COVID-19 Simple Friendly social distance Robot Watchzi #Safety #PPE #PersonalSpace

JbFcwH5rMu blob

I’ve noticed that, in practice, it is very difficult to accurately gauge 6 feet consistently. Somehow 6 feet between friends looks much shorter than with strangers. Great idea and project from draakje156 on Hackster.io:

In this time with COVID-19 you see many people standing far too close to a desk, cash register or otherwise. People are not fully aware of the distance of 1, 5 meters (6 feet), for example.

I came up with the idea to make a friendly battery powered robot that can easily stand on a table desk or otherwise.

This robot measures the distance between it and the approaching person and gives a notification. The robot indicates a programmabletone and its hat lights up red. If you come at a safe distance again, the hat will turn green again.

Learn more!

E.U. to Regulate 3D Printed Toys & Supply Chain

The European Union has taken a serious interest in regulating 3D printed toys. As additive manufacturing processes only continue to pick up steam, affecting nearly every industry in some way, safety is becoming more of a concern. In the 80s of course, with the inception of SLA 3D printing, most digital fabrication was used for rapid prototyping with a limited range of software and materials (generally photopolymers) available to users.

There are countless new materials on the market now, as ambitious users and researchers around the world continue to forge ahead, overcoming obstacles, and creating new ways to fabricate complex geometries, whether for prototypes or functional parts. This doesn’t mean all 3D printing materials are safe to use—or that structures and wiring may not cause a potential hazard. Children have the potential to be very hard on toys, and especially over time. They may ingest small pieces and choke, or experience poisoning from toxic chemicals.

Concern over toy safety encompasses the entire industry, however, with basic measures in place regarding “general risks” for children and anyone who may be exposed to toys, along with “particular risks” surrounding fire, chemicals, radioactivity, electrical issues, and more. The EU offers recommendations to 27 countries, and also oversees the Innovation Radar Platform—recently naming WAZP as a Key Innovator. And while safety is a major focus, here, the goal is to create a solid innovative industry with a strong supply chain—meaning that quality products need to be at the center.

The platform is used to highlight new concepts and the inventors behind them, and is funded by the EU as well as other framework programs centered around research and innovation—often including applications like consumer goods, manufacturing, distribution of products, and retail goods. WAZP is certainly well-acquainted with most of those areas of industry, acting as a global supply chain company for additive manufacturing. The Tralee, Ireland-headquartered company gained notice during the Horizon 2020 iBus Project, known for focusing on internet business models for toys, as well as furniture, and commissioned by the University of Limerick.

The WAZP team follows through from optimization to manufacturing and delivery. (Image: WAZP)

(Image: WAZP)

Germany’s University of Paderborn has also been recognized as a key innovator, and the two companies will be overseeing the creation of an “innovative high confidence quotation model for AM toys safety.”

Four levels, created by Innovation Radar, will be explored:

  1. Value creation opportunities
  2. Technology readiness
  3. Business readiness
  4. Market readiness

WAZP will offer their experience in creating successful models for 3D printing supply chains, including “value” for stakeholders like the suppliers of toys, manufacturers, distribution companies, stores selling toys, and consumers too. Sustainability is a key goal in these business models, bolstering supply chains within the 3D printed toy industry.

Innovation Radar operates on four different maturity levels (Image: Innovation Radar)

WAZP’s success has been in providing business models that offer customized supply chain strategies. Their team believes in producing complex, quality designs, but within a “no-waste culture.” Research and development will continue with the University of Limerick, University of Paderborn, and the European Union. Check out information about Innovation Radar and EU funded projects here.

3D printing within the toy industry has brought many new concepts and products to life for kids, and consumers of all ages, from spinning tops to parts for train sets, LEGO constructions and even go-karts, and more.

