Aerosol emissions from fuse-deposition modeling 3D printers in a

Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES

Article

Aerosol emissions from fuse-deposition modeling 3D printers in a chamber and in real indoor environments. Marina Eller Vance, Valerie Pegues, Schuyler Van Montfrans, Weinan Leng, and Linsey C. Marr Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01546 • Publication Date (Web): 08 Aug 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on August 10, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 24

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Aerosol emissions from fuse-deposition modeling

2

3D printers in a chamber and in real indoor

3

environments.

4

Marina E. Vance*1, Valerie Pegues2, Schuyler Van Montfrans3, Weinan Leng4, Linsey C. Marr4

5

*1

6

Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, United States. Email: [email protected],

7

phone: (303) 735-8054, fax: (303) 492-3498.

8

2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 427 UCB, 1111

Department of Environmental Health and Safety Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United

9 10 11 12

States 3

William Fleming High School, 3649 Ferncliff Ave. NW, Roanoke, VA 24017, United States 4

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 418 Durham Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States

13 14 15

RUNNING TITLE: Aerosol emissions from 3D printers

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


Page 2 of 24

16

KEYWORDS: Ultrafine aerosols, incidental nanoparticles, indoor air quality, 3D printing,

17

additive manufacturing.

18

ABSTRACT

19

Three-dimensional (3D) printers are known to emit aerosols, but questions remain about their

20

composition and the fundamental processes driving emissions. The objective of this work was to

21

characterize aerosol emissions from the operation of a fuse-deposition modeling 3D printer. We

22

modeled the time- and size-resolved emissions of submicron aerosols from the printer in a

23

chamber study, gained insight into the chemical composition of emitted aerosols using Raman

24

spectroscopy, and measured potential for exposure to aerosols generated by 3D printers under

25

real-use conditions in a variety of indoor environments. Average aerosol emission rates ranged

26

from ~108 to ~1011 particles min-1, and rates varied over the course of a print job. Acrylonytrile-

27

butadiene-styrene (ABS) filaments generated the largest number of aerosols and wood-infused

28

polylactic acid (PLA) filaments generated the smallest amount. Emission factors ranged from

29

6×108 to 6×1011 per gram of printed part, depending on the type of filament used. For ABS, the

30

Raman spectra of the filament and printed part were indistinguishable while the aerosol spectra

31

lacked important peaks corresponding to styrene and acrylonitrile, which are both present in

32

ABS. This observation suggests that aerosols are not a result of volatilization and subsequent

33

nucleation of ABS or direct release of ABS aerosols.

34 35 36


2

Page 3 of 24


37

INTRODUCTION

38

The field of indoor air quality continually grows to accommodate novel consumer products

39

that may release pollutants into the indoor environment. Office equipment such as laser printers

40

and photocopiers are known to emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ozone, and particulate

41

matter.1,2 With the recent development and popularization of three-dimensional (3D) printers,

42

studies are needed to understand their potential emissions to indoor environments.

43

3D printing (also referred to as additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping) is a bottom-up

44

process of creating a three-dimensional object layer by layer. There are several distinct 3D

45

printing processes, which can utilize solid, powder, or liquid feedstock materials.3 The 3D

46

printing industry has been growing steadily since 2009, when a core fuse-deposition modeling

47

(FDM) patent expired.4,5 As the cost of 3D printers has decreased, they have become more

48

popular in homes, offices, and schools.

49

In FDM, a polymeric filament is extruded through a heated nozzle that moves to create a pre-

50

designed object with layers that are typically ~0.25 mm in thickness. Common filament materials

51

include acrylonytrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA), polycarbonate, and

52

blended polymers.3

53

To date, eight research articles have been published on air pollutant emissions of 3D printers.

54

Seven of these works evaluated FDM 3D printers6–12 and one evaluated a binder jetting 3D

55

printer.13 Studies of FDM printers investigated a variety of polymeric filaments including ABS,6–

56

10,12

57

nylon,9,11 copolyester,11 and more. Three studies investigated VOCs in addition to aerosols.7,9,10

58

Studies have been performed inside stainless steel9,12 and acrylic chambers7,10, in a 60 m3 clean

59

room,8 and in indoor environments ranging from 30 to 180 m3 in size.6,10–13 Of these eight

PLA,6,7,9–12 PLA infused with other materials (e.g., copper, wood fiber, bamboo, etc),11


3


Page 4 of 24

60

studies, only Azimi et al. (2016) modeled total ultrafine aerosol emission rates with

61

consideration of chamber wall losses and the time-varying nature of emissions, while also

62

focusing on situations with low background aerosol concentrations.9 No studies to date have

63

reported simultaneous time- and size-resolved aerosol emissions, information that is needed to

64

model the fate of the aerosols in detail. Many research questions remain as to the fundamental

65

processes driving aerosol and VOC releases from the FDM process and the resulting aerosol

66

chemistry and toxicity.

67

The objective of this work was to characterize aerosol emissions from FDM 3D printers.

68

Specific objectives were (1) to measure the time- and size-resolved emissions of submicron

69

aerosols from the operation of a FDM 3D printer using five types of filament material in a

70

chamber study, (2) to gain insight into the chemical composition of these aerosols through

71

electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and Raman

72

spectroscopy, and (3) to determine aerosol concentrations under real-use conditions in a variety

73

of indoor environments.

74

MATERIALS AND METHODS

75

Chamber. To assess the aerosol size distributions and emission rates of different filaments, we

76

placed an Afinia desktop 3D printer (H480, Afinia 3D) inside a 520-l polyethylene chamber

77

(Atmosbag, Sigma-Aldrich). The following filaments (feedstock materials) were tested: yellow

78

acrylonytrile butadiene styrene (ABS) “premium” quality, orange ABS “value” quality, light-

79

blue polylactic acid (PLA), wood-infused PLA, copper-infused PLA.

80

All filaments were purchased from Afinia 3D. Chemical structures of ABS, PLA, and their

81

monomers are shown in Figure S1 in the Supporting Information (SI). We printed a test artifact


4

Page 5 of 24


82

developed by NIST for assessing 3D printers (Fig. 1b),14 scaled to 50% in order to be completed

83

within 60 min. Printer settings are described in Tables S1 and S2.

84

The chamber was flushed with air that was conditioned through a high efficiency particulate

85

air (HEPA, Pall Corp.) capsule filter to a background aerosol concentration of 0 cm-3 measured

86

by a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (3936NL SMPS, TSI Inc.). The flow rate of air that was

87

flushed through the chamber varied by material and is described in the SI file, along with a

88

detailed description of the aerosol characterization instruments and their operational settings.

89

Aerosol characterization. The concentrations and size distributions of aerosols 14.6–680 nm

90

were monitored continuously at 3-min resolution with an SMPS during the entire print job.

91

While the focus of this work was the aerosol component of emissions, total VOCs were

92

minimally investigated using a GrayWolf (IQ-610, GreyWolf LLC) monitor, which was placed

93

inside the chamber during printing with ABS “value” quality and PLA.

94

For off-line analyses, aerosol samples were collected on the lowest stage of a three-stage

95

impactor (Microanalysis Particle Sampler MPS-3, California Measurements). The cutpoint of

96

this stage was 50 nm and the stage upstream had a cutpoint of 300 nm. For scanning electron

97

microscopy (SEM), samples were collected on an ethanol-cleaned aluminum stub covered with

98

carbon tape and analyzed using an environmental SEM (ESEM, FEI Quanta 600 FEG) equipped

99

with electron dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) capabilities. For Raman spectroscopy,

100

samples were collected on a silicon wafer which was attached to an SEM stub. The silicon wafer

101

was cleaned with ethanol and sonicated in ultrapure water before use. Raman spectra were

102

recorded using a confocal Raman microscope (WITec alpha 500) equipped with a 100× Olympus

103

objective. Laser excitation (~10 mW at the sample) was provided by a 785-nm diode laser. Each


5


Page 6 of 24

104

spectrum was obtained as an average of 6 accumulations of 10 s each. The background signal

105

from the silicon substrate was removed by subtracting a silicon spectrum.

106

A sample of copper-infused filament was also analyzed for metal content by inductively-

107

coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, Thermo Electron X-Series, detection limit of 0.5

108

ppb). Pieces of filament 40 – 65 mg in mass were dissolved in ~100 mL of dichloromethane

109

(DCM, 99.9%, Fisher Scientific). The DCM was allowed to evaporate overnight in a fume hood,

110

after which 80 ml of ultrapure water (18 MΩ cm, Barnstead) and 20 ml of trace-metal grade

111

nitric acid (HNO3 67 - 70%, PlasmaPure, SCP Science) were added. This solution was heated at

112

70 ºC overnight and then 1 ml of this solution was added to 9 ml of ultrapure water and analyzed

113

by ICP-MS.

114

Aerosol emissions modeling. Aerosol concentrations in the chamber were used to obtain an

115

empirical, size-resolved and time-resolved emission rate for each tested material. The chamber

116

was modeled as a continuously-stirred tank reactor (CSTR), and size-resolved aerosol wall losses

117

were determined experimentally (Table S3). The initial mass balance equation (Eq. 1) was

118

solved discretely for the emissions term, which varies over time (Eq. 2). These equations were

119

solved separately for each size range of particles measured by the SMPS. The SI file presents a

120

detailed description of this model.

