Reusability of autoclaved 3D printed polypropylene compared to a glass filled polypropylene composite

  • Fischer K
  • Howell A
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Health care waste can be a costly expenditure for facilities as specific disposal methods must be used to prevent the spread of pathogens. If more multi-use medical devices were available, it could potentially relieve some of this burden; however, sterilization between uses is important in preventing disease transmission. 3D printing has the ability to easily create custom medical devices at a low cost, but the majority of filaments utilized cannot survive steam sterilization. Polypropylene (PP) can withstand autoclave temperatures, but is difficult to print as it warps and shrinks during printing; however, a composite PP filament reduces these effects. Commercially available PP and glass filled PP (GFPP) filaments were successfully 3D printed into 30 × 30 × 30 mm cubes with no shrinking or warping and were autoclaved. The 134 °C autoclave temperature was too high as several cubes melted after two to three rounds, but both PP and GFPP cubes displayed minimal changes in mass and volume after one, four, seven, and ten rounds of autoclaving at 121 °C. GFPP cubes autoclaved zero, four, seven, and ten times had significantly smaller average compressive stress values compared to all PP groups, but the GFPP cubes autoclaved once were only less than PP cubes autoclaved zero, seven and ten times. GFPP cubes autoclaved zero, one, four, and seven times also deformed less indicating that the embedded glass fibers provided additional strength. While a single method was found that successfully printed PP and GFPP cubes that were able to survive up to ten rounds of autoclaving, future work should include further investigation into the mechanical properties and increasing the number of autoclave rounds.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fischer, K. M., & Howell, A. P. (2021). Reusability of autoclaved 3D printed polypropylene compared to a glass filled polypropylene composite. 3D Printing in Medicine, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-021-00111-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free