HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Atmos Environ (1994). 2020 March 1; 224: . doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117321.

Comparative analysis of ventilation efficiency on ultrafine

particle removal in university MakerSpaces
Lynn E. Secondoa,1, Hayat I. Adawia,2, John Cuddeheb, Kenneth Hopsonc, Allison
Schumacherd, Larry Mendozae, Charles Cartinf, Nastassja A. Lewinskia,*
aDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 601
W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States
Author Manuscript

bDepartment of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1001 W. Main St, Richmond, VA,
23284, United States
cJames Branch Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University, 901 Park Ave, Richmond, VA,
23284, United States
dda Vinci Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 807 S Cathedral Pl, Richmond, VA, 23284,
United States
eEnvironmental Health and Safety, Safety and Risk Management, Virginia Commonwealth
University, 1008 East Clay Street Box 980112, Richmond Va, 23298, United States
fDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 W.
Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States
Author Manuscript

Abstract
The proliferation of 3D printing MakerSpaces in university settings has led to an increased risk of
student and technician exposure to ultrafine particles. New MakerSpaces do not have standardized
specifications to aid in the design of the space; therefore, a need exists to characterize the impacts
of different engineering controls on MakerSpace air quality. This study compares three university
MakerSpaces: a library MakerSpace operating ≤4 devices under typical office space ventilation
with no engineering controls, a laboratory MakerSpace operating 29 printers inside grated
cabinets, with laboratory-grade ventilation, and a center MakerSpace operating ≤4 devices with

*
Corresponding author. W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States. nalewinski@vcu.edu (N.A. Lewinski).
Author Manuscript

1Present Address: Lynn E. Secondo, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, 170
Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, New Jersey, 08854.
2Present Address: Hayat I. Adawi, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, G104 Engineering
Quadrangle, Princeton, New Jersey, 08544.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lynn E. Secondo: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Hayat I. Adawi: Investigation,
Visualization, Writing - original draft. John Cuddehe: Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Kenneth Hopson:
Resources, Writing - review & editing. Allison Schumacher: Resources, Writing - review & editing. Larry Mendoza: Methodology,
Investigation, Resources, Writing - review & editing. Charles Cartin: Resources, Writing - review & editing. Nastassja A. Lewinski:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117321.
 Secondo et al. Page 2

neither engineering controls nor internal ventilation. All MakerSpaces were studied under both
Author Manuscript

controlled (using a standard print design) and uncontrolled (real-time user operation) conditions
measuring emitted particle concentrations in the near-field. Additionally, volatile organic
emissions and the difference between near-field and far-field particle concentrations were
investigated in multiple MakerSpaces. The center MakerSpace had the greatest net increase in
mean particle number concentration (+1378.9% relative to background during a print campaign
using polylactic acid (PLA) filament in a MakerBot (MakerBot-PLA)). The number-weighted
mean diameter had the greatest change relative to background during the library campaign,
+37.1% for the Lulzbot-PLA and −56.1% for the Ultimaker-PLA studies. For the standard NIST
design with MakerBot-PLA, the laboratory’s particle removal ratio was 30 times greater than in
the library with open cabinets and 54 times greater when the cabinet doors were closed. The
average particle removal rate from the center MakerSpace was up to 2.5 times less efficient than
that of the library for the same MakerBot-PLA combination. These results suggest ventilation as a
Author Manuscript

key priority in the design of a new university MakerSpace.

Keywords
Indoor air quality; Buildings; Air pollution; Ventilation; Environmental health; Nanoparticles

1. Introduction
The proliferation of university MakerSpaces parallels the increasing role of additive
manufacturing in industry, research, and entertainment (Farritor, 2017; Herron and
Kaneshiro, 2017; Krummeck and Rouse, 2017; Lotts, 2017). These MakerSpaces are a place
to incorporate classroom theory within a hands-on, creative environment for the design and
Author Manuscript

building of prototyped items, particularly through 3D printing (Forest et al., 2014). Since
university MakerSpaces are not standardized, facilities vary widely in ventilation capability,
user traffic, and background (ambient) airborne particle concentrations. Human exposure to
3D printer emissions has been a growing concern (Pelley, 2018), but the variability of
university MakerSpaces makes it challenging to characterize student/technician exposure
risks. To date, studies of 3D printer emissions have explored the effects of filament type and
color (Azimi et al., 2016; Floyd et al., 2017; Vance et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2016), printing
temperature (Stabile et al., 2017), printer type (Azimi et al., 2016), vicinity from printer
(Zontek et al., 2017), and print environment (Vance et al., 2017). Most of these emission
factors were studied within highly-controlled print environments (Azimi et al., 2016; Floyd
et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2016) with fewer than ten printers in simultaneous operation (Bharti
and Singh, 2017; Patel, 2016).
Author Manuscript

Recent studies investigated typical MakerSpace operation, for which not all experimental
variables can be controlled. Patel compared ultrafine particle concentrations between a
university library MakerSpace and a commercial print shop during uninterrupted facility
operation (Patel, 2016). However, different filaments were used at each location and the
MakerSpaces had only at most six printers operating simultaneously (Patel, 2016).
McDonnell et al. compared seven university 3D printing environments, one of which
contained 18 MakerBot Replicator devices. This latter study was also conducted during

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 3

typical MakerSpace operation, but did not attempt to quantify the relationship between
Author Manuscript

facility ventilation and particle concentration (Mcdonnell et al., 2016).

To begin filling this gap, Azimi et al. simulated ultrafine particle (UFP) and volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions in a model office for various printers, filaments, and
engineering controls. The simulated control strategies included (1) MERV 16 filters with
activated carbon inside the central air handling units; (2) portable air cleaners with (2a) 100
m3/h and (2b) 300 m3/h clean air delivery rates; (3) spot ventilation located 1.5 m above the
printers with (3a) 90 m3/h, (3b) 360 m3/h, and (3c) 1800 m3/h flow rates; and (4) a sealed
enclosure with internal air recirculation/filtration. For a constant printer/filament
combination, the 1800 m3/h spot ventilation and the sealed enclosure were the most effective
controls (Azimi et al., 2017). Such simulations, if supported with experimental data, would
help to develop guidelines for effective particle emission control.
Author Manuscript

Here we present a comparative study quantifying the efficacy of room ventilation in three
university MakerSpaces, in order to understand experimental discrepancies that arise when
comparing data collected from different MakerSpaces. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the
first assessment that attempts to simultaneously include:

1. Time-dependent concentrations and sizes of airborne particles.

2. Normalized quantitative comparison of particle removal efficiency in three

MakerSpaces.

3. Assessment of a large-scale MakerSpace facility (up to 29 printers operating

simultaneously).

4. Both uncontrolled and controlled print campaigns within the same facility, to
Author Manuscript

characterize the effects of real-time operation with minimal interference.

2. Methods
2.1. Library MakerSpace
The layout of the library MakerSpace is shown in Fig. 1. Particle count data were collected
for three 3D printers (MakerBot Replicator 5th Generation, Ultimaker 2, and Lulzbot TAZ
5) and one laser cutter (Epilog Zing with Purex Xbase 400 fume extraction system). Only
white acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), high impact polystyrene (HIPS), or PLA
filaments were used with the library MakerSpace 3D printers. All library print campaigns
utilized the NIST Additive Manufacturing Test Artifact print object (Moylan et al., 2012).
The NIST design was printed at the same scale (10 cm × 10 cm × 1 cm) for all printers and
same print speed (80 mm/s) for all MakerBots. The print speed for the Ultimaker 2 was 70
Author Manuscript

mm/s and Lulzbot TAZ 5 was 50 mm/s. The 3D printers were first tested individually, then
simultaneously with the laser cutter in operation. Data was collected at both near-field
(collection at 1 m from devices) and far-field (collection greater than 1 m from devices,
placed in center of room) for each print campaign. For two tests, air sampling using gas
canisters were used and sent to an external lab to screen for a panel of volatile organic
compounds using EPA Method TO-15, (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).
Emitted particles were captured on formvar/carbon 200 Cu mesh placed on top of a glass

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 4

fiber filter set within a 37 mm cassette operated at a flowrate of 10 L/min. The grids were
Author Manuscript

then analysed for particle size, size distribution and shape by TEM (Zeiss Libra 120).

2.2. Laboratory MakerSpace

The laboratory MakerSpace layout is illustrated in Fig. 2. Laboratory studies were
conducted with 27 MakerBot and 2 Ultimaker 3 Extended Printer printers in simultaneous
operation, using the filament colors pre- loaded in each printer (Table S2) and same print
specifications as the library study. Two “uncontrolled studies” were performed by measuring
particle concentrations at near-field during normal classroom operation, when cabinets were
closed as per established classroom procedures. These uncontrolled studies were based on
print objects created by students, as opposed to the standard NIST Test Artifact. Two
additional “controlled” studies were performed by measuring particle concentrations with
the cabinets fully opened while printing the NIST Test Artifact. VOC data was not
Author Manuscript

successfully obtained due to instrumentation failure. Particles were collected on formvar/

carbon 200 Cu mesh for qualitative sample analysis by TEM using the same procedure
described in section 2.1. The cassette housing the TEM grid was placed at the “Near Field
Measurement Location” (1; Fig. 2a) adjacent to cabinet C5. Particle collection on TEM grids
continued for the full duration of a single near-field MakerBot particle emission study. TEM
samples were compared against the control TEM grid collected in an atrium, which had no
known particle emission sources and was therefore representative of typical, ambient
conditions absent of maker nanoparticle contaminants.

2.3. Center MakerSpace

The center MakerSpace layout is illustrated in Fig. 3. Studies were conducted for two 3D
printer types (MakerBot Replicator 5th Generation and Up Box +), using the standard
Author Manuscript

filament and colors pre-loaded in each printer. All center print campaigns utilized the NIST
Additive Manufacturing Test Artifact print object, printed to the same specifications as
described in 2.1 with an UpBox + print speed at 60 mm/s. The 3D printers were first tested
individually, then all four simultaneously with and without a portable HEPA filter/activated
carbon filter system (Sentry Air Systems, Inc.) directed toward the Up Box + printer
exhaust. Particle count data was collected at near-field (approximately 27 cm from devices)
for each print campaign. Single print runs were collected for each scenario listed due to
limited availability of the MakerSpaces.

2.4. Ventilation and emission rate estimations

The experimental parameters for each print campaign are outlined in Table 1. The air
changes per hour (ACH) for the library and laboratory MakerSpaces were calculated from
Author Manuscript

room dimensions and HVAC system specifications (Table S1), provided by the Virginia
Commonwealth University Engineering and Utilities Department. ACH values were
calculated from equation (1):

Exℎaust airflow m3 /min
ACH ℎ−1 = × 60 (1)
Room V olume m3

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 5

For all studies, the size distribution of emitted particles was measured using a scanning
Author Manuscript

mobility particle sizer (TSI NanoScan 3910) and optical particle sizer (TSI OPS 3330). In
the library study, the emitted mass concentration was monitored using a Graywolf
PC-3016A instrument. These size distributions were used to evaluate ventilation and
emission rate estimations. For each print campaign, at least 5 min of background data were
collected prior to print start. These background measurements allowed for determination of
baseline air quality. Data for particle concentrations during printing were considered valid
for the time period during which devices were in active operation. Table S3 lists the
timeframes for background and experimental data collection for each print campaign.

A lumped loss parameter was determined following the work of Stephens et al., (2013) and a
well-mixed room (Stephens et al., 2013; Wallace et al., 2004). Briefly, after prints were
completed and particle concentrations began to decay toward background concentrations the
loss rate was determined using a log-linear plot of time-varying data (Stephens et al., 2013).
Author Manuscript

C(t) − Cmean barkground
ln = − βt (2)
C(t = 0) − Cmean background

Equation (2) relates the particle concentrations in #/cm3 during the decay period, beginning
at t = 0, to the average background concentration measured prior to printing. This loss
parameter, β, accounts for the combined removal of air filtration, ACH, and deposition on
indoor surfaces and is assumed to be constant during the print durations. Then this parameter
is used to determine the time-varying emission rate, following Floyd et al. (2017), equation
(3). Key assumptions for the calculation of emission rate using this equation include: 1)
signficant losses occur within the chamber, 2) significant losses occur due to outflow of air
through the system, 3) influx of particles into the chamber not from the emission source are
Author Manuscript

negligible (Byrley et al., 2019). These assumptions account for key parameters of particle
losses within the system while maintaining simplicity of calculations.

V Cn − Cn − 1
En = + βV Cn − 1 (3)
tn − tn − 1

A comparison of emitted particles was performed using equation (4), determining the
difference between expected emitted particles and the number of emitted particles compared
to the mean background concentration. This equation takes into account removal effects
through the lumped loss parameter; however, it does not account for spatial variation in
concentration or additional particle dynamics. Additionally, mean values were used therefore
peaks values due to printer malfunction are not accounted for.
Author Manuscript

 P articles Removed  = Emeant − V Cmean print − Cmean background (4)

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 6

3. Results
Author Manuscript

3.1. Library MakerSpace

Individual 3D printers were first characterized using white PLA and the NIST standard
printing artifact, in order to determine particle concentration per printer type (Fig. 4a). The
highest-emitting printer was the Ultimaker, producing peak concentrations over three times
greater than those of the Lulzbot and MakerBot. There was an observable difference in print
quality between instruments, and it is possible that the increased emissions resulted from
printer malfunction. When operated simultaneously, the particle concentration increased
beyond a peak concentration of 50,000 particles/cc. In the near-field, only the Lulzbot had a
decrease in mean concentration during printing relative to background. Additionally, the
Lulzbot increased the mean particle diameter during printing nearly 40%.

The Lulzbot 3D printer allowed for filament variation as part of this study. Three filaments
Author Manuscript

were printed: HIPS, ABS, and PLA (Fig. 4b). Initial inspection suggests that the HIPS
filament results in the highest particle number concentration. However, the HIPS filament
has a high initial background concentration (29,802 particles/cc), nearly 5 times greater than
the PLA and ABS background concentrations. Increases in mean concentration were
observed for both the ABS and HIPS prints, 5.4% and 31.6%, respectively. The HIPS print
decreased particle size slightly from 36 nm to 33 nm, suggesting the increase in
concentration is due to smaller particles.

To compare near-field versus far-field data for the library MakerSpace, analysis was
restricted to particles with diameters >300 nm due to the rating of the Graywolf PC-3016A
used for far-field measurements. As shown in Table 2, near-field data obtained with the TSI
Nanoscan SMPS 3910 and TSI OPS 3330 were based on particle number concentrations,
Author Manuscript

whereas far-field data obtained with the Graywolf PC-3016A were based on particle mass
concentrations. The printer and filament type impacted the particle sizes introduced. At all
near-field measurements, the mean diameter decreased an average of 24% for particles larger
than 300 nm. Far-field measurements indicated an overall increase in particle diameter for
particles larger than 300 nm, with the exception of the Lulzbot PLA print. For simultaneous
printing of PLA, the average particle diameter is higher for the background measurements
than during the operation (Fig. 4c). There is a simultaneous drop in particle diameter and
spike in particle concentration at ~150 min, suggesting that the particles emitted by the 3D
printers are substantially smaller than particles during background measurements prior to
print start. This is confirmed through the analysis of particle concentration based on size, the
background weighted mean diameter was 50 nm and decreased, over 40%, to 29 nm during
printing.
Author Manuscript

VOC concentrations were determined for the laser cutter, Lulzbot printer, and the
MakerSpace (Table 3). Measurable VOCs included 1,3- butadiene, ethanol, 2-propanol,
acetone, acetonitrile, and ethyl acetate. Overall, highest values detected were for 2-propanol,
at a concentration of 860 ppb during Lulzbot operation. However, the highest emitter was
ethanol, which increased by 50% during Lulzbot operation and 20% during laser cutter
operation. Mean values for all detected VOCs are less than 1% of available OSHA and
ACGIH limits (Administration, O.S. and H., 2006; Hygienists, 2017).

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 7

3.2. Laboratory MakerSpace

Author Manuscript

Two uncontrolled studies were performed, measuring near-field particle concentrations

during normal use of the MakerSpace. The first study provided the greatest elevated particle
concentrations, increasing by 131.2% during printer operation. However, all mean particle
sizes were approximately 50–60 nm in diameter, decreasing slightly during printing for the
first study (from 60 nm to 56 nm) and increasing slightly during the second study (from 48
nm to 58 nm). Opening the cabinets while performing far-field measurements provided
similar particle concentrations to the closed cabinet, near-field measurements, Fig. 5a. As
observed in Fig. 5b, the particle size during the open cabinet study was consistent after the
initial increase in particle concentration, around 60 min. This decrease in size is confirmed
as a shift from 47 nm to 36 nm in mean particle size.

3.3. Center MakerSpace

Author Manuscript

Individual testing of the MakerBot and UpBox + printers was performed prior to
simultaneous operation (Fig. 6a). A single MakerBot printer provided greater peak
concentrations (453,602 particles/cc) and therefore a greater increase in mean concentration
during printing, approximately 13 times greater than background. However, the UpBox
printer provided a more consistent particle concentration profile during printing. During
simultaneous operation, the profile of the UpBox printer was observed within the overall
particle concentration measurements (Fig. 6a). Through using a portable HEPA filter, the
particle concentration was decreased during simultaneous operation compared to without
(Fig. 6b) from a nearly 5000% increase in particle concentration to less than 2000%.
Although the mean particle diameter decreased for each study, with an average of 41.1%,
there appear to be times of aggregation, observed from 100 to 300 min in Fig. 6c where
there is an increase in particle diameter.
Author Manuscript

3.4. MakerSpace comparison

A comparison of particle number concentrations and number- weighted mean diameters
across all print campaigns involving the entire particle size range (10 nm–10 μm) is
presented in Table 4. Most (8 of 9) campaigns exhibited an increase in particle number
concentration. Although the Lulzbot-PLA campaign exhibited a drastic decrease in particle
number concentration during printing (59.1% decrease), the respective background
concentration (7345 particles/cc) was impacted by nearby construction. The construction
created the scent of wood smoke in the room, and the particles resulting from construction
caused the background to be higher until the doors closed, and the air return/ supply cycles
removed the contamination.
Author Manuscript

Each MakerSpace housed a MakerBot 3D printer for PLA filaments, and utilizing the NIST
printing artifact, the MakerSpaces can be compared (Fig. 7). The highest peak
concentrations were observed within the center, whereas the library and laboratory
MakerSpaces produced similar changes in mean concentrations (+1.1% and +65.7%,
respectively). The peaks observed during the center study are due to misprinting or printer
malfunction (Stefaniak et al., 2019). However, the library data reflects the concentration
resulting from a single MakerBot, and the laboratory concentrations follow from up to 29
MakerBots in simultaneous operation. Therefore, the mean particle concentration per printer

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 8

in the laboratory is far lower than the concentration per printer in the library. For example, at
Author Manuscript

far-field with open cabinets, the laboratory’s concentration per printer is 94.8% lower than
the library’s concentration (compare 104 particles/cc per printer for 29 printers, versus 2008
particles/cc for one printer). Particle sizes were generally larger in the library MakerSpace,
yet a similar percent decrease in size was observed, 31.4% from 100 nm to 68 nm.
Similarly-sized particles were measured within the laboratory and center MakerSpaces, with
a mean background diameter of approximately 50 nm that decreased to 36 nm during
printing.

TEM images of particle samples captured on formvar/carbon 200 Cu meshes were collected
within the library (Fig. 8a) and laboratory (Fig. 8b) MakerSpaces. The separate control TEM
grid collected in a large atrium space appeared clean. The collection within the library shows
several, sharp, large, fiber-like structures. Since nanoparticles emitted during printing are <1
μm, these electron-dense, fiber-like particles will require further characterization to identify.
Author Manuscript

Collections within the laboratory showed many small particles, ranging from 54 to 109 nm
in diameter (8b2 and 8b3). In image 8b4, decoration of the particle with smaller particulates
is observed.

