I would like to see the articles on the potential hazards associated with using 3D printer for student projects. We plan to use them for some of our engineering classes and it would be prudent to set them up in a way that will prevent exposure to potentially toxic materials not only for the students but for the faculty members who are likely to be exposed for longer periods of time.
Adell Sauper MS, MBA
Scientific Materials Manager
5700 College Road
Lisle, IL 60532
Carole, I sent you off line an article from our newsletter,ACTS FACTS. It is based on information primarily from the three studies listed under the headline. If anyone else wants it, just e-mail me.
The3D issues are the same as with all new technologies. Toxicity testing is never done unless and until there are obvious problems documented in users. And nanoparticles are no different. With no human or environmental toxicity testing prior to their introduction, they have been used for many years in paint pigments, make up, clothing, rubber tires, and a flock of other products that can result in consumer exposure. Yet in the laboratories where they are being used and developed, there are local exhaust ventilation systems.
I recommend exhaust ventilation for 3D printers. HEPA filtration is probably not an option for nanoparticle capture. There are mixed results reports of capture efficiency of HEPA filters for different types of nanoparticles, but none of the particle studies of HEPA/P100 filters I've seen show they are captured to the 99.97% efficiency that the 0.3 micron particles are captured (the definition of HEPA).
I also suggest that EH&S for colleges watch carefully.
1) NIOSH recommendations for nanoparticles and with special consideration of NIOSH recommendations for titanium dioxide nanoparticles now listed even by IARC as carcinogens (remember, that NIOSH listed TiO2 as a carcinogen about 25 years before IARC and others realized they were right),
2) NIOSH evidence for the cancer-causing effects of TiO2 and other particles as being related to surface characteristics of small particulates rather than toxic effects, and
3) NIOSH's research on non-asbestos substances that cause asbestos related diseases (which include carbon nanotubes) and definitions of asbestos as an elongated particle.
A picture is beginning to emerge in research into small particles that we should be looking at carefully rather than waiting until there is a body count and regulations passed--as it usually happens historically.
I recommend enclosure and exhaust for 3D printers. I don't think we have the right to make students the nanotechnology industries lab rats.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
From: Carole Savoie <carole.savoie**At_Symbol_Here**POLYMTL.CA>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 2:41 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] 3-D printers
I would also be interested on any information one could share.
Thank you very much!
Conseille`re en sante´ et se´curite´
Secteur sante´ et se´curite´
Polytechnique de Montre´al
Envoye´ de mon iPhone
Le 2014-04-21 a` 13:54, Rortvedt deZero <rortvedt**At_Symbol_Here**HOTMAIL.COM> a e´crit :
Can anyone share guidance they provide for installation and use of a 3-D printer?
Recommendations range from "use in a well-ventilated area" to housing in a HEPA-filtered encasement.
I don't have information on the size of the unit. It will be in a university art department so I assume fairly heavy use and varied feedstock.
Ralph North, CHMM
University of Wisconsin System
Office of Risk Management
780 Regent St.
Madison, WI 53715-2635
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post