CRISP: A 3D printer-based platform for precision solution printing on paper-based substrates

Abstract

The scalability of self-driving labs is currently limited by the high cost of automated liquid handling. To address this, we present a low-cost, open-source platform designed to function as a ’frugal twin’ to serve as a programmable hardware node in automated labs. To do this, we modified a commercial Ender-3 3D printer to print solutions on flexible paper-based substrates using a custom syringe pump assembly. Our printer, CRISP (Controlled Robotic Inkjet Solution on Paper), is driven by the Ender’s native stepper motor and G-code infrastructure, and dispenses reagents via disposable pipette tips. Our demonstration with printed dyes shows a reliability of 96.8% and 98.2% for positional accuracy and uniformity of droplet circularity, respectively, confirming the system’s potential as a reliable low-cost module for automated research.

Graphical abstract

1. Hardware in context

Specifications table
Hardware name	CRISP
Subject area	• Engineering and material science • Chemistry and biochemistry
Hardware type	• Mechanical engineering and materials science • Sample handling and preparation
Closest commercial analog	Dimatix Materials Printer DMP-2850 S https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/business/inkjet-solutions/inkjet-technology-integration/dmp-2850
Open source license	CC-BY-NC
Cost of hardware	$235
Source file repository	OSF:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XB3RA

Additive manufacturing (AM) techniques are increasingly being employed for various technological applications owing to their advantage of low costs, high speed production, easy customization, and the ability to fabricate on a variety of different surfaces [1]. From nanomaterials, biomaterials, soft polymers to even metals, the materials space for AM has expanded rapidly beyond the traditional thermoplastic extrusion. A particularly important implementation of AM is solution-based printing, encompassing direct-write techniques for depositing inks, suspensions, and functional solutions, and offering unique advantages for creating flexible electronics, sensors, and other devices that require precise deposition of materials onto diverse substrates [2], [3]. The commonly employed methods for solution-based printing include inkjet, aerosol jet, gravure, and screen printing. Depending on the application, each of these techniques has its own advantages and shortcomings that have been detailed in prior reviews [4], [5].

To implement automation and high-throughput printing as a part of a self-driving laboratory, these printing techniques must be combined with robotic systems such as automated liquid handlers or autosamplers, as well as inline instruments for real-time data acquisition, synthesis and characterization [6], [7], [8]. Integration of these components into the workflow is essential for increasing the speed of research and development and achieving rapid advances in scientific discovery. Unfortunately, the high costs of commercial automation systems (for example, the Opentrons OT-2 robot is over $15,000), general hardware and software integration efforts can sometimes present significant challenges.

One solution for low-cost printing is to modify existing printers to include syringe pumps for solvent-based printing. This can be done by adapting commonly used fused deposition modeling (FDM) printers, which work by melting a thermoplastic filament through a heated nozzle and depositing the ink by following a predetermined path. The majority of the smaller, minimal FDM printers like the Creality Ender-3, Prusa MINI or Bambu Lab A1 have become ubiquitous in the DIY/Maker communities because of their low cost (typically less than $500) and accessibility. Although these printers remain fundamentally limited to filament-based materials, there are methods to modify them by re-purposing stock component parts or by adding other machined or 3D-printed components to achieve a different purpose. Furthermore, when combined with low-cost micro-controllers (like an Arduino), and single-board computers (such as Raspberry Pi or Beagleboard), as well as inline diagnostic tools, modified FDM printers allow a myriad of customization opportunities for fully automated workflows. A number of recent publications have reported modified Ender or Prusa printers towards bioprinting, histology, chromatography, microscopy and liquid handling [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].

Here we present CRISP (Controlled Robotic Inkjet Solution on Paper), a modified Creality Ender-3 3D printer that integrates a syringe pump system to enable precise solution-based extrusion printing. By leveraging the Ender-3’s robust motion control and widespread availability, we transform this approximately $175 (USD) FDM printer into a versatile cost-effective ’frugal twin’ for direct-write printing. While the ultimate application of this system targets the deposition of metal nanoparticle inks for sensor fabrication on paper substrates, we report here on system optimization and characterization using a blue dye dissolved in water as a model solution. This allows for the systematic evaluation of printing parameters without the complexity and cost typically associated with nanoparticle inks. We specifically focused on characterizing the interaction between the extrusion distance and feed rate to achieve consistent droplet shapes and printing accuracy. While we maintained the standard Ender-3 movement settings for testing, this platform can be easily adjusted to support advanced manufacturing applications. Our approach provides materials science researchers with an affordable, open-source platform for solution-based printing of materials for a variety of applications.

