HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Adv Funct Mater. 2022 February 23; 32(9): . doi:10.1002/adfm.202107671.

Recent Advances in 3D Printing of Biomedical Sensing Devices

Md. Azahar Ali,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15238, USA

Chunshan Hu,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15238, USA

Eric A. Yttri,
Author Manuscript

Department of Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Rahul Panat
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15238, USA

Abstract
Additive manufacturing, also called 3D printing, is a rapidly evolving technique that allows for
the fabrication of functional materials with complex architectures, controlled microstructures,
and material combinations. This capability has influenced the field of biomedical sensing
devices by enabling the trends of device miniaturization, customization, and elasticity (i.e.,
having mechanical properties that match with the biological tissue). In this paper, the current
state-of-the-art knowledge of biomedical sensors with the unique and unusual properties enabled
Author Manuscript

by 3D printing is reviewed. The review encompasses clinically important areas involving the
quantification of biomarkers (neurotransmitters, metabolites, and proteins), soft and implantable
sensors, microfluidic biosensors, and wearable haptic sensors. In addition, the rapid sensing
of pathogens and pathogen biomarkers enabled by 3D printing, an area of significant interest
considering the recent worldwide pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus, is also discussed.
It is also described how 3D printing enables critical sensor advantages including lower limit-of-
detection, sensitivity, greater sensing range, and the ability for point-of-care diagnostics. Further,
manufacturing itself benefits from 3D printing via rapid prototyping, improved resolution, and
lower cost. This review provides researchers in academia and industry a comprehensive summary
of the novel possibilities opened by the progress in 3D printing technology for a variety of
biomedical applications.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
3D bio/chemical sensors; 3D printing; bioprinting; electrophysiological sensors; functional
sensors; microfluidic structures; neural probes

[email protected] .
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
 Ali et al. Page 2

1. Introduction
Author Manuscript

Sensors that capture biological signals from the human body have revolutionized the
diagnosis and treatment of diseases and led to a dramatic improvement in the quality
of human life. The area of biomedical sensors has evolved rapidly since their first
implementation in cardiac pacemakers in the 1950s,[1] providing vital in vivo and in
vitro monitoring of biological signals across a broad range of applications. In addition,
their cost has been reduced via advances in fabrication, and they are often miniaturized
and multiplexed with several sensing modalities consolidated onto a single device.[2] The
various categories of biomedical sensors include microelectrode-based bioelectronic probes,
[3] biochemical sensors for disease and disease biomarkers,[4] haptic/tactile sensors,[5] and

microfluidic devices for on-chip field diagnostics.[6]

The evolving sophistication of biomedical sensors has almost always been triggered by
Author Manuscript

the breakthroughs in nano/micro/macroscale device manufacturing methods. With this in

mind, we note three key trends in the evolution of biomedical sensors over the last several
decades: miniaturization, elasticity, and customization. The first trend is an ever-increasing
miniaturization of the electronic elements of the sensor; both for microprocessors[7] and
for electronic packaging.[8] This trend, primarily due to manufacturing advances, has led
to smaller devices with improved functionality,[9] multiplexing,[10] improved implantability
in biological tissue,[11] and lower power requirements. The second trend has been the
fabrication of soft electronic devices that have an elastic modulus close to that of the tissue
in the human body. This trend is inspired by the large elastic modulus mismatch between the
Si-based electronic devices and the human tissue—often as great as five orders of magnitude
—which creates an inherent interface barrier for effective device coupling.[12] Matching the
moduli provides a seamless route to capture relevent signals from the biological tissue of
Author Manuscript

interest. Developments in silicone elastomers such as polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) have

helped advance this trend significantly.[13] The third trend, driven by customer needs, is the
personalization of sensors for improved outcomes, and an ability for point-of-care device
usage, which is highly advantageous in underserved areas. Despite the constant advancement
of biomedical devices, these trends remain consistent—spurring on new and more efficient
ways of manufacturing device elements.

Figure 1 illustrates the progression in the sophistication of biomedical sensors that

underscore the above trends. The figure is divided according to the device fabrication
method. The devices made by traditional methods such as lithography (Figure 1, left)
include pacemakers, electrochemical sensors for glucose detection, and microelectrode-
based sensors. These methods have been around for the last half a century and have
Author Manuscript

served the field well. In contrast, several emerging manufacturing methods such as Additive
Manufacturing (AM), also called 3D printing, where the material is sequentially added to
make parts, have been used for biomedical devices only in the last decade (Figure 1, right).
In the 80s and 90s, several 3D printing methods for polymers, metals, and ceramics were
developed and optimized.[14,15] These techniques later found their way into the manufacture
of biomedical devices. For example, the developments in polymer stereolithography and
micro-stereolithography techniques[15,16] led to the realization of custom Lab-on-a-chip
biosensors based on potentiometric and chemiluminescent principles (e.g., Figure 1 xi,xii).

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 3

[17–19]In recent times, developments in material jetting (a type of 3D printing technique)

Author Manuscript

have led to the realization of soft and flexible biosensors with a wide range of applications
(Figure 1 xiii).[20,21] In addition to biosensors, 3D printing has also led to exciting new
developments in sectors such as aviation, nuclear industry, and automotive industry.[22,23]
Note that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard classifies AM
methods into seven categories, namely, a) material jetting, b) binder jetting, c) material
extrusion, d) powder bed fusion, e) sheet lamination, f) directed energy deposition, and g)
VAT photopolymerization.[24] The unique features of the 3D printing methods relevant to
biological and physical sensors are given in Table 1.

In this paper, we will review the exciting developments in 3D printed biomedical sensors
and highlight the prospects for this field. The intended audience includes researchers in
academia as well as engineers in startups and more established companies in the biomedical
and advanced manufacturing fields. The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 highlights
Author Manuscript

key functionalities and advantages of macro and micro/nanoscale 3D structures enabled by

3D printing methods as relevant to the biomedical sensors. This includes improvements in
analytical sensitivity, limit-of-detection (LoD), response time, and repeatability. Section 3
summarizes the 3D printing methods as relevant to biomedical sensors. Section 4 focuses
on 3D printed biosensors with different sensing modalities. These include microfluidic
biosensors, soft sensors and organs-on-a-chip, and plasmonic biosensors. Section 5 talks
about important advances made in biosensing due to 3D printing for the detection of
pathogens; an area of high significance given the recent events related to the coronavirus
pandemic. We also include the application of 3D printed physical and haptic sensors. In
the last section, we discuss the future direction of 3D printed biomedical sensors that will
significantly influence the advances in medical sciences.
Author Manuscript

2. Why 3D Printing?
Several unique features of 3D printing are fueling the trends of miniaturization,
customization, and elasticity in biomedical sensors mentioned above. First, 3D printing
enables different materials to be integrated with each other, which leads to the compaction of
the system. For example, Kim et al.[34] used extrusion printing to integrate multiple sensing
modalities on a single sensor, reducing the overall footprint of the device when compared
to having separate sensors, and thereby achieving miniaturization. Second, 3D printing
involves the sequential addition of material digitally controlled by computer-aided design
(CAD) programs, allowing customized parts to be fabricated with high precision.[35] Third,
the physical addition of material is generally not constrained by chemical compatibility
which helps disparate materials to be seamlessly integrated by this method.[36] Last, 3D
Author Manuscript

printing involves material deposition and curing/sintering to make the parts, which simplifies
the fabrication process itself.

In the past, Clark platinum-electrodes were developed with unique geometries for
continuous monitoring of oxygen concentration in cardiovascular surgery.[37] These sensors,
however, were difficult to mass-produce as each sensory part was manufactured separately
and assembled manually. This important issue was solved by 3D printing due to the ability
to print complex geometries with multiple components as a single unit.[38] Additional

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 4

examples that highlight the advantages of 3D printing are shown in Figure 2 while
Author Manuscript

categorizing them based on parts of the human body they interface with. Figure 2a shows
a fully printed neural probe for brain-computer-interfaces (BCIs) where the electrode
shanks are integrated with the routing on a single substrate. The fabrication of the array
is achieved in two simple manufacturing steps, namely, printing and sintering.[39] The
printing resolution leads to a high electrode density of recording channels (> 6400 channels
cm−2). Further, the 3D printing method allows an arbitrary variation in shank heights and
diameters enabling the study of 3D firing patterns through the volume of the brain, which is
impossible in BCIs made by traditional methods. Such customization may prove invaluable
as an inroad to precision medicine in neural recording and stimulation in patients.[40] A
3D printed microfluidic device (Figure 2b) was developed for isotachophoresis with on-chip
optical detection and electrophoretic separation abilities.[41] The manufacture of each device
was completed in minutes using a cheap printer ($2300) with excellent transparency that
Author Manuscript

enabled the realization of the lowest cost for such sensors—illustrating the cost advantages
offered by 3D printing. Figure 2d shows a 3D printed microphysiological device (organ-
on-a-chip) for the detection of contractile stress of laminar cardiac micro-tissues with
multiple integrated sensors.[42] Each device contained an embedded strain sensor, and multi-
layer cantilevers composed of a base layer, a tissue-guiding layer, connectors for readout,
and eight independent wells using multiple material combinations such as polymers and
conductive materials.[42] 3D printing enabled a rapid multi-material system integration and
allowed elasticity for seamless functioning of the sensors with the biological tissue. Such
a feat would not be possible with conventional lithography due to the required process
temperatures and the use of toxic chemicals, especially in the presence of biological tissue.
Figure 2e shows design of an interdigitated capacitive touch sensor which was fabricated
by aerosol jet printing (AJP), a material jetting method, to achieve high sensitivity and
high areal sensor density.[60] A glioblastoma-on-a-chip (Figure 2f) for drug discovery
Author Manuscript

and personalized cancer treatment was developed by Yi et al.[43] This work demonstrated
drug combinations associated with superior tumor killing for specific patients. 3D printing
allowed a fast production of an ex vivo glioblastoma model required in testing chemotherapy
drugs which are highly critical for this rapidly advancing disease.[43] Using 3D printing, an
advanced artificial skin (e-skin) was manufactured by integrating three-axis tactile force and
temperature sensors with fingerprint-like structure to detect the touch, slip, and friction force
(Figure 2g).[21] This device represents a fully functional e-skin that imitates the softness of
human skin with an integration of a staggering 45 sensors in arrays of 15 mm × 15 mm areas
—and all achieved only by printing. This example highlights the trend of miniaturization
and elasticity enabled by the 3D printing methods. An integrated 3D printed wearable
“earable” device with an infrared sensor shown in Figure 2h was designed to be worn
on the ear to detect core body temperature.[44] In order to realize personalized ear-shaped
Author Manuscript

molds and circuits, they used a monolithic 3D printing process with the embedding of liquid
metal microchannels. The personalization aspect of this device was clearly enabled by 3D
printing. A skin attchable flexible sensor is shown in Figure 2i.[61] We note that in several
3D printed biomedical sensors, only parts of the sensor are 3D printed, requiring their
assembly/attachment with non-3D printable components.[45] Active research in areas such as
multi-material printing is being pursued to achieve entirely 3D printed devices with minimal
process steps (also see Section 7).[46]

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 5

In addition to the exciting devices mentioned above, 3D printing also offers the possibility
Author Manuscript

of making precisely fabricated 3D geometries with certain surface topographies that

can lead to hierarchical architectures that are advantageous in certain circumstances. In
fact, hierarchical geometries are expected to give rise to enhanced reaction kinetics and
reduced reaction times, resulting in a lower LoD, rapid detection, and a large dynamic
range of detection.[47,48] The AJP method was employed to create a micropillar-based
hierarchical structure where sintered particles offered excellent surface topography for the
attachment of nanomaterials such as graphene, resulting in the rapid detection of dopamine
at sensitivities down to femtomolar concentrations.[49] Although lithography can create
3D hierarchical structures/architectures, the techniques are typically complex and more
difficult to implement[50] compared to those by 3D printing methods such as two photon
polymerization or 2PP[51] and AJP.[52] Additional advantages include high reproducibility,
robustness, and reliability of the biosensors.[33,53] For example, AJP was employed to create
Author Manuscript

high-precision microelectrode arrays for immobilization of glucose oxidase for detection

of glucose[54] with a good sensitivity (9.9 μA mm−1) and low noise level (1.5 nA) due to
spherical diffusion of targets and larger surface area.[54] A mechanically robust microfluidic
device was developed for online analysis of biomarkers (glutamate, glucose, and lactate) in
a microdialysis stream at a μL min−1 flow rate.[55] Another example is a 3D biosensor made
of gold (Au) plated, helical stainless steel structures using selective laser melting or SLM,
a powder bed fusion 3D printing technique, for the detection of DNA hybridization with
superior selectivity and a wide detection range (1–1000 nm).[56] Along the same lines, a
3D printed plasmonic sensor provided a resolution for bacterial toxin detection beyond the
diffraction limit and with a sensitivity down to the size of a single molecule[57] and also an
extremely high spectral sensitivity (>2600 nm/reflective index unit or RIU).[58]

3. 3D Printing Methods Relevant to Biomedical Sensors

Author Manuscript

In the previous section, we discussed the exciting advantages offered by 3D printing for
bio-implants, brain-machine interfaces, and microfluidic biosensors.[48] To understand the
fabrication side better, it is important to know about the 3D printing techniques used to make
such devices. 3D printing methods are generally categorized as extrusion-based processes,
laser-based processes (for both metal and polymer), and material jetting processes which
create features at the nano, microscales. Table 1 lists various 3D printing methods (classified
according to ASTM Standard F2792–12a) as relevant to biomedical sensors and devices
highlighting their capabilities and applications.