[Source / Images: WAZP]

The post E.U. to Regulate 3D Printed Toys & Supply Chain appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Touchless Door Opener #3DPrinting #Safety

Jaume on Hackster.io created this door handle that doesn’t require you to use your hands! They hope to expand the idea and add sensors and automation

Coronavirus spreads through surfaces that are frequently touched like door handles – we need a solution especially for hospitals and public buildings, an automatic door opener can help to decrease the risk to be infected and is also useful for people with special needs an disabilities.

At the moment we have only a mechanical version but we are developing a handle with integrated motor and a proximity sensor to open the door automatically.

Check out the project!

Safety and 3D-Printed COVID-19 Medical Devices — An Interview with Veterans Affairs

In our previous article on the topic, we mentioned some broad guidelines that seem to have coalesced related to 3D printing medical devices in the face of the supply shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have since spoken to Dr. Beth Ripley, a radiologist in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System and Director of the VA 3D Printing Network in the VHA Innovation Ecosystem.

Face Shields vs Face Masks

Dr. Ripley began by underscoring the difference between face shields (Class I devices) and face masks (Class II devices), terms that are easily mixed up for obvious reasons. The former is made up of a 3D-printed headband and plastic film that blocks the entire face of the wearer to protect against flecks of moisture. A face mask is more varied, depends on who is wearing them and their applications, and include surgical masks, N95 respirators and general-use, non-medical masks.

Both face shields and face masks are considered medical devices and, outside of these irregular pandemic circumstances, must be manufactured in accordance to Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP/GMP) regulations in the U.S.  However, due to the coronavirus outbreak, the FDA is processing Emergency Use Authorization Applications that will expedite the approval of some 3D-printed devices and loosen the guidelines under which devices that are less highly regulated can be made, such as face shields.

A face mask with 3D-printed parts made by HP. Image courtesy of HP.

Face shields are where the broader 3D printing community should focus its activities, according to Dr. Ripley. This is because the device isn’t in direct contact with the mucous membranes of the wearers and they do not have to breathe through it, which removes concerns related to what material they’re made of. Dr. Ripley concurred that face shields do seem to be fulfilling a supply need facing medical staff confronting the virus on the ground.

In contrast, even in the current pandemic situation, medical face masks like N95 respirators must still be manufactured in accordance to CGMP regulations in the U.S. Therefore, businesses with existing CGMP facilities and workflows will be able to more easily obtain Emergency Use Authorization for 3D-printed devices. Industrial manufacturers and businesses with more substantial resources will also more able to meet the necessary regulations in order to produce emergency medical devices.

Dr. Ripley described the importance of CGMP certification for manufacturing these items:

“[CGMP] certification communicates that the facility or the manufacturer has a quality management system in place. This means that they have a proven method to make sure that the parts that they are creating meet all of the safety standards and quality standards that are needed. It’s an involved process to achieve that level of certification. And that’s what you want to see when you’re talking about medical device manufacturing. They are also registered with the FDA and those manufacturing facilities are subject to inspection and reporting. In this case right now, in which we’re turning to non-traditional manufacturing methods, we want to do so in, in a way that weighs the needs to get a product out with the benefits that we could still have from trying to make sure that we put out high quality products.”

General-Use Masks

Dr. Ripley pointed out that, while face masks for medical settings must still be made with CGMP regulations, the same isn’t true for general-use masks. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just released guidance recommending the use of cloth masks when interacting with the public is necessary, particularly in high-traffic areas and regions where COVID-19 is active.

The CDC does not discuss 3D-printed masks specifically and individuals can turn to 3D printing to make masks. However, we currently lack any guidance related to the types of materials might be safest, outside of the FDA’s broad guidance related to 3D-printed medical devices in general.

Dr. Ripley pointed out that the VA is focused on the medical community, but that it is working providing guidance on safety for general use face masks to educate the community about safety.