2. Hardware description

Our setup is based on a modified Ender-3 printer where we replaced the heated filament extruder with a custom-built syringe pump, plastic tubing and a nozzle using a pipette tip. Fig. 1 shows an image of the Ender-3 [18] after our modifications. The syringe pump accommodates standard 20 mL Luer-lock syringes. To demonstrate the printer’s capabilities, we used an aqueous blue dye solution.

Fig. 1.

Picture of an Ender-3 printer [18] after modification.

To build our printer, two major additions must be made to the Ender-3. The first is the removal of the parts associated with the filament, including the extruder hot end and filament spool holder. The syringe pump assembly can then be mounted on top of the frame. The second major addition is the printer nozzle, which is a 3D-printed part that mounts onto the extruder support plate. For our demonstrations, we use a fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) tube with a 1/8” outer diameter (OD) and a 1/16” inner diameter (ID) for the delivery of the ink from the syringe. This tube can be inserted directly into the nozzle holder wherein it is press-fit into the pipette tip nozzle. We designed this printer to use pipette tips for the nozzles because they are inexpensive (between 10–20 cents per tip) and can be easily disposed of and replaced when they get clogged.

Our syringe pump runs using the same stepper motor that is used by the Ender-3 extruder, and hence can be programmed using the available G-code installed on the Ender motherboard. We note that the Ender stepper motor does not have the ultra-high precision delivery compared to some commercial syringe pumps. However, our syringe pump does rival the multi-step programming features found in some of the more sophisticated syringe pumps, with the number of steps only limited by the number of G-code commands inputted by the user. Furthermore, our system is a fraction of the cost of a more sophisticated programmable syringe pump (for example, the Chemyx-4000X costs around $4400 USD), and as we demonstrate below, is very capable of printing dye droplets uniformly in 20 mm-spaced increments on paper-based substrates with a consistent dispensing volume of 0.026 mL. The G-code files, code for figures, and raw data are all available in the repository [19].

In summary, the CRISP system

• •Transforms a cost-effective $175 printer into a functional droplet deposition system that is a cheaper alternative to commercial plotters.
• •Enables complex and reprogrammable droplet plotting by utilizing the open source G-code command instructions, allowing researchers to produce custom volume-based dispensing routines.
• •Can be adapted to dispense a wide range of aqueous solutions and metal nanoparticle inks, allowing it to support various sample preparation methods.

3. Design files summary

The STL files and CAD files in Table 1 as well as G-code for running the printer are available in the repository [19].

Table 1.

Design files, file types, open-source licenses, and repository locations.

Design filename	File type	Open source license	Location of the file
Syringe Pump Motor Mount (Fig. 2B)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository
Gantry Bracket (Fig. 2D)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository
Syringe Pump Bottom Mount (Fig. 2F)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository
Syringe Pump Top Mount (Fig. 2K)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository
Syringe Pump Bracket (Fig. 2J)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository
Pipette Holder (Fig. 3)	STL, CAD	CC-BY 4.0	OSF Repository

Fig. 2.

Expanded view of the custom-built syringe pump: the bottom (F) and top (K) syringe mounts, syringe bracket (J), gantry mount (D) with brass nut (E) on top of the gantry (C), coupler (H), stepper motor (G) and its mount (B), threaded rod (I) and M5 × 45 socket head screws (A).

Fig. 3.

Close-up image of the nozzle holder along with top and side views of the 3D-built part.

4. Bill of materials summary

Table 2 gives a detailed account of the cost of the required materials for the CRISP build. Many of the parts are available on Amazon or standard laboratory equipment websites.

Table 2.

Bill of materials.

