THE PROBLEM
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
PREVIOUS TESTS
3D Prints that utilize infill CANNOT be sterilized. As seen in this picture. The PolyPropylene print on the left was put through the autoclave, and still grew bacteria. The one on the right was assaulted with bacteria and then autoclaved, and grew a TON of bacteria!
PREVIOUS TESTS
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
PREVIOUS TESTS
Conventional tested the SURFACE of a 3d print by swabbing it and then trying to grow off of the swab. This test is irrelevant to 3d printed objects, since they are not manufactured in the same way. They must be submerged in growth media for a quantitative test
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
KCUMB's research showed that if an object was 3d printed in a single wall via "vase mode" utilizing polypropylene, it could be successfully sterilized by conventional methods, including autoclave, household bleach, or rubbing alcohol! The picture above shows material that was assaulted with bacteria and then sterilized via various methods. The clarity of the liquid shows there is no bacteria present!
FAST
INEXPENSIVE
Single Wall PolyPropyelene WORKS
The SANI-MASK prints up to 1000% faster than the leading 3d printable mask (30 minutes vs. 4 hrs). Leading to a vast increase in throughput, enabling more people access to the masks they need.
INEXPENSIVE
INEXPENSIVE
INEXPENSIVE
Due to the efficient use of materials, each mask only costs roughly $5 USD in material usage, and can be printed on consumer-grade 3d printers! it is compatible with ANY flat filter medium. Including 100% cotton, blue shop towels, sterilizing wrap, MERV filters, and HEPA filters.
EFFECTIVE
INEXPENSIVE
INEXPENSIVE
The mask creates an effective seal for a wide array of face shapes, and requires no heat treatment to adjust the fit. This is thanks to the slightly flexible nature of polypropylene. In fact, the fit quality increases even more over time, thanks to the slight "memory" effect of polypropylene
RESEARCH AND RESULTS
The above result shows a 30mmx40mm PLA cylinder that was printed with infill. The pieces soaked in 93% IPA for 24 hours and then were soaked in bacterial growth media. As you can see there was almost NO difference before saniztation and after.
The above result shows the effects of various sterilization methods on PLA, TPU, and Polypropylene single wall cylinders. Polypropylene proved the easiest to sterilize, being compatible with every tested method. TPU performed well with bleach, but not IPA. PLA was by far the worst performer for all tests
This figure shows how single walled polypropylene 3d prints react to various sterilization methods. These samples were assaulted (inoculated) in a bath of e. coli bacteria, then submitted to sterilization, then SUBMERGED (this is important) in growth media for 72 hours. Sterilization was effective with all methods. The most convenient of which is household bleach mixed 50/50 with water and submerged for 20 minutes.
Research Poster
