Safety Suggestions for 3D Printing Medical Parts at Home: Standards and Terms

With a lot of you essentially having started a medical device factory in your den, we’ve begun by detailing useful information for you to learn and consider. We urge you the utmost care and would like to remind you that GMP is the only really good basis for manufacturing this kind of thing. Likewise your materials processes and methods should all be checked and validated. A lot of very precise terminology is being used very loosely. We thought it best that we give you some good links to explanations and automotive sources on a lot of terms that we’re only used by some of our tribe and now increasingly are used widely. With regard to making medical devices and medical parts, there are a number of standards and terms that are very relevant.

Terminology 

Biocompatible is a term that means that a material can work as intended in a human body without harming the body too much, this is a good guide on that. There are lots of different biocompatibility tests. There isn’t one magical “its biocompatible test” but many tests are conducted as a part of ISO 10993 and other standards and approval processes. Just because a material is called biocompatible does not mean that your handling of it will result in something safe nor that it will work for a new application or at a different site.

Cytotoxicity is when something is toxic to cells. In Vitro cytotoxicity tests are conducted “in glass” while in vivo tests are held in an animal. ISO 10993-5 deals with these kinds of tests and how they are to be conducted. Some things are referred to as in Vivo cytotoxic or in vitro cytotoxic. One can be used to derive safe limits for the other as well.

The NIH has a carcinogenic potency database. There is a distinction between known and probable human carcinogens. The IARC has a searchable database of its publications on over 400 carcinogenic materials. You can find a list of the IARC and NTP carcinogens here.

MSDS, SDS are Material Safety Data Sheets or Safety Data Sheets. Any and all vendors of a 3D Printing material should have this on file and readily available. Do not order from people who do not. This is clearly a sign of cavalier idiocy that should send your money elsewhere. There are search engines for SDS’s and you should be able to widely find them for all products. MSDS should tell you how to handle burns, how to dispose of the material, some of the materials it contains etc. Be aware that there is a huge variance in what and how much people disclose in MSDS. Specifically for 3D printing materials, MSDS are often vague and leave out a lot of additives.

A CAS Number is one unique number that is used to identify a particular chemical. Knowing and Googling the CAS number will tell you a lot about that molecule. Also, it saves you time and confusion. There are a number of CAS Databases such as CAS Registry and NIST Chemistry Webbook.

Tools for identifying chemicals and materials as well as learning about their safety.

PubChem is a great resource for learning about chemicals, the National Toxicology Program has a database called the Chemical Effects in Biological systems which is great as well.

With a design straight out of 1992, ITER is a comprehensive resource on risk assessment.

ECHA has a great search tool as well.

The ECHA’s C&L Inventory is a joy and gives you a simple info card on common chemicals.

SigmaAldrich is an online retailer for labware and chemicals. Their SDS search for Safety Data Sheets is a great tool, and often you can quickly identify a substance through using it. Fisher has a similar tool.

The NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards is a great downloadable and searchable book that gives you guidance on common chemical hazards.

Tests and Standards 

USP Class VI Plastic Tests is a series of tests to help determine if a plastic is safe for use in medical devices. Of all the relevant material related standards this is the defining one for the moment.

Class testing is often required for manufacturing drugs for its low toxicity compliance and strict bio-compatibility standards. It is important to know that no fluid-contact surfaces will result in harmful chemicals being extracted in to a conveyed fluid. Class VI testing extensively investigates the reaction in the body, skin, and living tissue to ensure safety. USP Class VI is a common standard for pharmaceutical tubingfittingssingle-use systems, and fabricated parts.”

ISO 10993-5:2009 is a standard for testing medical devices on their in vitro toxicity. So its an experiment in a petri dish meant to see if the device changes human cells in some negative way.

ISO 10993-10:2010 is a standard for medical devices on skin irritation and skin sensitization. Skin sensitization occurs when your body’s immune system responds to exposure through an allergic reaction. It is defined under OSHA and other rules, more detail can be found here. Partially or uncured SLA and DLP resins, 3D printing inkjet materials and some additives have been found to cause allergic responses such as this.

ISO 10993-12:2012 is a standard for biocompatibility tests with a focus on blood and fluid.

ISO 9001:2015 is a standard for manufacturing. It is a quality management system that once implemented and adhered to should mean that this firm can consistently manufacture things.

AS9100/EN 9100 is a certification for adopting a quality management system.

ISO 13485:2016 is a quality standard for manufacturing medical devices.

Directive 93/42/EEC is the main European Union directive for manufacturing medical devices. Other relevant directives are: AIMDD 90/385/EEC and IVDMDD 98/79/EC

GMP is a set of guidelines and standards for Good Manufacturing Practice that are needed to comply with regulatory agencies around the world when you manufacture food, drinks and pharmaceutical products.

CGMP is the Current Good Manufacturing Practice as regulated by the FDA. You can find these regulations here.

Class I,II etc. 

In Europe medical devices are classed: Class I, IIa, IIb and III. I has the lowest risk and III the highest. In class I it can be strict if it is sterile or a measurement device such as a stethoscope. If it is neither, you can self certify by registering the technical documentation yourself and marking it with a CE mark.

Class IIa devices include surgical gloves and include the now popular respirators and other similar equipment. Here your self registry information goes to a government body for review.

Class IIb devices can be used for longer than a month and include ventilators and ER monitoring equipment.

Class III devices are the most risky and include medical implants. Here an audit and inspection may be needed.

The CE Mark itself can be done by you in ten minutes.

The CE Mark Medical Devices is only allowed when the correct conditions are met. But, in the case of a Class I device it could be done by you in ten minutes.

The US FDA also has a class rating system but this is of I, II and III. Most class I devices do not get any premarket review. These devices need a 510(k).

A 510(k) is a premarket notification whereby a device similar to an existing one is cleared.

This is in contrast to a more exacting Premarket Approval (PMA).

Some devices are 510(K) exempt which means that you have to register it and manufacture under GMP but don’t have to go through the approval process.

Face shields are FDA Class I devices and face masks Class II devices. As was explained in this article, there is a relaxation on face shields while there is none on masks. Michael’s recommendations on what you can make when are here.

NIH’s “clinical review” is based on uploading and having your device reviewed by NIH staff.

Hospital approved, is currently being used to mean that “St. Mary’s Hospital uses these shields.” In some hospitals an extensive review may be conducted by committees and have be based on testing and evaluation. Given the time span under which some of these so called approvals are occurring, we would caution when trusting this term however.

So generally we can say that a material would have to be made according to GMP at a relevant ISO certified site according to the relevant ISO norm with a quality system. It will have to be tested and pass USP Class VI. Then a device would also have to be made at least according to GMP. Ideally, a certified quality management system and the relevant ISO or other norms would have to be in place and the facility and all procedures will have to adhere to them. So if you’re buying parts or materials you’d like them to originate from these sources.

It is important to note that while skin sensitization testing and biocompatibility are important they do not guarantee safety. Even if the material conforms to all of these things and you as the manufacturer do not have the relevant procedures in place it will be unsafe.

The post Safety Suggestions for 3D Printing Medical Parts at Home: Standards and Terms appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Argonne National Laboratory Using 3D Printed PEEK Connectors to Recycle Molybdenum More Efficiently

Just a few years ago, the FDA approved the first Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) to be produced domestically without the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU). This medical isotope helps radiologists detect bone decay, heart disease, and some types of cancers that are difficult to find, and in 2018, the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reported that Mo-99 was used in over 40,000 medical procedures daily in the US – a number that has likely increased. So a team of scientists from the DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory turned to 3D printing to try and get more out of this important isotope.

(Image: SHINE Medical Technologies)

“Every year, doctors rely on Molybdenum-99 to conduct millions of medical procedures to diagnose illnesses like heart disease or cancer. But producers of this medical isotope lacked an easy, cost-effective way to recycle it – until now,” Dave Bukey, the Integrated Communications Lead at Argonne, told 3DPrint.com.

Argonne, the nation’s first national laboratory, employs people from over 60 nations, and works to come up with solutions to important national problems in science and technology, often turning to 3D printing to solve them. The laboratory often works with researchers from other companies, universities, and agencies to help solve these problems, as well as advance the nation’s scientific leadership.

