ReviewJournal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews2022
Identification of effective control technologies for additive manufacturing.
Review in Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary evaluation of whole-body inhalation exposure of polycarbonate (PC) filament 3D printer emissions in rats.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) refers to several types of processes that join materials to build objects, often layer-by-layer, from a computer-aided design file. Many AM processes release potentially hazardous particles and gases during printing and associated tasks. There is limited understanding of the efficacy of controls including elimination, substitution, administrative, and personal protective technologies to reduce or remove emissions, which is an impediment to implementation of risk mitigation strategies. The Medline, Embase, Environmental Science Collection, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and other resources were used to identify 42 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Key findings were as follows: 1) engineering controls for material extrusion-type fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3-D printers and material jetting printers that included local exhaust ventilation generally exhibited higher efficacy to decrease particle and gas levels compared with isolation alone, and 2) engineering controls for particle emissions from FFF 3-D printers displayed higher efficacy for ultrafine particles compared with fine particles and in test chambers compared with real-world settings. Critical knowledge gaps identified included a need for data: 1) on efficacy of controls for all AM process types, 2) better understanding approaches to control particles over a range of sizes and gas-phase emissions, 3) obtained using a standardized collection approach to facilitate inter-comparison of study results, 4) approaches that go beyond the inhalation exposure pathway to include controls to minimize dermal exposures, and 5) to evaluate not just the engineering tier, but also the prevention-through-design and other tiers of the hierarchy of controls.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.