Advertisement

Investigation of thermoplastic melt flow and dimensionless groups in 3D bioplotting

  • Salim Gopi
  • Marianna KontopoulouEmail author
Original Contribution
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

We investigate the key 3D bioplotting processing parameters, including needle diameter and dispensing pressure, on the shear rates, shear stresses, pressure drops, and swell ratios of extruded miscible polycaprolactone (PCL) blends having a range of viscosities. Assuming simple capillary flow, we construct flow curves and we estimate that the shear stresses inside the needle of the bioplotter range from 2500 to 20,000 Pa and the corresponding shear rates from 2 to 25 s−1, depending upon the viscosity of the blend. We further identify relevant dimensionless numbers that reflect the material rheological properties and processing conditions; these include the capillary number (Ca), Bond number (Bo), Weissenberg number (Wi), and elasticity number (El). At most processing conditions Ca > 1, whereas Bo < 1, suggesting that viscous forces dominated surface forces, except for needle diameters below 0.2 mm, where the flow approached micro-fluidic conditions. While Wi was below 1 at all conditions, El increased significantly with decreasing needle diameter. High El numbers at a needle internal diameter of 0.2 mm were associated with extrudate swell ratios above 2. Based on these results, we define ranges of operation in 3D bioplotting, which can serve as guidelines for process design. Even though this work is specific on the particular bioplotting equipment, the methodology described herein can be applied on any type of micro-extrusion equipment.

Keywords

3D bioplotter Thermoplastics Capillary flow Dimensionless groups 

Notes

Funding information

This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC), through the Discovery program. Funding was received from the Way Trust Memorial Award (Queen’s University), and a Queen’s Graduate Scholarship.

References

  1. Bañobre-López M, Piñeiro-Redondo Y, De Santis R, Gloria A, Ambrosio L, Tampieri A, Dediu V, Rivas J (2011) Poly(caprolactone) based magnetic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Appl Phys 109:07B313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bose S, Ke D, Sahasrabudhe H, Bandyopadhyay A (2018) Additive manufacturing of biomaterials. Prog Mater Sci 93:45–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chien R-D, Jong W-R, Chen S-C (2005) Study on rheological behavior of polymer melt flowing through micro-channels considering the wall-slip effect. J Micromech Microeng 15:1389–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coogan TJ, Kazmer DO (2019) In-line rheological monitoring of fused deposition modeling. J Rheol 63:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox WP, Merz EH (1958) Correlation of dynamic and steady flow viscosities. J Polym Sci 28:619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dealy JM, Wissbrun KF (1999) Linear viscoelasticity. In: Melt rheology and its role in plastics processing. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 42–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falsafi A, Mangipudi S, Owen MJ (2007) Surface and interfacial properties. In: Physical properties of polymers handbook. Springer New York, New York, pp 1011–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fedorovich NE, Swennen I, Girones J, Moroni L, Van Blitterswijk CA, Schacht E, Alblas J, Dhert WJA (2009) Evaluation of photocrosslinked lutrol hydrogel for tissue printing applications. Biomacromolecules 10:1689–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Findrik Balogová A, Hudák R, Tóth T, Schnitzer M, Feranc J, Bakoš D, Živčák J (2018) Determination of geometrical and viscoelastic properties of PLA/PHB samples made by additive manufacturing for urethral substitution. J Biotechnol 284:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li JP, De Wijn JR, Van Blitterswijk CA, De Groot K (2006) Porous Ti6Al4V scaffold directly fabricating by rapid prototyping: preparation and in vitro experiment. Biomaterials 27:1223–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mackay ME (2018) The importance of rheological behavior in the additive manufacturing technique material extrusion. J Rheol 62:1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackay ME, Swain ZR, Banbury CR, Phan DD, Edwards DA (2017) The performance of the hot end in a plasticating 3D printer. J Rheol 61:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maher PS, Keatch RP, Donnelly K, Mackay RE, Paxton JZ (2009) Construction of 3D biological matrices using rapid prototyping technology. Rapid Prototyp J 15:204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McIlroy C, Olmsted PD (2017) Deformation of an amorphous polymer during the fused-filament-fabrication method for additive manufacturing. J Rheol 61:379–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mehendale SV, Mellor LF, Taylor MA, Loboa EG, Shirwaiker RA (2017) Effects of 3D-bioplotted polycaprolactone scaffold geometry on human adipose-derived stem cell viability and proliferation. Rapid Prototyp J 23:534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mendes R, Fanzio P, Campo-Deaño L, Galindo-Rosales FJ (2019) Microfluidics as a platform for the analysis of 3D printing problems. Materials (Basel) 12(17):2839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32:773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noroozi N, Thomson JA, Noroozi N, Schafer LL, Hatzikiriakos SG (2012) Viscoelastic behaviour and flow instabilities of biodegradable poly (ε-caprolactone) polyesters. Rheol Acta 51:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pastore Carbone MG, Di Maio E, Scherillo G, Mensitieri G, Iannace S (2012) Solubility, mutual diffusivity, specific volume and interfacial tension of molten PCL/CO2 solutions by a fully experimental procedure: effect of pressure and temperature. J Supercrit Fluids 67:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phan DD, Swain ZR, Mackay ME (2018) Rheological and heat transfer effects in fused filament fabrication. J Rheol 62:1097–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pionteck J (2018) Determination of pressure dependence of polymer phase transitions by pVT analysis. Polymers 10:578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pipe CJ, McKinley GH (2008) Microfluidic rheometry. Mech Res Commun 36:110–120 3D bioplotter price list (2014): EnvisionTEC Gmbh. pp 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramkumar DHS, Bhattacharya M (1998) Steady shear and dynamic properties of biodegradable polyesters. Polym Eng Sci 38:1426–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rodd LE, Scott TP, Boger DV, Cooper-White JJ, McKinley GH (2005) The inertio-elastic planar entry flow of low-viscosity elastic fluids in micro-fabricated geometries. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 129:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saengow C, Giacomin AJ, Grizzuti N, Pasquino R (2019) Startup steady shear flow from the Oldroyd 8-constant framework. Phys Fluids 31:063101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarker M, Chen XB (2017) Modeling the flow behavior and flow rate of medium viscosity alginate for scaffold fabrication with a three-dimensional bioplotter. J Manuf Sci Eng 139:081002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sheshadri P, Shirwaiker RA (2015) Characterization of material–process–structure interactions in the 3D bioplotting of polycaprolactone. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Squires TM, Quake SR (2005) Microfluidics: fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Rev Mod Phys 77:977–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wagner M, Kiapur N, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Hübner U, Al-Ahmad A, Schön R, Schmelzeisen R, Mülhaupt R, Gellrich NC (2007) Comparative in vitro study of the cell proliferation of ovine and human osteoblast-like cells on conventionally and rapid prototyping produced scaffolds tailored for application as potential bone replacement material. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 83:1154–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations