4.8 Article

Emissions of Ultrafine Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds from Commercially Available Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers with Multiple Filaments

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 1260-1268

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04983

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [ROH010699]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous research has shown that desktop 3D printers can emit large numbers of ultrafine particles (UFPs, particles less than 100 nm) and some hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during printing, although very few filament and 3D printer combinations have been tested to date. Here we quantify emissions of UFPs and speciated VOCs from five commercially available filament extrusion desktop 3D printers utilizing up to nine different filaments by controlled experiments in a test chamber. Median estimates of time-varying UFP emission rates ranged from similar to 10(8) to similar to 10(11) min(-1) across all tested combinations, varying primarily by filament material and, to a lesser extent, bed temperature. The individual VOCs emitted in the largest quantities included caprolactam from nylon-based and imitation wood and brick filaments (ranging from similar to 2 to similar to 180 mu g/min), styrene from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) filaments (ranging from similar to 10 to similar to 110 mu g/min), and lactide from polylactic acid (PLA) filaments (ranging from similar to 4 to similar to 5 mu g/min). Results from a screening analysis of potential exposure to these products in a typical small office environment suggest caution should be used when operating many of the printer and filament combinations in poorly ventilated spaces or without the aid of combined gas and particle filtration systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available