In material extrusion type of 3D printing, the material is dispensed through a nozzle

or an orifice. One such method, fused deposition modeling or FDM, can build 3D
Author Manuscript

parts using materials such as nylon, polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and their blends (Figure 3a).[62] A PDMS-
based microfluidic e-tongue sensor manufactured by the FDM method is shown in
Figure 3b.[63] Another type of material extrusion method, direct ink writing or DIW,
involves dispensing material from a nozzle, typically under a pressure (Figure 3c).[64] An
implanted soft biosensor was fabricated using DIW for simultaneous epicardial recording
of electrocardiography (ECG) signals from the murine heart as shown in Figure 3d.
[65] In addition, the capability of introducing multiple printheads and even printhead

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 6

array in DIW enables the one-step high-speed multi-material fabrication, which further
Author Manuscript

enhances the possibility of mass production of highly customized biomedical devices.

[66,67] Being inspired by this μm-resolution printing technique, several devices such as 3D

periodic structures,[68] 3D microvascular networks,[69] photonic structures[70] with 3D metal

electrodes,[71] and drug-delivery devices[72] have been demonstrated.

Laser-based processes use light energy to form solid shapes from precursors. Vat
photopolymerization such as stereolithography or SLA (Figure 3e), digital light processing
or DLP, and 2PP (Figures 3f) use polymerization of liquid resin using laser energy to
form the parts. Rapid detection of bacteria was realized by an optical-fiber based probe
which was manufactured using 2PP method (Figure 3g).[74] 2PP was utilized to create a
set of surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) array structures such as a hexagonally
arranged singlevoxel array, a microspike array, and an array of fractal trees.[74] With a minor
modification to SLA, a multi-material micro-stereolithography (μSLA) method was recently
Author Manuscript

introduced that can provide accuracy to the micron level.[23] The DLP utilizes a digital light
projector for the polymerization process where micron and submicron resolution can be
achieved. In the case of selective laser sintering (SLS, Figure 3h) powders are sequentially
melted and re-solidified over a specific area per layer to create metal or polymer parts.
Unlike laser polymerization, a variety of materials such as polymers, metals, ceramics, and
composites could be fabricated by SLS. This material versatility gives rise to promising
applications such as autoclave devices that can monitor pH during microbial shake flask
cultivation.[75]

Material jetting is a non-contact layer-by-layer AM process that can deposit inks composed
of nano or micro-sized particles on various substrates. Like other 3D printing methods,
material jetting is also a mask-less process controlled by CAD programs wherein the
Author Manuscript

materials being jetted can be readily changed at the click of a button.[77] Compared to
other AM processes,[78] material jetting offers higher dimensional accuracy of printing and
the ability to print at an incline or on a curved surface. This method allows microscale
interconnects to be printed that helps with the integration of sensors and conformal
biosensors,[79] aiding in the miniaturization of device circuits.[80] Jetting methods are being
developed to create electronic circuits directly on a soft stretchable substrate with low elastic
modulus[81] that matches that of the human body, thus helping with the trend of ‘elasticity’
mentioned before. Note that a large number of micro/nanoparticle (NP)-based materials can
be dispersed into a solution, and used as building blocks via material jetting,[82] opening an
immense material design space for sensors and devices. Material jetting can also be used to
fabricate different microscale geometries such as microlattices, spirals, pillars/needles, and
3D interconnects that are difficult, if not impossible to make by conventional lithographic
Author Manuscript

methods.[52,83] Amongst these methods, inkjet printing (IJP) creates circuits with feature
sizes down to 50–100 μm (Figure 3i). An organic thin-film transistor (OTFT) biosensor
was fabricated by IJP with high carrier mobility (Figure 3j).[76] The IJP is also capable of
printing live cells. Applications such as a 3D bionic ear consisting of cell-seeded hydrogels,
silver NPs in a flexible polymer, a stretchable, capacitive-based, physical sodium chloride
sensing device,[84] microelectrodes,[85] and a flexible thermistor[86] have been demonstrated
by IJP. AJP is a recent 3D printing method that further improves the minimum printed
feature size to ≈10 μm, which is about 1/10th the size of nozzle, thanks to a focused sheath

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 7

gas beam (Figure 3k). In addition, AJP enables microscale architectures such as pillars
and lattices to be fabricated without any support structures.[52] A multiplex electrochemical
Author Manuscript

sensor (six sensors) platform was created for glucose sensing by using AJP.[87] Other
applications such as epidermal electronics,[81] terahertz metamaterials,[88] cell pattering with
high porosity,[89] wearable bandage strain sensor,[90] and brain-computer interfaces[39] have
been demonstrated using AJP.

4. 3D Printed Biomedical Sensor Devices

The range of 3D printed biomedical sensors is quite broad. As such, we will use their
sensing capabilities to focus further discussion. First, microfluidic biosensors are well-suited
for the manipulation and analysis of various cells, biomolecules, and other particles, which
is enhanced by the customization offered by 3D printing. Second, gel-based soft conductive
biosensing elements mimicking human sensing organs can be conveniently fabricated by
Author Manuscript

methods such as extrusion-based 3D printing. These sensors provide a platform for organs-
on-a-chip constructs used for personalized medicine. Both device types provide an in vitro
space that mimics the biological environment and allows an easy approach to observe and
analyze the biomedical reactions in a controlled and automized way with minimal sample
volume and reasonable cost. We conclude with a summary of the array of other biomedical
sensor types, emphasizing throughout what key facets 3D printing has enabled.

4.1. 3D Printed Microfluidic Biosensors

Microfluidic devices facilitate a controlled introduction of biomolecules in a wet
environment, a feature that is highly convenient for biosensing.[123] Fabrication of
microfluidic components (channels, valves, mixers, pumps, etc.) has been done by
micromachining, micro-molding, and soft lithography, with many of the processes requiring
Author Manuscript

expensive cleanroom facilities and optical masks. These processes have difficulty creating
the necessary geometries with a minimum number of steps and suffer from issues such as
delamination resulting in fluid leakage and an inability to create integrated subparts such
as valves with the main device. 3D printing of soft polymers has been introduced as an
alternative low-cost fabrication approach to solving these issues. In doing so, a variety of
fluidic structures with complex geometries can easily be manufactured such as channels,
mixers, and actuators.

A complex microfluidic biosensor was manufactured by SLA for smartphone-based

colorimetric quantification of urinary proteins.[124] To do so, multiple functional elements
were integrated into the same device via 3D printing, such as a torque-actuated pump, a
rotary valve, and a pushing valve. This allowed automatic operation without any off-chip
Author Manuscript

bulky equipment. The resulting device exhibited an excellent LoD of 8.5 μg mL−1, which is
lower by more than two orders of magnitude compared to other methods (0.1 mg mL−1) and
had a detection range of 0.025 to 6.0 mg mL−1. In another work, a low-cost, automated 3D
printing process was developed for microfluidic components such as 3D valves and pumps
for controlling the mixing and distribution of fluids.[125] Another microfluidic device was
developed by integrating FDA-approved clinical microdialysis probes with needle structures
for direct monitoring of tissue metabolites (glucose and lactate).[31] This biosensing device

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 8

was manufactured by combining two 3D printing systems wherein one was SLA-based
ultra 3sp printer having resolutions of 100 μm in x- and y-directions and ≈25–100 μm in
Author Manuscript

z-direction, and another one with FDM-based Objet260 printer, having the capability of
printing both hard and soft plastics. The resulting device provided fast responses of 208
± 6.5s and 194 ± 15s for glucose and lactate sensing, respectively. Figure 4a shows a
microfluidic device made by 3D printing of a nanocomposite which was used for monitoring
of glutamate using electrochemical reduction principle.[126] In another work, a 500 × 500
μm microchannel was fabricated and integrated into carbon and platinum electrodes to detect
the concentration of dopamine and nitric oxide (NO) (Figure 4b).[38] The resulting device
showed significant improvement in the LoD (500 nm and 1 μm for dopamine and NO,
respectively) within the detection ranges of 25–500 μm and 7.6–190 μm. The lower LoD
was primarily due to the miniaturization of the electrode enabled by 3D printing where the
microchannel could constrain the analyte molecules effectively for the detection.
Author Manuscript

In addition to the biomedical sensors, 3D printing is also employed to construct

acoustofluidic devices by printing ceramics such as lead zirconate titanate (PZT) or lithium
niobate (LiNbO3), which can generate vibrations at relevant frequency ranges. Patterning
and reducing the thickness of PZT substrates down to 10 μm by conventional methods
such as lapping or etching (chemical and dry) remains an open challenge due to their
high surface roughness, fragility, and nonuniformity.[128] Thus, direct printing of these
materials introduces a new possibility to fabricate piezo-devices such as acoustofluidic
and piezoelectric transducers, and ultrasound devices. In a seminal work, a pick-and-
place micro-extrusion 3D printing was used to create an acoustofluidic device containing
orthogonal out-of-plane piezoelectric sensors and actuators and was used as a microfluidic
device.[129] In this device, various materials such as epoxy, PDMS, silver NPs, and eutectic
gallium–indium, and PZT were printed layer-by-layer to generate multiple resonant modes
Author Manuscript

within 0–20 MHz frequency range.[129] The unique feature of 3D printing is realized for
creating microchannels, interconnects, and embedded PZT transducers with electrodes, and
anchoring and acoustic impedance matching devices in a single chip.[129] 3D printing
thus shows the high customizability of microfluidic devices with a variety of structural
innovations.

4.2. Soft Sensors and Organs-on-a-Chip

Sensors with low elastic modulus have the capability to seamlessly interface with the
biological tissue of interest. One of the ways to achieve this feat is to use hydrogel-
based sensor device architectures. IJP, AJP, FDM, and DIW have been used to create
microstructures consisting of hydrogels mixed with various conductive inks (metal NPs,
graphene, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and organometallic compounds) for biosensing.[130]
Author Manuscript

Some of these devices are on flexible platforms where performance under twisting, folding,
and bending are of major concern. An implantable sensor was developed on a soft PDMS
substrate by the direct pattering of platinum NPs, CNTs, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)
polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT: PSS), and silicone rubber based nanocomposite ink.[131]
This sensor was capable of monitoring glutamate release from an excised spinal cord
segment of a Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) rat model and the results showed a LoD of 0.2 μm
with a short response time of 15s.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 9

AJP was used to create flexible interconnects and electronic components with feature
sizes down to micrometers for conformal flow sensing in blood vessels.[132] In addition
Author Manuscript

to the elasticity of the system, 3D printing allowed miniaturization, with wireless inductive
coupling devices to be integrated that enabled wireless detection of cerebral aneurysm
hemodynamics with a maximum readout distance of 6 cm in highly contoured and narrow
human neurovascular models.[132] This measurement would be difficult, if not impossible,
for sensors made using traditional lithographic techniques. IJP was used to manufacture
flexible glucose sensors by printing multi-layered graphene and platinum NPs on curved
surfaces of polyetheretherketone.[133] This implanted sensor was evaluated in vivo in rats,
and the results showed high sensitivity and comparable data to a commercial glucometer
for continuous glucose monitoring in subcutaneous tissue, even under the hypoglycemic
condition.

