Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study on parameter optimization of 3D bioprinting of hybrid bio-inks

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Used mainly for manufacturing operative tissue structures to replace damaged ones, three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a burgeoning area of medical science with enormous potential. Since the technology is still relatively new, 3D bioprinting heavily relies on the trial-and-error approach for advancement, but the general process currently involves a mixture of various biomaterials in hydrogel form. The quality of the results is affected significantly by the parameters by which the print is made. Even the most seemingly minute details can drastically change the outcome of the print, including temperature, print time, print speed and nozzle diameter, and dispensing pressure. The biomaterial used is also of the utmost importance. Based on current results, an ideal biomaterial should include the same or similar chemical, biological, mechanical, and practical properties of the target end structure. It is critical to ascertain the closest parameters available to ensure a quality end resulting print. This study aims to determine and streamline process parameters to the nearest possible degree to optimize the bioprinting process of hybrid bio-inks. Using material made from unchanged alginate, alginate with gelatin and combined amino acids and derivatives with diphenylalanine, the medical properties of each biomaterial are examined, as well as their flow behavior, allowing a certain level of predictability on printing parameters. Printing parameters are the parameters by which we can predict how well a target structure can be accurately constructed using various bio-inks. Results for the study indicated that air pressure, nozzle speed, and diameter, as well as offset and angular pattern, all play significant roles in affecting printing quality. Ultimately, the results have also indicated that printing parameters primarily hinge on the composition of the hydrogels used. This study also presented a detailed frame of reference to assess amino acids and derivatives with diphenylalanine systematically, which can also be used in other areas of 3D bioprinting. The results of this study would be crucial in establishing 3D bioprinting as a one-stop manufacturing solution for biopharmaceutical industries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Naghieh S et al (2018) Dispensing-based bioprinting of mechanically-functional hybrid scaffolds with vessel-like channels for tissue engineering applications–a brief review 78:298–314

  2. He Y et al (2016) Research on the printability of hydrogels in 3D bioprinting 6(1):1–13

  3. Naghieh S et al (2018) Influence of crosslinking on the mechanical behavior of 3D printed alginate scaffolds: experimental and numerical approaches 80:111–118

  4. Skardal A, Atala A (2015) Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting 43(3):730–746

  5. Wang S, Lee JM, Yeong WY (2015) Smart hydrogels for 3D bioprinting. International journal of bioprinting 1(1)

  6. Ng WL, Yeong WY, Naing MW (2016) Polyelectrolyte gelatin-chitosan hydrogel optimized for 3D bioprinting in skin tissue engineering. International journal of bioprinting 2(1)

  7. Lee JM et al (2018) 3D bioprinting processes: a perspective on classification and terminology. International journal of bioprinting 4(2)

  8. Ding H, Chang RC (2018) Printability study of bioprinted tubular structures using liquid hydrogel precursors in a support bath 8(3):403

  9. Chung JH et al (2013) Bio-ink properties and printability for extrusion printing living cells 1(7):763–773

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ouyang L et al (2016) Effect of bioink properties on printability and cell viability for 3D bioplotting of embryonic stem cells 8(3):035020

  11. Pan T et al (2016) 3D bioplotting of gelatin/alginate scaffolds for tissue engineering: influence of crosslinking degree and pore architecture on physicochemical properties 32(9):889–900

  12. Bertassoni LE et al (2014) Direct-write bioprinting of cell-laden methacrylated gelatin hydrogels 6(2):024105

  13. Sarker M et al (2018) Influence of ionic crosslinkers (Ca2+/Ba2+/Zn2+) on the mechanical and biological properties of 3D bioplotted hydrogel scaffolds 29(10):1126–1154

  14. Sarker M et al (2019) Bio-fabrication of peptide-modified alginate scaffolds: printability, mechanical stability and neurite outgrowth assessments 14:e00045

  15. You F et al (2017) 3D printing of porous alginate/gelatin hydrogel scaffolds and their mechanical property characterization 66(6):299–306

  16. Müller M et al (2017) Alginate sulfate–nanocellulose bioinks for cartilage bioprinting applications 45(1):210–223

  17. Gandhi JK, Opara EC, Brey EM (2013) Alginate-based strategies for therapeutic vascularization 4(3):327–341

  18. Freeman FE, Kelly DJ (2017) Tuning alginate bioink stiffness and composition for controlled growth factor delivery and to spatially direct MSC fate within bioprinted tissues 7(1):1–12

  19. Ivanovska J et al (2016) Biofabrication of 3D alginate-based hydrogel for cancer research: comparison of cell spreading, viability, and adhesion characteristics of colorectal HCT116 tumor cells 22(7):708–715

  20. Bohari SP et al (2011) Effect of calcium alginate concentration on viability and proliferation of encapsulated fibroblasts 21(3):159–170

    Google Scholar 

  21. Luo Y et al (2017) 3D bioprinting scaffold using alginate/polyvinyl alcohol bioinks 189:295–298

  22. Ning L et al (2016) Influence of mechanical properties of alginate-based substrates on the performance of Schwann cells in culture 27(9):898–915

    Google Scholar 

  23. Markstedt K et al (2015) 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose–alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications 16(5):1489–1496

  24. Gao T et al (2018) Optimization of gelatin–alginate composite bioink printability using rheological parameters: a systematic approach 10(3):034106

  25. Naghieh S et al (2019) Indirect 3D bioprinting and characterization of alginate scaffolds for potential nerve tissue engineering applications 93:183–193

  26. Lee S-H et al (2014) Analysis of degradation rate for dimensionless surface area of well-interconnected PCL scaffold via in-vitro accelerated degradation experiment 11(6):446–452

    Google Scholar 

  27. Habib A et al (2018) 3D printability of alginate-carboxymethyl cellulose hydrogel 11(3):454

  28. Ivanov C et al (2007) Synthesis of poly (vinyl alcohol): methyl cellulose hydrogel as possible scaffolds in tissue engineering 9(11):3440–3444

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge the support provided by Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA. The facilities provided by the College of Engineering and Computer Science (ECS) at California State University Fullerton are also acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA

    Sagil James & Samir Mulgaonkar

Authors
  1. Sagil James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samir Mulgaonkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Sagil James and Samir Mulgaonkar conceived the idea, designed the methodology and experimental set up, and outlined the paper. Samir conducted the literature review, performed experiments, and collected data. Dr. James analyzed the data and wrote the results of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sagil James.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

James, S., Mulgaonkar, S. Study on parameter optimization of 3D bioprinting of hybrid bio-inks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 119, 7063–7074 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08561-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08561-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation