Wall shear stress during impingement at the building platform can exceed nozzle wall shear stress in microvalve-based bioprinting
It is well known that in microvalve-based bioprinting, the cells are subjected to wall shear stress, which can negatively affect their viability rate. We hypothesized that the wall shear stress during impingement at the building platform, hitherto not considered in microvalve-based bioprinting, can be even more critical for the processed cells than the wall shear stress inside the nozzle. To test our hypothesis, we used fluid mechanics numerical simulation based on finite volume method. In addition, viability of two functionally different cell types, HaCaT cell line and primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), embedded in the cellladen hydrogel was assessed after bioprinting. Simulation results revealed that at low upstream pressure the kinetic energy was not sufficient to overcome the interfacial force for droplet formation and detachment. Oppositely, at relatively mid upstream pressure, a droplet and a ligament were formed, whereas at higher upstream pressure, a jet was formed between nozzle and platform. In the case of jet formation, the shear stress during impingement can exceed the wall shear stress in the nozzle. The amplitude of impingement shear stress depended on nozzle-toplatform distance. This was confirmed by evaluating cell viability which revealed an increase of up to 10% when increasing the nozzle-to-platform distance from 0.3 to 3 mm. In conclusion, the impingement-related shear stress can exceed the wall shear stress in the nozzle in microvalve-based bioprinting. However, this critical issue can be successfully addressed by adapting the distance between the nozzle and the building platform. Altogether, our results highlight impingement-related shear stress as another essential parameter to consider in devising bioprinting strategies.
Noor N, Shapira A, Edri R, et al., 2019, 3D printing of personalized thick and perfusable cardiac patches and hearts. Adv Sci, 6(11): 1900344.
Li X, Liu B, Pei B, et al., 2020, Inkjet bioprinting of biomaterials. Chem Rev, 120(19): 10793–10833.
Ng WL, Lee JM, Yeong WY, et al., 2017, Microvalve-based bioprinting – process, bio-inks and applications. Biomater Sci, 5(4): 632–647.
Ng WL, Lee JM, Zhou M, et al., 2020, Vat polymerization-based bioprinting—process, materials, applications and regulatory challenges. Biofabrication, 12(2): 022001.
Ebrahimi Orimi H, Hosseini Kolkooh SS, Hooker E, et al., 2020, Drop-on-demand cell bioprinting via laser induced side transfer (LIST). Sci Rep, 10(1): 9730.
Keriquel V, Oliveira H, Rémy M, et al., 2017, In situ printing of mesenchymal stromal cells, by laser-assisted bioprinting, for in vivo bone regeneration applications. Sci Rep, 7(1): 1778.
Jentsch S, Nasehi R, Kuckelkorn C, et al., 2021, Multiscale 3D bioprinting by nozzle-free acoustic droplet ejection. Small Methods, 5(6): e2000971.
Shafiee A, Ghadiri E, Ramesh H, et al., 2019, Physics of bioprinting. Appl Phys Rev, 6(2): 021315.
Gudapati H, Dey M, Ozbolat I, 2016, A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: Past, present and future. Biomaterials, 102: 20–42.
Raees S, Ullah F, Javed F, et al., 2023, Classification, processing, and applications of bioink and 3D bioprinting: A detailed review. Int J Biol Macromol, 232: 123476.
Lee JM, Sing SL, Zhou M, et al., 2018, 3D bioprinting processes: A perspective on classification and terminology. Int J Bioprint, 4(2): 151.
Derby B, 2010, Inkjet printing of functional and structural materials: Fluid property requirements, feature stability, and resolution. Annu Rev Mater Res, 40(1): 395–414.
Gudapati H, Parisi D, Colby RH, et al., 2020, Rheological investigation of collagen, fibrinogen, and thrombin solutions for drop-on-demand 3D bioprinting. Soft Matter, 16(46): 10506–10517.
Gudapati H, Ozbolat IT, 2020, The role of concentration on drop formation and breakup of collagen, fibrinogen, and thrombin solutions during inkjet bioprinting. Langmuir, 36(50): 15373–15385.
Xu C, Zhang Z, Fu J, et al., 2017, Study of pinch-off locations during drop-on-demand inkjet printing of viscoelastic alginate solutions. Langmuir, 33(20): 5037–5045.
Chand R, Shimwa Muhire B, Vijayavenkataraman S, 2022, Computational fluid dynamics assessment of the effect of bioprinting parameters in extrusion bioprinting. Int J Bioprint, 8(2): 545.
Emmermacher J, Spura D, Cziommer J, et al., 2020, Engineering considerations on extrusion-based bioprinting: Interactions of material behavior, mechanical forces and cells in the printing needle. Biofabrication, 12(2): 25022.
Ng WL, Huang X, Shkolnikov V, et al., 2021, Controlling droplet impact velocity and droplet volume: Key factors to achieving high cell viability in sub-nanoliter droplet-based bioprinting. Int J Bioprint, 8(1): 424.
Xu H, Liu Q, Casillas J, et al., 2022, Prediction of cell viability in dynamic optical projection stereolithography-based bioprinting using machine learning. J Intell Manuf, 33(4): 995–1005.
Blaeser A, Duarte Campos DF, Puster U, et al., 2016, Controlling shear stress in 3D bioprinting is a key factor to balance printing resolution and stem cell integrity. Adv Healthc Mater, 5(3): 326–333
Köpf M, Nasehi R, Kreimendahl F, et al., 2022, Bioprinting-associated shear stress and hydrostatic pressure affect the angiogenic potential of human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Int J Bioprint, 8(4): 96–107.
Ning L, Betancourt N, Schreyer DJ, et al., 2018, Characterization of cell damage and proliferative ability during and after bioprinting. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 4(11): 3906–3918.
Guillemot F, Souquet A, Catros S, et al., 2010, Laser-assisted cell printing: Principle, physical parameters versus cell fate and perspectives in tissue engineering. Nanomedicine, 5(1): 507–515.
Ringeisen BR, Kim H, Barron JA, et al., 2004, Laser printing of pluripotent embryonal carcinoma cells. Tissue Eng, 10(3-4): 483–491.
Paxton N, Smolan W, Böck T, et al., 2017, Proposal to assess printability of bioinks for extrusion-based bioprinting and evaluation of rheological properties governing bioprintability. Biofabrication, 9(4): 044107.
Boukamp P, Petrussevska RT, Breitkreutz D, et al., 1988, Normal keratinization in a spontaneously immortalized aneuploid human keratinocyte cell line. J Cell Biol, 106(3): 761–771.
Jang D, Kim D, Moon J, 2009, Influence of fluid physical properties on ink-jet printability. Langmuir, 25(5): 2629–2635.
Ravanbakhsh H, Karamzadeh V, Bao G, et al., 2021, Emerging technologies in multi-material bioprinting. Adv Mater, 33(5):2104730.
Derby B, Reis N, 2003, Inkjet printing of highly loaded particulate suspensions. MRS Bull, 28(11): 815–818.
Saunders RE, Derby B, 2014, Inkjet printing biomaterials for tissue engineering: Bioprinting. Int Mater Rev, 59(8): 430–448.
Duarte Campos DF, Blaeser A, 2021, 3D-bioprinting, in Kasper C, Egger D, Lavrentieva A (eds), Basic Concepts on 3D Cell Culture. Learning Materials in Biosciences, Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66749-8_9
Phares DJ, Smedley GT, Flagan RC, 2000, The wall shear stress produced by the normal impingement of a jet on a flat surface. J Fluid Mech, 418: 351–375.
Yonemoto Y, Kunugi T, 2017, Analytical consideration of liquid droplet impingement on solid surfaces. Sci Rep, 7(1): 2362.
AlZaid S, Hammad N, Albalawi HI, et al., 2022, Advanced software development of 2D and 3D model visualization for TwinPrint, a dual-arm 3D bioprinting system for multi-material printing. Mater Sci Addit Manuf, 1(3): 19.
Lee JM, Sing SL, Yeong WY, 2020, Bioprinting of multimaterials with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. Int J Bioprinting, 6(1): 245.