3D printing solvents Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

Nexa3D Acquires NXT Factory, Introduces Eco-Friendly 3D Printing Washing Solvent

While Nexa3D may specialize in manufacturing super-fast stereolithography 3D printers, the company has been branching out recently, and narrowing its focus on the materials side of things. It launched the high-performance polymer xCE-Black in May, followed soon after with the announcement of a partnership with Henkel to commercialize xMED412, a high-impact material for printing biocompatible medical and wearable devices. Now, Nexa3D has announced that xCLEAN, its new eco-friendly washing solvent for resin and photopolymer 3D printers, is commercially available.

“I am very proud of our entire team for stepping-up during this unprecedented pandemic, and quickly pivoting internal developments and external collaborations to adeptly support our growing customer base and communities. “Throughout this challenging period, we’ve continued to expand the range of our high impact, durable photoplastics, and we are rolling out new productivity tools for the additive manufacturing industry,” said Nexa3D’s CEO and Co-Founder Avi Reichental. “Together with our growing partner network, we are committed to helping our customers improve their design agility, and supply chain resiliency by reducing the time required to produce functional prototypes and production parts from hours to just minutes.”

xCLEAN, compatible with most photopolymeric resin printers, including close loop systems, automated cleaners, and washing units currently on the market, and is safer to handle than other popular cleaning solvents, though it’s not been cleared to use in the cleaning of parts 3D printed out of biocompatible resins.

This material is easy to recycle, as well as recover with the help of a vacuum-assist distillation unit, and doesn’t need any of the typical adherence to shipping regulations or special storage that most post-processing photopolymeric parts require.

“xCLEAN’s development is a powerful reminder that necessity is the mother of invention. We were forced to explore alternatives to isopropyl alcohol (IPA) during the initial Covid-19 surge as IPA became extremely scarce and costs skyrocketed,” explained Nexa3D’s Head of Customer Success Brent Zollinger. ” After considering dozens of candidates, we zeroed in on xCLEAN and quickly embraced it as our go-to cleaning solvent. Having processed thousands of serial production parts in our flexible factory with superior results, we decided to share this incredible cleaner with our customers and invite the entire photopolymer 3D printing community to give it a try.”

Made from molecules that are smaller than DPM and TPM, xCLEAN is extremely effective, and doesn’t have any of the gross, greasy residue that you get with these two alternative materials; just rinse it off with water. It’s also sustainable, with three times the saturation limit of IPA, which means that it lasts three times as long and requires fewer changeovers and generates less waste.

xCLEAN can be ordered for immediate delivery here, or from one of Nexa3D’s authorized resellers. A single 5-gallon container will cost you about $320. To see the material in action, check out the video below:

But materials haven’t been the company’s only focus during COVID-19—the company just announced that it has acquired NXT Factory, which manufactures ultra-fast selective laser sintering (SLS) production systems powered by its proprietary Quantum Laser Sintering (QLS) technology.

“We are thrilled to join forces with Nexa3D and together unleash the power and potential of our products. COVID-19 propelled both of our companies to demonstrate the unique capabilities of our complementary additive manufacturing power as we quickly ramped into full production of personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare workers. This crisis has helped showcase the incredibly rapid and flexible nature of our combined additive manufacturing capabilities compared to traditional manufacturing and demonstrates how vulnerable the global manufacturing supply chain is to unexpected disruptions,” stated Kuba Graczyk, the Co-Founder and CEO of NXT Factory. “Together, we are committed to taking additive manufacturing to the next level and realizing its full potential.”

The two companies have entered into an agreement that states Nexa3D will acquire all the outstanding shares of NXT Factory, and the stockholders and boards of directors of both companies have approved the transaction, the details of which were not disclosed publicly.

By combining NXT Factory and Nexa3D’s high-speed technologies, the company is strengthening its capabilities and portfolio of production-grade materials. Nexa3D will now have access to NXT Factory’s range of powder fusion, supply chain-approved plastics, which will essentially double its addressable market and strongly position it for increased growth in the industry.

