Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Guijt, Rosanne

  • Google
  • 5
  • 15
  • 1292

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (5/5 displayed)

  • 2020The influence of electrolyte concentration on nanofractures fabricated in a 3D‐printed microfluidic device by controlled dielectric breakdown3citations
  • 2017Comparing microfluidic performance of three-dimensional (3D) printing platforms357citations
  • 20163D printed microfluidic devices: Enablers and barriers919citations
  • 2010Photolithographic patterning of conducting polyaniline films via flash welding13citations
  • 2009Profiling the chemical composition of explosivescitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Islam, Md Fokhrul
1 / 1 shared
Yap, Yiing C.
1 / 1 shared
Macdonald, Niall P.
2 / 4 shared
Cabot, Joan Marc
2 / 3 shared
Smejkal, P.
1 / 1 shared
Lewis, Trevor
2 / 6 shared
Waheed, S.
1 / 2 shared
Henderson, Rd
1 / 1 shared
Dennany, L.
1 / 2 shared
Innis, Pc
1 / 1 shared
Haddad, Paul
2 / 7 shared
Wallace, Gg
1 / 3 shared
Dicinoski, Gw
1 / 1 shared
Hutchinson, Jp
1 / 1 shared
Johns, Ca
1 / 2 shared
Chart of publication period
2020
2017
2016
2010
2009

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Islam, Md Fokhrul
  • Yap, Yiing C.
  • Macdonald, Niall P.
  • Cabot, Joan Marc
  • Smejkal, P.
  • Lewis, Trevor
  • Waheed, S.
  • Henderson, Rd
  • Dennany, L.
  • Innis, Pc
  • Haddad, Paul
  • Wallace, Gg
  • Dicinoski, Gw
  • Hutchinson, Jp
  • Johns, Ca
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparing microfluidic performance of three-dimensional (3D) printing platforms

  • Macdonald, Niall P.
  • Guijt, Rosanne
  • Cabot, Joan Marc
  • Smejkal, P.
Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a potential revolutionary technology for the fabrication of microfluidic devices. A direct experimental comparison of the three 3D printing technologies dominating microfluidics was conducted using a Y-junction microfluidic device, the design of which was optimized for each printer: fused deposition molding (FDM), Polyjet, and digital light processing stereolithography (DLP-SLA). Printer performance was evaluated in terms of feature size, accuracy, and suitability for mass manufacturing; laminar flow was studied to assess their suitability for microfluidics. FDM was suitable for microfabrication with minimum features of 321 ? 5 μm, and rough surfaces of 10.97 μm. Microfluidic devices >500 μm, rapid mixing (71% ? 12% after 5 mm, 100 μL/min) was observed, indicating a strength in fabricating micromixers. Polyjet fabricated channels with a minimum size of 205 ? 13 μm, and a surface roughness of 0.99 μm. Compared with FDM, mixing decreased (27% ? 10%), but Polyjet printing is more suited for microfluidic applications where flow splitting is not required, such as cell culture or droplet generators. DLP-SLA fabricated a minimum channel size of 154 ? 10 μm, and 94 ? 7 μm for positive structures such as soft lithography templates, with a roughness of 0.35 μm. These results, in addition to low mixing (8% ? 1%), showed suitability for microfabrication, and microfluidic applications requiring precise control of flow. Through further discussion of the capabilities (and limitations) of these printers, we intend to provide guidance toward the selection of the 3D printing technology most suitable for specific microfluidic applications.

Topics
  • Deposition
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • surface
  • strength
  • lithography