Vendor/Brand	Part ID	Qty	Description	Price	Unit cost	Material	Notes
Amazon (ReliaBot)	B0C4TT2ZQ9	1	ACME Trapezoidal Lead Screw Tr8×8: Length-365 mm, Diameter-8 mm, Lead-8 mm, Pitch-2 mm Flanged Brass Nut: Flange Cut, $2\times$ M3 Threaded Holes, 18 mm Spaced	$9.99	$9.99	SUS304 Stainless Steel & Brass	Comes together as a set, mainly used for Z-Axis on Ender-3 printers
Amazon (Zeberoxyz)	B08ZJ854Z6	1	5 mm to 8 mm Shaft Coupling	$8.54	$4.27	Aluminum Alloy	Comes in two-pack, but only need one
Amazon (DiGiYes)	B0C7MNJMHW	1	CR10 3D Extruder Back Support Plate	$9.89	$9.89	Undisclosed Metal, Polyoxymethylene (POM, Wheels)	The support plate that the Ender-3 uses for the extruder in its normal operation
Amazon (Anycubic)	B0834W5L3L	1	PLA 3D Printer Filament	$13.99	$13.99	Polylactic Acid	Any filament is viable, PLA chosen for price
Amazon (Eastpuk)	B0F4XN63JR	1	Assorted M3 Button Head Socket Cap Screws Nuts and Bolts	$9.99	$9.99	Stainless Steel 304	Assorted pack for extras if necessary
Pipette.com	UR-101	1	Universal Tips, 0.1-10 $\mathrm{\mu }$L Racked tips	$65.72	$0.07	Polypropylene	Extras for replacing when pipette tip is clogged
Idex	1521L	1	FEP Tubing $\frac{1}{8}$“ OD x 0.062” ID	$190.97	$9.40	Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene	Cut to $\sim$75 cm length to connect the syringe pump to the nozzle tip
Amazon (Comgrow)	B07BR3F9N6	1	Creality Ender-3 3D Printer	$175.99	$175.99	Aluminum, Steel, Brass, POM Wheels, Polyetherimide Printing Plate, Etc.	Recommend the original Ender-3, for its simpler design being easier to work on, as well as all files designed with respect to its dimensions
Norm-Ject	22 776	1	Plastic Syringe, 20 mL Luer Lock Tip, 100-pk.	$75.00	$0.75	Polypropylene (PP, Barrel), Polyethylene (PE, Plunger)
Total				$560.08	$234.34

5. Build instructions

The assembly guidelines are divided into three stages: Ender-3 extruder disassembly, syringe pump assembly, and nozzle assembly. Notably, the components used in these instructions can be printed on the Ender-3 before the machine is disassembled for the coming steps.

5.1. Disassembly of the Ender-3 extruder

1. Disconnect the printer spool from the frame of the printer.

2. Disconnect the stock extruder kit components, which include the heating block, nozzle, heating tube and fan. Leave the support plate attached to the $x$-axis gantry.

3. Remove the stepper motor used for the extruder from the z-axis threaded rod by removing the idler tensioner, extruder gear, spring, and the extruder housing.

4. Disconnect the heating element from the main board and remove it from the braided cable sleeve, or alternatively cut the wiring going to the heating element if not necessary to return to original FDM printer state.

5.2. Syringe pump assembly

An exploded view of the pump assembly is shown in Fig. 2 showing all the 3D-printed parts for constructing the syringe pump onto the frame. STL files for all the 3D printed parts are available in an online repository [19]. Installation of the syringe pump on top of the Ender-3 frame is outlined below.

1. Remove the four (Fig. 2A) M5 × 45 socket head screws holding the top 2020 Aluminum extrusion that is connected to the two 2040 aluminum extrusions, but do not move the top bar.

2. Attach the (Fig. 2E) brass flanged nut on the (Fig. 2D) gantry mount, fastening with two M3 × 14 fasteners, then fasten to the (Fig. 2C) gantry by removing the bolts holding the wheels and reassembling them with the (Fig. 2D) gantry mount lined up with the two extrusions.

3. Slide the (Fig. 2B) stepper motor mount on the left side of the printer and then slide the (Fig. 2C) gantry and (Fig. 2F) syringe mount from the right side in that order and refasten the (Fig. 2A) socket head screws. Note that the bottom of the mount is recessed to allow it to mate with the slot in the 2020 aluminum bar that makes up the top frame. The vertical face of the motor mount also has a circular hole (22.5 mm in diameter) to allow for insertion of the coupling and threaded rod.

