Technical control of nanoparticle emissions from desktop 3D printing

Abstract

Affordable material extrusion (ME) desktop 3D printers have gained wide popularity in recent decade with growing markets. 1 These printers are often used in educational institutions, libraries and enterprise engineering, marketing, and creative departments as well as by hobbyists. Concurrently as larger manufacturing companies are developing their own closed software printing systems, open software and hardware development is also underway. 2 With open-source 3D printers, users may change code, use different, perhaps completely new materials and printers such as RepRap can be modified by the user. 3 Even affordable open-source metal printers are possible in the future. 4 These trends are very meaningful especially when the number of people who have access to the 3D printing grows larger and larger and the need of knowledge on safety related to 3D printing grows.Desktop 3D printers based on ME have been shown to emit nanoparticles in number of studies. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Also, gas-phase compounds, depending on the material, may be emitted during 3D printing. 10,12,13 Emissions are dependent mainly on the chemical composition of the 3D printing filament and nozzle temperature. 5,7,10 In addition, 3D printer malfunctions have been shown to affect the emissions. 9,10

Use of 3-Dimensional Printers in Educational Settings: The Need for Awareness of the Effects of Printer Temperature and Filament Type on Contaminant Releases

“…In the current study, particle number-based ER values (FMPS data) were significantly higher; median particle sizes were significantly smaller, and the proportion of UFPS was higher for the hot-temperature prints compared with the normal-temperature prints ( p < 0.05) in a 278 m 3 college teaching laboratory (AER = 9.3/h). Collectively, our data and the available literature indicate that ventilation based on occupant comfort was insufficient to exhaust contaminants released from an FFF 3-D printer . Interestingly, the lower particle size detection limit for the P-Trak instrument (20 nm) was greater than the median particle sizes measured using an FMPS during all hot-temperature prints except vHIPS (see Table ), so the P-Trak did not count a high number of particles emitted during the hot-temperature prints, which translated into lower calculated ER values compared with the FMPS instrument.…”

“…Collectively, our data and the available literature indicate that ventilation based on occupant comfort was insufficient to exhaust contaminants released from an FFF 3-D printer. 41 Interestingly, the lower particle size detection limit for the P-Trak instrument (20 nm) was greater than the median particle sizes measured using an FMPS during all hot-temperature prints except vHIPS (see Table 1), so the P-Trak did not count a high number of particles emitted during the hot-temperature prints, which translated into lower calculated ER values compared with the FMPS instrument. The release of sub-20 nm particles during FFF 3-D printing highlights the importance of air monitoring instrument choice when planning an exposure assessment.…”

Systematic ranking of filaments regarding their particulate emissions during fused filament fabrication 3D printing by means of a proposed standard test method

“…In the molten filament, evaporation and thermal decomposition of the thermoplastic occurs. Thus, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter, mainly as ultrafine particles (UFP, particle diameter d P ≤ 100 nm), are formed during the printing process, as described in many studies 3–34 …”

Analysis of ways to reduce potential health risk from ultrafine and fine particles emitted from 3D printers in the makerspace

“…It is also recommended that users wear safety glasses to prevent eye injuries due to exposure to ultrafine and fine particles 46 A method to completely block the inhalation exposure from the 3D printers : The most effective method to completely block inhalation exposure to ultrafine and fine particles emitted from 3D printers is to use the 3D printer only in a closed space separated from occupants and remove the fine particles in the space through a local exhaust system and a filter 47 . Therefore, in this study, it is recommended that a chamber is installed in the makerspace as in Figure 14.…”

“…45 • A method to completely block the inhalation exposure from the 3D printers: The most effective method to completely block inhalation exposure to ultrafine and fine particles emitted from 3D printers is to use the 3D printer only in a closed space separated from occupants and remove the fine particles in the space through a local exhaust system and a filter. 47 Therefore, in this study, it is recommended that a chamber is installed in the makerspace as in Figure 14. Because the chamber is surrounded with a thoroughly sealed acrylic material, it can completely block the ultrafine and fine particles emitted from the 3D printers.…”