Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A

Current Issues

ISSN: 1528-7394 (Print) 1087-2620 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uteh20

Emissions and health risks from the use of 3D

printers in an occupational setting

Felix L Chan, Chun-Yip Hon, Susan M Tarlo, Nikhil Rajaram & Ronald House

To cite this article: Felix L Chan, Chun-Yip Hon, Susan M Tarlo, Nikhil Rajaram & Ronald
House (2020) Emissions and health risks from the use of 3D printers in an occupational
setting, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 83:7, 279-287, DOI:
10.1080/15287394.2020.1751758

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2020.1751758

View supplementary material

Published online: 21 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 806

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uteh20
JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, PART A
2020, VOL. 83, NO. 7, 279–287
https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2020.1751758

Emissions and health risks from the use of 3D printers in an occupational setting
a,b c a,b,d,e
Felix L Chan , Chun-Yip Hon , Susan M Tarlo , Nikhil Rajarama,b, and Ronald House a,b,d,e

a
Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; bDepartment of Medicine,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; cSchool of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada; dDalla Lana
School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; eCentre for Research Expertise in Occupational Disease, Toronto, ON,
Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The aim of this study was to determine concentrations of particulates and volatile organic 3D printing; indoor air
compounds (VOCs) emitted from 3D printers using polylactic acid (PLA) filaments at a university quality; occupational
workroom to assess exposure and health risks in an occupational setting. Under typical-case (one assessment; particulates;
volatile organic compounds
printer) and worst-case (three printers operating simultaneously) scenarios, particulate concentra-
(VOC)
tion (total and respirable), VOCs and formaldehyde were measured. Air samples were collected in
the printing room and adjacent hallway. Size-resolved levels of nano-diameter particles were also
collected in the printing room. Total particulate levels were higher in the worst-case scenario
(0.7 mg/m3) vs. typical-case scenario (0.3 mg/m3). Respirable particulate and formaldehyde con-
centrations were similar between the two scenarios. Size-resolved measurements showed that
most particles ranged from approximately 27 to 116 nm. Total VOC levels were approximately
6-fold higher during the worst-case scenario vs. typical situation with isopropyl alcohol being the
predominant VOC. Airborne concentrations in the hallway were generally lower than inside the
printing room. All measurements were below their respective occupational exposure limits. In
summary, emissions of particulates and VOCs increased when multiple 3D printers were operating
simultaneously. Airborne levels in the adjacent hallway were similar between the two scenarios.
Overall, data suggest a low risk of significant and persistent adverse health effects. Nevertheless,
the health effects attributed to 3D printing are not fully known and adherence to good hygiene
principles is recommended during use of this technology.

Introduction
Additive manufacturing, colloquially known as 3D
printing, is the computer-assisted layered production
of three-dimensional (3D) objects. Fused deposition
modeling (FDM), a type of 3D printing, which
involves extrusion of molten filaments, is commonly
used by hobbyists and entry-level prototyping ser-
vices (Gibson 2015). Lab-controlled studies con-
cluded that FDM-based 3D printing might expose
its users to hazardous emissions of ultrafine (<100-
nm diameter) particles (UFPs) as well as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
Ultrafine particle emission rates from 3D printing
are estimated to range from approximate108 to 1012
particles/min, with higher emissions from acryloni-
trile butadiene styrene (ABS) filaments and lower
emissions when polylactic acid (PLA) filaments are
used. (Azimi et al. 2016; Floyd, Wang, and Regens
2017; Kim et al. 2015; Stephens et al. 2013; Vance
et al. 2017; Yi et al. 2016). UFP concentrations during
printer operations were reported to range from
approximate 103 to 105 particles/cm3 for room mea-
surements (Afshar-Mohajer et al. 2015; Deng et al.
2016; Mendes et al. 2017; Stabile et al. 2017; Steinle
2016; Stephens et al. 2013; Vance et al. 2017) and
approximate 104 to 106 particles/cm3 for chamber
measurements (Azimi et al. 2016; Floyd, Wang, and
Regens 2017; Kim et al. 2015; Kwon et al. 2017;
Mendes et al. 2017; Steinle 2016; Vance et al. 2017).
Total VOC (TVOC) concentrations from 3D print-
ing were found to range from approximate 102 to
103 µg/m3 (Azimi et al. 2016; Floyd, Wang, and
Regens 2017; Mendes et al. 2017; Steinle 2016) with
higher exposures from ABS filaments compared to
PLA filaments (Wojtyla, Klama, and Baran 2017).
Emitted specific VOCs reported from general 3D

CONTACT Chun-Yip Hon cyhon@ryerson.ca School of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street, DCC318 Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
280 F. L. CHAN ET AL.
printing include formaldehyde (Kim et al. 2015;
Mendes et al. 2017), acetaldehyde (Kim et al. 2015;
Mendes et al. 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017), acetone
(Mendes et al. 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017), isopropyl
alcohol (Stefaniak et al. 2017), and ethanol (Stefaniak
et al. 2017). ABS printing is specifically associated
with emission of styrene (Azimi et al. 2016; Floyd,
Wang, and Regens 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017),
a probable carcinogen (Banton et al. 2019; IARC
2020), and PLA printing produces methyl methacry-
late (Steinle 2016), a respiratory and dermal sensiti-
zer, as well as a known respiratory irritant (TOXNET:
Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) [Internet].
U.S. National Library of Medicine 2020; [cited 2018
Oct 12].). Overall, exposure to UFPs, VOCs and
solvents were deemed the highest risk for multiple
types of additive manufacturing technology (Petretta
et al. 2019).
The vast majority of previous investigations
examining 3D printing emissions were conducted
under controlled printing conditions (i.e. chamber
studies) while there is a paucity of studies which
evaluated emissions from 3D printers in the work-
place. To our knowledge, there have only been two
occupational exposure assessment studies and
both research teams concluded that more research
based in actual workplace settings is needed
(Stefaniak et al. 2019; Väisänen et al. 2019). This
is noteworthy as the dimensions and environmen-
tal conditions of the workspace might impact the
resulting airborne levels (Rao et al. 2017; Zhang
et al. 2019) and particle emission rates using
a chamber might be an underestimate (Ding
et al. 2019). In addition, non-industrial settings
often use desktop 3D printers that are not accom-
panied with a means to vent the emissions
(Wojtyła et al. 2019) and, therefore, emissions are
likely to contaminate indoor air. Given the above,
the aim of this study was to examine emissions in
a university printing facility using 3D printing
with PLA filaments under typical-case (one printer
operating) as well as worst-case (three printers
operating simultaneously) scenarios. In addition,
the concentrations of emissions were also deter-
mined in the hallway adjacent to the room where
printers are situated, as many workers traverse this
passage and ‘second-hand’ exposure has not been
examined previously. Sampling was conducted for
total particulate (<100 µm), respirable particulate
(<4 µm), size-resolved particulate (10–420 nm),
VOCs including formaldehyde, and total volatile
organic compounds (TVOC).
Methods
Test environment and 3D printers
The study was performed at a university 3D print-
ing facility. Air samples were collected from two
locations in the facility: (1) the room where 3D
printers were operating; and (2) the adjoining hall-
way leading into the printing room. The printing
room (2.4 × 2.4 × 2.4 m) contained three 3D
printers and had carpeted walls and flooring.
Sampling in the printing room was performed at
a height simulating the seated position of a facility
user. While sample collection was occurring, the
printing room itself was devoid of foot-traffic, but
up to four people (i.e. users, sampling technicians,
study personnel, and facility staff) were present
from time-to-time during the sampling period.
The door connecting the printing room and hall-
way remained open during data collection, which
was typical practice at this facility. In the hallway
(1.2 × 6.1 × 3.4 m), air sampling was performed at
the approximate breathing height of 1.2 m just
outside the printing room. Several individuals
were observed traversing the hallway during sam-
ple collection as a classroom and meeting room
was situated at the end of the hallway. The room
with printers and hallway each had two air
diffusers.
Three FDM 3D printers loaded with PLA fila-
ments were utilized in our study (MakerBot
Replicator 2, Ultimaker 2, and PrintrBot). During
air sampling, the printers were used to print rela-
tively small objects that might be completed within
3 hr; however, printing durations and print
dimensions generally varied between users.
Testing design
Our testing design consisted of three separate
measurement periods over 6 hr within the
same day, as follows: (1) background measure-
ments (22 min) (only for size-resolved particulate
levels); (2) a “typical-case” scenario during which
each printer was in operation in the following