Human organs are soft biosensors that have been evolving over several millennia.
Author Manuscript

Mimicking these sensors artificially (e.g., on a chip) can allow drug development, disease
modeling, and personalized medicine; and serve as an alternative to animal models
for clinical studies.[134] Organs-on-chips, a technology that aims to develop artificial
organs as alternative animal models have been extensively studied and proven to be
effective in various biomedical fields. The technology has matured such that organs-on-
chips are currently being commercialized by various companies (e.g., Emulate, Inc.).[135]
These devices are fabricated by photolithographic methods, but suffer from limitations
such as complex multi-step processes, poor cost-effectiveness due to cleanroom process,
difficulties in surface biofunctionalization, and validation related to biocompatibility.[136]
Since artificial organs rely on the self-assembly of cells to create complex-tissue, organ-
level organization, and functions, 3D printing is an efficient fabricating modality that can
control cell patterning at multiple layers in extracellular matrix (ECM), and positioning of
Author Manuscript

micro-posts and other functional components and biomaterials on a single chip platform. In
addition, 3D printing can create layer-by-layer construction of ECM, live cells, tissues, and
organoids and incorporate multi-sensor elements. Several artificial sensing (or otherwise)
organs including liver-on-a-chip,[137] nervous system-on-a-chip,[127] air-blood-barrier,[138]
kidney organoids-on-a-chip,[139] multiple organs-on-a-chip (liver, heart, and lung),[140]
heart-on-a-chip,[141] and brain organoids[142] are realized by 3D printing. With long-term
time-course optical imaging capabilities, a human stomach-on-a-chip was fabricated using
3D printing to grow gastric organoids (human pluripotent stem cells) and a peristaltic
pump was introduced for luminal delivery.[143] This chip lasted for long-term delivery of
drugs/nutrients to investigate the gastric physiology and drug screening.[143] Figure 4c–e
shows a nervous system-on-a-chip developed to study viral infection by reconstituting the
critical function of neural-tissue interfaces (glial cell–axon) in the nervous system.[127] In
Author Manuscript

this device, schwann cells and hippocampal neurons were observed to be refractory to
axon-to-cell infection of the pseudorabies virus, indicating a bottleneck to viral transmission.
These examples reveal a new direction of manufacturing for devices that mimic or even
create organs with high spatial resolutions and complex geometries.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 10

4.3. The Rapidly Expanding Diversity of 3D Printed Biosensors with Different Sensing
Author Manuscript

Modalities
As seen before, 3D printing allows the manufacture of cheap, multifunctional, and
miniaturized structures for efficient biosensors. These advantages have been utilized
by sensors with various modalities described below. The sensors provide highly
sensitive measures of cancer biomarkers,[144] infectious diseases,[145] metabolites,[31]
neurotransmitters,[38] pathogen,[146] and other biomarkers,[147] and demonstrate specific
advantages in terms of high sensitivity and specificity, low LoD, and a reconfigurable
back-end that allows easy interfacing with smartphone-based readouts.[148]

Electrochemical sensors work on the principle of electrochemical transduction such as a

change in impedance, current, voltage, and capacitance caused by the presence or absence
of specific biomolecules.[149] Because these reaction rates depend upon the total surface
Author Manuscript

area as well as the mesoscale geometry of the electrodes, 3D printing is an ideal method to
greatly increase sensitivity (i.e., reduce the LoD). Table 2 compares several electrochemical
sensors made by 3D printing and conventional manufacturing methods. For prostate-specific
antigen (PSA), an important disease biomarker, a 3D printed sensor showed a LoD of 0.5 pg
mL−1.[150] Using conventional methods, the same sensor is only capable of detecting values
in the micro-to-nanogram per milliliter range, a >3 orders of magnitude difference.[150] This
3D printed device not only provided a selective detection of serum PSA, but also brought
a unique solution of mixing of reagents in microchannels during immuno-detection. In the
case of dopamine, an important neurotransmitter, 3D printed multi-length-scale hierarchical
electrode architecture was able to break the detection barrier described in the literature[47,48]
to obtain a LoD of 0.5 am. Lithographically produced,[151] and screen-printed carbon[152]
and conducting polymer-palladium composite[153] sensors, on the other hand, showed a LoD
of 128, 50, and 24 nm, respectively, for the same neurotransmitter. The superior LoD of
Author Manuscript

3D printed sensors was believed to be due to its unique hierarchical electrode architecture.
Similar results are also given in Table 2 for the detection of biomolecules such as glucose
and ascorbic acid. 3D printed biosensors thus provide a high sensitivity for detection of
biomarkers along with high selectivity. Development of such a device has the potential to
open new avenues for an early in vitro diagnosis of various diseases. Further, this progress
can be combined with wearable technology that can lead to a patch-type epidermal and
sweat monitoring sensor.[34]

Noble metallic nanostructures possess plasmonic properties that can be used to fabricate
plasmonic biosensors for the detection of biomarkers. Surface plasmons are electromagnetic
waves propagating along a surface and evanescently decaying away from the metal-
dielectric interfaces that are uniquely affected by the presence or absence of specific
Author Manuscript

biomolecules due to a change of refractive index. Using direct-write printing and 2PP,
many plasmonic structures can be fabricated with high quality, including Au nanostructures,
[165,166] Au-containing pyramidal structures,[167] metallic structures with subwavelength

resolution,[166] conductive Au microstructures, and Au nanocomposite.[168] Using 3D

printing to create the light-emitting diode (LED) source, collimator, linear polarizer, and
beam-splitter plate, a surface plasmon resonance (SPR) imaging device was fabricated,
with everything attached to a smartphone.[169] This sensor provided an optimal use of the

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 11

complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) sensor of the smartphone to give high

Author Manuscript

sensitivity with excellent biological affinity. Another all 3D printed SPR biosensor was used
to monitor label-free bacterial toxins with optical components, sensors, and light-guiding
systems being printed.[57] Thus, 3D printing overcomes several problems with traditional
bench-type plasmonic measurements while creating a portable point-of-care device for
monitoring biomarkers.

Colorimetric biosensors detect a particular analyte through color changes that can be
captured by optical detectors or by the naked eye.[170] Though traditional paper-fluidic
colorimetric sensors have been exploited widely for biomarker monitoring, they have
limited device efficacies due to their short optical path, color distribution inhomogeneity,
temperature, and moisture sensitivity, and issues of spreading of the dyes from detection
zones.[171] 3D printed colorimetric biosensors can solve these problems by tuning the optical
path (via printing) and the active loading of the samples. With a smart phone reader, a 3D
Author Manuscript

printed colorimetric sensor (Figure 5a,b) was demonstrated for immunoassay test of urinary
proteins. This device integrates torque-actuated pump and valve, rotary valve, and push
valve, via seamless 3D printing.[124]

Implantable biosensors that monitor (and react to) the bioenvironments are increasingly
used for applications such as supportive structures for damaged biological components,
monitoring of signals in the vicinity of biological cells, and controlled drug delivery.
Instead of ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, personalized implantable sensors are increasingly
favored due to improved patient outcomes. This requires the fabrication of geometrically
complex shapes and compositions that need frequent on-demand changes.[172] Such sensors
should also conform to the elastic modulus of the correspondent biological tissue. 3D
printing is uniquely positioned to fulfill these requirements. Figure 5c shows a minimally
Author Manuscript

invasive microneedle-based sensor with bio-inspired backward-facing curved barbs for

enhanced tissue adhesion manufactured by DLP printing.[173] A fully printed chip was
manufactured for counting of CD4 (i.e., CD4 positive helper T-lymphocytes or CD4+ T-
cells) of healthy donors and HIV-infected patients using IJP.[174] Recently, a custom gastric
resident electronic (GRE) device was manufactured using multi-material 3D printing (Figure
5d–f) that enables the simultaneous controlled release of drugs (antimicrobial and hormonal
agents).[175] This device is designed to perform the delivery of drugs orally, pass through
the pylorus, and excreted out of the body. With a seamless integration of wireless module,
this device has the capability for in vivo gastric residences in a porcine stomach for 36 days
while also maintaining in vivo wireless communication.

5. The Fast, Flexible, and Accurate Detection of Disease through 3D

Author Manuscript

Printed Sensors
Finally, the rapid and accurate detection of pathogens and their biomarkers has never been
more important, as shown by the recent COVID-19 pandemic.[176] In addition, infectious
diseases caused by other viruses (e.g., HIV, influenza, ebola, hepatitis), parasites (malaria),
and bacteria (tuberculosis,) are a major health concern throughout the world, particularly in
developing countries. Biosensors that can detect the pathogens in seconds can open travel

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 12

and economies of entire regions, helping with the livelihood of millions of people. Rapid
Author Manuscript

and early test assay is thus an unmet need that is critical to protect public health.

To rapidly detect pathogens, electrochemical sensing with surfaces modified with

nanomaterials was introduced where lithography was used to create an HIV detection device
at an early stage of infection (3–8 weeks).[177] The same device principle was also used to
detect a variety of other viral pathogens.[178] Although, the 2D planar electrode structures
allow compatibility with lithographic techniques for scalable production, they have limited
device performance in terms of sensitivity and response time (i.e., speed of detection). A
3D structure of the electrode would be highly beneficial to improve the reaction kinetics
and hence accelerate the sensing performance. The fabrication of the 3D surfaces, however,
is inherently incompatible with the planar lithographic techniques. This limitation was
overcome by 3D printing in our recent work where AJP was used to create micropillars
coated with reduced graphene oxide nanoflakes to sense COVID-19 antibodies within 10
Author Manuscript

s.[33] Figure 6 shows this 3D printed device with a 10 × 10 micropillar array coated with the
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike S1 antigen-specific
to S1 antibodies. The AJP used layer-bylayer printing of Au NPs followed by sintering at
400 °C[33] to create the working electrode of the sensor. The device was used to detect
multiple antibodies such as spike S1 and receptor-binding domain (RBD) down to picomolar
concentration in mere 10 s where the readout was enabled by a commercially available
smartphone-based app. The device could also be regenerated 9 times and showed good
reproducibility and sensitivity. Such a device can also be used to investigate the dynamics
of immune response to viral infections and vaccine development with different viral strains.
This 3D printing technology used a generic device set-up, and as such may be able to detect
other pathogens and their biomarkers.
Author Manuscript

Other examples of the use of 3D printing for pathogen detection include the isolation
and detection of influenza virus using a 3D printed microfluidic device.[179] In this work,
paramagnetic beads were conjugated by glycan and labeled by quantum dots for isolation,
followed by their attachment to hemagglutinin. This system was then used to effectively
detect the influenza virus via differential pulse voltammetry. In a recent work, low-cost
open-source electronics were integrated with 3D printing to develop a portable diagnostic
platform for the detection of malaria.[180] A microfluidic magnetic pre-concentrator was
manufactured via 3D printing without the need for any assembly and used to detect bacterial
pathogens Escherichia coli (O157:H7, a pathogen that causes hemorrhagic colitis and
hemorrhagic uremic syndrome by contaminating foods) using antibody-conjugated magnetic
NPs.[181] This device improved the LoD, while also enabling miniaturization where a small
volume of the affected fluid (blood) could be used to detect pathogens. A 3D printed
Author Manuscript

acoustic wave sensor integrated with smartphone for convenient readout was developed for
nucleic acid-based detection of Salmonella cells in biofluids such as whole blood, saliva,
and nasal swab.[32] The advantages of this device were short sample-to-answer analysis
time (within 30 min), a low LoD of 4 × 103 CFU (colony forming unit) mL−1, and
user-friendliness and affordability to access in underdeveloped areas. As the world comes to
grips with increasing numbers of potentially catastrophic diseases, the accuracy and ease of
detection delivered by 3D printed sensors becomes more important than ever.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 13

