monaghan et al. demonstrated square partial-
microchannels as small as 50 μm × 50 μm are achievable when fabricat-
ed onto a flat surface, which can then be sealed to form an enclosed
microchannel [145]. Below this 50 μm limit, the pixelated resolution of
the UV light source resulted in unintended curing of resin inside the
channels. Because the precise chemical formulation of the SLA resin
has a significant effect on the practical resolution of SLA-printed fea-
tures, Gong et al. developed customized PEGDA-based SLA resins with
optimized formations of the UV absorber molecules as well as lower vis-
cosities than commercial resins [146], which enabled them to fabricate
microchannel networks with 60 μm-tall voids and 20 μm-thick mem-
branes [143]. Recently, the Nordin group further optimized a custom
SLA-resin to achieve 18 μm × 20 μm microchannels [147], which to
the authors' knowledge, marks the smallest 3D printed microchannels
reported in the literature at this time. Additionally, Kotz et al. created
an SLA-compatible silica nanocomposite that enabled conversion to
transparent fused silica glass (via heat treatment) following the 3D
printing process, and demonstrated resolutions on the order of tens of
microns [148]. Thus, customization of SLA-compatible photomaterials
appears to be a critical area of research to further improve the feature
resolution and material versatility of SLA-printed microfluidic systems.
Researchers have also leveraged the submicron-scale precision of
DLW to 3D print structures within conventionally fabricated microfluidic
channels [149–151]. To date, DLW approaches have achieved the highest
feature resolutions for 3D printing [152–154]; however, similar to
extrusion-based 3D printing, this feature resolution can also be a limita-
tion. Specifically, for DLW, the trade-off between voxel size (i.e., the 3D
point of two-photon polymerization) and 3D printing time has typically
limited the total build volume of 3D printed structures to within the 100
μm3 to 1 mm3 range [155]. Thus, initial efforts towards using DLW for 3D
printed microfluidics involved direct-writing structures within pre-
fabricated, single-layer PDMS microfluidic channels [149,150]. By first
loading the photocurable material into microfluidic channels, re-
searchers were able to use DLW to photocure complex geometric
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 59

Fig. 6. MJM-based 3D printed microfluidic systems. (a) A DNA-inspired microfluidic system architecture comprised of eight embedded microfluidic channels [110]. (b) Schematic
illustration and results for 3D printed modular microfluidic components assembled by means of non-3D printed rubber O-rings and metal pins [157]. (c) Fundamental 3D printed
microfluidic circuit components (left), including a microfluidic capacitor, diode, and two transistor designs, and a single-input-based multi-flow controller (right) comprised of four
distinct microfluidic transistors [110]. (d) Multi-material 3D printed “Quake Valves” comprised of photoplastic and a flexible photomaterial for the membrane [162]. (e) Multi-material
3D printed microfluidic capacitor (left) and transistors (right) comprised of a photoplastic material as well as a flexible photomaterial for deformable diaphragms and sealing O-rings [163].

structures in situ to facilitate improved diffusion-based mixing dynamics
[149] and construct multidirectional fluidic vias [150]. Lamont et al. re-
cently extended this approach to 3D print microfluidic diode compo-
nents within PDMS microchannels [151].
One condition of note for SLA-based methods, however, is that the
3D printed structures must be self-supporting. For geometries that do
not satisfy this condition, fully integrated support structures (e.g.,
pillar-like ribs) must be added to the design to facilitate successful
prints [105]. Although such structures can be manually removed from
macroscale objects following the 3D printing process, doing so for
submillimeter-scale systems can be extremely challenging or unfeasible
[110].
60 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
3.4. Microfluidic systems via multijet modelling
The ability to simultaneously 3D print device materials as well as
sacrificial support materials has enabled MJM-based microfluidic sys-
tems to be constructed with the most complex physical geometries of
any additive manufacturing approach. For example, a 3D microfluidic
system with a DNA double helix-like architecture comprised of eight
microfluidic channels is shown in Fig. 6a [110]. Initially, efforts to utilize
MJM to 3D print microfluidic devices involved the production of rela-
tively simple, straight channel geometries, yet demonstrated the poten-
tial for integrating non-3D printed parts, such as membrane inserts
[156]. Lee et al. extended this concept by presenting a modular,
breadboard-inspired technique in which discrete microfluidic compo-
nents (e.g., channels, mixers, junctions, etc.) could be connected through
the use of non-3D printed rubber O-rings and metal pins to realize
functional devices (Fig. 6b) [157]. Taking advantage of the 3D structural
versatility of MJM, Sweet et al. demonstrated a 3D multi-fluid concen-
tration gradient generator for clinical drug screening applications
[158]. To investigate the potential of using MJM to enhance device au-
tonomy, Sochol et al. 3D printed a fundamental class of microfluidic
circuit components – namely microfluidic capacitors, diodes, and tran-
sistors (capable of pressure-gain) (Fig. 6c – left) [110]. Larger, fully inte-
grated microfluidic circuits were also 3D printed (comprised of multiple
components), including a full-wave rectifier and single-input-regulated
multi-flow controller (Fig. 6c – right) [110]. Sweet et al. later extended
the use of these components by integrating several 3D printed fluidic
circuit elements in order to realize finger-powered fluidic pumping
and mixing systems [159].
An important benefit of MJM is that devices can be printed not only
with a single part material and a support material [160], but also with
additional part materials (or functional gradings of materials) to realize
multi-material 3D printed microfluidic systems [161,162]. To demon-
strate this concept, Keating et al. 3D printed a “Quake Valve” [26] with
a rigid photoplastic for the overall system, but with a flexible rubber-
like material for the valving membrane (Fig. 6d) [162]. Recently, Hub-
bard et al. demonstrated multi-material microfluidic capacitors, diodes,
and transistors, which comprised two distinct materials: (i) a non-
compliant photoplastic material for functionally ‘rigid’ features, and
(ii) a flexible photomaterial for deformable diaphragms and sealing O-
rings (Fig. 6e) [163].
Despite the aforementioned advancements, it is important to note
that although MJM technologies provide considerable advantages in
terms of multi-material integration, build volumes, print speeds, and
geometric versatility, MJM material selection remains limited to a rela-
tively small number of proprietary materials [164,165]. Among the ma-
terials that are available, the vast majority are limited in terms of
biocompatibility, which may impede the adoption of MJM approaches
for biological and biomedical microfluidic applications [111]. In re-
sponse, various techniques have been demonstrated that improve
MJM material biocompatibility, primarily by preventing leaching of cy-
totoxic monomers into contacting fluid. For example, conformal PDMS
and polystyrene-based coatings offer one route to enhance endothelial
cell adherence to inner microchannel surfaces for improved efficiency
of cell lysis [166]. Similarly, researchers have observed that
polyurethane-based scaffold drop-casting coatings can improve both
substrate cytocompatibility and hydrophilicity for enhanced attach-
ment and proliferation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells
(HUVECs) on 3D printed surfaces [167].
The use of sacrificial support materials presents challenges for
microfluidics as all internal voids (e.g., microchannels) are filled with
these materials directly after the 3D printing process, which can de-
mand significant post-processing procedures as well as component de-
sign changes. For example, to remove sacrificial wax support materials
from device microchannels, Sochol et al. executed a multistep protocol
including: (i) immersing the devices in mineral oil heated to 80 °C;
(ii) manually inputting hot mineral oil through the microchannels via
a syringe; and (iii) inputting pressurized air through the microchannels
[110]. In addition, the microfluidic components had to be designed with
additional input/output ports to facilitate this process, such as fluidic di-
odes that required four ports rather than the standard two (Fig. 6c – bot-
tom left) [110]. The use of water-soluble support materials can alleviate
the need for such design changes; however, it is important to note that
the removal process for such materials is diffusion dominated. In con-
trast to wax-based support materials, which can be liquefied upon
heating, water-soluble gel-based support materials can only be re-
moved by either physically dislodging it [162] or allowing the material
to dissolve over time (often over multiple days) [137,163,168]. The
diffusion-limited challenges associated with the dissolution of gel-
based support material from within microchannels with complex
shapes and enclosed structures [169] often guide the design of devices
to support physical removal by using primarily straight and/or millime-
ter-scale microchannels that can accommodate the insertion of a re-
moval tool [156,162]. Although the addition of multiple access ports
and external stimuli (e.g., sonication) can accelerate the dissolution pro-
cess [163], the removal time is directly related to the length of internal
microchannels and inversely related to the microchannel diameter. As
a result, many microdevice geometries, such as the DNA-inspired
microfluidic system shown in Fig. 6a, would be difficult or unfeasible
to achieve due to the challenges associated with the water-soluble sup-
port material removal process.
4. Microelectronics via 3D printing
4.1. 3D printing of conductive materials
In contrast to the area of 3D printed microfluidics in which advance-
ments have mainly stemmed from demonstrating devices with newly
manufacturable forms (e.g., microchannel geometries and sizes), the
field of 3D printed microelectronics has instead focused predominantly
on function – i.e., achieving printable conductive materials with desired
electrical characteristics [170]. At present, researchers have primarily
employed extrusion-based 3D printing approaches for electronics appli-
cations; however, there have been adaptations of such processes to en-
able new capabilities. In particular, Ahn et al. demonstrated an
omnidirectional printing strategy to achieve flexible and spanning mi-
croelectrodes with out-of-plane vias (Fig. 7a) [129]. Adams et al. ex-
tended this technique to 3D print electrically conductive antennas
onto convex and concave substrates (Fig. 7b) [171]. Notably, Zhou
et al. further extended these strategies to 3D print a silver-
nanoparticle ink to create both in-plane and out-of-plane passive
radio frequency (RF) structures, including various designs of inductors,
transformers, and oscillators (Fig. 7c) [172]. The researchers were able
to integrate fully printed structures with discrete transistors to create
RF circuits capable of being directly incorporated with complementary
metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) chips [172]. To improve the po-
tential for out-of-plane 3D printing, Skylar-Scott et al. demonstrated a
laser-enhanced DIW approach in which a laser is used to selectively an-
neal conductive inks during the deposition process to create conductive
metallic interconnects and freestanding spiral architectures (Fig. 7d)
[173]. Liu et al. presented an additional adaptation of DIW, termed
“low-temperature DIW (LTDW)”, which enabled 3D printing of highly
porous 3D LiFePO4 electrodes [174]. Although the aforementioned
works provide a number of deposition strategies, fundamentally, it is
the conductivity (and reproducibility) of printed materials that underlie
to efficacy of 3D printed microelectronics.
