## 1 Introduction
Traditional methods, such as soft lithography and micro-milling, encounter challenges in optimizing the fabrication process, reducing the time, and achieving complex geometries, particularly in 3D [10; 32; 33]. The current manufacturing methods for microfluidic models require a considerable number of steps and specialized equipment to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Active** & **Application** & **Print Tech** & **Material** & **Channel Properties** & **Fluid Properties** & **Cover Material** & **Ref.** \\ \hline External pump & Red blood cell detection. & Polyjet & Clear acrylic & C = 200–300 & FR = 15–20 & Polycarbonate & 2021 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Springe pump} & Monitoring organic & \multirow{2}{*}{FDM} & \multirow{2}{*}{PLA} & C = 700 & FR = 25–100 & \multirow{2}{*}{Closed} & 2022 \\  & organic & & & L = 60 & MT = 18–71 & & [1] \\ \hline Dual syringe & Comparing microfluidic & FDM & Crystal clear & C = 300–1500 & FR = 25–100 & \multirow{2}{*}{Glass} & 2021 \\  & performance & SLA & Clear resin & L = 27 & MT = 1–146 & & [20] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Springe pump} & Microfluidics & \multirow{2}{*}{FDM} & \multirow{2}{*}{PP} & C = 400–600 & FR = 1000 & \multirow{2}{*}{Tape} & 2021 \\  & & nanomedicines. & & & L = 60 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Springe pump} & Micro Reactor: & \multirow{2}{*}{Polyjet} & \multirow{2}{*}{Clear acrylic} & C = 660 & FR =200–2000 & \multirow{2}{*}{Clear acrylic} & 2019 \\  & Flow control. & & & L = 600 & MT = 8–78 & & [22] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Springe pump} & Performance of 3D-printed & FDM & PLA & C = 600 & FR = 10–400 & \multirow{2}{*}{Tape} & 2019 \\  & mixers. & Polyjet & Shate resin & L = 80–150 & MT = 4–173 & & [18] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} C—Channel Size (μm),—Length (mm), FR—Flow Rate (μL/min), MT—Mixing Time (s).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: The 3D-printed mixers driven by active methods. develop new prototypes [9]. CNC milling requires high-precision equipment to manufacture microdevices, and the precision or minimum feature size cannot be reduced below 100 microns [9]. Both processes are time-consuming. There is a need for a new manufacturing method to achieve a faster microfluidic manufacturing process. SLA technology is proposed, enabling the precise fabrication of microchannels and chambers, not only in-plane but also out-of-plane [34; 35; 36]. This capability enhances the incorporation of capillary-driven mixing mechanisms within the device, optimizing the use of smaller areas. The manufacturing method for the mixer's design harnesses the spontaneous capillary flow of fluids along microscale channels, promoting rapid and efficient mixing without the need for an external system, as seen in conventional prototypes for point-of-care applications [37; 38; 39]. Recent studies have introduced 3D printing technology as a promising manufacturing tool for microdevices [40]. During the last few years, 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, has been introduced since it is a fast, simple, and low-cost technology to fabricate devices. There are current research projects that use 3D technology for microfluidic device fabrication in the areas of healthcare, chemistry, and engineering due to its simplicity and low cost [9; 10; 40]. The traditional manufacturing methods also limit the variety of materials used in the manufacturing process (glass, polymeric materials, PDMS, PMMA) [1]. Moreover, 3D printing increases the options for printing materials to provide the researcher with more options for experimentation [11]. However, the 3D printing process for microchannels has not been comprehensively studied. Consequently, there is an opportunity to research the improvement of 3D printing as a manufacturing process for micro-platforms. It is necessary to devise a design mixer that improves the efficiency and reduces the time required to assemble a complete mixing platform. It is necessary to overcome the current manufacturing barriers of 2D micromixers using 3D approaches to achieve enhanced efficiency.