Short answer: yes - for the right job, made the right way.
3D printing still has a bit of a reputation problem. A printed laboratory tool is often seen as a prototype: something useful for testing an idea before the real version is injection-moulded.
That view is outdated, so let's revisit it.
3D printing is increasingly used to make functional laboratory equipment, fixtures and custom scientific tools. Published examples range from printed micropipettes and bench adaptors (Baden et al., 2015) to whole toolkits of repairable wet-lab equipment (COBLE, 2024). One open-design printed micropipette was benchmarked against a commercial pipette and met ISO 8655 (bioRxiv).
But that does not mean every 3D-printed object belongs in every laboratory workflow. The useful question is not:
"Is it 3D-printed?"
It is:
"Are the material, design and manufacturing process suitable for what I am asking this tool to do?"
Below we go through what to look at, whether you print tools yourself or buy them. We also explain how we apply the same criteria to our own Easy Like IHC™ products: defined materials, a controlled print process and quality control before anything reaches a customer.
Where 3D printing makes a lot of sense
Many laboratory tools do not need to be sterile, optically transparent, pressure-rated or resistant to every solvent in the chemical cabinet. They need to be fit for purpose. Think of:
- tube racks
- magnetic separation racks
- slide holders and staining accessories
- equipment adapters
- organisers and positioning fixtures
- holders for plates, tubes or cuvettes
- workflow-specific tools needed in relatively small numbers
For tools like these, additive manufacturing has two major advantages.
1. The tool can be designed around the workflow
Injection moulding strongly favours standardisation and high volumes. That is excellent when millions of identical tubes are needed. But every new design needs a mould, which typically costs thousands to tens of thousands of euros, and more for complex parts. 3D printing has a far lower entry cost.
That matters when a lab needs something specific: a rack for an unusual tube configuration, a separator optimised for a given number of tubes or working volume, or a staining tray that holds exactly the number of slides normally processed in one experiment. With 3D printing, changing a dimension does not require a new mould.
I remember numerous occasions where the design of my experiment depended on how many samples I could process at once. With 3D printing, such tools are not only easier to customise but also cheaper to buy. Research is agile, and tools that can adapt just as quickly make a good match.
2. Small production runs become economically sensible
Injection moulding is extremely efficient once volumes are high. Before that point, tooling is a large share of the cost. 3D printing reverses the equation: the cost per item falls less with volume, but there is almost no dedicated tooling.
That makes it well suited to:
prototype → test → improve → manufacture a small series → improve again
rather than:
prototype → commit to expensive tooling → hope we got everything right
The cost difference can be large: in one study, printed chemically resistant labware cost less than 10% of the purchased equivalents (Heikkinen et al., 2018). For specialised lab tools, that flexibility is worth more than shaving a few cents off the ten-thousandth unit.
But what about the plastic?
"3D-printed plastic" is not one material. PLA, PETG, polypropylene, nylon, ABS and engineering polymers behave very differently. Even two filaments of the same polymer can differ, because pigments and additives are proprietary (Heikkinen et al., 2018). Print settings also change how the finished part resists solvents (3DPrint.com summary of a solvent compatibility study).
For many functional laboratory accessories, PETG is particularly useful. It is tough, warps little and resists many dilute acids, bases and alcohols. It is also used in conventional laboratory and medical packaging products.
It is not chemically indestructible. PETG is attacked by ketones such as acetone and by aromatic solvents such as xylene and toluene. Which brings us to one of our favourite laboratory principles:
Know what your material will actually encounter.
For an immunostaining workflow, that looks like this:
| Reagent | Typical step | PETG |
|---|---|---|
| PBS, TBS, wash buffers | Washes, dilutions | Generally compatible (Matter3D PETG product data) |
| Dilute detergents (Tween-20, Triton X-100) | Washes, permeabilisation | Generally compatible (Matter3D PETG product data) |
| Blocking buffers, antibodies, amplification reagents | Incubations | Generally compatible: aqueous protein solutions, no known concern |
| Ethanol 50–96% | Rehydration, cleaning | Generally compatible at room temperature; inspect printed parts for fine cracks after repeated wipes (Brett Martin / Lumex PET-PETG chemical resistance chart) |
| Acetone | Some fixation protocols | Not compatible - avoid (Brett Martin / Lumex PET-PETG chemical resistance chart) |
| Xylene, toluene | Deparaffinisation, clearing, mounting | Not compatible - avoid (Matter3D PETG product data) |
Compatibility note: these ratings are general material guidance, not validation of a finished printed product. Filament formulation, printing conditions, concentration, temperature and exposure time can all change performance, so where chemical contact matters, the finished product should be tested.
In practice, deparaffinisation and clearing stay in glass or stainless-steel jars, as they already do in most labs. A printed tray takes over from blocking onward, which is where slides spend most of their time.
Temperature follows the same logic. PETG's glass transition is about 80–85 °C (Laird Plastics). That is comfortably above 4 °C, room temperature and 37 °C incubations, but below heat-induced antigen retrieval at 95–100 °C. PLA starts to soften at around 60 °C.
Layer lines: defect or manufacturing characteristic?
Fused-filament fabrication (FFF) builds an object layer by layer. The layers are visible, and the surface is less smooth than an injection-moulded one.
That matters for some applications. If a component must provide a highly defined fluidic surface, limit molecular adsorption, hold very tight tolerances or survive repeated sterilisation, the method and surface need careful evaluation.
For a tube rack or a staining tray, visible layers are largely cosmetic. What is not cosmetic is what lies between them. The gaps between extruded lines create open porosity, so printed PLA and PETG absorb more liquid than the raw polymer (Polymers, 2021). In a tray that sits in wash buffer, that affects cleaning and carry-over.
One way to reduce the risk is to optimise how the part is printed. In a 2025 study on PLA, higher extrusion flow and wall widths of 0.64 mm or more produced watertight parts on that printer; the threshold depends on printer, nozzle and material, so it has to be checked for each part (BIPCM, 2025). Liquid-facing walls should be designed and printed with good fusion, then checked for leakage and cleanability. A solid wall alone does not prove that a finished print is liquid-tight.
Surface roughness and porosity should be treated as engineering requirements, not automatically as quality judgements.
What about sterility?
This is an area where claims should be made carefully.
A normal 3D-printed laboratory accessory should not be regarded as sterile. Nor should PLA or PETG be assumed to tolerate routine autoclaving: at 121 °C, both are well above their softening range. Outcomes for other sterilisation methods depend on polymer formulation, print settings, geometry and the method used. The practical rule is simple:
Unless a product has been specifically validated for sterilisation, treat it as non-sterile and do not assume it is autoclavable.
For many laboratory accessories this is no limitation, because sterility was never part of their function.
Magnets add a second reason. Standard N-grade neodymium magnets are typically rated to about 80 °C. At autoclave temperatures they can lose strength permanently, plus steam encourages corrosion.
Can we clean it? Absolutely. But choose your method carefully.
Not being autoclavable does not mean a tool cannot be cleaned or disinfected. The methods below are commonly used starting points for printed PETG labware, not validated instructions for a specific product. A layered surface rinses and dries less easily than smooth steel, so thorough rinsing and drying matter.
| Method | Typical starting point | What to consider for printed PETG tools |
|---|---|---|
| Warm water and mild detergent | Wash, rinse well, dry fully | Routine removal of residues. Cleaning, not disinfection. |
| 70% ethanol | Wipe or spray so the surface stays wet, then air-dry | PETG is generally compatible (see table above). Check any adhesives, coatings and exposed magnets. |
| UV light (biosafety cabinet) | About 15 minutes after ethanol, as a supplement | Reaches only surfaces in direct line of sight, not shadows, recesses or layer gaps. Keep cycles short: long repeated exposure can slowly yellow or embrittle plastics. |
| Sodium hypochlorite (bleach), 0.5–1% | Fresh 1:10 dilution of about 5% household bleach (strengths vary, check the label); about 10 minutes wet contact; then rinse thoroughly with water | Used for disinfection and nucleic-acid decontamination. Oxidising and corrodes exposed magnets: wipe and rinse, do not soak. |
Magnetic separators deserve particular caution. Neodymium magnets and their coatings are vulnerable to moisture and corrosive chemicals, especially if a magnet is exposed or its coating is damaged. Never mix bleach with alcohol, acids or ammonia, and rinse one agent off before applying the next.
Clean, disinfected and sterile are three different things.
And dimensional accuracy?
Modern desktop FFF printers are remarkably capable, but dimensions still vary between printers. Even Opentrons warns that printed labware may need scaling to fit (Opentrons).
A laboratory product should therefore be designed for additive manufacturing, not simply sent to a printer from a design made for another process. Clearances, layer orientation, wall thickness, mechanical loading, warping and shrinkage all need to be considered. A slide holder, for example, has to be checked against real 76 × 26 mm slides, not just the CAD file.
Controlling the process matters just as much: the same slicer parameters, printing conditions and filament handling every time.
In other words, there is a considerable difference between:
"I printed this."
and
"This product is manufactured using 3D printing."
The second requires a defined design, material, manufacturing process and acceptance criteria. It becomes a proper product development process, including the failures along the way.
When would we not choose 3D printing?
Plenty of situations. We would think twice, or choose another manufacturing method entirely, for products involving:
- repeated autoclaving
- aggressive organic solvents such as xylene or acetone
- high pressure
- critical optical surfaces
- high temperatures, including antigen retrieval
- extremely tight dimensional tolerances
- demanding sterile applications
- direct sample or cell contact without appropriate compatibility testing
- very large production volumes, where injection moulding becomes more efficient
That is not a failure of additive manufacturing. It is simply material selection and engineering. You probably wouldn't make a histology staining jar from paper either.
So, is a 3D-printed laboratory tool "good enough"?
We would phrase it differently: does it reliably perform its intended function?
If a PETG magnetic separator positions tubes correctly, holds the magnets at the right geometry, survives routine handling and tolerates its expected cleaning, an injection-moulded body would not make the magnetic separation any better. Likewise, an injection-moulded part made from the wrong polymer is not suitable just because its surface is smoother.
Manufacturing technology is only one part of product quality. Design, material, intended use, process control and validation matter much more.
How we make and check Easy Like IHC™ tools
At Assay Upp, "3D-printed" never means "printed once and shipped". Our printed products are manufactured using 3D printing through a documented, repeatable process:
- Defined material. Each product is specified for one material, chosen for the reagents and temperatures it will meet. For our staining tools, that is PETG from one specified filament supplier and grade, dried before printing.
- Controlled process. Each product has a fixed print profile, so every unit is made with the same settings. Because settings alone do not guarantee identical parts, the output is still checked.
- Tested before release. New designs are tested in real staining and separation workflows, in our own lab and with partner labs, before we offer them.
- Quality control of every unit. Before a product leaves us, it is inspected and checked against its acceptance criteria: fit with standard slides or tubes, magnet seating and retention where relevant, and freedom from print defects.
- Honest status labels. In our shop, products are marked "In stock", "Available by enquiry" or "In development", so you know exactly what you are getting. "Available by enquiry" is used for selected small-series or made-to-order products; "In development" means prototype units supplied for evaluation, not yet released products.
- Research use only. Our tools are intended for research use and not for diagnostic procedures.
Why print at all? Because it lets us improve a product from real laboratory experience without waiting for the next manufacturing generation. We can change a tube angle, move a magnet, add clearance around a slide or improve a grip, then test it again. For specialised tools made in relatively small volumes, that is a feature rather than a compromise.
Not everything we offer is printed. Where conventional manufacturing makes more sense, we use it. The choice is based on what the product needs to do, and it is made by experienced scientists.
The practical checklist
Before buying or using any 3D-printed item in a laboratory workflow, ask:
- What material is it made from?
- Which chemicals will it contact?
- At what temperature?
- Does it need to be sterile?
- Does it contact the sample directly?
- What dimensional accuracy does the application need?
- How will it be cleaned, and has it been checked for leakage and cleanability?
- Has the actual intended function been tested?
- If you are buying it: can the supplier tell you how it is made and quality-controlled?
If those questions have sensible answers, 3D printing can be an extremely capable way to make laboratory tools. And occasionally it produces a better tool precisely because it doesn't require making 10,000 identical ones first.
Sources
- Baden T. et al. (2015). Open Labware: 3-D printing your own lab equipment. PLOS Biology. PMC4368627
- Toward an open-source 3D-printable laboratory (COBLE). Applications in Plant Sciences, 2024. PubMed 38369980
- Printed open-design micropipette meeting ISO 8655. bioRxiv 109231
- Heikkinen I.T.S. et al. (2018). Chemical compatibility of FFF-based 3-D printed components with solutions commonly used in semiconductor wet processing. Additive Manufacturing 23:99–107. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.07.015
- Solvent compatibility charts for 3D-printed polymers. 3DPrint.com summary
- Disinfectant absorption and decontamination of 3D-printed ABS parts. Polymers, 2021. PMC8659898
- Study on the tightness of parts manufactured by FDM. BIPCM, 2025. doi:10.2478/bipcm-2025-0023
- PET/PETG chemical resistance chart (Brett Martin / Lumex). PDF
- PETG chemical resistance, Matter3D product data. Product page
- PETG properties, Laird Plastics. Article
- Opentrons 3D printing directory. Opentrons