One of the key challenges of 3D printing electrically conductive inks is
that the porosity of fabricated parts may cause electrical shorts due to the
spreading of the inks on surface layers [175] or between stacked layers
[176]. To reduce such issues, one approach is to use micromachining tech-
niques to build fine channel features that serve to guide the deposition of
conductive materials, while electronic components can be manually
placed in desired locations (Fig. 8a) [177]. Alternatively, through process
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 61

Fig. 7. Adaptations of extrusion-based 3D printing for conductive materials. (a) Omnidirectional DIW concept (left) and demonstration of 3D printing silver interconnects on a gallium
arsenide–based, 4-by-4 LED chip array (right) [129]. (b) Conformal printing of electrically small antennas on convex (left) and concave (right) surfaces [171]. (c) Omnidirectional DIW
of a viscoelastic silver ink to manufacture an inductor (top left), a solenoid transformer (bottom left), and a wireless transmitter (integrated with pick-and-placed components) clocked
by an oscillator (right) [172]. (d) Laser-enhanced DIW of freestanding metallic spring structures [173].

optimization, conductive inks can be directly printed without the need for
guiding grooves [178–182]. For example, researchers have reported resis-
tivities for silver inks in the range of 1 × 10−7 Ωm to 1 × 10−5 Ωm [177,
183]. To improve the properties of deposited silver inks, researchers have
demonstrated that local annealing of printed silver conductive traces
yielded a resistivity of 4.3 × 10−8 Ωm – close to the bulk silver resistivity
of 1.9 × 10−8 Ωm [184]. Further advancements will be enabled by re-
search into alternative, application-specific inks with additional desirable
properties, such as elasticity and viscoelasticity, biocompatibility, high
temperature stability and controllable porosity [185–188].
As the capabilities of DIW increase, the much-needed validation of
the technology and its potential uses in the real world are critically im-
portant. Gubanova et al. integrated DIW with CMOS manufacturing to
construct ion-sensitive field-effect transistors (ISFETs) for micro volume
analysis [189]. Other groups have bypassed CMOS manufacturing and
3D printed mesoscale versions of embedded circuitry components,
such as capacitors, inductors, and high pass filters as well as copper-
based microwave metamaterials [190,191]. Additional strategies have
enabled more complex integration of conductive materials into 3D
printing processes for electronics. For example, Muth et al. presented
62 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68

Fig. 8. Microelectronic systems via 3D printing. (a) 3D printing of electronic modules by combining FDM, micromachining, and DIW technologies [177]. (b) Capacitive strain sensors
fabricated by a multicore-shell extrusion-based 3D printing process [193]. (c) Elastic deformation and restoration of an SLA-printed structure comprised of an elastic, transparent,
conductive ionic composite hydrogel [199]. (d) Electronic components and systems fabricated by the combination of MJM and liquid metal paste filling approaches [203]. (e,
f) Electronic systems fabricated by integrating SLA, DIW, and “pick-and-place” strategies, including: (e) a timer circuit [210], and (f) a six-sided gaming die comprising a
microprocessor, an accelerometer, and light-emitting diodes [211].

an embedded 3D printing approach that involved extruding conductive
ink inside of a reservoir of liquid photopolymer to form resistive sensing
elements for flexible strain sensors [192]. Researchers have also demon-
strated that the extrusion process itself can be adapted, such that multi-
ple materials are 3D printed simultaneously from a single nozzle [193].
In particular, Frutiger et al. fabricated capacitive soft strain sensors
through an extrusion-based multicore-shell printing strategy (Fig. 8b)
[193]. Microchannels filled with liquid metals at room temperature,
such as mercury, gallium, and their alloys, also offer a potential route
to improve the speed and geometric complexity of liquid metal-
integrated microfluidic structures [194].
Although extrusion techniques represent the most popular 3D print-
ing strategy for manufacturing conductive structures, researchers have
explored alternative approaches as well. Interest in light driven 3D tech-
nologies such as SLA/DLP and DLW for the creation of conductive struc-
tures has increased in recent years due to the superior geometric
controls, material customization, and scalability [195–201]. For exam-
ple, Odent et al. presented elastic and conductive ionic composite
hydrogels that are compatible with SLA processes and demonstrated
both elastic deformation and conductivities up to 2.9 S m−1 (Fig. 8c)
[199]. Recently, researchers have adapted DLP-based 3D printing tech-
niques to achieve multiple material prints – with conductive and non-
conductive regions – including conductive structures composed of
multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) [195]. On a much smaller
scale, DLW has been used to 3D print gold microstructures through
two photon metal-salt reduction of a polymer gold composite material
[196]. Researchers have also investigated the utilization of a selective
laser sintering technique for carbon nanotube (CNT) wrapped thermo-
plastic polyurethane (TPU) powders, revealing conductivity of up to
10 Ωm at 1 wt% CNTs [202].
To provide an alternative to DIW of conductive materials, Wu et al.
presented an approach that entails 3D printing a structure with empty
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68 63

channels, which are subsequently filled with a conductive liquid metal
paste (Fig. 8d) [203]. This strategy enabled fabrication of electronic
components including resistors, inductors, and capacitors, as well as in-
tegrated circuits, such as an inductor and capacitor resonant tank capa-
ble of passive wireless sensing functions. Similar to prior works,
however, the resistivity of the filled liquid metal paste was measured
as 3.6 × 10−6 Ωm due to the poor packing density of silver particles in-
side the channels and inefficient curing processes [203]. Agarwala et al.
adapted this approach to achieve microchannel strain sensors showing
imporoved conductivity and long term stability [204].
In many cases, researchers have investigated combinational ap-
proaches in which: (i) the general structure of a system is 3D printed
using an established technology; (ii) the electronic interconnects are
3D printed via DIW; and (iii) commercial electronic components are
physically placed in specified locations at intermediate stages during
the 3D printing processes. For example, researchers have demonstrated
3D printed antennas and microwave devices by merging FDM with DIW
of conductive inks [205–207]. Similarly, a number of groups have
integrated SLA with DIW (while embedding commercial electrical com-
ponents during the printing process) to fabricate a variety of electronic
systems, including motion sensors [208,209] and timer circuits (Fig. 8e)
[210]. For example, Fig. 8f shows a six-sided gaming die consisting of a
microprocessor, an accelerometer, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
[211]. One general problem of such methods, however, is that the
photocurable materials currently used for SLA processes may be affect-
ed by weathering, aging, dimensional changes, and UV exposure doses,
and thus, could limit the reliability of SLA-DIW-based 3D printed elec-
tronics [177].
4.2. 3D printing of semiconductor and other electronic materials
In addition to polymers and conductors, 3D printed microelectronics
can benefit from various materials to construct microelectronic devices
of different functionalities, such as semiconductor, magnetic, and piezo-
electric materials; however, there are three key issues in producing
these materials with high quality via 3D printing processes. First, most

Fig. 9. 3D printed systems comprising semiconductor and additional materials. (a) 3D printed quantum dot LEDs [212]. (b) A 3D printed bionic ear fabricated by DIW of cell-seeded
biomaterial and a silver nanoparticle-based polymer [213]. (c) A Li-ion microbattery fabricated by DIW of LTO and LFP [214]. (d) Cuboidal SiC ceramic lattices fabricated by
robocasting [222]. (e) Graphene oxide composite structures fabricated by DIW [225].
64 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
of these materials are made in the form of nanoparticles to be mixed
with solvents and polymers for desirable viscosity and printing proper-
ties with respect to specific 3D printing processes. Annealing protocols
are generally required to remove the solvents and/or polymers, and
the residual material can degrade the properties of 3D printed struc-
tures. Second, it is difficult to achieve single crystal structure from the
nanoparticles without voids and grain boundaries. Because most high-
performance devices are based on single crystalline structures, the char-
acteristics of 3D printed devices are expected to degrade as compared to
current state-of-the-art electronic devices. Third, many microelectronic
elements, such as transistors, are based on the architecture of 2D struc-
tures made of thin films instead of true 3D structures. As such, it is not
yet evident that constructing 3D printed microelectronics comprising
large out-of-plane thickness is beneficial.
Nevertheless, there have been several recent reports describing
functional devices based on 3D printing materials beyond conductive
electrodes and interconnects. One notable example is a 3D printed
quantum dot LED presented by Kong et al., which was constructed by
interweaving five different materials: (i) semiconducting inorganic
nanoparticles, (ii) elastomeric matrix, (iii) organic polymers for charge
transport, (iv) metal conductors, and (v) a UV transparent substrate
(Fig. 9a) [212]. Mannoor et al. demonstrated the ability to create bionic
ears by using DIW to 3D print a cell-laden hydrogel matrix and an
intertwined conducting silver nanoparticle-based polymer (Fig. 9b)
[213]. Sun et al. employed DIW to 3D print Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) and LiFePO4
(LFP) in adjacent architectures to serve as materials for the anode and
cathode, respectively, for a Li-Ion microbattery (Fig. 9c) [214].
Researchers have also extended DIW approaches to 3D print a vari-
ety of composite materials for microelectronic applications. Although
3D printing of conductive carbon materials was recently reviewed by
Fu et al. [215], it is of note that a material of growing interest in the ad-
ditive manufacturing field is graphene as well as its oxidized and re-
duced forms, graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide
(rGO), respectively [216–219]. Graphene-based polymer composites
offer substantial increases in thermal stability, conductivity, and me-
chanical strength all while being relatively inexpensive to synthesize
and biocompatible [218]. Researchers have also demonstrated the abil-
ity to 3D print structures comprising SiO2 [220], ZnO [221], SiC (Fig. 9d)
[222], BaTiO3 [223], ZrO2 [224], and GO (Fig. 9e) [225]. One important
caveat, however, is that the efficacy of 3D printing a number of these
materials relies on high-temperature post-processing protocols. For ex-
ample, 3D printed ZnO required sintering temperatures of up to 1500 °C
[221], which render its incorporation with other materials difficult.
5. Conclusion
Submillimeter-scale additive manufacturing approaches are
empowering researchers to pioneer entirely new classes of microfluidic
and microelectronic systems. Although these efforts have generated
considerable interest in academia, industry, and the general public, in
many ways, the overall field remains in its infancy. At present, state-
of-the-art demonstrations of 3D printing-based microfluidic and micro-
electronic capabilities serve as important first steps towards a longer-
term transition of emerging technologies from the lab to real-world
uses and commercialization. It is important to note, however, that the
utility of additive micro/nanomanufacturing for industrial applications
is founded on 3D printing-induced benefits that are unequivocally supe-
rior to conventional manufacturing methods. In the case that additive
manufacturing protocols continue to suffer from relatively slow fabrica-
tion speeds and low production volumes, the aforementioned benefits
will instead need to stem from the unparalleled geometric control
and/or device customization afforded by distinct 3D printing processes.
Thus, it is critical for researchers to focus less on evaluating how 3D
printing-based devices can replicate structures and/or functionalities
that can be readily produced using conventional means, and instead,
focus more on demonstrating new, unique capabilities enabled by
additive manufacturing that would be difficult or unfeasible to achieve
via traditional microfabrication protocols.
A key challenge to this goal, however, is that while a myriad of addi-
tive manufacturing strategies offer the potential to serve as promising
alternatives to conventional methods of fabricating solely microfluidic
or microelectronic systems, no singular 3D printing approach has thus
far exhibited characteristics that would be ideal for the construction of
microfluidic devices with fully integrated microelectronics. Specifically,
such a technology would enable: (i) simultaneous 3D printing of electri-
cally conductive materials, non-conductive materials, and microchannel
structures, (ii) precise resolution of both external and internal features
(e.g., for electrodes and microchannels, respectively), (iii) minimal
labor before, during, and after the printing process, (iv) high geometric
and architectural versatility, (v) a wide selection of printable materials,
including materials that are biocompatible and conductive materials
that exhibit low electrical resistivity, (vi) rapid fabrication times, and
(vii) low costs. Unfortunately, recent works have revealed that current
3D printing techniques that are beneficial for microfluidics manufactur-
ing suffer from numerous limitations in the context of microelectronics
fabrication and vice versa.
Researchers have demonstrated that extrusion-based 3D printing
methods such as DIW provide significant advantages compared to
other additive processes for fabricating microelectronic systems [226],
yet such approaches are ill-suited for microfluidics manufacturing [96,
164,227]. One could employ extrusion-based 3D printing methods to
first deposit a combination of electrically conductive materials, non-
conductive materials, and fugitive inks to build an integrated multi-
material structure, and then execute standard casting and fugitive ink
removal protocols [99,130–133] to resolve hollow microchannels that
intersect with or run adjacent to the deposited conductive materials.
Despite providing a potential means towards microfluidics and micro-
electronics integration, such a strategy would suffer from considerable
post-processing as well as the inherent geometric constraints of
extrusion-based 3D printing.
Conversely, SLA and MJM approaches are superior to extrusion-
based methods for microfluidics manufacturing [95], and current re-
search into custom SLA resin development and improvements to the
3D printing equipment hardware has begun to improve fabrication of
sub-100 μm microstructures [143,144,146]; however, such approaches
have not yet been demonstrated for the direct placement and/or inte-
gration of electrically conductive materials during the 3D printing pro-
cess. Instead, such methods typically require extensive post-process
metallization protocols [228–230] that continue to be limited by many
of the issues associated with conventional microfabrication. As a
substitutive route, researchers have demonstrated that 3D printed
microfluidic systems can be designed to incorporate the manual in-
sertion of non-3D printed electronic components [139,231]. Yet,
such protocols are inherently limited by factors such as labor, preci-
sion, and repeatability, and thus, are not ideal for the long-term goals
of the field.
Ultimately, we do not expect additive manufacturing to fully replace
conventional manufacturing protocols with respect to microfluidics and
microelectronics fabrication. Rather, we anticipate that the selection
and use of a specific fabrication strategy will be highly dependent on
case-by-case factors that directly correlate to the unique capabilities of
distinct manufacturing approaches. Consequently, it is paramount that
researchers refrain from employing additive manufacturing for cases
in which conventional methods would undoubtedly be superior, and in-
stead, take advantage of the distinctive potential afforded by 3D printing
to create novel microsystems with beneficial characteristics that would
be challenging to achieve through any other manufacturing process.
Although it will likely take considerable time to develop 3D printing
technologies that are ideally suited for both microfluidics and micro-
electronics fabrication, researchers have already made significant
strides developing and leveraging additive manufacturing methodolo-
gies to overcome many of the limitations of traditional clean room-
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
based microfabrication processes. In the remaining interim, it will be
critical for researchers to continue inventing and demonstrating novel
strategies to accelerate the advancement of new generations of 3D
printed microfluidic systems with full, autonomous microelectronics
integration.
Author contributions
R.D.S. wrote the abstract, Sections 2 and 5, illustrated Figs. 1 and 2,
and prepared Figs. 3–9. R.D.S., C.C.G., E.S., S.-Y.W., and C.Y. wrote
Section 1. R.D.S., C.C.G., and E.S. wrote Section 3. S.-Y.W., C.Y., and L.L.
wrote Section 4. R.D.S., C.C.G., E.S., S.-Y.W., C.Y. and L.L. edited the man-
uscript. R.D.S., E.S. and M.R. edited Sections 3, 4 and 5 upon revision.
References
[1] F.K. Balagaddé, L. You, C.L. Hansen, F.H. Arnold, S.R. Quake, Long-term monitoring
of bacteria undergoing programmed population control in a microchemostat, Sci-
ence 309 (2005) 137–140 July 1, 2005.
[2] C.-C. Lee, G. Sui, A. Elizarov, C.J. Shu, Y.-S. Shin, A.N. Dooley, et al., Multistep synthe-
sis of a radiolabeled imaging probe using integrated microfluidics, Science 310
(2005) 1793–1796 December 16, 2005.
[3] T. Thorsen, S.J. Maerkl, S.R. Quake, Microfluidic large-scale integration, Science 298
(Oct 18 2002) 580–584.
[4] R.D. Sochol, B.P. Casavant, M.E. Dueck, L.P. Lee, L. Lin, A dynamic bead-based micro-
array for parallel DNA detection, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21 (2011), 054019.
[5] W.H. Tan, S. Takeuchi, A trap-and-release integrated microfluidic system for dy-
namic microarray applications, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (Jan 2007)
1146–1151.
[6] R.D. Sochol, A. Lu, J. Lei, K. Iwai, L.P. Lee, L. Lin, Microfluidic bead-based diodes with
targeted circular microchannels for low Reynolds number applications, Lab Chip
14 (2014) 1585–1594.
[7] W.H. Tan, S. Takeuchi, Dynamic microarray system with gentle retrieval mecha-
nism for cell-encapsulating hydrogel beads, Lab Chip 8 (2008) 259–266.
[8] R.D. Sochol, S. Li, L.P. Lee, L. Lin, Continuous flow multi-stage microfluidic reactors
via hydrodynamic microparticle railing, Lab Chip 12 (2012) 4168–4177.
[9] T. Teshima, H. Ishihara, K. Iwai, A. Adachi, S. Takeuchi, A dynamic microarray device
for paired bead-based analysis, Lab Chip 10 (2010) 2443–2448.
[10] K. Kuribayashi-Shigetomi, H. Onoe, S. Takeuchi, Cell origami: self-folding of three-
dimensional cell-laden microstructures driven by cell traction force, PLoS One 7
(Dec 2012).
[11] P. Yager, T. Edwards, E. Fu, K. Helton, K. Nelson, M.R. Tam, et al., Microfluidic diag-
nostic technologies for global public health, Nature 442 (Jul 27 2006) 412–418.
[12] K.S. Elvira, X.C. i Solvas, R.C.R. Wootton, A.J. deMello, The past, present and poten-
tial for microfluidic reactor technology in chemical synthesis, Nat. Chem. 5 (2013)
905–915.
[13] F.J.H. Hol, C. Dekker, Zooming in to see the bigger picture: microfluidic and
nanofabrication tools to study bacteria, Science 346 (2014) October 24, 2014.
[14] H.T.G. van Lintel, F.C.M. van De Pol, S. Bouwstra, A piezoelectric micropump based
on micromachining of silicon, Sensors Actuators 15 (1988) 153–167.
[15] D.J. Harrison, A. Manz, Z. Fan, H. Luedi, H.M. Widmer, Capillary electrophoresis and
sample injection systems integrated on a planar glass chip, Anal. Chem. 64 (1992)
1926–1932 1992/09/01.
