I suspect that many of us are not surprised by this...

- Ralph

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__pubs.acs.org_doi_pdf_10.1021_acs.estlett.5b00249&d=BQIFAg&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=QwzhxGIFBoU-fB29uWR6rN5UqpnThlKzA08RrZgx4oE&s=-zKrBfsvgboYYjfk6_rhlR5QYyuZ6lvVUBMZqtKJhLE&e=

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

ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**keene.edu

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post