Though not yet official, the VA is bearing in mind the following safety considerations to take into account with regard to public-use masks:

  • How does the general-use mask fit, how does it feel? Is it actually wearable?
  • What materials are being used to make the mask? Three concerns that should be considered are
    • Whether or not the material is safe for skin contact.
    • The effects of off-gassing of volatile organic compounds from 3D-printed parts and during the printing process
    • Whether or not there are any toxicities from the materials being used.

The VA and NIH teams are currently looking at several designs for community- or general-use masks that incorporate all 3D-printed parts, some 3D-printed and some cloth components, or are made entirely out of cloth to give users some options to choose from.

3D Printing as a Stopgap Measure

As we’ve seen from numerous stories related to the COVID-19 outbreak, 3D printing has proven extremely helpful as a rapid design and manufacturing tool. For the VA system in particular, Dr. Ripley’s colleagues were able to design a 3D-printable surgical face mask with 30 design iterations over the course of 12 days. Beyond that, the technology has enabled such companies as Lonati SpA in Italy and ŠKODA in the Czech Republic to produce large batches of medical goods in a short period of time before traditional mass manufacturing technologies can take over.

The VA’s 3D-printed surgical mask. Image courtesy of the VA.

However, as powerful as these capabilities have been for the current medical supply crisis, Dr. Ripley underscored the fact that 3D printing is a stopgap measure to get us through the next weeks or months while traditional manufacturing operations are shifted toward medical supplies. Dr. Ripley explained,

“We’re trying to flatten the curve with respect to viruses, but with 3D printing we’re trying to bump up the production curve because we need to scale up production. And some of the more traditional manufacturing technologies may take a couple weeks or even months to get up and running. If you’re retooling an entire factory to make something else, or you have a new design in your injection molding, it still takes weeks. What are we going to do during these crucial one to two weeks where we haven’t scaled up? 3D printing allows us to bump up that production curve or that product curve. I think it’s totally worth it for face shields and medical supplies, getting the medical supplies into the community or into the frontline staff’s hands with a strong caveat that we should not rest on that as the final solution. It really is a stopgap, a temporary measure while we shore up more robust solutions.”

The doctor was able to bring some reality to the situation with regard to the use of 3D printing as a method of addressing COVID-19 supply issues and provided an important reminder about even the FDA’s existing emergency approval process:

Today’s April 6, 2020. So, we’re talking about how the regulations stand as of today. As of today, you can make face shields, anyone can make face shields, you don’t have to have GMP certification. If you wanted to make a general community mask, not for healthcare providers, someone could make that. But if you want to make anything that’s a surgical mask, an N95 respirator or any type of ventilator parts, all of those have to be made in a GMP certified facility.

As the situation progresses, we will try our best to keep on top of announcements from regulatory bodies and appreciate any and all feedback from experts in the community to help inform us and guide us in the right direction as we do so.

The post Safety and 3D-Printed COVID-19 Medical Devices — An Interview with Veterans Affairs appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Razor trash bin #3DThursday #3DPrinting #Safety

Featured preview IMG 20200222 222358

Shared by nkris on Thingiverse:

Safety razor trash bin.
Just throw away when full.

Download the files and learn more


649-1
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

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 with James Nordstrom of 3DPrintClean

James Nordstrom

James Nordstrom

James Nordstrom is the founder of 3DPrintClean, which specializes in 3D Printer Filtration and Safety Enclosures. They are looking to solve various issues in terms of safety and public health within the industry of 3D Printing.

What has gotten you to where you are now?

I spent 20 years in software IT, but I always had a fascination in engineering. I did a robotics project in 2010 and that taught me a lot about CAD and various skills. I also worked for various startups in my career.

Can you explain what you do with 3DPrintClean?

My brother’s girlfriend was into comic con. She was building a huge costume with 3D printed parts. Then my brother and I found research on filtration from the Illinois Institute of Technology on various articles on how emissions of 3D printing can be detrimental to one’s health. We then were able to build a prototype quickly. Then we became very involved as one of the first advocates of this. It was interesting as we first were selling a lot to Canada and Europe as they were very health sensitive. Then eventually America started to come around as well. This then allowed us to go more in depth with our solution as well. We started thinking about things like fire safety.

