TY - JOUR A1 - Seeger, Stefan A1 - Brödner, Doris A1 - Jacobi, T. A1 - Rasch, Fabian A1 - Rothhardt, Monika A1 - Wilke, Olaf T1 - Emissions of fine and ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds from different filament materials operated on a low-cost 3D printer T1 - Emissionen feiner und ultrafeiner Partikel sowie flüchtiger organischer Verbindungen beim Einsatz verschiedener Filamentmaterialien in einem „low-cost“-3D-Drucker JF - Gefahrstoffe - Reinhaltung der Luft N2 - 3D-printing or additive manufacturing has many promising and unique advantages. Especially low cost molten polymer Deposition Printers are increasingly populär in the private and educational sector. Their environmental friendliness can be questioned due to recently reported ultrafine particle and suspected VOC emissions, To further investigate 3D-printing as a potential indoor air pollution source we characterized fine and ultrafine particle emissions from a molten polymer deposition printer producing a 3D object with ten marketable polymer filament materials under controlled conditions in a test chamber. VOC emissions from the filaments have also been compared. Using a straightforward emission model time dependent and averaged particle emission rates were determined. The results indicate that under comparable conditions some filament materials produce mainly ultrafine particles up to an average rate of 1013 per minute. This value is in the upper ränge of typical indoor ultrafine particle sources (e.g. Smoking, frying, candle light, laser printer). The observed material-specific rates differ by five Orders of magnitude. Filament-specific gaseous emissions of organic compounds such as bisphenol A, styrene and others were also detected. Our results suggest a detailed evaluation of related risks and considering protective measures such as housing and filtering. N2 - 3D-Druck oder additive Herstellungsverfahren haben eine Menge vielversprechender und einzigartiger Vorteile. Insbesondere günstige 3D-Drucker für Polymere werden im privaten und ausbildenden Bereich zunehmend beliebter. Ihre Umweltfreundlichkeit kann aufgrund jüngst berichteter Emissionen ultrafeiner Partikel und vermuteter VOC-Emissionen infrage gestellt werden. Um 3D-Drucker für Polymere als mögliche Quelle von Innenraumluftverunreinigungen weiter zu untersuchen, charakterisierten wir die Emissionen feiner und ultrafeiner Partikel bei der Herstellung eines 3D-Objekts unter Verwendung zehn marktgängiger Polymerfilamente unter kontrollierten Bedingungen in einer Emissionsprüfkammer. Die VOC-Emissionen der verschiedenen Filamente wurden ebenfalls verglichen. Die zeitabhängigen und gemittelten Partikelemissionsraten wurden durch Anwendung eines einfachen Emissionsmodells bestimmt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass unter vergleichbaren Bedingungen einige Filamente mit einer mittleren Rate von 10 KW - Emission KW - Ultrafine particles KW - VOC KW - 3D printer PY - 2018 SN - 0949-8036 SN - 0039-0771 VL - 78 IS - 3 SP - 79 EP - 87 PB - Springer-VDI-Verl. CY - Düsseldorf AN - OPUS4-44954 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Tang, Chi-Long A1 - Seeger, Stefan A1 - Röllig, Mathias 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 A1 - Seeger, Stefan 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 T1 - Measurement of sub-4 nm particle emission from FFF-3D printing with the TSI Nano Enhancer and the Airmodus Particle Size Magnifier JF - Aerosol Science and Technology 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 - 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 JF - Atmospheric Environment: X 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 -