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.

UL and ASTM International sign agreement to publish AM facility safety standard

Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the safety consulting and certification firm, and global standards developer ASTM International have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) which will result in an ASTM-ISO standard for additive manufacturing facility safety management. Specifically, the MoU between UL and ASTM seeks to establish a framework for cooperation on developing an international, dual-logo ISO […]

ASTM and UL to Publish ISO-ASTM Standard for Additive Manufacturing

Nonprofit standards development organization ASTM International, which develops and publishes technical standards for a range of industries, materials, products, services, and systems around the globe, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Underwriters Laboratories (UL), another nonprofit which works to advance its mission of public safety through discovery and application of scientific knowledge. The agreement will set up a framework for a cooperation between the two to create an international, dual-logo ASTM and International Standardization Organization (ISO) standard.

“We are announcing a collaboration agreement with ASTM International that will result in an ISO-ASTM standard for additive manufacturing facility safety management,” Patrick Wilmot, Communications Manager for UL Standards, told 3DPrint.com. “This is an exciting partnership for our organizations and we believe it will be of great use to the AM industry.”

While ASTM signed an MoU with German testing and certification organization TÜV°SÜD at formnext 2019, and created the Additive Manufacturing Standards Development Structure with ISO back in 2016, this new MoU is the first international collaboration agreement of its kind with fellow standards development organization UL.

(Image: Underwriters Laboratories)

“This partnership brings together both organizations’ expertise and shared desire to drive global safety. It leverages ASTM’s technical committee and relationship with ISO with our document and research to drive impact and positively influence the international standards landscape,” said UL Standards Vice President Global Standards Phil Piqueira.

The terms of this new MoU state that ASTM will act as the standards developing organization (SDO) for the agreement, which includes responsibilities such as managing all activities and administrative support. In addition, it will convene the organization’s F42 additive manufacturing technical committee, first formed over a decade ago, in order to review and advance the UL document, the basis of which is its 3400 Outline of Investigation for Additive Manufacturing Facility Safety Management. Once the document, developed with UL research, is complete, ASTM will publish the standard.

ASTM has an existing agreement with ISO to publish its standards documents as ASTM-ISO standards, which means that UL Standards will transfer its copyright of the material in the UL 3400 document over to ASTM so that it can officially be published as an ISO-ASTM standard. The complete, published standard will also be attributed to UL Standards, due to its content and technical expertise.

“The collaborative nature of global standardization creates many opportunities for partnership with other SDOs. We appreciate these opportunities to share knowledge with partners like Underwriters Laboratories to help advance public safety in this fast-evolving field,” stated Brian Meincke, ASTM International’s Vice President of Finance, Business Development and Innovation.

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

The post ASTM and UL to Publish ISO-ASTM Standard for Additive Manufacturing appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Interview on 3D Printing in New Zealand with Bruno Le Razer of Zenith Technica

Bruno Le Razer probably has the coolest name in 3D printing. He definitely has a lot of 3D printing experience. He has done years of 3D printing research followed by hands-on work in industrializing metal 3D printed parts, machine maintenance and training operators and application development people. People like Bruno are a rare find with hands-on operational leader experience in metal printing a very hot commodity that is very thin on the ground. It was, therefore, quite a surprise that such a metal 3D printing veteran would pop up in bucolic Hobbit land New Zealand. He was working for Zenith Technica, an EBM-based service bureau that made custom prosthetics for athletes and parts for Air New Zealand. Curious about his relocation and about Zenith Technica, we interviewed Bruno.

Why did you turn to 3D printing?

I started my career in 3D Printing back in 1998 at the end of my PhD in material science & ceramics with a bit of luck: Trevor Illston, now at Materials Solutions, Siemens Group, asked me if I wanted to work on a new technology called 3D Printing. I couldn’t find any decent position in my field and accepted his offer. For a few years, I worked on R&D projects for the University of Warwick and the Rover Group. I started in metal  Additive Manufacturing in 2002 and for the next 14 years, I was involved with EOS, as a customer (three service bureaus in France and in the UK) and as an employee. I worked on most EOS metal platforms, developed/tested most of their materials, trained a lot of customers. In 2016, a family decision resulted in a move to New Zealand and a contract with Zenith Tecnica.

Zenith Tecnica was founded in 2014 by a metallurgist specialised in Titanium who loved the idea of manufacturing parts under vacuum at high temperature and started the first EBM service bureau in Australia and New Zealand.

What technologies do you use?

Because there are so many laser melting service bureau in the world (including one in New Zealand), it made sense to choose another technology which was deemed to give better metallurgical results. The choice was easy: GE Additive / Arcam EBM. We have now two Q20Plus machines, one Q10Plus machine and have purchased two extra Q10Plus machines which will be delivered in the next few months.

What materials do you use?

To avoid any possible contamination, we are focusing on only one material: Titanium Ti64

What are the challenges in 3D printing for aerospace?

The main challenge is qualification: as a supplier for any aerospace customer and also process qualification. We spent two years on the certification process: we are now ISO13485:2016 (medical) and AS1900:D (aerospace) certified. This enables us to talk to any medical and aerospace customer because they know we have the right documentation and processes in place. However, these certifications are only a proof that the documentation is there not that the AM processes are working. In parallel, we worked with one major US satellite manufacturer and one US implant manufacturer to qualify all our machines for space and medical manufacturing. This has been a long, tedious and expensive exercise but the rewards are there now. We have delivered about a thousand qualified flight parts, of which 400 are already in orbit. On the medical front, we are about to start full production of acetabular cups and tibial trays: the first Q10Plus is fully booked for the next three years.

What were some of the challenges in getting parts on aircraft?

At the moment, we have not manufactured any parts for any aircraft. The challenge there is the certification of metal AM parts by the civil aviation authorities (FAA, CAA for example). Some of the manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, GE Aviation, MTU, SAFRAN) are allowed to certify metal AM parts right from the start but no MRO (Maintenance Repair and Operations) companies are yet allowed to use metal Additive Manufacturing to replace an existing part on an aircraft or an engine.  We are working on a few projects but no parts have been certified yet.

For Space applications, each customer can certify their own manufacturing process. in that sense, it has been easier but we still had to prove that the EBM process and machines were capable. We had a few hurdles on the way  (regular hardware and software upgrades, non-optimised parameters and properties) but we achieved qualification status back in 2016.


Does 3D printing need more automation?

Certainly. Most commercial metal AM machines are still glorified R&D machines. None of the processes are automated. Powder movement is still manual. Parameters are still being optimised. Turnaround is still tedious. It could take up to eight hours to prepare a machine for each new build for example.

What else is holding 3D printing back?

  • Materials database. For metal, aerospace companies are complaining there is not enough historical data. Data that they have for casting or machining. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to design new parts for AM.

  • Productivity: the metal machines are still too slow. Even with the new developments (multi laser, increase in EBM power), none of the current processes can compete with casting or machining for large production runs.

  • Cost: the machines are far too expensive and too slow. Powders are still too expensive. That leads to high part unit prices.

What new materials would you like to see?

“More refractory and intermetallic materials.”

What are your future plans?

Expansion: the plan is to get more medical and aerospace contracts this year and to raise capital in order to set up a new manufacturing site with more machines (EBM and laser) and equipment (HIP furnace, CT Scanning, machining, testing lab, medical unit (passivation, clean room, packaging).

It seems like New Zealand is a little late to the 3D printing party?

It seems like that from a distance but there is definitely more interest in New Zealand for all 3D printing technologies. For metal, we are growing and the other service bureau is also growing: RAM3D are getting their fifth machine soon. Callaghan Innovation have set-up a 3D printing unit called AddLab with a primary objective to develop 3D printing activities in New Zealand. Most universities have got machines and research programs. The latest being Olaf Diegel at the University of Auckland.

3D Printing News Briefs: April 21, 2019

We’re beginning with an aerospace 3D printing story in 3D Printing News Briefs today, then moving on to news about some upcoming industry events and finishing with a little business. Launcher tested its 3D printed rocket engine on an important date in history. DuPont will be introducing new semi-crystalline 3D printing products at RAPID + TCT, and Nanofabrica has offered to 3D print micro parts at no cost for interested companies attending the annual euspen conference. Ira Green Inc. used Rize technology to transform its production process, GOM is now part of the Zeiss Group, and the Ivaldi Group received its ISO 9001:2015 certification.

Launcher Tests 3D Printed Rocket Engine

New York startup Launcher, which uses EOS technology to create 3D printed components for metal rocket engines, has completed many firing tests with these parts over the last year and a half. Recently, on the anniversary of the date the first human left Earth to go into space, the startup announced the results of the latest test.

Launcher’s founder and CEO Max Haot posted on his LinkedIn account that the E-1 copper bi-metal rocket engine, which was 3D printed on the EOS M290, broke the startup’s combustion pressure record at 625 psi, mr 2.5. It will be interesting to see how the engine performs on its next test.

DuPont to Introduce New Semi-Crystalline Materials 

At next month’s RAPID + TCT in Detroit, DuPont Transportation & Advanced Polymers (T&AP), a DowDuPont Specialty Products Division business, will be launching an expansion to its 3D printing portfolio: advanced, high-performance semi-crystalline materials, which will give customers more manufacturing agility and open new opportunities to lower costs while increasing production.

Jennifer L. Thompson, Ph.D., R&D programs manager for DuPont T&AP, will be presenting a technical paper about the materials during the event as part of the Material Development and Characterization session. During her presentation at 10:15 am on May 23rd, Thompson will discuss alternative 3D printing methods, like pellet extrusion modeling, in addition to highlighting new engineering materials and talking about tailored material testing programs. Thompson and other DuPont employees will be at DuPont T&AP’s booth #552 at RAPID to answer questions about the company’s 3D printing materials.

Nanofabrica Offers Free 3D Printing Services for euspen Attendees

Last month, Israeli 3D printing startup Nanofabrica announced the commercial launch of its micro resolution 3D printing platform. In order to show off the system’s abilities to potential customers, Nanofabrica has made an enticing offer to attendees at next month’s euspen conference and exhibition in Spain: the startup will print parts for interested companies at no charge. Then, the parts printed on the new micro AM platform will be presented to them at the event, which focuses on the latest technological developments that are growing innovation at the micron and sub-micron levels.

“It’s quite simple really. We believe that the best way to prove what our AM system can do, how high the resolution and accuracy of the parts we make are, is to manufacture parts for attendees,” Jon Donner, the CEO of Nanofabrica explained. “Registered attendees are welcome to send us their files, and we will examine and print them. That is how confident we are that you will be amazed by the capabilities of our system, and this we feel will mean that we can forge meaningful relationships with manufacturers that will endure into the future.”

Rize 3D Printing Transformed Company’s Production Process

Rhode Island-based IRA Green Inc. (IGI), a full-service manufacturer and distributor of unique uniform items earned and worn by military personnel around the world, recently turned to RIZE and its 3D printing capabilities in order to manufacture small fixtures for its tool shop. The company’s products are in high demand, but lead times were growing longer due to bottlenecks and 8 hours of work for each $300 fixture. Precision is also important for these parts, which is why IGI decided to turn to the RIZE ONE hybrid 3D printer. According to a new case study, IGI’s design team uses the printer every day to manufacture accurate fixtures in just 50 minutes for $2.00 a part. Using the RIZE ONE, which has the unique capability of adding ink markings to parts for verification, the company has been able to standardize its nails and molds, which helped lead to an ROI in less than five months.

IGI’s Manufacturing Manager, Bill Yehle said, “Implementing RIZE 3D printing as part of a strategic process shift has completely transformed our production process.

“We have realized an 80% time savings in setup and changeover alone using RIZE and virtually eliminated errors.”

ZEISS Group Acquires GOM

In an effort to expand its industrial metrology and quality assurance portfolio, the ZEISS Group, a technology enterprise operating in the optics and optoelectronics fields, has acquired GOM, which provides hardware and software for automated 3D coordinate measuring technology. By combining GOM’s optical 3D measuring technology with its own products, ZEISS could expand market access, and create new opportunities, for its Industrial Quality & Research segment. Once the transaction is complete, which should happen soon, GOM will become part of this ZEISS segment, while the legal form of its companies in Germany and elsewhere will stay the same. The financial details of the transaction will not be discussed publicly.

“Our growth strategy expressly mentions the targeted acquisition of highly innovative solutions, technologies and companies, which can reach their full potential as part of the ZEISS Group. By acquiring GOM and thereby expanding our solutions portfolio, we are bolstering the leading position of our Industrial Quality & Research segment and will be able to offer even better solutions for our customers. This is entirely in keeping with our corporate strategy, which is focused on our customers’ success,” said Dr. Michael Kaschke, President & CEO of ZEISS.