6. 3D Printed Physical Sensors for Monitoring of Human Health

Author Manuscript

Physical or mechanical biosensors convert mechanical signals from the human body into
electrical signals and form an important category for healthcare monitoring devices. A
specific requirement to have a good sensitivity for such sensors in capturing the body signals
is that they need to have an elastic modulus comparable to that of the human body, that is,
have the quality of ‘elasticity’ described in Section 1. Several types of tactile sensors (i.e.,
sensors that measure information arising from physical interaction with the environment)
fall under this category and are used as wearable biomonitors, human-machine interfaces,
and biotic–abiotic interfaces.[182] Figure 7 shows several physical sensors where 3D printing
has played a central role in enabling their elasticity, and hence their functionality. Figure
7a,b shows a 3D printed porous pressure-sensitive rubber (PSR) sensor and strain gauge for
wearable human-machine interfaces.[11] In addition to monitoring human motion, the sensor
can also be used by humans to interface with a robot. We note that the sensitivity of the
Author Manuscript

pressure-based tactile sensor is one of the most important factors in mimicking the human
skin and achieving a precise capture of human motion.[11] A multifunctional electronic
skin that detects body temperature and pressure is shown in Figure 7c.[183] This is an
example where multiple sensing modalities have been integrated into a single device via 3D
printing to achieve miniaturization and elasticity. In another example, 3D printing was used
to create a multi-sensor e-skin to mimic the human somatosensory system (Figure 7d).[184]
This sensor was utilized for real-time sensing of temperature (Figure 7e), in-plane strain,
humidity, light, magnetic field, pressure, and proximity simultaneously.[184] To detect human
movements (radial pulse, bending, and finger pressing), a tactile sensor was demonstrated
under conditions through a combination of composite ink optimization, 3D imaging, and
multimaterial printing (Figure 7f).[5a]
Author Manuscript

The examples of 3D printed physical sensors illustrated in Figure 7 form only a small
subset of the current state-of-the-art in this field. 3D printing was used to create a strain
sensor using carbon resistive ink within a highly conformal and extensible elastomeric
matrix where the sensor geometry was controlled by maintaining print path and filament
cross-section.[186] Recently, a highly flexible, wearable bandage-based strain sensor was
3D printed and used for home healthcare monitoring by combining AJ printer and laser
sintering.[90] The laser sintering could locally sinter the conducting metal with minimal
damage to the underlying flexible substrate.

Haptic sensors are computer-controlled electromechanical interfaces that give kinesthetic or

tactile feedback to the users. In the past, prosthetic systems with haptic feedback were
known to be obtrusive and bulky.[187] This issue has been addressed by 3D printing
Author Manuscript

in several recent developments. 3D printed fabric-based haptic gloves and soft robotic
grippers were manufactured by integrating an array of pneumatic finger actuators and
flexible sensors.[188] The sensorized gripper could pick and hold objects with a wide range
of weight from 50 to 1100g while the haptic actuator was capable of producing forces
up to 2.1 N, which was more than the minimum force of 1.5 N required to accelerate
haptic perception. Further, a low-cost, kinesthetic haptic device named “Haptik” has been
fabricated by Stanford University using 3D printing and used to educate middle school
students.[189] Attempts have also been made to integrate augmented reality into haptic

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 14

devices via 3D printing. A haptic device (Tooketo) was developed that integrated touch and
audio sensing with the ability to receive audio information during its use.[190] In another
Author Manuscript

example, a 3D multiaxial force sensor was developed using FDM[191] wherein the structural
part was made of thermoplastic polyurethane and the sensing part was made of CNT-
polymer nanocomposite. Such an arrangement of material provided a seamless integration of
different components into the device. Apart from these, a miniature body-powered passive
prosthetic hand was developed with a kinesthetic feedback by incorporating a force sensor
and coin-type vibration motor.[192] In another recent work, a 3D printed prosthetic arm and
a pressure sensing haptic system were integrated to enable the capture of objects such as
a cricket ball (Figure 7g).[185] As the haptic sensors/interfaces evolve to include the IoT
technologies, a deeper understanding and integration of biology, 3D printed electronics, and
robotic systems are required for further developments in the field of physical biosensors.
Author Manuscript

7. Discussion and Future Directions

The miniaturization, personalization, and elasticity trends supported by 3D printing open
novel avenues in biosensing that can provide long-term benefits to human health. Better still,
these advances are only in their infancy, with several new AM methods on the horizon.[193]
Thus, this review should be taken as an intermediate snapshot and a forward-thinking report.

The new developments in this field are highlighted by advances in the 3D printing
technology itself, enabling new capabilities and functionalities in biosensors. These
advances include multi-material printing, multi-length scale printing, and scale-up, which
are being pursued by various labs and companies throughout the world. Recently, Aniwaa
Pte. Ltd. has introduced a XJet 3D printer which has thousands of nozzles for the deposition
of ceramics and metals to form 3D structures with part consolidation at 300 °C.[194] This
Author Manuscript

technique offers a 5× increase in speed of manufacture by 3D printing. This technology has

the potential of being used for the mass production of biosensors. Advanced 2PP printing
was introduced recently by Nanoscribe GmbH to print polymeric structures at nanometer
resolution which is not possible by other 3D printers.[195] For example, 3D conical
nanostructures of carbon were realized by this method with two-steps thermal annealing
and an integration with chip-scale CMOS devices that can have wireless transmission
capability.[195] Exaddon GmbH has created a novel 3D printing system where several
metallic materials can be printed as 3D structures at length scales of 500 nm to a few
micrometers in minutes, making it possible to make multi-material devices with precisely
controlled topography and texture.[196] Other equipment manufacturers (e.g., nScrypt Inc.)
have been integrating methods such as pick and place of semiconductor chips with jetting-
based AM. Similarly, 3D printers with additional multiple printheads/nozzles are being
Author Manuscript

developed to scale-up production rates for various industries, including biomedical sensors.
These developments are also addressing the current limitations of 3D printing such as post-
processing compatibility, layer misalignment, over-extrusion, and anisotropic mechanical
strength.[197] In addition, active research is also ongoing in the materials’ area to address
issues such as distortion after sintering for metal and polymers parts.[198] We expect these
developments to lead to several types of “all-3D-printed-sensors” in the future where it
is possible to manufacture parts in simple 1–2 steps, namely, printing, followed by curing/

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 15

sintering. In fact, we note some progress on this front where fully 3D printed devices were
realized for a subset of biomedical sensors for glucose and DNA sensing.[199]
Author Manuscript

The extent of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic[176] emphasized the
need for fungible manufacturing infrastructure for test kits/sensors for their on-demand
production. Such a system can quickly change the types of sensors manufactured to respond
to specific healthcare emergencies. The immense flexibility offered by 3D printing in terms
of changing the production programs at a click of a button can be of significant value
to address this need. Further, to address the logistics of device transportation, on-site
production of sensors can be of significant value to address regional health outbreaks/
emergencies. This is especially applicable to underserved areas within the country and
globally. Again, low-cost 3D printers can be deployed in remote regions to address these
needs. 3D printing is expected to emerge as a broadly deployable indispensable tool in the
fight against healthcare emergencies. Last, personalized medicine is expected to grow as an
Author Manuscript

important field in the future.[200] This area will require making sensing devices tailored to
individuals where the flexibility offered by 3D printing will be highly useful.

In summary, advances in biomedical sensor devices have accompanied the progress in

fabrication technologies. 3D printing is an emerging manufacturing method that offers a) an
ability to print a variety of geometries with a high level of complexity and customizability,
b) rapid prototyping, c) waste minimization, and d) multi-material integration. These
fabrication advantages have profoundly affected the biomedical sensors and fueled the
trends of miniaturization/integration (for both Si-based devices and electronic packaging),
‘elasticity’ (i.e., devices with elastic modulus matching that of the biological tissue), and
device personalization. In addition, 3D printing of biomedical sensors has the advantage
that it can be done close to the place of consumption and does not need expensive clean-
Author Manuscript

room facilities. This is especially advantageous when addressing the healthcare needs of
populations in underserved areas. Across a range of sensors, 3D printing enables low
LoD, high reproducibility, and a high degree of integration/complexity of the devices, with
continued innovations for the foreseeable future.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the NIH BRAIN Initiative R01 award number
# RF1NS110483. The authors thank Prof. Tzahi Cohen-Karni at Carnegie Mellon University for valuable
suggestions.

Biographies
Author Manuscript

Md. Azahar Ali is a postdoc in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie

Mellon University. His current research focuses on 3D printed biosensors for pathogens and
biomarker sensing. Earlier, he was a post-doc in the department of Electrical and Computer

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 16

Engineering at Iowa State University. He obtained his Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute
Author Manuscript

of Technology Hyderabad. He is actively engaged in the area of bioMEMS and 3D printed

biosensors. Dr. Ali will join Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, as an Assistant Professor of
Animal and Poultry Sciences in spring 2022.

Chunshan Hu is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at

Carnegie Mellon University. He received his BS degree from Northwest A&F University
and M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Washington State University. His research
Author Manuscript

interests mainly focus on additive manufacturing of various nanoparticle-based materials

including metals, ceramics, and polymers.

Eric A. Yttri is Eberly Family Career Development Professor of Biological Science at

Carnegie Mellon University. Previously, he was a postdoctoral associate at Janelia Research
Campus-HHMI after receiving his Ph.D. at Washington University in St. Louis and studying
neuroscience at the College of William and Mary. Dr. Yttri’s work employs technique
Author Manuscript

development to further his research goals in basal ganglia function and brain-wide dynamics.
He is the recipient of several awards, including from the Whitehall and Brain Research
Foundations, the Whitehall, Kaufman, and Brain Research and is the current co-chair of the
Allen Institute Next Generation Leaders Council.

Rahul Panat is Russell V. Trader Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and the
Associate Director of the Manufacturing Futures Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. He
Author Manuscript

received his M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

and his Ph.D. in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. After his Ph.D., he worked at Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ, for a decade. Dr.
Panat joined Washington State University, Pullman, before moving to CMU in 2017. He is
the recipient of several awards such as Russell V.Trader Career Development Professorship
(an Endowed Chair Professorship) at Carnegie Mellon, Materials Research Society gold
medal, Henry L. Langhaar award and Mavis memorial fund award.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 17

References
Author Manuscript

[1]. a) Greatbatch W, United States patent #3478746, 1969;b) Greatbatch W, United States patent
3057356, 1962.
[2]. Kim J, Campbell AS, de Ávila BE-F, Wang J, Nat. Biotechnol 2019, 37, 389. [PubMed:
30804534]
[3]. a) Shi J, Fang Y, Adv. Mater 2019, 31, 1804895;b) Lu C, Froriep UP, Koppes RA, Canales A,
Caggiano V, Selvidge J, Bizzi E, Anikeeva P, Adv. Funct. Mater 2014, 24, 6594.
[4]. Zhou C, Xu W, Zhang P, Jiang M, Chen Y, Kwok RT, Lee MM, Shan G, Qi R, Zhou X, Adv.
Funct. Mater 2019, 29, 1805986.
[5]. a) Guo S-Z, Qiu K, Meng F, Park SH, McAlpine MC, Adv. Mater 2017, 29, 1701218;b) Wan Y,
Wang Y, Guo CF, Mater. Today Phys 2017, 1, 61.
[6]. a) Ali MA, Tabassum S, Wang Q, Wang Y, Kumar R, Dong L, Lab Chip 2018, 18, 803;
[PubMed: 29431801] b) Saccomandi P, Schena E, Oddo CM, Zollo L, Silvestri S, Guglielmelli E,
Biosensors 2014, 4, 422. [PubMed: 25587432]
[7]. Li M-Y, Su S-K, Wong H-SP, Li L-J, Nature 2019, 567, 169. [PubMed: 30862924]
Author Manuscript

[8]. Mahajan R, Qian Z, Viswanath RS, Srinivasan S, Aygün K, Jen W-L, Sharan S, Dhall A, IEEE
Trans. Compon., Packag., Manuf. Technol 2019, 9, 1952.
[9]. Muller R, Le H-P, Li W, Ledochowitsch P, Gambini S, Bjorninen T, Koralek A, Carmena
JM, Maharbiz MM, Alon E, presented at 2014 IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf. Digest of
Technical Papers (ISSCC), IEEE, San Francisco, CA 2014.
[10]. Chung H-J, Sulkin MS, Kim J-S, Goudeseune C, Chao H-Y, Song JW, Yang SY, Hsu Y-Y,
Ghaffari R, Efimov IR, Adv. Healthcare Mater 2014, 3, 59.
[11]. Jung S, Kim JH, Kim J, Choi S, Lee J, Park I, Hyeon T, Kim D-H, Adv. Mater 2014, 26, 4825.
[PubMed: 24827418]
[12]. Rouse ME, Azocar A, Hargrove L, Nat. Biomed. Eng 2020, 4, 933. [PubMed: 33093669]
[13]. Zhou J, Khodakov DA, Ellis AV, Voelcker NH, Electrophoresis 2012, 33, 89. [PubMed:
22128067]
[14]. a) Griffith ML, Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan 1995;b) Ni J, Ling H, Zhang S, Wang Z,
Peng Z, Benyshek C, Zan R, Miri A, Li Z, Zhang X, Mater. Today Bio 2019, 3, 100024.
Author Manuscript

[15]. Zhang X, Jiang X, Sun C, Sens. Actuators, A 1999, 77, 149.

[16]. a) Kuo AP, Bhattacharjee N, Lee YS, Castro K, Kim YT, Folch A, Adv. Mater. Technol 2019, 4,
1800395; [PubMed: 32490168] b) Piironen K, Haapala M, Talman V, Järvinen P, Sikanen T, Lab
Chip 2020, 20, 2372. [PubMed: 32500123]
[17]. Takenaga S, Schneider B, Erbay E, Biselli M, Schnitzler T, Schöning MJ, Wagner T, Phys. Status
Solidi A 2015, 212, 1347.
[18]. Ikuta K, Hirowatari K, Ogata T, presented at Proc. IEEE micro electro mechanical systems an
investigation of micro structures, sensors, actuators, machines and robotic systems, IEEE, Oiso,
Japan 1994.
[19]. Kadimisetty K, Malla S, Rusling JF, ACS Sens. 2017, 2, 670. [PubMed: 28723166]
[20]. Frutiger A, Muth JT, Vogt DM, Mengüç Y, Campo A, Valentine AD, Walsh CJ, Lewis JA, Adv.
Mater 2015, 27, 2440. [PubMed: 25754237]
[21]. Harada S, Kanao K, Yamamoto Y, Arie T, Akita S, Takei K, ACS Nano 2014, 8, 12851.
[22]. Alto P, Met. Powder Rep 2014, 69, 42.
Author Manuscript

[23]. Choi J-W, MacDonald E, Wicker R, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol 2010, 49, 543.
[24]. Standard A, Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken 2012.
[25]. Qin D, Xia Y, Whitesides GM, Nat. Protoc 2010, 5, 491. [PubMed: 20203666]
[26]. Lindner E, Buck RP, Anal. Chem 2000, 72, 336 A.
[27]. Hull CW, United States patent 5236637, 1993.
[28]. Manriquez-Frayre J, Bourell D, presented in Solid Freeform Fabrication Symp, Austin, TX 1990.
[29]. Oberpenning F, Meng J, Yoo JJ, Atala A, Nat. Biotechnol 1999, 17, 149. [PubMed: 10052350]

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 18

[30]. Wu W, DeConinck A, Lewis JA, Adv. Mater 2011, 23, H178. [PubMed: 21438034]
[31]. Gowers SA, Curto VF, Seneci CA, Wang C, Anastasova S, Vadgama P, Yang G-Z, Boutelle MG,
Author Manuscript

Anal. Chem 2015, 87, 7763. [PubMed: 26070023]

[32]. Papadakis G, Pantazis AK, Ntogka M, Parasyris K, Theodosi G-I, Kaprou G, Gizeli E, ACS Sens.
2019, 4, 1329. [PubMed: 30964650]
[33]. Ali MA, Hu C, Jahan S, Yuan B, Saleh MS, Ju E, Gao S-J, Panat RP, Adv. Mater 2020, 33,
2006647.
[34]. Kim T, Yi Q, Hoang E, Esfandyarpour R, Adv. Mater. Technol 2021, 6, 2001021.
[35]. Paterson AM, Donnison E, Bibb RJ, Campbell RI, Hand Ther. 2014, 19, 102.
[36]. Khare V, Sonkaria S, Lee G-Y, Ahn S-H, Chu W-S, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol
2017, 4, 291.
[37]. Clark L Jr., Lyons C, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci 1962, 102, 29. [PubMed: 14021529]
[38]. Erkal JL, Selimovic A, Gross BC, Lockwood SY, Walton EL, McNamara S, Martin RS, Spence
DM, Lab Chip 2014, 14, 2023. [PubMed: 24763966]
[39]. Saleh MS, Ritchie S, Nicholas MA, Bezbaruah R, Reddy JW, Chamanzar M, Yttri EA, Panat R,
Author Manuscript

bioRxiv 2019, 742346.

[40]. Gittis AH, Yttri EA, Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng 2018, 8, 14. [PubMed: 31903441]
[41]. Shallan AI, Smejkal P, Corban M, Guijt RM, Breadmore MC, Anal. Chem 2014, 86, 3124.
[PubMed: 24512498]
[42]. Lind JU, Busbee TA, Valentine AD, Pasqualini FS, Yuan H, Yadid M, Park S-J, Kotikian A,
Nesmith AP, Campbell PH, Nat. Mater 2017, 16, 303. [PubMed: 27775708]
[43]. Yi H-G, Jeong YH, Kim Y, Choi Y-J, Moon HE, Park SH, Kang KS, Bae M, Jang J, Youn H, Nat.
Biomed. Eng 2019, 3, 509. [PubMed: 31148598]
[44]. Ota H, Chao M, Gao Y, Wu E, Tai L-C, Chen K, Matsuoka Y, Iwai K, Fahad HM, Gao W, ACS
Sens. 2017, 2, 990. [PubMed: 28721726]
[45]. Kim K, Choi J, Jeong Y, Cho I, Kim M, Kim S, Oh Y, Park I, Adv. Healthcare Mater 2019, 8,
1900978.
[46]. Bandyopadhyay A, Heer B, Mater. Sci. Eng., R 2018, 129, 1.
[47]. Sheehan PE, Whitman LJ, Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 803. [PubMed: 15826132]
Author Manuscript

[48]. Soleymani L, Fang Z, Sargent EH, Kelley SO, Nat. Nanotechnol 2009, 4, 844. [PubMed:
19893517]
[49]. Ali MA, Hu C, Yuan B, Jahan S, Saleh MS, Guo Z, Gellman A, Panat R, Nat. Comm 2021.
[50]. Jang JH, Ullal CK, Maldovan M, Gorishnyy T, Kooi S, Koh C, Thomas EL, Adv. Funct. Mater
2007, 17, 3027.
[51]. Chu W, Tan Y, Wang P, Xu J, Li W, Qi J, Cheng Y, Adv. Mater. Technol 2018, 3, 1700396.
[52]. Saleh MS, Hu C, Panat R, Sci. Adv 2017, 3, e1601986.
[53]. a) Rebelo R, Barbosa AI, Caballero D, Kwon IK, Oliveira JM, Kundu SC, Reis RL, Correlo
VM, Biosens. Bioelectron 2019, 130, 20; [PubMed: 30716590] b) Barbosa AI, Reis NM, Analyst
2017, 142, 858; [PubMed: 28217778] c) Bertok T, Sediva A, Vikartovska A, Tkac J, Int. J.
Electrochem. Sci 2014, 9, 890. [PubMed: 27257405]
[54]. Yang H, Rahman MT, Du D, Panat R, Lin Y, Sens. Actuators, B 2016, 230, 600.
[55]. Samper IC, Gowers SA, Rogers ML, Murray D-SR, Jewell SL, Pahl C, Strong AJ, Boutelle MG,
Lab Chip 2019, 19, 2038. [PubMed: 31094398]
Author Manuscript

[56]. Loo AH, Chua CK, Pumera M, Analyst 2017, 142, 279. [PubMed: 28001145]
[57]. Hinman SS, McKeating KS, Cheng Q, Anal. Chem 2017, 89, 12626.
[58]. Aristov AI, Manousidaki M, Danilov A, Terzaki K, Fotakis C, Farsari M, Kabashin AV, Sci. Rep
2016, 6, 25380.
[59]. Ma C, Peng Y, Li H, Chen W, Trends Pharmacol. Sci 2020, 42, 119. [PubMed: 33341248]
[60]. Rahman MT, Rahimi A, Gupta S, Panat R, Sens. Actuators, A 2016, 248, 94.
[61]. Baik S, Kim N, Kim T.-i., Chae H, Kim KH, Pang C, Suh K-Y, Curr. Appl. Phys 2015, 15, 274.
[62]. Nikzad M, Masood SH, Sbarski I, Mater. Des 2011, 32, 3448.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 19

[63]. Gaal G, Mendes M, de Almeida TP, Piazzetta MHO, Gobbi ÂL, Riul A, Rodrigues V, Sens.
Actuators, B 2017, 242, 35.
Author Manuscript

[64]. Masaeli E, Marquette C, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol 2020, 7, 478. [PubMed: 32039181]
[65]. Kim B, Soepriatna AH, Park W, Moon H, Cox A, Zhao J, Gupta NS, Park CH, Kim K, Jeon Y,
Nat. Commun 2021, 12, 3710. [PubMed: 34140475]
[66]. Hansen CJ, Saksena R, Kolesky DB, Vericella JJ, Kranz SJ, Muldowney GP, Christensen KT,
Lewis JA, Adv. Mater 2013, 25, 96. [PubMed: 23109104]
[67]. Truby RL, Lewis JA, Nature 2016, 540, 371. [PubMed: 27974748]
[68]. Lee YJ, Braun PV, Adv. Mater 2003, 15, 563.
[69]. Therriault D, White SR, Lewis JA, Nat. Mater 2003, 2, 265. [PubMed: 12690401]
[70]. Griffith LG, Naughton G, Science 2002, 295, 1009. [PubMed: 11834815]
[71]. Skylar-Scott MA, Gunasekaran S, Lewis JA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 2016, 113, 6137.
[PubMed: 27185932]
[72]. Li YY, Cunin F, Link JR, Gao T, Betts RE, Reiver SH, Chin V, Bhatia SN, Sailor MJ, Science
2003, 299, 2045. [PubMed: 12663921]
Author Manuscript

[73]. Gittard SD, Nguyen A, Obata K, Koroleva A, Narayan RJ, Chichkov BN, Biomed. Opt. Express
2011, 2, 3167. [PubMed: 22076276]
[74]. Kim JA, Wales DJ, Thompson AJ, Yang GZ, Adv. Opt. Mater 2020, 8, 1901934.
[75]. Ude C, Hentrop T, Lindner P, Lücking TH, Scheper T, Beutel S, Sens. Actuators, B 2015, 221,
1035.
[76]. Fukuda K, Minamiki T, Minami T, Watanabe M, Fukuda T, Kumaki D, Tokito S, Adv. Electron.
Mater 2015, 1, 1400052.
[77]. Faller L, Granig W, Krivec M, Abram A, Zangl H, J. Micromech. Microeng 2018, 28, 104002.
[78]. a) Pugalendhi A, Ranganathan R, Ganesan S, Mater. Today: Proc 2021, 46, 9139;b) Kim G,
Oh Y, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B 2008, 222, 201;c) Gay P, Blanco D, Pelayo F, Noriega A,
Fernández P, Proc. Eng 2015, 132, 70.
[79]. Didier C, Kundu A, Rajaraman S, Microsyst. Nanoeng 2020, 6, 15. [PubMed: 34567630]
[80]. Brenneman J, Tansel D, Fedder G, Panat R, Extreme Mech. Lett 2021, 43, 101199.
[81]. Jing Q, Choi YS, Smith M, Ou C, Busolo T, Kar-Narayan S, Adv. Mater. Technol 2019, 4,
Author Manuscript

