Name: modified drop tower impact tests for american football helmets
Uploaded: 2017-02-19T13:00:00
Description: Watch this Scientific Journal Video about Modified Drop Tower Impact Tests for American Football Helmets at JoVE.com

The authors would like to acknowledge the Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at Mississippi State University for providing testing facilities and Rush Sports Medical of Meridian, Mississippi for their monetary support.

Note: The protocol for the presented test method refers to the following NOCSAE documents (available at http://nocsae.org/): NOCSAE DOC.002-13m13: &#34;STANDARD PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR NEWLY MANUFACTURED FOOTBALL HELMETS&#34;18. NOCSAE DOC.011-13m14d: &#34; MANUFACTURERS PROCEDURAL GUIDE FOR PRODUCT SAMPLE SELECTION FOR TESTING TO NOCSAE STANDARDS&#34;24. NOCSAE DOC.087-12m14: &#34; STANDARD METHOD OF IMPACT TEST AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT FOR FOOTBALL FACEGUARDS&#34;25...

<ol>
	<li>Langlois, J. A., Rutland-Brown, W., Wald, M. M. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=The+epidemiology+and+impact+of+traumatic+brain+injury:+a+brief+overview.">The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview.</a> J Head Trauma Rehabil. (5), 375-378 (2006).</li><li>Broglio, S. P., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Head+impacts+during+high+school+football:+a+biomechanical+assessment.">Head impacts during high school football: a biomechanical assessment.</a> J Athl Train. 44, 342-349 (2009).</li><li>Broglio, S. P., Martini, D., Kasper, L., Eckner, J. T., Kutcher, J. S. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Estimation+of+head+impact+exposure+in+high+school+football:+Implications+for+regulating+contact+practices.">Estimation of head impact exposure in high school football: Implications for regulating contact practices.</a> Am. J. Sports Med. 41, 2877-2884 (2013).</li><li>Costanza, A., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Review:+Contact+sport-related+chronic+traumatic+encephalopathy+in+the+elderly:+clinical+expression+and+structural+substrates.">Review: Contact sport-related chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the elderly: clinical expression and structural substrates.</a> Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 37, 570-584 (2011).</li><li>McKee, A. C., Cantu, R. C., Nowinski , C. J., Hedley-Whyte, E. T., Gavett, B. E., Budson, A. E., Santini, V. E., Lee, H. S., Kubilus , C. A., Stern, R. A. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Chronic+traumatic+encephalopathy+in+athletes:+progressive+tauopathy+after+repetitive+head+injury.">Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury.</a> J. Neuropathol Exp Neurol. , 709-735 (2003).</li><li>Bartsch, A., Benzel, E., Miele, V., Prakash, V. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Impact+test+comparisons+of+20th+and+21st+century+American+football+helmets:+Laboratory+investigation.">Impact test comparisons of 20th and 21st century American football helmets: Laboratory investigation.</a> J Neurosurg. 116, 222-233 (2012).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Performance Specification for Newly Manufactured Football Helmets. , (2013).</li><li>Greenwald, R. M., Gwin, J. T., Chu, J. J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Head+Impact+Severity+Measures+for+Evaluating+Mild+Traumatic+Brain+Injury+Risk+Exposure.">Head Impact Severity Measures for Evaluating Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Risk Exposure.</a> Neurosurg. 62, 789-798 (2008).</li><li>Newman, J. A., Yoganandan, N. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Accidental Injury: Biomechanics and Prevention. , (2015).</li><li>Newman, J. A., Shewchenko, N., Welbourne, E. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+proposed+new+biomechanical+head+injury+assessment+function+-+the+maximum+power+index.">A proposed new biomechanical head injury assessment function - the maximum power index.</a> Stapp Car Crash J. 44, 215-247 (2000).</li><li>Gadd, C. W. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Use+of+a+weighted-impulse+criterion+for+estimating+injury+hazard.">Use of a weighted-impulse criterion for estimating injury hazard.</a> SAE Technical Papers. , (1966).</li><li>Lissner, H. R. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Experimental+Studies+on+the+Relation+Between+Acceleration+and+Intracranial+Pressure+Changes+in+Man.">Experimental Studies on the Relation Between Acceleration and Intracranial Pressure Changes in Man.</a> Surgery, Gynecology and Obsterics. III, 329-338 (1960).</li><li>Gurdjian, E. S., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Concussion+-+Mechanism+and+Pathology.">Concussion - Mechanism and Pathology.</a> , (1963).</li><li>Patrick, L. M., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Survival+by+Design+-+Head+Protection.">Survival by Design - Head Protection.</a> , (1963).</li><li>Versace, J. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+review+of+the+Severity+Index.">A review of the Severity Index.</a> SAE Technical Papers. , (1971).</li><li>Newman, J., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=A+new+biomechanical+assessment+of+mild+traumatic+brain+injury.+Part+2.+Results+and+conclusions.">A new biomechanical assessment of mild traumatic brain injury. Part 2. Results and conclusions.</a> Proceedings of International Research Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts. , 223-233 (2000).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Performance Specification for Newly Manufactured Football Helmets. , (2011).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Test Method and Equipment used in Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Protective Headgear/Equipment. , (2015).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Method of Impact Test and Performance Requirements for Football Faceguards. , (2011).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standards and Process. , (2013).</li><li>Gwin, J. T., et al. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=An+investigation+of+the+NOCSAE+linear+impactor+test+method+based+on+in+vivo+measures+of+head+impact+acceleration+in+American+football.">An investigation of the NOCSAE linear impactor test method based on in vivo measures of head impact acceleration in American football.</a> J Biomech Eng. 132, (2010).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Performance Specification for Newly Manufactured Lacrosse Helmets with Faceguards. , (2013).</li><li>Hodgson, V. R., Thomas, L. M., Prasad, P. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=Testing+the+validity+and+limitations+of+the+severity+index.">Testing the validity and limitations of the severity index.</a> SAE Technical Papers. , (1970).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Manufactureers Procedural Guide for Product Sample Selection for Testing to NOCSAE Standards. , (2014).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Standard Method of Impact Test and Performance Requirements for Football Faceguards. , (2014).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Troubleshooting Guide for Test Equipment and Impact Testing. , (2014).</li><li>NOCSAE. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title+Word&term=.">.</a> Equipment Calibration Procedures. , (2014).</li></ol>

The reported methodology that couples NOCSAE football helmet and faceguard drop impact tests offers a unique technique to assess better performance characteristics of modern football helmets. The most critical steps for evaluating this better performance characteristic of modern football helmets are the following: 1) correctly setting up the mechanical test device; 2) accurately conducting calibration procedures; and 3) properly attaching the helmet/faceguard to the headform.
This methodology ...

Motivation 
The main goal of this modified drop tower test method is to more closely represent on-field impacts of the American football helmet system and promote enhanced safety standards. The entailed test method can provide knowledge of helmets systematic response needed to effectively develop enhanced headgear for concussion prevention. The occurrence of concussions has persistently plagued contact sports, such as American Football. In the United States alone, sports-related concussions have been estimated to occur 1.6 to 3.8 million times every year.1 A football player can have more than 1,500 head impacts each season.2,3 While the magnitude of most impacts may be sub-concussive, the accumulation of these impacts may lead to long-term brain damage due to an impact induced neurodegenerative ailment known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).4 CTE is linked to a buildup of tau protein in the brain, leading to memory loss, behavior and personality change, Parkinson&#39;s syndrome, and speech and gait abnormalities that has sometimes led to suicide.5 Football helmets have made some technological advancements in the past 15 years, but even today&#39;s most advanced helmets do not completely mitigate all of the incident forces on the helmet and hence, athletes still incur concussions. A study conducted by Bartsch et al.6 showed that in many cases the head impact doses and head injury risks while wearing vintage leatherhead helmets were comparable to those wearing the widely used 21st century helmets, illustrating the need for improvement in the design and testing standards of football helmets. In particular, the NOCSAE certification7 does not require the faceguard to be included in the drop tests for the helmet. The added stiffness from the faceguard connected to the helmet would dramatically change the overall mechanical response. The present study entails a method to provide more robust helmet safety standards that would serve as a driving force to promote safer helmet designs.
Background 
Head Injury Metrics 
The exact biological mechanisms related to concussions remain unidentified. While much work has been done in attempting to quantify head injury tolerances by various injury metrics, disagreement has arisen in the biomedical community regarding these criteria. These injury mechanisms are supposed to relate to several entities: linear acceleration, rotational acceleration, impact duration, and impulse.8,9,10,11 Several Injury criteria have been used to define a concussion as a measure of linear acceleration. The Wayne State Tolerance Curve (WSTC)12,13,14 was developed to predict skull fracture for automotive crashes during a frontal impact by defining a threshold curve boundary for linear acceleration versus impact duration. WSTC has served as the bases for other injury criteria such as the Severity Index (SI)11 and the Head Injury Criterion (HIC),15 which are the two most commonly used criteria. The SI and HIC both measure impact severity based on weighted integrals of the linear acceleration-time profiles. While these criteria define thresholds for linear acceleration, other criteria have been proposed to account for rotational acceleration, such as the Head Impact Power index.8,10,16 Today&#39;s helmet testing standards often use an injury criterion based upon the Wayne State Tolerance Curve (namely HIC or SI) or the peak acceleration criterion or in some cases both. While some modifications are needed to add angular acceleration to the standard performance criteria, the linear acceleration-based criteria remain dominant.
In this study, the metrics used to assess the relative safety that each helmet provided were the peak resultant accelerations, SI, and HIC values. Of these metrics only the SI is used for evaluation in the current National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) football helmet standards. The SI is based on the following equation,
<img alt="Equation 1" src="/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929eq1.jpg" width="100" />&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; (1)
where A is the translational acceleration of the Center of Gravity (CG) of the head, and t is the acceleration duration.11,17SI was calculated according to NOCSAE standards18, where the calculation is limited by a 4 G threshold along the resultant acceleration curve. The HIC values were calculated by the following equation,
<img alt="Equation 1" src="/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929eq2.jpg" width="325" />&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; (2)
where a is the translational acceleration of the CG of the head, and t1 and t2 are the initial and final times, respectively, of the interval at which HIC attains a maximum value. All HIC values calculated in this study were HIC36, where the duration of the time interval is limited to 36 ms.
NOCSAE Football Helmet Test Standards 
NOCSAE Overview 
In 1969 NOCSAE was formed to develop performance standards for American football helmets/faceguards and other sporting equipment with a goal of reducing sports-related injuries.17 The NOCSAE football helmet standards were developed by Dr. Voigt Hodgson9 of Wayne State University to reduce head injuries by establishing requirements for impact attenuation and structural integrity for football helmets/faceguards. These football helmet standards include a certification test and annual recertification procedures for helmets. In 2015, NOCSAE implemented a quality assurance program requiring the use of a specific American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited body for helmet certification.
NOCSAE Test Method 
The NOCSAE Football Helmet Standard does not include the testing of helmets with faceguards as it calls for their removal before helmet drops are conducted. The NOCSAE helmet testing standards17 utilize a twin-wire drop impactor that relies on gravity to accelerate the headform and helmet combination to the required impact speeds. The NOCSAE headform is instrumented with triaxial accelerometers at the center of gravity. The headform and helmet combination is then dropped at specific speeds onto a steel anvil covered with a 12.7 mm thick hard rubber Modular Elastomer Programmer (MEP) pad. Upon impact, the instantaneous acceleration is recorded and SI values are calculated. These SI values are compared against a pass/fail criterion over a variety of required impact locations and velocities and two temperatures, including ambient and high temperature impacts. If the resulting SI value for any impact breaches the threshold, then the helmet will not pass the test.
A separate standard test method is used for football faceguard certification. The NOCSAE football faceguard standard includes structural integrity analysis as well as assessing the impact attenuation performance of the faceguard, chinstrap, and their attachment systems. Each impact measurement must be below 1,200 SI to pass the test, with no facial contact and no mechanical failure of any component, as defined by the NOCSAE Standard.19
There is a proposed additional NOCSAE test (Linear Impactor (LI))20 that includes the helmet with the faceguard, but it is not appropriate for football helmet certification because it cannot admit a crown impact. The LI uses a pneumatic ram to impact a helmet positioned on a NOCSAE headform equipped with a hybrid III dummy neck mounted on a linear bearing table in order to induce angular acceleration. For this reason the LI test is an additional test to the current twin-wire NOCSAE drop test procedure and not a replacement.20,21 Instead of the LI tests, we propose to simply add two more scenarios to the current twin-wire drop test procedure.
The NOCSAE standard test method for certification of football helmets currently includes six prescribed impact locations and one random impact location. The prescribed impact locations include the following: Front (F), Front Boss (FB), Side (S), Rear (R), Rear Boss (RB), and Top (T). The random impact location test may select a region from any point within the defined acceptable impact area of the helmet. The impact locations for our modified NOCSAE drop tower tests include replacing the previously defined Front and Front Boss impact locations with what was named as the Front Top (FT) and Front Top Boss (FTB) impact locations. Our Front Top and Front Top Boss impact locations are identical to the Front and Right Front Boss impact locations of the NOCSAE standard for Lacrosse Helmets, which also include the faceguard for drop tests.22 The helmet shell impact locations, including the replaced Front and Front Boss locations, are depicted in Figure 1. Additionally, the modified helmet test method of our present study includes two faceguard impact locations that were named the FG Front and FG Bottom. The two faceguard impacts locations are identical to the required impact locations for the current NOCSAE faceguard certification procedures. The eight impact locations for the modified NOCSAE impact tests of the present study are shown in Figure 2.
<img alt="Figure 1" src="/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929fig1.jpg" /> 
Figure 1: Approximate impact locations for football helmets. The six currently required NOCSAE drop test helmet impact locations, Front (F), Front Boss (FB), Side (S), Top (T), Rear (R), and Rear Boss (RB), and the two proposed impact locations, Front Top (FT), and Front Top Boss (FTB). Note: the NOCSAE standard test method for protective headgear does not include Front Top and Front Top Boss impact locations (indicated in red text) and for this study they replace the Front and Front Boss impact locations. (Image modified from NOCSAE DOC. 001-13m15b) <a href="https://www.jove.com/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929fig1large.jpg" target="_blank">Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.</a>
<img alt="Figure 2" src="/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929fig2.jpg" /> 
Figure 2: Modified NOCSAE drop test setup showing eight impact locations. Front Top, Front Top Boss, Side, Faceguard (FG) Front, Rear, Rear Boss, Top, and Faceguard Bottom (FB). Note: the NOCSAE standard does not include faceguard attachment and here Front Top and Front Top Boss replace the standard Front and Front Boss impact locations. (Image modified from NOCSAE DOC. 002-11m12) <a href="https://www.jove.com/files/ftp_upload/53929/53929fig2large.jpg" target="_blank">Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.</a>
Helmet designs have progressively changed in the past decade, whereas the NOCSAE football helmet standards have never included the faceguard with the helmet in evaluating the football helmet performance specifications. While, recently an amendment has been made to include a pass/fail value of 300 SI for the lowest velocity impacts (3.46 m/s), the general pass/fail limit of 1,200 SI has not changed since 1997.17 Prior to 1997, the NOCSAE used a 1,500 SI pass/fail criterion. Hodgson et al. (1970) has shown that SI values of greater than 1,000 is a danger to life, while SI values of 540 have produced linear skull fractures in non-helmeted cadaveric impact tests.23 Most modern football helmets have shown to pass well below the 1,200 SI limit but not all below 540 SI.

<table>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>PCB Triaxial Accelerometers</td>
			<td>PCB</td>
			<td>Model 353B17</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>TDAS2 Data Acqusition System</td>
			<td>Diversified Technical Systems, Inc.&#160;</td>
			<td>TDAS2</td>
			<td>Or an equivalent Data Acquisition System</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Current Source (Amplifier)&#160;</td>
			<td>Dytran Instruments, Inc.</td>
			<td>4114B1</td>
			<td>Or equivalent</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Velocity gate and flag</td>
			<td>CADEX</td>
			<td>SB203</td>
			<td>Or an equivalent velocimeter</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td colspan="2">Selected Football Helmet(s)/faceguard assem.</td>
			<td></td>
			<td>including chinstrap and faceguard hardware</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Height Gauge</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Torque wrench</td>
			<td>Snap-on</td>
			<td>QD21000</td>
			<td>range to 200 in/lb minimum, 5 % accuracy</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td colspan="4">Twin-wire Guide Assembly</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Drop Carriage&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1001</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>1/2&#34; MEP Testing Pad</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1006</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>1/8&#34; Faceguard Testing Pad</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1007</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>3&#34; MEP Calibration Pad</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1005</td>
			<td>Including Annual NOCSAE Calibration Pad Qualification Report</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>3/8&#34; Hook-eye Turnbuckle</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1043</td>
			<td>Forged Steel with a 6&#34; take-up&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>1/8&#34; Wire Rope Thimble&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1044</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>1/8&#34; Spring Music Wire&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1045</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>1/8&#34; Wire Rope, Tiller Rope Clamp, Bronze&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1046</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>3/8&#34; 16 x 3 &#8220; Eye Bolt&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1041</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>3/8&#34; Forged Eye Bolt</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1040</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Right Angle DC Hoist Motor&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2000</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Single Groove Sheave (Pulley), 3 &#190;&#34;&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2002</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Top Mount Plate</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2003</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>18&#34; Top Channel Bracket&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2004</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Wall Mount Channel Bracket, 4&#39; x 1 5/8&#34;&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2005</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Mechanical Release System&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2006</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Lift Cable, Wire Rope, 20&#39; Coil&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2007</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Anvil Base Plate&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2010</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Anvil&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2011</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Headform Adjuster&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2012</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Headform Rotator Stem</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2013</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Headform Threaded Lock ring</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2016</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>&#160;Headform Collar&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2014</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Nylon Bushing&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1803</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Small Headform&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1100</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Medium Headform&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1101</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Large Headform</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>1102</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Taper-Loc Bolt</td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>DC Motor Speed Controller (Reversible)&#160;</td>
			<td>SIRC</td>
			<td>2001</td>
			<td></td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

modified drop tower impact tests for american football helmets

A modified National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) test method for American football helmet drop impact test standards is presented that would provide better assessment of a helmet's on-field impact performance by including a faceguard on the helmet. In this study, a merger of faceguard and helmet test standards is proposed. The need for a more robust systematic approach to football helmet testing procedures is emphasized by comparing representative results of the Head Injury Criterion (HIC), Severity Index (SI), and peak acceleration values for different helmets at different helmet locations under modified NOCSAE standard drop tower tests. Essentially, these comparative drop test results revealed that the faceguard adds a stiffening kinematic constraint to the shell that lessens total energy absorption. The current NOCSAE standard test methods can be improved to represent on-field helmet hits by attaching the faceguards to helmets and by including two new helmet impact locations (Front Top and Front Top Boss). The reported football helmet test method gives a more accurate representation of a helmet's performance and its ability to mitigate on-field impacts while promoting safer football helmets.

A detailed quantitative analysis of the results for this methodology was presented by Rush et al.(submitted) A synopsis of the results and the associated effectiveness of a coupled faceguard-shell helmet testing methodology is displayed in drop test results using Rawlings Quantum Plus, Riddell 360, Schutt Ion 4D, and Xenith X2 helmets as examples. Each of these helmets (of size &#34;large&#34;) with faceguards displayed different results when compared to helmets withou...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about Modified Drop Tower Impact Tests for American Football Helmets at JoVE.com

Modified Drop Tower Impact Tests for American Football Helmets

This article provides a novel technique to assess the performance characteristics of American football helmets by inclusion of faceguards during NOCSAE Standard drop tests. Additionally, two more impact locations are proposed to be added to the NOCSAE certification.

A modified National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) test method for American football helmet drop impact test standards ...

The goals of this modified drop tower test are to more closely represent on-field impacts of the American football helmet system to promote enhanced safety standards and to develop enhanced headgear for concussion prevention. This method can help answer key questions in the field of biomedical engineering, such as, the on-field response of protective headgear and how to better prevent sports related concussions. The main advantage of this technique is that it offers a more robust helmet safety test while it uses the current NOCSAE standard twin-wire test device.This test uses an NOCSAE twin-wire drop carriage assembly. First, verify that all components of the assembly are securely attached. Then, attach a large sized NOCSAE headform to the drop carriage assembly.Adjust the headform collar in the desired position and tighten it down with the lock ring. Then, secure the attached, the Triaxial Accelerometer to the center of the accelerometer plate, which is located at the headform center of gravity. Use the provided Allen head screws.To complete the setup, configure the Data Acquisition System and enter the sensor information for the accelerometers. Prepare to conduct the baseline helmet impact tests with baseline safeguards, in contrast to the NOCSAE standard. To calibrate the headform, first secure the attached a three inch calibration MEP pad to the Anvil using an Allen wrench.Next, adjust the impact orientation. First, remove the taper lock bolt from the headform rotator assembly, which may require using a vice and punch. Now, orient the headform bolt holes to the desired position and securely refasten the taper lock bolt.To rotate the headform, loosen the headform threaded lock ring. Finally, adjust the specific point of impact. Loosen the two base plate Anvil bolts and slide the Anvil into position.Then, re-tighten the bolts and double check that all the refastened connections are secure. To begin the calibration, lift the drop carriage assembly to the height of the release system, center the release system to its attachment point on the drop carriage assembly and turn on the electro magnetic release system. Now, raise the drop carriage assembly to get the desired impact velocity.Due to variation and friction of different systems, the required height needs to be determined empirically. Before conducting the test, make sure the data acquisition system will start when the release system is triggered. Now, simultaneously trip both toggles on the release system power box to drop the carriage assembly.Next, calculate and record the resulting SI value. The desired value is within two percent of 1200 SI.Continue by repeating the calibration for all three required impact locations. For the test, exchange the MEP pad used for calibration with the MEP test pad.Then, select the impact location and velocity for testing. The impacts must be conducted from the lowest drop velocity to the highest. Also, conduct ambient temperature impacts before conditioned impacts.Next, properly adjust the headform orientation and Anvil position for the desired impact location as before. Now, fit the test helmet to the test form according to the helmet's fitting instructions and the NOCSAE procedures. Then, secure the helmet's chin strap to the headform.Proper fit of the helmet on the headform is critical. And since some of the face mask attachment systems vary, some face masks may have to be attached after the helmet is fit on to the headform. Sometimes, a little talcum powder can help make the fit.Next, attach the mechanical release system to the drop carriage assembly. Raise the carriage to the required height, and conduct the test, just like during calibration. Then, compare the recorded results to the pass/fail criteria.After all the tests are completed, perform a systems check and compare the post test check to the pre test check to ensure a variation of seven percent or less. SI values were determined for various helmets with and without the faceguard using three consecutive impacts within 90 seconds of each other. While the mean value was well below the NOCSAE 1200 SI threshold, each helmet displayed a unique location dependent response when the faceguard was attached.A least squares regression by analysis of variance was used for the P value calculations. Significant differences were found with helmets with and without faceguards. Specifically, the Xenith X2 helmet with and without faceguard, at 4.88 meters per second, was very different in the acceleration time history profile at each measured access.The overall results were strongly dependent on impact location and velocity. Once mastered, this technique can be done in two hours if it's performed properly. While attempting this procedure, it is important to remember not to induce additional variation by ensuring that the mechanical test assembly is properly and securely maintained.After its development, this technique offers and effective solution. It allows the ability to better assess current and future football helmet systems. After watching this video, you should have a good understanding on how to perform modified NOCSEA impact tests on American football helmets by inclusion of the faceguard.These procedures include twin-wire drop test device set up helmet preparation, calibration, and helmet impact testing routines. Don't forget that droop-tower testing can be dangerous and safeguards should be used to avoid accidental triggering of the drop-tower test device.

modified-drop-tower-impact-tests-for-american-football-helmets

Research

Education

JoVE Core

JoVE Journal

Mechanical Engineering

Bioengineering

Unit 1

An Introduction to Statics

SCIENTISTS IN ACTION

A Simple Hanging Drop Cell Culture Protocol for Generation of 3D Spheroids

Studies of cell-cell cohesion and cell-substratum adhesion have historically been performed on monolayer cultures adherent to rigid substrates. Cells within a tissue, however, are typically encased within a closely packed tissue mass in which cells establish intimate connections with many near-neighbors and with extracellular matrix components. Accordingly, the chemical milieu and physical forces experienced by cells within a 3D tissue are fundamentally different than those experienced by cells grown in monolayer culture. This has been shown to markedly impact cellular morphology and signaling. Several methods have been devised to generate 3D cell cultures including encapsulation of cells in collagen gels1or in biomaterial scaffolds2. Such methods, while useful, do not recapitulate the intimate direct cell-cell adhesion architecture found in normal tissues. Rather, they more closely approximate culture systems in which single cells are loosely dispersed within a 3D meshwork of ECM products. Here, we describe a simple method in which cells are placed in hanging drop culture and incubated under physiological conditions until they form true 3D spheroids in which cells are in direct contact with each other and with extracellular matrix components. The method requires no specialized equipment and can be adapted to include addition of any biological agent in very small quantities that may be of interest in elucidating effects on cell-cell or cell-ECM interaction. The method can also be used to co-culture two (or more) different cell populations so as to elucidate the role of cell-cell or cell-ECM interactions in specifying spatial relationships between cells. Cell-cell cohesion and cell-ECM adhesion are the cornerstones of studies of embryonic development, tumor-stromal cell interaction in malignant invasion, wound healing, and for applications to tissue engineering. This simple method will provide a means of generating tissue-like cellular aggregates for measurement of biomechanical properties or for molecular and biochemical analysis in a physiologically relevant model.

We describe a simple, rapid method of generating 3D tissue-like spheroids and their potential application to quantify differences in cell-cell interactions.

Studies of cell-cell cohesion and cell-substratum adhesion have historically been performed on monolayer cultures adherent to rigid substrates. Cells ...

Hydrophobic Salt-modified Nafion for Enzyme Immobilization and Stabilization

Over the last decade, there has been a wealth of application for immobilized and stabilized enzymes including biocatalysis, biosensors, and biofuel cells.1-3 In most bioelectrochemical applications, enzymes or organelles are immobilized onto an electrode surface with the use of some type of polymer matrix. This polymer scaffold should keep the enzymes stable and allow for the facile diffusion of molecules and ions in and out of the matrix. Most polymers used for this type of immobilization are based on polyamines or polyalcohols - polymers that mimic the natural environment of the enzymes that they encapsulate and stabilize the enzyme through hydrogen or ionic bonding. Another method for stabilizing enzymes involves the use of micelles, which contain hydrophobic regions that can encapsulate and stabilize enzymes.4,5 In particular, the Minteer group has developed a micellar polymer based on commercially available Nafion.6,7 Nafion itself is a micellar polymer that allows for the channel-assisted diffusion of protons and other small cations, but the micelles and channels are extremely small and the polymer is very acidic due to sulfonic acid side chains, which is unfavorable for enzyme immobilization. However, when Nafion is mixed with an excess of hydrophobic alkyl ammonium salts such as tetrabutylammonium bromide (TBAB), the quaternary ammonium cations replace the protons and become the counter ions to the sulfonate groups on the polymer side chains (Figure 1). This results in larger micelles and channels within the polymer that allow for the diffusion of large substrates and ions that are necessary for enzymatic function such as nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD). This modified Nafion polymer has been used to immobilize many different types of enzymes as well as mitochondria for use in biosensors and biofuel cells.8-12 This paper describes a novel procedure for making this micellar polymer enzyme immobilization membrane that can stabilize enzymes. The synthesis of the micellar enzyme immobilization membrane, the procedure for immobilizing enzymes within the membrane, and the assays for studying enzymatic specific activity of the immobilized enzyme are detailed below.

This article will describe the procedure for synthesizing a hydrophobically modified Nafion enzyme immobilization membrane and how to immobilize proteins and/or enzymes within the membrane and test their specific activity.

Over the last decade, there has been a wealth of application for immobilized and stabilized enzymes including biocatalysis, biosensors, and biofuel ...

3D Orbital Tracking in a Modified Two-photon Microscope: An Application to the Tracking of Intracellular Vesicles

The objective of this video protocol is to discuss how to perform and analyze a three-dimensional fluorescent orbital particle tracking experiment using a modified two-photon microscope1. As opposed to conventional approaches (raster scan or wide field based on a stack of frames), the 3D orbital tracking allows to localize and follow with a high spatial (10 nm accuracy) and temporal resolution (50 Hz frequency response) the 3D displacement of a moving fluorescent particle on length-scales of hundreds of microns2. The method is based on a feedback algorithm that controls the hardware of a two-photon laser scanning microscope in order to perform a circular orbit around the object to be tracked: the feedback mechanism will maintain the fluorescent object in the center by controlling the displacement of the scanning beam3-5. To demonstrate the advantages of this technique, we followed a fast moving organelle, the lysosome, within a living cell6,7. Cells were plated according to standard protocols, and stained using a commercially lysosome dye. We discuss briefly the hardware configuration and in more detail the control software, to perform a 3D orbital tracking experiment inside living cells. We discuss in detail the parameters required in order to control the scanning microscope and enable the motion of the beam in a closed orbit around the particle. We conclude by demonstrating how this method can be effectively used to track the fast motion of a labeled lysosome along microtubules in 3D within a live cell. Lysosomes can move with speeds in the range of 0.4-0.5 &#181;m/sec, typically displaying a directed motion along the microtubule network8.

In this video protocol we track - at high speed and in three dimensions - fluorescently labeled lysosomes within living cells, using the orbital tracking method in a modified two-photon microscope.

The objective of this video protocol is to discuss how to perform and analyze a three-dimensional fluorescent orbital particle tracking experiment using a ...