4. Align the (Fig. 2G) stepper motor with the mounting holes on the (Fig. 2B) motor mount and fasten with M3 × 6 fasteners, then attach the (Fig. 2H) 5–8 mm coupler on the shaft of the motor.

5. Slide the (Fig. 2I) threaded rod through the guide hole on the (Fig. 2F) syringe mount and the (Fig. 2D) gantry mount and then tighten the (Fig. 2H) coupler when it is fully seated.

6. Press fit six M3 nuts on the (Fig. 2F) syringe mount and two on the (Fig. 2K) syringe top bracket.

7. Slide the (Fig. 2J) syringe flange bracket from the plunger side and align the plunger with the groove on the (Fig. 2D) gantry mount.

8. Line up the syringe with the semi circle groove on the (Fig. 2F) syringe mount and fasten the (Fig. 2K) syringe top bracket and the (Fig. 2J) syringe flange with eight M3 × 12 screws.

9. Load the syringe with the solution to be printed and insert it from left to right into the bottom syringe mount. Each syringe has two flanges — the plunger flange and the barrel flange. When placed into the bottom syringe mount, the barrel flange rests on the left vertical face of the mount. Move the gantry bracket such that the vertical face on its right side mates with the plunger flange of the syringe. The extruder stepper motor turns the threaded rod, which moves the gantry bracket and drives the plunger of the syringe. Once the syringe is in place, set the top syringe mount (Fig. 2K) over the syringe and the bottom mount, and secure it to the bottom from the top with four M3 screws.

10. The final step is to secure the barrel flange (the flat wide rim at the rear of the syringe barrel) of the syringe against the bottom and top syringe mounts (Fig. 2F,K) using the syringe bracket (Fig. 2J) and four M3 fasteners. Once the syringe is secured to the bottom mount, the only part that moves is the gantry bracket, which pushes the plunger as the motor turns the threaded rod.

5.3. Nozzle assembly

The 3D printer nozzle holder is shown in detail in Fig. 3. Instructions for the assembly of the nozzle are provided below.

1. Cut the tubing for dispensing from the syringe pump. Note that the tubing length should have enough slack to allow for free movement of the nozzle over the entire build plate. For our printer, we found lengths around 75 cm to work best.

2. Mount the nozzle holder on the existing extruder support plate using two 3 mm fasteners.

3. Insert one end of the tubing into the syringe and the other end into the pipette tip. For our design, the tube diameter must match the diameter of the pipette tip such that the tube can be press-fit into the pipette tip. This end must be inserted into the top orifice of the nozzle holder. Our nozzle holder has been designed with a cylindrical hole 6.4 mm in diameter and with a length of 26.76 mm, after which it tapers down conically at an angle of 80°. This can be seen in the top view in Fig. 3 as well as the design file for the nozzle holder in the repository.

As illustrated in Fig. 5, the custom syringe frame mounted to the Ender-3 carriage features a downward protrusion extending to the tip of the syringe. Due to this mechanical configuration, the software coordinate of $Z=0$ has a true physical gap height of around 7.0 mm between the nozzle tip and the substrate, which is maintained constantly throughout the standard printing process. However, this nozzle holder could be remade to lower the nozzle tip closer to the print bed if a smaller gap is required.

Fig. 5.

Close-up view detailing the physical gap height ($\sim$7 mm) between the dispensing syringe tip and the print substrate.

6. Operation instructions

The initial preparation involves filling the syringe with the chosen fluid and using the axis controls in the Ender-3 interface to prime the tubing with fluid prior to printing. To enable control of the syringe pump during printing, the design is integrated into the Ender-3 flashed with the Marlin firmware. This setup allows for the precise motor control over both the pipette tip positioning and fluid extrusion in G-code commands. For simplicity, a G-code file containing run instructions is uploaded onto a microSD and then executed via the Run From File option on the Ender-3 interface.

The G-code file contains a set of instructions for the calibration and specific print task. For the applications intended for this design, this falls into the typical pattern shown below.