What are your thoughts on sustainability and the circular economy?

This is definitely something we have been thinking about. We have learned a ton about this. The amount of plastic produced with the plastic part and the scaffolding parts is large. PLA is a much better recycling material than typical plastic. If you put it in a landfill, it will not be recyclable. Recycling companies do not know what to do with the material. People use different filament types and that makes them impossible to recycle. There is some great work done in the space from companies like Filabot.

What are some typical areas of concern when a 3D printer is producing a part in terms of sustainability and safety?

Safety is our bread and butter. Filtration and unauthorized access are big areas of concern. I have seen teachers who have had problems as well. I also think it is important to know about the safety behind these materials as well. Resins are a huge problem as well. Metal Sintering powders are also very explosive as well. It is important to keep these things in mind when dealing with 3D Printing and the future of its development.

3D Print Clean

Can you talk about the technology behind 3DPrintClean’s fume and particle filtration system?

We developed proprietary solutions. Most filters do not do well based on the size of the particle. These go straight to your bloodstream when you inhale them. The filter tech addresses various nanoparticles. We also address VOC’s. We pride ourselves on being experts in this field. We constantly look for new ways to filter various products.

The filament side is really interesting. Then are loads of printers that are doing great in terms of safety, but some printers are prone to fire. One thing that shocked us about the filaments is that most printers state that they should be used in a well ventilated area. Everyone also moved to PLA because they thought it was safe.

PLA does produce ultrafine particles as well. This does not mean it is safe. It is especially important in the school when you have growing lungs. A dean from a school we go to used to be a toxicologist and she instantly realized the value of the work we were doing. She then mandated all of their 3D Printers should be using our ventilation systems.

What are some simple things we should all be aware of in terms of 3D printing safety?

I think knowing the basics about mechanical properties is important. Knowing about the heated head is important. Material handling is important especially in SLA printers. Really teaching people to wearing respirators is important. General post processing is important, but knowing about acetone as a flammable object is important. A lot of people used to make their own glue for the bed. One would take acetone and some plastic to make a slosh, but this is actually very dangerous. We realize that with all of these safety concerns taken care of it helps to make a higher quality print. When we have our enclosed system, it allows for air to not affect the temperature.

How important is public health within the growing trend of consumers using 3D printers?

Extremely. It is super critical. People are getting toys and they do not understand them. We have to make people aware of the challenges. It is not something you just put in your bedroom. Professional labs are important to be kept safe. How to be around these items is important. ABS is also flammable, so we have to think about all of these ignition spots.

What are the future plans of 3DPrintClean?

We are continuing to evolve our filters. We will also launch new sizes for printers. We will also continue to build new accessories. We will continue to improve and evolve based on what customers want. People have asked us for fire alarms and text communication to help them know about problems as a remote user. We are just making sure we cover our bases in terms of how we can aid our customers and their safety.

RAPID 2019: Talking 3D Printing and Partnerships with Ultimaker’s Jamie Howard

While attending the recent RAPID + TCT conference and trade show, I also visited the Ultimaker booth to meet with Jamie Howard, the new president of Ultimaker North America. On the first full day of RAPID, when the show floor had officially opened and there were just a few less lectures and workshops, the company announced that Heineken is using its on-demand 3D printing solutions to create functional machine parts and custom tools for the manufacturing line at its Seville brewery in Spain.

“We’re still in the first stages of 3D printing, but we’ve already seen a reduction of costs in the applications that we found by 70-90% and also a decrease of delivery time of these applications of 70-90%. Local manufacturing helps us a lot in increasing uptime, efficiency and output. We use 3D printing to optimize the manufacturing line, create maintenance and quality control tools, and create tools for our machines which help us increase safety for our people. I think there will be even more purposes in the future,” Isabelle Haenen, Global Supply Chain Procurement at Heineken, said in a press release.

