ArticleThe Journal of school health
Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing in Non-Industrial Spaces: A Summary of Emissions Evaluations in 11 School Settings.
Article in The Journal of school health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdditive manufacturing or 3-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology with increasing prevalence in non-industrial settings such as university and school settings. However, printers are often located in spaces not designed for this purpose.
methods3D-printer use in 11 university and K-12 schools was evaluated by identifying emissions using area air sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particle counting instruments (PCIs) measuring ultrafine particulate (UFP) and evaluating controls to reduce potential exposure. Ventilation in printer locations was also characterized.
resultsVOCs and UFP were identified during 3D printing. Best-practice recommendations were provided to school health and safety staff to protect users, including workers and students. Recommendations included installing and implementing engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize exposure to 3D printer emissions. IMPLICATIONS: School health and safety staff can translate findings and recommendations for these 11 evaluations to identify 3D-printing areas on their campuses and use principles of industrial hygiene to protect workers and students and prevent the movement of emissions.
conclusionsVOCs and UFP were detected during 3D printing. There were opportunities to improve health and safety practices and reduce potential exposure when using 3D printing technologies.
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.