1900048.
[82]. Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B, Khorasani M, in Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer,
Cham, Switzerland 2021, p. 203.
[83]. a) Sadeq Saleh M, HamidVishkasougheh M, Zbib H, Panat R, Scr. Mater 2018, 149, 144;b) Saleh
MS, Hu C, Brenneman J, Al Mutairi AM, Panat R, Addit. Manuf 2021, 39, 101856.
[84]. Li K, Wei H, Liu W, Meng H, Zhang P, Yan C, Nanotechnology 2018, 29, 185501.
[85]. a) Grob L, Rinklin P, Zips S, Mayer D, Weidlich S, Terkan K, Weiß LJ, Adly N, Offenhäusser
A, Wolfrum B, Sensors 2021, 21, 3981; [PubMed: 34207725] b) Grob L, Yamamoto H, Zips S,
Rinklin P, Hirano-Iwata A, Wolfrum B, Adv. Mater. Technol 2020, 5, 1900517.
[86]. Dankoco MD, Tesfay GY, Benevent E, Bendahan M, Mater. Sci. Eng., B 2016, 205, 1.
[87]. Di Novo NG, Cantù E, Tonello S, Sardini E, Serpelloni M, Sensors 2019, 19, 1842.
[88]. Rahman T, Renaud L, Heo D, Renn M, Panat R, J. Micromech. Microeng 2015, 25, 107002.
[89]. Gagné L, Rivera G, Laroche G, Biomaterials 2006, 27, 5430. [PubMed: 16824592]
[90]. Agarwala S, Goh GL, Le T-SD, An J, Peh ZK, Yeong WY, Kim Y-J, ACS Sens. 2019, 4, 218.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 30560661]
[91]. Rumley-Ouellette BJ, Wahry JH, Baker AM, Bernardin JD, Marchi AN, Todd MD, Struct. Health
Monit 2017, 1881.
[92]. Bose S, Bandyopadhyay A, in Additive manufacturing, CRC Press, Boca Raton 2019, p. 451.
[93]. Rahim TNAT, Abdullah AM, Akil HM, Polym. Rev 2019, 59, 589.
[94]. Ravanbakhsh H, Bao G, Luo Z, Mongeau LG, Zhang YS, ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng 2021, 7, 4009.
[PubMed: 34510905]
[95]. Chen S, Su M, Zhang C, Gao M, Bao B, Yang Q, Su B, Song Y, Adv. Mater 2015, 27, 3928.
[PubMed: 26011403]

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 20

[96]. Manapat JZ, Chen Q, Ye P, Advincula RC, Macromol. Mater. Eng 2017, 302, 1600553.
[97]. Wang Z, Kumar H, Tian Z, Jin X, Holzman JF, Menard F, Kim K, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
Author Manuscript

2018, 10, 26859.

[98]. Valentin TM, Leggett SE, Chen P-Y, Sodhi JK, Stephens LH, McClintock HD, Sim JY, Wong IY,
Lab Chip 2017, 17, 3474. [PubMed: 28906525]
[99]. Lee K-W, Wang S, Fox BC, Ritman EL, Yaszemski MJ, Lu L, Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 1077.
[PubMed: 17326677]
[100]. Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW, Biomaterials 2010, 31, 6121. [PubMed: 20478613]
[101]. Arif KM, Murakami T, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol 2009, 41, 527.
[102]. Sharafeldin M, Jones A, Rusling JF, Micromachines 2018, 9, 394.
[103]. Ge L, Dong L, Wang D, Ge Q, Gu G, Sens. Actuators, A 2018, 273, 285.
[104]. Osman RB, van der Veen AJ, Huiberts D, Wismeijer D, Alharbi N, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed.
Mater 2017, 75, 521. [PubMed: 28846981]
[105]. Santoliquido O, Colombo P, Ortona A, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc 2019, 39, 2140.
[106]. Huang Z, Tsui GC-P, Deng Y, Tang C-Y, Nanotechnol. Rev 2020, 9, 1118.
Author Manuscript

[107]. Hsieh TM, Ng CWB, Narayanan K, Wan AC, Ying JY, Biomaterials 2010, 31, 7648. [PubMed:
20667410]
[108]. Haque MA, Lavrik NV, Hensley D, McFarlane N, presented at 2019 IEEE 69th Electronic
Components and Technology Conf. (ECTC), IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA 2019.
[109]. Farsari M, Chichkov BN, Nat. Photonics 2009, 3, 450.
[110]. Tan KH, Chua CK, Leong KF, Cheah CM, Cheang P, Abu Bakar MS, Cha SW, Biomaterials
2003, 24, 3115. [PubMed: 12895584]
[111]. Awad A, Fina F, Goyanes A, Gaisford S, Basit AW, Int. J. Pharm 2020, 586, 119594.
[112]. Dotchev K, Yusoff W, Rapid Prototyping J. 2009, 15, 192.
[113]. Tortorich RP, Choi J-W, Nanomaterials 2013, 3, 453. [PubMed: 28348344]
[114]. Mannoor MS, Jiang Z, James T, Kong YL, Malatesta KA, Soboyejo WO, Verma N, Gracias DH,
McAlpine MC, Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 2634. [PubMed: 23635097]
[115]. Low Z-X, Chua YT, Ray BM, Mattia D, Metcalfe IS, Patterson DA, J. Membr. Sci 2017, 523,
596.
Author Manuscript

[116]. Roth EA, Xu T, Das M, Gregory C, Hickman JJ, Boland T, Biomaterials 2004, 25, 3707.
[PubMed: 15020146]
[117]. Kastner J, Faury T, Außerhuber HM, Obermüller T, Leichtfried H, Haslinger MJ, Liftinger E,
Innerlohinger J, Gnatiuk I, Holzinger D, Microelectron. Eng 2017, 176, 84.
[118]. Hudd A, The chemistry of inkjet inks, World Scientific 2011, 3.
[119]. Goh GL, Agarwala S, Yeong WY, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 43719.
[120]. Grunwald I, Groth E, Wirth I, Schumacher J, Maiwald M, Zoellmer V, Busse M, Biofabrication
2010, 2, 014106.
[121]. Gupta AA, Bolduc A, Cloutier SG, Izquierdo R, presented at 2016 IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits
and systems (ISCAS), IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada 2016.
[122]. Saleh MS, Li J, Park J, Panat R, Addit. Manuf 2018, 23, 70.
[123]. Whitesides GM, Nature 2006, 442, 368. [PubMed: 16871203]
[124]. Chan HN, Shu Y, Xiong B, Chen Y, Chen Y, Tian Q, Michael SA, Shen B, Wu H, ACS Sens.
2016, 1, 227.
Author Manuscript

[125]. Au AK, Bhattacharjee N, Horowitz LF, Chang TC, Folch A, Lab Chip 2015, 15, 1934.
[PubMed: 25738695]
[126]. Nguyen TN, Nolan JK, Park H, Lam S, Fattah M, Page JC, Joe H-E, Jun MB, Lee H, Kim SJ,
Biosens. Bioelectron 2019, 131, 257. [PubMed: 30849725]
[127]. Johnson BN, Lancaster KZ, Hogue IB, Meng F, Kong YL, Enquist LW, McAlpine MC, Lab
Chip 2016, 16, 1393. [PubMed: 26669842]
[128]. Sones CL, Mailis S, Brocklesby WS, Eason RW, Owen JR, J. Mater. Chem 2002, 12, 295.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 21

[129]. Cesewski E, Haring AP, Tong Y, Singh M, Thakur R, Laheri S, Read KA, Powell MD, Oestreich
KJ, Johnson BN, Lab Chip 2018, 18, 2087. [PubMed: 29897358]
Author Manuscript

[130]. Kamyshny A, Magdassi S, Chem. Soc. Rev 2019, 48, 1712. [PubMed: 30569917]
[131]. Nguyen TNH, Nolan JK, Park H, Lam S, Fattah M, Page JC, Joe H-E, Jun MBG, Lee H, Kim
SJ, Shi R, Lee H, Biosens. Bioelectron 2019, 131, 257. [PubMed: 30849725]
[132]. Herbert R, Mishra S, Lim HR, Yoo H, Yeo WH, Adv. Sci 2019, 6, 1970110.
[133]. Pu Z, Tu J, Han R, Zhang X, Wu J, Fang C, Wu H, Zhang X, Yu H, Li D, Lab Chip 2018, 18,
3570. [PubMed: 30376024]
[134]. Huh D, Hamilton GA, Ingber DE, Trends Cell Biol. 2011, 21, 745. [PubMed: 22033488]
[135]. Bouchie A, DeFrancesco L, Nat. Biotechnol 2015, 33, 247. [PubMed: 25748912]
[136]. Benam KH, Villenave R, Lucchesi C, Varone A, Hubeau C, Lee H-H, Alves SE, Salmon M,
Ferrante TC, Weaver JC, Bahinski A, Hamilton GA, Ingber DE, Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 151.
[PubMed: 26689262]
[137]. Lee JW, Choi Y-J, Yong W-J, Pati F, Shim J-H, Kang KS, Kang I-H, Park J, Cho D-W,
Biofabrication 2016, 8, 015007.
Author Manuscript

[138]. Horváth L, Umehara Y, Jud C, Blank F, Petri-Fink A, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Sci. Rep 2015, 5,
7974. [PubMed: 25609567]
[139]. Homan KA, Gupta N, Kroll KT, Kolesky DB, Skylar-Scott M, Miyoshi T, Mau D, Valerius
MT, Ferrante T, Bonventre JV, Lewis A, Morizane R, Nat. Methods 2019, 16, 255. [PubMed:
30742039]
[140]. Skardal A, Murphy SV, Devarasetty M, Mead I, Kang H-W, Seol Y-J, Shrike Zhang Y, Shin
S-R, Zhao L, Aleman J, Hall AR, Shupe TD, Kleensang A, Dokmeci MR, Jin Lee S, Jackson D,
Yoo JJ, Hartung T, Khademhosseini A, Soker S, Bishop CE, Atala A, Sci. Rep 2017, 7, 8837.
[PubMed: 28821762]
[141]. Zhang YS, Arneri A, Bersini S, Shin S-R, Zhu K, Goli-Malekabadi Z, Aleman J, Colosi C,
Busignani F, Dell’Erba V, Bishop C, Shupe T, Demarchi D, Moretti M, Rasponi M, Dokmeci
MR, Atala A, Khademhosseini A, Biomaterials 2016, 110, 45. [PubMed: 27710832]
[142]. Wang Y, Wang L, Guo Y, Zhu Y, Qin J, RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 1677. [PubMed: 35540867]
[143]. Lee KK, McCauley HA, Broda TR, Kofron MJ, Wells JM, Hong CI, Lab Chip 2018, 18, 3079.
[PubMed: 30238091]
Author Manuscript

[144]. Kadimisetty K, Mosa IM, Malla S, Satterwhite-Warden JE, Kuhns TM, Faria RC, Lee NH,
Rusling JF, Biosens. Bioelectron 2016, 77, 188. [PubMed: 26406460]
[145]. Chudobova D, Cihalova K, Skalickova S, Zitka J, Rodrigo MAM, Milosavljevic V, Hynek D,
Kopel P, Vesely R, Adam V, Electrophoresis 2015, 36, 457. [PubMed: 25069433]
[146]. Lee W, Kwon D, Choi W, Jung GY, Au AK, Folch A, Jeon S, Sci. Rep 2015, 5, 18833.
[147]. Ling W, Liew G, Li Y, Hao Y, Pan H, Wang H, Ning B, Xu H, Huang X, Adv. Mater 2018, 30,
1800917.
[148]. Yang C, Cao Q, Puthongkham P, Lee ST, Ganesana M, Lavrik NV, Venton BJ, Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed 2018, 57, 14255.
[149]. Kimmel DW, LeBlanc G, Meschievitz ME, Cliffel DE, Anal. Chem 2012, 84, 685. [PubMed:
22044045]
[150]. a) Tang C, Vaze A, Rusling J, Lab Chip 2017, 17, 484; [PubMed: 28067370] b) Healy DA,
Hayes CJ, Leonard P, McKenna L, O’Kennedy R, Trends Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 125. [PubMed:
17257699]
Author Manuscript

[151]. Zhao Y, Li S-H, Chu J, Chen Y-P, Li W-W, Yu H-Q, Liu G, Tian Y-C, Xiong Y, Biosens.
Bioelectron 2012, 35, 115. [PubMed: 22410488]
[152]. Zheng J, Zhou X, Bioelectrochemistry 2007, 70, 408. [PubMed: 16843072]
[153]. Chung S, Akhtar MH, Benboudiaf A, Park DS, Shim YB, Electroanalysis 2020, 32, 520.
[154]. Cao C, Kim JP, Kim BW, Chae H, Yoon HC, Yang SS, Sim SJ, Biosens. Bioelectron 2006, 21,
2106. [PubMed: 16310353]
[155]. Yao J, Wang Y, Dai Y, Liu CC, ACS Omega 2018, 3, 6411. [PubMed: 30023946]
[156]. Manbohi A, Ahmadi SH, Sens. Bio-Sens. Res 2019, 23, 100270.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 22