 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, PART A
order: MakerBot Replicator 2 (27 min), Ultimaker
2 (49 min), and PrintrBot (79 min); and (3)
a “worst-case” scenario (97 min) during which all
three printers were in operation simultaneously.
Air sampling and analysis
Total and respirable particulate concentrations were
measured using NIOSH 0500 and 0600 methodol-
ogy, respectively (NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (1994) NIOSH 0500 – Particulates Not
Otherwise Regulated, Total. 1994; NIOSH Manual
of Analytical Methods (1998) NIOSH 0600 –
Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated, Respirable.
1998). Sampling for total particulates was performed
as this contaminant was collected in previous emis-
sion studies (Gu et al. 2019; Väisänen et al. 2019) and
the fact that the emitted particle composition from
3D printers is not well-characterized (Zhang et al.
2019). Therefore, the most appropriate occupational
exposure limit for comparison purposes would be
Particulates Not Otherwise Classified, Total which
employs NIOSH 0500 for sampling and analysis.
SENSIDYNE® Gilian GilAir 3 air sampling pumps
were employed for sampling both types of particu-
lates. The flow rate was set at 2 L/min for total
particulates, and 1.7 L/min with a nylon cyclone for
respirable particulates. A field blank was submitted
for each type of analyte and the limit of detection
(LOD) for both methods was 30 µg. Size-resolved
particulate concentrations were measured using
a direct-reading scanning mobility particle sizer
(NanoScan SMPS Model 3910, TSI Inc.) with
a detectable range of 10 to 420 nm and set at a one-
min logging interval. Size-resolved particulate levels
were measured only in the printing room.
Formaldehyde concentrations were sampled uti-
lizing NIOSH 2016.(NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (2003). NIOSH 2016 – Formaldehyde.
2016) The SENSIDYNE® Gilian GilAir 3 air sampling
pumps were calibrated to collect samples at 1 L/min.
A field blank was submitted with the samples and
analytical LOD was 50 ng per sample. VOC concen-
trations were collected in accordance with EPA TO-
17 (US Environmental Protection Office (1999).
“Compendium Method TO-17: Determination of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air Using
Active Sampling Onto Sorbent Tube” 1999) using the
SKC Pocket Pump 210–1000 and an Air Toxic-Tube.
281
TVOC was analyzed as part of an open characteriza-
tion package, which involves the determination
of many major volatile organic compounds (http://
www.cassen.ca/services/environmental-health
/open-characterization-of-volatile-organic-com
pounds-in-air/). The resulting TVOC is semi-
quantitative total amount/concentration based
upon summation of estimated masses of VOCs
detected using this method with a mass scanning
range from 33 amu to 400 amu. All airborne con-
taminants measured using active sampling were sent
to an accredited lab for analyses.
Results
Results of respirable and total particulate, formalde-
hyde, and VOC measurements are presented in
Table 1 (all units were converted to µg/m3 for stan-
dardization purposes). For both measurement loca-
tions, total particulate levels were higher in the
worst-case scenario (700 µg/m3 in both settings)
compared to the typical-case scenario (300 µg/m3
in both settings). Respirable particulate levels in the
printing room were actually lower in the worst-case
scenario (400 µg/m3) compared to typical-case sce-
nario (800 µg/m3). Formaldehyde levels followed
a similar trend of being lower during the worst case
scenario for both printing room and hallway mea-
surements. TVOC concentrations were higher in the
worst-case scenario (1,700 µg/m3) than in the typi-
cal-case scenario (270 µg/m3) in the printing room
but were somewhat similar for hallway measure-
ments during the two types of exposure conditions
(460 and 540 µg/m3, respectively). The most com-
mon VOC detected in both sampling locations and
during both exposure scenarios was isopropyl alco-
hol. The top three VOCs also included acetone and
ethanol in all locations/scenarios except in the print-
ing room during the typical-case where decamethyl
cyclopentasiloxane replaced ethanol in the top three.
Other VOCs detected were lower and did not show
a marked gradient in different locations/exposure
scenarios. As indicated in Table S1 the measured
exposures for total particulate, respirable particulate
and the three main VOCs were well below their
permissible exposure limits. Methyl methacrylate,
a respiratory and skin sensitizer previously reported
to be present in 3D emissions using PLA filaments,
282 F. L. CHAN ET AL.

Table 1. Respirable and total particulate, formaldehyde, and VOC concentrations in the printing room and hallway during typical
and worst-case scenarios.*.
Analysis Scenario Location Conc. (µg/m3) Occupational Exposure Limits (µg/m3)
Total particulate (<100 µm) Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 300 ACGIH TLV-TWA: 1.0 × 104
Hallway (n = 1) 300 OSHA PEL TWA: 1.5 × 104
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 700
Hallway (n = 1) 700
Respirable particulate (<4 µm) Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 800 ACGIH TLV-TWA: 3.0 × 103
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 400 OSHA PEL TWA: 5.0 × 103
Formaldehyde Typical Hallway (n = 2) 3.9 ACGIH TLV-TWA: 123
Printing Room (n = 2) 4.9 ACGIH TLV-STEL: 368
Worst Hallway (n = 1) 3.7 OSHA PEL TWA: 921
Printing Room (n = 1) 4.5 OSHA PEL STEL: 2.5 × 103
Isopropyl alcohol Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 190 ACGIH TLV-TWA: 4.9 × 105
Hallway (n = 1) 260 ACGIH TLV-STEL: 9.8 × 105
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 1400 OSHA PEL TWA: 9.8 × 105
Hallway (n = 1) 240
Acetone Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 10 ACGIH TLV-TWA: 5.9 × 105
Hallway (n = 1) 85 ACGIH TLV-STEL: 1.2 × 106
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 110 OSHA PEL TWA: 2.4 × 106
Hallway (n = 1) 63
Ethanol Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 1 ACGIH TLV-STEL: 1.9 × 106
Hallway (n = 1) 89 OSHA PEL TWA: 1.9 × 106
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 77
Hallway (n = 1) 80
TVOC Typical Printing Room (n = 1) 270 No exposure limits
Hallway (n = 1) 540
Worst Printing Room (n = 1) 1700
Hallway (n = 1) 460
*The specific VOCs are those with the highest measured concentrations in the printing room during the worst case scenario, with all three printers
operating simultaneously
ACGIH – American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
OSHA PEL – US Occupational Health and Safety Administration – Permissible Exposure Limits
TWA – Time weighted average
STEL – Short-term exposure limit
TLV – Threshold Limit Value (ACGIH)
The occupational exposure limits (OELs) were converted from ppm to µg/m3, assuming a standard temperature of 25ºC and 760 mmHg.

was not detected in any of our measurements
(Steinle 2016; Wojtyła, Śpiewak, and Baran 2020).
Measurements of size-resolved (10–420 nm) par-
ticle concentrations indicated background levels
below approximately 3,000 particles/cm3 in all
instances and usually below 2,000 particles/cm3
(Figure 1a). Increases in total particle concentrations
were observed during the typical-case scenarios for
the Makerbot Replicator 2 and PrintrBot printers
(data not shown), as well as the worst-case scenario
(Figure 1b). Mean concentrations during printer
operation were 9,894 particles/cm3 for the
Makerbot Replicator 2 printer, 2,303 particles/cm3
for the Ultimaker 2 printer, 7,050 particles/cm3 for
the PrintrBot printer, and 9,866 particles/cm3 for the
worst-case scenario with all three printers in opera-
tion. A peak particle concentration of 22,100
particles/cm3 was detected at 12 min into the worst-
case scenario. The highest concentration of particles
occurred in approximately 27.4 to 115.5 nm range
(mean particle diameter of 57 nm over the worst-
case period), with negligible production of particles
larger than 115.5 nm (Figure 1b).
Discussion
Our findings demonstrated low measured levels of
total (700 µg/m3) and respirable (400 µg/m3) particu-
late during 3D printer operation compared to ACGIH
TLV-TWA values of 10,000 µg/m3 and 3,000 µg/m3,
respectively (ACGIH. 2018). These results are higher
than levels in the workplace-based study by Väisänen
et al. (2019) who reported dust concentrations ranging
from 20 to 120 µg/m3 (mean of 0.05 µg/m3 and SD of
0.01). In addition, while not directly comparable, Rao
et al. (2017) measured an average maximum PM2.5
concentration of 900 µg/m3 emitted from ABS print-
ing in an enclosed chamber. Only traceable formalde-
hyde concentrations of approximately 4–5 µg/m3 (or
approximately 3–4 ppb) were detected, which were
 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, PART A
Figure 1. Sub-micron particle concentrations in four different particle diameter ranges during (a) background i.e. no printers
operating and (b) worst-case scenario with three printers operating simultaneously.
similar to those previously reported (Mendes et al.
2017). These levels were not altered by 3D printing
and were markedly lower than the 8-hr maximum
exposure limit for formaldehyde of 50 µg/m3 (or 40
ppb) recommended by Health Canada’s Residential
Indoor Air Quality Guidelines (Health Canada 2018).
In agreement with the workplace-based study by
Stefaniak et al. (2017), isopropyl alcohol, acetone,
and ethanol were the principal VOCs generated by
PLA printing in our study. Further, compared to
Stefaniak et al. (2017), our VOC characterization
showed similar concentrations except for xylene
which was detected in our study (vs. less than detect-
able in their study) and acetone concentrations in the
current study were approximately half that reported
in by Stefaniak et al. (2019). The biggest difference in
VOC concentration between the two studies was
associated with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) where
a concentration of 110 µg/m3 was noted by us
while Stefaniak et al. (2019) found the concentration
of IPA to range from 122 µg/m3 to 40,765 µg/m3
(footnote1). These differences in VOC emissions
lend support to the argument that printer brand
and/or the brand of filaments influence airborne
contaminants (Davis et al. 2019; Yi et al. 2016).
Given that emissions are influenced by printer
brand and/or brand of filaments, it is recommended
that these be clearly indicated in future studies and
that a standard set of sampling protocols be estab-
lished such that the type of airborne contaminants
sampled, the sampling equipment and duration of
sampling are consistent between studies.
283
With respect to particulates, the large majority
of particles emitted by 3D printing was found to
be in the range of approximately 27.4 to 115.5 nm
range (i.e. UFPs), consistent with the findings
from other studies (Floyd, Wang, and Regens
2017; Kim et al. 2015; Kwon et al. 2017; Rao
et al. 2017; Stabile et al. 2017; Steinle 2016;
Stephens et al. 2013; Vance et al. 2017; Zhou
et al. 2015). Our observations that UFP levels
increased when three printers are operating simul-
taneously (i.e. worst-case scenario) is consistent
with other investigations (Bharti and Singh 2017;
Stefaniak et al. 2019). The range of measured UFP
concentrations (approximately 103 to 104 particles/
cm3) in our study was comparable to values for
PLA printing that were previously reported (Deng
et al. 2016; Mendes et al. 2017; Steinle 2016).
Further, all airborne concentrations in the hallway
were lower than in the printing room and, there-
fore, not likely to pose a health risk to any indivi-
dual who traverses the hallway.
Some factors aside from 3D printing operations
may have affected the measurements. The detected
VOCs may have been associated with personal care
products such as ethanol, decamethyl cyclopentasi-
loxane, and dimethyl ether, hand sanitizers such as
ethanol and isopropyl alcohol), and exhaled breath
such as acetone, acetaldehyde, and 2-methyl-
1,3-butadiene rather than the printing process
(Mochalski et al. 2013). Of note, hairspray was used
once on the printing table to assist with surface
adhesiveness in the printing process. The door
284 F. L. CHAN ET AL.
connecting the hallway to the main building was left
slightly open during the worst-case printing sce-
nario, which may have contributed to the lower
levels of formaldehyde and other VOCs, as could
have the presence of absorptive carpeted surfaces.
Other variables reported to affect UFP emissions
include extrusion temperature (Deng et al. 2016;
Mendes et al. 2017; Yi et al. 2016), printer malfunc-
tions (Mendes et al. 2017; Yi et al. 2016; Zhou et al.
2015), and relative humidity (American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
2018).
In terms of study limitations, only FDM-type
printers using PLA were tested and therefore our
findings are principally generalizable to this type
of 3D printing. ABS filaments were found to gen-
erate higher levels of both VOCs and particles
(Davis et al. 2019; Stephens et al. 2013; Väisänen
et al. 2019) However, Zhang et al. (2019) suggested
that particles emitted from PLA filaments may be
more toxic. Although background measurements
for size-resolved particles of sub-micron diameter
(10–420) in the printing room were determined,
background concentrations of total and respirable
particulates as well as VOCs and formaldehyde
were not measured. Further, there was a limited
sample size with no replicate samples. Finally,
smaller objects were printed that could be com-
pleted in a relatively short period. It should be
noted that Yi et al. (2016) stated that longer prin-
ter times results in more particle emissions.
The long-term health effects of 3D printing
remain poorly understood. However, the low mea-
sured exposure to total and respirable particulate
as well as VOCs in our workplace-based study,
which is consistent with previous experimental
findings, suggests that significant and persistent
adverse health effects are not likely from the use
of PLA filaments. Exposure to a large number of
VOCs occurs during 3D printing using PLA fila-
ments and the mixture of exposures may be asso-
ciated with irritant effects and/or central nervous
system (CNS) effects, especially with longer dura-
tion of exposure and worst case exposure scenar-
ios. In a survey of 46 workers in 17 3D printing
companies, data demonstrated that 59% reported
respiratory symptoms, 20% reported cutaneous
symptoms and 17% reported headaches at least
once per week in the previous year (Chan et al.
2018). These adverse health effects are consistent
with the irritant and CNS effects expected from
a mixture of VOCs. However, such health effects
should clear up when the exposure ends and might
be prevented by adherence to good occupational
hygiene principles.
In terms of specific health effects, there has been
a single case report of a worker with asthma asso-
ciated with the use of 3D printing (House, Rajaram,
and Tarlo 2017). However, his exposure was unu-
sually intense due to the operation of 10 FDM 3D
printers in a small work area. Initially the worker,
a self-employed entrepreneur, used ABS filaments
but he subsequently reduced the number of printers
and switched to PLA filaments. He reported respira-
tory irritant symptoms in his work environment and
his asthma appeared to be related to the high expo-
sure to irritants. The only other specific health effect
reported was a case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis
due to inhalation of nylon powder used for 3D
printing with selective laser sintering technology
(Johannes et al. 2016). This health effect appears to
be rare and would be confined to the nylon powder
employed in the 3D printing process. In a study in
which participants were exposed to 3D printing
emissions for one hr, a variety of acute eye, skin
and respiratory symptoms were noted (Gümperlein
et al. 2018). Further, in vitro experiments demon-
strated that 3D printer emissions induce cell toxicity
(Farcas et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019).
The long-term health outcomes due to exposure
to ultrafine particles, including UFP from 3D print-
ing are not well understood. However, due to their
small size, UFPs may have unique cardiovascular,
respiratory and allergic toxicity (Health Effects
Institute 2013). Therefore the occurrence of any
such health effects need to be reported to assist in
the ongoing risk assessment associated with 3D
printing. This is consistent with recommendations
of a recent study of the 3D-printing of biomaterials
for musculoskeletal tissue clinical applications,
which emphasized that attention needs to be given
to new risks and to develop appropriate response
strategies for the protection of health and safety
(Petretta et al. 2019). While to our knowledge, occu-
pational standards specifically for 3D printing
remain limited, ongoing work in this direction
would be useful. Further, in addition to potential
adverse health effects, it bears reminding that there
 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, PART A
may be other health and safety hazards such as
electrical and mechanical hazards associated with
3D printing (Petretta et al. 2019)
In summary our study indicated emissions to
relatively low levels of particulate and VOCs from
3D printers using PLA filaments occurred. There
appears to be a low risk of significant and persistent
adverse health effects associated with this common
type of 3D printing. However such exposures do
need to be minimized to prevent acute symptoms,
in particular respiratory irritant symptoms in work-
ers performing 3D printing for prolonged periods.
Therefore, it is recommended that desktop 3D prin-
ters be equipped with control measures such as
photocatalytic filters to reduce VOCs (Wojtyła,
Śpiewak, and Baran 2020) and nanofiber membranes
for particulate emissions (Rao et al. 2017). In addi-
tion, adherence to good occupational hygiene prin-
ciples is needed with development of standardized
safety guidelines for this technology encouraged.
Note
1. Note that the source of the isopropyl alcohol in the
two studies may be from the real-time counting
instrument, NanoScan, which requires isopropyl alco-
hol for sample collection.
Acknowledgments
Measurements of total and respirable particulate, formaldehyde,
and volatile organic compound concentrations were carried out
by CASSEN Testing Laboratories. Size-resolved particulate con-
centrations were performed by staff from TSI Inc.
Disclosure statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding
The study was funded by a grant from the Centre for
Research Expertise in Occupational Disease (CREOD) sup-
ported by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills
Development.
ORCID
Felix L Chan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2649-9773
Chun-Yip Hon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8893-710X
285
Susan M Tarlo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4746-5310
Ronald House http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9486-3947
References
Afshar-Mohajer, N., C.-Y. Wu, T. Ladun, D. A. Rajon, and
Y. Huang. 2015. Characterization of particulate matters and
total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer. Build.
Environ. 93:293–301. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.07.013.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). 2018. TLVs and BEIs: Threshold limit values for
chemical substances and physical agents & biological expo-
sure limits. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.
Azimi, P., D. Zhao, C. Pouzet, N. E. Crain, and B. Stephens.
2016. Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic
compounds from commercially available desktop
three-dimensional printers with multiple filaments. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 50:1260–68. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04983.
Banton, M. I., J. S. Bus, J. J. Collins, E. Delzell, H.-P. Gelbke,
J. E. Kester, M. M. Moore, R. Waites, and S. S. Sarang.
2019. Evaluation ofpotential health effects associated with
occupational and environmental exposure to styrene-An
update. J. Toxicol.Environ. Health B 22:1–130. doi:10.1080/
10937404.2019.1633718.
Bharti, N., and S. Singh. 2017. Three-dimensional (3D) printers
in libraries: Perspective and preliminary safety analysis.
J. Chem. Educ. 94:879–85. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00745.
Chan, F. L., R. House, I. Kudla, J. C. Lipszyc, N. Rajaram, and
S. M. Tarlo. 2018. Health survey of employees regularly using
3D printers. Occup. Med. 68:211–14. doi:10.1093/occmed/
kqy042.
Davis, A. Y., Q. Zhang, J. P. Wong, R. J. Weber, and
M. S. Black. 2019. Characterization of volatile organic
compound emissions from consumer level material extru-
sion 3D printers. Build. Environ. 160:1–20. doi:10/1016/j.
buildenv.2019.106209.
Deng, Y., S.-J. Cao, A. Chen, and Y. Guo. 2016. The impact of
manufacturing parameters on submicron particle emissions
from a desktop 3D printer in the perspective of emission
reduction. Build. Environ. 104:311–19. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.
2016.05.021.
Ding, S., B. F. Ng, X. Shang, H. Liu, X. Lu, and M. P. Wan.
2019. The characteristics and formation mechanisms of
emissions from thermal decomposition of 3D printer
polymer filaments. Sci. Total. Environ. 692:984–94.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.257.
Farcas, M. T., A. B. Stefaniak, A. K. Knepp, L. Bowers,
W. K. Mandler, M. Kashon, S. R. Jackson, T. A. Stueckle,
J. D. Sisler, S. A. Friend, et al. 2019. Acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS) and polycarbonate (PC) filaments
three-dimensional (3-D) printer emissions-induced cell
toxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 317:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.09.
013.
Floyd, E. L., J. Wang, and J. L. Regens. 2017. Fume emissions from
a low-cost 3-D printer with various filaments. J. Occup.
Environ. Hyg. 14:523–33. doi:10.1080/15459624.2017.1302587.
286 F. L. CHAN ET AL.
Gibson, I. 2015. 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct
digital manufacturing. In Additive manufacturing technol-
ogies, ed. I. Gibson, D. Rosen, and B. Stucker, XXI, 498.
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3.
Gu, J., M. Wensing, E. Uhde, and T. Salthammer. 2019.
Characterization of particulate and gaseous pollutants
emitted during operation of a desktop 3D printer.
Environ. Int. 123:476–85. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.014.
Gümperlein, I., E. Fischer, G. Dietrich-Gümperlein, S. Karrasch,
D. Nowak, R. A. Jörres, and R. Schierl. 2018. 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. 28:611–23. doi:10.1111/ina.12458.
Health Canada. 2018. Residential indoor air quality
guidelines. Last modified February 5, 2018. Accessed
February 25, 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-
canada/services/air-quality/residential-indoor-air-quality-
guidelines.html
Health Effects Institute Review Panel on Ultrafine Particles.
2013. Understanding the health effects of ambient ultrafine
particles. HEI Perspectives 3., Boston, MA. Accessed on
Feb 25, 2020. https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/
Perspectives3.pdf
House, R., N. Rajaram, and S. M. Tarlo. 2017. Case report of
asthma associated with 3D printing. Occup Med 67:652–54.
doi:10.1093/occmed/kqx129.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2020.
Styrene, styrene-7,8-oxide and quinoline. vol. 121. Lyon,
France: IARC. Accessed February 25, 2020. http://publica
tions.iarc.fr/582
Johannes, J., T. Rezayat, W. D. Wallace, and J. P. Lynch.
2016. Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis associated
with inhaled exposure to nylon powder for 3-D printing:
A variant of nylon flock worker’s lung disease? Am.
J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 193:A7071.
Kim, Y., C. Yoon, S. Ham, J. Park, S. Kim, O. Kwon, and
P. J. Tsai. 2015. Emissions of nanoparticles and gaseous
material from 3D printer operation. Environ. Sci. Technol.
49:12044–53. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b02805.
Kwon, O., C. Yoon, S. Ham, J. Park, J. Lee, D. Yoo, and
Y. Kim. 2017. Characterization and control of nanoparticle
emission during 3D printing. Environ. Sci. Technol.
51:10357–68. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b01454.
Mendes, L., A. Kangas, K. Kukko, B. Molgaard, A. Saamanen,