121

()

= + − −

Eq 1.

122

In Eq. 1, V is the volume of the chamber (cm3), C is the concentration of aerosols (cm-3), Qin is

123

the flow rate of air that is introduced into the chamber (cm3 s-1), Cin (cm-3) is the concentration of

124

aerosols in the inflow air, zero in these experiments, E is the emission rate (s-1), β is the wall-loss

125

coefficient (s-1), Qout is the flow rate of air exiting the chamber (cm3 s-1), and C is the


6

Page 7 of 24


126

concentration of aerosols exiting the chamber (cm-3), which is assumed to be equal to the

127

concentration of aerosols inside the chamber.

128

( ) =

( )( )

+ ( ) + ( )

Eq. 2

129 130

In Eq. 2, tn is the current period of aerosol measurements, and tn-1 is the previous period of

131

measurement. For this study, these periods are 3 min apart. Eq. 2 was used to determine the size-

132

resolved and time-resolved emission rates in units of number of particles per second.

133

Emission rates were summed over each size bin to determine the total aerosol emission rate

134

over time. While the emissions model accounts for size-specific wall-losses, it does not account

135

for aerosol agglomeration, which is likely to occur at high aerosol concentrations.15 To adjust for

136

this effect, negative emission values were eliminated before total aerosol emissions were

137

calculated, as done in a previous study.9 Finally, the aerosol emission factor was determined by

138

summing the total number of aerosols emitted during the printing activity and dividing it by the

139

mass of printed part.

140

Field measurements. Field measurements took place in five sampling locations at Virginia

141

Tech. Each location had an unenclosed FDM 3D printer equipped with ABS filament, and users

142

volunteered to print a typical part as they would during normal operations. The locations

143

included two laboratories, two offices, and one classroom. Tables S5 and S6 describe all printers,

144

filament materials, parts printed, and indoor environments. Figure S2 presents photos of typical

145

parts printed for this study.

146

Field measurements occurred in two phases: (1) using a handheld condensation particle

147

counter (CPC model 3800, Kanomax USA, Inc.), and (2) using both the CPC and a portable

148

SMPS (Nanoscan model 3910, TSI, Inc.). The classroom was only tested during phase 1 because


7


Page 8 of 24

149

the printer was not available during the second phase, and one of the offices was only tested

150

during phase 2 for the same reason. Instruments were placed at seated breathing height (1 – 1.2

151

m) and ~1 m away from the 3D printer nozzle, to mimic a realistic exposure scenario of a user

152

working near the printer. The maximal contribution of the 3D printer to indoor aerosols was

153

estimated by subtracting the background size distribution, measured before printing began, from

154

the size distribution obtained at the time of maximum aerosol concentrations.

155

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

156

Aerosol size distributions in chamber experiments. As shown in Figure 1, the aerosol size

157

distributions at the time of maximum total concentration differed substantially by type of

158

filament.

159 160

Figure 1. Aerosol size distributions at the time of peak concentration inside the chamber for each

161

filament material. For improved legibility, the results for copper-infused and wood-infused PLA


8

Page 9 of 24


162

are plotted on a separate panel (b), whose y-axis range is two orders of magnitude smaller than in

163

the top panel (a). Dark lines represent average among replicates, and shaded areas represent

164

standard errors.

165

The ABS filaments introduced the largest number of aerosols in the chamber, with the less

166

expensive, “value” ABS introducing significantly more aerosols than the “premium” ABS

167

material. Despite this difference in concentration, both “value” and “premium” ABS filaments

168

yielded similarly-shaped size distributions, with modes at 51 ± 9 nm and 51 ± 4 nm, respectively.

169

These results are in agreement with Yi et al., who reported SMPS aerosol geometric mean

170

diameters (GM) ranging from 45 to 79 nm for different color ABS filaments in a chamber of

171

similar volume (0.5 m3).12 The maximum total aerosol concentrations in the chamber were quite

172

high, 2×106 cm-3 and 5×105 cm-3 for ABS “value” and “premium”, respectively. Agglomeration

173

may have shifted the size distribution and the mode to larger diameters than originally emitted.

174

Very near the printer nozzle, it is likely that particle concentrations were even higher and that

175

some agglomeration occurred, even if concentrations in the bulk chamber air did not exceed 106

176

cm-3. Analogous to studies of particles in vehicle exhaust, these measurements represent

177

emissions after some near-source aerosol processing has occurred.

