10 ms·

New Study Details Toxic Particles Spewed by 3D Printers

146 points by elijahparker 8y ago

ccvannorman 8y ago
TL;DR: "We were able to measure that there are some toxic particles emanated, but failed to produce any meaningful results about quantity of said particles, or potential danger to consumers, in any way." To me that says, the quantities they did measure were too low to publish for this alarmist article. From the article: >all tests indicated at least some level of toxic response (though the toxic response varied by filament type). >The sheer variety of the toxic substances produced by these printers was alarming. No less than 200 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) uh huh. The "sheer variety is alarming" line was about where my eyes started to roll, finishing their 135° journey after confirming there are no meaningful stats in this article.
- Negative1 8y ago
  The corrolary of an alarmist report is a dismissive viewpoint. Theres evidence here that FDM printers emit toxic fumes. If you want to believe it's really not so bad, fine, close your made up mind. If there is a chance that filament fumes are harmful, people need to be made aware. They're setting these things up in grade school STEM/STEAM programs; there is potential for real harm here and not pursuing more research is irresponsible.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    Agreed 100%. Them blowing this off because they don't feel like it has enough data or teeth I think is a big mistake. There's a distinct possibility that there will be a 3d printer in every classroom/office/home at some point in the future (just like regular printers eventually graduated to be everywhere). Discussing that there might actually be some toxic issues with these printers now can head off a potential future where tons of people including children are getting sick due to something that we didn't test enough or look at with enough skepticism before it gained mass acceptance. It's win/win really... they become safer if they are found to be emiting toxic fumes and people can feel more comfortable having a safer 3d printer around them. I just don't see the downside... Much like how there are wall paints that have low or no VOCs I imagine we'd want these printers to head in the same direction. Why would anyone say... oh yeah these paints have a variety of VOCs they emit. Sounds alarmist and I don't see enough evidence so we shouldn't explore further and come up with ones that don't potentially harm people.
    - GistNoesis 8y ago
      I'm worried it will impact the cost of filament and printers. Unless there is a cheap way to test and certify filaments. Volumes are still quite low. Regulation risk concentrating filament production into monopolies. Then it will be hard to trust that those certification anyway.
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        Super valid concern. I imagine it will raise the price considerably and there will be 'safe!' 3d printers that cost a ton because they've been certified and have filaments and suction/vacuum/air pushing systems that have been tested and show no ill effects towards humans. It seems inevitable, but I'd imagine price will come down in a while as things scale. It also does open the door for someone to come in and make a vent/hood system that works for many types of 3d printers so I guess there's that...
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    The study specifically targeted ABS which is known to emit fumes but the banner headline is overly alarmist by attacking all of 3d printing even though few use ABS. Working in a Harbor Freight store is a far greater hazard for VOC exposure.
- simias 8y ago
  I also tend to be a bit numb to these "x found to be (somewhat) toxic" news items because, well, there are so many of them. That being said it's not very rational to dismiss them entirely either. Especially in this case, unless you're working in a 3D printing farm it shouldn't be too difficult to work around these problems. If you have a 3D printer on your desk consider moving it to a more isolated, well ventilated location. Maybe buy a couple more fans and an enclosure.
netgusto 8y ago
Some figures about the UFP emitted by FDM: https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/ https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/ From this one data point, it seems that ABS is the big emitter.
- Mashimo 8y ago
  Here is another one [1] taken from [2] Though that is just one graph out of many. With modern PLA getting better and better, it's rare people use ABS. Makes me wonder how harmful PLA is. I want to add an HEPA filter anyway. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/uast20/2017/uast20.v051.i11/02786826.2017.1342029/20180430/images/large/uast_a_1342029_f0006_oc.jpeg https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/t... [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2017.1342029 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2017.1...
  - steve19 8y ago
    PLAs lower melting point is the issue. I only print PLA, mainly because it's less toxic, but I dare not print a part that might end up in a hot car, near a heating source or outside.
    - brianwawok 8y ago
      That is true. I only 3d print trinkets for games, so PLA is great. Never have used ABS but the stories about the small has kept me away.
    - torbjorn 8y ago
      I am shocked by how many people use 3d printed parts in the kitchen, printed PLA is not a food safe matieral. And if you print a toy for your kids it's gonna end up in their mouth at some point...
      - mdorazio 8y ago
        See here [1]. No FDM printed item is going to be food safe because the layered properties allow the accumulation of bacteria, but PLA is generally non-toxic and will only leach a few "safe in small quantities" chemicals into things it comes in contact with. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027869159400145E http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/02786915940...
newnewpdro 8y ago
Is anyone honestly surprised that melting plastic produces toxic particulates/fumes? It should go without saying that one would want these machines enclosed in a ventilated space separated from people.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  The most common filament used (PLA) is labeled as non toxic and is made of mostly corn. So yes it would be surprising if that was found to be toxic.
  - rvense 8y ago
    I don't find this surprising, knowing that fried or baked starchy foods contain at least one carcinogenic element, called acrylamide. Its name sounds nasty and it's provably quite bad, but bread is still one of the corner stones civilization. We need to quantify these risks, educate builders and make 3D printers as safe as possible, but TFA did give me a slight sense of alarmism.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    You know these labels on cigarettes that state the smoke contains at least 253 toxic chemicals? The smoke from other plants of course contains at least about 200 of the same chemicals.
    - goldenkey 8y ago
      People think the formaldehyde and all these other chemicals with spooky names were added by the bad cigarette companies..but not so!! Whenever any hydrocarbon is burned, a characteristic distribution of alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes is formed -- with the nastiest and most "radical" chemicals (like the alkynes), appearing with the lowest frequency. That's why smoking has almost no risk unless repeated. With enough exposure, those minimal alkynes add up. And they destroy DNA and wreak general havok due to their bond energy. I know I just reiterated your point. Thank you for making the point - smoke is what is a probabilistic distribution of energetic hydrocarbons -- not the plant!!
    - 8y ago
rambojazz 8y ago
This is hardly surprising though, and it was inevitable that studies started to emerge.
Hextinium 8y ago
As someone who has a 3d printer running about a quarter of the time less than 10 feet away from me hearing that it could be bad for me is alarming that it could be harming me. (Other than the lost sleep because its loud) When though of as a risk benefit analysis though I come to the strong conclusion that I will use my printer no matter what because it is the compiler to my hobby: no printer, much harder time making stuff. I don't need to iterate on the greatness of them here but they have the potential to radically help teach people how to make stuff which drastically helps in industry. My main concern with these articles is that there is no relative risk factor presented against. I have no idea if these particulates are something it would be worthy to invest in an enclosure or are there low levels which are permittable. I know that I personally am much more likely to have health complications from almost anything else but to someone else reading the above article they may draw the conclusion that 3d could be dangerous and should be restricted. If a person shows up to a school board meeting throwing a fit that they are running 3d printers with children in the same room then it looks bad on the printers, possibly having them removed and to generalize I think that that is the last thing anyone wants. Ninja edit: formating
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  You could of course try for some adequate ventilation and an enclosure instead of just ignoring the issue.
  - sharpneli 8y ago
    This. It's not a big deal. Soldering also produces harmful fumes and as long as you ventilate properly it's not a big deal. Just do an image search for "solder ventilation" for ideas on how to do it. Regardless of this I kinda do understand the motivation to ignore the issue. People are afraid that there will be a panic and it's going to be banned.
    - ekr 8y ago
      And some people (including myself) actually enjoy the smell of molten rosin flux.
bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
Isn't something like, a HEPA available in most home air filters, enough to remove most particles?