Mo-99 decays into technetium-99m, which is then used by radiologists to develop pharmaceuticals for medical procedures. It can be made from enriched molybdenum, but it’s definitely not cheap, costing roughly $1,000 per gram. But now, it’s possible to scale up recycling of isotopically enriched molybdenum, Mo-98 or 100, for the first time in the US, thanks to Argonne’s recycling method and some 3D printed parts.

This method was first pioneered back in 2015 by the laboratory’s Mo-99 program manager, Peter Tkac, and his team, and is faster, more reliable, and cost-effective.

Tkac said, “Our original method would have been very difficult to automate.”

The team’s original recycling process for enriched molybdenum was, as Bukey aptly described in an Argonne post, “tedious.” Along with other corrosive chemicals, used enriched molybdenum was converted into an acidic solution, then purified with test tubes and funnels in a lengthy, multi-step process.

Argonne scientists 3D printed parts like these to accomplish the recycling milestone.

In 2016, Tkac and other researchers turned their attention to automating the process, together with aerospace engineer, 3D printing expert, and fellow Argonne employee Peter Kozak. Instead of relying on the funnels and test tubes, they instead used 3D printed acrylic contactors, which use centrifugal force (acts outward on a body moving around a center) to spin and separate the chemicals.

“We printed each contactor as one piece with streamlined features and fewer external connections. This allows us to push the liquid through the system as quickly and reliably as possible,” Kozak explained.

These 3D printed contactors made the recycling of enriched molybdenum more efficient and less expensive, according to the research team, which includes Alex Brown and Brian Saboriendo. An article published in the Journal of Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange in December explained that this updated recycling process was better able to separate enriched molybdenum from potassium and other contaminants.

The laboratory’s new 3D printing approach makes its recycling method — pioneered in 2015 by Mo-99 program manager Peter Tkac (left) and others — faster, more reliable, and more cost effective. Also shown: Peter Kozak (center) and Brian Saboriendo (right). Not shown: Alex Brown.

However, the team did run into a problem – after about 15 hours of operation, the 3D printed plastic contactors were corroded by hydrochloric acid used in the recycling process.

Kozak said, “Our experiment was successful. But if you want to move into full production, you need material that will survive a lot longer than that.”

Tkac and Kozak soon discovered polyetheretherketone, or PEEK, which is more durable than the original acrylic plastic they were using, and also resists the Argonne recycling method’s organic solvents and mineral acids. However, PEEK does shrink during 3D printing, which causes the material to warp, so Kozak changed the temperature and speed of the 3D printer’s fan to compensate for this difficulty. This allowed the team to 3D print their contactors out of PEEK, which made them stronger and more flexible. Now, they can quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively recycle enriched molybdenum, thanks to 3D printed PEEK parts that can stand up to the chemicals that separate the Mo-99 from other materials during the recycling process.

The DOE National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and Office of Material Management and Minimization supported this important research.

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

(Images by Argonne National Laboratory)

The post Argonne National Laboratory Using 3D Printed PEEK Connectors to Recycle Molybdenum More Efficiently appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Interview with Massimo Bricchi of Kuraray on 3D Printing Biodegradable Materials

Massimo Bricchi

Massimo Bricchi is Kuraray Europe‘s Regional Marketing Manager. The company is involved in the production of chemicals and resins, fibers and textiles, high-performance material, and medical products. In this interview, the discussion is focused on the 3D printing of biodegradable materials that Kuraray has been manufacturing.

Take us through your organization and a brief introduction to the service and products you offer?

The Kuraray Group is an expanding, stock exchange-listed specialty Chemicals Company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with around 8.500 employees and annual sales of over EUR 4 billion. Kuraray Europe GmbH is a wholly-owned subsidiary headquartered in Hattersheim and Main and has around 850 employees. Kuraray is the world’s largest producer of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and an international leader in the development and use of innovative high-performance materials for many industries.
From our PVA resin catalog, our R&D Labs in Frankfurt have developed our family of water-soluble compounds called MOWIFLEX which can be used in various other applications like a sausage casing, injection molding, and frac balls. For 3D Printing, we have 2 specific grades called Mowiflex 3D 1000 and 3D 2000 which are specifically designed for water-soluble support material.

