HIGH-FIDELITY 3D PRINTING USING FLASHING PHOTOPOLYMERIZATION

Abstract

A method and system for microscale 3D printing achieve high-fidelity fabrication through the control of the light exposure time. A single pulse of light is used to initiate polymerization of a pre-polymer solution to minimize scattering-induced resolution deterioration. The printed object is fabricated in a layer-by-layer construction where each layer is formed through exposure to a single light pulse.

Claims

1. A method for micro-scale 3D printing of an object, comprising: providing a 3D printer having an optical pathway configured for projecting modulated photopolymerizing light from a pulsed light source into a pre-polymer solution within a printing volume defined between a substrate and a movable platform disposed within the solution; activating the pulsed light source to emit a single flash of polymerizing energy into the optical pathway to polymerize solution within the printing volume to print a first layer of the object; moving the platform to define a new printing volume and activating the pulsed light source to emit another single flash of polymerizing energy to polymerize solution within the new printing volume to print a next layer of the object; and repeating the step of moving the platform and activating the pulsed light source for a plurality of iterations to form a plurality of layers, wherein each iteration generates a single layer, so that the object is fabricated layer-by-layer until finished.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the 3D printer comprises a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) configured to modulate the photopolymerizing light with a photomask image corresponding to each layer of the object.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the printing volume has a thickness within a range of from 1 and 500 microns.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a transparent anti-adhesion substrate through which the photopolymerizing light is projected.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the pulsed light source is a flash tube or a pulsed laser.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein moving the platform comprises incrementally separating the substrate and the platform by a separation of from 1 and 500 microns.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein moving the platform comprises continuously separating the substrate and the platform, wherein the pulsed light source is activated at each separation of from 1 and 500 microns.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the single flash has a flash duration in the range of 1 femtosecond to 50 ms.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the single flash has a flash duration configured to avoid light scattering within the solution.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the flashes have a peak power from 20 W to 10.sup.15 W.

11. A method for micro-scale 3D printing of an object, comprising: using a first photomask, modulating a first flash of light from a polymerizing light source projected along an optical path to photopolymerize a first volume of pre-polymer solution to form a first layer of the object on a platform disposed within the solution, wherein the first volume is defined between a transparent substrate and the platform; moving the platform away from the transparent substrate to define a second volume of pre-polymer solution; in response to movement of the platform by a predetermined distance, modulating a second flash of light with a second photomask to photopolymerize the second volume to form a second layer of the object; and repeating the steps of moving and modulating with each of a plurality of additional photomasks to form a plurality of additional layers to construct the object layer-by-layer until finished.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein movement of the platform is continuous or incremented, wherein the second flash is initiated when the platform has moved the predetermined distance.

13. The method of claim 11, wherein the predetermined distance is from 1 and 500 microns.

14. The method of claim 11, wherein the 3D printer comprises a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) configured to modulate the light with a photomask image corresponding to each layer of the object.

15. The method of claim 11, wherein the substrate is a transparent anti-adhesion substrate through which the light is projected.

16. The method of claim 11, wherein the polymerizing light source is a flash tube or a pulsed laser.

17. The method of claim 11, wherein the single flash has a flash duration in the range of 1 femtosecond to 50 ms.

18. The method of claim 11, wherein the single flash has a flash duration configured to avoid light scattering within the solution.

19. The method of claim 11, wherein the single flash has a peak power from 20 W to 10.sup.15 W.

20. A micro-scale 3D printer for printing an object, comprising: a container configured to retaining a pre-polymer solution, the container having a transparent substrate; a movable platform disposed within the solution and separated from the substrate by a separation, wherein the separation defines a printing volume; a pulsed light source configured to project a flash of photopolymerizing light along an optical path toward the printing volume; a light modulator configured for modulating the photopolymerizing light with a series of photomasks corresponding to layers of the object; and a control unit configured for: activating the pulsed light source to emit a single flash to polymerize a first layer of the object; moving the movable platform to increase the separation by a predetermined spacing; activating the pulsed light to emit another single flash to polymerize a next layer of the object; and repeating the moving and activating for a plurality of iterations to print a plurality of layers corresponding to the series of photomasks until the object is finished.

21. The printer of claim 20, wherein the light modulator comprises a digital micro-mirror device (DMD).

22. The printer of claim 20, wherein the printing volume has a thickness within a range of from 1 and 500 microns.

23. The printer of claim 20, wherein the transparent substrate has an anti-adhesion surface.

24. The printer of claim 20, wherein the pulsed light source is a flash tube or a pulsed laser.

25. The printer of claim 20, wherein the predetermined spacing of the separation is from 1 and 500 microns.

26. The printer of claim 20, wherein the single flash has a flash duration in the range of 1 femtosecond to 50 ms.

27. The printer of claim 26, wherein the single flash has a flash duration selected to substantially avoid light scattering within the solution.

28. The printer of claim 20, wherein the single flash has a peak power from 20 W to 10.sup.15 W.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0016] FIG. 1A is a schematic of an embodiment of the inventive FPP 3D printing system; FIGS. 1B and 1C are photomicrographs of products of flashing photopolymerization 3D printing, where FIG. 1B is a SEM image of a micro “altar” printed with 100 μm layer thickness; and FIG. 1C is a SEM image of a micro “apple” printed with 20 μm layer thickness.

[0017] FIGS. 2A-2C show results of a resolution test for CW exposure mode and flashing exposure mode, where FIG. 2A shows patterns printed with CW exposure at different relative energies; FIG. 2B shows patterns printed with flashing exposure at different relative energies, and FIG. 2C plots the relation between the relative energy and unresolved fraction.

[0018] FIGS. 3A-3B show simulation results comparing photopolymerization using CW and FPP, respectively, plotting DEGDM monomer concentration versus time.

[0019] FIGS. 4A-4F illustrate scattering changes during polymerization, where FIGS. 4A and 4C show images of Tyndall effect at different time point of CW and flashing exposure, respectively; FIGS. 4B and 4D plot the intensity profiles of the light at the different time points in FIGS. 4A and 4C; FIG. 4E is the FTIR spectrum of pure PEGDA (Mn=575), dehydrated PEGDA slab polymerized with flashing exposure, and dehydrated PEGDA slab polymerized by CW exposure; and FIG. 4F shows the scattering coefficient of PEGDA prepolymer solution, PEGDA slab polymerized with flashing exposure, and PEGDA slab polymerized by CW exposure.

[0020] FIG. 5 shows an exemplary optical setup for visualizing opacification during polymerization.

[0021] FIGS. 6A-6C are images polymer slab samples where FIG. 6A is the macroscopic image, the upper-left disc is made by CW exposure, and the lower-right disc is made by flashing exposure; FIGS. 6B and 6C are SEM micrographs of samples polymerized using CW and flashing exposures, respectively.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

[0022] An embodiment of a printer for performing the inventive method for high fidelity 3D printing by flashing photopolymerization, i.e., “FPP 3D”, is shown in the schematic of FIG. 1A. The printer 100 uses a xenon flash tube 102 as the light source, which is connected to an electrical control unit 104. The light is projected along optical pathway 110a through optical lens 106 (or a lens assembly) to a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) 120 which modulates the light with the photomask image, represented by sample image 130, which, in the illustrated example, is an apple. Modulated light follows the optical path 110b through lens (or lens assembly) 108 for projection onto the transparent anti-adhesion substrate 118. As illustrated, optical path 110b is directed to substrate 118 by mirror 112. A motorized stage 122 is used to control the motion of the sample supporting platform 124. Control unit 104 controls and synchronizes activation of flash tube 102, manipulation of DMD 120 to project the appropriate photomask layer, and to increment the motorized stage 122 to raise platform 124 for each layer. The printed object 132 is fabricated on substrate 118 layer-by-layer. Additional details for an exemplary photopolymerization set-up that uses a DMD can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 10,464,307, which is incorporated herein by reference.

[0023] Still referring to FIG. 1A, the 3D printing process is described as follows: a 3D model, e.g., apple 130, is sliced into 2D images. The supporting platform 124 is lowered into a container 116 of pre-polymer solution 128 to maintain a very narrow spacing (typically between 10 to 100 microns) between the supporting platform 124 and the anti-adhesion substrate 118. The xenon flash tube 102 is controlled to flash at a specified energy. An appropriate energy range will less than or equal to 100 J. Examples are described in which energies of 20 J and 40 J are used. After the exposure, first layer is solidified and attached to the supporting platform 124. The motorized stage 122 then raises the supporting platform 124 by one layer thickness (typically between 10 to 100 microns) so that unpolymerized material 128 refills the spacing between the substrate 118 and the previous layer. A new image slice is loaded on the DMD 120, and the flash tube 102 flashes to solidify this new layer. By repeating these steps, a 3D object can be printed in a layer-by-layer manner. It is important to observe the limitation that each layer is to be fabricated by a single flash only. Multiple flashes during formation of a single layer are to be avoided due to the reduction in resolution caused by scattering. It should also be noted that while the method employs one exposure flash per layer, the motion of the stage 122 need not be stepped or stopped to separately and individually expose each layer before moving the stage for the next layer. In some embodiments, the stage motion can be slow and continuous, with the speed of the motion being controlled by control unit 104 in coordination with the timing of the flashes. Thus, in a continuous movement approach, when the increased separation between the stage and the platform reaches the predetermined separation for a layer, the control unit activates a flash to form the layer. Thus, a layer is formed when the desired layer thickness has been achieved through the stage motion.

[0024] For testing, PEGDA (Mn=575) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Irgacure 784 was purchased from Ciba Specialty Chemicals (now BASF). LAP was synthesized in-lab following the published method described by Fairbanks, et al. (2009). The flash tube was purchased from Xenon Flash Tubes.

[0025] The overall printing speed and quality depend on the layer thickness. A smaller layer thickness results in better fabrication quality while a coarser layer thickness takes less time to fabricate. Two sample structures were 3D-printed using a pre-polymer solution of 100% poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA, Mn=575) and 4% (w/v) Irgacure 784. FIG. 1B is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a complex structure printed using a sequence of steps, each of which formed a 100-μm thickness layer. FIG. 1C is an SEM image of a structure (corresponding to apple 130) printed using 20-μm-thickness layer steps, generating a much smoother resulting surface.

[0026] To compare the resolution differences between the FPP and CW (continuous wave) printing modes, we designed a spoke pattern for resolution test. This pattern was 3D printed with a UV LED (CW light) or a xenon flash tube (flashing light). The structure consists of a single 250-μm thick layer. Different exposure doses were used to polymerize the structure. For the CW UV LED, a series of different output powers were used keeping the same illumination time. For the flash tube, a series of different total energies were used in a single flash. The prepolymer solution contains 50% (v/v) PEGDA mixed with 4% (w/v) lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate (LAP) as the photoinitiator in aqueous solution.

[0027] The spoked pattern test structure was selected because it was expected that the outer circumference of the pattern would be well resolved while the center may be difficult to resolve. It was also expected that a higher exposure dose could lead to a larger unresolved area. Resolution is evaluated by unresolved fraction, which is the ratio between the unresolved diameter and the outer diameter of the spoke. A smaller unresolved fraction means a better resolution.

[0028] A series of LED (CW) output powers and a series of flash energies were used to polymerize the material. At a low exposure dose, the material is unable to polymerize. As the energy increases, at a certain value, the spoke can be printed—this value is marked as a “unit exposure dose”. Note that the unit exposure dose represents different energies in the flashing mode and CW mode because they are significantly different in the duration time and spectrum. A relative exposure dose E.sub.r is defined as the ratio between the actual exposure energy and the unit exposure dose. We used E.sub.r=1, E.sub.r=1.26, E.sub.r=1.59, E.sub.r=2, E.sub.r=2.52, E.sub.r=3.18, and E.sub.r=4 to polymerize the material in the CW mode and flashing mode, respectively, then assessed the unresolved fraction.

[0029] Bright-field microscopic images are shown in FIG. 2A for the CW exposure mode and in FIG. 2B for the flashing exposure mode. The outer diameter (outer dashed circle) of the spoke pattern is 1.9 mm. The unresolved diameter (inner dashed circle) is less than 0.4 mm for all samples. The scale bar=500 micron.

[0030] The relation between the exposure energy and unresolved fraction is plotted in FIG. 2C. A first observation is that the flashing exposure mode always provided a better resolution than the CW mode. For the CW exposure mode, it is clear that the unresolved fraction is strongly dependent on the exposure dose. However, for the flashing exposure mode, the unresolved fraction is insensitive to the exposure energy. Therefore, by using a flashing light source, the fabrication resolution becomes finer, and the tolerance window of exposure dose is broadened.

[0031] The free-radical photopolymerization process can be divided into three stages. The first stage is photoinitiation. When exposed to light, the photoinitiator molecule is homolytically cleaved into two free-radicals. Free radicals react with monomers and become active propagating chains. The second stage is propagation. The propagating chains continue to react with monomers and grow longer. The third stage is termination. An active chain stops propagating when combined with a free-radical or another propagating chain.

[0032] The initiation rate is proportional to the photoinitiator quantum yield Φ and photon absorption quantity per unit volume per unit time N.sub.abs. The reaction rate of chain propagation r.sub.p is proportional to monomer concentration [M], propagating chain concentration [P*], and chain propagation kinetic constant k.sub.p. The reaction rate of chain termination is proportional to the square of propagating chain concentration [P*] and chain termination kinetic constant k.sub.t. The initiation rate, propagation rate and termination rate are given by Equations (1)-(3).

r.sub.i=2ΦN.sub.abs  (1)

r.sub.p=k.sub.p[M][P*]  (2)

r.sub.i=k.sub.t[P*].sup.2  (3)

[0033] The change of monomer concentration and propagating chain concentration are given by Equations (4), (5).

[00001]$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial \left[M\right]}{\partial t}=-r_p& \left(4\right)\\ \frac{\partial \left[P^{*}\right]}{\partial t}=r_i-r_t& \left(5\right)\end{array}$

[0034] As the prepolymer solution becomes more viscous, both the propagation kinetic constant and termination kinetic constant decrease during polymerization reaction. According to a well-established diffusion-controlled free-radical polymerization model, both kinetic parameters can be determined by Equations (6), (7),

[00002]$\begin{array}{cc}{k}_p=\frac{k_{p0}}{1+e^{A_p\left(1/f-1/f_{\mathrm{cp}}\right)}}& \left(6\right)\\ k_t=\frac{k_{t0}}{1+{\left(\frac{R{k}_p\left[M\right]}{k_{t0}}+e^{-A_t\left(1/f-1/f_{\mathrm{ct}}\right)}\right)}^{-1}}& \left(7\right)\end{array}$

[0035] where k.sub.p0, k.sub.t0 are the propagation and termination kinetic constants when there is no diffusion limit; f is the fractional free volume of the system; f.sub.cp and f.sub.ct are the critical fractional free volume for propagation and termination, respectively, at which the propagation or termination constant will drop by half; A.sub.p is a parameter reflecting the effect of diffusion limit on kinetic constant; R is the reaction-diffusion parameter.

