Sterilization of Medical 3d Printed Plastics: Is H2O2 Vapour Suitable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D printers that precisely fuse plastic filament are enabling the medical device manufacturing sector to produce high-quality plastic medical devices and implants. However, the low-temperature fusing process implies that post-production sterilization must also occur at a low temperature or destroy the precision of the product. This study characterizes the effects of hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) vapour sterilization on ASTM-compliant 3D printed tensile samples of polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and polycarbonate (PC). The sterilization process caused physical deformations in PCL. Additionally, increases were observed in PCL and PC sample thickness, and in PC sample width. Decreases in Young’s Modulus (E) were found in all three materials, while UTS decreased in PC, and strain at UTS increased in PCL. The findings demonstrate that the 3D printed materials can be compatible with H 2 O 2 vapour sterilization, but products must be designed to accommodate for changes that occur due to sterilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".