David H Ballard1, Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka2, Kathleen W Meacham3, Mark J Hoegger2, Broc A Burke3, Jason A Morris4, Alexander R Scott4, Zachary O'Connor5, Connie Gan4, Jesse Hu4, Karthik Tappa2, Richard L Wahl2, Pamela K Woodard2. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, St. Louis, MO 63110. Electronic address: davidballard@wustl.edu. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, St. Louis, MO 63110. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. 3D Printing Center, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) printing allows innovative solutions for personal protective equipment, particularly in times of crisis. Our goal was to generate an N95-alternative 3D-printed respirator that passed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-certified quantitative fit testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D printed prototypes for N95 solutions were created based on the design of commercial N95 respirators. Computed tomography imaging was performed on an anthropomorphic head phantom wearing a commercially available N95 respirator and these facial contour data was used in mask prototyping. Prototypes were generated using rigid and flexible polymers. According to OSHA standards, prototypes underwent subsequent quantitative respirator fit testing on volunteers who passed fit tests on commercial N95 respirators. RESULTS: A total of 10 prototypes were 3D printed using both rigid (n = 5 designs) and flexible materials (n = 5 designs), Prototypes generated with rigid printing materials (n = 5 designs) did not pass quantitative respirator fit testing. Three of the five prototypes with flexible materials failed quantitative fit testing. The final two prototypes designs passed OSHA-certified quantitative fit tests with an overall mean fit factor of 138 (passing is over 100). CONCLUSION: Through rapid prototyping, 3D printed N95 alternative masks were designed with topographical facial computed tomography data to create mask facial contour and passed OSHA-certified quantitative respiratory testing when flexible polymer was used. This mask design may provide an alternative to disposable N95 respirators in case of pandemic-related shortages. Furthermore, this approach may allow customization for those that would otherwise fail fit testing on standard commercial respirators.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) printing allows innovative solutions for personal protective equipment, particularly in times of crisis. Our goal was to generate an N95-alternative 3D-printed respirator that passed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-certified quantitative fit testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D printed prototypes for N95 solutions were created based on the design of commercial N95 respirators. Computed tomography imaging was performed on an anthropomorphic head phantom wearing a commercially available N95 respirator and these facial contour data was used in mask prototyping. Prototypes were generated using rigid and flexible polymers. According to OSHA standards, prototypes underwent subsequent quantitative respirator fit testing on volunteers who passed fit tests on commercial N95 respirators. RESULTS: A total of 10 prototypes were 3D printed using both rigid (n = 5 designs) and flexible materials (n = 5 designs), Prototypes generated with rigid printing materials (n = 5 designs) did not pass quantitative respirator fit testing. Three of the five prototypes with flexible materials failed quantitative fit testing. The final two prototypes designs passed OSHA-certified quantitative fit tests with an overall mean fit factor of 138 (passing is over 100). CONCLUSION: Through rapid prototyping, 3D printed N95 alternative masks were designed with topographical facial computed tomography data to create mask facial contour and passed OSHA-certified quantitative respiratory testing when flexible polymer was used. This mask design may provide an alternative to disposable N95 respirators in case of pandemic-related shortages. Furthermore, this approach may allow customization for those that would otherwise fail fit testing on standard commercial respirators.
Authors: Nida F Degesys; Ralph C Wang; Elizabeth Kwan; Jahan Fahimi; Jeanne A Noble; Maria C Raven Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David H Ballard; Patrick Mills; Richard Duszak; Jeffery A Weisman; Frank J Rybicki; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Rance Tino; Ryan Moore; Sam Antoline; Prashanth Ravi; Nicole Wake; Ciprian N Ionita; Jonathan M Morris; Summer J Decker; Adnan Sheikh; Frank J Rybicki; Leonid L Chepelev Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Peter L Wang; Alex Roschli; M Parans Paranthaman; Merlin Theodore; Corson L Cramer; Chris Zangmeister; Yuepeng Zhang; Jeffrey J Urban; Lonnie Love Journal: MRS Bull Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 4.882
Authors: Charles Freeman; Reuben Burch; Lesley Strawderman; Catherine Black; David Saucier; Jaime Rickert; John Wilson; Holli Seitz; Jeffrey Stull Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Min Seo Kim; Dawon Seong; Han Li; Seo Kyoung Chung; Youngjoo Park; Minho Lee; Seung Won Lee; Dong Keon Yon; Jae Han Kim; Keum Hwa Lee; Marco Solmi; Elena Dragioti; Ai Koyanagi; Louis Jacob; Andreas Kronbichler; Kalthoum Tizaoui; Sarah Cargnin; Salvatore Terrazzino; Sung Hwi Hong; Ramy Abou Ghayda; Joaquim Radua; Hans Oh; Karel Kostev; Shuji Ogino; I-Min Lee; Edward Giovannucci; Yvonne Barnett; Laurie Butler; Daragh McDermott; Petre-Cristian Ilie; Jae Il Shin; Lee Smith Journal: Rev Med Virol Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Brian Briggs; Carol J Friedland; Isabelina Nahmens; Charles Berryman; Yimin Zhu Journal: J Loss Prev Process Ind Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 3.660
Authors: Ian A Carr; Gavin D'Souza; Ming Xu; Shailesh Ozarkar; Daniel Porter; Marc Horner; Prasanna Hariharan Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.219