Howard told me that he would describe Heineken as a “global customer,” and that Ultimaker was already looking at additional 3D printing applications in the brewery, aside from the ones it’s already working on, like safety and line optimizations and tooling.

The brewery produces multiple brands of beers owned by Heineken, which all adds up to 500 million liters of beer annually. Engineers at the Seville brewery started off using the Ultimaker 2+ about a year ago, but have since switched to a set of Ultimaker S5 machines.

Howard explained that the project partnership with Heineken included the Ultimaker applications engineering team going through the plant to help the brewery “discover and develop applications that could be 3D printed.”

Heineken’s 3D LAB [Image: Ultimaker]

“We offer that to our Enterprise customers as a service to help them accelerate the adoption of 3D printing in the enterprise,” Howard said. “We also facilitated some advanced training in design for 3D printing so that they could actually print the parts and tools we discovered during what we call the ‘site scan’ process, and that enables the transfer of knowledge and the adoption of knowledge necessary to have them be able to do it more on their own.

“So teaching the competency to discover new applications – it expands the catalogue of parts and applications that they can actually 3D print, which increases the adoption and expands the footprint of the printers.”

Since adopting Ultimaker’s solutions, the brewery has been able to increase its production uptime and save about 80% in production costs.

“The Heineken opportunity is really a good demonstration of the range of applications you can use the Ultimaker platform to do,” Howard said. “Our vision and mission is accelerating the world’s transition to local digital manufacturing, and in a distributed way, where you have the opportunity to leverage our software.

“The open materials platform gives us the flexibility to, at a local level, expand the range of applications with all the same accessibility to the material partners that we have through our Partner Alliance. The Heineken use case includes four categories of applications, from rapid prototyping to safety devices and also jigs, fixtures and tools on the manufacturing line, and also tooling for end-use parts – parts that fail during the production line process – to keep the uptime of the facility higher.”

I asked Howard what types of materials Heineken was using, and he showed me a device made out of Tough PLA material that is used to keep bottles from falling off the line.

“It’s light, and yet has the strength to be able to handle the weight from the bottle,” Howard explained.

“The tool that they were using before was a lot more rigid and rough, and it was sometimes causing the bottles to come off the line.”

The 3D printed version of the tool causes less friction on the bottles, which means a higher yield for Heineken as less bottles are breaking. It also saves the brewery time and money, as they can fabricate the tool on-site rather than send the design away to a third party for manufacturing. Howard also told me about one of the 3D printed safety device that’s been implemented in the brewery.

“There was a piece of equipment that required maintenance, and there was a safety latch that they built to prevent the machine from accidentally coming on during the maintenance process, to protect the workers from any injury. So the part that was printed goes over the power [switch] so you can’t inadvertently turn that machine on during the maintenance process.”



We then moved on to some parts 3D printed by other Ultimaker customers, including one for Volkswagen Autoeuropa. The tool, pictured above, was used on the manufacturing line to keep the wheel assembly from getting scratched. The tool has multiple drill guides to keep the wheel from falling off the lug nuts while it’s being screwed on, and Volkswagen was able to save a lot of time and money in upgrading to this 3D printed tool from the one they were previously using from a molding company, which would often break.

“We redesigned it…before, they were molding it in one piece. Our engineers helped them to discover that if they designed this differently, they could do it in a way that, if this part breaks, then you can just print that part, you don’t have to take the whole thing and throw it away,” Howard explained.

“All the principles of lean manufacturing are addressed in this particular piece.”

This new 3D printed version of the part reduces the amount of the time the tool was unavailable due to breakage, keeps productivity up, and also protects the wheel, so that the yield of the assembly at the end of the line is higher overall.

