Slide 1

Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring DeviceTeam:

Evan WozniakSarah KostukChristina SmithAaron PrahstMultidisciplinary Senior DesignSystems Level Design Review

Evan

1BackgroundDevice measures:Puff volumeVolume drawn into lungs

Nina2PurposeCurrent cigarette testing may not reflect actual smoker puff profiles. The personal monitoring device will be used as part of a clinical study to gather information on real smoker puff profiles.HistoryAaron4Customer NeedsCigarette holder does not alter the smoking behavior or manner in which the smoker smokes the cigarette.Cigarette holder is ergonomic. For example it is lightweight and feels like holding a cigarette.Cigarette holder will support the cigarette independent of the userCigarette holder will not hinder the act of lighting the cigarette.Cigarette holder includes a flow path with and orifice plate to measure flow rate.Cigarette holder encompasses the pressure sensor for flow rate measurements.See Appendix A of Preread. Sarah5Customer NeedsCigarette holder has room for all the wireless electronic components needed to record and transmit the signal to the base unit and support any additional desired indicator lights. Cigarette holder transmits pressure signal by wire to the base unit or an external fixture for testing.Cigarette holder can handle a wide range of cigarettes including electronic cigarettes. Cigarette holder and base unit are easy to maintain by the user. For example there is an easy way to store the holder to avoid loss. There is a comfortable way to attach the base unit to the subjectBase unit housing size is minimal yet has room for all wireless components. Preferably the size is no bigger than a cellphoneThe final design includes ergonomic considerations, and potentially an improved solution for the chest bands to enhance wearability. See Appendix A of Preread. Sarah6RisksLead time on Pressure sensor causes delays on analysis for decisionRequirements are too large for ergonomic hand holdMight not have means to survey a "powerful" sample sizeSmoker does not want to use the product

See Appendix B of Preread. Evan7RisksRapid prototyping does not allow for accurate tolerances on orifice plateDesign hinders smoker ability to cover/ not cover vent holesNot all plastic is FDA approvedSmoker does not hold ergonomic hand hold the way it was intendedHandhold is too heavy and breaks the cigaretteSee Appendix B of Preread. Evan8

OverviewDecomposition See Appendix C of Preread. Sarah9

P12056 DecompositionSee Appendix D of Preread. Nina10Benchmarking Current Prototype

Aaron11Benchmarking Current PrototypeEvan12Existing Pressure Sensor SpecificationsMeasurement Range0-2 H2O

Differential Pressure ResolutionTyp. 0.1% of Full-Scale

Benchmarking Current PrototypeAaron13Benchmarking Existing Smoke Monitoring DevicesCReSS Pocket by Borgwaldt

Mobile SPA/M by Sodim

Aaron14FSI Software Flowchart

Benchmarking Current PrototypeSee Appendix E of Preread. Sarah15Benchmarking Results: Previous project9 people were surveyed Avg. Age: 23.11yrs (Std. Dev 3.58 years)8 Males, 1 FemaleAnswer questions on scale 1-5 (1= BEST , 5=Worst)Questions regarding comfort of; hand piece, chest belt, and belt packResults were inconclusiveSarah16Survey Plan:Usability of current planSurvey dataActual device dataCalibrate sensorCalibrate chest band

Survey can be seen in appendix F of PrereadBenchmarking Current PrototypeEvan17Benchmarking Marking Sample SizeOne way to prove that the new design is an improvement of the current design is to do an hypothesis test to show a statistically significant differenceThe original hypothesis is that the mean () of the survey response of original product is = the mean of the survey response of the new productThe alternative hypothesis (what we want to prove) is that the mean () of the survey response of original product is the mean of the survey response of the new productH0: 0= a HA: 0 a Yield a standard deviation of 1.3 (from results of previous projects survey)Calculate the sample size needed to prove a statistically significant difference of 1.0 or 0.5 With an alpha () = 0.5And a Power (confidence level) of 90%, 95%, or 99% Benchmarking Sample SizeAlpha = 0.05 Assumed std dev= 1.3Factors: 1 Number of levels: 2

Maximum Sample Target ActualDifference Size Power Power 1.0 37 0.90 0.903914 1.0 45 0.95 0.950397 1.0 64 0.99 0.990815 0.5 144 0.90 0.901930 0.5 177 0.95 0.950364 0.5 250 0.99 0.990146

Sarah19Rapid Prototyping Concerns Lead time on PrototypingStrength of PartsStrength of multiple part connectionsFDA approval of plastic for oral useTolerances

Evan20Professor Cormiers InputRITs equipment is better for larger partsFastline is a company that does FDA approved rapid prototyingRapid prototyping is feasible outside RITDefinitely cheaper that injection moldingCost is dependent on material heightInput from FSINeeded wireless componentsPhysical room needed to be allotted for wireless componentsAre our prototypes sizes appropriate or do they need to be modifiedDo we design and fabricate the belt pack and if so what are the internal dimensions that FSI needsIf we are not fabricating it is it a purchased part?

Nina22FSIs InputRechargeable battery would be smaller than supplied dimensions2 week life cycle with battery recommendedBelt pack can be made smallerHalf the size in the x and y directionUse mockup from previous groupChest belt:How to make more user friendlyRather than spend a lot of money on a orifice plate that is exact, each mouth piece can be calibrated in a lab setting before use

FSI Input

Could split board in half if needed. Hand Piece Concepts

1234Evan25Hand Piece Concepts

5678Evan26Hand Piece Concepts

9101112Evan27Hand Piece Concepts

13141516Evan28Hand Piece Concepts

17181920Evan29Hand Piece Concepts

212223Evan30Hand Piece SelectionNina31Input from Professor MarshalHave no more than 5 options for final surveyRigid finger holds are frowned upon for ergonomicsDont need smokers to narrow down hand piecesLook at similar productions like a hookah mouthpiece. 32A survey will be conducted where smokers are asked to simulate smoking using the 24 prototypes. They will be asked three questions about each object. The survey questions can be found in appendix G of the preread.Hand Piece Survey PlansSarah33Handpiece Survey PlanIn order to score the handpieces the mean survey response must be proven the be < or > the neutral response of 3 This can be proven statistically using an hypothesis test ( 1 sample Z test)The original hypothesis is that the mean () of the survey response of the design concept is = 3The alternative hypothesis (what we want to prove) is that the mean () of the survey response of the design concept is > or 3 or a < 3

Yield a standard deviation of 1.3 (from results of previous projects survey)Calculate the sample size needed to prove a statistically significant difference of 1.0 or 0.5 ( -1.0 or -0.5; alternative hypothesis of < 3)With an alpha () = 0.5And a Power (confidence level) of 90%, 95%, or 99%

Testing mean = null (versus > null)Calculating power for mean = null + Alpha = 0.05 Assumed std dev = 1.3 Sample Target ActualDifference Size Power Power 1.0 15 0.90 0.908958 1.0 19 0.95 0.956195 1.0 27 0.99 0.990668 0.5 58 0.90 0.900480 0.5 74 0.95 0.951917 0.5 107 0.99 0.990193

Hand Piece Survey Plans

Sarah35

Pressure Sensor Selection Process

See Appendix H of Preread. Please see next slide for graph with losses using discharge coefficient.Nina36Pressure Sensor Selection ProcessPressure Sensor Selection ProcessCriteria for picking a differential pressure sensor:It should have an operating pressure of at least 0 to 2.0 H2OIt should be small enough to fit inside the hand piece It should be able to run off of a future battery inside hand piece

Aaron38Sourceshttp://www.servoflo.com/downloads/item/mb-lps1-01-r-datasheet.htmlhttp://edge.rit.edu/content/P10057/public/Homehttp://edge.rit.edu/content/P10054/public/HomeIncropera, Frank P., David P. Dewitt, Theodore L. Bergman, and Adrienne S. Lavine. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 6th ed. Wiley, 2007. Print.The team would also like to thank Dr. Robinson and FSI for their support in this project. Thank you for your timeQuestions/Comments