178

The PLA filament yielded the smallest aerosols, with a mode of 22 ± 2 nm. For PLA, Yi et al.

179

reported a GM of 28 – 32 nm. Stabile et al. performed measurements in a 40 m3 room and

180

reported a mode of 13 – 15 nm for PLA.11,12 The copper-infused and wood-infused PLA

181

filaments yielded peak concentrations about 2 orders of magnitude smaller than did the other

182

materials. Peaking at approximately 28 ± 3 nm, the size distribution generated by wood-infused

183

PLA was similar in shape to that produced by PLA. The copper-infused PLA emitted much


9


Page 10 of 24

184

larger aerosols than did other filaments, with a peak at 470 ± 13 nm. Stabile et al. reported a

185

mode 12 – 24 nm for wood-infused and copper-infused PLA.11

186

Size-resolved aerosol emissions over time. Using Equation 2, we calculated the aerosol

187

emission rate as a function of size and time. The results obtained for ABS filaments appear in

188

Figure 2 and those for PLA-based filaments are shown in Figure 3.

189

190 191

Figure 2. Size- and time-resolved aerosol emission rates (min-1) obtained in chamber studies

192

using (a) ABS “value” and (b) ABS “premium” filaments. This figure is better visualized in

193

color as the scale on the right represents a color code for emission rate magnitude. The color

194

scale is the same for Figures 2 and 3. The results represent one replicate for each material.

195

Duplicates in S3 show good visual agreement.

196

The ABS “premium” filament led to lower aerosol emissions than did the ABS “value”

197

filament, although aerosol size distributions were similar in shape. Figure 2 shows that aerosol

198

emissions continued throughout the print job for ABS “value,” whereas they seemed to stop after

199

the first ~ 10 min for ABS “premium,” at which time ultrafine aerosol emissions decreased by an


10

Page 11 of 24


200

order of magnitude, even when printing the same object. Figure 2b shows a characteristic

201

“banana” shape that describes aerosol formation and subsequent coagulation and growth.16

202 203

Figure 3. Size- and time-resolved aerosol emission rates (min-1) obtained in chamber study using

204

(a) PLA, (b) copper-infused PLA, and (c) wood-infused PLA filaments. This figure is better

205

visualized in color as the scale on the right represents a color code for emission rate magnitude.

206

This color scale is the same for Figures 2 and 3. The results represent one replicate for each

207

material. Duplicates in Figure S4 show good visual agreement.

208

The aerosol mode for ABS “premium,” PLA, and wood-infused PLA continually increased

209

throughout the printing activity (Figure S5), indicating that the aerosols present in the chamber

210

continued to grow over time due to agglomeration, even after total concentrations dropped below

211

106 cm-3. The aerosol mode for ABS “value” behaved differently, decreasing twice throughout

212

the printing activity, indicating new aerosol emissions.

213

While the emissions model accounts for size-specific wall-losses, it does not account for

214

aerosol agglomeration, which occur at concentrations > 106 cm-1. Rapid agglomeration is likely

215

to occur in close proximity to the nozzle, as discussed previously. Agglomeration leads to

216

negative values (Table S4) of emission factors for smaller aerosols and may lead to positive

217

emission factors for larger aerosols even when actual emissions are zero. Thus, the emission


11


Page 12 of 24

218

rates shown in Figures 2 and 3 are “effective” emission rates representing a scenario in which the

219

air in a small volume around the printer is relatively stagnant, where particles can accumulate

220

and agglomerate, or the printer is in an enclosure. This phenomenon was also observed by Azimi

221

et al.9 and in one of the indoor environments, as described below.

222

Total aerosol emissions over time. Figure 4 shows the total aerosol emission rate, in units of

223

min-1 in chamber experiments, averaged among replicates for the five tested filaments.

224 225

Figure 4. Total aerosol emission rates measured in chamber experiments for each filament

226

material. For improved legibility, the results for copper-infused and wood-infused PLA are

227

plotted in a separate panel (b), whose y-axis range is three orders of magnitude smaller than in

228

the top panel (a). The dark line represents the average among replicates, and the shaded areas

229

represent standard errors.


12

Page 13 of 24


230

As reported in other studies,9,11,12 aerosol emission rates were not constant over time.

231

Emissions may be affected by the different activities performed by the printer. All filaments

232

generated a peak of aerosol emissions at the start of printing activities that lasted ~5 – 10 min,

233

the period when the support raft was printed. At ~20 min, the printer finished printing the bottom

234

shell of the object and began printing the filling. At ~38 min, the top shell began to be printed

235

and at ~47 min, the pins at the top of the object started being printed.

236

For copper-infused PLA, a large, broad peak also occurred at 24 – 44 min. Average aerosol

237

emission rates, presented in Table 1, ranged from ~108 to ~1011 min-1, in agreement with

238

measurements performed by Azimi et al.9 for ABS and PLA filaments. Emission factors in terms

239

of particle number per gram of printed part, which can be used to estimate total emissions from

240

printed jobs of different sizes, ranged over three orders of magnitude, from 6×108 g-1 for copper-

241

infused PLA to 6×1011 g-1 for ABS “value.”

242 243

Table 1. Average aerosol emission rates and emission factors (per mass of 3D printed part) for

244

each filament material (± standard errors). Average aerosol emission rate (min-1)

Aerosol emission factor (g-1)

ABS “value”

(1.08 ± 0.01) ×1011

(6.2 ± 0.3) ×1011

ABS “premium”

(1.25 ± 0.01) ×1010

(7.8 ± 0.2) ×1010

PLA

(1.48 ± 0.01) ×1010

(7.6 ± 0.2) ×1010

Wood-infused PLA

(1.10 ± 0.01) ×108

(5.7 ± 0.5) ×108

Copper-infused PLA

(1.58 ± 0.01) ×108

(6.4 ± 0.8) ×108

Filament material

245


13


Page 14 of 24

246

Aerosol composition, ABS. Optical images of impacted aerosols resulting from ABS “value”

247

3D printing are shown in Figure 5 alongside Raman spectra of aerosols, the raw ABS filament,

248

and a printed part.

249 250

Figure 5. Optical images of ABS “value” aerosols impacted onto a silicon wafer (a) and insets

251

with larger (≥10µm) aerosols (b) and smaller (≤1µm) aerosols (c) and resulting Raman spectra

252

(d). Broader peaks are associated with smaller aerosols (c). Peaks associated with the benzene

253

ring present in styrene are located at 620, 1001, 1031, 1157, and 1183 cm-1. The peaks associated

254

with the carbon-nitrogen triple bond in acrylonitrile (ABS) is located at 2236 cm-1.

255

The Raman spectra of the filament and printed part were indistinguishable while the aerosol

256

spectra lacked important peaks that correspond to the benzene ring present in styrene and the

257

carbon-nitrogen triple bond present in acrylonitrile, both present in the ABS structure. The

258

extrusion temperatures (210 – 270 ºC) were higher than the boiling points of both styrene (145

259

ºC) and acrylonitrile (77 ºC). This disproves the hypothesis that the aerosol is a result of

260

volatilization and subsequent condensation/nucleation of ABS or direct release of ABS aerosols.

261

A second hypothesis is that aerosols may be formed as a product of the thermal degradation of

262

the ABS polymer, which would involve the release of semi-volatile compounds—likely


14

Page 15 of 24


263

oligomers—that are volatile at extrusion temperatures but not at room temperature, thus causing

264

condensation, nucleation, and subsequent growth of aerosols. Suzuki and Wilkie performed a

265

thermogravimetric analysis coupled with infrared spectroscopy (TGA / FTIR) on ABS among

266

other polymers and observed that its degradation begins at 340 ºC with the release of butadiene

267

monomer, which is quickly followed at 350 ºC with the release of aromatics from the original

268

styrene monomer. The release of acrylonitrile occurs last, at ~400 ºC.17 These thermal

269

degradation processes occur at a significantly higher temperature than the extrusion temperature

270

observed in a 3D printer (up to 270 ºC). In contrast, a study by Tiganis et al. demonstrated that

271

after 168 h at 90 – 120 ºC the polybutadiene component of ABS may undergo thermo-oxidative

272

degradation that may lead to the formation of carbonyl and hydroxyl products.18 Unwin et al.

273

reported the release of styrene, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, and 4-vinyl-1-cyclohexene from the

274

vacuum forming of ABS sheets at 160 – 180 ºC.19

275

A third hypothesis is that this type of thermal degradation may be occurring, but in chemical

276

additives rather than in the ABS polymer itself, or perhaps in both. Bai et al. used gas

277

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to investigate the release of additives from virgin

278

ABS polymer and waste ABS plastics from reprocessing at 230 – 270 ºC. They found that

279

commonly-used antioxidants and lubricants oxidize, degrade, and, in some cases, volatilize at

280

that temperature range.20

281

Pigments and dyes are another class of commonly used additive in ABS filaments, whose

282

original color ranges from translucent to white. To our knowledge, there have not been studies

283

on the thermal degradation of pigments and dyes present in ABS plastics.