Besides PVA, we sell PVB resin to produce solvent-soluble filaments for FFF. PVB has similar mechanical properties as PLA, is very transparent and can be polished, after printing by spraying it with alcohol that dissolves the surface of the objects, therefore, giving that shiny look.

For the future, we are planning to introduce to 3D printing also other Kuraray products like high-temperature PA(Nylon) and elastomers.

What is the significant aspect of your 3D printing water-soluble materials and how important are they in 3D printing?

The main features that differentiate our material from the competition are:

  • They are 100% soluble in tap water. No need for any additive.
  • Moreover, they are certified by TUV Austria as biodegradable in water
  • Low Moisture uptake. This makes our filaments quite rigid, which is beneficial for better printability

How compatible are your filaments with the 3D printers in the market, are there specific printers to use on?

Our filament can be used on any Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), or Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF).

Do you see 3D printing biodegradable material as another crucial material in 3D printing for the future?

3D printing biodegradable materials will be a crucial material especially if you consider the microplastic issue. The market is also now focused on the pure technical performance of support materials.

Mowiflex water soluble filament

What is your vision with the Africa 3D printing market? Do you have plans for it?

Kuraray does not have a clear vision yet. We have exhibited at various 3D Printing fairs but hardly got visitors from Africa. We have no idea of the potential market in Africa, for our support material but would be glad to learn more about it.

And lastly, how do you see 3D printing in the future?

We are now in an early phase of the market where you see many players, from very small family companies to large enterprises continuously offering new products and technologies. But we already see that the market is moving from a hobby-like approach to real industrial use of 3D Printing. You can see it also by looking at big companies like BASF or Henkel investing a lot into 3D printing.

We expect a future consolidation of the market where only bigger companies having the capability to develop new and reliable products will survive.

Unpolished and Polished PVB Bottle

The post Interview with Massimo Bricchi of Kuraray on 3D Printing Biodegradable Materials appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Aerosint and InfraTrac Extending Chemical Tagging in Parts 3D Printed with Powder Bed Fusion

I can’t think of a single person who likes getting the automated reminder that it’s time to change their password, which includes the many instructions on what does and doesn’t make a good one – capital letters, numbers, spaces vs. no spaces, no repeats, etc. etc. But it’s a necessary evil if we want to keep our data safe, which is why many companies, and even apps, have made these reminders standard procedure. So why aren’t we doing the same when it comes to our 3D printed products?

There are plenty of options to make our prints secure and easy to authenticate, such as QR codes, watermarks, serial numbers, RFID tags, and even holograms. But while marking parts is standard for some, it’s not mainstream yet, and as 3D printing continues to scale, security will become more important, not less.

That’s why Belgian company Aerosint, which developed a selective powder deposition system to replace the single-material recoater in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) processes, has teamed up with Maryland-based InfraTrac to extend chemical security into multi-powder deposition 3D printing through covert part tagging.

According to an Aerosint press release, “…the ability for anyone to create end-use parts enables bad actors as well as helpful new outsourcing players. Some of the people 3D-printing aircraft and auto parts are not going to be licensed, careful, high-quality suppliers, and new approaches to protection will be required.

“In this new model, a digital file conveys the ability to create a product. Software protections and digital rights management are necessary to protect the intellectual property in that file. However, none of those digital protections are going to keep us safe from 3D-printed counterfeit parts and products: once the print is complete, its digital safeguards lose their power. Anti-counterfeiting for additive manufacturing needs to be integral to the final printed product.”

Parts can be tested for the presence of site-specific chemical taggants using a small, handheld spectrometer like those in the Spectral Engines NIROne series (left). In the right panel, an ULTEM sample (lit orange) containing an InfraTrac taggant is assayed. Penny for scale. [Image: Aerosint]

InfraTrac has an award-winning method for anti-counterfeiting in 3D printed parts – it adds a taggant (compatible chemical marker) during printing in a small, covert, subsurface spot. With instant field detection, the company’s tagging model provides chemical security to 3D printed parts. But until now, this was only limited to one material, making it unavailable for powder bed 3D printing, which is an important process for scalable industrial applications. But by teaming up with Aerosint, InfraTrac can now extend its model even further.