7. Validation and characterization

To validate the platform’s utility, we assessed dispensing accuracy and consistency using three runs of a 5 × 5 array of blue dye droplets. Quantitative image analysis using an open source python package, OpenCV [20], verified high deposition stability (Fig. 4a), with a mean droplet circularity of 0.87 ($\sigma =0.02$) (Fig. 4d). The low coefficient of variation (2.30%) confirms uniform droplet morphology close to the ideal as shown in Fig. 4c. In addition, we quantified spatial consistency by measuring the deviation between the physical drop centers and their digitally programmed coordinates (yellow plus and white cross symbols in Fig. 4a,b). The mean positional error averaged 0.65 mm ($\sigma =0.29$ mm) with a maximum error of 1.25 mm; the error distribution was random and showed no signs of any systemic mechanical drift (Fig. 4d). While this fundamental positional accuracy is largely determined by the native capabilities of the stock Ender-3 chassis and its basic physical calibration (e.g., belt tension), reporting these results confirms that the physical drag introduced by our modification does not significantly degrade the machine’s baseline kinematic performance. The $0.1-10$ $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$ pipette tips utilized in this build have an orifice inner diameter of approximately 0.35 to 0.50 mm. Because this process relies on volumetric deposition rather than filament extrusion, the droplet sizes are governed by fluid volume and substrate interactions, not the nozzle diameter. The programmed dispensing volume was 0.026 mL; with our hemisphere shaped droplets, a theoretical diameter of approximately 4.6 mm is expected. Upon deposition, the droplets spread uniformly into the porous cardstock, resulting in an average measured physical drop diameter of approximately 4.6 mm, aligning well with volumetric expectations.

Fig. 4.

Validation grid. (a) 5 × 5 array of blue dye printed on cardstock. (b) Visualization of positional error calculation using the Euclidean distance between the predicted (yellow) and actual (white) center of the dots. (c) Visual reference of what decreasing circularity of a printed dot looks like. (d) Histograms of measurements of positional error and circularity of dots from three rounds of printing 5 × 5 arrays (total of $n=75$ dots).

To explicitly quantify the volumetric dispensing accuracy of the platform, we measured the weight of the dispensed drops using the exact same movements and speeds as an actual print job. The system was programmed to dispense a sequence of 10 individual droplets into a tared weighing dish. Across five independent trials using water, the system yielded an average total mass of 265.9 mg ($\sigma =4.26$ mg). Assuming a fluid density of 1.0 mg/$\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$, this corresponds to an average empirical volume of $26.59\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$ per individual droplet ($\sigma =0.43$ $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$). This empirical result aligns exceptionally well with the rigid kinematic calculation of $26.0\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$, reflecting a percent error of only 2.3%, while the low coefficient of variation (1.6%) confirms the high repeatability of the stepper-driven extrusion. When deposited onto the porous cardstock, this consistent volumetric delivery resulted in a mean droplet area of 12.87 mm² ($\sigma =2.52$ mm²). While the maximum dispensing volume is constrained only by the 20 mL syringe capacity, the minimum reliable droplet volume is bounded by the motor’s step resolution and fluid surface tension, practically estimated at $3-5$ $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{L}$ for this specific hardware configuration.

To ensure that the platform is viable for widespread adoption, it is important to identify the boundaries of its current performance. The fundamental precision of the system in terms of volumetric accuracy is limited by the step resolution of the stepper motor; this precision can be increased by substituting a smaller syringe diameter compared to the one being used in our examples. During testing, we observed that mechanical deviations in droplet consistency could be caused by uneven extruder pressure and tubing movement, and to mitigate these issues, we recommend using shorter and stiffer tubing. An additional practical consideration is also the volume consumed by the delivery tubing, which is a critical factor when utilizing high-cost organic solutions. In the baseline configuration using 75 cm of 1/16” ID FEP tubing, the internal volume required to prime the system is approximately 1.5 mL. The speed control and waiting between movements as we have implemented in the example G-code also help with ensuring droplet consistency. In this work, we focus primarily on printing onto paper substrates. The porous, fibrous nature of paper quickly absorbs the liquid, locking the solution in place before it has a chance to dry unevenly. While this method could be adapted for non-porous substrates for example, glass slides, doing so requires carefully managing how the ink dries. Specifically, non-porous surfaces are susceptible to evaporative defects such as the coffee ring effect [21]. Indeed, during testing on glass slides, anomalous drying behavior was observed where the dye failed to migrate to the droplet’s outer edge, instead concentrating into an inner ring. Additionally, the system will require priming prior to printing, and we suggest placing a small container to capture any waste drops. While not a factor with our dye testing, depending on environmental factors in the room where the droplet printing is happening, uneven drying and changes in drying times can occur, which could be alleviated by heating the printing bed (available on the Ender-3).