Leveraging its relationships with other key material suppliers, Nexa3D will be able to diversify its revenue streams by offering access to 100% of currently available polymer applications

“Stereolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) are the cornerstones of additive manufacturing of plastics, so I am honored and proud to be part of the team that is uniting the two companies that are taking both technologies to their full potential. Having worked side by side with the Nexa3D team over the past four years in Ventura, California, sharing facilities, exhibiting jointly at tradeshows, witnessing untold technological breakthroughs and rapid expansion, there is no doubt in my mind that this is the perfect match for both of our companies. I am excited to join this dream team and contribute towards the creation of a leading fourth generation additive manufacturing powerhouse,” said Tomasz Cieszynski, Co-Founder and CTO of NXT Factory.

Subject to customary and other deal-specific closing conditions being met, the transaction should be completed as soon as practically possible.

(Source/Images: Nexa3D)

The post Nexa3D Acquires NXT Factory, Introduces Eco-Friendly 3D Printing Washing Solvent appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

BCN3D Testes Chemical Resistance of Eight Common 3D Printing Materials

A material’s ability to resist degradation, erosion, or impregnation from contact with liquids, solids, or vapors of a different nature, like chemical solvents, acids, and bases, is known as chemical resistance, and it’s pretty important to achieving successful parts. When you’re choosing the materials you want to use for 3D printed end-use applications, especially for industrial purposes, you should know each element’s chemical resistance. Some 3D printing materials can swell when exposed to the liquids or vapors of solvents, like alcohols, esters, ketones, fuel, brake fluid, motor oil, and various mixtures of mineral and synthetic hydrocarbons, which changes the end part’s mechanical properties and shape. Industrial parts need to be able to hold up well under contact with these kinds of corrosive products, so filaments should be chosen wisely.

Barcelona-based desktop 3D printer manufacturer BCN3D Technologies wanted to investigate the behavior of its main filaments when they came in contact with corrosive products, in order to better inform customers on which materials should be used for specific applications. So the company put eight of its materials to the test by pitting them against an organic solvent’s chemical attack.

“This experiment was carried out by partially immersing these 3D printed parts in a small volume of organic solvent,” BCN3D wrote. “The corrosive agent chosen was Nitro-P, which is used to dilute paints and is very aggressive. To maximize the damage, the 3D printed parts were immersed in the solvent for a period of 24 hours, and their change in shape and properties was monitored by a timelapse camera followed by a visual and physical evaluation.”

The team wanted to simulate the effect caused on a 3D printed object when a solvent is accidentally splashed on it – quite a common occurrence in workshop and factory environments. The goal was to show users how important it is to choose the right filament for the end application, and risk of chemical exposure, so that the final product is safe and durable. The same print settings were used to fabricate parts with a shape that was designed to “favor the material degradation” out of the following filaments:

Polylactic acid (PLA)
Polyethylene terephthalate – glycol (PET-G)
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
Polyamide (PA)
Polypropylene (PP)
High Temperature Polyamide carbon fiber reinforced (PAHT CF15)
Polypropylene glass fiber reinforced (PP GF30)

BCN3D hypothesized that the parts 3D printed out of PP would come out fully intact, while the PLA and ABS parts would be most affected by the solvent and hygroscopic materials (absorbing moisture from the air), like TPU and PA, would likely increase in volume.

So, what ended up happening?

They were right about the PLA and the ABS – the geometry of the 3D printed PLA part was totally, and quickly, changed by the solvent. The layers were separated, which broke the part, and the surface finish dimmed from bright to matte. Additionally, its thickness increased by 60%. The thickness of the ABS was only reduced by 15%, but the layers still separated, making the part viscous where it was submerged. Degradation was constant, causing the ABS to dissolve, and it was the only sample that changed above the level of the liquid: the evaporated solvent caused it to become brighter.

TPU sample

The TPU sample absorbed the solvent quickly, which caused its thickness to increase by a whopping 150%. BCN3D explained that the absorption generated “delaminations in the submerged part of the model as a result of the increase in volume due to the polarity of the solvent and the absorption capacity of TPU,” but once the absorbed solvent evaporated, the part “recovered its original properties,” which led the team to believe the results were “a phenomenon of physical adsorption without dissolution of the polymer.”

The thickness of the PA sample increased by 10%, and the effects of the solvent also caused it to gain flexibility. The PAHT CF15 also increased its flexibility and thickness in the solvent, but there was no dissolution of the material in the solution. This one swelled a little, but held on to its resistance and original shape.

The surface finish of the PET-G sample lost its brightness, though the solvent smoothed and softened its surface. The layers were slightly concealed due to the superficial polishing caused by the solvent, and the thickness and flexibility both increased. But while it lost most of its rigidity and resistance, the part did remain in its general shape.

Neither the PP nor the PP GF30 were terribly affected by the solvent during the test, showing no change in mechanical behavior or variations of either an aesthetic or dimensional sort. The PA did swell a bit, but managed to keep most of its original resistance and shape. The experiment shows that these two materials are ideal for 3D printed industrial applications where parts need to hold up under contact with other corrosive substances.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

The post BCN3D Testes Chemical Resistance of Eight Common 3D Printing Materials appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printed Polymers: Solvent Compatibility Charts Must Be Dedicated Rather Than Simple

Authors Kirill S. Erokhin, Evgeniy G. Gordeev, and Valentine P. Ananikov, researchers from Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, delve into a new level of 3D printing science, outlined in the recently published ‘Revealing interactions of layered polymeric materials at solid-liquid interface for building solvent compatibility charts for 3D printing applications.’

Strength and stability in 3D printed parts is an ongoing area of refinement for users today, and researchers have performed a multitude of experiments on materials to figure out how to get better results, creating new algorithms, studying causes and effects on porosity, and ways to eliminate structural defects. This study is centered around the effects of chemicals, however, as the authors evaluate how thermoplastics respond to a variety of solvents.

While there are the obvious challenges in creating nearly any kind of part or prototype, the benefits can be immense in many applications such as medicine and related areas such as tissue engineering, aerospace, automotive, agriculture, and so much more—with the potential for infinite innovation; however, for functional parts being used in critical applications, stability must be ensured. Microstructures may be changed during the printing process, porosity may affect quality, and exposure to organic solvents may cause chemical breakdown.

Materials like polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyphenylsulfone (PPSU) and polyetherimide (Ultem) may show chemical resistance along with displaying superior mechanical properties, but for most ‘superconstruction materials,’ customized, expensive 3D printers are required to main the high temperatures (350–400 °C) required during successful fabrication:

“Besides, the materials themselves are expensive (as compared with the conventional production-grade thermoplastics), which makes their routine use not very common. Despite the high demand for strong and chemically resistant FDM materials with low shrinkage, the efforts towards their development are still limited,” explain the researchers.

“As an important limitation, 3D printing is poorly suitable for production of plastic objects to be exposed to liquid media. The limitation is due to susceptibility of the plastics to the action of liquid chemicals.”

Simple adjustment of printing parameters could offer the solution to creating parts that are more structurally sound though, even with significant exposure to solvents. The authors performed a comparative model experiment with a cylindrical part and an identical 3D printed copy.

As they immersed the parts in DCM, the 3D printed part began to lose its integrity quickly.

Representation of stability test of FDM parts in liquid media. (a) PLA parts made by standard extruding technology; (b) PLA parts made in this work by FDM 3D printing; (c) macrophotos of the extruded part (left) and FDM printed part (right) with same diameter 2.85 mm; (d,e) snapshots of the chemical resistance tests in DCM for the 3D-printed part (extrusion multiplier k = 0.9) and for the extruded part, respectively, with a brass cylinder as an indicator of integrity (Supplementary Movies S1, S2); (f) the principle of FDM-based additive manufacturing; (g) layered structure produced by FDM, (h) destruction of the 3D-printed surface due to interaction with a solvent.

