Literature DB >> 34305433

Comparative analysis of ventilation efficiency on ultrafine particle removal in university MakerSpaces.

Lynn E Secondo1, Hayat I Adawi1, John Cuddehe2, Kenneth Hopson3, Allison Schumacher4, Larry Mendoza5, Charles Cartin6, Nastassja A Lewinski1.   

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 neither engineering controls nor internal ventilation. All MakerSpaces were studied under both 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 key priority in the design of a new university MakerSpace.

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

Year:  2020        PMID: 34305433      PMCID: PMC8301741          DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)        ISSN: 1352-2310            Impact factor:   4.798


  20 in total

1.  Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT) for the identification and measurement of potential inhalation exposure to engineered nanomaterials--Part B: Results from 12 field studies.

Authors:  M Methner; L Hodson; A Dames; C Geraci
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  Fume emissions from a low-cost 3-D printer with various filaments.

Authors:  Evan L Floyd; Jun Wang; James L Regens
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Airborne particle emission of a commercial 3D printer: the effect of filament material and printing temperature.

Authors:  L Stabile; M Scungio; G Buonanno; F Arpino; G Ficco
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 5.770

4.  Characterization and Control of Nanoparticle Emission during 3D Printing.

Authors:  Ohhun Kwon; Chungsik Yoon; Seunghon Ham; Jihoon Park; Jinho Lee; Danbi Yoo; Yoojin Kim
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Particle emissions from fused deposition modeling 3D printers: Evaluation and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peter Byrley; Barbara Jane George; William K Boyes; Kim Rogers
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  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.

Authors:  I Gümperlein; E Fischer; G Dietrich-Gümperlein; S Karrasch; D Nowak; R A Jörres; R Schierl
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 5.770

7.  Airborne emissions of carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers during thermal processing of plastics.

Authors:  John Unwin; Matthew R Coldwell; Chris Keen; John J McAlinden
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-10-22

8.  Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer and indoor air measurements in office settings.

Authors:  Patrick Steinle
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.155

9.  Safety Standards Aim to Rein in 3-D Printer Emissions.

Authors:  Janet Pelley
Journal:  ACS Cent Sci       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 14.553

10.  Emission of particulate matter from a desktop three-dimensional (3D) printer.

Authors:  Jinghai Yi; Ryan F LeBouf; Matthew G Duling; Timothy Nurkiewicz; Bean T Chen; Diane Schwegler-Berry; M Abbas Virji; Aleksandr B Stefaniak
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2016-05-19
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Identification of effective control technologies for additive manufacturing.

Authors:  Johan du Plessis; Sonette du Preez; Aleksandr B Stefaniak
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 8.071

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.