Take a look at more of my pictures from the Ultimaker booth at RAPID + TCT below:



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

[Images: Sarah Saunders, unless otherwise noted]

UL and Georgia Tech Continue Research Into Impact of 3D Printing Emissions on Indoor Air Quality

In 2015, non-profit safety science company Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and its Chemical Research Initiative, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), and Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, worked together to conduct a two-year study on desktop 3D printer emissions. Over the course of the study, Dr. Marilyn Black, the Vice President and Senior Technical Advisor at UL Chemical Safety, and the rest of the research team found that desktop 3D printer emissions can actually pose a potential health threat.

This month, UL Chemical Safety, a science-directed research group that is part of UL, and Georgia Tech released their previous findings, and announced a new body of research that will look into the impact of 3D printing on indoor air quality. 

Dr. Marilyn Black

Dr. Black stated, “Following our series of studies – the most extensive to date on 3D printer emissions – we are recommending additional investments in scientific research and product advancement to minimize emissions, and increased user awareness so safety measures can be taken.”

The previous study determined that while many desktop 3D printers are in operation, they generate ultrafine particles (UFPs), which are the size of nanoparticles. This is concerning because users can easily inhale these tiny UFPs, which then penetrate deep into the pulmonary system. 

Additionally, the team’s research showed that over 200 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs), many of which are either suspected or known carcinogens and irritants, are also released into the air while 3D printers are operating.

UL has now begun a dedicated campaign to raise awareness of the potential air quality risks of 3D printing, and to educate users on how to minimize their exposure to VOCs and UFPs. Dr. Black is advocating for a complete risk assessment, which could factor in considerations in personal sensitivity and dosage, in order to more “fully understand the impact of the chemical and particle emissions on health.”

[Image: UL Chemical Safety]

“Studies have shown that fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printers designed for general public use emit high levels of ultrafine and fine particles. Preliminary tests with in vivo, in vitro and acellular methods for particles generated by a limited number of filaments showed adverse responses,” explained Dr. Rodney Weber, Georgia Tech’s primary investigator of the research.

There are plenty of different factors, from filament type and color to nozzle temperature and even the brand of 3D printer, that can affect the level of emissions, and while there are definitely products out there that purport to make 3D printing safer, there isn’t a lot of available marketplace information just yet.

These findings from Georgia Tech and UL come as 3D printing continues to gain momentum in commercial, consumer, educational, medical, and military applications, and if the issue of harmful emission levels is not addressed, there could be a potential public health risk.

3D printers are being used more and more often in school settings, and as children are the most sensitive population to the impact of contaminants such as VOCs, we need to make sure we’re protecting them by reducing their exposure to emissions.

We can lower the potential risks by following some simple rules:

  • Operating 3D printers in well-ventilated areas
  • Standing away from operating 3D printers
  • Setting the nozzle temperature at the lower end of the suggested range
  • Using 3D printers and filaments that have been tested and verified to have low emissions

Researchers from UL and Georgia Tech recently published two scientific research papers, titled “Investigating particle emissions and aerosol dynamics from a consumer fused deposition modeling 3D printer with a lognormal moment aerosol model” and “Characterization of particle emissions from consumer fused deposition modeling 3D printers,” in the journal Aerosol Science and Technology. Additionally, two more papers regarding the “plethora of chemical emissions” and 3D printer particle toxicity are currently under review.

Particle number (a), surface area (b) and mass (c) emissions for ABS filament d green color on printer A for 3 objects taking about 1 h, 4 h, and 7 h to print. Each bar indicates the emission (TP) from one print object; colors indicate different particle size ranges. Values on the colored bars are the ratios of emissions from such particle size range over total emissions. [Image: Georgia Tech & UL]

Based on the current research, and further collaboration with third-party stakeholders, a new UL/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standard has been developed for testing and evaluating 3D printer emissions. UL/ANSI 2904 is currently available for review and comment, and the final standard should be ready next month.

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

The NIOSH on 3D Printer Fumes and Health. Your Guide to 3D Printers and Health, Best Practices.

