The objects are one issue, but the big issue is the emissions during the printing process, machine maintenance, loading of consumables in the powder printers, and more. We can keep zebra fish away from the objects, but we can't control the emissions from the machines.
From: Stuart, Ralph <Ralph.Stuart**At_Symbol_Here**KEENE.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2016 3:23 pm
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Assessing and Reducing the Toxicity of 3D-Printed Parts
I suspect that many of us are not surprised by this...
ABSTRACT: 3D printing is gaining popularity by providing a tool for fast, cost-effective, and highly customizable fabrication. However, little is known about the toxicity of 3D-printed objects. In this work, we assess the toxicity of printed parts from two main classes of commercial 3D printers, fused deposition modeling and stereo- lithography. We assessed the toxicity of these 3D-printed parts using zebrafish (Danio rerio), a widely used model organism in aquatic toxicology. Zebrafish embryos were exposed to 3D-printed parts and monitored for rates of survival, hatching, and developmental abnormalities. We found that parts from both types of printers were measurably toxic to zebrafish embryos, with STL-printed parts significantly more toxic than FDM-printed parts. We also developed a simple post-printing treatment (exposure to ultraviolet light) that largely mitigates the toxicity of the STL-printed parts. Our results call attention to the need for strategies for the safe !
disposal of 3D-printed parts and printer waste materials.
Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Keene State College
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post