Assessing and Reducing the Toxicity of 3D-Printed Parts

Abstract

3D printing is gaining popularity by providing a tool for fast, cost-effective, and highly customizable fabrication. However, little is known about the toxicity of 3D-printed objects. In this work, we assess the toxicity of printed parts from two main classes of commercial 3D printers, fused deposition modeling and stereolithography. We assessed the toxicity of these 3D-printed parts using zebrafish (Danio rerio), a widely used model organism in aquatic toxicology. Zebrafish embryos were exposed to 3D-printed parts and monitored for rates of survival, hatching, and developmental abnormalities. We found that parts from both types of printers were measurably toxic to zebrafish embryos, with STL-printed parts significantly more toxic than FDM-printed parts. We also developed a simple post-printing treatment (exposure to ultraviolet light) that largely mitigates the toxicity of the STL-printed parts. Our results call attention to the need for strategies for the safe disposal of 3D-printed parts and printer waste materials.

Acute health effects of desktop 3D printing (fused deposition modeling) using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polylactic acid materials: An experimental exposure study in human volunteers

“…Therefore, in principle 3D printers also could pose a health risk, especially if they are used for personal purposes in the absence of professional protection measures. This is underlined by data showing the toxicity of 3D printed parts in sensitive biological testing systems . As it is well recognized that cell culture and animal experiments are of limited relevance to assess the health risk for human subjects, despite efforts to adapt them to real exposures, exposure experiments in human subjects are indispensable.…”

Feasibility and Biocompatibility of 3D‐Printed Photopolymerized and Laser Sintered Polymers for Neuronal, Myogenic, and Hepatic Cell Types

“…Despite being the most widely used, inexpensive, and readily available 3D printing process, the diverse application of AM across scientific disciplines has elicited a trend toward the commercialization of alternative processes capable of manufacturing such advanced geometries. SL and jetting‐based printing afford the capability to produce sophisticated designs; however, the chemical complexity of the photosensitive resins typically results in non‐biocompatible parts . These devices typically require time‐consuming polymer surface modification in order to facilitate cellular compatibility .…”

Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research

“…In general, 3D printing can to reduce CO 2 emissions and lead to more sustainable practices in the consumer manufacturing industry [60], yet there are many less sustainable aspects to consider. Three-dimensional printing is energy intensive and often uses fossil fuel derived virgin plastics which can exist in the environment for ages after disposal and can be toxic to aquatic organisms, especially resin-based printed objects [61]. The printing process itself generates waste due to printers jamming, misprinted models, and scaffolding necessary for more complex 3D objects, as well as harmful emissions in the form of ultra-fine particles and volatile organic compounds [62, 63], which is especially worrisome as most 3D printers are housed in indoor office settings [64].…”

“…The environmental toxicity of objects should be reduced by choosing materials with low toxic potential and reducing the toxicity of materials post-print. For example, exposure of resin-based printed objects to intense UV light can reduce their toxicity to aquatic organisms [61]. Printed objects should be reused in research as much as possible to avoid repeat printing, and print materials made from recycled material or materials that are recyclable or compostable should be used when possible.…”