Slashdot Mirror
Desktop 3D Printers Shown To Emit Hazardous Gases and Particles (acs.org)
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.
Ummmm, duh? You're melting plastics in order to reform them into another shape. It doesn't take a study to realize you shouldn't stick your face in and breathe deeply.
And now we are suddenly surprised that manufacturing plastics from toxic chemicals actually released toxic chemicals into the air. Even when you do it in your own home. Who would've known.
It would seem that the best approach is simply to 3D print things in a well-ventilated area. Lots of things are toxic if exposed to sufficient concentrations. In the absence (for now) of alternatives to the toxic chemicals, the best advice is ventilation and avoid the areas as much as possible where printing is being done.
Doesn't every single printer and every single guide say to use in a well ventilated area for obvious reasons? You don't want to solder in a small office with no ventilation either.
If so, call us now for a free consultation. You don't pay a dime unless we win the settlement."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
....must be time to ban them.
Whatever happened to all those claims of illness from photocopiers and laser printers? ... dust ... nanoparticles? Or those evil LASERs?
Was it ozone
This is getting ridiculous. A moment's thought would make it obvious that the emission rates quoted in the summary are wrong by orders of magnitude. Are there even home printers today that can extrude as much as 180 g/min of material, never mind vaporize or aerosolize that much?
We can only hope that 3-D printers are someday as safe as chemistry sets.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
...for the inevitable lawsuits by California bottom-feeders under Prop 65.
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.
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.
"Mostly"?
My uncle died when working with a chemistry set and standing upwind. He was just reducing CuO with Mg, standing upwind, when a drunk truck driver drove an 18-wheeler into his house killing him instantly.
Now if he only stood downwind, these 3 meters would have saved his life.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Carbon is what you use in a respirator cartridge. For stuff like organic vapors, a hobbyist is better off wearing a respirator than trying to filter since the former is cheaper and easier to get right. The same sort of thing you'd wear to spray some lacquer in your garage would do well enough, I'd think.