3D Printing and Air Quality, Part 3

I previously discussed 3D printing air quality issues and mitigation approaches here and here. In this post, I’d like to highlight another informative resource—a YouTube video by Jonathan Levi whose screen name is The Next Layer. His video is called “I was DEAD WRONG about air quality” and can be viewed here:

He admits that he is not a scientist, and he also acknowledges that his video is sponsored by a company that makes a featured air circulation unit. That being said, his semi-scientific methods led him to some insightful conclusions. First of all, air filtration is an important approach to improving air quality, but air circulation (room ventilation) are just as important, and a multi-pronged approach may be needed to purify air in 3D printing workspaces. He also noted that despite a combination of filtration and circulation, it often took a long time (e.g., sometimes overnight) to bring air quality back to normal. He also pointed out that outside air can have its own impurities—namely particular matter—depending on where you live. But the impurities of outside air are likely to be particular matter and less likely to be volatile organic compounds, so air circulation would still likely be highly beneficial.

Check out the links in his video description for other informative resources.

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!

3D Printing and Air Quality

I’ve been a 3D printing hobbyist since May 2023. The ability to download or even make my own models and 3D print them into physical objects has been fascinating to me. I was so enthralled by this technology that I had only more recently started to seriously contemplate the potential health risks related to 3D printing. Unlike certain activities such as driving a car, skiing, and scuba diving where there are obvious risks for adverse health outcomes, the hidden risk of 3D printing is related to long-term exposure of aerosolized plastic byproducts of the 3D printing process.

A review article entitled “Summary and derived Risk Assessment of 3D printing emission studies” provides a summary of 50 studies related to 3D printing emissions and is the most recent comprehensive analysis I’ve seen. The following figure illustrates the particle formation process in which heating of filament results in the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and when the VOCs cool, they form small particles or condensate onto other existing particles.

What can be done to reduce health risks relate to 3D printing emissions? The following figure summarizes methods that have been studied and published and categorizes them into methods that reduce risk of emissions (on the left) and methods that are inconclusive.

The methods that have been demonstrated to reduce risk of emissions include:

• Lower print temperature
• PLA instead of ABS
• Larger room volume
• Higher air exchange rate
• Avoiding malfunctions
• Using a cover

It seems to me that the long-term health risks of 3D printing emissions are still not completely understood. The popularity of consumer 3D printing is rising, especially given the advances by 3D printer manufacturers related to ease of use, so more studies of long-term outcomes related to exposure of 3D printing emissions is warranted. Meanwhile, I think we must assume that we could be doing more to protect ourselves from emissions.

I have had 2 bedslinger 3D printers: a Creality Ender-3 V2 Neo and now a Bambu Lab A1 Combo. Neither one has an enclosure or filtration system to combat filament emissions, and I’ve used both 3D printers in my living room. I’ve always printed with PLA because of its popularity, low cost, and multiple colors available. It is merely by coincidence that it has the lowest emissions of all filament types, but that is certainly a driving force for me to stay with PLA. A few months ago, I placed an air filter next to my 3D printer (as pictured at the top of this post). My air filter has both a HEPA filter that is supposed to trap airborne particles and an activated carbon pre-filter that is supposed to trap VOCs.

As you can see, my setup is suboptimal because of the lack of an enclosure, so despite the presence of the air filter in proximity to the nozzle, it is probably only trapping a fraction of all the emissions, at least initially. Therefore, my general routine when using my 3D printer is to run the air filter on its highest air exchange rate setting while printing, open windows in the living room if outdoor weather permits, and leave the air filter running for a while after the print is completed. I’m open to suggestions related to further reducing exposure to 3D printing emissions.

What’s Your Local Air Quality Index?

Since wildfires are burning across the western states, the air quality has been worse than usual in many parts of California, Oregon, and Washington due to the smoke.

Did you know that there is an air quality index (AQI) that quantifies the amount of pollutants in the air? It runs on a scale from 0 to 500, with higher values representing greater health hazards.

To find out AQI values in your area, visit AirNow which is a website run by the Environmental Protection Agency. There is also a mobile app for Android and iOS. Here’s an example of the current air quality in Los Angeles:

There is also a Fire and Smoke Map that overlays—you guessed it—fires and smoke information on the same map. Here’s a view of the continental United States which gives you an idea of how far-reaching the effects are of the smoke from all the wildfires:

You can drill down to see information for a particular wildfire:

And you can also click on each of the colored dots to view information that has been acquired from a specific air quality sensor.

There is a lot of other information on AirNow, including an option to receive air quality notifications.