[157]. Nesaei S, Song Y, Wang Y, Ruan X, Du D, Gozen A, Lin Y, Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1043, 142.
[PubMed: 30392662]
Author Manuscript

[158]. Bihar E, Wustoni S, Pappa AM, Salama KN, Baran D, Inal S, npj Flexible Electron. 2018, 2, 30.
[159]. Chen J, Zhang W-D, Ye J-S, Electrochem. Commun 2008, 10, 1268.
[160]. Oh SY, Hong SY, Jeong YR, Yun J, Park H, Jin SW, Lee G, Oh JH, Lee H, Lee S-S, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 13729.
[161]. Pemberton R, Xu J, Pittson R, Biddle N, Drago G, Jackson S, Hart J, Anal. Biochem 2009, 385,
334. [PubMed: 19027709]
[162]. Ho EHZ, Ambrosi A, Pumera M, Appl. Mater. Today 2018, 12, 43.
[163]. Li X, Wang Y, Liu J, Sun M, Bo X, Wang H-L, Zhou M, Electrochem. Commun 2017, 82, 139.
[164]. Puri N, Sharma V, Tanwar VK, Singh N, Biradar AM, Prog. Biomater 2013, 2, 5. [PubMed:
29470786]
[165]. Shukla S, Vidal X, Furlani EP, Swihart MT, Kim K-T, Yoon Y-K, Urbas A, Prasad PN, ACS
Nano 2011, 5, 1947. [PubMed: 21366284]
[166]. Shukla S, Furlani EP, Vidal X, Swihart MT, Prasad PN, Adv. Mater 2010, 22, 3695. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

20626009]
[167]. Liu Y, Hu Q, Zhang F, Tuck C, Irvine D, Hague R, He Y, Simonelli M, Rance GA, Smith EF,
Polymers 2016, 8, 325.
[168]. Hu Q, Sun X-Z, Parmenter CD, Fay MW, Smith EF, Rance GA, He Y, Zhang F, Liu Y, Irvine D,
Sci. Rep 2017, 7, 17150.
[169]. Guner H, Ozgur E, Kokturk G, Celik M, Esen E, Topal AE, Ayas S, Uludag Y, Elbuken C, Dana
A, Sens. Actuators, B 2017, 239, 571.
[170]. Chen Y, Fu Q, Li D, Xie J, Ke D, Song Q, Tang Y, Wang H, Anal. Bioanal. Chem 2017, 409,
6567. [PubMed: 28871402]
[171]. Yetisen AK, Akram MS, Lowe CR, Lab Chip 2013, 13, 2210. [PubMed: 23652632]
[172]. Youssef A, Hollister SJ, Dalton PD, Biofabrication 2017, 9, 012002.
[173]. Han D, Morde RS, Mariani S, La Mattina AA, Vignali E, Yang C, Barillaro G, Lee H, Adv.
Funct. Mater 2020, 30, 1909197.
[174]. Wasserberg D, Zhang X, Breukers C, Connell BJ, Baeten E, van den Blink D, Benet ÈS, Bloem
Author Manuscript

AC, Nijhuis M, Wensing AMJ, Terstappen LWMM, Beck M, Biosens. Bioelectron 2018, 117,
659. [PubMed: 30005387]
[175]. Kong YL, Zou X, McCandler CA, Kirtane AR, Ning S, Zhou J, Abid A, Jafari M, Rogner J,
Minahan D, Adv. Mater. Technol 2019, 4, 1800490.
[176]. Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Website, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
(accessed: November 2021).
[177]. Shafiee H, Jahangir M, Inci F, Wang S, Willenbrecht RB, Giguel FF, Tsibris AM, Kuritzkes DR,
Demirci U, Small 2013, 9, 2553. [PubMed: 23447456]
[178]. a)Mokhtarzadeh A, Eivazzadeh-Keihan R, Pashazadeh P, Hejazi M, Gharaatifar N, Hasanzadeh
M, Baradaran B, de la Guardia M, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem 2017, 97, 445;b)Bolotsky A, Butler
D, Dong C, Gerace K, Glavin NR, Muratore C, Robinson JA, Ebrahimi A, ACS Nano 2019, 13,
9781. [PubMed: 31430131]
[179]. Krejcova L, Nejdl L, Rodrigo MAM, Zurek M, Matousek M, Hynek D, Zitka O, Kopel P, Adam
V, Kizek R, Biosens. Bioelectron 2014, 54, 421. [PubMed: 24296063]
[180]. Tsuda S, Fraser LA, Sharabi S, Hezwani M, Kinghorn A, Liang S, Douce G, Tanner J, Cronin
Author Manuscript

L, ChemRxiv 2019, 10.26434/chemrxiv.7640414.v1.

[181]. Park C, Lee J, Kim Y, Kim J, Lee J, Park S, J. Microbiol. Methods 2017, 132, 128. [PubMed:
27923650]
[182]. Kumar KS, Chen P-Y, Ren H, Research 2019, 2019, 3018568.
[183]. Zhao S, Zhu R, Adv. Mater 2017, 29, 1606151.
[184]. Hua Q, Sun J, Liu H, Bao R, Yu R, Zhai J, Pan C, Wang ZL, Nat. Commun 2018, 9, 244.
[PubMed: 29339793]

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 23

[185]. Mohammadi A, Lavranos J, Zhou H, Mutlu R, Alici G, Tan Y, Choong P, Oetomo D, PLoS One
2020, 15, e0232766.
Author Manuscript

[186]. Muth J, Vogt D, Truby R, Adv. Mater 2014, 26, 6307. [PubMed: 24934143]
[187]. Antfolk C, D’alonzo M, Rosén B, Lundborg G, Sebelius F, Cipriani C, Expert Rev. Med.
Devices 2013, 10, 45. [PubMed: 23278223]
[188]. Low JH, Lee WW, Khin PM, Thakor NV, Kukreja SL, Ren HL, Yeow CH, IEEE Robot. Autom.
Lett 2017, 2, 880.
[189]. Martinez MO, Morimoto TK, Taylor AT, Barron AC, Pultorak JA, Wang J, Calasanz-Kaiser A,
Davis RL, Blikstein P, Okamura AM, presented at 2016 IEEE Haptics Symp. (HAPTICS), IEEE,
Philadelphia, PA 2016.
[190]. D’Agnano F, Balletti C, Guerra F, Vernier P, Int. Arch. Photogramm., Remote Sen. Spat. Inf. Sci
2015, 40, 207.
[191]. Kim K, Park J, Suh J.-h., Kim M, Jeong Y, Park I, Sens. Actuators, A 2017, 263, 493.
[192]. Nabeel M, Aqeel K, Ashraf MN, Awan MI, Khurram M, presented at 2016 2nd Int. Conf. on
Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (ICRAI), IEEE, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 2016.
[193]. a) Ali MH, Batai S, Sarbassov D, Rapid Prototyping J. 2019, 25, 1108;b) Jiménez M, Romero
Author Manuscript

L, Domínguez IA, Espinosa M. d. M., Domínguez M, Complexity 2019, 2019, 9656938.

[194]. Oh Y, Bharambe V, Mummareddy B, Martin J, McKnight J, Abraham MA, Walker JM, Rogers
K, Conner B, Cortes P, MacDonald E, Adams JJ, Addit. Manuf 2019, 27, 586.
[195]. Haque MA, McFarlane N, Lavrik NV, Hensley D, presented at 2019 30th Annual SEMI
Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conf. (ASMC), IEEE, Saratoga Springs, NY 2019.
[196]. Ercolano G, Zambelli T, van Nisselroy C, Momotenko D, Vörös J, Merle T, Koelmans WW,
Adv. Eng. Mater 2020, 22, 1900961.
[197]. Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujan D, Ramani K, Chen Y, Williams CB, Wang CCL, Shin YC, Zhang
S, Zavattieri PD, Comput. -Aided Des 2015, 69, 65.
[198]. a) Tansel DZ, Brenneman J, Fedder GK, Panat R, J. Micromech. Microeng 2020, 30, 067001;b)
Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B, Khorasani M, in Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer,
New York 2021, p. 379.
[199]. a) Katseli V, Economou A, Kokkinos C, Electrochem. Commun 2019, 103, 100;b) Kadimisetty
K, Song J, Doto AM, Hwang Y, Peng J, Mauk MG, Bushman FD, Gross R, Jarvis JN, Liu C,
Author Manuscript

Biosens. Bioelectron 2018, 109, 156. [PubMed: 29550739]

[200]. Gambardella V, Tarazona N, Cejalvo JM, Lombardi P, Huerta M, Roselló S, Fleitas T, Roda D,
Cervantes A, Cancers 2020, 12, 1009.
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 24
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Author Manuscript

Timeline/history for the development of biomedical devices fabricated using traditional

manufacturing and 3D printing. i) First implantable cardiac pacemaker invented in 1958,[1]
ii) A digital glucometer based on test strip,[2] iii) schematic of microarray pattern fabrication
via photolithography.[25] iv) A microfluidic device using soft-lithography replica molding,
[25] v) a set of electrochemical sensors on the same substrate for in vivo biomolecule

detection.[26] vi) First SLA-printed 3D part created by Chuck Hull.[27] vii) A 3D gear
made by SLS method using metal powders and powder blends.[28] viii) First use of a

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 25

lab-grown urinary bladder made from molded polymer for transplant surgery.[29] ix) 3D
Author Manuscript

printed (omnidirectional) microvascular networks within a hydrogel reservoir using direct

ink writing method.[30] x) 3D printed biosensors for online analysis of subcutaneous
human microdialysate, a) a microvial, b) probe holder, c) sensor sealing holder, and
d) glucose and lactate sensor probes. Reproduced with permission.[31] Copyright 2015,
American Chemical Society. xi) A 3D printed lab-on-a-chip device platform for biosensing
applications.[17] Reproduced with permission.[17] Copyright 2015, Wiley-VCH. xii) The 3D
electrochemiluminescent detection platform for the measurement of cigarette and e-cigarette
smoke extracts and polluted water samples.[19] Reproduced with permission.[19] Copyright
2017, American Chemical Society. xiii) A textile-mounted 3D capacitive fiber created
for the detection of elongational strains.[20] Reproduced with permission.[20] Copyright
2020, Wiley-VCH. xiv) 3D printed acoustic biosensor for infectious disease monitoring.[32]
Reproduced with permission.[32] Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. xv) A 10 s
COVID-19 test chip by enabling aerosol jet 3D nanoparticle printing.[33] Reproduced with
Author Manuscript

permission.[33] Copyright 2020, Wiley-VCH.

