This adapted bioprinter will be used to test and characterise the bioink produced for meduCA. In this page, we’ll outline the modifications and requirements we need to sufficiently meet these goals. We used a TronXY Moore 1 and modified it with a syringe pump for extrusion and added a holder for bioink.
Background:
The primary use of the bioprinter is to test the bioink in an automated systems environment. It will be compared to the manual syringe extrusion method previously used to create the bioink structures. In order to create an add on to the bioprinter to allow the loading of our novel bioink into the printer a pre-existing syringe pump created during the team’s last season will be modified to fit onto the printer. The priner will use an FDM-style (fused deposition modeeling) of manufacturing for the bricks. The design of this bioprinter will take into account previous iGEM team projects and utilize their results and conclusions to guide the creation of this modified printer.
Objectives:
The goal for this printer is to:
Print a free-standing structure using the bioink developed by our team
Create controlled extrusion and material management using pre-existing user interfaces built into the printer
Provide insights into bioink composition and viscosity limits
Test cell viability during the printing process and qualitatively evaluate cell stress
Requirements:
Many of our requirements will be related to traditional FDM printer specifications as outlined by RepRap ([1]). These requirements
Table 1: Desired requirements for this bioprinting tool
Requirement
Test
Reason
Manually controlled movement of nozzle
Movement of nozzle controlled by steppers with success being determined by maximum increment of distance at 0.5 mm
To accurately control placement of material
Continuous/controlled Extrusion
Material extruding from nozzle will be printed and success will be determined by manual testing and latency of between input and extrusion being less than 100 ms
to accurately control placement of material
Ability to accurate process simple .gcode files
A simple 3D geometric shape will be transferred to the printer. Success is determined by 99.9% accuracy to UltimakerCura’s expected extruder path.
To ensure complex geometries of printed objects are retained
Object and printing size limits, build volume
The build volume will be measured and given our small scale testing on bioink, success will be determined by a minimum build volume of 1000 cm^3
To ensure minimum printing capabilites and establish object size limits and bounds
Safety
Must be capable of free-standing in laminar flow hood for experiments involving live organisms. Pass/fail success
To protect personnel during experiments and operation
Low shear stress during printing process
Tested as pass/fail by cell live/dead assay in bioink
To help guide appropriate printing speeds
Printing speeds
Must be able to move 1 mm/s in X and Y axis, 0.5 mm/s for Z axis to achieve success
To achieve realistic printing speeds for experimentation
Extrusion speeds
Must be able to extrude 1 cm^3 in 3 seconds
To achieve realistic printing speeds for experimentation
Concepts and Designs:
Two major printer approaches were generated during conceptualization: adapting a commercial 3D printer for bioink, or constructing a bioprinter from scratch. The first concept was modifying our iHP contact and advisor Dr. Nick Lin’s clay printer (a Tron for bioink given its predisposed affinity for more high viscosity extrusion materials. The other approach utilised a printer made from highly accessible components called Printess ([2]) and adapting the build and design process for a new bioprinter.
Table 1: Comparison between the two approaches
Factors
Clay Printer
Printess
Bioink compatability
Pre-existing infrastructure for high viscosity materials
Requires new adaptations for printing non-traditional 3D printing materials
Cost
Requires less parts and only adds modifications from 3D printed parts and other materials we already have
Requires a new board and majority of parts 3D printed with some additional parts required like nozzle and miscellaneous system parts
Feasibility
Low complexity, limited to modifications and add-ons
Higher complexity, requires detailed assembly and more time dedicated to producing parts and assembly
Customization
Difficult to customize, existing structures and be a barrier to remove/change
Almost completely customizable with replacable parts and incorporating new designs is easier
iGEM History
Historically, majority of teams have attempted to reuse or recreate commercial FDM printers for bioprinting([3])([4])[5])
Very few teams have tried to produce their own printers from scratch.
Our Approach
After carefully weighing our options, we decided to proceed with modifying the clay printer. We came to this decision based on the amount of time we had left in the season and the success of previous iGEM projects with a comparable amount of time. Our design will produce a syringe pump which as previously mentioned, reuses materials already within the team’s possession and takes advantage of a past knowledge base. We will also produce a bioink resevoir holder, which is novel to our team this year.
1. Wittbrodt BT, Glover AG, Laureto J, Anzalone GC, Oppliger D, Irwin JL, et al. Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers. Mechatronics [Internet]. 2013 Sept [cited 2025 Oct 1];23(6):713—26. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957415813001153
2. A Low-Cost, Open-Source 3D Bioprinter [Internet]. Printess; 2025 [cited 2025 Sept 30]. Available from: https://printess.org/
