Characterization of particulate matters and total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer

Afshar-Mohajer, Nima; Wu, Chang-Yu; Ladun, Thomas; Rajon, Didier A.; Huang, Yong

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.07.013

Cited by 114 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In separate laboratory experiments, we analyzed ABS and PLA materials and verified the emission of several VOCs that had been identified in the emissions of 3D printers . Among these were substances with high irritation potential, such as styrene, ethylbenzene, acrolein, and formaldehyde (see Figures S2 and S3 in the supporting information S2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In the present study, it was not possible to determine VOC emissions during the exposures. In order to compare the emissions from the filaments used in the present study with values reported in the literature, we performed a separate VOC analysis in a laboratory setting. The result is shown in the supporting information S2.2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Desktop 3D printers are getting more popular for both professional purposes and personal use . They are advertised even for children as a means for creating toys, although known to produce ultrafine particles (UFP) . For laser printer devices, potential health risks from UFP have already been extensively discussed, and the available studies are ranging from cell culture experiments to human exposures .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D printers are increasingly run at home. Nanoparticle emissions from those printers have been reported, which raises the question whether adverse health effects from ultrafine particles (UFP) can be elicited by 3D printers. We exposed 26 healthy adults in a single-blinded, randomized, cross-over design to emissions of a desktop 3D printer using fused deposition modeling (FDM) for 1 hour (high UFP-emitting acrylonitrile butadiene styrene [ABS] vs low-emitting polylactic acid [PLA]). Before and after exposures, cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, INF-γ) and ECP in nasal secretions, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), urinary 8-isoprostaglandin F (8-iso PGF ), and self-reported symptoms were assessed. The exposures had no significant differential effect on 8-iso PGF and nasal biomarkers. However, there was a difference (P < .05) in the time course of FeNO, with higher levels after ABS exposure. Moreover, indisposition and odor nuisance were increased for ABS exposure. These data suggest that 1 hour of exposure to 3D printer emissions had no acute effect on inflammatory markers in nasal secretions and urine. The slight relative increase in FeNO after ABS printing compared to PLA might be due to eosinophilic inflammation from inhaled UFP particles. This possibility should be investigated in further studies using additional biomarkers and longer observation periods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aerosol emission rates were significantly lower than those of Stephens and colleagues (), and the emitted particle mean sizes varied greatly among polymers and 3D printers used. Afshar‐Mohajer and colleagues () studied binder jetting technology, showing significant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aerosol emissions. Although the results are not directly comparable, attributable to very distinct technologies, the particles emitted were larger than those emitted by material extrusion, as expected because of dust handling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Emissions from a Desktop 3D Printer

Mendes

Kangas

Kukko

et al. 2017

J of Industrial Ecology

120

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary3D printers are currently widely available and very popular among the general public. However, the use of these devices may pose health risks to users, attributable to air-quality issues arising from gaseous and particulate emissions in particular. We characterized emissions from a low-end 3D printer based on material extrusion, using the most common polymers: acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA). Measurements were carried out in an emission chamber and a conventional room. Particle emission rates were obtained by direct measurement and modeling, whereas the influence of extrusion temperature was also evaluated. ABS was the material with the highest aerosol emission rate. The nanoparticle emission ranged from 3.7·10 8 to 1.4·10 9 particles per second (# s −1 ) in chamber measurements and from 2.0·10 9 to 4.0·10 9 # s −1 in room measurements, when the recommended extruder temperature was used. Printing with PLA emitted nanoparticles at the rate of 1.0·10 7 # s −1 inside the chamber and negligible emissions in room experiments. Emission rates were observed to depend strongly on extruder temperature. The particles' mean size ranged from 7.8 to 10.5 nanometers (nm). We also detected a significant emission rate of particles of 1 to 3 nm in size during all printing events. The amounts of volatile organic and other gaseous compounds were only traceable and are not expected to pose health risks. Our study suggests that measures preventing human exposure to high nanoparticle concentrations should be adopted when using low-end 3D printers.

show abstract

“…There are several additive manufacturing technologies used by 3D printers currently on the market (Afshar‐Mohajer et al. ), although most relatively inexpensive desktop 3D printers utilize a technique called fused filament fabrication (FFF). In the FFF process, a 3D object is formed layer by layer as a thermoplastic filament is forced through a heated extrusion nozzle, melted, and deposited in thin layers onto a moving baseplate (Gross et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Concentrations of Ultrafine Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds Resulting from Desktop 3D Printer Operation and the Impact of Potential Control Strategies

Azimi

Fazli

Stephens

2017

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryRecent studies have shown that potentially hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ultrafine particles (UFPs) are emitted from many desktop three-dimensional printer and filament combinations. We use recently published measurements of UFP and speciated VOC emission rates from a number of desktop 3D printers and filaments to predict the magnitudes of human exposures to airborne pollutants that would be expected in multiple locations within a typical small office environment. We also model the impacts of several control strategies for reducing occupational exposures. Results demonstrate that UFP and VOC concentrations within close or moderate proximity (i.e., within 3 and 3 to 18 meters, respectively) to some desktop 3D printer and filament combinations with the highest emissions can exceed recommended exposure levels (RELs) for some VOCs and typical indoor concentrations for both UFPs and VOCs. Concentrations of caprolactam within close proximity to a printer using some nylon-based filaments are predicted to exceed both acute and chronic RELs set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. UFP concentrations are predicted to reach as high as 80,000 particles per cubic centimeter in close proximity to the highest emitting printer and filament combinations. The printer and filament combinations with the lowest UFP and VOC emission rates are not expected to yield concentrations at levels of concern. The most effective control strategies for reducing both UFP and VOC concentrations included installing a high-flow spot ventilation system and operating the printer in a sealed enclosure with high-efficiency gas and particle filtration.

show abstract

Characterization of particulate matters and total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer

Cited by 114 publications

References 24 publications

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

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

Characterization of Emissions from a Desktop 3D Printer

Predicting Concentrations of Ultrafine Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds Resulting from Desktop 3D Printer Operation and the Impact of Potential Control Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About