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 26
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Author Manuscript

3D printed biomedical devices that interface with various parts of the human body. a) An
ultra-high-density microelectrode array for neural detection.[39] b) An optically transparent
3D microfluidic device.[41] Reproduced with permission.[41] Copyright 2014, American
Chemical Society. c) Human organ-on-chip,[59] d) multimaterial microphysiological device
for monitoring contractile stress of multiple laminar cardiac micro-tissues,[42] e) AJ
printed capacitive touch sensor,[60] and f) glioblastoma-on-a-chip for drug discovery.[43]
g) Artificial skin for slip force, tactile force, and temperature measurements.[21] Reproduced

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 27

with permission.[21] Copyright 2014, American Chemical Society. h) 3D printed smart

earable device to monitor body temperature.[44] Reproduced with permission.[44] Copyright
Author Manuscript

2017, American Chemical Society. i) A skin-attachable flexible strain sensor based on

interconnected nanofibers.[61]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 28
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Author Manuscript

AM (also called 3D printing) methods relevant to biomedical sensors. a) Fused deposition

modeling (FDM) system for printed sensors such as an electrochemical sensor for lactate
sensing.[63] b) An example of biosensor (microfluidic e-tongue sensor) manufactured by
FDM (image reproduced with permission).[63] Copyright 2017, Elsevier. c) Schematic
representation of direct ink write (DIW) 3D printer.[65] d) A picture of implanted soft
biosensor used for simultaneous epicardial recording of ECG signal from murine.[65] e)
SLA-based 3D printing wherein the manufacture of a microfluidic device is taken for

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 29

demonstration.[23] f) Set up of a two photon polarization (2PP) with associated optical

circuitry.[73] g) An optical fiber based probe manufactured by 2PP and used for rapid
Author Manuscript

detection of bacteria.[74] Image reproduced with permission.[74] Copyright 2020, Wiley-

VCH. h) SLS-based 3D printer used to fabricate microfluidic electrochemical sensors.
[75] i) An inkjet printer,[76] and j) A photograph of OTFT biosensor fabricated by

inkjet printer.[76] Image reproduced with permission.[76] Copyright 2015, Wiley-VCH. k)

Schematic of aerosol jet 3D NP printing process with ultrasonic and pneumatic automizers
to generate aerosol droplets which are moved to the nozzle via a carries gas and
focused aerodynamically to print biomedical devices such as neural probes (brain-computer
interfaces).[39] The categorization of the 3D printing methods in this figure according to
ASTM Standard F2792–12a is given in Table 1.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 30
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Author Manuscript

3D printed microfluidic biosensor and organs-on-a-chip. a) 3D printed needle-type

microfluidic glutamate sensor consisting of three electrodes wherein the working electrode
is made of platinum NPs, CNTs, and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene
sulfonate (PEDOT.PSS). The biochemical reaction shows the generation of electrons by
oxygen (O2) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) reduction in presence of glutamate oxidase
enzyme.[126] Reproduced with permission.[126] Copyright 2019, Elsevier. b) A schematic
and an optical image of a 3D printed modular microfluidic sensor with reusable electrodes.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 31

The micrographs show gold and silver wire secured with C-7 epoxy and a calibration
Author Manuscript

plot for the detection O2 concentration (parts-per-million) in presence of buffer (HBSS)

with red blood cell counts,[38] Reproduced with permission.[38] Copyright 2014, Royal
Society of Chemistry. c–e) 3D printed organ-on-a-chip. The optical image shows a
perpendicular assembly of microchannel and tri-chamber components of the organ-on-a-
chip. The micrograph shows a single channel of superior cervical ganglia (SCG) neurons
and axons in chamber 1.[127]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 32
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 5.
Author Manuscript

Biosensor device integration and customization via 3D printing. a) 3D printed microfluidic

colorimetric sensor.[124] b) Example of using 3D printing to create custom reconfigurable
components for biosensing: assembly and operation of push valves used in a microfluidic
biosensor (red and yellow colors indicate valves and pistons, respectively).[124] Reproduced
with permission.[124] Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society. c) 3D printed
microneedles for drug delivery and biosensing.[173] Reproduced with permission.[173]
Copyright 2020, Wiley-VCH. d) 3D printed GRE device[175] with a CAD layout that shows

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 33

the embedded electronics for sensing and drug delivery. e) Dimension of the GRE device in
Author Manuscript

(d). f) X-ray image showing the deployment of the GRE device in (d) in a porcine stomach.
Reproduced with permission.[175] Copyright 2019, Wiley-VCH.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 34
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 6.
Author Manuscript

3D printed biosensors for rapid and sensitive pathogen detection. a–c) Schematics showing
AJP of biosensor for COVID-19 antibody detection in seconds.[33] The biosensor consisted
of a 10 × 10 micropillar array coated with viral antigens as the working electrode. d,e)
Optical image and SEM of the sensor depicted in (a), respectively. The SEM images
show top view of the 3D printed micropillar array. f) Plots showing the sensing of spike
S1 antibodies with repeated regeneration. The charge transfer resistance varies with the

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 35

antibody concentration. For control studies, rabbit serum (RS) and fetal bovine serum (FBS)
solution were used.[33] Reproduced with permission.[33] Copyright 2020, Wiley-VCH.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 36
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 7.
Author Manuscript

3D printed physical sensors. a,b) Schematic demonstration of material jetting (extrusion

printing) in combination with reverse micelle to create patterned PSR.[11] The use of such
a sensor to monitor deformation/strain on a human finger is shown in (b). Reproduced
with permission.[11] Copyright 2014, Wiley-VCH. c) A multifunctional electronic skin (e-
skin) with multimodal sensing capability that demonstrates miniaturization and elasticity
enabled by 3D printing.[183] Inset shows e-skin attached on the hand. Reproduced with
permission.[183] Copyright 2017, Wiley-VCH. d) Another example of 3D printed electronic

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Ali et al. Page 37

skin comprising of highly stretchable and conformable conductive matrix network on

polyimide substrate for multifunctional sensing (10 × 10 sensor array, scale bar: 5 mm).[184]
Author Manuscript

e) Real-time sensing of temperature, pressure, and proximity by the sensor shown in (d).[184]
f) A tactile sensor with the SEM showing the printed device (scale bar is 200 μm).[5a]
Reproduced with permission.[5a] Copyright 2017, Wiley-VCH. g) A prosthetic hand that
uses 3D printed pressure sensors for controlling the grip. Handling of a spherical object was
used to demonstrate the pressure control.[185]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1.

Different 3D printing methods relevant to biomedical sensor applications.

Ali et al.

Methods* Principle Materials Applications Advantages Disadvantages Manufacturers

Material extrusion (Fused Nozzle prints melted Acrylonitrile butadiene Immunosensor, A wide range of materials can Requires support and parts Makerbot, Ultimaker
deposition modeling) filament onto a build styrene (ABS), Lactate sensor[56,91] be used, faster compared to can have lower strength Prussa
platform followed by poly lactic acid SLA, resolution ≈ 350 μm[92] compared to solid polymers.
solidification (PLA), polycarbonate [93]
(PC) polystyrene
(PS), polyamide,
polyetherimide (PEI) etc.
Material extrusion (Direct Liquid ink is extruded Ceramic slurry, metal Metal electrodes, Compatible with a variety of To achieve small feature, Envision TEC 3D-
ink writing) from a nozzle inks, graphene, carbon [71]
microvascular materials, including biological ink formulation or specific Bioplotter, RepRap
etc. networks[69] inks, can use multiple process modifications are Prusa i3 printer
solidification methods[94] required[95]
Vat photopolymerization UV light Photoresins, ABS, Cellular Sensor,[97] Simple and scalable process. Lower mechanical strength FabPro, Form2
(Stereolithography) polymerization PC, polyethylene, DNA sensor,[98] Bone Ability to pattern multiple compared to bulk polymers,
polypropylene, tissue scaffold and resins in same layer with strong difficulty in removing
nanocomposite[96] biomedical implants. interlayer adhesion[100] uncured resins, and can print
[99] only straight layers[101]

Vat photopolymerization Digital projector Photoesins, metal Glucose sensor, Faster than SLA, uncured Difficulty in printing large 3D PrinterPro, Fast
(Digital light processing) is used to cure powders, polymers, [102,103] motion photopolymer can be reused. structures,[104] and difficulty Radius
photoresins ceramics sensor[103] in controlling precise
structural shape[105]
Vat photopolymerization Two photon absorption Polymers, negative or Tissue scaffolds, Sub-100 nm resolution[109] Requires sophisticated optical TOPTICA Photonics
(Two-photon and polymerization positive photoresists[106] [107]
lab-on-CMOS circuitry and positioning AG, Aerotech
polymerization) sensor[108] stage.[51]
Powder bed fusion Laser source used to Metal powders, Nylon, Biomaterials,[110] pH Fabrication of large parts,[111] Requires more time compared Fuse 1, Sintratec
(Selective laser sintering) sinter powder particles Polyamide powders sensors[75] resolution ≈100 μm to SLA and FDM, limited
accuracy of features below
a millimeter, requires post-
printing processes, and
challenging to control
porosity.[112]

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
Material Jetting (Inkjet Extrusion of ink and Photo-resins, hydrogels, Bionic ear,[114] Bio- Drop-on-demand, allows high- Serial process, constrained by Hsausa, Inkcups,
printing) powder liquid binding carbon nanotubes[113] membrane[115] throughput cell patterning[116] viscosity of solvents[118] NanoDimension
and reactive ink can be printed
without agglomeration[117]
Material Jetting (Aerosol Aerosolized droplets Metal nanoparticles, Glucose sensor, Printing in 3D without support, Particle size limited to < 500 Optomec, Integrated
Jet Printing) delivered by a carrier polymers, carbon [87] Protein [52] adoptable to a wide nm, over-spray[122] Deposition Solutions
gas to deposition nanotubes,[119] graphene, microarray[120] viscosity range,[121] and high (IDS) Inc.
nozzle and focused by MXene resolution of 10μm
a sheath gas

*
Categorization of 3D printing methods according to ASTM Standard F2792–12a[24]
Page 38
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2.

Comparison of 3D printed biomedical sensors with traditional sensors.

Ali et al.

Methods Biomarker Sensor structures (3D Detection range LoD Sensing capabilities and remarks
and non-3D)

3D printing (SLA)[150] Prostate 3D printed channels; 0.5 pg mL−1 to 5 ng 0.5 pg mL−1 Customizability and rapid prototyping capability. Automated detection
specific immunoarray mL−1 system and assay time ≈ 30 min. Accuracy comparable with ELISA and
antigen commercial devices such as Abbott Diagnostics (0.008 ng mL−1), Roche
(0.002 ng mL−1), Beckman Coulter (0.008 ng mL−1), and Diagnostic
Products Corporation (0.04 ng mL−1)
Commercial SPR biochip[154] Self-assembled 1–1000 ng mL−1 18.1 ng Assay time ≈14 min. Sensing with buffer solution and human serum
monolayered Au mL−1
Microfabrication[155] Self-assembled monolayer 0–4 μg mL−1 0.2 μg mL−1 Single-use biosensor, sensing with serum samples and good sensitivity
Au
3D Printing (AJP)[49] Dopamine Micropillar array electrode am–1 mm am Low LoD ≈ 500 attomoles, breaking the barrier described in literature[47]
through multi-length-scale electrode structure. Rapid prototyping
capability and waste minimization due to small microfluidic volume
required for testing.
3D printing (2PP)[148] 3D carbon electrode 0.5–100 μm nm High sensitivity to multiple neurochemicals, high reproducibility,
capability for both in vitro and in vivo.
Lithography[156] Graphene 0.5–120 μm nm Good sensitivity in urine sample

Screen printed electrode[153] Conducting polymer-Pd 0.1 to 200 μm nm In vitro sensing capabilities
composite
Glassy carbon electrode[152] Carbon paste electrode 0.5–800 μm nm Sensing capabilities with urine sample

Lithography[151] Nano-Au electrode 4–1012 μm nm Sensing in phosphate buffered saline (PBS)

3D printing (AJP)[157] Glucose Polymer nanocomposite 0–10 mm 6.9 μm Multi-materials printing, customizability and rapid prototyping. High
sensitivity.
3D printing (AJP)[54] Printed microelectrode 1.7 μm–1 mm 0.45 μm Rapid prototyping, waste minimization, and customizability. Low LoD
arrays and low noise level (1.5 nA)
3D printing (Inkjet printing)[158] PEDOT.PSS 0.25–0.9 mm μm Rapid, fully printed, and customizable biosensor. Non-invasive, good

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
sensitivity in saliva, stability ≈1 month, and response time ≈1 min
Electrodeposition[159] MnO2/MWCNTs μm–28 mm μm Low-potential, stable, and fast detection time

Lithography[160] CNTs 0.05–0.3 mm 1.3 μm Stretchable and skin attachable, continuous monitoring, stability ≈10 days

Screen-printing[161] Carbon 2.5–20 mm 0.5 mm In vitro sensing with human caucasian hepatocyte carcinoma cell line, and
long-term detection of ≈ 24 h
3D printing (SLM)[162] Ascorbic Au electrode 0.1–1 mm 2.1 μm Multi-materials printing and rapid prototyping. High sensitivity, sensing
acid ability with real samples in vitamin C tablet, and better LoD compared to
glassy carbon electrode.
Glassy carbon electrode[163] Carbon nanoplatelets 0.1 μm–1.8 mm 1.09 μm Sensing ability with soft drink, orange juice, and urine.
Page 39
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Methods Biomarker Sensor structures (3D Detection range LoD Sensing capabilities and remarks
and non-3D)

Lithography[164] Indium tin oxide (ITO) 0.058 to 0.71 mm 8.4 μm Response time ≈40 s, shelf life ≈1.5 month
electrode
Ali et al.

Adv Funct Mater. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 November 01.
Page 40