Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Desktop 3D Printers Shown To Emit Hazardous Gases and Particles (acs.org)

Posted by timothy on from the print-yourself-a-new-set-of-lungs dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology by researchers at Illinois Institute of Technology and The University of Texas at Austin sheds more light on potentially harmful emissions from desktop FDM 3D printers. The researchers measured emissions of both ultrafine particles (UFPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from 5 commercially available polymer-extrusion 3D printers using up to 9 different filaments. [The researchers] found that the individual VOCs emitted in the largest quantities included caprolactam from nylon-based and imitation wood and brick filaments (ranging from ~2 to ~180 g/min), styrene from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) filaments (ranging from ~10 to ~110 g/min), and lactide from polylactic acid (PLA) filaments (ranging from ~4 to ~5 g/min). Styrene is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC classification group 2B). While caprolactam is classified as "probably not carcinogenic to humans," the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) maintains low acute, 8-hour, and chronic reference exposure levels (RELs) of only 50, 7, and 2.2 g per cubic meters, respectively, all of which would likely be exceeded with just one of the higher emitting printers operating in a small office.

6 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lots of toxic chemicals are usd every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many people ACTUALLY print in a well-ventilated area though? If many people are using these printers, and most of them are doing so indoors(many are inside bedrooms) and most of those aren't opening doors or windows to ventilate the room: I think the headline is of significant public interest. I have a printer running in our guest bedroom right now with all doors and windows shut. I walk in the room to check on the print and get a good smell of ABS fumes every hour or so.

  2. Don't Worry by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently one of the gases is "probably not carcinogenic" and the other is only classed as a "possible human carcinogen" so really the title should read "Desktop 3D Printers Shown to Emit Gases some of which might be hazardous". Not to mention that if the safe exposure level is 50g/m^3 that's almost 5% by weight of air so either someone messed up the units or one of the gases emitted are safer than carbon dioxide and nobody suggests that we ban candles.

    1. Re:Don't Worry by jandersen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apparently one of the gases is "probably not carcinogenic" and the other is only classed as a "possible human carcinogen" so really the title should read "Desktop 3D Printers Shown to Emit Gases some of which might be hazardous". Not to mention that if the safe exposure level is 50g/m^3 that's almost 5% by weight of air so either someone messed up the units or one of the gases emitted are safer than carbon dioxide and nobody suggests that we ban candles.

      The good old "it won't happen to me"? Unfortunately, reality isn't as kind as that, as I'm sure you know. The purpose of this research is not to get 3D printing banned, or even to "discover" that it is hazardous; we already knew that there are hazards connected with working with hot, melted plastic. We just hadn't quantified the hazards well enough, yet. It makes sense to figure this out, so we can make informed decisions about how to mitigate the problem.

    2. Re:Don't Worry by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because Slashdot doesn't support unicode.

      Really though how much of idiots do these system designers have to be to not have thought of this? For fun I've been working on a design for a material-flexible 3d printer (though I don't actually plan to put the money and time into building it any time soon) and it became clear very early on that atmospheric control would be critical if you want to have it in the house. There are only a very few raw materials that come to mind that I wouldn't have outgassing or dust concerns with.

      I can't imagine why they didn't think to at least put an activated carbon pad and/or paper air filter in the airflow path through the housing. It'd have almost no effect on the final cost.

      --
      What the hells goin on in the engine room? Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
  3. I would like to know whats different with the olde by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    whats different with the older study? the new nylon, wood filaments?

    the old study that was at some media quoted as OMG IT KILLS YA actually when covered correctly was titled about "3d printer as hazardous as cooking".

    and well if you cook your peek/teflon parts in the extruder then thats pretty hazardous..

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. When you panic and regulate based on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what you can DETECT rather than what's actually significantly harmful, and without any tether to the reality of the relative risks, you will regulate everything and panic over everything eventually as technology gives you an ever-increasing ability to detect. This is one of the big problems with the EPA. When President Nixon created that agency, it merrily started regulating based on detection. A huge know-nothing portion of the population has now been raised in this anti-science omni-political activist environment falls for any shrieking by any group that points anything it chooses to, never knowing the truth about why a particular person or group decided to start whipping-up panic over a particular thing.

    Example of this modern madness: Mankind has used mercury thermometers for centuries; they've saved more lives and advanced human understanding of the world more than any person could possibly quantify. Several years ago at a public school in Southern California, a student in a science class accidentally broke one in the lab - and the school had an evacuation and a HazMat team was called-in wearing full protection suits to clean-up the "toxic spill". There were weeping mothers on the evening news worried about the permanent harm their children might have suffered...

    Odds that any person will be permanently harmed or killed by fumes from a 3D printer? Zero

    Odds that a user of a 3D printer will be permanently harmed or killed by drugs, or alcohol, or base jumping, or a vehicular accident?

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what to worry about, and whether to panic over the next obnoxious moron trying to generate publicity and scare you into demanding the government control even more of your life.