The NIOSH is a part of America’s CDC (Centers for Disease Control). The NIOSH itself is The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for the United States. It is the part of the government tasked with researching into the safety of workers in many professions. At 3DPrint.com we noticed a number of very interesting articles come out by NIOSH researchers about 3D printing. Wewere especially impressed with their thoughtful and thorough research on carbon nanotubes in 3D printer filaments. There is also a very informative post about 3D printers and safety on the NIOSH website. We’ve always been worried about 3D printing safety including fine particles and especially fumes from 3D printers. At 3DPrint.com we think that we are potentially creating significant health issues with some 3D printing practices. We, therefore, reached out to the NIOSH for some guidance. A group of NIOSH researchers took the time to respond to us with some best practices for 3D printer safety. We’re very thankful for their well thought out and clear answers to our questions. We must, as they have, qualify their statements as an initial response but we do believe that this is the clearest and most extensive look into 3D printing safety online.

“It is important to note that there is a current lack of data on 3D printer emissions. In addition, the rapidly shifting description of the “workplace/production environment,” the availability of this technology beyond industrial applications, and the tremendous variety of feedstock polymers that are commercially available or can be made by consumers mean that additional research is needed to evaluate these emissions’ possible health effects.” 

1)     If I 3D print with FDM at home should I get a fume hood or HEPA/Carbon filtration just in case?

‘NIOSH focuses on worker health and our research is performed in the laboratory and in occupational settings, which can be quite different from homes.  Consideration of whether to use a fume hood or filtration will depend on several factors, including the design of the 3-D printer, the type of filament being extruded (filaments are materials (plastic, nylon or other) that are fed into the printer in order to create the final object), the size and air movement in the room in which it is being used, and who is occupying the room (children, adults, people with pre-existing health problems).

While there are no occupational exposure limits for the small particles emitted by 3-D printers, there are some exposure limits for specific chemical vapors that are emitted during printing.  For occupational settings, these chemical exposure limits can be used to guide the selection of appropriate controls to reduce exposures to a safe level.  In workplaces, NIOSH research has shown that appropriately designed and operated local exhaust ventilation with HEPA/carbon filtration reduces the amounts of particles and chemicals in air.  It is important to understand that occupational exposure limits are intended to protect adults in workplace settings and, at this time, we do not know what levels of particles or chemical vapors would be safe for children and others in homes.  Given this uncertainty, it is difficult to recommend specific levels that should be achieved when trying to reduce emissions in homes, though use of a printer in a well-ventilated area could help lower emissions.”

2)     What are the risks of 3D printing? 

“For FDM 3-D printers, there are risks related to the printer itself and potentially from the emissions.  Risks related to the printer are similar to those associated with working with other types of machines and may include electrical shock from damaged power cords, burns from touching hot surfaces such as the extruder nozzle, and injury such as cuts from contact with sharp edges or contusions from contact with moving parts.  At this time, our understanding of risks from particle and chemical vapor emissions from 3-D printers is limited.

In one study done by NIOSH, 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.  These in vitro findings need to be confirmed with more extensive in vivo studies.  It is important to understand that exposures used in toxicology studies may not be the same as those encountered by workers or in homes for a number of reasons, including the use of ventilation in workplaces or the amount of fresh air brought into homes by the heating and cooling system.”

3)     How would I best protect myself against 3d printing risks? 

    • “Risks related to the printer itself can often be eliminated by safe work practices and the design of the 3-D printer.  For example, as with any electrical device used at work or in the home, daily inspection of the electrical cord can help to identify if the cord is damaged and should not be used.  After an object is printed, allowing sufficient time for the extruder nozzle to cool down before removing the object from the build chamber will reduce the risk of burns.  NIOSH researchers often observe smaller 3-D printers being used in workplaces that are also purchased by consumers for private use.  Using a 3-D printer with a cover or doors that prevent the user from reaching in while machine parts are moving will help reduce the risk of injury.

    • At this time we do not know what levels of exposure causes adverse health effects, so we can’t recommend safe levels of exposure to 3-D printer emissions whether in the workplace or in homes.  In occupational settings, we use the “hierarchy of controls” to protect workers from risks on their jobs.  The hierarchy of controls specifies, from most preferred to least preferred, the types of controls that should be used to reduce occupational exposures:
      • The most preferred method is to substitute or eliminate the hazard.  For example, in the case of FDM 3-D printing with filaments that contain carbon nanotubes, the emission of plastic-particles that contain carbon nanotubes can be eliminated by not using that type of filament if it is not necessary for the performance of the built object.
      • If a risk cannot be eliminated, engineering controls such as a fume hood or local exhaust ventilation (a system that specifically ventilates the printer rather than the air in a room) with HEPA/carbon filtration would be the next preferred method to reduce emission levels.  Some 3-D printers are now being sold with built-in filtration units.

Alternatively, a printer owner may purchase an after-market fan/filter systems to reduce emissions.  However, NIOSH researchers have not yet evaluated how well these built-in or after-market filtration systems work.  It is important to understand that for engineering controls such as fume hoods or local exhaust ventilation with filtration to be effective, these systems must be properly designed, built and operated.

In one workplace, NIOSH researchers showed that an appropriately designed and operated local exhaust ventilation with HEPA/carbon filtration reduced the amounts of particles and chemicals in air.  NIOSH researchers have also observed that in some workplaces where the ventilation system is not built correctly that the chemicals are released back into the room air.  Additionally, systems that use carbon filters to remove organic chemical vapors need to be monitored over time because the charcoal has a finite capacity to adsorb chemicals.  Once this capacity is reached, the charcoal filter needs to be replaced or it will not capture additional organic vapor emissions.

      • If engineering controls cannot reduce the risk to an acceptable level, administrative controls may be used.  An example of an administrative control is that NIOSH researchers have observed in some workplaces that employees do not enter the room where 3-D printers are operating unless it is necessary (e.g., to perform maintenance or to retrieve a built object).
      • Finally, if none of these controls can reduce emissions to an acceptable level, the least preferred control is the use of personal protective technologies such as respirators or dust masks.  In workplaces, respirators are the least preferred means of control because they do not remove the exposure, they only reduce the amount that might be inhaled;  this depends on the proper selection of filters and cartridges that remove contaminants while breathing.  Additionally, to be effective, respirators rely on the worker to properly wear and use the mask.  To wear a respirator, a user must be medically cleared by a physician and it must be properly fitted and retested each year to ensure fit. The user must be properly trained on how to wear, remove, and maintain the respirator.  NIOSH researchers have observed in some workplaces where 3-D printers are used that some employees with facial hair will put on a respirator, but the hair prevents the respirator from forming a tight seal with their face so the mask does not provide any protection to the worker.”

4)     If I had a 3D printer at a school what should my safety precautions be?

“NIOSH focuses on worker health and our research is performed in the laboratory and in occupational settings, which can be quite different from environments such as homes or schools.  For example, 3-D printers may be used with different frequency in schools and there may be only one printer operating in a large classroom as opposed to many printers in a small workspace.  These differences will influence the types of controls implemented to reduce emissions.

There are no occupational exposure limits for the small particles emitted by 3-D printers but there are some exposure limits for specific chemical vapors that are emitted during printing.  For occupational settings, these chemical exposure limits can be used to guide the selection of appropriate controls to reduce exposures to a safe level.

It is important to understand that occupational exposure limits are intended to protect adults in workplace settings. At this time, we do not know what levels of particles or chemical vapors would be safe for children in schools.  Given this uncertainty, it is difficult to recommend specific levels that should be achieved when trying to reduce emissions in schools.  In workplaces, NIOSH research has shown that appropriately designed and operated local exhaust ventilation with HEPA/carbon filtration reduces the amounts of particles and chemicals in air.  If exhaust ventilation is not feasible, use of a printer in a well-ventilated area could help lower emissions.”