3D Printed frames to enable reuse and improve the fit of N95 and KN95 respirators.
3D printing
COVID-19
KN95 masks
N95 respirators
filtering face piece (FFP) respirator
mask frames
occupational health
pandemic response
personal protective equipment (PPE)
prototyping
Journal
BMC biomedical engineering
ISSN: 2524-4426
Titre abrégé: BMC Biomed Eng
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101756092
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2021
07 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
accepted:
09
05
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
9
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In response to supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs or "masks"), which are typically single-use devices in healthcare settings, are routinely being used for prolonged periods and in some cases decontaminated under "reuse" and "extended use" policies. However, the reusability of N95 masks is limited by degradation of fit. Possible substitutes, such as KN95 masks meeting Chinese standards, frequently fail fit testing even when new. The purpose of this study was to develop an inexpensive frame for damaged and poorly fitting masks using readily available materials and 3D printing. An iterative design process yielded a mask frame consisting of two 3D printed side pieces, malleable wire links that users press against their face, and cut lengths of elastic material that go around the head to hold the frame and mask in place. Volunteers (n = 45; average BMI = 25.4), underwent qualitative fit testing with and without mask frames wearing one or more of four different brands of FFRs conforming to US N95 or Chinese KN95 standards. Masks passed qualitative fit testing in the absence of a frame at rates varying from 48 to 94 % (depending on mask model). For individuals who underwent testing using respirators with broken or defective straps, 80-100 % (average 85 %) passed fit testing with mask frames. Among individuals who failed fit testing with a KN95, ~ 50 % passed testing by using a frame. Our study suggests that mask frames can prolong the lifespan of N95 and KN95 masks by serving as a substitute for broken or defective bands without adversely affecting fit. Use of frames made it possible for ~ 73 % of the test population to achieve a good fit based on qualitative and quantitative testing criteria, approaching the 85-90 % success rate observed for intact N95 masks. Frames therefore represent a simple and inexpensive way of expanding access to PPE and extending their useful life. For clinicians and institutions interested in mask frames, designs and specifications are provided without restriction for use or modification. To ensure adequate performance in clinical settings, fit testing with user-specific masks and PanFab frames is required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In response to supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs or "masks"), which are typically single-use devices in healthcare settings, are routinely being used for prolonged periods and in some cases decontaminated under "reuse" and "extended use" policies. However, the reusability of N95 masks is limited by degradation of fit. Possible substitutes, such as KN95 masks meeting Chinese standards, frequently fail fit testing even when new. The purpose of this study was to develop an inexpensive frame for damaged and poorly fitting masks using readily available materials and 3D printing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
An iterative design process yielded a mask frame consisting of two 3D printed side pieces, malleable wire links that users press against their face, and cut lengths of elastic material that go around the head to hold the frame and mask in place. Volunteers (n = 45; average BMI = 25.4), underwent qualitative fit testing with and without mask frames wearing one or more of four different brands of FFRs conforming to US N95 or Chinese KN95 standards. Masks passed qualitative fit testing in the absence of a frame at rates varying from 48 to 94 % (depending on mask model). For individuals who underwent testing using respirators with broken or defective straps, 80-100 % (average 85 %) passed fit testing with mask frames. Among individuals who failed fit testing with a KN95, ~ 50 % passed testing by using a frame.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that mask frames can prolong the lifespan of N95 and KN95 masks by serving as a substitute for broken or defective bands without adversely affecting fit. Use of frames made it possible for ~ 73 % of the test population to achieve a good fit based on qualitative and quantitative testing criteria, approaching the 85-90 % success rate observed for intact N95 masks. Frames therefore represent a simple and inexpensive way of expanding access to PPE and extending their useful life. For clinicians and institutions interested in mask frames, designs and specifications are provided without restriction for use or modification. To ensure adequate performance in clinical settings, fit testing with user-specific masks and PanFab frames is required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34099062
doi: 10.1186/s42490-021-00055-7
pii: 10.1186/s42490-021-00055-7
pmc: PMC8182357
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U54 CA225088
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32-GM007753
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM007753
Pays : United States
Organisme : Harvard MIT Center for Regulatory Sciences
ID : Harvard MIT Center for Regulatory Sciences
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U54-CA225088
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Références
JAMA. 2020 Jul 7;324(1):94-96
pubmed: 32496504
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 1;15(7):e0234851
pubmed: 32609741
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 27;12(11):e0188638
pubmed: 29176833
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Feb 19;70(7):254-257
pubmed: 33600386
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 21;11(1):2051
pubmed: 33479334
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Sep 06;9:690905
pubmed: 34552915
Am J Infect Control. 2008 May;36(4):298-300
pubmed: 18455051
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Oct;31(10):1011-6
pubmed: 20731598
Ann Occup Hyg. 2009 Nov;53(8):815-27
pubmed: 19805391
Front Digit Health. 2021 Mar;3:
pubmed: 33899045
Am J Infect Control. 2012 May;40(4):375-80
pubmed: 21864945
Am J Infect Control. 2009 Dec;37(10):e5-e16
pubmed: 20004810
Am J Infect Control. 2013 Nov;41(11):1024-31
pubmed: 23932825
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 29;21(1):712
pubmed: 34325673
3D Print Med. 2020 Apr 27;6(1):11
pubmed: 32337613
Int Endod J. 2020 May;53(5):723-725
pubmed: 32277770
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3;19(1):491
pubmed: 31159777
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;31(9):918-25
pubmed: 20658919
Int J Oral Sci. 2020 Mar 3;12(1):9
pubmed: 32127517
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 7;10(7):e039120
pubmed: 32641368
J Virol Methods. 2015 Oct;223:13-8
pubmed: 26190637
Ann Work Expo Health. 2019 Oct 11;63(8):930-936
pubmed: 31504129
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2013;10(8):419-24
pubmed: 23767820