4.6 Article

MineLoC: A Rapid Production of Lab-on-a-Chip Biosensors Using 3D Printer and the Sandbox Game, Minecraft

期刊

SENSORS
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s18061896

关键词

Lab-on-a-Chip; 3D printing; additive manufacturing; microfluidics; solid modeling

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2017R1D1A1B03030428]
  2. Climate Change Research Hub of KAIST [N11180109]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1D1A1B03030428] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here, MineLoC is described as a pipeline developed to generate 3D printable models of master templates for Lab-on-a-Chip (LoC) by using a popular multi-player sandbox game Minecraft. The user can draw a simple diagram describing the channels and chambers of the Lab-on-a-Chip devices with pre-registered color codes which indicate the height of the generated structure. MineLoC converts the diagram into large chunks of blocks (equal sized cube units composing every object in the game) in the game world. The user and co-workers can simultaneously access the game and edit, modify, or review, which is a feature not generally supported by conventional design software. Once the review is complete, the resultant structure can be exported into a stereolithography (STL) file which can be used in additive manufacturing. Then, the Lab-on-a-Chip device can be fabricated by the standard protocol to produce a Lab-on-a-Chip. The simple polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) device for the bacterial growth measurement used in the previous research was copied by the proposed method. The error calculation by a 3D model comparison showed an accuracy of 86%. It is anticipated that this work will facilitate more use of 3D printer-based Lab-on-a-Chip fabrication, which greatly lowers the entry barrier in the field of Lab-on-a-Chip research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据