TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long T1 - Chemical characterization of ultrafine particles released from 3D printers N2 - Previous studies have shown that desktop 3D printers (Fused Filament Fabrication) emit high numbers of particulate matter, mainly as ultrafine particles (UFP, particle diameter less than 100 nm). However, the chemical composition of emitted particles has been less extensively investigated. In this study, we therefore focused on the chemical composition of particles emitted from 3D printing. The measurements were conducted in a 1 m³ emission test chamber. Emitted particles were sampled by a 13-stage low-pressure cascade impactor onto aluminum foils and then analyzed by TD-GC/MS to identify their organic compounds. Nine commercial filaments made from basic polymers such as Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA), Polycarbonate (PC), Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), Nylon, High Performance Polystyrene (HIPS) and a copper-filled Polylactide (PLA) were investigated. The results show that the organic components of the particles are primarily plastic additives such as plasticizer, antioxidant agents, lubricants, UV-absorbers and UV-stabilizers from the filaments. T2 - Healthy Buildings Europe 2021 CY - Online meeting DA - 21.06.2021 KW - UFP KW - FFF-3D-Printer KW - Chemical characterization PY - 2021 AN - OPUS4-52895 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long A1 - Wilke, Olaf A1 - Seeger, Stefan A1 - Kalus, Sabine A1 - Erdmann, Kerstin T1 - Chemical characterization of ultrafine particles released from 3D printers N2 - Previous studies have shown that desktop 3D printers (Fused Filament Fabrication) emit high numbers of particulate matter, mainly as ultrafine particles (UFP, particle diameter less than 100 nm). However, the chemical composition of emitted particles has been less extensively investigated. In this study, we therefore focused on the chemical composition of particles emitted from 3D printing. The measurements were conducted in a 1 m³ emission test chamber. Emitted particles were sampled by a 13-stage low-pressure cascade impactor onto aluminum foils and then analyzed by TD-GC/MS to identify their organic compounds. Nine commercial filaments made from basic polymers such as Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA), Polycarbonate (PC), Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), Nylon, High Performance Polystyrene (HIPS) and a copper-filled Polylactide (PLA) were investigated. The results show that the organic components of the particles are primarily plastic additives such as plasticizer, antioxidant agents, lubricants, UV-absorbers and UV-stabilizers from the filaments. T2 - 17th International Conference Healthy Buildings Europe 2021 CY - Online Meeting DA - 21.06.2021 KW - Chemical characterization KW - FFF-3D-Printer KW - UFP KW - Chamber measurement PY - 2021 SP - 251 EP - 252 AN - OPUS4-54255 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tang, Chi-Long A1 - Seeger, Stefan T1 - Systematic ranking of filaments regarding their particulate emissions during fused filament fabrication 3D printing by means of a proposed standard test method N2 - The diversity of fused filament fabrication (FFF) filaments continues to grow rapidly as the popularity of FFF-3D desktop printers for the use as home fabrication devices has been greatly increased in the past decade. Potential harmful emissions and associated health risks when operating indoors have induced many emission studies. However, the lack of standardization of measurements impeded an objectifiable comparison of research findings. Therefore, we designed a chamber-based standard method, i.e., the strand printing method (SPM), which provides a standardized printing procedure and quantifies systematically the particle emission released from individual FFF-3D filaments under controlled conditions. Forty-four marketable filament products were tested. The total number of emitted particles (TP) varied by approximately four orders of magnitude (1E9 ≤ TP ≤ 1E13), indicating that origin of polymers, manufacturer-specific additives, and undeclared impurities have a strong influence. Our results suggest that TP characterizes an individual filament product and particle emissions cannot be categorized by the polymer type (e.g., PLA or ABS) alone. The user's choice of a filament product is therefore decisive for the exposure to released particles during operation. Thus, choosing a filament product awarded for low emissions seems to be an easily achievable preemptive measure to prevent health hazards. KW - Emission test method KW - FFF-printing KW - Particle emission KW - Indoor air quality KW - FFF-filament PY - 2022 