“Complexity is the enemy of security: difficult procedures invite work-arounds,” the Aerosint press release states. “That’s what makes us reuse passwords even when we know we shouldn’t. Security procedures that align with existing processes are most likely to be adopted, and less likely to be circumvented. Applying taggant or codes should be part of the standard print or manufacturing workflow, not an add-on. Detection should take seconds, with inexpensive, portable, off-the-shelf equipment.”

LPBF 3D printing, like SLM and SLS, use selective fusion of powdered material spread in layers across a build surface, but neither of these two popular methods can place multiple powders within a layer at specific locations. With control at the voxel level, it’s possible to precisely put two or more powdered materials in one layer…and this is exactly the kind of selective powder deposition system that Aerosint is working on.

In its new collaboration with InfraTrac, Aerosint is 3D printing simple demonstrator parts from both polymer and metal, which include fingerprinting sites that are based on InfraTrac’s powder formulation. These components, printed on either an SLM or SLS system that is equipped with the special recoater, have embedded materials at specific sites that can be traced by InfraTrac; then, the parts will be tested and verified. Because InfraTrac can make its taggant materials appear identical to the bulk material of the 3D printed part, it’s just about impossible to counterfeit them.

[Image: InfraTrac]

Thanks to the partnership between Aerosint and InfraTrac, users in industries that require the strictest quality control can confidently ensure simple, scalable sourcing authenticity of their parts.

What do you think? Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

Should Vented Enclosures Become A Mandatory Safety Standard for FFF 3D Printers?

Timing fume clearance speed by the ECC (Image: Health and Safety Executive)

With innovation always comes unintended consequences. There’s been much-to-do with the possible health repercussions of 3D printing, particularly when it comes to the fine particles and fumes produced by the process.

Some 3D printers on the market now carry HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters and come with their own safety enclosures. But their effectiveness has not been studied extensively, and therefore certain universal safety standards have yet to be established.

Now, recent research on the danger of these chemicals and the effectiveness of enclosures could make us someday look at 3D printing without one like we now look at smoking on airplanes.

The Danger of FFF Emissions

The research about fumes from 3D printing filaments is not yet conclusive. However, some studies have shown that ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) is a particularly bad offender in emitting high levels of styrene, a known carcinogen, into the air.

More research by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studied the effects of these fumes on rats. As told to 3DPrint.com last October:

Rats exposed for 1 hour to particle and vapor emissions from a FDM 3-D printer using ABS filament (a type of plastic material) developed acute hypertension, indicating the potential for cardiovascular effects.  In another NIOSH research study, lung cells exposed to FDM 3-D printer emissions from printing with ABS and polycarbonate for about 3 hours showed signs of cell damage, cell death, and release of chemicals associated with inflammation, suggesting potential for adverse effects to the lungs if emissions are inhaled.

While the organization cautions that these findings need confirmation with more extensive research, it’s probably self-evident that fumes from hot biochemicals + lungs = bad.

That’s why the Health and Safety Executive (the UK’s version of NIOSH) isn’t waiting around for an official declaration before working toward safer 3D printing standards.

The Effects of a Vented Enclosure System

Features of the exposure control cabinet (Image: Health and Safety Executive)

To study the effectiveness of a vented enclosure system, the Health and Safety Executive team created the Exposure Control Cabinet. The ECC is a small glass chamber in which the 3D printer rests. On the roof of the cube is a small fan which could be set to A) do nothing, B) recirculate the air within the chamber, or C) exhaust the air up and out of the cube.

To measure emission rates and particle concentrations, common additives ABS and Polylactic Acid (PLA) were used, respectively. To measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the chamber’s three settings, the ECC was first filled with smoked then timed until the smoke was completely removed.

ECC emission and reduction rates (Image: Health and Safety Executive)

The results were encouraging to say the least, with the exhaust and recirculation settings clearing 97-99.4% of the smoke over a 20 minute period. In their conclusion, the team suggests that in a controlled environment (like the ECC), the rate at which particles are released into the air by 3D printers is reduced by up to 99%.

The Beginning of New Standards (And A New Industry)?

While it might seem obvious that air control would make workplace air safer, the Health and Safety Executive’s findings are an important step in developing safety standards for 3D printing, both at home and on an industrial scale.

