Bioprinting · 2021
Design and implementation of a low cost bio-printer modification, allowing for switching between plastic and gel extrusion
Due to the high cost of bioprinters they are not feasible for proof of concept experiments or educational purposes. Furthermore, the more affordable DIY methods all disable the plastic printing capability of the original printer.
Performance the paper reports
0 of 5- Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
- Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
- Viability—Cell viability: not reported
- Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
- Standard—Standard compliance: not reported
The full text was read and states no figure for any of the five.
How hard this is to adopt
2.6 of 5, higher is easierEach score is shown against the range the other 59 builds actually occupy, because no criterion uses the full 1–5 scale. These describe how reproducible the build is, not how good the science is.
Resolution
1/1–5Smallest feature/positioning evidence about 1000 µm.
Throughput
2/2–5Operation appears single-unit or manually constrained.
Parts sourcing
3/2–4Mix of common parts and custom/printed components.
Skill needed
3/2–4Multiple technical skills appear required.
Facilities needed
3/2–4Requires accessible but nontrivial lab/maker equipment.
Documentation
4/2–5Open resources include several build or operation artifacts.
Validation effort
2/2–4Minimal quantitative validation evident, lacks standards, benchmarking, replicates or multi-condition tests.
Cycle time
3/1–4Speed evidence suggests typical operation
2 further criteria are recorded but not shown
- Application Level — scored 2 (75% of records share one value), so it cannot separate one build from another.
- Build Time (scored for only 6 of 60 records), so it cannot separate one build from another.
Both remain in the published dataset.
Have you built this?
Report what it took, including attempts that stalled. A failed build tells the next laboratory what the documentation leaves out.
Know what this record is missing?
The index has no licence on the design files, link to the design files or which files exist (CAD, bill of materials, firmware…) for this build. If you are an author or have built it, you know; a GitHub issue pre-filled with this record takes a minute.
Record metadata
Publication data
Matched by title · retrieved 2026-07-21
Abstract
Due to the high cost of bioprinters they are not feasible for proof of concept experiments or educational purposes. Furthermore, the more affordable DIY methods all disable the plastic printing capability of the original printer. Here we present an affordable bio-printing modification that is easy to install and maintains the original capabilities of the printer. The modification used mostly 3D printed parts and is based on the popular, open-source Prusa i3 3D printer. The modifications are kept as simple as possible and uses standard slicing software, allowing for installation by less experienced builders. By using disposable syringes and easily sterilizable parts, an aseptic bioprinting setup can be achieved, depending on the environment. It also allows for 2 component printing as well as UV curing. The bio-printing and curing capabilities were shown by printing and curing an artificial biofilm of an electro-active bacteria, Geobacter sulfurreducens, onto a carbon-cloth electrode which was used in a microbial fuel cell.
Bibliographic details
Access and metrics
Topics and keywords
Funding
- Vetenskapsradet · 2018 - 03875
Perspective and practical signals
Why it matters
No narrative note curated yet.
Limitations
No limitation note curated yet.