4 Material und Umwelt
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (3)
- Vortrag (2)
- Posterpräsentation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Schlagworte
- Ultrafine particles (6) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 4 Material und Umwelt (6) (entfernen)
Paper des Monats
- ja (1)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
Sub-4 nm particles from FFF-3D printing measured with the TSI 1 nm CPC and the Airmodus A11 nCNC
(2024)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.