3D Printers Shown To Emit Potentially Harmful Nanosized Particles

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D Printers Shown To Emit Potentially Harmful Nanosized Particles

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday July 20, 2013 @09:57AM from the price-you-pay-for-having-a-plastic-version-of-your-own-head dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A new study by researchers in the Built Environment Research Group at the Illinois Institute of Technology shows that commercially available desktop 3D printers can have substantial emissions of potentially harmful nanosized particles in indoor air. Many desktop 3D printers rely on a process where a thermoplastic feedstock is heated, extruded through a small nozzle, and deposited onto a surface to build 3D objects. Similar processes have been shown to have significant aerosol emissions in other studies using a range of plastic feedstocks, but mostly in industrial environments. In this study, researchers measured ultrafine particle concentrations resulting from a popular commercially available desktop 3D printer using two different plastic feedstocks inside an office. Ultrafine particles (or UFPs) are small, nanosized particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter. Inhalation of UFPs may be important from a health perspective because they deposit efficiently in the lung and can even translocate to the brain. Estimates of emission rates of total UFPs in this study were high, ranging from about 20 billion particles per minute for a 3D printer utilizing a lower temperature polylactic acid (PLA) feedstock to about 200 billion particles per minute for the same type of 3D printer utilizing a higher temperature acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) feedstock. The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette."

25 of 180 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-20 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette.
1. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by gl4ss · 2013-07-20 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because it's cumulative, it can be very worrying. Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc, and you can see the problem. I mean, all non-smokers know how fucking vile it is having to be near smokers, and how it affects breathing for many.
  yeah.. but candles & cooking? if it's similar to cooking, I'll continue to not give a shit about it. if smoking.. well I might build an exhaust - or start smoking indoors.
  this study isn't about if it smells good or not though, which is pretty much the instant cigarette effect people get, so why bring that up..
  (anyhow, from the study, pla seems to be 3x background for duration of the print. I'd be interested in PET plastic study too, the prints with it are a lot sturdier.. also, probably the coloring agents etc play a role, so including those would have been nice)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · 2013-07-20 11:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc
  No, you don't. You might not have noticed, but this world is chock full of floating nanoparticles. We call them "dust", "pollen", "smoke", etc. Our lungs have similarly evolved to deal with these particles. I think it is quite senseless to get up in arms over the minuscule supply of particles from your neighbor's 3D printing machine while ignoring the vast swarm of particles coming from the dust mites living on your skin and environment.
3. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by interval1066 · 2013-07-20 11:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  BBQ-ing causes cancer too. So... if you're creating a gun w/a 3D printer while BBQing some pork and the power goes out, don't take that last drag off that cigarette, it could be your last.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
4. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Jmc23 · 2013-07-20 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Something tells me our systems are a little more capable of dealing with biodegradable skin cells than burnt plastic byproducts.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
5. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Jmc23 · 2013-07-20 13:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, but how often do you cook plastic?
  One must distinguish between similarity in particle output and similarity in particle composition!
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
6. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by BlackHawk-666 · 2013-07-20 13:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Pollen can break down in our bodies, dust get's encased in mucus and expelled and smoke - well, you don't want to be inhaling too much of that at a time. As you said our bodies 'evolved' to handle most of those threats - including becoming smart enough to not expose ourselves to them. Plastic however is only about 100 years old. I'm pretty sure we haven't evolved enough since the early 1900s to develop resistance to inhaling an aerosolized version of this already toxic chemical.
  
  --
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
7. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-07-20 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  Nanoparticles are much smaller than pollen. (11.5 nm to 116 nm). At that scale, particles can be much more active than the bulk materials. And seriously, POLLEN? When people think of airborne substances that give them problems, that's very high on the list. Not to be compared in severity with coal dust, but still pretty bad.
  The take home lesson is this: keep it out of your house and operate it in an area well-ventilated to the outside, or in a room with HEPA filters which MIGHT be good enough to take most of the nanoparticles out of the air before you breathe it into your lungs where it can cause problems.
8. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by anchovy_chekov · 2013-07-20 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  give up.. not give.. ah... I give up
9. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · 2013-07-20 16:24 · Score: 2
  
  If those were alpha particles of helium, for example, you'd have all sorts of problems
  You know what happens when you take a whiff of a bag of alpha particles? You talk funny for a few seconds. What makes alpha radiation dangerous isn't that they are alpha particles, but that they're alpha particles with lots of kinetic energy, enough to ionize any cells they happen to run into.
  
  The fact that you would spew out words like "nanoparticles" and then completely ignore the consequences makes me think you were trying to sound smarter than you really are. Judging by your posting history, I don't blame you.
  Like the "fact" that you would spew out words like "alpha particles"? I find it interesting how many people do the things of which they accuse me in the very post in which they make the accusation.
  
  I see no evidence of any "consequences" to breathing in small amounts of small particles of plastics, especially inert and decomposable stuff like polyethylene. I think it's ridiculous that people are so overwrought over this story.
  
  And I didn't use the odious term, "nanoparticles" because I wanted to look clever, but because that was the term used in the summary.
Something must go by BSAtHome · 2013-07-20 10:06 · Score: 2

When multiple options are available to mitigate the problem, then the most often used should be eliminated.
Hear you all, stop cooking! You're potentially killing yourself from nano-particle emissions. Stop cooking, now, please.
1. Re:Something must go by ndogg · 2013-07-20 12:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The difference is that we don't know what these particular particles will do to our bodies yet, and this was something rather unanticipated with 3d printers. Ultimately more research needs to be done, and it may well turn out that these particles are harmless, but considering that we don't know much about their interactions with our biology, it's best to assume the worst until we know better.
  With cooking, candles, etc., we've been doing it for so long that we can probably safely assume that the resulting particles aren't causing any significant harm.
  
  --
  // file: mice.h
  #include "frickin_lasers.h"
Panic inducing by argStyopa · 2013-07-20 10:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

My guess is that we're going to find nanoparticles a VERY common part of our environment, and that just about any process that grinds or sprays is going to generate nanoparticles.
Fortunately, considering that bacteria and viruses are ALSO nanoparticles, our bodies have evolved amazing defenses against them.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Panic inducing by Exitar · 2013-07-20 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  Bacteria and virus are biodegradable, plastic is not.
Absolute FUD by galadran · 2013-07-20 10:36 · Score: 2

"Cooking on gas or electric stoves and electric toaster ovens was a major source of UFP, with peak personal exposures often exceeding 100,000 particles/cm and estimated emission rates in the neighborhood of 10 particles/min."
So in other words, a toaster puts out 10x more UFPs. Nothing to see here folks.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20087407
1. Re:Absolute FUD by wierd_w · 2013-07-20 12:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes, Like 100% of laser printers on the market, which use a polystyrene based toner powder, and are potentially much worse for you than that reprap ever dreamed of being.
  Since not only does the laser printer flash heat and fuse the toner powder to the paper and release styrenes and other organic nanoparticles into the air, they also frequently leak, and pose a significant powder inhalation hazard!
  In other words, if you don't find your laser printer in the file room terribly dangerous, you shouldn't find the 3d printer any more so.
Re:Obvious Government FUD by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-20 10:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, if you 3D-print a gun it can potentially emit a harmful normal-sized particle.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Obvious Government FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-20 10:57 · Score: 3, Funny

That's the point, so you can defend against getting your head bashed into the sidewalk by a 17 year old with Iced Tea and Skittles.
How do they compare to pollen? by istartedi · 2013-07-20 11:00 · Score: 5, Funny

How do they compare to pollen? Are they full of spiky little projectiles that want to burrow into my nasal cavities and cross-polinate with my mucus membranes to create a giant mutant dandelion in my head? No? Then I'm not... ahh, ahhhhh, AH-CHOO!, sniff. worried.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Potentially you can also: by csumpi · 2013-07-20 11:04 · Score: 2

- burn your fingers
- trip on the power cord
- drop the printer on your big toe
Right up there with frying food or scented candles by Crypto+Gnome · 2013-07-20 11:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Medical science has been saying for YEARS that frying Scented Candles is bad for your health.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
This just in. by Rod+Beauvex · 2013-07-20 11:19 · Score: 3, Funny

3D printing shown to cause potentially harmful cuts into corporate profits.
Sounds like a setup... by nurb432 · 2013-07-20 13:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

For regulation, and then restriction.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Where this research should have gone... by GrpA · 2013-07-20 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, smoke sometimes curls from the printhead. No surprises there. Usually, there's not much, but hey, ABS chemicals aren't exactly a health-product.
What I would have liked to have known though is whether the use of covers ( eg, stabilising temperature and keeping the workpiece enclosed ) make any difference.
There is actually benefit to using covered printers, so it wouldn't be that difficult to add some filters to them would it? It's an entirely practical approach too, since plastic fumes are always worth avoiding.
And the use of less emotive terms for smoke would have been nano-appreciated.
GrpA

--
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Re:Oh crap by Dthief · 2013-07-20 20:41 · Score: 2

Or just print outdoors like nature intended

--
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth