The3D issues are the same as with all new technologies. Toxicity testing is never done unless and until there are obvious problems documented in users.  And nanoparticles are no different.  With no human or environmental toxicity testing prior to their introduction, they have been used for many years in paint pigments, make up, clothing, rubber tires, and a flock of other products that can result in consumer exposure.  Yet in the laboratories where they are being used and developed, there are local exhaust ventilation systems.

 

I recommend exhaust ventilation for 3D printers.  HEPA filtration is probably not an option for nanoparticle capture.  There are mixed results reports of capture efficiency of HEPA filters for different types of nanoparticles, but none of the particle studies of HEPA/P100 filters I've seen show they are captured to the 99.97% efficiency that the 0.3 micron particles are captured (the definition of HEPA).

 

I also suggest that EH&S for colleges watch carefully.

 

1)  NIOSH recommendations for nanoparticles and with special consideration of NIOSH recommendations for titanium dioxide nanoparticles now listed even by IARC as carcinogens  (remember, that NIOSH listed TiO2 as a carcinogen about 25 years before IARC and others realized they were right),

 

2)  NIOSH evidence for the cancer-causing effects of TiO2 and other particles as being related to surface characteristics of small particulates rather than toxic effects, and 

 

3)  NIOSH's research on non-asbestos substances that cause asbestos related diseases (which include carbon nanotubes) and definitions of asbestos as an elongated particle.

 

 A picture is beginning to emerge in research into small particles that we should be looking at carefully rather than waiting until there is a body count and regulations passed--as it usually happens historically.

 

I recommend enclosure and exhaust for 3D printers.  I don't think we have the right to make students the nanotechnology industries lab rats.