Focusing on the MakerBot PLA print campaigns using the NIST Test Artifact, the particle
removal ratios can also be compared. Both gave a net increase in particle number
concentration and a net decrease in number-weighted mean diameter. Table 5 compares the
effectiveness of particle removal between the different MakerSpaces, based on particle
removal ratios calculated from equation (4). Using the library particle removal amount of 6.2
× 1013 particles as a basis, the laboratory MakerSpace was found to be nearly 30 times more
effective at removing particles. The center MakerSpace, however, had up to 2.5 times worse
particle removal effectiveness ratio.
Author Manuscript

4. Discussion
Three university MakerSpaces of varying ventilation rates were assessed within this study,
using a variety of 3D printers and filaments. The UpBox+ and Ultimaker 3D printers have
not yet been evaluated within literature.

Systems printing ABS have been shown to emit a high number of nanoparticles throughout
operation (Floyd et al., 2017; Kwon et al., 2017; Steinle, 2016; Vance et al., 2017; Yi et al.,
2016), reported between 2.4 × 108 particles/min (Steinle, 2016) to 1.9 × 1011 particles/min
(Kwon et al., 2017). Using a MakerBot Replicator, the emission rate of nanoparticles is
between 7.4 × 109 particles/min and 1.1 × 1011 particles/min with an average particle size of
51–78 nm (Vance et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2016). Emission rates in this study, observed in
Author Manuscript

Table 5 and calculated using the average emission rate equation (He et al., 2004; Stabile et
al., 2017) found in Table S4, were 1.89 × 108 particles/min to 2.17 × 108 particles/min for
ABS filaments. Our results align with those reported by Steinle, (2016); however, they are
lower than other reported emission rates. Differences in emission rate calculations,
experimental room volume, and ACH can each affect the reported results, leading to these
discrepancies. Emissions from PLA filaments are typically lower, 1.0 × 107 particles/min
(Floyd et al., 2017) to 6.7 × 1010 particles/min (Kwon et al., 2017). A smaller emitted

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 9

particle size, approximately 30 nm, is observed using a MakerBot Replicator printer (Yi et
al., 2016). In our study, emission rates range from 7.46 107 particles/min to 2.06 × 109
Author Manuscript

particles/min for PLA filaments, in agreement with rates from Flyod et al. (2017) and Kwon
et al. (2017).

Emitted VOCs vary depending on the filament used; emissions for the thermal degradation
of common thermoplastics were reported by Unwin et al. (2013). Elevated concentrations of
ethanol, 2-propanol, and acetone were measured in our study which aligns with Gu et al.
(2019) when using Gray ABS with a Zortrax M200 3D printer. Ethanol was similarly
reported as a low emitter, less than 40 μg/min, during a Lulzbot-PLA study (Azimi et al.,
2016). Although not tested in our study, styrene is commonly emitted during printing with
ABS (Azimi et al., 2016; Floyd et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2019; Mcdonnell et al., 2016; Steinle,
2016) and lactide during printing with PLA (Azimi et al., 2016; Mcdonnell et al., 2016). It is
important to note that this study looked at room concentrations during the specific test
Author Manuscript

parameters in the library only and not individual employee exposure risks. According to
industrial hygiene monitoring practices, true exposure of VOCs must take into account
duration, concentration, and work parameters (ex: how close worker is standing to emitted
VOCs, etc.) of employees in the work areas.

Emitted particles are generally below 500 nm in diameter, either as agglomerates (Kwon et
al., 2017; Steinle, 2016; Zontek et al., 2017) or small particles (Vance et al., 2017; Yi et al.,
2016). Our study supports this finding, as 90% of emitted particles, across all prints, were
less than 120 nm based on number concentration. Floyd et al. (2017) found decorated, rod-
shaped particles from 3D printer emissions, with a length in the micron range (Floyd et al.,
2017), similar to the observations from the Lulzbot printer within the library MakerSpace.
Particles collected in the laboratory MakerSpace were similar in shape to the agglomerates
Author Manuscript

above 1 μm in size, observed by Zontek et al., (2017) and Vance et al., (2017).

Of the thirteen campaigns, ten datasets exhibited a decrease in the number-weighted mean
diameter and only one a decrease in mean concentration during operation. This increase in
concentration with a decrease in number-weighted mean diameter at near-field suggests that
particles emitted during printing were on the lower end of the size range (<300 nm). Of the
campaigns for which an increase in mean diameter was observed, Lulzbot-PLA, Lulzbot-
ABS, and Near-Field 2, small changes in the mean concentration were observed. Of the
individual printer campaigns, the MakerBot-PLA campaign in the center MakerSpace
exhibited the largest net increase in mean particle number concentration (14 times greater).
This was similar to the campaign in the same MakerSpace for which all devices (three
MakerBots and one UpBox) were used with the portable filter (18 times greater increase in
Author Manuscript

particle number concentration relative to background). However, the maximum

concentration for this latter campaign (95,423 particles/cc) was nearly five times less the
maximum number concentration for the MakerBot-PLA alone (453,602 particles/cc). In
contrast, although the MakerBot print campaign exhibited a larger peak deviation from
background, the increase in particle concentration was delayed. This delayed concentration
elevation seems counterintuitive as the multi-device campaign included the same MakerBot-
PLA pairing; therefore, the mean concentration was expected to far exceed that of the lone
MakerBot-PLA campaign. However, this hypothesis assumed a constant background

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 10

concentration; that is, the initial concentration data collected prior to print initiation could be
Author Manuscript

subtracted from the during- print concentration to calculate a simple net increase in particle
count. The presented results suggest this assumption may not hold for all print
environments, likely due to loss parameters.

As ventilation flow rates change temporally, the calculated ACH values are representative of
a long time period within the room relative to the print duration. The assumption of a well-
mixed environment provides a uniform particle concentration that would require a relatively
moderate flow rate for the duration of the print. Realistically, particles are actually more
dilute at the exhaust grill entrance and more concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the
printers. Alternative to ACH, ventilation effectiveness describes the quality of distribution of
the supply vents within the room (Rim and Novoselac, 2010). The particle removal rate
ratios give a reasonable relative comparison between the print campaigns.
Author Manuscript

The particle removal concentration ratios presented strongly support differences in

ventilation to substantially impact particle exposures in university MakerSpaces. The
increased removal rate of the laboratory MakerSpace is consistent with the larger ACH,
whereas the lower ACH observed in the center MakerSpace provided a far less efficient
removal rate. Accumulation of particles within a MakerSpace can be determined using the
AER. In evaluating studies using ABS filament that report both the AER and particle
emission rate, an exponential decay of particle emission rate is observed with increasing
AER (Floyd et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2019; Mendes et al., 2017; Stefaniak et al., 2018; Steinle,
2016). Emission rates allow for the calculation of loss rates, using models described in Table
S4. The first term for all the tabulated emission rate models is a simple averaged
concentration change rate, and subsequent loss terms account for effects of particle surface
deposition, particle coagulation, and room ventilation. Loss parameters vary by model, but
Author Manuscript

all were calculated from concentration data collected after 3D printers had been turned off,
as room/chamber particle concentrations settled back to ambient levels. Comparing to
Stephens et al. (2013), the lumped loss rates were similar or increased across all studies,
averaging over the nanoparticle size range to 1.0 in the library study, 5.4 in the open cabinet
laboratory study, 10.7 in the closed cabinet laboratory study, and 1.2 in the center study.
Calculated this way, the lumped parameter accounts for ventilation, filtration by HVAC
systems, and deposition within the MakerSpace (Stephens et al., 2013). The increased loss
rate values in the laboratory suggest that particle removal is more effective than in the library
or center MakerSpaces. This, however, does not take into consideration losses to instrument
lines, double-counting by measurement instruments, and additional particle dynamics.

Although much analysis is performed on the effects of ventilation alone as an engineering

Author Manuscript

control, the laboratory MakerSpace used grated metal cabinetry as an additional control.
Separate print campaigns were performed to elucidate the effects of partial enclosures;
however, the comparison is difficult due to a lack of far-field data. According to Table 5,
within the near-field, the closed-cabinet campaigns had +10% and +70% concentration
deviations from background and the open- cabinet campaign had +65% deviation from
background, suggesting that the cabinets may decrease or have no effect on the emitted
concentration. However, the closed-cabinet print 2 had an uncharacteristic increase in the
number-weighted mean particle diameter (+21%) compared to all other laboratory

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 11

campaigns, implying additional external factors impacted the results. Although explicit
Author Manuscript

conclusions cannot be drawn from this study on the effects of cabinetry as a control, the use
of a sealed enclosure during operation has been shown as an effective control to mitigate the
release of aerosols within the MakerSpace (Afshar-Mohajer et al., 2015; Yi et al., 2016).

A major limitation in this study is the assumption of a constant background particle

concentration. Since the final post-print particle concentration for the Lulzbot-HIPS
campaign dips below its initial background concentration, the assumption of a constant
background cannot hold for this case. It is apparent that the background concentration
varies, especially in environments like the library MakerSpace, for which there exists no
isolating HVAC system to separate the room air from external influences on ambient particle
concentrations. This inference is further supported by the Lulzbot-PLA campaign, for which
it appears that the particle number concentration actually decreases during printing (−59%
deviation from background). In the case of the Lulzbot-PLA campaign, external influence on
Author Manuscript

room particle concentration were clearly observed by the presence of wood particles and
wood smoke scent from nearby construction. The decreased background post-print indicates
that closing the door reduced interference from construction particles over time. This is also
observed in the comparison ratios of particle removal in the center MakerSpace as the
particle concentration increases dramatically above the background but is not reflected in the
comparison. The caveat of a non-constant background is noted in the literature suggesting
additional background concentration measurements are necessary (Methner et al., 2010).
Future studies should further explore the nature of background fluctuations in uncontrolled
environments.

Additionally, there is a lack of understanding regarding the composition of emitted aerosols

and potential inhalation hazards. While several studies have investigated what VOCs are
Author Manuscript

emitted, few studies have investigated the compounds found in the particulate component or
biological response to exposure. Investigation into the hazards of inhalation during 3D
printing has been performed using cell lines, mice, and human subjects (Farcas et al., 2019;
Gümperlein et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). Collections of emissions from 3D prints using
either polycarbonate, ABS, or PLA have been exposed to human small airway epithelial
cells (Farcas et al., 2019) or rat alveolar macrophages (NR8383) and carcinomic human
alveolar epithelial cells (A549) (Zhang et al., 2019). Each study observed increases in
cytotoxic and inflammatory responses and upon investigation of the emitted particles
observed additive substances including transition metals that are associated with these
responses. In vivo intratracheal aspiration of collected ABS and PLA emissions were given
to mice and cytotoxic responses were observed (Zhang et al., 2019). Human subjects were
exposed to emission from either a PLA or ABS print for a duration of 1 h while sitting and
Author Manuscript

no clinically relevant acute inflammatory effects were observed due to this exposure
(Gümperlein et al., 2018). These emission factors are likely also influenced by filament
blend, filament source, or age of printer on emission amounts (Farcas et al., 2019; Zhang et
al., 2019; Zontek et al., 2019). Therefore, it is difficult to predict potential health hazards
from working in these spaces.

Ventilation is key to minimizing the aerosol concentrations for MakerSpace users. Based on
this study, the authors recommend the use of a minimum of 6 ACH within the MakerSpace

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 12

and/or the use of a portable HEPA filter to lower ultrafine particle concentrations during
Author Manuscript

printer operation. For future studies exploring the impact of cabinetry, it is hypothesized that
cabinets without local ventilation will affect airborne particle concentrations from two
standpoints: (1) the extent of cabinetry closure (fully-sealed or partially-sealed), and (2)
material of construction. For the latter factor, metal cabinets may produce greater
electrostatic effects that cause particles to cling to the inner cabinetry instead of releasing
into the surrounding air.

5. Conclusion
An analysis of 3D printer emissions in three university MakerSpaces was presented. Within
the same MakerSpace, there was an influence on particle concentration and emitted size
based on the printer type and filament used. When attributing only ventilation to the particle
concentration reduction in the laboratory MakerSpace, the laboratory was 30 times more
Author Manuscript

effective at reducing airborne particles compared to the library. The MakerSpace with the
lowest ventilation provided up to 2.5 times less effective reduction in airborne particles
compared to the library. The analysis presents a method of deducing the potential benefits of
ventilation when setting up a MakerSpace. Toxicity studies would help put this data into
context by specifying what particle concentration levels should be the limit for human
exposure. Such toxicity data would help guide ventilation calculations by setting a target
airborne particle concentration limit.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ghali Aladwani for extensive support during MakerSpace print campaigns. We
thank Dr. Massimo Bertino and Dr. Dmitry Pestov of the Nanomaterial Characterization Center and Judy
Williamson of the MCV Microscopy Core at Virginia Commonwealth University for aid in obtaining TEM images
for the laboratory MakerSpace. We thank Kathryn Dill and Mahmoud Moustafa for taking TEM images for the
library MakerSpace and the MCV Microscopy Core for use of the TEM. Special thanks to the James Branch Cabell
Library, the VCU Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Innovation Lab, the VCU da Vinci Center, and the VCU
Office of Environmental Health and Safety for space, equipment, printers, and assistance with data collection and
analysis. We also thank Valerie Pegues, an Industrial Hygienist, who was kind enough to set up VOC equipment in
the laboratory MakerSpace. The authors would like to thank Thomas C. Smith for his help with determining
ventilation estimates for the MakerSpaces.

Funding sources

This work was funded by Virginia Commonwealth University. Additionally, LES would like to recognize the
NIEHS Training Grant (1T32ES019854, PIs: C. Weisel (Contact), G. Mainelis).
Author Manuscript

References
Administration, O.S. and H., 2006. Toxic and hazardous substances: air contaminants. Occup. Saf.
Health Stand, 1910.1000
Afshar-Mohajer N, Wu CY, Ladun T, Rajon DA, Huang Y, 2015. Characterization of particulate
matters and total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer. Build. Environ 93, 293–301.
10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.07.013.

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 13

Agency, U.E.P., 1999. Compendium method TO-15 determination of volatile organic compounds
( VOCs ) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass
Author Manuscript

spectrometry ( GC/MS ). In: Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air.
Azimi P, Fazli T, Stephens B, 2017. Predicting concentrations of ultrafine particles and volatile organic
compounds resulting from desktop 3D printer operation and the impact of potential control
strategies. J. Ind. Ecol 21, S107–S119. 10.1111/jiec.12578.
Azimi P, Zhao D, Pouzet C, Crain NE, Stephens B, 2016. Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile
organic compounds from commercially available desktop three-dimensional printers with multiple
filaments. Environ. Sci. Technol 50, 1260–1268. 10.1021/acs.est.5b04983. [PubMed: 26741485]
Bharti N, Singh S, 2017. Three-Dimensional (3D) printers in libraries: perspective and preliminary
safety analysis. J. Chem. Educ 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00745acs.jchemed.6b00745.
Byrley P, George BJ, Boyes WK, Rogers K, 2019. Particle emissions from fused deposition modeling
3D printers: evaluation and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ 655, 395–407. 10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.11.070. [PubMed: 30471608]
Farcas MT, Stefaniak AB, Knepp AK, Bowers L, Mandler WK, Kashon M, Jackson SR, Stueckle TA,
Author Manuscript

Sisler JD, Friend SA, Qi C, Hammond DR, Thomas TA, Matheson J, Castranova V, Qian Y, 2019.
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polycarbonate (PC) filaments three-dimensional (3-D)
printer emissions-induced cell toxicity. Toxicol. Lett 317, 1–12. 10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.09.013.
[PubMed: 31562913]
Farritor S, 2017. University-based makerspaces: a source of innovation. Technol. Innovat 19, 389–395.
10.21300/19.1.2017.389.
Floyd EL, Wang J, Regens JL, 2017. Fume emissions from a low-cost 3-D printer with various
filaments. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg 14, 523–533. 10.1080/15459624.2017.1302587. [PubMed:
28406364]
Forest CR, Moore RA, Jariwala AS, Fasse BB, Linsey J, Newstetter W, Ngo P, Quintero C, 2014. The
invention studio: a university maker space and culture. Adv. Eng. Educ 4, 1–32.
Gu J, Wensing M, Uhde E, Salthammer T, 2019. Characterization of particulate and gaseous pollutants
emitted during operation of a desktop 3D printer. Environ. Int 123, 476–485. 10.1016/
j.envint.2018.12.014. [PubMed: 30622073]
Gümperlein I, Fischer E, Dietrich-Gümperlein G, Karrasch S, Nowak D, Jorres R€A, Schierl R, 2018.
Author Manuscript

Acute health effects of desktop 3D printing (fused deposition modeling) using acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene and polylactic acid materials: an experimental exposure study in human
volunteers. Indoor Air 28, 611–623. 10.1111/ina.12458. [PubMed: 29500848]
He C, Morawska L, Hitchins J, Gilbert D, 2004. Contribution from indoor sources to particle number
and mass concentrations in residential houses. Atmos. Environ 38, 3405–3415. 10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2004.03.027.
Herron J, Kaneshiro K, 2017. A university-wide collaborative effort to designing a makerspace at an
academic health Sciences library. Med. Ref. Serv. Q 36, 1–8. 10.1080/02763869.2017.1259878.
[PubMed: 28112641]
Hygienists, A.C.of G.I., 2017. TLVs and BEIs.
Krummeck K, Rouse R, 2017. Can you DIG it? Designing to support a robust maker culture in a
university makerspace. Int. J. Des. Learn 8, 98–111. 10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22702.
Kwon O, Yoon C, Ham S, Park J, Lee J, Yoo D, Kim Y, 2017. Characterization and control of
nanoparticle emission during 3D printing. Environ. Sci. Technol 51, 10357–10368. 10.1021/
Author Manuscript

acs.est.7b01454.
Lotts M, 2017. Low-Cost high-impact makerspaces at the Rutgers university art library. Art Doc. J. Art
Libr. Soc. N. Am 36, 345–362. 10.1086/694249.
Mcdonnell B, Guzman XJ, Dolack M, Simpson TW, Cimbala JM, 2016. 3D printing in the wild: a
preliminary investigation of air quality in college maker spaces. Proc. 26th Annu. Int. Solid Free.
Fabr. Symp. - Addit. Manuf. Conf. 2456–2469.
Mendes L, Kangas A, Kukko K, Mølgaard B, Sa€am€ anen A, Kanerva T, Flores € Ituarte I,
Huhtiniemi M, Stockmann-Juvala H, Partanen J, Hameri K, Eleftheriadis K, Viitanen AK, 2017.

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 14

Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer. J. Ind. Ecol 21, S94–S106. 10.1111/
jiec.12569.
Author Manuscript

Methner M, Hodson L, Dames A, Geraci C, 2010. Nanoparticle emission assessment technique

(NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered
nanomaterials—part b: results from 12 field studies. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg 7, 163–176.
10.1080/15459620903508066. [PubMed: 20063229]
Moylan S, Slotwinski J, Cooke A, Jurrens K, Dommez M.Al, 2012. Proposal for a standardized test
artifact for additive. Solid free. Fabr. Symp 902–920.
Patel PS, 2016. Characterization of Nanoparticle Emissions from 3D Printers in Different
Environments.
Pelley J, 2018. Safety standards aim to rein in 3-D printer emissions. ACS Cent. Sci 4, 134–136.
10.1021/acscentsci.8b00090. [PubMed: 29532010]
Rim D, Novoselac A, 2010. Ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of occupant exposure to particles
from indoor sources. Build. Environ 45, 1214–1224. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.11.004.
Stabile L, Scungio M, Buonanno G, Arpino F, Ficco G, 2017. Airborne particle emission of a
commercial 3D printer: the effect of filament material and printing temperature. Indoor Air 27,
Author Manuscript

398–408. 10.1111/ina.12310. [PubMed: 27219830]

Stefaniak AB, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, Virji MA, Birch EM, Ham JE, Wells JR, Qi C, Schwegler-
Berry D, Friend S, Johnson AR, Martin SB, Qian Y, LeBouf RF, Birch Q, Hammond D, 2018.
Three-dimensional printing with nano- enabled filaments releases polymer particles containing
carbon nanotubes into air. Indoor Air 28, 840–851. 10.1111/ina.12499. [PubMed: 30101413]
Stefaniak AB, Johnson AR, du Preez S, Hammond DR, Wells JR, Ham JE, LeBouf RF, Menchaca
KW, Martin SB, Duling MG, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, Su FC, de Beer DJ, du Plessis JL, 2019.
Evaluation of emissions and exposures at workplaces using desktop 3-dimensional printers. J.
Chem. Health Saf 26, 19–30. 10.1016/j.jchas.2018.11.001. [PubMed: 31798757]
Steinle P, 2016. Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer and indoor air measurements
in office settings. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg 13, 121–132. 10.1080/15459624.2015.1091957.
[PubMed: 26550911]
Stephens B, Azimi P, El Orch Z, Ramos T, 2013. Ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D
printers. Atmos. Environ 79, 334–339. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050.
Author Manuscript

Unwin J, Coldwell MR, Keen C, McAlinden JJ, 2013. Airborne emissions of carcinogens and
respiratory sensitizers during thermal processing of plastics. Ann. Occup. Hyg 57, 399–406.
10.1093/annhyg/mes078. [PubMed: 23091110]
Vance ME, Pegues V, Van Montfrans S, Leng W, Marr LC, 2017. Aerosol emissions from fuse-
deposition modeling 3D printers in a chamber and in real indoor environments. Environ. Sci.
Technol 51, 9516–9523. 10.1021/acs.est.7b01546. [PubMed: 28789516]
Wallace LA, Emmerich SJ, Howard-Reed C, 2004. Source strengths of ultrafine and fine particles due
to cooking with a gas stove. Environ. Sci. Technol 38, 2304–2311. 10.1021/es0306260. [PubMed:
15116834]
Yi J, LeBouf RF, Duling MG, Nurkiewicz T, Chen BT, Schwegler-Berry D, Virji MA, Stefaniak AB,
2016. Emission of particulate matter from a desktop three-dimensional (3D) printer. J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health 79, 453–465. 10.1080/15287394.2016.1166467.
Zhang Q, Pardo M, Rudich Y, Kaplan-Ashiri I, Wong JPS, Davis AY, Black MS, Weber RJ, 2019.
Chemical composition and toxicity of particles emitted from a consumer-level 3D printer using
various materials. Environ. Sci. Technol 53, 12054–12061. 10.1021/acs.est.9b04168.
Author Manuscript

Zontek TL, Hollenbeck S, Jankovic J, Ogle BR, 2019. Modeling particle emissions from three-
dimensional printing with acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene polymer filament. Environ. Sci. Technol
53, 9656–9663. 10.1021/acs.est.9b02818. [PubMed: 31347827]
Zontek TL, Ogle BR, Jankovic JT, Hollenbeck SM, 2017. An exposure assessment of desktop 3D
printing. J. Chem. Health Saf 24, 15–25. 10.1016/j.jchas.2016.05.008.

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 15

HIGHLIGHTS
Author Manuscript

• ACH of at least 6 per hour are a key priority in the design of a MakerSpace.

• Net particles emitted were highest for HIPS filament, followed by PLA then
ABS.

• There is a linear decay in net particles emitted versus HVAC flow rate.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 1.
Library MakerSpace layout. A. Schematic of MakerSpace. (MB = MakerBot; UM =
Ultimaker; LB = Lulzbot; LC = Laser Cutter; 1 = Near-Field Measurement Location; 2 =
Far-field Measurement Location; R = Air Return Location; S = Air Supply Location) B.
MakerSpace with particle sizers in the foreground.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 2.
Laboratory MakerSpace layout. A. Schematic of MakerSpace. Experiments performed in
rightmost room where C=Cabinet; 1 = Near-Field Measurement Location; 2 = Far-field
Measurement Location; R = Air Return Location; S = Air Supply Location. B. Laboratory
MakerSpace with cabinet-enclosed printers.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 3.
Center MakerSpace layout. A. Schematic of MakerSpace. (MB = MakerBot; UB = UpBox+;
1 = Near-field Measurement Location) b. Center MakerSpace with particle sizers on left
side.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 4.
Library MakerSpace Study Measurements. A. Time-dependent concentration data for PLA
studies in library MakerSpace. B. Time-dependent concentration data for varying filaments
in the Lulzbot printer. C. Time-dependent concentration and size data for “Simultaneous”
near-field library MakerSpace study.
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 5.
Laboratory MakerSpace Study Measurements. A. Time-dependent concentration data for all
laboratory MakerSpace print campaigns. B. Time- dependent concentration and size data for
open-cabinet, far-field MakerBot- PLA study in laboratory MakerSpace.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 21
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 6.
Center Study Measurements. A. Time-dependent concentration data for all near-field center
MakerSpace studies. B. Time-dependent concentration data for “Simultaneous” near-field
center MakerSpace study with and without the portable HEPA filter. C. Time-dependent
concentration and size data for near-field MakerBot-PLA study in center MakerSpace.
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 22
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 7.
Time-dependent concentration data for MakerBot-PLA studies using NIST Test Artifact
print object.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Secondo et al. Page 23
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 8.
Author Manuscript

TEM images from MakerSpace campaigns. A. Library MakerSpace. Print Campaigns: (1)
Simultaneous; (2) Lulzbot-ABS; (3) Lulzbot-PLA; (4) Lulzbot- PLA. B. Laboratory
MakerSpace. All from open-cabinet print campaigns, collected inside printer cabinets during
operation.

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Experimental parameters for library and laboratory print campaigns. “MakerBot” refers to MakerBot 5th Generation Replicator device.

Parameter Library MakerSpace Laboratory MakerSpace* Center MakerSpace

Secondo et al.

Single Device Simultaneous Uncontrolled Studies Controlled Study Single Device Simultaneous*

ACH 3.125 h−1 8.7 h−1 0.18 h−1

Devices MakerBot MakerBot MakerBot (26) MakerBot MakerBot (3)
Ultimaker 2 Ultimaker 2 MakerBot Replicator+ (1) Up Box + Up Box +
Lulzbot TAZ 5 Lulzbot TAZ 5 Epilog Ultimaker 3 Extended (2)
Zing Laser Cutter
Filament Type white PLA white PLA PLA * PLA ABS (Up Box) PLA ABS (Up Box)
white ABS white ABS
white HIPS (Lulzbot) white HIPS clear acrylic
(Laser Cutter)
Print Object NIST Test Artifact Class Projects NIST Test Artifact NIST Test Artifact
Print Duration 4h 2–22 h 4h 4h
(Approximate)
Measurement Near-Field (NF) Near-Field (NF) Far-Field (FF) Near-Field (NF)
Vicinity Far-Field (FF)
VOC Detectors MultiRAE Gas Monitor N/A N/A N/A
MIRAN SapphIRE
Time Integrated Canister Air
Sampling
Particle Sizers TSI OPS 3330 (NF) TSI OPS 3330 TSI OPS 3330 TSI OPS 3330
TSI NanoScan 3910 (NF) TSI NanoScan 3910 (Both NF TSI NanoScan 3910 TSI NanoScan 3910
Graywolf PC-3016A (FF) and FF) (Both NF and FF) (Both NF)

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
See Table S2 for complete color listing.
ǂ
With or without filter.
Page 24
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Near-field and far-field concentration and diameter data for library MakerSpace for particles >0.3 μm

Campaign Background During Print % Δ During Print

Concentration (#/cc) Weighted Mean Diameter (μm) Concentration (#/cc) Weighted Mean Diameter (μm) Mean Concentration Mean Diameter
Secondo et al.

Mean SD Max Mean SD Max

Library
1
Near-Field
MakerBot (PLA) 107 191.66 838.36 0.43 21.02 6.30 86.43 0.33 −80.4 −23.1
Ultimaker (PLA) 15 35.6 164.88 0.526 4.27 0.37 5.25 0.36 −71.3 −29.8
Lulzbot (PLA) 20 23.85 102.03 0.47 16.25 12.60 167.32 0.38 −18.9 −19.7
Lulzbot (ABS) 18 0.57 19.64 0.35 17.45 22.18 228.56 0.34 −4.5 −3.0
Lulzbot (HIPS) 198 200.55 515.93 0.77 25.11 57.87 503.35 0.35 −87.3 −55.2
Simultaneous 11 24.53 159.49 0.43 7.91 18.85 168.03 0.37 −25.9 −13.5
2
Far-Field
MakerBot (PLA) 46.90 15.82 76.54 5.99 7.16 8.16 58.46 6.56 −84.7 +9.5
Ultimaker (PLA) 32.37 17.56 81.54 5.85 4.07 5.23 36.76 7.31 −87.4 +25.0
Lulzbot (PLA) 53.14 27.39 161.23 6.18 18.25 13.25 86.36 5.69 −65.7 −8.1
Lulzbot (ABS) 18.31 8.27 42.61 6.54 4.92 3.70 24.69 6.82 −73.1 +4.3
Lulzbot (HIPS) 20.41 9.25 42.22 6.68 6.24 5.96 53.07 7.19 −69.4 +7.7
Simultaneous 58.64 42.21 201.16 6.94 8.57 8.15 49.55 7.67 −85.4 +10.5

1
Near-field concentrations are number concentrations (#/cc), and corresponding mean diameters are number-weighted.

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
2
Far-field concentrations are mass concentrations (μg/m3), and corresponding mean diameters are mass- weighted.
Page 25
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 3

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emission data for library MakerSpace.

VOC Volume Concentration (ppbv) Mass Concentration (μg/m3)

Secondo et al.

Laser Cutter Room Lulzbot Mean OSHA ACGIH Laser Cutter Room Lulzbot Mean OSHA

1,3-Butadiene 8.8 7.1 5.3 7.1 1000 2000 20 16 12 16.0 -

Ethanol 71 58 90 73.0 1,000,000 - 130 110 170 136.7 1,900,000
2-Propanol 640 690 860 730.0 250,000 - 1600 1700 2100 1800 950,000
Acetone 41 36 29 35.3 1,000,000 250,000 100 85 68 84.3 2,400,000
Acetonitrile 22 38 35 31.7 40,000 20,000 37 63 58 52.7 70,000
Ethyl acetate 6.5 14 20 13.5 400,000 400,000 23 52 73 49.3 1,400,000
Total 790 840 1000 876.7 2,691,000 - 1900 2000 2500 2133 -

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
Page 26
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 4

Particle concentration and diameter data for 10 nm to 10 μm particles in all MakerSpaces.

Campaign Background During Print % Δ During Print

Concentration (#/cc) Weighted Mean Diameter Concentration (#/cc) Weighted Mean Diameter Mean Concentration Mean Diameter
Secondo et al.

(nm) (nm)
Mean SD Max Mean SD Max

Library
Near-Field

MakerBot (PLA)* 1987 274 2846 100 2008 607 5960 68 +1.1 −31.4

Ultimaker (PLA) 1707 242 2706 70 12,426 5710 23,330 31 +627.9 −56.1
Lulzbot (PLA) 7345 442 8319 51 3007 996 6673 70 −59.1 +37.1
Lulzbot (ABS) 5560 771 7119 41 5860 2763 11,835 42 +5.4 +3.7
Lulzbot (HIPS) 29,802 2488 34,190 36 39,227 6609 52,372 33 +31.6 −9.3
Simultaneous 3148 388 4313 50 13,409 14,483 52,089 29 +316 −42.2
Laboratory
Open Cabinets

Near-Field* 3276 163 3718 56 5402 1123 9049 51 +64.9 −8.9

Far-Field * 1815 142 2169 47 3007 711 5416 36 +65.7 −23.9

Closed Cabinets
Near-Field 1 3149 74 3248 60 3459 791 7106 56 +9.8 −5.7
Near-Field 2 2194 92 2530 48 3733 723 6198 58 +70.1 +21
Center
Near-Field

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.
MakerBot (PLA)* 1130 17 1156 58 16,704 61,487 453,602 37 +1378.9 −36.0

Up Box (ABS)* 2982 79 3153 58 15,237 7042 36,471 47 +411.0 −18.2

Simultaneous with Filter 1759 66 1835 76 32,585 18,448 95,423 29 +1752.5 −61.8
Simultaneous without filter 1452 19 1485 58 71,527 28,294 136,031 30 +4824.9 −48.4

*
Campaigns using the standard NIST Test Artifact print object.
Page 27
 Secondo et al. Page 28

Table 5

Comparison of particle removal rates in all MakerSpaces.

Author Manuscript

Specifications Library Laboratory Center

MakerBot Ultimaker Lulzbot Lulzbot Lulzbot Simultaneous Open Open Closed MakerBot UpBox Simultaneous
(PLA) (PLA) (PLA) (ABS) (HIPS) Cabinets Cabinets Cabinet (PLA) (ABS) with Filter
(NF) (FF) (NF 1)

Room Volume 130 130 130 130 130 130 198 198 198 37 37 37
(m3)
Print Duration 3.9 4.0 3.2 3.6 3.9 3.4 5.4 3.1 7.4 2.7 1.8 4.0
(h)
ACH (h−1) 3.125 3.125 3.125 3.125 3.125 3.125 8.7 8.7 8.7 0.18 0.18 0.18
Mean 1987 1707 7345 5560 29,802 3148 3276 1815 3149 1130 2982 1759
Background
Concentration
(#/cc)
Mean Print 2008 12,426 3007 5860 39,227 13,409 5402 3007 3459 16,704 15,237 32,585
Author Manuscript

Concentration
(#/cc)
Ratio of 1.0 7.3 0.4 1.1 1.3 4.3 1.6 1.7 1.1 14.8 5.1 18.5
Concentration
Increase
Mean 2.7 16.4 3.6 7.5 51.8 17.7 56.7 31.2 75.9 7.3 5.0 14.3
Emission Rate
(#x 1011/min)
Particles 6.2 38.8 9.7 17.3 124.2 36.1 185.4 57.0 338.5 11.7 2.0 32.8
Removed (#x
1013)
Removal 1.0 6.2 1.5 2.8 19.9 5.8 29.7 9.1 54.3 1.9 0.3 5.3
Ratio
Compared to
Library
MakerBot
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Atmos Environ (1994). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 July 23.