Short answer

Designers must incorporate post-processing steps into their workflows when developing 3D printed biomedical devices to ensure material safety and efficacy.

Field: Commercial Production
Source: Lab on a Chip (2015)
Method: Experimental and observational study
Evidence: Strong effect

Many commercially available 3D printing photopolymers are inherently toxic to developing zebrafish embryos, necessitating specific post-printing treatments to ensure biocompatibility for biomedical applications. This commercial production research insight is drawn from a 2015 study published in Lab on a Chip. Using Experimental and observational study, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Designers must incorporate post-processing steps into their workflows when developing 3D printed biomedical devices to ensure material safety and efficacy.

Study

Commercial ProductionHigh ImpactStrong effect

3D Printed Photopolymers Exhibit Significant Embryo Toxicity, Requiring Post-Processing for Biomedical Use

Lab on a Chip · 2015

Key Findings

01All four tested photopolymers (VisiJet Crystal EX200, Watershed 11122XC, Fototec SLA 7150 Clear, and ABSplus P-430) demonstrated high toxicity to zebrafish embryos, leading to fatality.
02Post-printing treatment of Fototec SLA 7150 Clear rendered it suitable for use in zebrafish embryo culture within the Fish Embryo Test (FET) assay.

Application

Design takeaway

Designers must incorporate post-processing steps into their workflows when developing 3D printed biomedical devices to ensure material safety and efficacy.

How to apply

When designing prototypes for biomedical applications using 3D printing, include a step for thorough material cleaning and curing after printing, and consider conducting biocompatibility tests relevant to the intended application.

Project actions

01When selecting materials for a design project, research their known properties, including any potential toxicity.
02If your design involves contact with living organisms or sensitive environments, plan for necessary post-processing steps to ensure safety and functionality.

Method & Evidence

AimTo assess the biocompatibility of common 3D printed photopolymers using zebrafish embryo toxicity assays and to investigate if post-printing treatments can render them suitable for biological applications.

MethodExperimental and observational study

ProcedureFour different commercially available 3D printing photopolymers were used to fabricate microfluidic devices. These devices were then exposed to zebrafish embryos, and key developmental markers, including survival rates and morphological abnormalities, were observed over a set period. One material underwent post-printing treatment (washing and curing) before re-testing.

ContextBiomedical device prototyping and material assessment

Variables

IVType of 3D printing photopolymer, presence/absence of post-printing treatment

DVZebrafish embryo survival rate, presence of developmental abnormalities

CVZebrafish embryo age, exposure time, environmental conditions (temperature, light), assay protocol

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Utilizes a recognized and relatively rapid biological assay (FET) for toxicity assessment.
+Investigates the impact of post-printing treatment, offering a practical solution.

Limitations

The toxicity observed might be specific to the zebrafish embryo model and may not directly translate to other biological systems or longer-term exposure.

Reliability & validity

The use of a standardized assay and observation of multiple developmental markers contributes to the validity. Reliability would depend on consistent execution of the assay and precise measurement of outcomes.

Think critically

How might the observed toxicity of 3D printed photopolymers impact the cost and feasibility of developing personalized medical devices?

Design Principles

"Biocompatibility of materials must be rigorously assessed and validated, especially for applications involving direct biological contact, and appropriate post-processing techniques should be integrated into the manufacturing workflow."

As 3D printing becomes more integrated into the development of biomedical devices, understanding and mitigating the inherent toxicity of printing materials is crucial. This research highlights that standard printing materials may not be suitable for direct biological interaction without further processing, impacting product development timelines and costs.

What This Means for Your Design

When you 3D print things for medical uses, the plastic can be poisonous to living things. You need to clean and cure the printed part properly after it's made to make sure it's safe.

How to use in your project

1.Reference this study when discussing the importance of material selection and post-processing for biocompatibility in your design project's development.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

The selection of materials for 3D printed prototypes, particularly those intended for biomedical applications, requires careful consideration of biocompatibility. Research indicates that many standard photopolymers exhibit significant toxicity to biological models, necessitating rigorous post-processing, such as thorough washing and curing, to mitigate these risks and ensure the safety and efficacy of the final design.

Source

Lab on a Chip

Assessment of biocompatibility of 3D printed photopolymers using zebrafish embryo toxicity assays

journal · 2015

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about 3d printed photopolymers exhibit significant embryo toxicity, requiring post-processing for biomedical use?: Designers must incorporate post-processing steps into their workflows when developing 3D printed biomedical devices to ensure material safety and efficacy. Evidence: Lab on a Chip (2015).
Why does "3D Printed Photopolymers Exhibit Significant Embryo Toxicity, Requiring Post-Processing for Biomedical Use" matter for design?: As 3D printing becomes more integrated into the development of biomedical devices, understanding and mitigating the inherent toxicity of printing materials is crucial. This research highlights that standard printing materials may not be suitable for direct biological interaction without further processing, impacting product development timelines and costs.
How can designers apply this research?: Designers must incorporate post-processing steps into their workflows when developing 3D printed biomedical devices to ensure material safety and efficacy.
What were the main findings?: All four tested photopolymers (VisiJet Crystal EX200, Watershed 11122XC, Fototec SLA 7150 Clear, and ABSplus P-430) demonstrated high toxicity to zebrafish embryos, leading to fatality.. Post-printing treatment of Fototec SLA 7150 Clear rendered it suitable for use in zebrafish embryo culture within the Fish Embryo Test (FET) assay.
What research method was used?: Experimental and observational study.
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2015 journal from Lab on a Chip.
What should I do differently in my next project?: When designing prototypes for biomedical applications using 3D printing, include a step for thorough material cleaning and curing after printing, and consider conducting biocompatibility tests relevant to the intended application.
What are the limitations?: The study focused on a limited number of photopolymers and a specific biological model (zebrafish embryos). Results may not be generalizable to all 3D printing materials or all biological systems.