Anyone with a working nose cannot be really surprised about that, especially w.r.t. ABS printing. There's a reason why things that burn/melt things usually have an exhaust of some kind. I'm sure those will become mandatory at some time, and rightfully so. Just like thermal runaway protection should be mandatory, and yet many cheap 3D printers don't have it either. That should actually worry people more than nano particles. I'm still amazed how many people let their printers run while no one is at home (yes, there's OctoPrint+Webcam, but last I checked that couldn't put out a fire...).
Personally i never leave my printers "unattended", as in i'm at home, but i don't watch them constantly when they're printing. They're in a room that is normally closed when they're running, and is properly ventilated to the outside after.
ABS is printed in the garage.<p>I made a "better than nothing" auto off switch using an Arduino, a 230V relay, a couple of MQ2 smoke detectors, and a couple of DS18B20 digital thermometers.<p>The MQ-2 is mounted about 50cm above my printers frame, one for each printer, connected to an arduino which has a relay controlling power to the printers.
If smoke is detected, or the temperature rises above 45C, it cuts the power to all printers.
The arduino defaults to off, requiring manual intervention to turn it on again via a push button. If the arduino loses power, so does the printers.<p>It probably won't prevent the house from burning down, but in case of an electrical fire it should shut that down pretty good. The problem is the filament itself. It burns like a candle, so if the flames ever make it to the filament, it should have no problems continuing to the spool, setting the house ablaze.
As someone who has a 3d printer running about a quarter of the time less than 10 feet away from me hearing that it could be bad for me is alarming that it could be harming me. (Other than the lost sleep because its loud) When though of as a risk benefit analysis though I come to the strong conclusion that I will use my printer no matter what because it is the compiler to my hobby: no printer, much harder time making stuff.<p>I don't need to iterate on the greatness of them here but they have the potential to radically help teach people how to make stuff which drastically helps in industry.<p>My main concern with these articles is that there is no relative risk factor presented against. I have no idea if these particulates are something it would be worthy to invest in an enclosure or are there low levels which are permittable.<p>I know that I personally am much more likely to have health complications from almost anything else but to someone else reading the above article they may draw the conclusion that 3d could be dangerous and should be restricted. If a person shows up to a school board meeting throwing a fit that they are running 3d printers with children in the same room then it looks bad on the printers, possibly having them removed and to generalize I think that that is the last thing anyone wants.<p>Ninja edit: formating
Some figures about the UFP emitted by FDM:<p><a href="https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/" rel="nofollow">https://box3d.eu/3d-printing-safety-pollution-health/</a><p>From this one data point, it seems that ABS is the big emitter.
I wrote a blog post about one of the earlier studies in 2013 [see below].<p>HEPA filters can still be effective - the study doesn't talk about the charge of the UFPs - and the 0.3 micron DoP particles used in HEPA testing are designed to be uncharged. It is common designing filter media to use charged media to attract small particles.<p>If you were running a 3D printer and concerned about this risk, I would suggest:
1/ Encapsulate the unit.
2/ Wear a mask when the enclosure is open.
3/ Ensure a steady flow of process air when running to prevent accumulation. You could also run at a negative pressure to keep USPs in the enclosure.
4/ Have a filter bank on the air outlet that you change out regularly. Pair a HEPA element with a highly charged media.<p>Link to 2013 blog post: <a href="https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular-media-ultrafine-particles-and-3d-printing/" rel="nofollow">https://fredlybrand.com/2013/10/19/filtration-in-the-popular...</a>
Is anyone honestly surprised that melting plastic produces toxic particulates/fumes? It should go without saying that one would want these machines enclosed in a ventilated space separated from people.
So many man-designed processes produce nano-particles. What <i>natural</i> processes produce them, too? I expect many would. How does nature cope with this?
In case this feels like dejavu for the graybeards<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_health_risks,_and_precautions" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Printer#Safety_hazards,_...</a>
TL;DR: "We were able to measure that there are <i>some</i> toxic particles emanated, but failed to produce any meaningful results about quantity of said particles, or potential danger to consumers, in any way."<p>To me that says, the quantities they did measure were too low to publish for this alarmist article.<p>From the article:
>all tests indicated at least some level of toxic response (though the toxic response varied by filament type).
>The sheer variety of the toxic substances produced by these printers was alarming. No less than 200 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs)<p>uh huh. The "sheer variety is alarming" line was about where my eyes started to roll, finishing their 135° journey after confirming there are no meaningful stats in this article.