Like how you (hopefully) wouldn’t operate certain power tools without eye protection, this kind of data is a small step in making sure quality air control is as important and basic as not touching a hot 3D printing nozzle or chewing on your filament. Using an ECC (or something like it) could become an important mandatory safety standard to have in place at maker’s labs, high school shop classes, and other places using 3D printers.

And should their use become mandatory in settings like these, vented enclosures could become big business. While there are many DIY recipes for vented 3D printing enclosures online, it’s largely an untapped commercial market.

Until then, or until research proves otherwise, we’ll just have to let common sense prevail and recommend operating printers in open areas with good air circulation.

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

Source: Health and Safety Executive (ResearchGate)

Experiment Tests the Suitability of 3D Printing Materials for Creating Lab Equipment

Many scientists are discovering that 3D printing is an effective, inexpensive way to make certain kinds of lab equipment, such as reactors, microscopes and more. But when chemicals are involved, care must be taken to ensure that the additives and colorants in 3D printer filaments are compatible with those chemicals. This potential incompatibility has restricted the widespread use of 3D printing for lab equipment. A new study tested the compatibility of 10 widely available FFF plastics with solvents, acids, bases and solutions used in the wet processing of semiconductor materials.

The study, entitled “Chemical Compatibility of Fused Filament Fabrication-based 3-D Printed Components with Solutions Commonly Used in Semiconductor Wet Processing,” can be accessed here. The savings amassed by 3D printing lab equipment are significant – the researchers note that 3D printing can reduce costs by 90-99% compared to conventionally produced equipment. Most 3D printing so far, however, has been limited to equipment without strict chemical compatibility standards or the use of known reagent-grade materials.

“As the exact chemical formulation of low-cost commercial 3-D printing filaments (as well as additive such as plasticizers and colorants) is proprietary and thus chemical compatibility of printed parts is unknown, there has been no significant 3-D printing use in more challenging laboratory environments, such as those of clean rooms used for semiconductor processing,” the researchers state.

Even basic equipment in clean rooms is expensive, so there is a huge opportunity to save money through 3D printing. In addition, a great deal of time in clean rooms is spent overcoming equipment limitations, as the equipment is designed to serve a wide range of research purposes instead of the optimum for every process. 3D printing equipment for individual purposes could not only reduce cost, but improve the output of experiments.

In the study, 10 different common 3D printing polymers were immersed in a range of common cleanroom chemicals for one week. After both surface and vacuum drying, mass and dimension changes were observed. Those results were then compared to chemical compatibility information available in literature for the pure plastic that correlates to the main component of the filament. The plastics tested were:

  • PLA
  • ABS
  • PETG
  • Eastman Amphora AM3300-based nGen
  • Amphora 1800-based Inova-1800
  • PP
  • ASA
  • taulman3D Alloy 910
  • PET
  • PC

Pieces of virgin polymer were tested, as were rectangular 3D printed objects. The results showed that virgin polymers were overall less resistant to the solutions than the 3D printed samples.

“The results for the materials for which compatibilities have been reported in the literature were mostly in line with the reported compatibility,” the researchers state. “Therefore, the additives and antioxidants used in 3-D printing filaments do not significantly impair their chemical properties compared to virgin polymers. All case studies were successful showing no loss of dimensional stability from the relatively extreme chemical environments.”

3D printed PP was the most promising material for various chemical environments, according to the researchers, but more common (for now 3D Printing) materials such as ABS and Alloy 910 also showed resistance to a wide range of chemicals. The best way to avoid unknown contaminants, they add, is to use uncolored filament.

The results are promising, but the researchers note that further study is needed to fully ascertain whether 3D printed labware is suitable for work such as semiconductor processing. There is great potential in using 3D printing for labware overall, however. It can reduce the risk of damaging samples by ensuring that tools are tailor-made for each specific sample size. They also reduce the need for using excess amounts of chemicals, in turn reducing processing costs and risk of injury.

Authors of the paper include Ismo T.S. Heikkinen, Christoffer Kauppinen, Zhengjun Liu, Sanja M. Asikainen, Steven Spoljaric, Jukka V. Seppälä, Hele Savin, and Joshua M. Pearce.

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