3D printers shown to emit potentially harmful nanosized particles

[onehandle]

Source: Phys.org

A new study by researchers 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. The study, which was recently published in the journal Atmospheric Environment, is the first to measure airborne particle emissions from commercially available desktop 3D printers. Desktop 3D printers are now widely accessible for rapid prototyping and small-scale manufacturing in home and office settings. 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 work, assistant professor Brent Stephens and graduate students in his Built Environment Research Group in the Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering at Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, IL measured ultrafine particle concentrations resulting from the operation of a single type of popular commercially available desktop 3D printers inside an office space. Ultrafine particles (or UFPs) are small, nanosized particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter. The printers were used to print small plastic figures during normal operation. The resulting concentration measurements were then used to estimate UFP emission rates from these printers.

Estimates of emission rates of total UFPs 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.

Human inhalation of UFPs may be important from a health perspective. UFPs deposit efficiently in both the pulmonary and alveolar regions of the lung, as well as in head airways. Deposition in head airways can also lead to translocation to the brain via the olfactory nerve. The high surface areas associated with UFPs also lead to high concentrations of other adsorbed or condensed compounds. Several recent epidemiological studies have also shown that elevated UFP number concentrations are associated with adverse health effects, including total and cardio-respiratory mortality, hospital admissions for stroke, and asthma symptoms.

Read more: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-3d-printers-shown-emit-potentially.html

---

I was wondering about this and I'm not surprised in the least.

[MADem]

1. They'll need to put these things in special rooms, with air filters in 'em! nt

[valerief]

2. 1% doesn't care if it hurts humans. They care if 3D printers hurt investments in certain industries.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Power to the people! 3D printers are a VERY disruptive technology. nt

[mwrguy]

3. Great, you can poison people while printing your undetectable gun

it's a rethuglican dream come true.

[Ednahilda]

5. I had exactly the same thought.

[Duer 157099]

9. Or, poison yourself

Hmmmm... print a gun, inhale deadly particles

[jtuck004]

12. OR, your bicycle, kid's toy, new jawbone or knee joint, teeth,

musical instruments like a guitar, clothing, building, moon base...and perhaps a thousand other things. Lots of other things out there, but they don't make such good press on Fox News.

It's biggest plus is that is its very real potential to take manufacturing out of the hands of the rentiers, and their new friends the robots, and bring it much closer to control by the 99%.

Just like cars can be used in bank robberies, they have a lot of other uses that are much more useful, such as getting people to the hospital, or work, or hauling food, etc.

Btw, these so-called undetectable guns (which fire [i[detecable bullets, btw, mostly impractical as anything other than wall hangings, they were being made long before 3d printers came out. And while the 3d printer has the capability of making them faster, perhaps, they still mostly fall apart. Those other things, not being exposed to the force of the explosion, generally don't.

[kestrel91316]

4. If the particles are plastic resins, we can expect to see an uptick in respiratory cancers, too.

[DainBramaged]

6. potentially unsafe, potential solution

[Dustlawyer]

8. The particles are too small to be filtered with a dust mask.

[DainBramaged]

13. Nanomask

[Taverner]

7. I wondered about that...

There is a reason people at fabrication companies wear masks

[PatrynXX]

10. Since these items have been often used around kids

Thats bad. Got to see them make KWWL out of plastic on the news. had kids around having fun. adults is one thing but kids. this might be a big lawsuit. that might hurt the bottom line

[Posteritatis]

21. Are you equally afraid of laser printers? (nt)

[AdHocSolver]

11. Why am I NOT surprised.

When I first heard about 3-D printers that emit nanoparticles, I wondered how long it would take for someone to figure out that the emission of microscopic particles into the air people breathe might be bad for one's health.

Sounds like nanoparticles are the equivalent of the tar and nicotine of inhaled cigarette smoke.

However, don't expect any action by the EPA or similar agencies to set some protective standards regarding 3-D printer use until our corporate rulers have made megaprofits on sales, and the sickness and/or death rate from nanoparticles becomes too great to ignore.

How long before the advertising campaigns emerge about how breathing nanoparticles is not merely harmless, but that it provides health benefits (just like with tobacco).

Between genetically modified food, fracking, global climate change, chemical pollution, overuse of antibiotics creating "super bugs", and now nanoparticles, which hazard will history pick for ending civilization (if not most life) on planet earth?

[jtuck004]

14. Darn, have to run it in the garage. n/t

[Igel]

15. Right next to your laser printer, stove, and scented candle. n/t

[jtuck004]

18. Kinda what I was thinking...Although I do wonder, since it is putting off plastic,

if that might be a little more toxic.

We are all bathed in car exhaust on a daily basis, as well as the stuff you mentioned, so it becomes yet one more toxin, but some do deserve extra attention.

[A Simple Game]

19. Laser printer toner is plastic. We have been using that for quite a while. n/t

[Posteritatis]

22. But those aren't new, you see. All new anything is automatically bad. (nt)

[shenmue]

16. Yes but can I print a puppy?

They are so cute.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Well you can use them to print parts for your pet duck...

http://www.buy3dprinter.org/the-duck-with-a-prosthetic-foot-3d-printing-and-veterinary-care/

[Javaman]

17. This is why we can't have nice things!

damn nanoparticles. I hate them so much!

[Posteritatis]

20. So, we gonna all jerk our knees and panic wildly about laser printers and ovens, too? (nt)

[7962]

23. Dont forget chemtrails...

[NickB79]

24. Now how am I supposed to make never-ending LEGOS?

An endless stream of custom-designed LEGOS, pouring out of a home 3D printer, in every shape imaginable. I, er, I mean my children, could have so much fun!

It would be a dream come true.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

25. Complete with an ad above this post reading

"chose the right 3D printer for your application"
Don't you just love tech?

[PoliticAverse]

27. So there will be a market for 3D printer enclosures with HEPA filters then ? n/t

[Xithras]

28. So...it makes dust?

What's the difference between printing something on this, and making it the old fashioned way using wood, a saw, and sandpaper?

My guess would be that the "old fashioned way" produces an order of magnitude MORE "UFP's".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Like "cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers"

Read the article before getting bent out of shape, folks.

[Posteritatis]

32. Kinda depressing how many people just see the headline and emote, isn't it? (nt)

[hankthecrank]

31. A website to make stuff

Just a start to DIY


http://www.makershed.com

Sears sold a machine that takes 3d patterns and cut them out of plastic or wood

Put any object in sand mold and take it out pour aluminum or brass

You can melt aluminum or brass with natural gas in a kiln

[Nihil]

33. Sigh.

> 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.

The primary difference with this scare headline is that 3D printers are a real risk
to the status quo w.r.t. manufacturing/shipping/selling/taxing plastic products.

No news here.