Development and implementation of a significantly low-cost 3D bioprinter using recycled scrap material
Shows extreme cost-reduction approach; practical for access/democratization discussions.
- Year
- 2023
- Skill
- high
- Docs
- moderate
- Rubric
- 3.4 / 5
Implementation assessment
Scoring by criterion
Scores describe accessibility and implementation characteristics reported in the reviewed source. They are not a measure of scientific quality.
Resolution
Smallest feature/positioning evidence about 10 um.
Scalability/Throughput
Operation appears single-unit or manually constrained.
Build and Part Sourcing Complexity
Mostly off-the-shelf or kit-based components.
Skill Complexity
Build/operation described as low-skill or basic assembly.
Equipment/Cosumable/Facility Requirement Accessibility
Requires specialized facilities, equipment, or consumables.
Application Level
Application scope appears narrow or proof-of-concept.
Accessibility to documentation
Open resources include several build or operation artifacts.
Validation/Troubleshooting Complexity
Validation includes standards, benchmarking, replicates, or multi-condition tests.
Speed/Cycle Time
Speed evidence suggests rapid, real-time, or automated operation.
Build Time
Build time not reported; assigned neutral score.
Linked tools
Record metadata
Publication data
Crossref and OpenAlex
Publication record
Abstract
The field of 3D bioengineering proposes to effectively contribute to the manufacture of artificial multicellular organ/tissues and the understanding of complex cellular mechanisms. In this regard, 3D cell cultures comprise a promising bioengineering possibility for the alternative treatment of organ function loss, potentially improving patient life expectancies. Patients with end-stage disease, for example, could benefit from treatment until organ transplantation or even undergo organ function restoration. Currently, 3D bioprinters can produce tissues such as trachea cartilage or artificial skin. Most low-cost 3D bioprinters are built from fused deposition modeling 3D printer frames modified for the deposition of biologically compatible material, ranging between $13.000,00 and $300.000,00. Furthermore, the cost of consumables should also be considered as they, can range from $3,85 and $100.000,00 per gram, making biomaterials expensive, hindering bioprinting access. In this context, our report describes the first prototype of a significantly low-cost 3D bioprinter built from recycled scrap metal and off-the-shelf electronics. We demonstrate the functionalized process and methodology proof of concept and aim to test it in different biological tissue scaffolds in the future, using affordable materials and open-source methodologies, thus democratizing the state of the art of this technology.
Bibliographic details
Access and metrics
Topics and keywords
Funding
- Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa Do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · 001
Perspective and practical signals
Why it matters
Shows extreme cost-reduction approach; practical for access/democratization discussions.
Limitations
Resolution/precision tradeoffs from using scrap/recycled components; build quality may vary with available scrap materials