Hi ,
I am looking into buying X1 carbon , primarly for my children. I am worried about the toxicity of indoor air due to VOC and nano particles created during the printers operation. I see you have a carbon filter , but do also have a hepa filter filtering the air coming out during operation ? Is there any studies or data ? Is there any way to mitigate this risk ? I really like your printer but also concened with my Kids.
there is no hepa filter for it , but you could probably make on yourself
on other side the hepa filter has barely any use as the case is not fully closed , it is closed but contians to many air gaps to be fully enclosed
so particles will always enter the room , it just depends what you concider a safe amount
it is not harmless up to a certian amount of particles , but it is not recommend to print in a closed room or a not ventilated room because those abs particles can bundle up
you still need a lot of those to be deadly , it just depends what risk you like to take or how far the concerns are going
best you can do to eliminate all particiles is to isolate the bambu case ( can be easy done , ) and make it air tight , so all air need to go to the fan
You can look into a standalone filter like the nevermore (I’ve got them on my two voron printers), or there’s this BentoBox one designed specifically for the X1:
https://www.printables.com/model/272525-bambu-lab-x1c-bentobox-air-filter
Thanks:), being a health nut , and already has hepafilter in the house , I like to have no particles or VOC coming out as this is for my Kids :). Was wondering if any one has already successfully did this? May be Bambu can work on a airtight enclosure with hepa and carbon filters, I am sure this issue will be big coming years .
Thanks:) . have you installed those bentobox ?
It’s important to remember that the small particulate size generated by this type of 3D printer cannot effectively be captured by a HEPA filter
I am looking into more of this, There is this page is EPAwebsite I came across 3D Printing Research at EPA | US EPA . I so much want my kids to have access to this new technology but , price cannot be paid by adverse health effects. I will look more into what can filter nano particles . Thanks for the info.
There is no value discussing problems some without searching for a solution:). The filter I already have at home , filter down to .003 micron 3 nm ( bambu can also add some thing like this to carbon) . nan0 particles are 1-100 nm . so if I put the printer along with the filter in a sperate small space and run filter at high rate while printer is printing , may be it will mitigate some risk . I Ideally I want a separate space out of home , which I don’t have now and remote monitor the print until done then air out may be another solution .
I was worried too (have 2 small children myself and the printer is in the room next to their bedroom).So i decided to buy an expensive air quality meter ($300).
The meter checks for VOC, PM2.5, PM5 and PM10. I put the meter next to the printer and did a couple of testruns with both PLA and PETG. In all cases the meter barely noticed a decrease in air quality. Both VOC and PM levels were stable and the air quality stayed good the whole time.
This reassured me and now i can keep printing without worrying about the possible healthissues. Still, i have an air filter in the same room as the printer, cause i already oned 2 of them and it can’t hurt to have good air quality in this room.
ps. After i was done printing i cleaned the plate with 100% isopropanol. The VOC levels went to the roof. From ~0.100 PPM to around 3.500 in a couple of seconds.
TLDR: Get a MERV 14 filter (should also be rated HEPA). Avoid knockoff filters. Get a filter with carbon as well to handle VOCs. Vent your X1C right next to it. Use PLA. Keep the door open and crack the window while printing for additional air circulation, which will reduce breathable particle concentration. Wear a K95 when pulling the print out or sniffing the exhaust port. Avoid ABS white. Buy a PM 2.5 meter like the temtop m10. Probably don’t sleep next to it printing.
Once you’ve done all this, you can take some of the other steps recommended by the community such as setting up a venting system to the outside, or dedicating an unoccupied room to printing. Neither are particularly viable for me because it’s extremely cold right now and I have zero unoccupied space. Once I did the steps above, I felt comfortable having the kids in my office to watch the printing process through the window.
It’s important to remember that the small particulate size generated by this type of 3D printer cannot effectively be captured by a HEPA filter
This is a lie propagated by filter manufacturers. They want to sell higher grade filters, so they say “small things can get through big holes, so buy our best filters, or this $1000 specialized ultra fine filter.” The truth is that small particles clump, catch onto things, or do other weird ■■■■because of brownium motion and other science ■■■■. HEPA filters are actually more effective at catching smaller particles.
Here is the typical efficiency curve of a 99.99% hepa filter.
In fact even the shittiest HEPA filters can catch small particles.
This is the efficiency curve that the filter manufacturers will show you to mislead you.
N95/KN95 masks also have a similar efficiency curve. Even shitty masks will offer some protection.
Can’t find the graph, but some cheap filters marketed as HEPA have bad efficiency curves that actually go down. So avoid knockoffs and only purchase from reputable sellers.
There’s a small dip in efficiency from .1 to .3 microns, which is where the most dangerous 3D printed particles are, but running a good HEPA filter with high rates of airflow will absolutely clean a room and make it healthier. If you add a carbon filter to handle VOCs you can probably eliminate most of the risks associated with PLA.
Also, I advise everyone to read this NIH study Monitoring of Particulate Matter Emissions from 3D Printing Activity in the Home Setting - PMC
Here’s a tldr if you don’t feel like it:
One of those PLA manufacturers is basically putting tons of harmful â– â– â– â– in their filament, but the study kept the brands anonymous. Only way to change this is for customers to push manufacturers into revealing additives and make disclosing of additives mandatory.
Hi,
can’t help it but to comment on this.
I placed a cheap particle counter right under the opened top glass lid. The device has openings on the rear side to suck in the air, so this should give me a pretty reliable measuring of what is going on inside the printer.
I used this device on other occasions in the past and it seems to provide quite reasonable readings.
I was printing some Gridfinity parts with eSun silver PLA+.
As you can tell, there are no particles inside the printer whatsoever, the meter measured similar values compared to the measuring the air in the room itself.
I know that this is neither a much sophisticated nor scientific approach, but it is all I have.
Sure enough I will measure again with different materials but until now, I have the impression that you are chasing rainbows. No offense! 
Very interesting, thanks for taking time to post that !
That’s interesting! Thanks for sharing. Which particle counter are you using? I’m thinking about something like that.
I guess I got it from Aliexpress:
Here we go again with a completely different outcome…
I printed some no name ABS+ today and decided to check for particles again.
There’s a few problems here.
I don’t see any evidence in your test that suggests mitigation is unnecessary for general 3D printing. PLA is likely safe for indoor use without much mitigation, but for other materials people should be taking some of the preventative measures I outlined, especially if there are kids around. None of the suggestions are particularly difficult and could be implemented for < $100 if done cheaply. Running an air filter and wearing a simple mask when interacting with printer are not as you say “chasing rainbows.”
Please don’t minimize the risk without evidence.
Well, what can I say? My indoor readings are always in that range, here you can see three different meters showing similar PM2.5 values:
Here is an example from a measuring station near my place:
I don’t have any fancy measuring devices for air quality and I’m well aware that the absolut values may be a bit off, but I still think these devices are good for comparing situations with and without printing. Sure the PM1.0 value cannot be trusted, but at least I can tell if it changes or not.
Err, you saw that I sticked the meter almost inside the printer, right? So these values might represent a situation when you open the top lid and stick your nose inside the printer.
When measuring about 1,4m away from the printer, I could not see any significant increase in PM values.
Again: I was never exposed to these numbers and nobody will be when using the printer in a reasonable manner.
Maybe you can help me to better understand the study you were referencing to.
I understand that print temperature has one of the biggest influences on particle emissions, which makes perfect sense.
But when looking at the different infill ratios, I don’t understand one thing.
I guess I don’t understand how you can say that. All your meters are going to under report sub micron particle counts, and I find all of their PM 2.5 counts suspicious. You can see they are all incorrectly reporting your indoor air quality for PM 2.5 (unless you’re already employing fantastic air filtering, it’s impossible for your indoor air quality to be so much better than your outdoor air). Remember, the PM 2.5 counts at the station are going to be drastically higher because they can accurately detect sub micron particles in ways consumer sensors cannot. The important takeaway is we know for a fact all those consumer sensors are under counting small particle counts. It doesn’t make the sensors useless, but it means the small particle counts are guaranteed to be much higher than what you’re seeing.
So again, the comments about being 15x over the epa limit was based on your photo with the device pressed against the unit from the outside. You are right in that you are 1-2 feet away and are going to be breathing in a fraction of that, but you also admitted to smelling the ABS, which means you’re breathing in toxic VOCs you can’t measure. Unless you can somehow get the print out without opening the unit and pulling the tray out with your hands, you’re going to be exposed to most of what your sensor is picking up at some point during the printing process. Given that your PM 2.5 readings are 5x lower than the trusted outdoor air station, we can also assume your PM 1.0 readings are 5x higher as well, and they’re already over the EPA limits as I mentioned. Given that these devices cannot be trusted to do PM 1.0 well, it’s likely much higher than 5x. That’s not to say your devices are useless, because they’re still giving you decent ideas of when during the printing process is most dangerous and what parts of the room present the most risk.
1.4 meters is going to be a lot safer, but again your devices are already underreporting actual PM 2.5 counts (this is expected of all sensors we can afford), and even small changes from printing ABS could be pushing the levels around the printer up. But yes at that distance you’re a lot safer. Nobody can operate from that distance though, so the comments about exceeding the once a day exposure limits are valid.
Yes, if they enclose, filter, or mask in a reasonable manner while printing ABS, they would not be exposed to the levels you measured. If they do not, they will likely be exposed (when removing the print) to levels several times higher than what you measured if there’s absolutely no mitigation. Everyone’s risk tolerance is different and I don’t see a reason to fear monger adults into spending thousands of dollars on mitigation, but if you’re printing with ABS and there’s kids around pressing their face against the glass looking at the cool sci-fi thing, I think it would be prudent to take some of the steps I outlined above, which can be done cheaply if necessary. If you’re an adult and you wait for the room to ventilate naturally before grabbing an ABS print, you can likely get away with very little mitigation.
Good observation. I agree it doesn’t make sense for infill to have an affect on the base layers. I’ve stared at this for a while and couldn’t come to a conclusion. I wrote down some possibilities below. They did publish most of the important test conditions, so anyone with a cheap particle meter and an ender3 could take a shot at reproducing their test.
Another question from my side: I would expect my indoor readings to be lower that the outside measurements. There is no car traffic in my room , in fact there is nothing in the room which emits particles other than the printer if it is running. So if I open the windows and then let the room settle for some time I would expect lower readings than outside. Or do I miss something here?
