4.3 Article

Case report of asthma associated with 3D printing

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 67, 期 8, 页码 652-654

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqx129

关键词

3D printing; airborne emissions; asthma; respiratory effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Three-dimensional (3D) printing is being increasingly used in manufacturing and by small business entrepreneurs and home hobbyists. Exposure to airborne emissions during 3D printing raises the issue of whether there may be adverse health effects associated with these emissions. Aims We present a case of a worker who developed asthma while using 3D printers, which illustrates that respiratory problems may be associated with 3D printer emissions. Case report The patient was a 28-year-old self-employed businessman with a past history of asthma in childhood, which had resolved completely by the age of eight. He started using 10 fused deposition modelling 3D printers with acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene filaments in a small work area of approximately 3000 cubic feet. Ten days later, he began to experience recurrent chest tightness, shortness of breath and coughing at work. After 3 months, his work environment was modified by reducing the number of printers, changing to polylactic acid filaments and using an air purifier with an high-efficiency particulate air filter and organic cartridge. His symptoms improved gradually, although he still needed periodic treatment with a salbutamol inhaler. While still symptomatic, a methacholine challenge indicated a provocation concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) of 4 mg/ml, consistent with mild asthma. Eventually, his symptoms resolved completely and a second methacholine challenge after symptom resolution was normal (PC20 > 16 mg/ml). Conclusions This case indicates that workers may develop respiratory problems, including asthma when using 3D printers. Further investigation of the specific airborne emissions and health problems from 3D printing is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据