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Should be better than nothing in any case. A guideline mentioning that there should be extraction and proper ventilation near 3D printers - just like in laser printers, soldering stations, etc - would probably be wise.
  - Moru 8y ago
    Yes, let's not forget what laser printers used to spew out. Not sure if that got any better with time?
- meesterdude 8y ago
  not the 0.1 size particles they talk about - all but the highest end filters cant remove that small. The best bet is to treat it like a gas and exhaust it.
  - flybrand 8y ago
    A 0.3 micron filter will still remove some of the 0.1 micron material. Filtration works in lots of ways. Also, it is likely that the 0.1 micron particles here have a charge. The 0.3 micron test particle used for HEPA evaluation specifically does not have a charge. Using charged filter media is a common method to capture particles that are too small for the holes / pores in the filter element.
snarfy 8y ago
Once I got my homemade printer working, the first thing I did was build a 100% air sealed enclosure. Melted ABS stinks.
- flybrand 8y ago
  What other precautions did you take? Do you turn the air over inside the enclosure or wear a mask?
  - snarfy 8y ago
    That's the only precaution. I thought about adding an air filter inside the enclosure but it's overkill. If it's 100% air sealed you don't smell anything while it's printing, and if the printer has finished printing it only takes a few minutes for the smell inside to dissipate enough. I'm sure I'm still getting some exposure but it is a more reasonable amount.
- teraflop 8y ago
  I'd say "stinks" is a bit of an overstatement, unless you have a very sensitive nose. I've only tried printing with ABS a couple of times, but to me it smells almost exactly like an old photocopier... kind of nostalgic.
  - bradfa 8y ago
    All the FDM printers I've been around when they print with ABS end up making my eyes water and give me a headache if I stay near them for more than a minute or two. Possibly the types of ABS used matters for this but I cannot stand near an ABS printer without really noticing it affect me. PLA has a definite smell but doesn't seem to affect me physically.
deng 8y ago
Anyone with a working nose cannot be really surprised about that, especially w.r.t. ABS printing. There's a reason why things that burn/melt things usually have an exhaust of some kind. I'm sure those will become mandatory at some time, and rightfully so. Just like thermal runaway protection should be mandatory, and yet many cheap 3D printers don't have it either. That should actually worry people more than nano particles. I'm still amazed how many people let their printers run while no one is at home (yes, there's OctoPrint+Webcam, but last I checked that couldn't put out a fire...).
- octorian 8y ago
  > I'm still amazed how many people let their printers run while no one is at home When it takes 12-24 hours (or perhaps more) to complete a larger print, are you really going to sit around and watch the thing? No, you're going to go about your life until its finished. That means sleeping, going to work, etc.
  - cassianoleal 8y ago
    I have done 3-day long prints and have seen reports of 21+ days for a single print. This all from hobbyists who have full-time jobs. It would be impossible to sit next to the printer for the entire print time for any big/complex enough print.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      The argument is not about it being practically possible, but whether you should. Though I also disagree with that.
amelius 8y ago
How safe are the printed objects?
- steve19 8y ago
  As safe as any other plastic object made from the same material.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    Well for example - printed objects are generally not foodsafe. They are fine to touch and whatnot, but they have too many little niches for food that I would not 3d print myself a spoon..
nine_k 8y ago
So many man-designed processes produce nano-particles. What natural processes produce them, too? I expect many would. How does nature cope with this?
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  Soil erosion. A dry atmosphere is full of nano-particles (and yes they are harmful). But natural particles tend to be larger and more benign than most human made ones. Nature copes with them the same way it copes with ever other long term problem: it affects individuals, and individuals are all dead at the long term anyway.
  - flybrand 8y ago
    Many allergies are due to microparticles - which have individual features that are in the nano realm.
  - ip26 8y ago
    Owens Lake comes to mind http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-owens-lake-birds-20180425-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-owens-lake-bir...
- moate 8y ago
