Engineering

Project 05 / 06

Assistive Nose-Wiping Device for Hiking

A team developed and evaluated two wearable prototypes for hands-free nose wiping during hiking, using weight, cost, comfort, durability, security, hygiene, and ease-of-use criteria for an identified need.

Role
Design & Validation
Methods
Fusion 360 · 3D Printing · Prototyping · Human-Centered Design · Design Validation

Two wearable prototype directions

Design 1 — upper-arm prototypeUpper-arm-mounted rounded 3D-printed wiping surface with a Velcro strap and rotating handkerchief.
Side view of the Design 1 upper-arm prototype with a rounded 3D-printed wiping surface, wrapped handkerchief, and Velcro strap.
Design 2 — forearm extension, student evaluationForearm-mounted extension shown during a student evaluation; the pictured person is not identified as the intended user.
Design 2 forearm extension shown during a student evaluation, with a wiping surface near the face.

Reported: Design 1 met the weight and intended-form goals at 0.5 lb and about $15; Design 2 was functional at about 1.5 lb but did not achieve its planned folding form.

01 — A hands-free need on the trail

The project begins with the identified need and the criteria used to assess two wearable prototype directions.

The project was designed for a client with limited arm mobility and grip strength who wanted a lightweight, hygienic way to wipe her nose independently while hiking. The team developed two wearable prototypes and compared them using weight, cost, comfort, durability, security, hygiene, ease of use, and form.

02 — Two wearable directions

The team carried two wearable forms forward as different responses to the same need and criteria.

The final concepts took two distinct mounting approaches. Design 1 placed the wiping surface high on the upper arm, while Design 2 extended the wiping surface from a forearm sleeve toward the face.

The team brainstormed and compared design options, then used Fusion 360, 3D printing, and prototype testing to develop the two wearable directions.

03 — Design 1: upper-arm rotating surface

The selected direction combined an upper-arm mount with a rotating fabric surface.

Design 1 used a rounded 3D-printed tray worn high on the bicep and held in place with a Velcro strap. A handkerchief slides around the device so that a fresh section is exposed with each wipe.

The intended motion was to tilt the head and lean slightly forward to reach the wiping surface. Long-term use, trail use and hygiene improvement were not evaluated in the recorded assessment.

Mechanism evidence

Front view of Design 1 showing a handkerchief wrapped around the 3D-printed wiping surface.
Design 1 — rotating fabric surfaceDesign 1 detail: the wrapped handkerchief moves around the wiping surface to present a fresh section for a subsequent wipe.

The rotating handkerchief is the project's stated hygiene mechanism; the source does not quantify a hygiene improvement.

Upper-arm prototype

0.5 lb · ≈ $15

The upper-arm prototype met the weight target and worked in the intended form during the student assessment.

Comfort and security findings are bounded to the documented student assessment.

04 — Design 2: function with a visible compromise

The forearm design demonstrated the basic function while retaining a material form and weight tradeoff.

Design 2 used a rigid extension attached to a forearm sleeve with two parallel Velcro straps. A smaller 3D-printed wiping surface at the end held the rotating handkerchief and brought the wiping surface closer to the face.

The forearm prototype worked in the student assessment, but at approximately 1.5 lb and $25 it exceeded the under-one-pound target. Its extension remained fixed rather than folding as planned.

05 — Validation against the design criteria

We compared the prototypes using their weight, cost, intended operation and qualitative student observations.

Reported classroom prototype assessment
CriterionDesign 1Design 2
Weight0.5 lb≈ 1.5 lb
Cost≈ $15≈ $25
FormMet intended upper-arm formPlanned folding form not achieved
ComfortComfortable in student testingComfortable in student testing
SecurityNo noticeable movement reportedNo noticeable movement reported
Durability checksStated sink-water and 3-foot drop checksStated sink-water and 3-foot drop checks
Hygiene mechanismRotating handkerchief exposes fresh fabricRotating handkerchief exposes fresh fabric

Reported classroom prototype assessment. “No noticeable movement” is a qualitative observation, not a measured attachment metric; no intended-client or hiking field test is documented.

Design 1

0.5 lb · ≈ $15

The upper-arm design met the weight target and intended-form goals in the student assessment.

Design 2

≈ 1.5 lb · ≈ $25

The forearm design performed the basic wiping function but missed the weight target and planned folding form.

These results apply to the classroom prototypes, not clinical or trail use.

The assessment combined weight and cost values, functional checks and qualitative student feedback. It did not evaluate long-term washability, skin-contact durability or weather exposure.

06 — Selection, contribution, and next iteration

The final assessment selects Design 1 while keeping authorship and remaining engineering work explicit.

Selected direction

Design 1

We selected the upper-arm design because it worked as intended while staying lightweight and comfortable in the student assessment.

My contribution

Design & Validation

I worked in a three-person team on ideation, option evaluation, feasibility decisions, prototype testing, materials purchasing, documentation, presentation, and communication with the professor and project partner. Fusion 360 modeling and assembly were shared across the team.

Next steps were to make the forearm design lighter and foldable and evaluate washable materials. Those changes remain proposed work in the version presented here.