Ivaldi Group Awarded ISO 9001:2015 Certification

California startup Ivaldi Group, which uses 3D printing and metal fabrication solutions to provide in-port parts on-demand services for the maritime, mining, offshore, and construction industries has become ISO 9001:2015 certified in less than ten months. This standard, which is certifies quality managements systems that focus on customer satisfaction, continuous improvement, and active involvement of employees and management in a process-based approach, is the first step in the certification process that’s required to certify specific products. This proves Ivaldi’s commitment to constantly improving itself.

“Certifying our quality management system has helped us to structure our processes to create a solid foundation. This will allow us to improve efficiency, productivity, and traceability,” said Anna D’Alessio, Quality Management Specialist of Ivaldi Group. “Global quality management systems are important to align processes and optimize operations across facilities. This certification proves our commitment to meet requirements of stakeholders affected by our work.”

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

Ivaldi Group takes first step toward 3D printed product-specific certification

On demand advanced manufacturer Ivaldi Group has attained internationally renowned ISO 9001:2015 quality certification for its manufacturing capabilities. Providing 3D printing, and now metal fabrication, as a service, Ivaldi Group’s goal is to deliver spare parts within 24 hours to clients in construction, maritime and offshore industries. With this new approval, the service provider has proven […]

3D Printing Pioneer Interview with PADT Co-Founder Eric Miller

In the primordial soup of 3D printing, in the the 1990’s a group of Allied Signal engineers were using simulation and 3D printing to design turbine engines. This group saw the potential that 3D printing had, only a few years after the technology had been commercialized. They formed PADT in 1994. The team bought an SLA 250 and was in business producing prototypes and soon after complex manufacturing and design projects as well. Now the company additionally resells Stratasys equipment, sells and consults on ANSYS software, does 3D scanning as a service and does manufacturing for aerospace companies. The company also has a speciality in designing, developing and producing medical devices. PADT also is rumored to do very high end technically challenging research projects for acronym ridden parts of the US government. PADT today has gone from one of the world’s first service bureaus to a 25-year-old company with 95 employees with its own 44,000 Sq Ft ISO certified site. We interviewed 3D printing pioneer and PADT Co-Founder Eric Miller to find out more about the quarter of a century old company.

How did you get started in 3D printing?

One of PADT’s co-founders, Rey Chu, started the prototyping lab at AlliedSignal.  That introduced him to Stereolithography. When we started PADT in 1994, we knew we wanted to make that technology a foundational part of our business, so we leased a system and set ourselves up as Arizona’s first service bureau

What were some of the problems back then?

Materials were limited, the software was basic, and the machines were not as robust as they are today.  The big issue was just figuring out all the parameters that worked best.

Did you have to wait hours for files to slice?

Indeed, we did.

What types of parts did you make in the beginning?

We had a wide variety of parts from across industries, even early on.  A lot of our early work was enclosures for electronics.

You’ve made over 100,000 prototypes for clients, which one was the hardest?

A pump housing. It was huge and made on an FDM machine, but it needed to be water tight. We could never get it to seal.

What kinds of simulation services do you offer? To whom?

Simulation, just like AM, was a core founding technology for PADT.  We are an Elite ANSYS Channel partner selling and supporting the full line of ANSYS physics simulation tools. Stress, Thermal, Vibration, Heat Transfer, Fluid Flow, Electromagnetics (High and Low), and Multiphysics.

What kinds of products do you design?

A wide variety. We have worked on toys for infants and help redesigned avionics packages.  But for this area of the company, we tend to concentrate on:

1.      Custom rotating equipment like pumps, blowers, and turbines for difficult applications
2.      Medical devices
3.      Semiconductor manufacturing equipment
4.      Packaging of commercial electronics

Many 3D printing services are limited to manufacturing, but you seem to be a one-stop shop?

PADT is about offering a complete solution to companies who design and manufacture physical products.  So, we want to provide them with the tools and services they need to do that better.  In fact, we recently added scanning as a service because customers kept wanting us to add that capability so they could get it done with us since we were already doing so much for them.

What kind of advice would you give me if I wanted to bring a 3D printed medical device to market?

1.      Make sure it is a good idea on its own, with or without 3D Printing
2.      Leverage the advantages of Additive Manufacturing in your design
3.      Get Quality on board from day one, preferably someone that understands 3D Printing. Make sure your manufacturing process is ISO13485 from day one.

