Page 95 - IJB-6-4
P. 95

Priyadarshini, et al.
           probes with bacterial DNA for in vitro diagnostic   DNA in 10 mL of buffer and 10% blood within 30
           applications .  Another study used a manually       min and detected as low as 1 CFU bacterial using
                      [50]
           actuated  miniature  3D-printed  device  fabricated   either PCR or quantitative PCR .
                                                                                            [8]
           using VisiJet EX200 polymer by material jetting       Electrochemical  detection  has also been
           for rapid on-site multiplexed  bacterial  detection   accepted as a powerful tool for bacterial and viral
           using calorimetric  measurement .  The  finger-     detection in 3D-printed biomarkers by identifying
                                           [53]
           actuated  pumping membrane  seated on the           disease-related biomarkers and environmental
           pumping  chamber  was  connected  to  individual    hazards.  A pump-free bioreactor used for
           enrichment/detection chambers through serpentine    electrochemical detection of Salmonella consisted
           channels for bacteria detection in drinking water.   of  two  flexible  polyethylene  terephthalate  layers
           Upon depressing and  releasing  the  membrane,      with  sintered  inkjet-printed  electrodes  directly
           a  vacuum  pressure  filled  in  each  chamber  and   bonded to the channel-containing layer, forming a
           sucked in the sample. The lowest detection limit of   sealed microfluidic device . This high throughput
                                                                                       [58]
           1e  colony forming units (CFU)/mL was observed      device accommodated immunomagnetic bacterial
             6
           in  approximately  6 hours. Furthermore,  these     separation. Similarly, a material-extruded bead-
           pathogen detection devices were also connected to   based  microfluidic  chip  with  a  three-electrode
           accessories for colorimetric readout, which would   setup  was  used  for  the  detection  of  influenza
           improve the limit of detection .                    hemagglutinin .  Elsewhere,  a  prototype  system
                                       [54]
                                                                            [51]
             Some  groups  have  resorted  to  combined ATP    with real-time impedance measurements was used
           bioluminescence and magnetic particle-based         to detect phage infection of cultured Lactococcus
           immunomagnetic separation for bacteria sensing.     lactis . The two standard microbiological testing
                                                                    [25]
           This  is  a  more  rapid  and  efficient  approach  for   methods  used  for  comparison  were  based  on
           increasing the sensitivity and specificity of pathogen   plaque assay and turbidity measurements. Only the
           identification.  A  3D-printed  bioreactor  with    inkjet-based  biosensor  system  showed  a  greater
           cylindrical hollow microchannel and high-capacity   sensitivity  to  phage  infection  with  a  response
           efficient  magnetic  O-shaped  separator  (HEMOS)   within the first 3 h of phage inoculation. Another
           was  designed  for  Salmonella  detection  in  large-  study  described  a  T-junction  microfluidic  device
           volume samples (Figure 2B). The magnet-spacer       with  integrated  sensing  electrodes  developed  by
           feature in the central area of HEMOS maximized      FDM (using ABS) for label-free counting of  E.
           the  magnetic  field,  thereby  allowing  ultra-rapid   coli  cells  incorporated  in  spherical  oil  droplets.
           capture of 10 CFU/mL of nanocluster-immobilized     Cells were counted using a single-step contactless
           bacteria  within  3  min . Similarly, a 3D-printed   conductivity  system  and  quantified  by  plate
                                [56]
           bioreactor with helical chambers (Figure 2C) was    counting method. This approach offered noticeable
           developed for bioluminescent Escherichia coli (E.   advantages as a single-step method with minimal
           coli) detection in milk . The device enabled sheath   incubation time before detection . Studies have
                               [7]
                                                                                              [59]
           inlet flow for improved size-dependent separation   also explored the use of 3D-printed bioreactors for
           of bacteria-nanocluster complexes in the helical    the culture of microbes other than bacteria, such as
           microchannel.  A number of studies employed         algae. A material jetted milli-microfluidic device
           3D-printed  millifluidic  platforms  to  process    (Vero™  Black  material)  with  growth  chambers,
           samples larger than 1 mL. At sub-millimeter scale,   microchannels, and  semi-integrated optical
           recyclable, 3D-printed trapezoidal preconcentration   detection system was used for algal culture . Even
                                                                                                      [55]
           chamber built by DLP (acrylic resin) was used to    though the growth was unsuccessful due to poor
           isolate  E. coli in blood samples . Another  3D-    microalgal retention resulting from photopolymer
                                          [57]
           printed millifluidic device preconcentrated bacterial   incompatibility with cells, other metrics observed
           DNA by sequential isolation using magnetic silica   during the culture offered a mechanical perspective
           beads was also developed for improved pathogen      that indicated the 3D-printed architecture posed
           detection in blood. This method extracted bacterial   promising advantages in comparison to other

                                       International Journal of Bioprinting (2020)–Volume 6, Issue 4        91
   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100