284

Aerosol composition, PLA. The Raman spectra of filament, printed part, and aerosols are

285

shown in SI Figures S6 – S9 online. In contrast to ABS, the spectrum of the PLA part differed


15


Page 16 of 24

286

from that of its raw filament material (Figure S7), and the printed part itself was not spatially

287

homogeneous with regards to its Raman spectra (Figure S8). Aerosols presented broad Raman

288

peaks at ~1300 and ~1600 cm-1. Unlike ABS, the chemical structure of PLA does not contain

289

any bonds with characteristic Raman peaks (Figure S9). Aerosols emitted from copper-infused

290

PLA were investigated using SEM/EDS and no discernible copper peak was identified in the

291

aerosols (Figure S10), although the copper filament contained 21.1 ± 0.3 % copper as determined

292

by ICP-MS. The filament also contained 500 ± 76 ppm zinc, 214 ± 53 ppm silicon, and 175 ± 29

293

ppm iron. We hypothesize that the presence of copper affected aerosol emissions but the copper

294

itself was not aerosolized. However, further investigation into the aerosol composition is needed

295

to prove the absence of copper or other metals.

296

VOC and CO emissions. The total VOC concentrations in the chamber reached 0.83 ± 0.01

297

ppm and CO concentrations reached 0.69 ± 0.01 ppm above background during printing with

298

ABS “value”. During printing with PLA, neither pollutant reached detectable levels inside the

299

chamber.

300

Field measurements. In five of the eight indoor measurements, aerosol concentrations

301

increased after the start of printing activities (Figure 6), which demonstrates that the operation of

302

3D printers can impact the air quality of indoor environments. The average aerosol background

303

level for indoor environments ranged from 854 ± 12 cm-3 in the classroom to (1.7 ± 4)×104 cm-3

304

in Laboratory 2. Maximum aerosol concentrations ranged from 3.9×103 cm-3 in Office 1 to

305

6.6×104 cm-3 in Laboratory 1. In one set of measurements in Office 1, there were large peaks in

306

aerosol concentration during background measurements ~15 min before printing and at ~40 – 45

307

min, which could not be explained by 3D printing activities.


16

Page 17 of 24


308

Dilution appeared to impact concentrations, even though all measurements were conducted ~1

309

m from the printer. The smallest increase in aerosol concentrations during printing was observed

310

in Office 1, which was also the largest room, with a volume of ~780 m3 (Table S6). One of the

311

largest increases in concentrations was observed in Office 2, which was the smallest environment

312

investigated (36 m3). For comparison, Steinle was able to detect a 1.2 × 103 cm-3 increase in

313

aerosol concentrations at a distance of ~0.3 m but not at 2.5 m from the printer in a 180-m3 room

314

with a 2 h-1 air exchange rate.10

315 316


17


Page 18 of 24

317 318

Figure 6. Total aerosol concentrations observed in real indoor environments during typical 3D

319

printing activities, using ABS filaments only. These filaments were purchased from different

320

manufacturers and were not subcategorized as “premium” or “value”. At time 0 min, printing

321

activities began and continued through the end of measurements. The Classroom and Office 2

322

were only tested once because the printer was not available during the second phase. Sampling

323

inlets were placed at seated breathing height (1 – 1.2 m) and ~1 m away from the 3D printer

324

nozzle.

325


18

Page 19 of 24

326 327


The y-axis range in the bottom two panels (Office 1 and Classroom) is one order of magnitude smaller than in the upper three panels.

328 329

Figure S11 shows the estimated size distribution of aerosols contributing to indoor

330

environments by 3D printing activities. These were obtained by subtracting background size

331

distributions from those obtained at the time of maximum concentration. The size distributions

332

differed by location, likely reflecting the different types of printers used in each location. In

333

Office 2, the mode occurred at 15.4 nm, which was significantly smaller than the ~51 nm mode

334

observed in chamber experiments with the same printer and filament material (Afinia H480 and

335

ABS “premium”, respectively). Figure S12 shows aerosol emission rates calculated for Office 2

336

in two replicate measurements, one of which shows aerosol growth from ~15 nm to ~54 nm

337

throughout the first ~45 min of printing. This finding confirms that the aerosol growth observed

338

in some of the chamber experiments may also occur in indoor environments and might especially

339

occur in enclosed, unvented 3D printers.

340

Office 2 had a much larger volume than the chamber (36.2 m3 versus 0.52 m3) and a different

341

air exchange rate. It appears that dilution in the room was sufficient to avoid the high

342

concentrations that led to agglomeration in the chamber experiments. The air exchange rates of

343

indoor environments were not measured for this study; they are typically 0.5 h-1 but may reach as

344

high as 5 – 7 h-1.21,22 The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

345

Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends a minimum ventilation rate of > 0.35 h-1 for living areas.23

346

The air exchange rate in the chamber was ~2.5 h-1 for ABS measurements.

347 348

INHALATION EXPOSURE


19


Page 20 of 24

349

The size-resolved emission rates developed in this study can be used to estimate the inhalation

350

exposure to aerosols.24 Assuming that an average adult engaged in light work25 operates a 3D

351

printer in a 30 m3 room with an air exchange rate of 0.5 h-1 and remains in the room during a 1-h

352

print time (the print duration of this study), the person would inhale 107 – 1010 particles or up to

353

5.6 µg of aerosols, assuming spherical aerosols of 1 g cm-3 density15 (Tables S7 and S8). Of

354

course, actual exposure may differ because emissions will not mix instantaneously and

355

homogeneously throughout the room. In terms of particle number, inhalation exposure associated

356

with 3D printers appears to be similar to that for laser printers, as the variability and range of

357

concentrations is comparable to that observed in a study of laser printers in offices in Australia26

358

and Germany.27 The mean particle number emission rates of 3D printers in this study, and thus

359

the resulting exposure, are lower than for combustion sources in the home and comparable to

360

those generated by appliances such as an electric space heater, laser printer, and vacuum

361

cleaner.28,29 Of course, differences in particle composition are also important for assessing effects

362

of these sources. The results presented in this work can be used by exposure science and life-

363

cycle assessment modelers as input data for further modeling and, more importantly, by toxicity

364

researchers as realistic dosing metrics for FDM 3D printers.30,31

365 366 367

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

368

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

369

Includes detailed descriptions of the 3D printers, filaments, printed parts, as well as

370

descriptions of the chamber setup, emissions model and inhalation dose calculations, 12 figures,

371

and 8 tables. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.


20

Page 21 of 24


372

AUTHOR INFORMATION

373

Corresponding Author

374

* Phone: (303) 735-4567; Email: [email protected].

375

Author Contributions

376

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval

377

to the final version of the manuscript.

378

Notes

379

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

380

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

381

Funding for this work was provided by the Institute for Critical Technology and Applied

382

Science (ICTAS) at Virginia Tech, the Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology (VTSuN), the

383

Center for Innovation-Based Manufacturing (CIBM), and the National Science Foundation

384

(NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under NSF Cooperative Agreement EF-

385

0830093, Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT). This work has

386

not been formally reviewed by EPA, and no official endorsement should be inferred. This work

387

used shared facilities at the Virginia Tech National Center for Earth and Environmental

388

Nanotechnology Infrastructure (NanoEarth), a member of the National Nanotechnology

389

Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), supported by NSF (ECCS 1542100). We acknowledge A.

390

Tiwari for assisting in the chamber set up, E. Vejerano for repairing the SMPS in a time of need,

391

C. Williams for Coordinating the CIBM research experience for teacher’s program that allowed

392

for the participation of S. V. M. in this project. We also thank A.J. Prussin, J. Parks, and Y. Wu


21


Page 22 of 24

393

for their assistance in performing ICP-MS sample preparation and analysis. Finally, we thank the

394

many 3D printer users who allowed for sample collection in their workspaces.

395

REFERENCES

396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(8) (9)

