Georgia Tech Research: Desktop FDM 3D Printing Particle Emissions May Be Dangerous to Humans


Share this Article

Sometimes 3D printing may seem to be almost too good to be true, offering what can sometimes be astounding benefits in affordability, production of speed, self-sustainability, and savings in materials and labor. The downsides are few, but as with the use of any machinery, the topic of safety should always present. And although physical hazards may be few in 3D printing, toxicity to humans has been in question for years—in connection with both the materials being used and particle emissions.

As Qian Zhang, a PhD student at Georgia Institute of Technology, asserts in her recent dissertation, ‘Particle Emissions from Consumer Level 3D Printers,’ concerns continue regarding 3D printing emissions in closed environments (which would be the norm in most cases) such as the workplace, classroom, and home. Zhang’s research was comprehensive, focusing on ABS and PLA in terms of particle emissions and their dangers to the public.

Overall, as Zhang points out, ABS and PLA are the most common forms of materials used with 3D printing although many other alternative sources are beginning to gain traction too, from metal to wood—and a growing multitude of other options. ABS is used due to affordability, good strength, stiffness, and more, while PLA (although less stable and not as strong) is thought of as being more environmentally friendly due to its plant-based origins, allowing for more recycling options. Zhang considered these materials specifically, along with FDM 3D printers at the desktop level that may emit particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs or total volatile organic compounds, TVOCs) into the air, along with gas phase pollutants.

Previous studies showed that ABS usually emitted more particles; in fact, perhaps as much as ‘one to two orders of magnitude higher’ than PLA. As the researcher points out, particle emissions can vary due to other reasons such as:

  • Types of environment
  • Air mixing and air rate
  • Measurement instrumentation
  • Calculation methods regarding particles

Particle number (a), surface area (b) and mass (c) emissions for ABS
filament d green color on printer A for 3 objects taking about 1 hr, 4 hr and 7 hr to
print. Each bar indicates the emission (TP) from one print object; colors indicate
different particle size ranges. Values on the colored bars are the ratios of emissions
from such particle size range over total emissions.

Carbon and oxygen were the ‘most abundant elements’ found in particle emissions, along with small amounts of metals. ABS filaments were also known to emit styrene and ethylbenzene, while PLA filaments have been known to emit lactide, lactic acid and methyl-methacrylate. The research shows that overall, VOC concentrations may be above normal limits in offices, but environmental variables such as heating, and air-conditioning, may be responsible for lowering levels of toxins substantially. Ultrafine particles are extremely mobile and may cover a large surface area, and in humans can affect the entire respiratory tract, as well as organs and cells, via transportation through the bloodstream.

“The existing results revealed the potential health effects for 3D printer emissions, while more toxicity assessments using multiple methods need to be applied and compared in order to have a broader understanding of the particle emission toxicity,” states Zhang.

Testing included an examination of the following:

  • Methods
  • Printer operating conditions
  • Printer brands
  • Filament materials
  • Brands and colors
  • Extrusion and build plate temperatures

“Applying an existing test method to 3D printers gives insight for development of a standard test method for 3D printers and provides a database for assessing emission limits. Furthermore, it might provide insights for 3D printer and filament manufacturers to produce low emitting products and develop effective mitigation methods,” says Zhang.

Particle emissions tend to be greater as a 3D printing job begins, mainly comprised of ultrafine particles and nanoparticles.

“For shorter print jobs, these aerosol dynamic processes may never reach steady state before printing ends, whereas for longer jobs, concentrations of various sizes can remain relatively constant after about 1 hour of printing (for this condition), indicating the processes of particle formation, vapor-condensational growth, coagulation and loss reach a steady state,” states Zhang.

“Compared to number concentration profiles, the surface area and mass concentrations both take longer to reach a maximum. The large number of newly formed particles contributes little to surface area or mass, but as printing continues to supply vapors, particle growth by condensation of vapors leads to a rise in surface area and mass concentrations.”

Printer brands and filaments especially did make a big difference when using ABS, while in terms of PLA the 3D printer used had the most effect. ABS numbers turned out to be up to 3 to 104 times that of PLA yields, but Zhang points out that variations differ regarding 3D printer brands, and mass basis of particles should be taken into account also.

 “A consistency among various methods showed that PLA emitted particles induced similar levels of responses at much lower doses than ABS-emitted particles, indicating PLA emitted particles are more toxic on a particle mass basis. However, calculations for the overall exposure showed ABS filaments may be more harmful due to their much higher emissions. Overall, 3D printers are sources of high levels of ultrafine particles, which are potentially harmful for their users. Therefore, the emissions should be regulated and mitigate,” concluded the research.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at

[Source / Images: Particle Emissions from Consumer Level 3D Printers]


Time series of particle number concentrations averaged over various
particle size ranges on log scale (a), total particle concentrations on linear scale (b),
evolution of size distributions (c) and average particle number distributions during
the printing period separated into 5 time intervals (d). The print condition was ABS
filament brand a, red color, using printer A; the printing period was 47 min,
identified by the vertical lines.

Long time print job time series of particle number concentrations (a) and size distributions (b) for ABS filament, brand d, green color, on printer A; the printing period was 7 hr 4 min, identified by the vertical lines.

Share this Article

Recent News

3D Printing News Unpeeled

Himed and Lithoz Launch Center for Bioceramics 3D Printing


3D Design

3D Printed Art

3D Printed Food

3D Printed Guns

You May Also Like

Slice Engineering and Egyptian NGO Give Amputees Free 3D Printed Prosthetics

Florida-based Slice Engineering believes that additive manufacturing can reshape industries and make a lasting impact on humanity, and so works hard to empower innovators and professionals. The company does this...

3DPOD Episode 197: Ceramics 3D Printing with Johannes Homa, Lithoz CEO

Lithoz is a pioneer in the 3D printing of technical ceramics, initially using a ceramic-loaded stereolithography process and later adopting multiple technologies. Johannes Homa, a researcher turned entrepreneur, discusses his...

AddUp Announces Deputy CEO & Innovations in Medical & Injection Molding AM

Global metal 3D printer OEM AddUp, a joint venture between French tire giant Michelin and Paris-based industrial engineering corporation Fives, appointed Julien Marcilly as its new CEO at the end...

Lithoz Expands Ceramic 3D Printing to Japan via New Network

Lithoz is securing the future of its ceramic 3D printing technology in Japan with the formation of a new coalition with leaders from the country’s ceramics and manufacturing industries. Together...