ABSTRACT
Surface roughness quality is still a significant problem in the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process. This study proposes a wobble-based scanning strategy to improve the insufficiencies of the traditional scanning strategy with regard to surface roughness. A laboratory LPBF system with a self-developed controller was used to fabricate Permalloy (Fe-79Ni-4Mo) with two scanning methods: traditional line scanning (LS) and the proposed wobble-based scanning (WBS). This study investigates the influences of these two scanning strategies on porosity and surface roughness. The results imply that WBS can maintain higher surface accuracy than LS, and the surface roughness can be reduced by about 45%. Furthermore, WBS can produce periodic surface structures arranged in fish scales or parallelograms with appropriate parameters.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Glucose dehydrogenases have been highly promoted to high-accuracy blood glucose (BG) monitors. The flavin adenine dinucleotide glucose dehydrogenase (FAD-GDH) and mutant variant of quinoprotein glucose dehydrogenase (Mut. Q-GDH) are widely used in high-performance BG monitors for multi-patient use. Therefore we conducted accuracy evaluation of the GDH monitors, FAD-GDH-based GM700 and Mut. Q-GDH-based Performa. METHODS: Different patients were enrolled: patients with and without diabetes, patients receiving respiratory therapies, hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, and neonates. The accuracy evaluation of FAD-GDH- and Mut. Q-GDH-based monitors referred to ISO 15197:2013 which applies new criteria for the minion accuracy requirements: more than 95% of the blood glucose readings shall fall within ±15mg/dL of the reference method at glucose concentration <100mg/dL and within ±15% of the reference method at glucose concentration ≥100mg/dL. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the 2 GDH monitors as well. RESULTS: Bland-Altman plots visualized excellent precision of the BG monitors. The 95% limit agreement of overall results for the FAD-GDH-based monitors was within ±12% and that for the Mut. Q-GDH-based monitors was from -10 to +17%. Both BG monitors met the accuracy requirements of ISO 15197:2013. The FAD-GDH-based monitor performed better with neonates and patients with and without diabetes, and the Mut. Q-GDH-based monitor performed better with HD and PD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Analytical results prove that the GDH-based monitors tolerate a broad BG concentration range, are oxygen independent, have BG specificity, and have minimal interference from hematocrit. The GDH-based monitors are reliable for multi-patient use.