Gene Transfection toward Spheroid Cells on Micropatterned Culture Plates for Genetically-modified Cell Transplantation

To improve the therapeutic effectiveness of cell transplantation, a transplantation system of genetically modified, injectable spheroids was developed. The cell spheroids are prepared in a culture system on micropatterned plates coated with a thermosensitive polymer. A number of spheroids are formed on the plates, corresponding to the cell adhesion areas of 100 &#181;m diameter that are regularly arrayed in a two-dimensional manner, surrounded by non-adhesive areas that are coated by a polyethylene glycol (PEG) matrix. The spheroids can be easily recovered as a liquid suspension by lowering the temperature of the plates, and their structure is well maintained by passing them through injection needles with a sufficiently large caliber (over 27 G). Genetic modification is achieved by gene transfection using the original non-viral gene carrier, polyplex nanomicelle, which is capable of introducing genes into cells without disrupting the spheroid structure. For primary hepatocyte spheroids transfected with a luciferase-expressing gene, the luciferase is sustainably obtained in transplanted animals, along with preserved hepatocyte function, as indicated by albumin expression. This system can be applied to a variety of cell types including mesenchymal stem cells.

This protocol describes a cell transplantation system using genetically modified, injectable spheroids. Cell spheroids are cultured on micropatterned culture plates and recovered after gene introduction using polyplex nanomicelles. This system facilitates prolonged transgene expression from the transplanted cells in host animals while maintaining the innate function of the cells.

To improve the therapeutic effectiveness of cell transplantation, a transplantation system of genetically modified, injectable spheroids was developed. ...

Construction and Setup of a Bench-scale Algal Photosynthetic Bioreactor with Temperature, Light, and pH Monitoring for Kinetic Growth Tests

The optimal design and operation of photosynthetic bioreactors (PBRs) for microalgal cultivation is essential for improving the environmental and economic performance of microalgae-based biofuel production. Models that estimate microalgal growth under different conditions can help to optimize PBR design and operation. To be effective, the growth parameters used in these models must be accurately determined. Algal growth experiments are often constrained by the dynamic nature of the culture environment, and control systems are needed to accurately determine the kinetic parameters. The first step in setting up a controlled batch experiment is live data acquisition and monitoring. This protocol outlines a process for the assembly and operation of a bench-scale photosynthetic bioreactor that can be used to conduct microalgal growth experiments. This protocol describes how to size and assemble a flat-plate, bench-scale PBR from acrylic. It also details how to configure a PBR with continuous pH, light, and temperature monitoring using a data acquisition and control unit, analog sensors, and open-source data acquisition software.

This paper describes the assembly process and operation of a bench-scale photosynthetic bioreactor that can be used, in conjunction with other methods, to estimate pertinent kinetic growth parameters. This system continuously monitors the pH, light, and temperature using sensors, a data acquisition and control unit, and open-source data acquisition software.

The optimal design and operation of photosynthetic bioreactors (PBRs) for microalgal cultivation is essential for improving the environmental and economic ...

Fragility Assessment of Bovine Cortical Bone Using Scratch Tests

Bone is a complex hierarchical material with five distinct levels of organization. Factors like aging and diseases like osteoporosis increase the fragility of bone, making it fracture-prone. Owing to the large socio-economic impact of bone fracture in our society, there is a need for novel ways to assess the mechanical performance of each hierarchical level of bone. Although stiffness and strength can be probed at all scales &#8211; nano-, micro-, meso-, and macroscopic &#8211; fracture assessment has so far been confined to macroscopic testing. This limitation restricts our understanding of bone fracture and constrains the scope of laboratory and clinical studies. In this research, we investigate the fracture resistance of bone from the microscopic to the mesoscopic length scales using micro scratch tests combined with nonlinear fracture mechanics. The tests are performed in the short longitudinal orientation on bovine cortical bone specimens. A meticulous experimental protocol is developed and a large number (102) of tests are conducted to assess the fracture toughness of cortical bone specimens while accounting for the heterogeneity associated with bone microstructure.

This study assesses the fracture toughness of bovine cortical bone at the sub-meso levels using microscopic scratch tests. This is an original, objective, rigorous, and reproducible method proposed to probe fracture toughness below the macroscopic scale. Potential applications are studying changes in bone fragility due to diseases like osteoporosis.

Bone is a complex hierarchical material with five distinct levels of organization. Factors like aging and diseases like osteoporosis increase the ...

Fabrication and Characterization of Griffithsin-modified Fiber Scaffolds for Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections

Electrospun fibers (EFs) have been widely used in a variety of therapeutic applications; however, they have only recently been applied as a technology to prevent and treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Moreover, many EF technologies focus on encapsulating the active agent, relative to utilizing the surface to impart biofunctionality. Here we describe a method to fabricate and surface-modify poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) electrospun fibers, with the potent antiviral lectin Griffithsin (GRFT). PLGA is an FDA-approved polymer that has been widely used in drug delivery due to its outstanding chemical and biocompatible properties. GRFT is a natural, potent, and safe lectin that possesses broad activity against numerous viruses including human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When combined, GRFT-modified fibers have demonstrated potent inactivation of HIV-1 in vitro. This manuscript describes the methods to fabricate and characterize GRFT-modified EFs. First, PLGA is electrospun to create a fiber scaffold. Fibers are subsequently surface-modified with GRFT using 1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide (EDC) and N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)chemistry. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess the size and morphology of surface-modified formulations. Additionally, a gp120 or hemagglutinin (HA)-based ELISA may be used to quantify the amount of GRFT conjugated to, as well as GRFT desorption from the fiber surface. This protocol can be more widely applied to fabricate fibers that are surface-modified with a variety of different proteins.

This manuscript describes the procedure to fabricate and characterize Griffithsin-modified poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) electrospun fibers that demonstrate potent adhesive and antiviral activity against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection in vitro. Methods used to synthesize, surface-modify, and characterize the resulting morphology, conjugation, and desorption of Griffithsin from surface-modified fibers are described.

Electrospun fibers (EFs) have been widely used in a variety of therapeutic applications; however, they have only recently been applied as a technology to ...

Visual Detection of Multiple Nucleic Acids in a Capillary Array

Multi-target, short time, and resource-affordable methodologies for the detection of multiple nucleic acids in a single, easy to operate test are urgently needed in disease diagnosis, microbial monitoring, genetically modified organism (GMO) detection, and forensic analysis. We have previously described the platform called CALM (Capillary Array-based Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for Multiplex visual detection of nucleic acids). Herein, we describe improved fabrication and performance processes for this platform. Here, we apply a small, ready-to-use cassette assembled by capillary array for multiplex visual detection of nucleic acids. The capillary array is pre-treated into a hydrophobic and hydrophilic pattern before fixing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) primer sets in capillaries. After assembly of the loading adaptor, LAMP reaction mixture is loaded and isolated into each capillary, due to capillary force by a single pipetting step. The LAMP reactions are performed in parallel in the capillaries. The results are visually read out by illumination with a hand-held UV flashlight. Using this platform, we demonstrate monitoring of 8 frequently appearing elements and genes in GMO samples with high specificity and sensitivity. In summary, the platform described herein is intended to facilitate the detection of multiple nucleic acids. We believe it will be widely applicable in fields where high-throughput nucleic acid analysis is required.

This protocol describes the fabrication of a small, ready-to-use cassette that can be applied for visual detection of multiple nucleic acids in a single, test that is easy to operate. In this approach, a capillary array was used for multiplex and highly efficient detection of GMO targets.

Multi-target, short time, and resource-affordable methodologies for the detection of multiple nucleic acids in a single, easy to operate test are urgently ...

Synthesis of Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes Modified with Silver Nanoparticles and Evaluation of Their Antibacterial Activities and Cytotoxic Properties

In this study, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were treated with an aqueous sulfuric acid solution to form an oxygen-based functional group. Silver MWCNTs were prepared by the reductive deposition of silver from an aqueous solution of AgNO3 on the oxidized MWCNTs. Given the unique color of the CNTs, it was not possible to apply them to the minimum inhibitory concentration or mitochondrial toxicity assays to evaluate the toxicity and antibacterial properties, since they would interfere with the assays. The inhibition zone and minimum bactericidal concentration for the Ag-MWCNTs were measured and Live/Dead and Trypan Blue assays were used to measure the toxicity and antibacterial properties without interfering with the color of the CNTs.

In this study, antimicrobial nanomaterials were synthesized by acidic oxidation of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and subsequent reductive deposition of silver nanoparticles. Antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity tests were performed with the as-prepared nanomaterials.

In this study, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were treated with an aqueous sulfuric acid solution to form an oxygen-based functional group. Silver ...

High-resolution Patterning Using Two Modes of Electrohydrodynamic Jet: Drop on Demand and Near-field Electrospinning

Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) jet printing has drawn attention in various fields because it can be used as a high-resolution and low-cost direct patterning tool. EHD printing uses a fluidic supplier to maintain the extruded meniscus by pushing the ink out of the nozzle tip. The electric field is then used to pull the meniscus down to the substrate to produce high-resolution patterns. Two modes of EHD printing have been used for fine patterning: continuous near-field electrospinning (NFES) and dot-based drop-on-demand (DOD) EHD printing. According to the printing modes, the requirements for the printing equipment and ink viscosity will differ. Even though two different modes can be implemented with a single EHD printer, the realization methods significantly differ in terms of ink, fluidic system, and driving voltage. Consequently, without a proper understanding of the jetting requirements and limitations, it is difficult to obtain the desired results. The purpose of this paper is to present a guideline so that inexperienced researchers can reduce the trial and error efforts to use the EHD jet for their specific research and development purposes. To demonstrate the fine-patterning implementation, we use Ag nanoparticle ink for the conductive patterning in the protocol. In addition, we also present the generalized printing guidelines that can be used for other types of ink for various fine-patterning applications.

Here, we present a protocol to produce high-resolution conductive patterns using electrohydrodynamic (EHD) jet printing. The protocol includes two modes of EHD jet printing: the continuous near-field electrospinning (NFES) and the dot-based drop-on-demand (DOD) EHD printing.

Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) jet printing has drawn attention in various fields because it can be used as a high-resolution and low-cost direct patterning ...