-2

Facts:

  1. Breaking down (or melting) plastic creates nanoparticles.1
  2. 3D printers melt plastic.2
  3. Therefore, 3D printers make nanoparticles.3
  4. Nanoparticles are evil.[citation needed]

Wait, What?

1. Plastic waste disintegrates into nanoparticles
2. How do 3D printers work?
3. Characterization of particle emissions from consumer fused deposition modeling 3D printers

I know that 3D printers make nanoparticles. But is that actually a safety concern? There are multiple products on the market today that will suck up your nanoparticles for you. However, I can't see an obvious danger in the particles themselves. Who decided that these nanoparticles are bad for your health? 3D printers put out plenty of heat too, but nobody thinks that's dangerous.

So my question: Does anyone know of sources/research articles of the possible harmful effects of nanoparticles created by 3D printing? I'm looking for real scientific research. Thanks.

Rafael
  • 268
  • 2
  • 11
  • 1
    Your fact three isn't really a "therefore" in the deductive sense. The paper you link to is about measuring the emissions empirically. – Dan Hulme Mar 22 '19 at 09:41
  • @DanHulme, you can read it as: Therefore, 3D printers make nanoparticles-(proof 3D printers make nanoparticles) – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 12:35
  • After answering, re-reading, editing, re-reading again, and re-editing, I wonder if this is relevant to this SE group? Perhaps the red herring of 3D printing could be removed, and the question moved to a more appropriate SE site? – cmm Mar 22 '19 at 15:31
  • The dose makes the poison. – Carl Witthoft Mar 22 '19 at 17:55
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this belongs on some health or hazmat site. – Carl Witthoft Mar 22 '19 at 17:56
  • @CarlWitthoft, the question refers to the nanoparticles created from *3D printers*. – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 18:19
  • It's also good to keep in mind that **lots of things** will melt plastic, and therefore there's a certain amount of background nano-plastic in any modern society. So even if nano-plastics turn out to be just awful for human bodies, and 3D printers do create them, you haven't shown that 3D printers will appreciably increase the "normal" background concentration. – Joel Coehoorn Mar 25 '19 at 19:19
  • @JoelCoehoorn, look at my 3rd link. 3D printers definitely increase background concentration. We do not really use any other devices that **intentionally** melt plastic. However, you may be right that the increase may not be an appreciable health risk; that was part of my question. – Rafael Mar 26 '19 at 00:41

2 Answers2

7

At the time of this writing (March 2019), I don't think theres any study on the health effects of nanoparticles emmitted by 3D Printers. The general consensus seems to be right now that those particles are potentially harmful, as they build up in the lungs, and therefore precautions should be taken.

The reason why nobody has yet determined if and how harmful they are, might be that those adverse health effects are probably long term, and hard to isolate. Plastic is everywhere today - it's not that easy to just study harmful health effects caused by 3D printers.

But we can say for sure that plastic in our bodies isn't ideal and can cause damage, so we should avoid it.

Trish
  • 20,169
  • 10
  • 43
  • 92
Jonas Lang
  • 71
  • 1
1

Perhaps FDM 3D printing does emit nanoparticles during the process of printing, but the syllogism does not prove it or even suggest it.

Parenthetically, your headline is not actually addressed by the body of your question. As an answerer, I have been misled by other questions which seemed clear enough from the headline, but where the question body actually posed a completely different question.

Double parenthetically, your final question does align with your headline. The discussion of 3D printing and the assertion that it is dangerous is not actually relevant to the question at all. It might be better to remove the references to 3D printing and post this in another SE group focused on human health.

The first point, that breaking down or melting plastic produces nano-particles is not supported by your reference. The reference refers to the mechanical breakdown of particles in a simulated oceanic environment and does not mention melting. The reference is silent on the possibility of melting producing and emitting nanoparticles.

In an FDM 3D printer, the melting takes place in an enclosed capsule, the hot-end. The plastic is heated to the point where the viscosity is low enough that the pressure of the unsoftened plastic filament pushes the softened material out of the hot-end through the nozzle. Upon exiting the nozzle the temperature falls, and the plastic begins to recrystallize.

I have seen no evidence of outgassing during printing with dry filament, other than an odor. Usually melting joins separated objects, pellets, and larger particles in a unified liquid state.

Without specific testing, one can not say there is no risk of nanoparticles emitted by FDM 3D printing. Ventilation remains a useful method of reducing local exposure to nanoparticles and odors. Airborne risks are one of the many risks to be considered, but I have no evidence that they are more serious than the burn risk, the fire risk, or the risk of a stroke from high blood pressure induced by failed prints.

cmm
  • 4,418
  • 10
  • 36
  • 1
    I'm not really sure how this attempts to answer the question? The first part of your "answer" is a rant against the question. I'm not sure how that is useful to the reader in general? – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Mar 22 '19 at 15:41
  • Not intended as a rant, the parenthetical bits were added after re-reading the question. Pointing out that the syllogism contains a fallacy seems appropriate, but perhaps it is not. Discussing the mechanism through which nanoparticles may or may not be emitted is responsive to the teaching of the question, although I understand (and later commented) that everything about 3D printing was not relevant to the question which was actually asked. Feel free to delete as you find appropriate. – cmm Mar 22 '19 at 15:50
  • 1
    Just look at the definition of the 'health' tag on this site. 'For questions about the long-term effects of 3D printing.' My question seems to fall into that category. As for migrating the question to another site, my question refers specifically to nanoparticles *created through 3D printing.* I'm sorry if that's not clear, I'll edit my question. – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 15:54
  • @Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 I like the point made in the fourth paragraph, that the article does not mention *melting* at all... While the answer starts off as a bit ranty, I think that it is actually (justifiably) dismissing (some of) the arguments made in the question, and in doing so, make the question itself a bit of a non-starter. If the question had better references, then the question might be more "acceptable" or, to put it better, "unassailable" as a 3DP question. But as it stands the question *does seem* to be based upon a few false premises... even though the points raised by it are valid... – Greenonline Mar 22 '19 at 15:55
  • 1
    @Rafael ... i.e. "Are there nano-particles?" and "Are they dangerous?" would seem to me to be valid health related questions to ask w.r.t. 3D printing, as a lot of people (especially students) have them set up in their bedrooms, and have prints going all night long... – Greenonline Mar 22 '19 at 15:58
  • In your 4th paragraph, you are correct that my first reference does not directly support the fact that melting plastic creates nanoparticles. However, if you would read my [3rd link](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2017.1342029), you will see it is very clear that 3D printers do indeed make nanoparticles. In your 6th paragraph, you say "I have seen no evidence of outgassing during printing". You misunderstand. Outgassing refers to the emission of VOC's (which definitely happens anyways), but my question refers to nanoparticles (which are also made but not the same thing). – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 16:03
  • @Rafael - good point. Third link does state that, sorry, I hadn't read it. – Greenonline Mar 22 '19 at 16:07
  • @cmm, if you like this source better, I can replace it as my 1st reference: [Persistent free radicals, heavy metals and PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions and residue ash from controlled combustion of common types of plastic](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389407017694) – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 16:26
  • @Rafael, I like your third reference. The title of the reference immediately above doesn't seem relevant. Your third reference is squarely on-point. – cmm Mar 22 '19 at 16:52
  • @cmm, as you have clearly noted, the other references aren't really necessary. However, the 3rd reference certainly covers for them. The reason I put in the other references was to demonstrate the logical leap I have seen a lot of articles perform when discussing 3D printer emissions. They spend time demonstrating how many np's they make, but they don't go in depth about why these particles are dangerous. – Rafael Mar 22 '19 at 17:31