
Study Shows Some 3D Printed Objects Are Toxic - trop
http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/32964
======
serpentor

      But the precise identity of these substances 
      is often unknown to researchers and printer 
      users because the printer manufacturers don’t 
      disclose this information.
    

That's not entirely honest. That statement conflates the idea that there is no
information available to end users, detailing how 3D printing technology
works, when the truth is that the information is out there, and most of the
materials involved in consumer-grade plastic 3D printing kind of HAVE TO BE
well-understood from a chemical perspective in order for the printers to be
designed around them.

FormLabs does publish material safety data sheets:

[http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/2285/files/MSDS_v7.pdf](http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/2285/files/MSDS_v7.pdf)

So does Stratsys:

[http://m.stratasys.com/ig8del/lnk000/=usglobalimages.stratas...](http://m.stratasys.com/ig8del/lnk000/=usglobalimages.stratasys.com/Main/Secure/MSDS/ABS-
ESD7/MSDS_ABS-ESD7-US.pdf?v=634938477402699705)

The larger companies DEFINITELY force you into using THEIR proprietary
plastics, when open-source printers permit the use of commodity ABS or PLA.

ABS -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styren...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styrene)

PLA -
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid)

But, realistically speaking, just based on the fact that it's possible to
cobble together open-source 3D printers from commodity parts and commodity
expendable plastic, should inform the reader that the materials used by 3D
printers are not so mysterious. In most cases the materials are
acrylic/styrene based polymers, and not so exotic that they haven't been used
for decades. Whether they've EVER been safe is another question altogether.

The article neglects and glosses over these details.

~~~
bigiain
The article neglects and glosses over whether the "melted plastic" objects
were ABS or PLA (or something else), which quite readily indicates the useful
content in the article. (I suspect the research clearly defined that, but the
article comes across as "I need to reach my word limit for the next 20
minutes, so I'll just copy-paste a few scary sounding sentences from a
research paper, then make up some filler to go between without bothering to
understand anything.")

~~~
joosters
You appear to be jumping from 'the article is missing some details' to 'the
article must be completely wrong'. Impressive!

------
pen2l
> She found that after exposing the parts to ultraviolet light for one hour,
> the parts are significantly less toxic to zebrafish embryos. The UC
> Riverside Office of Technology Commercialization has filed a patent for this
> work.

What the fuck. Filed a patent for shining some UV light to decontaminate parts
before using them? What the actual living fuck. That is what labs do (and
should be doing) ANYWAY for a lot of equipment before starting experiments.

~~~
Cerium
I'm pretty sure its even worse than that. As I understand the UV light is
being shined on a block of mostly cured UV resin from a UV resin printer. It
seems that the fish are dying because the uncured resin leeches into the
water.

UV resins (as used in 3d printers) are often oxygen inhibited, so a derivative
work patent could be filed on the combination of UV light in an oxygen free
environment (joke).

~~~
pen2l
You bring up good points.

Also, interesting that Carbon3d's CEO, (Carbon3d being 3d printer that indeed
works by curing resin with light), from the beginning has been flaunting
future applications in biological sciences:
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14586/carbon3d-3...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14586/carbon3d-3d-printer-
resin/)

I feel like there should be a two troughs to the hype cycle:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gartner_Hype_Cycle.s...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gartner_Hype_Cycle.svg)

One for the normal disillusionment, the second for discovering that this new
hot thing is actually bad in some notable way. And then sometimes we recover
from that, sometimes we don't.

I think light-curing 3dprinters will never catch on in a big way, because I
can't imagine normal people handling the _uncured_ resins in a safe way on a
mass scale.

Article link suggests that much of the bad stuff happened with the
stereolithagrphy printers, I hope more research is done on safety of FDM
printers. While polylactic acid (safest material that can be used) is
basically corn... inhaling burning corn fumes is still probably carcinogenic.

~~~
Kliment
About the PLA fumes - this has actually been extensively studied and there's
no notable amounts of decomposition at normal PLA melt temperatures - that is,
if there's no visible charring on your part, there's no measurable
decomposition fumes. ABS fumes are much more significant, but they appear to
be at about the same level as searing meat in a frying pan. I'm sure if you
put a zebrafish embryo near frying pan fumes it would be harmed, but that
isn't saying much.

------
Animats
That's not surprising for UV-triggered photopolymers. A material that will go
from a liquid to a solid with just a nudge from some UV light has to be quite
reactive. Here's the Material Safety Data Sheet for one of Stratasys's "bio-
compatible" materials.[1] That stuff has to be contained in a cartridge for
safety reasons. Once fully cured, it's supposedly safe for dental devices.
Here's Form 1's clear material.[2] Lower hazard ratings, but still hazardous.

If the curing reaction doesn't go to completion, some of the source material
will remain, which is a problem. If further exposure to UV reduces toxicity,
the 3D printing process isn't finishing the curing process.

ABS extruders should produce objects no more toxic than the raw ABS. ABS is
rather neutral chemically. When heated, it may give off "irritating vapors",
says the MSDS,[3] and its combustion products are toxic, but cold, it should
be harmless.

[1]
[http://usglobalimages.stratasys.com/Main/Secure/MSDS/Dental%...](http://usglobalimages.stratasys.com/Main/Secure/MSDS/Dental%20and%20BIO-
Compatible%20Materials/DOC-06135-Objet-MED610-Biocompatible-Clear-
US.pdf?v=635508817295287425) [2]
[https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15294-s15/resou...](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15294-s15/resources/CLEAR+MSDS+v10.pdf)
[3]
[http://download.makerbot.com/filament/ABS_MSDS_MakerBot_Stra...](http://download.makerbot.com/filament/ABS_MSDS_MakerBot_Stratasys.pdf)

~~~
mistercow
> If further exposure to UV reduces toxicity, the 3D printing process isn't
> finishing the curing process.

Then that seems super solvable. There just needs to be an end curing phase
added where the final object is exposed to UV for a little while.

~~~
Animats
If the material is clear, translucent, or thin, that should work. Curing the
interior of opaque materials may not work.

FormLabs admits that post-curing may be necessary.[1] But they don't sell a
curing chamber. High-power UV curing chambers are not cheap.[2] Some people
have reported success using cheap UV sterilizers, but that's going to depend
on how thick your parts are. Nail polish curing UV devices are too weak. Real
curing chambers look like a microwave oven, with door interlocks and a
turntable.

[1] [http://forum.formlabs.com/t/recommended-uv-chamber-for-
post-...](http://forum.formlabs.com/t/recommended-uv-chamber-for-post-
curing/3547) [2] [http://www.cureuv.com/uv-light-curing-chambers-and-flood-
lam...](http://www.cureuv.com/uv-light-curing-chambers-and-flood-lamp-
systems.html)