(10) (11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Destaillats, H.; Maddalena, R. L.; Singer, B. C.; Hodgson, A. T.; McKone, T. E. Indoor Pollutants Emitted by Office Equipment: A Review of Reported Data and Information Needs. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1371–1388. Morawska, L.; He, C.; Johnson, G.; Jayaratne, R.; Salthammer, T.; Wang, H.; Uhde, E.; Bostrom, T.; Modini, R.; Ayoko, G.; et al. An Investigation into the Characteristics and Formation Mechanisms of Particles Originating from the Operation of Laser Printers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1015–1022. Wong, K. V.; Hernandez, A. A Review of Additive Manufacturing. ISRN Mech. Eng. 2012, 2012, 1-12. Laplume, A. O.; Petersen, B.; Pearce, J. M. Global Value Chains from a 3D Printing Perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2016, 47, 595–609. Bourell, D. L. Perspectives on Additive Manufacturing. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2016, 46, 1–18. Stephens, B.; Azimi, P.; El Orch, Z.; Ramos, T. Ultrafine Particle Emissions from Desktop 3D Printers. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 79, 334–339. Kim, Y.; Yoon, C.; Ham, S.; Park, J.; Kim, S.; Kwon, O.; Tsai, P.-J. Emissions of Nanoparticles and Gaseous Material from 3D Printer Operation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12044–12053. Zhou, Y.; Kong, X.; Chen, A.; Cao, S. Investigation of Ultraﬁne Particle Emissions of Desktop 3D Printers in the Clean Room. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 506–512. Azimi, P.; Zhao, D.; Pouzet, C.; Crain, N. E.; Stephens, B. Emissions of Ultrafine Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds from Commercially Available Desktop ThreeDimensional Printers with Multiple Filaments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1260– 1268. Steinle, P. Characterization of Emissions from a Desktop 3D Printer and Indoor Air Measurements in Office Settings. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, 121–132. Stabile, L.; Scungio, M.; Buonanno, G.; Arpino, F.; Ficco, G. Airborne Particle Emission of a Commercial 3D Printer: The Effect of Filament Material and Printing Temperature. Indoor Air 2016, 398 - 408. Yi, J.; LeBouf, R. F.; Duling, M. G.; Nurkiewicz, T.; Chen, B. T.; Schwegler-Berry, D.; Virji, M. A.; Stefaniak, A. B. Emission of Particulate Matter from a Desktop ThreeDimensional (3D) Printer. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2016, 79, 453–465. Afshar-Mohajer, N.; Wu, C.-Y.; Ladun, T.; Rajon, D. A.; Huang, Y. Characterization of Particulate Matters and Total VOC Emissions from a Binder Jetting 3D Printer. Build. Environ. 2015, 93, 293–301. Moylan, S.; Slotwinski, J.; Cooke, A.; Jurrens, K.; Donmez, M. A. Proposal for a Standardized Test Artifact for Additive Manufacturing Machines and Processes. In; 2012; pp. 902–920.


22

Page 23 of 24

434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474


(15) Seinfeld, J. H.; Pandis, S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics; 1st ed.; Wiley: New York, 1997; Vol. 1. (16) Heintzenberg, J.; Wehner, B.; Birmili, W. “How to Find Bananas in the Atmospheric Aerosol”: New Approach for Analyzing Atmospheric Nucleation and Growth Events. Tellus B 2007, 59, 273–282. (17) Suzuki, M.; Wilkie, C. A. The Thermal Degradation of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Terpolymei as Studied by TGA/FTIR. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1995, 47, 217–221. (18) Tiganis, B. E.; Burn, L. S.; Davis, P.; Hill, A. J. Thermal Degradation of Acrylonitrile– butadiene–styrene (ABS) Blends. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2002, 76, 425–434. (19) Unwin, J.; Coldwell, M. R.; Keen, C.; McAlinden, J. J. Airborne Emissions of Carcinogens and Respiratory Sensitizers during Thermal Processing of Plastics. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 399–406. (20) Bai, X.; Stein, B. K.; Smith, K.; Isaac, H. H. Effects of Reprocessing on Additives in ABS Plastics, Detected by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Prog. Rubber Plast. Recycl. Technol. 2012, 28, 1–14. (21) Murray, D. M.; Burmaster, D. E. Residential Air Exchange Rates in the United States Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by Season and Climatic Region. Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 459–465. (22) Bearg, D. W. Indoor Air Quality and HVAC Systems; CRC Press, 1993. (23) ASHRAE. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ANSI/ASHRAE Addendum N to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001., 2003. (24) Quadros, M. E.; Marr, L. C. Silver Nanoparticles and Total Aerosols Emitted by Nanotechnology-Related Consumer Spray Products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 10713–10719. (25) Hinds, W. C. Aerosol Technology; 2nd ed.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1999. (26) McGarry, P.; Morawska, L.; He, C.; Jayaratne, R.; Falk, M.; Tran, Q.; Wang, H. Exposure to Particles from Laser Printers Operating within Office Workplaces. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6444–6452. (27) Tang, T.; Hurraß, J.; Gminski, R.; Mersch-Sundermann, V. Fine and Ultrafine Particles Emitted from Laser Printers as Indoor Air Contaminants in German Offices. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2012, 19, 3840–3849. (28) Wallace, L.; Ott, W. Personal Exposure to Ultrafine Particles. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 20–30. (29) Scungio, M.; Vitanza, T.; Stabile, L.; Buonanno, G.; Morawska, L. Characterization of Particle Emission from Laser Printers. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 623–630. (30) Kreiger, M. A.; Mulder, M. L.; Glover, A. G.; Pearce, J. M. Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Recycling of Post-Consumer High Density Polyethylene for 3-D Printing Filament. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 70, 90–96. (31) Gebler, M.; Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M.; Visser, C. A Global Sustainability Perspective on 3D Printing Technologies. Energy Policy 2014, 74, 158–167.

475 476


23


477

Page 24 of 24

TOC art:

478


24

Aerosol emissions from fuse-deposition modeling 3D printers in a

Recommend Documents