3D Printing and Air Quality, Part 2

Image credit: Tom’s 3D Printing Guides and Reviews, https://toms3d.org/

I recently discussed air quality issues related to 3D printing. Shortly after posting my thoughts, I came across an article/blog and accompanying YouTube video by Thomas (“Tom”) Sanladerer that addresses the same key issues that I’m concerned about: what are the health risks related to 3D printing, and what can we do about it? Overall I felt that his work was very interesting and appropriate for the medium in which it was presented: a personal website and social media.

I’ll start with a quick critique. From the perspective of a scientific publication (which I realize is NOT the intent, nor does the author attempt to convey his work as a scientific publication), the main shortcoming of Tom’s work is that it was hard to understand the primary objectives and study methods. Based on “The Question” section, initially it sounded like he was simply trying to quantify emissions across different kinds of filaments which is further corroborated by the “Sensor Build” section. But in the “Test Setup” section he goes on to discuss that his purpose was to “check whether enclosures can help with emissions”. Then in the “Mitigation” section he starts to discuss filtration and extraction systems in addition to enclosures. Therefore, if you’re expecting to read a scientific publication similar to one published in peer-reviewed journals, you’ll find that it may resemble them in some ways, but it’s not organized as such. It may be that with a little bit of work, his study could be repurposed into a manuscript and accepted into a scientific journal.

However, Tom’s work has some advantages over traditional research publications. First, his findings are presented in a very clear manner, both in the paper and the YouTube video. There are lots of photographs and figures that engage the reader to learn more about his efforts to improve air quality related to 3D printing. Second, his work is very informative. For example, he discusses the differences between particulate emissions and volatile organic compounds. He also provides some detail about how he built his own sensors for his investigation. While this kind of information can be found in scientific publications (usually in a Background section), he is able to combine educational content with his intervention because his work is a hybrid between a review article and interventional study. Finally, the main advantage of Tom’s work is his potential reach into the 3D printing community. While most 3D printing enthusiasts will not spend time performing literature reviews in medical bibliographic databases, they are more likely to watch YouTube videos and come across his study (which is admittedly how I learned of his work).

One of the many important lessons we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that communication of information often does not originate from the most reputable of sources. The general public is unlikely to look up randomized controlled trials to assess vaccine effectiveness—rather, they listen to people who they know and who they trust, whether it be a celebrity, an athlete, or heaven forbid—a politician. My point is that the level of scientific rigor is far less important here, and I applaud Tom Sanladerer for creating excellent content for the 3D printing community to consider, the key message being that 3D printing may be associated with health risks, and we should be more mindful about how to mitigate those health risks. Until all 3D printer manufacturers build the necessary filtration capabilities into 3D printers, the onus is on the consumer to take safety into their own hands. Safe 3D printing everyone!