Issue 21, 2026, Issue in Progress

Tolerances in microfluidic master molds: a comparison of 3D printing and micromilling

Abstract

3D printing and micromilling are increasingly becoming more accessible alternatives to cleanroom photolithography for the fabrication of master molds that can be subsequently used for cast patterning soft material microfluidic devices. However, there is a lack of characterization on the fabrication tolerances of 3D printed and micromilled master molds, which can influence microdevice performance. In this work, we present an in-depth characterization of master molds fabricated using 3D printing versus micromilling. We utilized profilometry to examine the accuracy of fabricated channel dimensions and assess surface finish. We then proceed to assess differences in performance between devices cast from 3D printed or micromilled master molds by creating microfluidic splitting devices or flow focusing devices. We then evaluated their performance in a low-flow rate splitting application and in the generation of gelatin microspheres respectively. For both applications micromilling resulted in a significantly smoother surface finish when compared to 3D printed master molds. On average, both fabrication modalities fell short in accurately fabricating channel dimensions (∼50 µm) when compared to the original CAD model of the microfluidic master mold. In our low-flow rate application, there were no significant differences in flow rate splitting efficiency between microfluidic devices cast from either 3D printed or micromilled master molds. In our assay for generating gelatin microspheres, the smoother surface finish of the CNC master molds resulted in a flow focusing devices that generated significantly larger gelatin microspheres. Overall, this investigation serves as a useful guide for future investigators on the fabrication tolerances of soft material microfluidic devices cast from 3D printed and micromilled master molds.

Graphical abstract: Tolerances in microfluidic master molds: a comparison of 3D printing and micromilling

Supplementary files

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Article type
Paper
Submitted
02 Feb 2026
Accepted
07 Apr 2026
First published
13 Apr 2026
This article is Open Access
Creative Commons BY-NC license

RSC Adv., 2026,16, 19437-19448

Tolerances in microfluidic master molds: a comparison of 3D printing and micromilling

D. Chavarria, I. Ojetola, M. L. Russotti, A. K. Yates and E. S. Lippmann, RSC Adv., 2026, 16, 19437 DOI: 10.1039/D6RA00916F

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements