MTE XXXXXXXXXXResearch Seminar Essay Coordinator: Dr. Di Leva Gianpiero (Module leader) XXXXXXXXXX Brief: Over the course of the academic year, we have heard a number of invited speakers describing...

1 answer below »
The two videos needed can only be viewed on microsoft stream and are under the tab "watchlist". There is two videosmy login details to view these are:Email/username: [email protected]: 7vyXkxhm


MTE 40039 - Research Seminar Essay Coordinator: Dr. Di Leva Gianpiero (Module leader) [email protected] Brief: Over the course of the academic year, we have heard a number of invited speakers describing their studies and outlining both the advances made and the problems that lie ahead. You should prepare a thorough literature review of maximum 3000 words with a detailed evaluation of the key aspects along with future perspectives of one of the questions below. An excellent essay should provide an in-depth understanding of the topic and show an extensive and discriminating reading of the scientific literature. It should also use recent information, methodology or theory at the forefront of the field and all information should be properly referenced. Due to the short nature of the essay, an excellent essay should: · focus on specific aspect of the field in question (a special methodology, a theory, a controversial idea, or a cell/tissue/organ model) with relevant arguments. · supporting arguments should be substantial and scientifically correct. An essay will not be considered as excellent if it will only provide a generic view of the field (e.g. describing biomaterials in general). The essay should be clear, well written and structured according to the descriptor table provided below. 1. In the last few years, 3D printing and microfluidic devices have emerged as promising alternatives for fabrication techniques and cell/tissue culture devices. Both systems can replicate more precisely the biological environments and overcome some of the limitations associated with conventional culture tools. Students should discuss the diversity of 3D printing techniques and their applications including the manufacture of microfluidic device. Essays should relate to the Lunchtime Seminar Series lectures delivered by Dr Paul Roach and Professor Felicity’ Rose’s seminar. Deadlines and Mode of Submission: July 1st 2021, 14:00pm, A PDF file of your work must be submitted via Turnitin. A submission area will be available in the Experimental Research Methodology module area in Blackboard. A draft submission area will also be available to retrieve the originality report. Weight: 70% of the full module mark. Intended Learning Outcome for the Assignments: On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to: Knowledge and Understanding: · Apply a systematic approach to locating and critically evaluating appropriate topic. · Show extensive familiarity with topics of regenerative medicine. Transferable/Key Skills and other Attributes: · Apply intellectual skills for the analysis & interpretation of literature materials. · Work independently to develop skills in self-management and be able to identify and work towards targets for personal & academic development. Format: The essay should include: Description Weight Title It should provide a short description of the experiment highlights – max 120 characters, 5% Abstract It should be a complete but concise (250 words) description of your work. It should mirror the entire structure of your research article (motivation, problem, approach/results, conclusion) without copying sections of the article 10% Introduction It should provide some background information of the topic as well as open issues of the chosen theme. A clear plan of the literature review should be provided at the end of this paragraph. All information must to be properly referenced. 15% Main Body It should provide an accessible, novel and balanced overview of the chosen topic. Figures/Tables should be included to illustrate specific points of the narrative. Figure legends should clarify the diagram, do not repeat the main text and add extra information. 35% Conclusions It should provide future direction, development and applications. 15% References This section should be a formatted list of any texts you have used in the construction of your report, as with any academic assignment, 10% Presentation and Formatting The literature review should be comprehensible and well organised. Figures and Tables should be clearly labelled and figure legends should provide information not provided in the main text and give a good understanding of the diagrams. 10% Result: Assessment Brief Form Assessment Brief Form Two independent academics will score each essay (based on criteria provided below) and comments and marks will be provided via Turnitin no later than 4 weeks from the submission. Marking Scheme for the Literature Review Essay: Excellent Very Good Good/Satisfactory Fail Poor/Very Poor Final Mark Title (5%) Significance and length (120 characters). 5 4 3-2.5 2-1.5 1-0 /5 · Explicative and clear with full coverage of the topic. · Shorter than 120 characters. · Style similar to review articles. · Explicative and clear. · Shorted than 120 characters. · It does not cover the full content of the review. · Too long or writing does not related to review article style. · Clear but it does not cover the full content of the review. · Too long. · Irrelevant. · Extremely long. Abstract (10%) Concise and complete in reporting information. Length of 250 words. 10-9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-0 /10 · Review style-Abstract. · All information are correct and concisely presented. · Length is less than 250 words. · All information are correct. · Length is less than 250 words. · Information are correct but not fully reported. · Missing topics or issues. · Too long. · Some information are not correct. · Missing topics or issues. · Too long. · Absent or Irrelevant. · No coherent information are reported. · Extremely long. Introduction (15%) Concise and complete in reporting information. Length of 500 words. 15-13 12-10 9-7.5 7-5 4-0 /15 · Information are relevant, correct and properly referenced. · Excellent flow of the sections. · Shows an excellent understanding of the subject and nature of the topic. · Length is at 500 words. · Publishable style. · Information are relevant, correct and properly referenced. · Very good flow of the sections. · Shows a very good understanding of the subject and nature of the topic. · Length is below 500 words. · Information are relevant but not coherently organised. · Disjointed information. · Shows a good understanding of the subject but the nature of the topic is not fully clarified. · Length is below 500 words. · Information are partially relevant and not properly referenced. · Sections are disconnected. · Shows a fair understanding of the subject. · Too short. · Absent or Irrelevant. · No coherent information are reported. · Extremely short and information are not referenced. Main Body (35%) Complete in providing overview of the topic. Linked to literature. Use of figures and tables. Length up to 2000 words. 35-30 29-25 24-17.5 17-11 10-0 /35 · Outstanding section with all concisely written information. · Evidence of extensive and discriminating reading/use of source material, accurately used in support of the work. · Detailed analysis and critical thought, including reflection upon the limitations of theory and/or research. · Excellently written. · All information are correctly described. · Concise and well structured sections. · Some appraisal or challenge of the arguments presented in the materials. · Familiarity with a proportion of central reading/source material, but with some minor errors, omissions, or questionable interpretation of essential material. · Well structured sections but some mistakes are present. · A limited level of information is reported. · Insufficient attempt at argument and containing irrelevant or unrelated elements. · Mistakes in reporting information or academic convention are present. · An attempt to answer the question but with little understanding or grasp of course materials. · Mostly copied from the seminar series lectures or other web sources. Conclusion (15%) Critical analysis of the topic. Up to 500 words. 15-13 12-10 9-7.5 6-5 4-0 /15 · Show a critical analysis of the topic and relevant connection with the literature. · Provide a good analysis of what lays ahead in the field · Publishable quality. · Show a critical analysis of the topic and relevant but limited connection with the literature. · Good attempt in providing future directions. · Very good length. · A good attempt but mostly a repetition of main text. · Limited connection with the literature. · Start to be too long or repetitive. · Fairly connected to the current literature. · Limited references. · Too vague or repetitive. · Absent or irrelevant · Too long and repetitive. · Absent connection with the literature. References (10%) Harvard referencing style. Scientific articles used as references 10-9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-0 /10 · All info are referenced using Harvard-style referencing method. · Only scientific references are included. · Bibliography section is excellently organised. · All info are referenced using Harvard-style with minor errors. · Only scientific references are included. · Bibliography section is very well organised. · All info are referenced using Harvard-style referencing method with multiple errors. · Only scientific references are included. · Bibliography section is well organised. · All info are referenced using Harvard-style referencing method with major errors. · Scientific references are included but also websites not very relevant. · Bibliography section is present with multiple mistakes. · No references included. · No use of Harvard style. · No scientific articles are used. Presentation (10%) 10-9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-0 /10 · Ability to create a review of publishable quality. · Writing is clear and no grammar mistakes are present. · Figures are excellently structured and scientifically correct. · All info are presented in a clear way. · Writing is clear with minor mistakes. · Figures are very well structured and scientifically correct. · Some information are not properly discussed. · Figures are clear but not completely labelled or described. · Writing is clear. · Some data are not presented. · Figures are poorly presented and limited post-processing of the data.. · Writing is clear but several mistakes are present.. · The Research Article Template is used but sections are uneven. · Very limited attempt in the production of a research articles. · No post-processing of the data acquired in the laboratory. Overall Feedback:
Answered Same DayJun 30, 2021

Answer To: MTE XXXXXXXXXXResearch Seminar Essay Coordinator: Dr. Di Leva Gianpiero (Module leader) XXXXXXXXXX...

Asif answered on Jul 01 2021
132 Votes
RESEARCH SEMINAR ESSAY
Abstract
In microfluidics, 3D printing represents the third revolution. 3D printing technology is used to produce a device capable of improving interior contact areas and changing the dynamics of water. It may be used for cancer testing, neurophysiology, drug testing, and remote monitoring of patients. From research to industry, the therapeutic uses of 3D printing advance quickly. In the fields of physiological research, drug administration, and structural development, this article promises numerous benefits. 20 active or experimental research is presently underway employing 3D components. The study has proven successful as numerous 3D printed technologies have
been granted FDA clearance. The most popular 3D printing process is fused deposition modelling (FDM). Aerospace technology, car, bio-medical, intelligent home, workplaces, and coaching aid are increasingly used using FDM technology. It's fantastic for unbelievably easy usage, easy operation, and minimal use. Sculpted uses DLP technology for Silver and Brass 3D printing to produce discreet capsules, with smooth surfaces on the outside. Theophylline has been a model research drug.
Through the ability to produce prototypes even without the need for costly tools, 3D printing helps education. Students may imitate museum artifacts such as fossils and cultural monuments, preventing damage to delicate classroom collections. In 3D printing, the potential for producing customized prostheses for patients is outstanding. In certain third-world countries, prostheses are not even an option. Bioprinters enable artificial organs to be produced 3D to resolve organ failure concerns.
Table of Contents
Introduction    4
Discussion    4
3D printing and microfluidic devices as promising alternatives for fabrication techniques.    4
3D-printed microfluidic devices as cell tissue culture devices    5
Diversity of 3D printing techniques    7
Applications of 3D printing techniques    10
Microfluidic device    12
Conclusion    14
Reference List    15
Introduction
There has been considerable interest in additive or 3D printing in contemporary years, as it is more widely known, and this is referred to as a third revolution. 3D printing technology is utilized to manufacture a microfluidic device that can enhance internal contact areas and alter water dynamics (Chen et al., 2020). 3D printing is capable of changing the field of microfluidics considerably. The capacity to build a full microfluidic device in one single movement from a computer simulation has clear charms, but it is also the possibility, using existing techniques, to develop three-dimensional frameworks that give unprecedented, if not inconceivable microfluidic capabilities. Detection limits were also found for PTB biomarkers in the high picomolar to the low nanomolar range for microchip electrophoresis in 3D printed microfluidic equipment (Beauchamp et al., 2019). Commercial 3D printers that can manufacture objects from a few micrometres to several centimetres start to challenge the soft lithograph as a prototype research technique to the manufacturing industry.
Discussion
3D printing and microfluidic devices as promising alternatives for fabrication techniques.
Microfluidics is a prosperous subject that requires a significant amount of biochemical and clinical applications such as cancer testing, neurophysiology, drug testing, and remote patient monitoring analysis. The platform for the fabrication and construction of inorganic and polymeric materials has emerged as a useful and in some cases unique platform for microfluidics (Bressan et al., 2019). Nevertheless, manufacturing microfluidic technology is frequently difficult, moment and sterile conditions need high costs. Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a potential solution, not just in enabling rapid design iterations during the stage of development but also in managing the risks associated with technological mechanisms, high - functioning, upkeep as well as physical space, for traditional technologies like lithography and PDMS glass bonding. The lowest-cost 3D printing method has been founded on Fusion Deposition Modelling (FDM) over the past number of years in microfluidics. Nevertheless, clear windows for optical detection are inadequate in resolution and ability to penetrate (Alizadehgiashi et al., 2018). Latest developments in 3D printing technologies have enabled the production, through single attempts, fast and economic procedures, of extremely complicated microfluidic types of equipment which make microfluidics more user-friendly.
Image 1: 3D printing and microfluidic devices
Source: (Alizadehgiashi et al., 2018)
3D-printed microfluidic devices as cell tissue culture devices
3D printing plays a major role, including but is not restricted to, cultural systems and implanted devices, for different biomedical research applications. Recent uses of therapeutically driven research 3D printing technology, concentrating in particular on buildings afterward integrated into cell production (Mehta and Rath, 2021). This technique applies to prescription medicines, frameworks for cultivating bioreactors, acellular scaffolding, diagnostic methods, and chip organ systems. Without 3D printing, it is not feasible to emphasize the technical developments: when traditional production techniques are difficult for research goals to be demonstrated. More subsequently, 3D printing was used to produce moulds for softer lithograph, only other phase which frequently still requires a clean-room environment, for microfluidic PDMS devices to be quickly prototyped forward. The therapeutic uses of 3D printing are advancing fast from research to manufacturing and will surely remain growing as the number of treatments is growing. This paper promises several uses in the field of physiological research, pharmacological administration, and structural enhancements. The development of 3D printing technology promises that the biological research community may access microfluidic organ-in-chip technologies more easily (Ferraz et al., 2020). 3D printing quickly progressed to a broadly accessible desktop manufacturing technique from an innovative invention. In the context of clinical applications, fast prototyping offers technologists, clinicians, and scientists’ great freedom and the chance to work together to address medical issues quickly. There are currently 20 ongoing or experimental studies using 3D components, including metal implant materials, atrial fibrillation gadgets, heart monitors, as well as sleeping aponia covers. Researchers are continually interested in the area of how to quickly build microfluidic devices utilizing software modules (Ong et al., 2017). This clinical study is becoming successful since FDA permission has been given to several 3D printing technologies. 2 These gadgets remain mainly acellular, though. 3D printing has an extensive clinical appeal in one day...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here