DIY Biofabrication Atlas60 open builds, compared
All builds

Organ-on-chip · STARTER · 2026

STARTER: a stand-alone reconfigurable and translational organ-on-chip platform based on modularity and open design principles

Modular, reconfigurable organ-on-chip platform with swappable pumping/sensing/OoC modules

Performance the paper reports

1 of 5
  1. Motion—Motion accuracy: not reported
  2. Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
  3. Viability—Cell viability: not reported
  4. Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
  5. StandardANSI/SLASStandard compliance: reported
  • Reported against a written standardANSI/SLAS
    Our study introduces a modular microfluidic platform that integrates swappable modules for pumping, sensing, and OoCs, all within the ANSI/SLAS microplate footprint.

How hard this is to adopt

3.3 of 5, higher is easier

Each 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

    1/1–5

    Smallest feature/positioning evidence about 1500 µm.

  • Throughput

    4/2–5

    Evidence of parallel, plate-scale, multi-head, or unattended operation.

  • Parts sourcing

    3/2–4

    Mix of common parts and custom/printed components.

  • Skill needed

    4/2–4

    Build/operation described as low-skill or basic assembly.

  • Facilities needed

    3/2–4

    Requires accessible but nontrivial lab/maker equipment.

  • Documentation

    3/2–5

    Some open documentation or files are available.

  • Validation effort

    4/2–4

    Validation includes standards, benchmarking, replicates, or multi-condition tests.

  • Cycle time

    4/1–4

    Speed evidence suggests rapid, real-time, or automated operation.

2 further criteria are recorded but not shown
  • Application Level — scored 4 (75% of records share one value), so it cannot separate one build from another.
  • Build Time — scored 3 (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.

Report a rebuild

Know what this record is missing?

The index has no cost 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.

Fill the gap
Record metadata

Publication

Year
2026
Venue
Unknown
DOI
10.1039/d5lc00756a
Type
Unspecified

Implementation

Open-source
Uncertain
Repository
Linked record
Repository still accessible
Yes, last activity 2026-05-06 — checked 2026-09-29
Build complexity
High
Approximate cost
??? (probably expensive due to custom parts)
Publication data

Matched by title · retrieved 2026-07-21

Abstract

OoC models for multiple days. This platform is designed to support automated multi-organ experiments, independent of the OoC type or material. All designs shown are made open source to encourage broader compatibility and collaboration.

Bibliographic details

Published
2026-01-01
Journal/source
Lab on a Chip
Publisher
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
DOI
10.1039/d5lc00756a
Type
journal-article
Language
en
Volume / issue
26 / 3
Pages
604-617
ISSN
1473-0197, 1473-0189

Access and metrics

Open access
Yes
OA status
hybrid
License
cc-by
Version
publishedVersion
Cited by
1
References
36
Retracted
No
Open-access landing page

Authors and affiliations

  1. Aniruddha PaulCorresponding authorUniversity of Twente
  2. Eric SafaiUniversity of Twente
  3. L.E. de HeusUniversity of Twente
  4. Anke R. VollertsenUniversity of Twente
  5. Kevin WeijgertseNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research
  6. Bjorn de WagenaarNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research
  7. Hossein Eslami Amirabadi
  8. Evita van de SteegNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research
  9. Mathieu OdijkCorresponding authorUniversity of Twente
  10. A Van Der MeerCorresponding authorUniversity of Twente
  11. Joshua Loessberg-ZahlCorresponding authorUniversity of Twente

Topics and keywords

Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsElectrowetting and Microfluidic TechnologiesMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesInteroperabilityModular designModularity (biology)FluidicsCompatibility (geochemistry)Interface (matter)Open architectureOpen platformOpen source

Funding

  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek · NWO-TTW Perspective Programme of the Dutch Research Council
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek · P19-03
Perspective and practical signals

Why it matters

Standardization and flexitbility. No external periphals needed.

Limitations

High custom-fabrication burden; no reported cost or build-time data, suggesting limited accessibility for non-specialist builders

Skills needed

Microfabricationfluidics designelectronics/sensor integrationISO-standard compliance knowledge

Democratizing features

Built on ISO standards. Swapable modules to adpat to different experiments. Reconfigurable fludic circuits. Standalone system. Open-source. Integrated sensing and automation.