[0036] The fractional free volume of the system is related to the monomer conversion rate, as Equations (8)-(12),

[00003]$\begin{array}{cc}f=f_m{\varphi }_m+f_p\left(1-{\varphi }_m\right)& \left(8\right)\\ {\varphi }_m=\frac{1-X}{1-X+\frac{{\rho }_m}{{\rho }_p}X}& \left(9\right)\\ X=\left({\left[M\right]}_0-\left[M\right]\right)/{\left[M\right]}_0& \left(10\right)\\ f_m=0.025+{\alpha }_m\left(T-T_{gm}\right)& \left(11\right)\\ f_p=0.025+{\alpha }_p\left(T-T_{gp}\right)& \left(12\right)\end{array}$

where T is the system temperature; T.sub.gm and T.sub.gp are the glass transition temperatures of the monomer and polymer; α.sub.m and α.sub.p are the thermal expansion coefficients of monomer and polymer; ρ.sub.m and ρ.sub.p are the densities of the monomer and polymer; [M.sub.0] is the initial monomer concentration; X is the monomer conversion rate; ϕ.sub.m is the volume fraction of the monomer; f.sub.m and f.sub.p are the fractional free volume of pure monomer and pure polymer.

[0037] The material properties and kinetic constants of DEGDMA are: ρ.sub.m=1.061 g.Math.cm.sup.−3, ρ.sub.p=1.32 g.Math.cm.sup.−3, [M.sub.0]=8.7 mol.Math.L.sup.−1, T.sub.gm=−100° C., T.sub.gp=225° C., α.sub.m=0.0005° C..sup.−1, α.sub.p=0.000075° C..sup.−1, R=2, k.sub.p0=200 L.Math.mol.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, k.sub.t0=80000 L.Math.mol.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, A.sub.p=1.2, A.sub.t=2.7, f.sub.cp=0.062, f.sub.ct=0.089.

[0038] MATLAB® (MATHWORKS®) was used to perform the numerical simulation. The model described above was used to numerically solve the photopolymerization kinetic problem in two scenarios. For both scenarios, the material system is diethylene glycol dimethacrylate (DEGDMA) with a certain amount of photoinitiator. The material properties and kinetic parameters of DEGDMA have been studied previously. In the first scenario, there is a low-intensity CW exposure, which lasts for 5 seconds, resulting in a constant initiation rate during the exposure period. The initiation rate was set at 0.0005 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, 0.001 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, and 0.002 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, respectively. The simulation result for DEGDMA monomer concentration versus time is shown in FIG. 3A. In the second scenario for flashing exposure of 10 milliseconds, a constant initiation rate during the exposure period was induced. We chose the initiation rate at 10 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, 20 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, and 40 mol.Math.L.sup.−1.Math.s.sup.−1, respectively. The simulation result for FPP is shown in FIG. 3B. The inset in FIG. 3B is a zoomed-in view in time scale. The gray areas in FIGS. 3A and 3B (inset) indicate the light exposure period.

[0039] From FIGS. 3A and 3B, it can be seen that both scenarios achieve a similar final conversion rate. The difference is that in the CW exposure scenario, polymerization primarily takes place during the actual light exposure period. In contrast, in the flashing exposure scenario, polymerization primarily takes place in the dark period. Thus, in the CW exposure scenario, light remains on after the material has become highly scattering; whereas in the flashing exposure scenario, the light is off before the material becomes scattering.

[0040] Three factors are involved in the optical scattering of polymers. The first factor is the size of the molecules. In a homogeneous polymer system, Rayleigh scattering is the major type of scattering. The intensity of Rayleigh scattering is proportional to the molecular weight of the polymer. The second factor is the degree of crystallinity. Some polymers form micron-size crystallites which induce strong Mie scattering. The third factor is phase separation. Typically, a polymer has porous microstructures if it is polymerized from a monomer solution in a solvent. That is because the solubility will decrease as the polymer chain grows. Thus, phase separation occurs, and the homogeneity of the system decreases, making it highly scattering.

[0041] In photopolymerization-based 3D printing, upon light exposure, the molecular weight begins to increase and scattering gradually increases. Next, the liquid-state prepolymer is solidified, and crystallites start to occur, resulting in a dramatic increase of scattering. If the prepolymer contains solvent (e.g., hydrogels), the scattering can be even greater due to phase separation. The opacification of material leads to exposure and polymerization in undesired areas, resulting in diminished resolution.

[0042] In order to visualize the opacification during photopolymerization, the experimental set-up 500 shown in FIG. 5 was used to record the change of Tyndall effect on a photopolymerizable material. The material used was aqueous 50% (v/v) PEGDA with 4% (w/v) LAP added as the photoinitiator. The prepolymer solution was loaded into a cuvette, and a He—Ne laser beam was projected through the solution. The He—Ne laser was 30 mW at 633 nm. A UV LED light source (365 nm) or a xenon flash tube were set up near the cuvette to photopolymerize the PEGDA solution. The LED illumination had a light intensity of 12 mW cm.sup.−2 at the cuvette. The xenon flash tube had a broad spectrum from UV to NIR; the electrical energy per flash was 40 J. A high speed camera was placed perpendicular to the laser light path to record the shape of the laser beam inside the solution at a frame rate of 500 fps and at a bit-depth of 16 bit. The high-speed camera recorded at 500 fps, 2 ms exposure time for each frame. The image was recorded at monochromatic 16-bit bit-depth, and the gray scale value ranged from 0 to 65535.

[0043] Because the actual light intensity of the flash illumination could not be directly measured, the original recorded grey scale value was used as a measure of intensity. The beginning and ending time of exposure was determined based on the subtle change of background brightness, since the long pass filter does not completely block the light from the LED or flash tube.

[0044] We used either a 2.3-second CW exposure from the UV LED or a single flashing exposure from the xenon flash tube to polymerize the prepolymer solution. The change of shape of the laser beam inside the PEGDA was recorded, as shown in FIG. 4A for CW exposure and in FIG. 4C for flashing exposure. The intensity profiles obtained between the gray arrows in FIGS. 4A and 4C are plotted in FIG. 4B for CW exposure and in FIG. 4D for flashing exposure, respectively.

[0045] As expected, light scattering increased during photopolymerization in both cases. In the CW exposure case, scattering gradually increased during the 2.3-second exposure, and at the end of exposure the material was already highly scattering. Scattering continued to increase slightly after exposure. In the flashing exposure case, the first 50 milliseconds of the recorded video experienced strong interference from the intense flashing, making it difficult to observe the shape of the laser beam. At the end of the flash (t=50 ms), the material scattering was only slightly increased. The scattering continued to increase in the next several hundreds of milliseconds and finally reached a similar strength of scattering as in the UV LED case. It was noted that the majority of the energy was released within the first few milliseconds. During the following several tens of milliseconds, there was merely residual discharge. Thus, we would expect even weaker scattering at the actual end of the effective flash exposure (t<10 ms). The actual flash energy required will depend on characteristics of the selected pre-polymer solution and photoinitiator. Based on the disclosure herein, selection of an appropriate flash energy will be within the level of skill in the art.

[0046] A Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscope was used to measure the infrared (IR) transmittance of the unpolymerized and polymerized samples. IR measurement was performed on Perkin Elmer Spectrum Two FTIR spectroscope. Polymerized samples were dried to eliminate the influence of the spectrum of water, first by snap-freeze using liquid nitrogen, then by lyophilization (Labonco Freezone, lyophilize at −55° C. for 3 days).

[0047] The results for the transmittance of unpolymerized pure PEGDA, polymerized sample made by a flashing exposure, and polymerized sample made by a CW exposure, are shown in FIG. 4E. The lack of alkenyl C—H stretch peak at 3000 cm.sup.−1 in flashing and CW samples indicates that these two samples are sufficiently polymerized. Polymerized samples were lyophilized before measurement.

[0048] Three samples were prepared for the measurement in a UV-Vis-NIR spectroscope (Perkin Elmer, Lambda 1050) to measure their respective scattering properties. The prepolymer solution (50% PEGDA, 4% LAP) is loaded in a 1 mm wide glass container. The FPP sample is polymerized by a single flash (20 J) into a 1 mm slab. The CW sample is polymerized by UV LED (0.4 mW cm.sup.−2, 10 s) into a 1 mm slab.

[0049] By using the integrating sphere, the diffusive reflectance R.sub.d, total reflectance R.sub.t, diffusive transmittance T.sub.d, and total transmittance T.sub.t were measured. Next, collimated reflectance and collimated transmittance was calculated as R.sub.c=R.sub.t−R.sub.d, T.sub.c=T.sub.t−T.sub.d.

[0050] The scattering coefficients were estimated via Bouguer-Beer-Lambert Law: I(d)=I.sub.0.Math.(1−R.sub.c).Math.exp [−(μ.sub.a+μ.sub.s)d].

[0051] The total scattering of light can be estimated as R.sub.d+T.sub.d=(1−R.sub.c)[1−exp(−μ.sub.sd)], allowing the scattering coefficient to be estimated as μ.sub.s=−ln [1−(R.sub.d+T.sub.d)/(1−R.sub.c)]/d. The results are provided in FIG. 4F, where it can be seen that the CW exposure is more likely to make the polymer highly scattering than the flashing exposure. As a baseline, the prepolymer solution has a scattering coefficient of 0.037 mm.sup.−1 at 500 nm wavelength, i.e., minimal scattering. The visual appearance of these samples is shown in the photograph in FIG. 6A. The polymer created by the flashing exposure, seen in the lower right corner of the photo, is an optically clear slab with a scattering coefficient at 0.215 mm.sup.−1 at 500 nm wavelength. Note that the text beneath the slab is still legible. In contrast, the polymer formed using CW exposure, seen in the upper left corner of the photo, with the underlying text illegible, is mostly opaque, with a scattering coefficient of 1.621 mm.sup.−1 at 500 nm.

[0052] FIGS. 6B and 6C are SEM photomicrographs of the polymer slabs that were formed using CW and flashing exposures, respectively. In each image the scale bar is 100 μm. The samples were prepared for SEM imaging by snap-freezing using liquid nitrogen, dried by lyophilization, and sputter-coated with Iridium. This process removed the water without destroying the microstructure of the samples. A Zeiss Sigma 500 SEM was used to take the images.

[0053] The flashing photopolymerization scheme described herein provides for photopolymerization-based 3D printing with improved precision. By using a flashing exposure, the material remains optically clear during the exposure period so that light scattering is minimized, resulting in control of the exposure to produce fine fabrication resolution. Both theoretical analysis and experimental demonstration have revealed the different scattering effects in CW and flashing exposures. These results demonstrate that by chronologically managing the light exposure, polymerization and opacification can be controlled to greatly improve the fidelity of 3D-printed structures. This capability is particularly important for microscale 3D printing where the scattering effect has significant impact on the microstructure formation. The improved technique can be applied to any field requiring high-resolution, micron-scale 3D fabrication, including, but not limited to, microelectromechanical systems, microfluidics, tissue engineering, and biomedical devices.

REFERENCES—INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE

[0054] [1] J. R. Tumbleston, et al., “Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects”, Science. 347 (2015) 1349-1352. doi:10.1126/science.aaa2397. [0055] [2] C. Sun, et al., “Projection micro-stereolithography using digital micro-mirror dynamic mask”, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical. 121 (2005) 113-120. doi:10.1016/j.sna.2004.12.011. [0056] [3] R. Gauvin, et al., “Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography”, Biomaterials. 33 (2012) 3824-3834. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.048. [0057] [4] L.-H. Han, et al., “Fluorinated Colloidal Emulsion of Photochangeable Rheological Behavior as a Sacrificial Agent to Fabricate Organic, Three-Dimensional Microstructures”, Langmuir. 26 (2010) 6108-6110. doi:10.1021/1a100014k. [0058] [5] A. P. Zhang, et al., “Rapid Fabrication of Complex 3D Extracellular Microenvironments by Dynamic Optical Projection Stereolithography”, Advanced Materials. 24 (2012) 4266-4270. doi:10.1002/adma.201202024. [0059] [6] W. Zhu, et al., “3D printing of functional biomaterials for tissue engineering”, Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 40 (2016) 103-112. [0060] [7] W. Zhu, et al., “Rapid continuous 3D printing of customizable peripheral nerve guidance conduits”, Materials Today. (2018). [0061] [8] D. B. Berry, et al., “A 3D tissue-printing approach for validation of diffusion tensor imaging in skeletal muscle”, Tissue Engineering Part A. 23 (2017) 980-988. [0062] [9] W. Zhu, et al., “Direct 3D bioprinting of prevascularized tissue constructs with complex microarchitecture”, Biomaterials. 124 (2017) 106-115. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.01.042. [0063] [10] X. Qu, et al., “Relative impact of uniaxial alignment vs. form-induced stress on differentiation of human adipose derived stem cells”, Biomaterials. 34 (2013) 9812-9818. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.009. [0064] [11] J.-F. Xing, et al., “Two-photon polymerization microfabrication of hydrogels: an advanced 3D printing technology for tissue engineering and drug delivery”, Chemical Society Reviews. 44 (2015) 5031-5039. doi:10.1039/C5CS00278H. [0065] [12] H. N. Chia, et al., “Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials”, Journal of Biological Engineering. 9 (2015) 4. doi:10.1186/s13036-015-0001-4. [0066] [13] T. E. Brown, et al., “Spatiotemporal hydrogel biomaterials for regenerative medicine”, Chemical Society Reviews. 46 (2017) 6532-6552. doi: 10.1039/C7C S00445A. [0067] [14] P. Soman, et al., “A three-dimensional polymer scaffolding material exhibiting a zero Poisson's ratio”, Soft Matter. 8 (2012) 4946. doi:10.1039/c2sm07354d. [0068] [15] P. Soman, et al., “Spatial tuning of negative and positive Poisson's ratio in a multi-layer scaffold”, Acta Biomaterialia. 8 (2012) 2587-2594. [0069] [16] C. E. Carraher Jr, Introduction to polymer chemistry, CRC Press, 2017. [0070] [17] J. M. G. Cowie, et al., Polymers: chemistry and physics of modern materials, CRC Press, 2007. [0071] [18] T. Scherzer, et al., “Real-time FTIR-ATR spectroscopy to study the kinetics of ultrafast photopolymerization reactions induced by monochromatic UV light”, Vibrational Spectroscopy. 19 (1999) 385-398. [0072] [19] C. N. Bowman, et al., “Toward an enhanced understanding and implementation of photopolymerization reactions”, AIChE Journal. 54 (2008) 2775-2795. doi:10.1002/aic.11678. [0073] [20] M. D. Goodner, et al., “Method for determining the kinetic parameters in diffusion-controlled free-radical homopolymerizations”, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 36 (1997) 1247-1252. [0074] [21] M. D. Goodner, et al., “Modeling primary radical termination and its effects on autoacceleration in photopolymerization kinetics”, Macromolecules. 32 (1999) 6552-6559. [0075] [22] M. R. Gleeson, et al., “Nonlocal photopolymerization kinetics including multiple termination mechanisms and dark reactions—Part I Modeling”, Journal of the Optical Society of America B. 26 (2009) 1736. doi:10.1364/JOSAB.26.001736. [0076] [23] M. D. Goodner, et al., “Development of a comprehensive free radical photopolymerization model incorporating heat and mass transfer effects in thick films”, Chemical Engineering Science. 57 (2002) 887-900. doi:10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00287-1. [0077] [24] J.-C. Auger, et al., “Scattering efficiency of clusters composed by aggregated spheres”, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer. 79-80 (2003) 521-531. doi:10.1016/50022-4073(02)00305-9. [0078] [25] A. Seeboth, et al., “Phase transitions and phase separations in aqueous polyether systems”, Colloid Polym Sci. 279 (2001) 696-704. doi:10.1007/s003960000474. [0079] [26] V. Tuchin, Tissue optics: light scattering methods and instruments for medical diagnosis, SPIE Press, 2007. [0080] [27] B. D. Fairbanks, et al., “Photoinitiated polymerization of PEG-diacrylate with lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate: polymerization rate and cytocompatibility”, Biomaterials. 30 (2009) 6702-6707. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.08.055.