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-545087 DO - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.13010 SN - 1600-0668 VL - 32 IS - 3 SP - 1 EP - 12 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken, New Jersey, USA AN - OPUS4-54508 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long T1 - Proposal of a standard test method for the quantification of particulate matter during 3D printing and the systematic ranking of filament materials N2 - The diversity of fused filament fabrication (FFF) filaments continues to grow rapidly as the popularity of FFF-3D desktop printers for the use as home fabrication devices has been greatly increased in the past decade. Potential harmful emissions and associated health risks when operating indoors have induced many emission studies. However, the lack of standardization of measurements impeded an objectifiable comparison of research findings. Therefore, we designed a chamber-based standard method, i.e., the strand printing method (SPM), which provides a standardized printing procedure and quantifies systematically the particle emission released from individual FFF-3D filaments under controlled conditions. Forty-four marketable filament products were tested. The total number of emitted particles (TP) varied by approximately four orders of magnitude (1E9 ≤ TP ≤ 1E13), indicating that origin of polymers, manufacturer-specific additives, and undeclared impurities have a strong influence. Our results suggest that TP characterizes an individual filament product and particle emissions cannot be categorized by the polymer type (e.g., PLA or ABS) alone. The user's choice of a filament product is therefore decisive for the exposure to released particles during operation. Thus, choosing a filament product awarded for low emissions seems to be an easily achievable preemptive measure to prevent health hazards. T2 - 11th International Aerosol Conference CY - Athens, Greece DA - 04.09.2022 KW - Ultrafine particles KW - FFF-3D-Printer KW - Indoor emission KW - Emission test chamber KW - Test method KW - Exposure risk PY - 2022 AN - OPUS4-55666 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tang, Chi-Long A1 - Seeger, Stefan A1 - Röllig, Mathias T1 - Improving the comparability of FFF-3D printing emission data by adjustment of the set extruder temperature N2 - Fused filament fabrication (FFF) is a material extrusion-based technique often used in desktop 3D printers. Polymeric filaments are melted and are extruded through a heated nozzle to form a 3D object in layers. The extruder temperature is therefore a key parameter for a successful print job but also one of the main emission driving factors as harmful pollutants (e.g., ultrafine particles) are formed by thermal polymer degradation. The awareness of potential health risks has increased the number of emission studies in the past years. However, studies usually refer their calculated emission data to the printer set extruder temperature for comparison purposes. In this study, we used a thermocouple and an infrared camera to measure the actual extruder temperature and found significant temperature deviations to the displayed set temperature among printer models. Our result shows that printing the same filament feedstocks with three different printer models and with identical printer set temperature resulted in a variation in particle emission of around two orders of magnitude. A temperature adjustment has reduced the variation to approx. one order of magnitude. Thus, it is necessary to refer the measured emission data to the actual extruder temperature as it poses a more accurate comparison parameter for evaluation of the indoor air quality in user scenarios or for health risk assessments. KW - Ultrafine particles KW - Infrared thermography KW - Thermocouple KW - Indoor air quality KW - FFF-3D printer PY - 2023 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-572842 DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2023.100217 VL - 18 SP - 100217 PB - Elsevier Ltd. CY - Amsterdam, Niederlande AN - OPUS4-57284 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long T1 - Minimizing the FFF-3D printer hardware bias on particle emission by adjustment of the set extruder temperature N2 - Fused filament fabrication (FFF) on desktop 3D printers is a material extrusion-based technique often used by educational institutions, small enterprises and private households. Polymeric filaments are melted and extruded through a heated nozzle to form a 3D object in layers. The extrusion temperature is therefore a key parameter for a successful print job, but also one of the main driving factors for the emission of harmful air pollutants, namely ultrafine particles and volatile organic gases, which are formed by thermal stress on the polymeric feedstock. The awareness of potential health risks has increased the number of emission studies in the past years. However, the multiplicity of study designs makes an objective comparison of emission data challenging because printer hardware factors such as the actual extruder temperature (TE) and also feedstockspecific emissions are not considered. We assume that across the market of commercial low- and mid-price FFF printers substantial deviations between actual and set extruder temperatures exist, which have a strong effect on the emissions and hence may bias the findings of exposure studies. In our last publication, we presented a standardized feedstock-specific emission test method and showed that for each investigated feedstock an increase in actual extruder temperature was accompanied by an increase in particle emissions (Tang and Seeger, 2022). Therefore, any systematic discrepancy between set and actual extruder temperature matters. In this study, we used a thermocouple and an infrared camera to measure the actual extruder temperatures at different heights. We found significant under- and overestimation of the actual extruder temperatures by the respective set temperatures in three commercial printers. This caused a broad variation of the measured total numbers of emitted particles (TP), even when the same feedstock was operated. For the determination of TP, we followed the DE-UZ 219 test guideline. In a second round we repeated the tests with all printers adjusted to exactly the same extruder temperatures, i.e., to TE=230°C for ABS and TE=210°C for PLA. All measurements were conducted in a 1 m³ emission test chamber. Particle emissions in the size range between 4 nm and 20 μm were detected. Printing on three different printer models without temperature adjustment resulted for each of the investigated feedstocks in a variation in TP of around two orders of magnitude. After temperature adjustment, this was substantially reduced to approx. one order of magnitude and hence minimizes the bias of printer hardware on the emissions. Our findings suggest that adjustment of the extruder temperature should be mandatory in emission testing standards. It also poses a more accurate benchmark and provides more reliable emission data for evaluation of indoor air quality or for health risk assessments. In addition, a proper temperature setting is in the interest of the user. Some commercial FFF printers may have a higher actual extruder temperature than displayed and unintended overheating may not only impair the print quality but may cause unnecessarily increased exposure to particle emissions. T2 - European Aerosol Conference 2023 CY - Málaga, Spain DA - 03.09.2023 KW - Ultrafine particles KW - Thermal imaging KW - 3D printing KW - Indoor air quality KW - Emission testing PY - 2023 AN - OPUS4-58258 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long T1 - UFP-Emission beim 3D-Druck N2 - Desktop-3D-Drucker haben in der letzten Dekade große Popularität in Bildungseinrichtungen, kleinen Unternehmen und Privathaushalten erlangt. Weit verbreitet ist mittlerweile die „Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)“ Technologie. Hier wird ein thermoplastisches Filament geschmolzen, durch eine Metalldüse extrudiert und anschließend schichtweise so auf ein Druckbett aufgetragen, dass ein 3D-Objekt entsteht. Das Filamentmaterial wird dabei thermisch stark belastet, was zur Emission von Aerosolen sowie flüchtigen organischen Verbindungen (VOC) führt. Dabei werden hauptsächlich ultrafeine Partikel (UFP, dP < 100 nm) freigesetzt werden, die sogar in manchen Fällen im sub-4nm Größenbereich einen signifikanten Anteil ausmachen können (Tang und Seeger 2024). Die gesundheitliche Relevanz eingeatmeter UFP ist durch sehr viele Studien gut belegt. Während eines i.d.R. mehrstündigen FFF-Druckvorgangs wird ein Anwender mit diesen Luftschadstoffen im Innenraum exponiert, häufig ohne eine Einschätzung des damit verbundenen Risikos zu haben. Die Exposition kann durch technische Faktoren (z.B. Druckerausstattung und -einstellung, Innenraumventilation), aber auch erheblich durch die Filamentauswahl beeinflusst werden. Unser Vorschlag zur Risikominderung besteht in der Auszeichnung emissionsarmer Filamentprodukte mit dem Umweltzeichen „Blauer Engel“, um so den Verbrauchern eine fundierte Auswahl zu ermöglichen. In unserem Projekt entwickeln wir dafür ein kammerbasiertes, standardisierbares und robustes Prüfverfahren zur vergleichenden Messung der Emission aus Filamenten. Mit dem Strangdruck-Verfahren (engl. Strand Printing Method, SPM) wird eine festgelegte Filamentlänge mit konstanter Rate extrudiert und auf dem Druckbett abgelegt, ohne dabei ein 3D-Objekt aufzubauen. Diese Vorgehensweise reduziert den Einfluss experimentell schlecht zu kontrollierender Faktoren sowie die Ausfallquote. Eine detaillierte Beschreibung und die Vorteile von SPM werden in Tang und Seeger (2022) erläutert. SPM wurde bereits für 44 Filamentprodukte aus unterschiedlichen Polymeren und Additiven als Vergleichstest angewendet. Alle Messungen wurden in einer klimatisierten 1 m³-Emissionsprüfkammer durchgeführt. Die Gesamtanzahl der emittierten Partikel (TP) dient als Beurteilungsmaß, in Anlehnung an die Vergabegrundlage DE-UZ-219 des Umweltzeichens Blauer Engel für Laserdrucker. Unter den getesteten Filamentprodukten variiert TP um ca. vier Größenordnungen (1E+9 ≤ TP ≤ 1E+13). Auch innerhalb jeder der untersuchten Polymergruppen variierte TP signifikant. Die Partikelemission kann daher nicht allein nach dem Basispolymer kategorisiert werden. Unsere Resultate belegen, dass die Stärke der Partikelemission eher eine charakteristische und individuelle Eigenschaft eines Filamentproduktes ist. Die Herkunft der Polymere, die herstellerspezifischen Additive sowie die nicht deklarierte Verunreinigungen können einen starken Einfluss auf die Emission haben. Die Auszeichnung von emissionsarmen Filament-produkten verspricht somit eine einfache, aber effektive Maßnahme zu sein, um Verbrauchern eine Minderung des Expositionsrisikos beim FFF-3D-Druck zu ermöglichen. T2 - 5. Symposium "Ultrafeinstaub in der Atmosphäre und in Innenräumen" CY - Berlin, Germany DA - 16.09.2024 KW - 3D-Druck KW - Ultrafeine Partikel KW - Innenraumemission KW - Luftschadstoffe KW - Emissionsprüfung PY - 2024 AN - OPUS4-61067 LA - deu AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long T1 - Sub-4 nm particles from FFF-3D printing measured with the TSI 1 nm CPC and the Airmodus A11 nCNC N2 - Concerns have been raised as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) desktop 3D printer emits harmful ultrafine particles (dP < 100 nm) during operation in indoor spaces. However, the vast majority of previous emission studies have neglected the possible occurrence of sub-4 nm particles by using conventional condensation particle counter (CPC) for detection. Thus, the total particle emission could be systematically underestimated. This study has compared two diethylene glycol (DEG) based instruments to evaluate their suitability for measuring organic FFF particles in the sub-4 nm size range either as particle counter or as a particle size spectrometer. T2 - European Aerosol Conference 2024 CY - Tampere, Finland DA - 25.08.2024 KW - Air pollution KW - Emission testing KW - FFF-3D printing KW - Sub-4nm particles KW - Ultrafine particles PY - 2024 AN - OPUS4-60930 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tang, Chi-Long A1 - Seeger, Stefan T1 - Measurement of sub-4 nm particle emission from FFF-3D printing with the TSI Nano Enhancer and the Airmodus Particle Size Magnifier N2 - The emission of ultrafine particles from small desktop Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) 3D printers has been frequently investigated in the past years. However, the vast majority of FFF emission and exposure studies have not considered the possible occurrence of particles below the typical detection limit of Condensation Particle Counters and could have systematically underestimated the total particle emission as well as the related exposure risks. Therefore, we comparatively measured particle number concentrations and size distributions of sub-4 nm particles with two commercially available diethylene glycol-based instruments – the TSI 3757 Nano Enhancer and the Airmodus A10 Particle Size Magnifier. Both instruments were evaluated for their suitability of measuring FFF-3D printing emissions in the sub-4 nm size range while operated as a particle counter or as a particle size spectrometer. For particle counting, both instruments match best when the Airmodus system was adjusted to a cut-off of 1.5 nm. For size spectroscopy, both instruments show limitations due to either the fast dynamics or rather low levels of particle emissions from FFF-3D printing in this range. The effects are discussed in detail in this article. The findings could be used to implement sub-4 nm particle measurement in future emission or exposure studies, but also for the development of standard test protocols for FFF-3D printing emissions. KW - Air pollution KW - Ultrafine particles KW - Sub-4nm particles KW - FFF-3D printing KW - Emission testing PY - 2024 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-595952 DO - https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2024.2320430 SN - 0278-6826 VL - 58 IS - 6 SP - 644 EP - 656 PB - Taylor & Francis CY - London AN - OPUS4-59595 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -