TABLE I.
Comparison of drop-on-demand inkjet-based mammalian cell printing. (n/a – Information not available.)
| Author | Inkjet type (model) | Nozzle size (μm) | Droplet volume (pl) | Cell | Cell density (cells/ml) | Post-printing cell viability (normalized)a (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu et al.25 | Thermal (HP 550C) | 48 | 85 | Chinese hamster ovary cell, rat embryonic motoneuron | 5 × 106 | 75 (90) |
| Xu et al.26 | Thermal (HP 550) | 48 | 85 | Primary rat hippocampal neuron, and so on | 2 × 106 | 74 |
| Saunders et al.9 | Piezoelectric (MicroFab) | 60 | 150–375 | HT1080 fibrosarcoma | 2 × 106 | >94 (>98) |
| Lorber et al.27 | Piezoelectric (MicroFab) | 50/80 | n/a | Glial cell/Retinal ganglion cell | 8 × 104/7 × 105 | 69 (88)/69 (93) |
| Xu et al.29 | Piezoelectric (MicroFab) | 120 | 598–1049 | NIH 3T3 mouse fibroblast | 1–10 × 106 | n/a |
| Nakamura et al.28 | Electrostatic (SEAJet) | 43 | n/a | Bovine vascular endothelial cell | 1–1.5 × 106 | n/a |
| Present work | Piezoelectric (MicroFab) | 30 | 34 | NIH 3T3 mouse fibroblast | 5 × 106 | 91 (94) |
a
Cell viability normalized by or compared to that of control.