[16] D.J. Harrison, K. Fluri, K. Seiler, Z. Fan, C.S. Effenhauser, A. Manz, Micromachining a
miniaturized capillary electrophoresis-based chemical analysis system on a chip,
Science 261 (1993) 895–897 August 13, 1993.
[17] S.R. Quake, A. Scherer, From micro- to nanofabrication with soft materials, Science
290 (2000) 1536–1540.
[18] G.M. Whitesides, The origins and the future of microfluidics, Nature 442 (2006)
368–373.
[19] E.K. Sackmann, A.L. Fulton, D.J. Beebe, The present and future role of microfluidics
in biomedical research, Nature 507 (2014) 181–189 03/13/print.
[20] G.D. Aumiller, E.A. Chandross, W.J. Tomlinson, H.P. Weber, Submicrometer resolu-
tion replication of relief patterns for integrated optics, J. Appl. Phys. 45 (1974)
4557–4562.
[21] D.C. Duffy, J.C. McDonald, O.J.A. Schueller, G.M. Whitesides, Rapid prototyping of
microfluidic systems in poly(dimethylsiloxane), Anal. Chem. 70 (1998)
4974–4984 1998/12/01.
[22] J.C. McDonald, D.C. Duffy, J.R. Anderson, D.T. Chiu, H. Wu, O.J.A. Schueller, et al.,
Fabrication of microfluidic systems in poly(dimethylsiloxane), Electrophoresis 21
(2000) 27–40.
[23] R.D. Sochol, M.E. Dueck, S. Li, L.P. Lee, L. Lin, Hydrodynamic resettability for a mi-
croparticle arraying system, Lab Chip 12 (2012) 5051–5056.
[24] R.D. Sochol, D. Corbett, S. Hesse, W.E.R. Krieger, K.T. Wolf, M. Kim, et al., Dual-mode
hydrodynamic railing and arraying of microparticles for multi-stage signal detec-
tion in continuous flow biochemical microprocessors, Lab Chip 14 (2014)
1405–1409.
[25] J.R. Anderson, D.T. Chiu, R.J. Jackman, O. Cherniavskaya, J.C. McDonald, H. Wu, et al.,
Fabrication of topologically complex three-dimensional microfluidic systems in
PDMS by rapid prototyping, Anal. Chem. 72 (2000) 3158–3164 2000/07/01.
65
[26] M.A. Unger, H.P. Chou, T. Thorsen, A. Scherer, S.R. Quake, Monolithic
microfabricated valves and pumps by multilayer soft lithography, Science 288
(Apr 7 2000) 113–116.
[27] D.C. Leslie, C.J. Easley, E. Seker, J.M. Karlinsey, M. Utz, M.R. Begley, et al., Frequency-
specific flow control in microfluidic circuits with passive elastomeric features, Nat.
Phys. 5 (Mar 2009) 231–235.
[28] B. Mosadegh, C.-H. Kuo, Y.-C. Tung, Y.-s. Torisawa, T. Bersano-Begey, H. Tavana,
et al., Integrated elastomeric components for autonomous regulation of sequential
and oscillatory flow switching in microfluidic devices, Nat. Phys. 6 (Jun 2010)
433–437.
[29] J.A. Weaver, J. Melin, D. Stark, S.R. Quake, M.A. Horowitz, Static control logic for
microfluidic devices using pressure-gain valves, Nat. Phys. 6 (Mar 2010)
218–223.
[30] D. Huh, H. Fujioka, Y.-C. Tung, N. Futai, R. Paine, J.B. Grotberg, et al., Acoustically de-
tectable cellular-level lung injury induced by fluid mechanical stresses in
microfluidic airway systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (2007) 18886–18891 No-
vember 27, 2007.
[31] D. Huh, B.D. Matthews, A. Mammoto, M. Montoya-Zavala, H.Y. Hsin, D.E. Ingber,
Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip, Science 328 (2010)
1662–1668 June 25, 2010.
[32] D. Huh, D.C. Leslie, B.D. Matthews, J.P. Fraser, S. Jurek, G.A. Hamilton, et al., A
human disease model of drug toxicity–induced pulmonary edema in a lung-on-
a-chip microdevice, Science Translational Medicine 4 (2012) 159ra147 November
7, 2012.
[33] D. Huh, H.J. Kim, J.P. Fraser, D.E. Shea, M. Khan, A. Bahinski, et al., Microfabrication
of human organs-on-chips, Nat. Protocol. 8 (2013) 2135–2157.
[34] A. Mata, A.J. Fleischman, S. Roy, Fabrication of multi-layer SU-8 microstructures, J.
Micromech. Microeng. 16 (2006) 276.
[35] W. Henke, W. Hoppe, H.J. Quenzer, P. Staudt-Fischbach, B. Wagner, Simulation and
experimental study of gray-tone lithography for the fabrication of arbitrarily
shaped surfaces, Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, 1994, MEMS '94, Proceedings,
IEEE Workshop on 1994, pp. 205–210.
[36] M.W. Toepke, a.P.J.A. Kenis*, Multilevel microfluidics via single-exposure photoli-
thography, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127 (2005) 7674–7675.
[37] C.M. Waits, A. Modafe, R. Ghodssi, Investigation of gray-scale technology for large
area 3D silicon MEMS structures, J. Micromech. Microeng. 13 (2003) 170.
[38] C. Chen, D. Hirdes, A. Folch, Gray-scale photolithography using microfluidic photo-
masks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 (2003) 1499–1504 February 18, 2003.
[39] S.E. Chung, W. Park, S. Shin, S.A. Lee, S. Kwon, Guided and fluidic self-assembly of
microstructures using railed microfluidic channels, Nat. Mater. 7 (2008) 581–587.
[40] P. Wook, L. Hosuk, P. Hyungsung, K. Sunghoon, Sorting directionally oriented mi-
crostructures using railed microfluidics, Lab Chip (2009) 2169–2175.
[41] S.H. Lee, S.-E. Choi, A.J. Heinz, W. Park, S. Han, Y. Jung, et al., Active guidance of 3D
microstructures, Small 6 (Dec 6 2010) 2668–2672.
[42] S.E. Chung, Y. Jung, S. Kwon, Three-dimensional fluidic self-assembly by axis trans-
lation of two-dimensionally fabricated microcomponents in railed microfluidics,
Small 7 (Mar 21 2011) 796–803.
[43] D. Lai, J.M. Labuz, J. Kim, G.D. Luker, A. Shikanov, S. Takayama, Simple multi-level
microchannel fabrication by pseudo-grayscale backside diffused light lithography,
RSC Adv. 3 (2013) 19467–19473.
[44] D. Di Carlo, L.Y. Wu, L.P. Lee, Dynamic single cell culture array, Lab Chip 6 (2006)
1445–1449.
[45] D. Di Carlo, L.P. Lee, Dynamic single-cell analysis for quantitative biology, Anal.
Chem. 78 (2006) 7918–7925.
[46] B. Mosadegh, T. Bersano-Begey, J.Y. Park, M.A. Burns, S. Takayama, Next-generation
integrated microfluidic circuits, Lab Chip 11 (2011) 2813–2818.
[47] J.P. Alarie, S.C. Jacobson, J.M. Ramsey, Electrophoretic injection bias in a microchip
valving scheme, Electrophoresis 22 (2001) 312–317.
[48] M. Zhang, J. Wu, X. Niu, W. Wen, P. Sheng, Manipulations of microfluidic droplets
using electrorheological carrier fluid, Phys. Rev. E 78 (Dec 2008), 066305.
[49] P.J.A. Kenis, R.F. Ismagilov, G.M. Whitesides, Microfabrication inside capillaries
using multiphase laminar flow patterning, Science 285 (1999) 83–85.
[50] S. Hediger, J. Fontannaz, A. Sayah, W. Hunziker, M.A.M. Gijs, Biosystem for the cul-
ture and characterisation of epithelial cell tissues, Sensors Actuators B Chem. 63
(2000) 63–73 4/20/.
[51] J. Kim, R. Surapaneni, B.K. Gale, Rapid prototyping of microfluidic systems using a
PDMS/polymer tape composite, Lab Chip 9 (2009) 1290–1293.
[52] H.-L. Gou, J.-J. Xu, X.-H. Xia, H.-Y. Chen, Air plasma assisting microcontact
deprinting and printing for gold thin film and PDMS patterns, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interf. 2 (2010) 1324–1330 2010/05/26.
[53] R. Morent, N.D. Geyter, F. Axisa, N.D. Smet, L. Gengembre, E.D. Leersnyder, et al.,
Adhesion enhancement by a dielectric barrier discharge of PDMS used for flexible
and stretchable electronics, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 40 (2007) 7392.
[54] D.P. Poenar, C. Iliescu, M. Carp, A.J. Pang, K.J. Leck, Glass-based microfluidic device
fabricated by parylene wafer-to-wafer bonding for impedance spectroscopy, Sen-
sors Actuators A Phys. 139 (2007) 162–171 9/12/.
[55] X.Z. Niu, S.L. Peng, L.Y. Liu, W.J. Wen, P. Sheng, Characterizing and patterning of
PDMS-based conducting composites, Adv. Mater. 19 (2007) 2682–2686.
[56] A. Majid Kazemian, K.K. Sulabha, Giant piezoresistive response in zinc–
polydimethylsiloxane composites under uniaxial pressure, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys.
41 (2008) 135405.
[57] C.H. Hu, C.H. Liu, L.Z. Chen, S.S. Fan, Semiconductor behaviors of low loading mul-
tiwall carbon nanotube/poly(dimethylsiloxane) composites, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95
(2009).
