Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34305433›Full record

ArticleAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994)2020

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

Lynn E Secondo, Hayat I Adawi, John Cuddehe, Kenneth Hopson, Allison Schumacher, Larry Mendoza, Charles Cartin, Nastassja A Lewinski

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Identification of effective control technologies for additive manufacturing.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lynn E SecondoDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 601 W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
Hayat I AdawiDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 601 W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
John CuddeheDepartment of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1001 W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
Kenneth HopsonJames Branch Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University, 901 Park Ave, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
Allison Schumacherda Vinci Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 807 S Cathedral Pl, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
Larry MendozaEnvironmental Health and Safety, Safety and Risk Management, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1008 East Clay Street Box 980112, Richmond Va, 23298, United States.
Charles CartinDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.
Nastassja A LewinskiDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 601 W. Main St, Richmond, VA, 23284, United States.

Funding

Training Grant for the Joint Graduate Program in Exposure Science.T32ES019854 · NIEHS · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI MAINELIS, GEDIMINAS, WEISEL, CLIFFORD P · 2011 to 2020
$2.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES019854
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Air pollutionBuildingsEnvironmental healthIndoor air qualityNanoparticlesVentilation

Identifiers

PMID34305433
PMCPMC8301741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.