  Volcanic ash or, more topically, wildfires are some more good examples. I'm not sure what you mean by "cope". There's so many things that are nature, and many are entirely unaffected while others are irreparably affected immediately. If you kill off a whole bunch of prey animals all at once you might see a decline in predators, a simultaneous explosion of scavengers, and then a correction as the predators switch to the scavengers as their primary prey. Or you might see a complete ecosystem collapse. Natural systems are so many things from the water cycle to the flora and fauna to the geological systems.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    "Cope" here is "how we are not dying from them". Either our bodies have adapted to some nanoparticles (mineral, but not plastic yet), or we're far enough away that the natural particles get absorbed by e.g. ocean waters or soil and don't readily get into our lungs. Another case, which I totally overlooked, is pollen and dust, which do result in serious negative reactions in humans, quite regularly. This may be not outright deadly but debilitating nevertheless.
8fingerlouie 8y ago
Personally i never leave my printers "unattended", as in i'm at home, but i don't watch them constantly when they're printing. They're in a room that is normally closed when they're running, and is properly ventilated to the outside after. ABS is printed in the garage. I made a "better than nothing" auto off switch using an Arduino, a 230V relay, a couple of MQ2 smoke detectors, and a couple of DS18B20 digital thermometers. The MQ-2 is mounted about 50cm above my printers frame, one for each printer, connected to an arduino which has a relay controlling power to the printers. If smoke is detected, or the temperature rises above 45C, it cuts the power to all printers. The arduino defaults to off, requiring manual intervention to turn it on again via a push button. If the arduino loses power, so does the printers. It probably won't prevent the house from burning down, but in case of an electrical fire it should shut that down pretty good. The problem is the filament itself. It burns like a candle, so if the flames ever make it to the filament, it should have no problems continuing to the spool, setting the house ablaze.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Is your setup documented anywhere? I'd be interested in seeing those schematics and code. You could always mount some of those fire extinguisher balls over the printers - no need for fancy electronics. Might ruin the printer though...
  - 8fingerlouie 8y ago
    I may have an old schematic in Fritzing, but i doubt it. I never got around to documenting it, but it's simple enough. My Macbook developed a "hunchback" and is currently having it's battery replaced, so i can't check the details. IIRC, i wired the relay to a default off, and there's button wired to the arduino that needs to be pushed before it turns on the relay. It then stays that way until one of the MQ-2 or DS18B20 sensors detect a reading that's outside normal operating parameters, or power is cycled. I spent quite a few hours fine tuning the MQ-2 with cigarette smoke, vape "smoke", and finally burning filament. The bad news is that the MQ-2 is rather cheap, so they need a long "burn in" period before they start giving even remotely consistent readings, and then they still vary wildly from each other. Once burn in is over though, they're rather consistent with their own readings, just don't try to match them to the neighbor :) As for the extinguisher balls, i considered it, but they looked like they'd probably destroy more than they would save. I keep my printers on floor tiles, ~60cm away from any wall, and with 160cm to the ceiling, so any small fire would have trouble spreading. If the fire was to spread beyond that, i doubt the fire extinguisher balls could save it. I was looking into CO2 cannisters, but couldn't find any that could be activated by an electrical circuit, and while i could probably design a mechanical part to activate a regular fire extinguisher, i'm not sure i would trust it.
flybrand 8y ago
I wrote a blog post about one of the earlier studies in 2013 [see below]. HEPA filters can still be effective - the study doesn't talk about the charge of the UFPs - and the 0.3 micron DoP particles used in HEPA testing are designed to be uncharged. It is common designing filter media to use charged media to attract small particles. If you were running a 3D printer and concerned about this risk, I would suggest: 1/ Encapsulate the unit. 2/ Wear a mask when the enclosure is open. 3/ Ensure a steady flow of process air when running to prevent accumulation. You could also run at a negative pressure to keep USPs in the enclosure. 4/ Have a filter bank on the air outlet that you change out regularly. Pair a HEPA element with a highly charged media. Link to 2013 blog post: https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular-media-ultrafine-particles-and-3d-printing/ https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular...
newnewpdro 8y ago
In case this feels like dejavu for the graybeards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_health_risks,_and_precautions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_...

146 points by elijahparker 8y ago

TL;DR: "We were able to measure that there are some toxic particles emanated, but failed to produce any meaningful results about quantity of said particles, or potential danger to consumers, in any way." To me that says, the quantities they did measure were too low to publish for this alarmist article. From the article: >all tests indicated at least some level of toxic response (though the toxic response varied by filament type). >The sheer variety of the toxic substances produced by these printers was alarming. No less than 200 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) uh huh. The "sheer variety is alarming" line was about where my eyes started to roll, finishing their 135° journey after confirming there are no meaningful stats in this article.

Negative1 8y ago
The corrolary of an alarmist report is a dismissive viewpoint. Theres evidence here that FDM printers emit toxic fumes. If you want to believe it's really not so bad, fine, close your made up mind. If there is a chance that filament fumes are harmful, people need to be made aware. They're setting these things up in grade school STEM/STEAM programs; there is potential for real harm here and not pursuing more research is irresponsible.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Agreed 100%. Them blowing this off because they don't feel like it has enough data or teeth I think is a big mistake. There's a distinct possibility that there will be a 3d printer in every classroom/office/home at some point in the future (just like regular printers eventually graduated to be everywhere). Discussing that there might actually be some toxic issues with these printers now can head off a potential future where tons of people including children are getting sick due to something that we didn't test enough or look at with enough skepticism before it gained mass acceptance. It's win/win really... they become safer if they are found to be emiting toxic fumes and people can feel more comfortable having a safer 3d printer around them. I just don't see the downside... Much like how there are wall paints that have low or no VOCs I imagine we'd want these printers to head in the same direction. Why would anyone say... oh yeah these paints have a variety of VOCs they emit. Sounds alarmist and I don't see enough evidence so we shouldn't explore further and come up with ones that don't potentially harm people.
  - GistNoesis 8y ago
    I'm worried it will impact the cost of filament and printers. Unless there is a cheap way to test and certify filaments. Volumes are still quite low. Regulation risk concentrating filament production into monopolies. Then it will be hard to trust that those certification anyway.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      Super valid concern. I imagine it will raise the price considerably and there will be 'safe!' 3d printers that cost a ton because they've been certified and have filaments and suction/vacuum/air pushing systems that have been tested and show no ill effects towards humans. It seems inevitable, but I'd imagine price will come down in a while as things scale. It also does open the door for someone to come in and make a vent/hood system that works for many types of 3d printers so I guess there's that...
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The study specifically targeted ABS which is known to emit fumes but the banner headline is overly alarmist by attacking all of 3d printing even though few use ABS. Working in a Harbor Freight store is a far greater hazard for VOC exposure.
simias 8y ago
I also tend to be a bit numb to these "x found to be (somewhat) toxic" news items because, well, there are so many of them. That being said it's not very rational to dismiss them entirely either. Especially in this case, unless you're working in a 3D printing farm it shouldn't be too difficult to work around these problems. If you have a 3D printer on your desk consider moving it to a more isolated, well ventilated location. Maybe buy a couple more fans and an enclosure.

netgusto 8y ago

Some figures about the UFP emitted by FDM: https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/ https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/ From this one data point, it seems that ABS is the big emitter.

Mashimo 8y ago
Here is another one [1] taken from [2] Though that is just one graph out of many. With modern PLA getting better and better, it's rare people use ABS. Makes me wonder how harmful PLA is. I want to add an HEPA filter anyway. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/uast20/2017/uast20.v051.i11/02786826.2017.1342029/20180430/images/large/uast_a_1342029_f0006_oc.jpeg https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/t... [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2017.1342029 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2017.1...
- steve19 8y ago
  PLAs lower melting point is the issue. I only print PLA, mainly because it's less toxic, but I dare not print a part that might end up in a hot car, near a heating source or outside.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    That is true. I only 3d print trinkets for games, so PLA is great. Never have used ABS but the stories about the small has kept me away.
  - torbjorn 8y ago
    I am shocked by how many people use 3d printed parts in the kitchen, printed PLA is not a food safe matieral. And if you print a toy for your kids it's gonna end up in their mouth at some point...
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      See here [1]. No FDM printed item is going to be food safe because the layered properties allow the accumulation of bacteria, but PLA is generally non-toxic and will only leach a few "safe in small quantities" chemicals into things it comes in contact with. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027869159400145E http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/02786915940...

newnewpdro 8y ago

Is anyone honestly surprised that melting plastic produces toxic particulates/fumes? It should go without saying that one would want these machines enclosed in a ventilated space separated from people.

ndnxhs 8y ago
The most common filament used (PLA) is labeled as non toxic and is made of mostly corn. So yes it would be surprising if that was found to be toxic.
- rvense 8y ago
  I don't find this surprising, knowing that fried or baked starchy foods contain at least one carcinogenic element, called acrylamide. Its name sounds nasty and it's provably quite bad, but bread is still one of the corner stones civilization. We need to quantify these risks, educate builders and make 3D printers as safe as possible, but TFA did give me a slight sense of alarmism.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  You know these labels on cigarettes that state the smoke contains at least 253 toxic chemicals? The smoke from other plants of course contains at least about 200 of the same chemicals.
  - goldenkey 8y ago
    People think the formaldehyde and all these other chemicals with spooky names were added by the bad cigarette companies..but not so!! Whenever any hydrocarbon is burned, a characteristic distribution of alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes is formed -- with the nastiest and most "radical" chemicals (like the alkynes), appearing with the lowest frequency. That's why smoking has almost no risk unless repeated. With enough exposure, those minimal alkynes add up. And they destroy DNA and wreak general havok due to their bond energy. I know I just reiterated your point. Thank you for making the point - smoke is what is a probabilistic distribution of energetic hydrocarbons -- not the plant!!
  - 8y ago

rambojazz 8y ago

This is hardly surprising though, and it was inevitable that studies started to emerge.

Hextinium 8y ago

As someone who has a 3d printer running about a quarter of the time less than 10 feet away from me hearing that it could be bad for me is alarming that it could be harming me. (Other than the lost sleep because its loud) When though of as a risk benefit analysis though I come to the strong conclusion that I will use my printer no matter what because it is the compiler to my hobby: no printer, much harder time making stuff. I don't need to iterate on the greatness of them here but they have the potential to radically help teach people how to make stuff which drastically helps in industry. My main concern with these articles is that there is no relative risk factor presented against. I have no idea if these particulates are something it would be worthy to invest in an enclosure or are there low levels which are permittable. I know that I personally am much more likely to have health complications from almost anything else but to someone else reading the above article they may draw the conclusion that 3d could be dangerous and should be restricted. If a person shows up to a school board meeting throwing a fit that they are running 3d printers with children in the same room then it looks bad on the printers, possibly having them removed and to generalize I think that that is the last thing anyone wants. Ninja edit: formating

tinus_hn 8y ago
You could of course try for some adequate ventilation and an enclosure instead of just ignoring the issue.
- sharpneli 8y ago
  This. It's not a big deal. Soldering also produces harmful fumes and as long as you ventilate properly it's not a big deal. Just do an image search for "solder ventilation" for ideas on how to do it. Regardless of this I kinda do understand the motivation to ignore the issue. People are afraid that there will be a panic and it's going to be banned.
  - ekr 8y ago
    And some people (including myself) actually enjoy the smell of molten rosin flux.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago

Isn't something like, a HEPA available in most home air filters, enough to remove most particles?

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Should be better than nothing in any case. A guideline mentioning that there should be extraction and proper ventilation near 3D printers - just like in laser printers, soldering stations, etc - would probably be wise.
- Moru 8y ago
  Yes, let's not forget what laser printers used to spew out. Not sure if that got any better with time?
meesterdude 8y ago
not the 0.1 size particles they talk about - all but the highest end filters cant remove that small. The best bet is to treat it like a gas and exhaust it.
- flybrand 8y ago
  A 0.3 micron filter will still remove some of the 0.1 micron material. Filtration works in lots of ways. Also, it is likely that the 0.1 micron particles here have a charge. The 0.3 micron test particle used for HEPA evaluation specifically does not have a charge. Using charged filter media is a common method to capture particles that are too small for the holes / pores in the filter element.

snarfy 8y ago

Once I got my homemade printer working, the first thing I did was build a 100% air sealed enclosure. Melted ABS stinks.

flybrand 8y ago
What other precautions did you take? Do you turn the air over inside the enclosure or wear a mask?
- snarfy 8y ago
  That's the only precaution. I thought about adding an air filter inside the enclosure but it's overkill. If it's 100% air sealed you don't smell anything while it's printing, and if the printer has finished printing it only takes a few minutes for the smell inside to dissipate enough. I'm sure I'm still getting some exposure but it is a more reasonable amount.
teraflop 8y ago
I'd say "stinks" is a bit of an overstatement, unless you have a very sensitive nose. I've only tried printing with ABS a couple of times, but to me it smells almost exactly like an old photocopier... kind of nostalgic.
- bradfa 8y ago
  All the FDM printers I've been around when they print with ABS end up making my eyes water and give me a headache if I stay near them for more than a minute or two. Possibly the types of ABS used matters for this but I cannot stand near an ABS printer without really noticing it affect me. PLA has a definite smell but doesn't seem to affect me physically.

deng 8y ago

Anyone with a working nose cannot be really surprised about that, especially w.r.t. ABS printing. There's a reason why things that burn/melt things usually have an exhaust of some kind. I'm sure those will become mandatory at some time, and rightfully so. Just like thermal runaway protection should be mandatory, and yet many cheap 3D printers don't have it either. That should actually worry people more than nano particles. I'm still amazed how many people let their printers run while no one is at home (yes, there's OctoPrint+Webcam, but last I checked that couldn't put out a fire...).

octorian 8y ago
> I'm still amazed how many people let their printers run while no one is at home When it takes 12-24 hours (or perhaps more) to complete a larger print, are you really going to sit around and watch the thing? No, you're going to go about your life until its finished. That means sleeping, going to work, etc.
- cassianoleal 8y ago
  I have done 3-day long prints and have seen reports of 21+ days for a single print. This all from hobbyists who have full-time jobs. It would be impossible to sit next to the printer for the entire print time for any big/complex enough print.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    The argument is not about it being practically possible, but whether you should. Though I also disagree with that.

amelius 8y ago

How safe are the printed objects?

steve19 8y ago
As safe as any other plastic object made from the same material.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Well for example - printed objects are generally not foodsafe. They are fine to touch and whatnot, but they have too many little niches for food that I would not 3d print myself a spoon..

nine_k 8y ago

So many man-designed processes produce nano-particles. What natural processes produce them, too? I expect many would. How does nature cope with this?

marcosdumay 8y ago
Soil erosion. A dry atmosphere is full of nano-particles (and yes they are harmful). But natural particles tend to be larger and more benign than most human made ones. Nature copes with them the same way it copes with ever other long term problem: it affects individuals, and individuals are all dead at the long term anyway.
- flybrand 8y ago
  Many allergies are due to microparticles - which have individual features that are in the nano realm.
- ip26 8y ago
  Owens Lake comes to mind http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-owens-lake-birds-20180425-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-owens-lake-bir...
moate 8y ago
Volcanic ash or, more topically, wildfires are some more good examples. I'm not sure what you mean by "cope". There's so many things that are nature, and many are entirely unaffected while others are irreparably affected immediately. If you kill off a whole bunch of prey animals all at once you might see a decline in predators, a simultaneous explosion of scavengers, and then a correction as the predators switch to the scavengers as their primary prey. Or you might see a complete ecosystem collapse. Natural systems are so many things from the water cycle to the flora and fauna to the geological systems.
- nine_k 8y ago
  "Cope" here is "how we are not dying from them". Either our bodies have adapted to some nanoparticles (mineral, but not plastic yet), or we're far enough away that the natural particles get absorbed by e.g. ocean waters or soil and don't readily get into our lungs. Another case, which I totally overlooked, is pollen and dust, which do result in serious negative reactions in humans, quite regularly. This may be not outright deadly but debilitating nevertheless.

8fingerlouie 8y ago

Personally i never leave my printers "unattended", as in i'm at home, but i don't watch them constantly when they're printing. They're in a room that is normally closed when they're running, and is properly ventilated to the outside after. ABS is printed in the garage. I made a "better than nothing" auto off switch using an Arduino, a 230V relay, a couple of MQ2 smoke detectors, and a couple of DS18B20 digital thermometers. The MQ-2 is mounted about 50cm above my printers frame, one for each printer, connected to an arduino which has a relay controlling power to the printers. If smoke is detected, or the temperature rises above 45C, it cuts the power to all printers. The arduino defaults to off, requiring manual intervention to turn it on again via a push button. If the arduino loses power, so does the printers. It probably won't prevent the house from burning down, but in case of an electrical fire it should shut that down pretty good. The problem is the filament itself. It burns like a candle, so if the flames ever make it to the filament, it should have no problems continuing to the spool, setting the house ablaze.

vorpalhex 8y ago
Is your setup documented anywhere? I'd be interested in seeing those schematics and code. You could always mount some of those fire extinguisher balls over the printers - no need for fancy electronics. Might ruin the printer though...
- 8fingerlouie 8y ago
  I may have an old schematic in Fritzing, but i doubt it. I never got around to documenting it, but it's simple enough. My Macbook developed a "hunchback" and is currently having it's battery replaced, so i can't check the details. IIRC, i wired the relay to a default off, and there's button wired to the arduino that needs to be pushed before it turns on the relay. It then stays that way until one of the MQ-2 or DS18B20 sensors detect a reading that's outside normal operating parameters, or power is cycled. I spent quite a few hours fine tuning the MQ-2 with cigarette smoke, vape "smoke", and finally burning filament. The bad news is that the MQ-2 is rather cheap, so they need a long "burn in" period before they start giving even remotely consistent readings, and then they still vary wildly from each other. Once burn in is over though, they're rather consistent with their own readings, just don't try to match them to the neighbor :) As for the extinguisher balls, i considered it, but they looked like they'd probably destroy more than they would save. I keep my printers on floor tiles, ~60cm away from any wall, and with 160cm to the ceiling, so any small fire would have trouble spreading. If the fire was to spread beyond that, i doubt the fire extinguisher balls could save it. I was looking into CO2 cannisters, but couldn't find any that could be activated by an electrical circuit, and while i could probably design a mechanical part to activate a regular fire extinguisher, i'm not sure i would trust it.

flybrand 8y ago

I wrote a blog post about one of the earlier studies in 2013 [see below]. HEPA filters can still be effective - the study doesn't talk about the charge of the UFPs - and the 0.3 micron DoP particles used in HEPA testing are designed to be uncharged. It is common designing filter media to use charged media to attract small particles. If you were running a 3D printer and concerned about this risk, I would suggest: 1/ Encapsulate the unit. 2/ Wear a mask when the enclosure is open. 3/ Ensure a steady flow of process air when running to prevent accumulation. You could also run at a negative pressure to keep USPs in the enclosure. 4/ Have a filter bank on the air outlet that you change out regularly. Pair a HEPA element with a highly charged media. Link to 2013 blog post: https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular-media-ultrafine-particles-and-3d-printing/ https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular...

newnewpdro 8y ago

In case this feels like dejavu for the graybeards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_health_risks,_and_precautions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_...