If I wanted a 3D printed end use product, what will be some of the pitfalls?

The answer to this question is so part dependent.  But speaking generally surface finish is something you have to learn to live with for most production processes.  Also, the as-built material properties may not be the same as for traditional methods, so make sure you can live with them.  The other issue is post-processing.  Make sure you consider the cost and time for dealing with parts after they leave the system.

What are the things holding 3D printing back?

Honestly, not much.  It is growing at a good pace. Any faster and people might start tripping.  I think the biggest holdup now is that we have not invented the processes or materials that we need for the next leap forward.  High volume 3D printing with minimal post processing is needed the most.

You also do angel investing? In what types of firms?

Initially, in any type of tech company.  Which turned out to be a mistake. Now we only invest in startups that design and manufacture hardware, and in an industry we really understand.  Our three favorite Angel investments are Volumill, high speed machining software; Serious Integrated, a modular touch screen solution for machinery; and StreamDX, a medical device that measures urine flow in men from home… yes, I said urine.

3D Printing News Sliced: Rocket Lab, David Bowie, Resident Evil 2

In this week’s Sliced, our 3D printing news digest, we take a look at the latest creative application using 3D printing, including further forays into 3D printed wearables, 3D printed transport, and how the 3D printing community is experimenting with virtual reality and portable 3D printers. Also included are the latest business developments from FDM […]

Recycled Content of Filamentive’s 3D Printing Filaments in Accordance with ISO 14021 Standard

According to UK-based 3D printing material startup Filamentive, 90% of all the plastic used in the world comes from non-renewable sources, which means there’s definitely a major environmental need for recycled 3D printing filament. That’s why Ravi Toor, the startup’s founder and director, decided to launch Filamentive back in 2015, with support from the University of Leeds.

Toor realized that the 3D printing materials market needed to change, and put his environment-based degree, and experience running a 3D printing business, to the test. He founded the startup in order to offer more sustainable filament that can address both environmental impact and the need for high quality materials at the same time.

“As 3D printing becomes more popular, plastic production and consumption will increase, causing many environmental impacts,” the startup notes on its website. “Filamentive was set-up to address the environmental concerns in 3D printing – committed to using recycled materials where possible, without compromising quality.

Filamentive is an ethical brand, committed to both social and environmental sustainability, which is why it is so proud to announce the news that the recycled content of all of its 3D printing filament products are now in accordance with the ISO 14021 standard.

Toor said, “It is becoming evident that all consumers – from hobbyists to large businesses – are becoming increasingly environmentally-aware and so we will continue to set high targets for recycled content and the recyclability of our packaging.”

The Filamentive 3D printing material products listed below have all been evaluated by the International Organization of Standards (ISO) according to BS EN ISO 14021:2016 – Environmental labels and declarations — Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling).

Filamentive has responded to the ever-growing issue of harmful waste plastic, and the rise of plastic usage due to the 3D printing industry, by remaining steadfast in its commitment to use a higher percentage of recycled materials in all of the products it manufactures and sells. In addition, the West Yorkshire startup is committed to creating recyclable spools and packaging, thanks in large part to the empty spool return initiative it launched in 2017.

“Due to FDM/FFF 3D printers using plastic materials as feedstock, unfortunately as 3D printing becomes more popular, plastic production and consumption will increase, causing the industry to exacerbate the global problem of plastic. Filamentive specialise in sustainable 3D printing filament materials. The company was founded to address to the environmental need to use more recycled plastics in 3D printing, and also alleviate market concerns over quality and long term sustainability,” Toor stated.

While 3D printing is actually far less wasteful than more traditional methods of subtractive manufacturing, such as CNC machining, using plastic as a feedstock could actually, according to the startup, “exacerbate the global plastic epidemic.”

Thankfully, there are many initiatives around the world that are set on using 3D printing to lower the amount of plastic that we waste, by making things like prosthetic limbs, furniture, shoes, and filament out of the used material. Filamentive is obviously focusing on the latter, and was also founded in order to challenge the common thought that products made from recycled materials are somehow of lesser quality.

The startup knows that high quality prints can only come from high quality filament, which is why it has committed itself to “strict waste selection and manufacturing procedures” so the 3D printing performance of its users isn’t impacted. The news that its 3D printing filaments are now in accordance with the ISO 14021 standard will only serve to help Filamentive continue its mission.

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

[Source/Images: Filamentive]