Safety concerns for facial topography customized 3D-printed N95 filtering face-piece respirator produced for the COVID-19 pandemic: initial step is respiratory fit testing

A Miniaturized Electrostatic Precipitator Respirator Effectively Removes Ambient SARS-CoV-2 Bioaerosols

The inhalation of ambient SARS-CoV-2-containing bioaerosols leads to infection and pandemic airborne transmission in susceptible populations. Filter-based respirators effectively reduce exposure but complicate normal respiration through breathing zone pressure differentials; therefore, they are impractical for long-term use. Objectives: We tested the comparative effectiveness of a prototyped miniaturized electrostatic precipitator (mEP) on a filter-based respirator (N95) via the removal of viral bioaerosols from a simulated, inspired air stream. Methods: Each respirator was tested within a 16 L environmental chamber housed within a Class III biological safety cabinet within biosafety level 3 containment. SARS-CoV-2-containing bioaerosols were generated in the chamber, drawn by a vacuum through each respirator, and physical particle removal and viral genomic RNA were measured distal to the breathing zone of each device. Measurements and Main Results: The mEP respirator removed particles (96.5 ± 0.4%), approximating efficiencies of the N95 (96.9 ± 0.6%). The mEP respirator similarly decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (99.792%) when compared to N95 removal (99.942%), as a function of particle removal from the airstream distal to the breathing zone of each respirator. Conclusions: The mEP respirator approximated the performance of a filter-based N95 respirator for particle removal and viral RNA as a constituent of the SARS-CoV-2 bioaerosols generated for this evaluation. In practice, the mEP respirator could provide equivalent protection from ambient infectious bioaerosols as the N95 respirator without undue pressure drop to the wearer, thereby facilitating its long-term use in an unobstructed breathing configuration.

Protection levels of N95-level respirator substitutes proposed during the COVID-19 pandemic: safety concerns and quantitative evaluation procedures

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated widespread shortages of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and the creation and sharing of proposed substitutes (novel designs, repurposed materials) with limited testing against regulatory standards. We aimed to categorically test the efficacy and fit of potential N95 respirator substitutes using protocols that can be replicated in university laboratories.

SETTING

Academic medical centre with occupational health-supervised fit testing along with laboratory studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven adult volunteers who passed quantitative fit testing for small-sized (n=2) and regular-sized (n=5) commercial N95 respirators.

METHODS

Five open-source potential N95 respirator substitutes were evaluated and compared with commercial National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirators as controls. Fit testing using the 7-minute standardised Occupational Safety and Health Administration fit test was performed. In addition, protocols that can be performed in university laboratories for materials testing (filtration efficiency, air resistance and fluid resistance) were developed to evaluate alternate filtration materials.

RESULTS

Among five open-source, improvised substitutes evaluated in this study, only one (which included a commercial elastomeric mask and commercial HEPA filter) passed a standard quantitative fit test. The four alternative materials evaluated for filtration efficiency (67%-89%) failed to meet the 95% threshold at a face velocity (7.6 cm/s) equivalent to that of a NIOSH particle filtration test for the control N95 FFR. In addition, for all but one material, the small surface area of two 3D-printed substitutes resulted in air resistance that was above the maximum in the NIOSH standard.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing protocols such as those described here are essential to evaluate proposed improvised respiratory protection substitutes, and our testing platform could be replicated by teams with similar cross-disciplinary research capacity. Healthcare professionals should be cautious of claims associated with improvised respirators when suggested as FFR substitutes.

3D-Printing to Mitigate COVID-19 Pandemic

3D-printing technology provided numerous contributions to the health sector during the recent Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several of the 3D-printed medical devices like personal protection equipment (PPE), ventilators, specimen collectors, safety accessories, and isolation wards/ chambers were printed in a short time as demands for these were rising significantly. The review discusses some of these contributions of 3D-printing that helped to protect several lives during this health emergency. By enlisting some of the significant benefits of using the 3D-printing technique during an emergency over other conventional methods, this review claims that the former opens enormous possibilities in times of serious shortage of supply and exceeding demands. This review acknowledges the collaborative approaches adopted by individuals, entrepreneurs, academicians, and companies that helped in forming a global network for delivering 3D-printed medical/non-medical components, when other supply chains were disrupted. The collaboration of the 3D-printing technology with the global health community unfolds new and significant opportunities in the future.

Quantitative Fit Tested N95 Respirator-Alternatives Generated With CT Imaging and 3D Printing: A Response to Potential Shortages During the COVID-19 Pandemic

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.

Potential risks of a widespread use of 3D printing for the manufacturing of face masks during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic

Background: In 2020, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic caused serious concerns about the availability of face masks. This paper studies the technical feasibility of user-specific face mask production by 3D printing and the effectiveness of these masks. Material & methods: Six different face mask designs were produced by 3D printing and tested by subjective experimenter evaluation and using a respirator fit testing kit. Results were compared with the requirements as given for standard protective face masks. Results: None of the printed masks came anywhere near the required standards for personal protective gear. Conclusion: In spite of their euphoric presentation in the press, none of the currently advertised 3D printed mask designs are suitable as reliable personal protective equipment.

The 3D printing community contributed to overcome potential supply bottlenecks for personal protective gear during the worldwide spread of the corona virus disease by providing open-source data for 3D printing of personal protective equipment. In this study, different mask designs were produced by 3D printing and subjected to a technical examination to evaluate the protective properties of these masks. In spite of their euphoric presentation in the press, none of the tested masks are suitable as reliable personal protective equipment.