Face Off: 3D-Printed Masks as a Cost-Effective and Reusable Alternative to N95 Respirators: A Feasibility Study

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Engineering
• Public Health
• Respiratory Protection

Background:

• N95 masks are crucial for respiratory disease prevention, but supply shortages highlight the need for alternatives.
• 3D-printed respirators offer advantages like lower cost, easier production, and customizability.
• Limited data exists on the efficacy of 3D-printed mask designs.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the fit-testing performance of popular 3D-printed respirator designs.
• To compare the efficacy of 3D-printed masks against N95 and KN95 respirators.
• To determine if 3D-printed masks meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fit standards.

Main Methods:

• Modified three popular 3D-printed respirator designs for OSHA quantitative fit testing.
• Five volunteers conducted standardized fit tests using 3D-printed masks, an N95, and a KN95.
• Saline was dispersed to measure concentrations within masks during multiple trials.

Main Results:

• One 3D-printed mask (mask 2) consistently achieved a fit factor >100, meeting OSHA standards.
• N95 masks achieved sufficient fit in only 60% of trials.
• No significant difference in fit factor was observed with different 3D-printable plastics or HEPA filters.

Conclusions:

• 3D-printed respirators present a viable alternative to N95 masks for protection against respiratory pathogens like SARS-CoV-2.
• Specific 3D-printed mask designs demonstrated superior fit compared to N95 masks in testing.
• Further research into 3D-printed mask efficacy is warranted.