T. Kanerva, I. F. Ituarte, M. Huhtiniemi, H. Stockmann-
Juvala, J. Partanen, et al. 2017. Characterization of emis-
sions from a desktop 3D printer. J. Ind. Ecol. 21:S94–S106.
doi:10.1111/jiec.12569.
Mochalski, P., J. King, M. Klieber, K. Unterkofler,
H. Hinterhuber, M. Baumann, and A. Amann. 2013.
Blood and breath levels of selected volatile organic com-
pounds in healthy volunteers. Analyst 138:2134–45.
doi:10.1039/c3an36756h.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. 1994.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods - 0500 – Particulates
not otherwise regulated, total. Accessed February 22, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/0500.pdf
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. 1998.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods - 0600 – Particulates
not otherwise regulated, respirable. Accessed February 22,
2020. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/
0600.pdf
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. 2003.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods - 2016 –
Formaldehyde. Accessed February 22, 2020. https://www.
cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/2016.pdf
Petretta, M., G. Desando, B. Grigolo, and L. Roseti. 2019. 3D
printing of musculoskeletal tissues: Impact on safety and
health at work. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A. 82:891–912.
doi:10.1080/15287394.2019.1663458.
Rao, C., F. Gu, P. Zhao, N. Sharmin, H. Gu, and J. Fu. 2017.
Capturing PM2.5 emissions from 3D printing via
nanofiber-based air filter. Sci. Rep. 7:10366. doi:10.1038/
s41598-017-10995-7.
Stabile, L., M. Scungio, G. Buonanno, F. Arpino, and G. Ficco.
2017. Airborne particle emission of a commercial 3D printer:
The effect of filament material and printing temperature.
Indoor Air 27:398–408. doi:10.1111/ina.12310.
Stefaniak, A. B., A. R. Johnson, S. Du Preez, D. R. Hammond,
J. R. Wells, J. E. Ham, R. F. LeBouf, K. W. Menchaca,
S. B. Martin Jr, M. G. Duling, et al. 2019. Evaluation of
emissions and exposures at workplaces using desktop
3-dimensional printer. J. Chem. Health. Saf. 26:19–30.
doi:10.1016/j.jchas.2018.11.001.
Stefaniak, A. B., R. F. LeBouf, J. Yi, J. Ham, T. Nurkewicz,
D. E. Schwegler-Berry, B. T. Chen, J. R. Wells, M. G. Duling,
R. B. Lawrence, et al. 2017. Characterization of chemical con-
taminants generated by a desktop fused deposition modeling
3-dimensional printer. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 14:540–50.
doi:10.1080/15459624.2017.1302589.
Steinle, P. 2016. Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D
printer and indoor air measurements in office settings.
J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 13:121–32. doi:10.1080/15459624.2015.
1091957.
Stephens, B., P. Azimi, Z. El Orch, and T. Ramos. 2013. Ultrafine
particle emissions from desktop 3D printers. Atmos. Environ.
79:334–39. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050.
US Environmental Protection Office. 1999. Determination of
volatile organic compounds in ambient air using active sam-
pling onto sorbent tube. Compendium method TO-17. Center
for Environmental Research Information Office of Research
and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH Accessed February 22, 2020. https://www3.
epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-17r.pdf
US National Library of Medicine. 2020. PubChem (formerly
hazardous substances data bank). Accessed February 22,
2020. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Väisänen, A. J., M. Hyttinen, S. Ylönen, and L. Alonen.
2019. Occupational exposure to gaseous and particulate con-
taminants originating from additive manufacturing of liquid,
powdered, and filament plastic materials and related post-
 JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, PART A
processes. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 16:258–71. doi:10.1080/
15459624.2018.1557784.
Vance, M. E., V. Pegues, S. Van Montfrans, W. Leng, and L. C. Marr.
2017. Aerosol emissions from fuse-deposition modeling 3D prin-
ters in a chamber and in real indoor environments. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 51:9516–23. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b01546.
Wojtyła, S., K. Śpiewak, and T. Baran. 2020. Synthesis, charac-
terization and activity of doped graphitic carbon nitride
materials towards photocatalytic oxidation of volatile organic
pollutants emitted from 3D printer. J. Photochem. Photobiol.
A. Chem. 39:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jphotochem.2020.112355.
Wojtyła, S., P. Klama, K. Śpiewak, and T. Baran. 2019. 3D printer
as a potential source of indoor air pollution. Int. J. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 17:207–18. doi:10.1007/s13762-019-02444-x.
Wojtyla, S., P. Klama, and T. Baran. 2017. Is 3D printing
safe? Analysis of the thermal treatment of thermoplastics:
287
ABS, PLA, PET, and nylon. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 14:
D80–D85. doi:10.1080/15459624.2017.1285489.
Yi, J., R. F. LeBouf, M. G. Duling, T. Nurkiewicz, B. T. Chen,
D. Schwegler-Berry, M. A. Virji, and A. B. Stefaniak. 2016.
Emission of particulate matter from a desktop
three-dimensional (3D) printer. J. Toxicol. Environ.
Health A. 79:453–65. doi:10.1080/15287394.2016.1166467.
Zhang, Q., M. Pardo, Y. Rudich, I. Kaplan-Ashiri, J. P. S. Wong,
A. Y. Davis, M. S. Black, and R. J. Weber. 2019. Chemical
composition and toxicity of particles emitted from a
consumer-level 3D printer using various materials. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 53:12054–61. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b04168.
Zhou, Y., X. Kong, A. Chen, and S. Cao. 2015. Investigation of
ultrafine particle emissions of desktop 3D printers in the clean
room. Procedia. Eng. 121:506–12. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.
08.1099.