Abstract

Ultrafine particles (UFPs) can be released unintentionally during metal additive manufacturing (AM). Experts agree on the urgent need to increase the knowledge of the emerging risk of exposure to nanoparticles, although different points of view have arisen on how to do so. This article presents a case study conducted on a metal AM facility, focused on studying the exposure to incidental metallic UFP. It intends to serve as a pilot study on the application of different methodologies to manage this occupational risk, using qualitative and quantitative approaches that have been used to study exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Quantitative data were collected using a condensation particle counter (CPC), showing the maximum particle number concentration in manual cleaning tasks. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray analyzer (EDS) measurements were performed, showing no significant change in the particles’ chemical composition, size, or surface (rugosity) after printing. A qualitative approach was fulfilled using Control Banding Nanotool 2.0, which revealed different risk bands depending on the tasks performed. This article culminates in a critical analysis regarding the application of these two approaches in order to manage the occupational risk of exposure to incidental nanoparticles, raising the potential of combining both.

Highlights

  • Metal manufacturing processes have evolved significantly in the past couple of centuries

  • Temperature, relative humidity, and air velocity were measured to characterize the environmental conditions of the workplace under study and to give insight into these conditions for follow-up experiments

  • Scanning electron microscopy on theX-ray collected samples to i released into the work environment.(SEM)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Metal manufacturing processes have evolved significantly in the past couple of centuries. A metallic product can be manufactured using different technologies, such as casting, molding, forming, machining, and, more recently, additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D printing. AM is no longer exclusively a prototyping technology. It is seen as a production process that is able to produce end-use parts for various applications, such as in the automotive industry, medicine, jewelry, and visual arts [1]. One of the advantages of metal 3D printing over more conventional manufacturing processes is the fact that it requires less material and less post-processing activities, which can lead to lower costs. It is important to study the health implications of a variety of factors, including (but not limited to) exposure to raw materials and emissions, the safety criteria of 3D printing systems and machines, emissions toxicology, and best practices to control overall exposure [2].

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call