While the platform excels at discrete droplet deposition, attempting to print continuous lines or shapes with the standard aqueous solution of dye presents specific hardware limitations. Continuous direct-write printing typically requires the nozzle to be positioned in close proximity to the substrate to maintain a stable fluid meniscus during translation. With our current nozzle assembly, as pointed out earlier, the current construction of the pipette nozzle holder does not allow the tip to reach the substrate close enough to be immersed in the extruded solution. Consequently, the fluid must fall onto the substrate while the printhead is in motion. This leads to an unequal distribution of liquid, followed by lines that prematurely thin and break. Therefore, the current iteration of the CRISP platform is strictly optimized for volumetric droplet arrays. As highlighted in Baas et al.’s review [8] there are many types of print modifications, and the CRISP configuration is structurally closest to the “Enderstruder” analog, which similarly repurposed the printer’s native fourth motor for direct syringe extrusion. However, while many DIY liquid handlers in this category still rely on costly external syringe pumps, this platform leverages only the stock hardware and simple 3D-printed brackets to keep the total system cost well under $200 (excluding the cost of the Ender-3 itself). The automated optical and volumetric validation proves that this drastic cost reduction does not compromise performance, achieving results that rival much costlier commercial systems.

Our test results validate the low-cost automation of a solution depositing system using the custom syringe pump assembly mounted onto an Ender-3 printer. Through custom G-code commands the system achieved a liquid dispensing droplet circularity of 98.2% and a relative positional accuracy of 96.8%. Although specific limitations regarding substrate-solvent interactions were identified, our results confirm that stepper-driven commodity hardware offers sufficient positional repeatability for simple patterning needs. This work provides a framework for researchers seeking to integrate automated sample preparation into their workflows without the prohibitive costs of industrial robotics.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ilkhan Lutfiyev: Writing – review & editing, Software, Methodology, Conceptualization. Stephen A. McCoy: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Investigation. Robin Star: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. Andrea N. Giordano: Writing – review & editing, Investigation. Blair Rist: Writing – review & editing, Investigation. Luke A. Baldwin: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Rahul Rao: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization.

Ethics statement

Not applicable

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Biographies

Ilkhan Lutfiyev is currently pursuing a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering at The Ohio State University. He has also served as a research intern with BlueHalo at the Air Force Research Laboratory during the summer of 2025. His research interests include robotics, mechanical design, and the integration of open source hardware into scientific workflows.

Stephen A. McCoy received a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Tennessee in 2025. He serves as a Research Scientist with BlueHalo at the Air Force Research Laboratory. His work specializes in Machine Learning and Bayesian Optimization methods with a focus on applications in Materials Design.

Robin Star received a B.S in Material Science and Engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno in 2020. He serves as a Research Scientist with BlueHalo at the Air Force Research Laboratory. His work focuses on cross-disciplinary systems engineering and rapid prototyping, specializing in the transition of fundamental scientific concepts into functional demonstrators across a diverse portfolio of mission-critical technologies.

Andrea N. Giordano received a Ph.D. in Chemistry from The Pennsylvania State University. She is currently a Senior National Research Council Fellow at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Foundational Technologies Directorate. Her research focuses on surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, nanoparticle synthesis, and materials characterization.

Blair Rist received a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. She is a Research Scientist with Aerovironment at the Air Force Research Laboratory. Her research focuses on nanoparticle synthesis, paper-based microfluidic systems and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy.

Luke A. Baldwin received the Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from The Ohio State University in 2017. He is a Senior Research Scientist at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Foundational Technologies Directorate. Broadly, his research focuses on harnessing organic materials chemistry, continuous flow chemistry, and digital chemistry methods to investigate structure–property correlations within synthetic materials.

Rahul Rao received a Ph.D. degree in Physics from Clemson University. He is a Senior Research Scientist at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Foundational Technologies Directorate. His research focuses on the synthesis and characterization of low-dimensional materials, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, development of in-situ characterization methods, as well as autonomous research systems for materials optimization.