Samples were created using a Picaso 3D Designer Pro 250 printer, with the following information provided regarding materials:

“Printing with ABS, SBS, PLA, Nylon, PP, PE, PETG, HIPS, POM, and Primalloy was accomplished at a layer height of 0.2 mm by using a 0.3 mm nozzle. Printing with filled plastics PLA-Cu, Nylon-C, and Ceramo was accomplished by using a 0.5 mm nozzle at a layer height of 0.35 mm.”

Ultimately, 12 different solvents were used:

Dichloromethane (DCM)
Tetrahydrofurane (THF)
Acetone
Dimethylformamide (DMF)
Toluene
Ethyl acetate
Triethylamine (TEA)
Acetic acid
Ethanol
Sulfuric acid
Sodium hydroxide
Water

An example of destruction of ABS part in DCM with a metal bead as an indicator of integrity. (a) A series of snapshots; (b) corresponding curve reflecting increased visible area occupied by 3D-printed blue cylinder due to destruction process (horizontal axis shows experimental time, vertical axis shows actual-to-initial areas ratio); (c) examples of representation in a circular diagram: ABS as an unstable material (red) as well as general notations of more stable materials (blue and green).

“The comparison shows that mode of manufacturing (traditional vs. 3D printing) is highly important for the real performance in a contact with liquid,” explained the authors, leaving them to realize that a ‘simple solvent compatibility chart’ would not suffice.

Other polymeric materials were tested as well, with the highest chemical resistance displayed by the following: PP, PE, POM, Nylon, and Nylon-C. Alternately, FDM materials such as PLA, ABS, SBS, and HIPS showed less resistance to solvents.

Circular diagrams of change in the FDM part area during 1 h exposure to organic and inorganic solvents. () the material collapses during the experiment (ΔS > 20%): the object loses its shape by dissolution, disintegration and/or delamination; () the material shows moderate stability during the experiment (ΔS = 2–20%), with minor swelling or dissolution of the outer layers, but satisfactory retention of the shape; () the material is stable during the experiment (ΔS < 2%): the object retains its shape, and no dissolution of the outer layers is observed (see Supplementary Movie S3). 1Destruction of Primalloy in THF took just a few seconds.

Primalloy (an elastomer) exhibited ‘moderate resistance,’ while PETG was resistant to acetone and toluene, along with ethyl acetate and DCM.

The main types of destruction noted were disintegration, delamination, molecular dissolution, and swelling—with a ‘destruction scenario’ being noted as the relationship between the thermoplastics and solvents, and differences such as the way PLA becomes dissolved in DCM but delaminated in acetone.

“All tested materials are resistant to water, acidic and basic aqueous solutions, and also to ethanol, which allows their exposure to aqueous reaction media. At the same time, PLA, PLA-Cu, ABS, SBS, Ceramo, HIPS and Primalloy parts are incompatible with acetone, ethyl acetate, toluene, DMF, THF and DCM,” concluded the researchers.

“Resistance of the printed parts to solvents can be increased by three ways. Firstly, the polymers can be modified by additives that would protect them from the solvent action. Secondly, the influence of solvents can be prevented by reasonable choice of 3D printing parameters, as decreased porosity prevents penetration of the solvent. Alternatively, the influence of solvents can be mitigated by adjustment of the part geometry.”

The influence of extrusion multiplier k on structural integrity of FDM parts. (a) change in the wall thickness for a cylindrical part made of PLA depending on the extrusion multiplier; (b) change in the wall structural integrity for a cylindrical part made of PLA; (c) change in the wall thickness for a cylindrical test tube made of ABS; (d) change in the wall structural integrity for a cylindrical test tube made of ABS; (e) a graphic representation of complete G-code for FDM test tube; (f) G-code-defined distribution of the seam points on the FDM test tube wall; (g) structure of a single layer of FDM test tube with the seam position denoted by red arrow.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts; join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘Revealing interactions of layered polymeric materials at solid-liquid interface for building solvent compatibility charts for 3D printing applications’]

The post 3D Printed Polymers: Solvent Compatibility Charts Must Be Dedicated Rather Than Simple appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.