[58] L. Wang, M. Zhang, J. Li, X. Gong, W. Wen, Logic control of microfluidics with smart
colloid, Lab Chip 10 (2010) 2869–2874.
66 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
[59] S. Grilli, S. Coppola, G. Nasti, V. Vespini, G. Gentile, V. Ambrogi, et al., Hybrid
ferroelectric-polymer microfluidic device for dielectrophoretic self-assembling of
nanoparticles, RSC Adv. 4 (2014) 2851–2857.
[60] R.S. Dubrow, C.B. Kennedy, R. Nagle, Microfluidic Devices and Systems Incorporat-
ing Cover Layers, 2001.
[61] R. Nagle, R.S. Dubrow, Integrated Devices and Systems for Performing Temperature
Controlled Reactions and Analyses, 2001.
[62] A. Mazouchi, G.M. Homsy, Thermocapillary migration of long bubbles in polygonal
tubes. I. Theory, Phys. Fluids 13 (2001).
[63] J. Junho, S. Jun, P. Grodzinski, Micropumps based on alternating high-gradient
magnetic fields, IEEE Trans. Magn. 36 (2000) 2012–2014.
[64] D. Psaltis, S.R. Quake, C. Yang, Developing optofluidic technology through the fu-
sion of microfluidics and optics, Nature 442 (2006) 381–386 07/27/print.
[65] A.C. Siegel, S.S. Shevkoplyas, D.B. Weibel, D.A. Bruzewicz, A.W. Martinez, G.M.
Whitesides, Cofabrication of electromagnets and microfluidic systems in poly(di-
methylsiloxane), Angew. Chem. 118 (2006) 7031–7036.
[66] G. Yao, W.H. Tan, Molecular-beacon-based array for sensitive DNA analysis, Anal.
Biochem. 331 (Aug 2004) 216–223.
[67] W. Wen, X. Huang, S. Yang, K. Lu, P. Sheng, The giant electrorheological effect in
suspensions of nanoparticles, Nat. Mater. 2 (2003) 727–730.
[68] C.C. Glick, Generating Binary States Using a Microfluidic Channel, 2014.
[69] P. Sheng, W. Wen, Electrorheological fluids: mechanisms, dynamics, and
microfluidics applications, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44 (2012) 143–174.
[70] M. Zhang, L. Wang, X. Wang, J. Wu, J. Li, X. Gong, et al., Microdroplet-based univer-
sal logic gates by electrorheological fluid, Soft Matter 7 (2011) 7493–7497.
[71] K. Ahn, J. Agresti, H. Chong, M. Marquez, D.A. Weitz, Electrocoalescence of drops
synchronized by size-dependent flow in microfluidic channels, Appl. Phys. Lett.
88 (2006).
[72] C. Priest, S. Herminghaus, R. Seemann, Controlled electrocoalescence in
microfluidics: targeting a single lamella, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 (2006).
[73] M. Frieder, B. Jean-Christophe, Electrowetting: from basics to applications, J. Phys.
Condens. Matter 17 (2005) R705.
[74] P. Paik, V.K. Pamula, M.G. Pollack, R.B. Fair, Electrowetting-based droplet mixers for
microfluidic systems, Lab Chip 3 (2003) 28–33.
[75] M.G. Pollack, A.D. Shenderov, R.B. Fair, Electrowetting-based actuation of droplets
for integrated microfluidics, Lab Chip 2 (2002) 96–101.
[76] E.T. Lagally, P.C. Simpson, R.A. Mathies, Monolithic integrated microfluidic DNA
amplification and capillary electrophoresis analysis system, Sensors Actuators B
Chem. 63 (2000) 138–146 5/15/.
[77] Schwartz, Wang, Bruinsma, Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by
the mechanical properties of the substrate - discussion, Biol. Bull. 194 (Jun 1998)
349–350.
[78] U.S. Schwarz, N.Q. Balaban, D. Riveline, A. Bershadsky, B. Geiger, S.A. Safran,
Calculation of forces at focal adhesions from elastic substrate data: the effect
of localized force and the need for regularization, Biophys. J. 83 (Sep 2002)
1380–1394.
[79] D.R. Link, E. Grasland-Mongrain, A. Duri, F. Sarrazin, Z. Cheng, G. Cristobal, et al.,
Electric control of droplets in microfluidic devices, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 45
(2006) 2556–2560.
[80] P. Takhistov, A. Indeikina, H.-C. Chang, Electrokinetic displacement of air bubbles in
microchannels, Phys. Fluids 14 (2002).
[81] Reversible Bonding of Microfluidic Channels Using Dry Adhesives2015.
[82] L. Engel, O. Berkh, K. Adesanya, J. Shklovsky, E. Vanderleyden, P. Dubruel, et al.,
Actuation of a novel Pluronic-based hydrogel: electromechanical response
and the role of applied current, Sensors Actuators B Chem. 191 (2014)
650–658 2//.
[83] K. Seon Jeong, K. Han Il, P. Sang Jun, K. In Young, L. Sang Hoon, L. Tae Soo, et al., Be-
havior in electric fields of smart hydrogels with potential application as bio-
inspired actuators, Smart Mater. Struct. 14 (2005) 511.
[84] H. Andersson, A. van den Berg, Microfluidic devices for cellomics: a review, Sensors
Actuators B Chem. 92 (2003) 315–325 7/15/.
[85] J. Voldman, M.L. Gray, M. Toner, M.A. Schmidt, A microfabrication-based dynamic
array cytometer, Analytical Chemistry 74 (2002) 3984–3990 2002/08/01.
[86] P. Tseng, C. Murray, D. Kim, D. Di Carlo, Research highlights: printing the future of
microfabrication, Lab Chip 14 (2014) 1491–1495.
[87] K. Iwai, K.C. Shih, X. Lin, T.A. Brubaker, R.D. Sochol, L. Lin, Finger-powered
microfluidic systems using multilayer soft lithography and injection molding pro-
cesses, Lab Chip 14 (2014) 3790–3799.
[88] P.F. O'Neill, A. Ben Azouz, M. Vázquez, J. Liu, S. Marczak, Z. Slouka, et al., Advances
in three-dimensional rapid prototyping of microfluidic devices for biological appli-
cations, Biomicrofluidics 8 (2014), 052112.
[89] J.Y. Kim, J.Y. Baek, K.A. Lee, S.H. Lee, Automatic aligning and bonding system of
PDMS layer for the fabrication of 3D microfluidic channels, Sensors Actuators A
Phys. 119 (2005) 593–598.
[90] A.K. Au, W. Lee, A. Folch, Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography
for the production of microfluidic devices, Lab Chip 14 (2014) 1294–1301.
[91] Y. Temiz, R.D. Lovchik, G.V. Kaigala, E. Delamarche, Lab-on-a-chip devices: how to
close and plug the lab? Microelectron. Eng. 132 (2015) 156–175.
[92] J.-H. So, M.D. Dickey, Inherently aligned microfluidic electrodes composed of liquid
metal, Lab Chip 11 (2011) 905–911.
[93] J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, 1999.
[94] J.Z. Chen, A.A. Darhuber, S.M. Troian, S. Wagner, Capacitive sensing of droplets for
microfluidic devices based on thermocapillary actuation, Lab Chip 4 (2004)
473–480.
[95] N. Bhattacharjee, A. Urrios, S. Kang, A. Folch, The upcoming 3D-printing revolution
in microfluidics, Lab Chip 16 (2016) 1720–1742.
[96] S. Waheed, J.M. Cabot, N.P. Macdonald, T. Lewis, R.M. Guijt, B. Paull, et al., 3D
printed microfluidic devices: enablers and barriers, Lab Chip 16 (2016)
1993–2013.
[97] S. S. Crump, “Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects,” ed:
Google Patents, 1992.
[98] J. Cesarano and P. D. Calvert, “Freeforming objects with low-binder slurry,” ed:
Google Patents, 2000.
[99] D. Therriault, S.R. White, J.A. Lewis, Chaotic mixing in three-dimensional microvas-
cular networks fabricated by direct-write assembly, Nat. Mater. 2 (Apr 2003)
265–271.
[100] G.M. Gratson, M. Xu, J.A. Lewis, Microperiodic structures: direct writing of three-
dimensional webs, Nature 428 (2004) 386.
[101] J.A. Lewis, Direct ink writing of 3D functional materials, Adv. Funct. Mater. 16
(2006) 2193–2204.
[102] H. Kodama, Automatic method for fabricating a three-dimensional plastic model
with photo-hardening polymer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 52 (1981) 1770–1773.
[103] C. W. Hull, “Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by
stereolithography,” ed: Google Patents, 1986.
[104] S. Maruo, O. Nakamura, S. Kawata, Three-dimensional microfabrication with
two-photon-absorbed photopolymerization, Opt. Lett. 22 (1997) 132–134
1997/01/15.
[105] J.R. Tumbleston, D. Shirvanyants, N. Ermoshkin, R. Janusziewicz, A.R. Johnson, D.
Kelly, et al., Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects, Science 347
(2015) 1349–1352.
[106] M. Shusteff, A.E.M. Browar, B.E. Kelly, J. Henriksson, T.H. Weisgraber, R.M. Panas,
et al., One-step volumetric additive manufacturing of complex polymer structures,
Sci. Adv. 3 (2017).
[107] M. Yamane, T. Kawaguchi, S. Kagayama, S. Higashiyama, K. Suzuki, J. Sakai, et al.,
“Apparatus and method for forming three-dimensional article,” ed: Google Patents,
1991.
[108] T. A. Almquist and D. R. Smalley, “Thermal stereolithography,” ed: Google Patents,
1997.
[109] H. Gothait, “Apparatus and method for three dimensional model printing,” ed:
Google Patents, 2001.
[110] R.D. Sochol, E. Sweet, C.C. Glick, S. Venkatesh, A. Avetisyan, K.F. Ekman, et al., 3D
printed microfluidic circuitry via multijet-based additive manufacturing, Lab Chip
16 (2016) 668–678.
[111] F. Zhu, J. Skommer, N.P. Macdonald, T. Friedrich, J. Kaslin, D. Wlodkowic, Three-
dimensional printed millifluidic devices for zebrafish embryo tests,
Biomicrofluidics 9 (2015), 046502.
[112] M. C., J.C. McDonald, S.J. Metallo, J.R. Anderson, A.D. Stroock, G.M. Whitesides,
Prototyping of microfluidic devices in poly(dimethylsiloxane) using solid-object
printing, Anal. Chem. 74 (2002) 1537–1545.
[113] G. Comina, A. Suska, D. Filippini, Low cost lab-on-a-chip prototyping with a con-
sumer grade 3D printer, Lab Chip 14 (2014) 2978–2982.
[114] Y. Hwang, O.H. Paydar, R.N. Candler, 3D printed molds for non-planar/PDMS/
microfluidic channels, Sensors Actuators A Phys. 226 (2015) 137–142.
[115] Y. Hwang, D. Seo, M. Roy, E. Han, R.N. Candler, S. Seo, Capillary flow in PDMS cylin-
drical microfluidic channel using 3-D printed mold, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 25
(April 2016) 238–240.
[116] H.N. Chan, Y. Chen, Y. Shu, Y. Chen, Q. Tian, H. Wu, Direct, one-step molding of 3D-
printed structures for convenient fabrication of truly 3D PDMS microfluidic chips,
Microfluid. Nanofluid. 19 (2015) 9–18.
[117] Y. Hwang, O.H. Paydar, R.N. Candler, Pneumatic microfinger with balloon fins for
linear motion using 3D printed molds, Sensors Actuators A Phys. 234 (2015)
65–71.
[118] P.F. Costa, H.J. Albers, J.E.A. Linssen, H.H.T. Middelkamp, L. van der Hout, R. Passier,
et al., Mimicking arterial thrombosis in a 3D-printed microfluidic in vitro vascular
model based on computed tomography angiography data, Lab Chip 17 (2017)
2785–2792.
[119] C.C. Glick, M.T. Srimongkol, A.J. Schwartz, W.S. Zhuang, J.C. Lin, R.H. Warren, et al.,
Rapid assembly of multilayer microfluidic structures via 3D-printed transfer mold-
ing and bonding, Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2 (2016) 16063.
[120] A. Bonyár, H. Sántha, M. Varga, B. Ring, A. Vitéz, G. Harsányi, Characterization of
rapid PDMS casting technique utilizing molding forms fabricated by 3D rapid
prototyping technology (RPT), Int. J. Mater. Form. 7 (2012) 189–196.
[121] G. Comina, A. Suska, D. Filippini, 3D printed unibody lab-on-a-chip: features survey
and check-valves integration, Micromachines 6 (2015) 437–451.
[122] G.V. Kaigala, S. Ho, R. Penterman, C.J. Backhouse, Rapid prototyping of microfluidic
devices with a wax printer, Lab Chip 7 (2007) 384–387.
[123] M.S. Thomas, B. Millare, J.M. Clift, D. Bao, C. Hong, V.I. Vullev, Print-and-peel fabri-
cation for microfluidics: what's in it for biomedical applications? Ann. Biomed. Eng.
38 (2009) 21–32.
[124] A.J. Capel, S. Edmondson, S.D.R. Christie, R.D. Goodridge, R.J. Bibb, M. Thurstans,
Design and additive manufacture for flow chemistry, Lab Chip 13 (2013)
4583–4590.
[125] P.J. Kitson, M.H. Rosnes, V. Sans, V. Dragone, L. Cronin, Configurable 3D-printed
millifluidic and microfluidic ‘lab on a chip’ reactionware devices, Lab Chip 12
(2012) 3267–3271.
[126] M.D. Symes, P.J. Kitson, J. Yan, C.J. Richmond, G.J.T. Cooper, R.W. Bowman, et al., In-
tegrated 3D-printed reactionware for chemical synthesis and analysis, Nat. Chem.
4 (2012) 349–354.
[127] G.W. Bishop, J.E. Satterwhite, S. Bhakta, K. Kadimisetty, K.M. Gillette, E. Chen, et al.,
3D-printed fluidic devices for nanoparticle preparation and flow-injection
amperometry using integrated Prussian blue nanoparticle-modified electrodes,
Anal. Chem. 87 (2015) 5437–5443 2015/05/19.
 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
[128] M. Banna, K. Bera, R. Sochol, L. Lin, H. Najjaran, R. Sadiq, et al., 3D printing-based
integrated water quality sensing system, Sensors 17 (2017) 1336.
[129] B.Y. Ahn, E.B. Duoss, M.J. Motala, X. Guo, S.-I. Park, Y. Xiong, et al., Omnidirectional
printing of flexible, stretchable, and spanning silver microelectrodes, Science 323
(Mar 20 2009) 1590–1593.
[130] W. Wu, A. DeConinck, J.A. Lewis, Omnidirectional printing of 3D microvascular net-
works, Adv. Mater. 23 (2011) H178–H183.
[131] J.S. Miller, K.R. Stevens, M.T. Yang, B.M. Baker, D.-H.T. Nguyen, D.M. Cohen, et al.,
Rapid casting of patterned vascular networks for perfusable engineered three-
dimensional tissues, Nat. Mater. 11 (2012) 768–774.
[132] M.K. Gelber, R. Bhargava, Monolithic multilayer microfluidics via sacrificial mold-
ing of 3D-printed isomalt, Lab Chip 15 (2015) 1736–1741.
[133] D.B. Kolesky, R.L. Truby, A.S. Gladman, T.A. Busbee, K.A. Homan, J.A. Lewis, 3D
bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden tissue constructs, Adv.
Mater. 26 (2014) 3124–3130.
[134] Z.A. Li, J. Yang, K. Li, L. Zhu, W. Tang, Fabrication of PDMS microfluidic devices with
3D wax jetting, RSC Adv. 7 (2017) 3313–3320.
[135] M.N.H.Z. Alam, F. Hossain, A. Vale, A. Kouzani, Design and fabrication of a 3D
printed miniature pump for integrated microfluidic applications, Int. J. Precis.
Eng. Manuf. 18 (2017) 1287–1296 2017/09/01.
[136] F. Li, P. Smejkal, N.P. Macdonald, R.M. Guijt, M.C. Breadmore, One-step fabrica-
tion of a microfluidic device with an integrated membrane and embedded
reagents by multimaterial 3D printing, Analytical Chemistry 89 (2017)
4701–4707 2017/04/18.
[137] N.P. Macdonald, J.M. Cabot, P. Smejkal, R.M. Guijt, B. Paull, M.C. Breadmore, Com-
paring microfluidic performance of three-dimensional (3D) printing platforms,
Analytical Chemistry 89 (2017) 3858–3866 2017/04/04.
[138] A.I. Shallan, P. Smejkal, M. Corban, R.M. Guijt, M.C. Breadmore, Cost-effective three-
dimensional printing of visibly transparent microchips within minutes, Anal.
Chem. 86 (2014) 3124–3130.
[139] K.C. Bhargava, B. Thompson, N. Malmstadt, Discrete elements for 3D microfluidics,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (2014) 15013–15018 October 21, 2014.
[140] A. Urrios, C. Parra-Cabrera, N. Bhattacharjee, A.M. Gonzalez-Suarez, L.G. Rigat-
Brugarolas, U. Nallapatti, et al., 3D-printing of transparent bio-microfluidic devices
in PEG-DA, Lab Chip 16 (2016) 2287–2294.
[141] A.K. Au, N. Bhattacharjee, L.F. Horowitz, T.C. Chang, A. Folch, 3D-printed
microfluidic automation, Lab Chip 15 (2015) 1934–1941.
[142] C.I. Rogers, K. Qaderi, A.T. Woolley, G.P. Nordin, 3D printed microfluidic devices
with integrated valves, Biomicrofluidics 9 (2015), 016501.
[143] H. Gong, A.T. Woolley, G.P. Nordin, High density 3D printed microfluidic valves,
pumps, and multiplexers, Lab Chip 16 (2016) 2450–2458.
[144] M.J. Beauchamp, G.P. Nordin, A.T. Woolley, Moving from millifluidic to truly
microfluidic sub-100-μm cross-section 3D printed devices, Anal. Bioanal. Chem.
409 (2017) 4311–4319 2017/07/01.
[145] T. Monaghan, M.J. Harding, R.A. Harris, R.J. Friel, S.D.R. Christie, Customisable 3D
printed microfluidics for integrated analysis and optimisation, Lab Chip 16
(2016) 3362–3373.
[146] H. Gong, M. Beauchamp, S. Perry, A.T. Woolley, G.P. Nordin, Optical approach to
resin formulation for 3D printed microfluidics, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 106621–106632.
[147] H. Gong, B.P. Bickham, A.T. Woolley, G.P. Nordin, Custom 3D printer and resin for
18 [small mu] m [times] 20 [small mu] m microfluidic flow channels, Lab Chip
17 (2017) 2899–2909.
[148] F. Kotz, K. Arnold, W. Bauer, D. Schild, N. Keller, K. Sachsenheimer, et al., Three-
dimensional printing of transparent fused silica glass, Nature 544 (2017) 337 04/
19/online.
[149] T.W. Lim, Y. Son, Y.J. Jeong, D.-Y. Yang, H.-J. Kong, K.-S. Lee, et al., Three-
dimensionally crossing manifold micro-mixer for fast mixing in a short channel
length, Lab Chip 11 (2011) 100–103.
[150] Y. He, B.-L. Huang, D.-X. Lu, J. Zhao, B.-B. Xu, R. Zhang, et al., “Overpass” at the junc-
tion of a crossed microchannel: an enabler for 3D microfluidic chips, Lab Chip 12
(2012) 3866–3869.
[151] A.C. Lamont, E.C. Reggia, R.D. Sochol, In Situ Nano 3D Printing of a Microfluidic
Diode2017 IEEE 30th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Sys-
tems (MEMS) 2017, pp. 1304–1307.
[152] F. Klein, T. Striebel, J. Fischer, Z. Jiang, C.M. Franz, G. von Freymann, et al., Elastic
fully three-dimensional microstructure scaffolds for cell force measurements,
Adv. Mater. 22 (2010) 868–871.
[153] F. Klein, B. Richter, T. Striebel, C.M. Franz, G.v. Freymann, M. Wegener, et al., Two-
component polymer scaffolds for controlled three-dimensional cell culture, Adv.
Mater. 23 (2011) 1341–1345.
[154] A.C. Scheiwe, S.C. Frank, T.J. Autenrieth, M. Bastmeyer, M. Wegener, Subcellular
stretch-induced cytoskeletal response of single fibroblasts within 3D designer scaf-
folds, Biomaterials 44 (2015) 186–194.
[155] R.D. Sochol, N.R. Gupta, J.V. Bonventre, A role for 3D printing in kidney-on-a-chip
platforms, Curr. Trans. Rep. 3 (2016) 82–92 2016//.
[156] K.B. Anderson, S.Y. Lockwood, R.S. Martin, D.M. Spence, A 3D printed fluidic device
that enables integrated features, Anal. Chem. 85 (Jun 18 2013) 5622–5626.
[157] K.G. Lee, K.J. Park, S. Seok, S. Shin, D.H. Kim, J.Y. Park, et al., 3D printed modules for
integrated microfluidic devices, RSC Adv. 4 (2014) 32876–32880.
[158] E.C. Sweet, J.C.-L. Chen, I. Karakurt, A.T. Long, L. Lin, 3D printed three-flow
microfluidic concentration gradient generator for clinical E. coli-antibiotic drug
screening, Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS)2017 IEEE 30th International
Conference on 2017, pp. 205–208.
[159] E.C. Sweet, R.R. Mehta, R. Lin, L. Lin, Finger-powered, 3D Printed Microfluidic
Pumps (The 19th International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems
Conference (Transducers 2017)), June 18–22 2017.
67
[160] J.G. Dawson, D.C. Hesley, N. Katagiri, C.P. Nguyen, S.A. Mannuel, T.G. Wun, et al.,
Bioinspired Vascular Structures via 3D Printing and Suspended Microfluidics2017
IEEE 30th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems
(MEMS) 2017, pp. 426–429.
[161] N.W. Bartlett, M.T. Tolley, J.T.B. Overvelde, J.C. Weaver, B. Mosadegh, K. Bertoldi,
et al., A 3D-printed, functionally graded soft robot powered by combustion, Science
349 (2015) 161–165.
[162] S.J. Keating, M.I. Gariboldi, W.G. Patrick, S. Sharma, D.S. Kong, N. Oxman, 3D printed
multimaterial microfluidic valve, PLoS One 11 (2016), e0160624.
[163] J.D. Hubbard, C. Manny, A. Montgomery, B. Freeman, A. Boyle, R.D. Sochol, Multi-
Material 3D Printed Microfluidic Circuitry ElementsThe 21st International Confer-
ence on Miniaturized Systems for Chemistry and Life Sciences, Savannah, GA 2017,
pp. 31–32.
[164] A.K. Au, W. Huynh, L.F. Horowitz, A. Folch, 3D-printed microfluidics, Angew. Chem.
Int. Ed. 55 (2016) 3862–3881.
[165] R. Walczak, K. Adamski, Inkjet 3D printing of microfluidic structures—on the selec-
tion of the printer towards printing your own microfluidic chips, J. Micromech.
Microeng. 25 (2015), 085013.
[166] B.C. Gross, K.B. Anderson, J.E. Meisel, M.I. McNitt, D.M. Spence, Polymer coatings in
3D-printed fluidic device channels for improved cellular adherence prior to electri-
cal lysis, Anal. Chem. 87 (2015) 6335–6341 2015/06/16.
[167] Z. Lu, X. Jiang, X. Zuo, L. Feng, Improvement of cytocompatibility of 3D-printing
resins for endothelial cell adhesion, RSC Adv. 6 (2016) 102381–102388.
[168] Hubbard, Multi-material 3d Printed Microfluidic Capacitors and Transistorspresented
at the IEEE MEMS, Las Vegas 2017.
[169] C. Chen, B.T. Mehl, A.S. Munshi, A.D. Townsend, D.M. Spence, R.S. Martin, 3D-
printed microfluidic devices: fabrication, advantages and limitations-a mini re-
view, Anal. Methods 8 (2016) 6005–6012.
[170] R.L. Truby, J.A. Lewis, Printing soft matter in three dimensions, Nature 540 (2016)
371–378.
[171] J.J. Adams, E.B. Duoss, T.F. Malkowski, M.J. Motala, B.Y. Ahn, R.G. Nuzzo, et al., Con-
formal printing of electrically small antennas on three-dimensional surfaces, Adv.
Mater. 23 (2011) 1335–1340.
[172] N. Zhou, C. Liu, J.A. Lewis, D. Ham, Gigahertz electromagnetic structures via direct
ink writing for radio-frequency oscillator and transmitter applications, Adv.
Mater. 29 (2017) 2017/04/01/.
[173] M.A. Skylar-Scott, S. Gunasekaran, J.A. Lewis, Laser-assisted direct ink writing of
planar and 3D metal architectures, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (2016) 6137–6142
May 31, 2016.
[174] C. Liu, X. Cheng, B. Li, Z. Chen, S. Mi, C. Lao, Fabrication and characterization of 3D-
printed highly-porous 3D LiFePO4 electrodes by low temperature direct writing
process, Materials 10 (2017) 934 2017/08/10/.
[175] Y.V.T.P. Ketterl, N.C. Arnal, J.W.I. Stratton, E.A. Rojas-Nastrucci, M.F. Córdoba-Erazo,
M.M. Abdin, C.W. Perkowski, P.I. Deffenbaugh, K.H. Church, T.M. Weller, A 2.45 GHz
phased array antenna unit cell fabricated using 3-D multi-layer direct digital
manufacturing, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 63 (2015) 4382–4394.
[176] L.U.O.J.P. Swensen, B. Araki, A.M. Dollar, Printing three-dimensional electrical
traces in additive manufactured parts for injection of low melting temperature
metals, J. Mech. Robot. 7 (2015) 021004.
[177] D. Espalin, D.W. Muse, E. MacDonald, R.B. Wicker, 3D printing multifunctionality:
structures with electronics, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 72 (2014) 963–978.
[178] T.H.J.v. Osch, J. Perelaer, A.W.M. de Laat, U.S. Schubert, Inkjet printing of narrow
conductive tracks on untreated polymeric substrates, Adv. Mater. 20 (2008)
343–345.
[179] B.Y. Ahn, S.B. Walker, S.C. Slimmer, et al., Planar and Three-Dimensional Printing of
Conductive Inks, Journal of Visualized Experiments : JoVE. 58 (2011) 3189, https://
doi.org/10.3791/3189.
[180] J. A. Lewis, B. Y. Ahn, and E. B. Duoss, “Metal Nanoparticle Inks” United States Pat-
ent US 7922939, 2009.
[181] J. A. Lewis, E. B. Duoss, and M. Twardowski, “Sol_Gel Inks” United States Patent US
7956102, 2011.
[182] B.Y. Ahn, J.A. Lewis, Amphiphilic silver particles for conductive inks with controlled
wetting behavior, Mater. Chem. Phys. 148 (2014) 686–691.
[183] D. Periard, E. Malone, H. Lipson, Printing Embedded Circuitspresented at the In
18th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin TX 2007.
[184] D.A. Roberson, R.B. Wicker, E. MacDonald, Ohmic curing of printed silver conduc-
tive traces, J. Electron. Mater. 41 (9) (2012) 2553–2566.
[185] J.W. Boley, K. Chaudhary, T.J. Ober, M. Khorasaninejad, W.T. Chen, E. Hanson, et al.,
High-operating-temperature direct ink writing of mesoscale eutectic architectures,
Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) n/a-n/a, 2017/02/01/.
[186] X. Mu, T. Bertron, C. Dunn, H. Qiao, J. Wu, Z. Zhao, et al., Porous polymeric materials
by 3D printing of photocurable resin, Mater. Horiz. 4 (2017) 442–449.
[187] S. Nesaei, M. Rock, Y. Wang, M.R. Kessler, A. Gozen, Additive manufacturing with
conductive, viscoelastic polymer composites: direct-ink-writing of electrolytic
and anodic poly(ethylene oxide) composites, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 139 (2017)
111004 2017/11/01/.
[188] K. Tian, J. Bae, S.E. Bakarich, C. Yang, R.D. Gately, G.M. Spinks, et al., 3D printing of
transparent and conductive heterogeneous hydrogel–elastomer systems, Adv.
Mater. 29 (2017) 2017/03/01/.
[189] O. Gubanova, M. Andrianova, M. Saveliev, N. Komarova, E. Kuznetsov, A.
Kuznetsov, Fabrication and package of ISFET biosensor for micro volume analysis
with the use of direct ink writing approach, Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 60
(2017) 71–78 2017/03/15/.
[190] P.F. Flowers, C. Reyes, S. Ye, M.J. Kim, B.J. Wiley, 3D printing electronic components
and circuits with conductive thermoplastic filament, Addit. Manuf. 18 (2017)
156–163 2017/12/01/.
68 R.D. Sochol et al. / Microelectronic Engineering 189 (2018) 52–68
[191] Y. Xie, S. Ye, C. Reyes, P. Sithikong, B.-I. Popa, B.J. Wiley, et al., Microwave metama-
terials made by fused deposition 3D printing of a highly conductive copper-based
filament, Appl. Phys. Lett. 110 (2017) 181903 2017/05/01/.
[192] J.T. Muth, D.M. Vogt, R.L. Truby, Y. Mengüç, D.B. Kolesky, R.J. Wood, et al., Embed-
ded 3D printing of strain sensors within highly stretchable elastomers, Adv. Mater.
26 (2014) 6307–6312.
[193] A. Frutiger, J.T. Muth, D.M. Vogt, Y. Mengüç, A. Campo, A.D. Valentine, et al., Capac-
itive soft strain sensors via multicore–shell fiber printing, Adv. Mater. 27 (2015)
2440–2446.
[194] K. Khoshmanesh, S.-Y. Tang, J.Y. Zhu, S. Schaefer, A. Mitchell, K. Kalantar-zadeh,
et al., Liquid metal enabled microfluidics, Lab Chip 17 (2017) 974–993.
[195] Digital light processing 3D printing of conductive complex structures, Addit.
Manuf. 18 (2017) 74–83 2017/12/01/.
[196] E. Blasco, J. Müller, P. Müller, V. Trouillet, M. Schön, T. Scherer, et al., Fabrication of
conductive 3D gold-containing microstructures via direct laser writing, Adv. Mater.
28 (2016) 3592–3595 2016/05/01/.
[197] M.F. Farooqui, M.A. Karimi, K.N. Salama, A. Shamim, 3D-printed disposable wireless
sensors with integrated microelectronics for large area environmental monitoring,
Adv. Mater. Technol. 2 (2017) 2017/08/01/.
[198] L. Hirt, A. Reiser, R. Spolenak, T. Zambelli, Additive manufacturing of metal struc-
tures at the micrometer scale, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) 1604211 2017/05//.
[199] J. Odent, T.J. Wallin, W. Pan, K. Kruemplestaedter, R.F. Shepherd, E.P. Giannelis,
Highly elastic, transparent, and conductive 3D-printed ionic composite hydrogels,
Adv. Funct. Mater. 27 (2017) n/a-n/a, 2017/09/01/.
[200] D.K. Patel, A.H. Sakhaei, M. Layani, B. Zhang, Q. Ge, S. Magdassi, Highly stretchable
and UV curable elastomers for digital light processing based 3D printing, Adv.
Mater. 29 (2017) n/a-n/a, 2017/04/01/.
[201] D.E. Yunus, S. Sohrabi, R. He, W. Shi, Y. Liu, Acoustic patterning for 3D embedded
electrically conductive wire in stereolithography, J. Micromech. Microeng. 27
(2017) 045016.
[202] F.S. Collins, V.A. McKusick, Implications of the human genome project for medical
science, JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 285 (2001) 540–544.
[203] S.-Y. Wu, C. Yang, W. Hsu, L. Lin, 3D-printed microelectronics for integrated circuit-
ry and passive wireless sensors, Microsyst. Nanoeng. 1 (2015).
[204] Development of bendable strain sensor with embedded microchannels using 3D
printing, Sensors Actuators A Phys. 263 (2017) 593–599 2017/08/15/.
[205] M. Ahmadloo, Design and Fabrication of Geometrically Complicated Multiband Mi-
crowave Devices Using a Novel Integrated 3D Printing Techniquepresented at the
In 2013 IEEE 22nd Conference on Electrical Performance of Electronic Packaging
and Systems 2013.
[206] M. Ahmadloo, P. Mousavi, A Novel Integrated Dielectric-and-Conductive Ink 3D
Printing Technique for Fabrication of Microwave Devicespresented at the In Micro-
wave Symposium Digest (IMS) 2013.
[207] N. Arnal, T. Ketterl, Y. Vega, J. Stratton, C. Perkowski, P. Deffenbaugh, K. Church, T.
Weller, 3D Multi-layer Additive Manufacturing of a 2.45 GHz RF Front
Endpresented at the In 2015 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium
2015.
[208] M. Navarrete, A. Lopes, J. Acuna, R. Estrada, E. MacDonald, J. Palmer, et al., Integrat-
ed layered manufacturing of a novel wireless motion sensor system with GPS, DTIC
Document, 2007.
[209] S. Castillo, D. Muse, F. Medina, E. MacDonald, R. Wicker, Electronics integration
in conformal substrates fabricated with additive layered manufacturing, Pro-
ceedings of the 20th Annual Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium 2009,
pp. 730–737.
[210] A. Joe Lopes, E. MacDonald, R.B. Wicker, Integrating stereolithography and direct
print technologies for 3D structural electronics fabrication, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18
(2012) 129–143.
[211] E. Macdonald, R. Salas, D. Espalin, M. Perez, E. Aguilera, D. Muse, et al., 3D printing
for the rapid prototyping of structural electronics, IEEE Access 2 (2014) 234–242.
[212] Y.L. Kong, I.A. Tamargo, H. Kim, B.N. Johnson, M.K. Gupta, T.-W. Koh, et al., 3D
printed quantum dot light-emitting diodes, Nano Lett. 14 (2014) 7017–7023
2014/12/10.
[213] M.S. Mannoor, Z. Jiang, T. James, Y.L. Kong, K.A. Malatesta, W.O. Soboyejo, et al., 3D
printed bionic ears, Nano Lett. 13 (2013) 2634–2639 2013/06/12.
[214] K. Sun, T.-S. Wei, B.Y. Ahn, J.Y. Seo, S.J. Dillon, J.A. Lewis, 3D printing of Interdigitat-
ed Li-ion microbattery architectures, Adv. Mater. 25 (2013) 4539–4543.
[215] K. Fu, Y. Yao, J. Dai, L. Hu, Progress in 3D printing of carbon materials for energy-
related applications, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) n/a-n/a, 2017/03/01/.
[216] W. Li, Y. Li, M. Su, B. An, J. Liu, D. Su, et al., Printing assembly and structural regu-
lation of graphene towards three-dimensional flexible micro-supercapacitors, J.
Mater. Chem. A 5 (2017) 16281–16288.
[217] N. Nguyen, E. Melamed, J.G. Park, S. Zhang, A. Hao, R. Liang, Direct printing of ther-
mal management device using low-cost composite ink, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 302
(2017) n/a-n/a, 2017/10/01/.
[218] S. Sayyar, S. Gambhir, J. Chung, D.L. Officer, G.G. Wallace, 3D printable conducting
hydrogels containing chemically converted graphene, Nanoscale 9 (2017)
2038–2050.
[219] J. Zhong, G.-X. Zhou, P.-G. He, Z.-H. Yang, D.-C. Jia, 3D printing strong and conduc-
tive geo-polymer nanocomposite structures modified by graphene oxide, Carbon
117 (2017) 421–426 2017/06/01/.
[220] J.E. Smay, J. Cesarano, J.A. Lewis, Colloidal inks for directed assembly of 3-D periodic
structures, Langmuir 18 (2002) 5429–5437 2002/07/01.
[221] C.R. Tubío, F. Guitián, A. Gil, Fabrication of ZnO periodic structures by 3D printing, J.
Eur. Ceram. Soc. 36 (2016) 3409–3415.
[222] K. Cai, B. Román-Manso, J.E. Smay, J. Zhou, M.I. Osendi, M. Belmonte, et al., Geomet-
rically complex silicon carbide structures fabricated by robocasting, J. Am. Ceram.
Soc. 95 (2012) 2660–2666.
[223] S.S. Nadkarni, J.E. Smay, Concentrated barium titanate colloidal gels prepared by
bridging flocculation for use in solid freeform fabrication, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89
(2006) 96–103.
[224] Y.-y. Li, L.-t. Li, B. Li, Direct write printing of three-dimensional ZrO2 biological scaf-
folds, Mater. Des. 72 (2015) 16–20.
[225] E. García-Tuñon, S. Barg, J. Franco, R. Bell, S. Eslava, E. D'Elia, et al., Printing in three
dimensions with graphene, Adv. Mater. 27 (2015) 1688–1693.
[226] J.A. Lewis, B.Y. Ahn, Device fabrication: three-dimensional printed electronics, Na-
ture 518 (2015) 42–43.
[227] C.M.B. Ho, S.H. Ng, K.H.H. Li, Y.-J. Yoon, 3D printed microfluidics for biological ap-
plications, Lab Chip 15 (2015) 3627–3637.
[228] A. von Bieren, E. de Rijk, J.-P. Ansermet, A. Macor, Monolithic metal-coated plastic
components for mm-wave applications, 2014 39th International Conference on In-
frared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz) 2014, pp. 1–2.
[229] P. Nayeri, M. Liang, R.A. Sabory-Garcı, M. Tuo, F. Yang, M. Gehm, et al., 3D printed
dielectric reflectarrays: low-cost high-gain antennas at sub-millimeter waves, IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag. 62 (2014) 2000–2008.
[230] R. Zhu, G. Lipworth, T. Zvolensky, D. Marks, and D. Smith, “Versatile Manufacturing
of Split Block Microwave Devices Using Rapid Prototyping and Electroplating.”
[231] A.S. Munshi, R.S. Martin, Microchip-based electrochemical detection using a 3-D
printed wall-jet electrode device, Analyst 141 (2016) 862–869.