Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: 

A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, 

Libraries, and Small Businesses

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
Front and back covers:

Photo by ©AzmanJaka/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing:

A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, 

Libraries, and Small Businesses

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ii | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted.

Disclaimer

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to websites external to 

NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their 

programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. 

All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.

Get More Information

Find NIOSH products and get answers to workplace safety and health questions:

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-888-232-6348

CDC/NIOSH INFO: cdc.gov/info | cdc.gov/niosh

Monthly NIOSH eNews: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/enews/

Suggested Citation

NIOSH [2023]. Approaches to safe 3D printing: a guide for makerspace users, schools, libraries, 

and small businesses. By Hodson L, Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Glassford E, Hammond D, Roth G. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2024-103, https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2024103.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2024-103

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2024103

November 2023
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| iii

Foreword

Use of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is becoming a prominent part of our modern world. However, some 3D printer users have expressed concerns about potential exposures to 

ultrafine particles, chemicals, and safety hazards. These printers are often used in non-industrial 

workplace settings such as makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small businesses. 

Based on these concerns, NIOSH began evaluating emissions from different printer and filament 

combinations operating in both chamber studies and workplace environments to understand 

the potential health and safety risks. This report summarizes NIOSH’s findings and recommendations for controls to protect workers using 3D printers in makerspaces, schools, libraries, and 

small businesses. 

John Howard, MD 

Director, National Institute for Occupational

 Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
This page intentionally blank.
Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Introduction .

2 Types of 3D Printing in Non-industrial Workplaces .

2.1 Fused filament fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2.2 Vat photopolymerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3 Potential Health and Safety Risks from the Use of 3D Printers .

3.1 Pre-printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.2 Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.3 Post-printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.4 Maintenance and cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.5 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.6 Solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.7 Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.8 Mechanical risks/moving parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.9 Lasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.10 Electrical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.11 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.12 Robotics and automated systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.13 Take-home exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4 Risk Management Considerations .

4.1 Risk management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4.2 Hierarchy of controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.3 Elimination/substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.4 Engineering controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.5 Administrative controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.6 Personal protective equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
vi | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

5 Exposure Assessment . 

6 Additional Information . 

7 Conclusions . 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix A: Workplace Poster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| vii

Abbreviations

3D three-dimensional 

ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

ACH air changes per hour

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASSE American Society of Safety Engineers 

CAD computer-aided design

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLEAPSS Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the 

Provision of Science Services

CLIP continuous liquid interface production

dB(A) decibels, A-weighted

DLP digital light processing

DPP daylight polymer printing

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FFF fused filament fabrication

HEPA high efficiency particulate air

HIPS high-impact polystyrene

HSE Health and Safety Executive

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

ILO International Labour Organization

ISO International Organization for Standardization

laser light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation

LEV local exhaust ventilation

LIA Laser Institute of America

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NRTL Nationally Recognised Testing Laboratories

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PC polycarbonate

PEL permissible exposure limit

PET polyethylene terephthalate

PETG polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified
viii | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

PLA polylactic acid

PPE personal protective equipment

PVA polyvinyl alcohol

REL recommended exposure limit

SDS safety data sheet

SLA stereolithography

TWA time-weighted average

UK United Kingdom

UV ultraviolet

VOC volatile organic compound 
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| ix

Acknowledgments 

The authors appreciate the contributions of the following NIOSH personnel who provided 

guidance, feedback, and review of the document, including Elizabeth Arnold, BS; Jacob Bartels, 

MS; Lauren Bowers, BS; Charles Geraci, PhD (retired); Mark Methner, PhD; Susan Moore, 

PhD; Yong Qian, PhD; Aleksandr Stefaniak, PhD; and Jay Vietas, PhD. 

Special appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for serving as external reviewers and 

providing comments that contributed to the development of this document:

 Dave Abrams, MSPH

ARS Environmental Health, Inc. 

 John Baker, MS, MBA

BSI EHS Services and Solutions

 Jean Bossart, M. Eng.

Marston Science Library, University of Florida 

 Janet Carter, PhD

OSHA

 Joanna Matherson, PhD

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

 Keith Rickabaugh, BS, MBA 

RJ Lee Corp.

 Sayon Robinson, PhD

Consumer Product Safety Commission

 Jim Sillhart, MES

University of Pennsylvania 
This page intentionally blank.
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses | 1

1 Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is becoming a prominent part of modern innovation due to its usefulness in accelerating product development and prototyping, as well as in 

producing complex and precision parts [Campbell et al. 2011; Campbell et al. 2012]. Parts built 

by 3D printing (sometimes referred to as additive manufacturing) are built layer by layer and are 

highly customizable. It can take weeks or months to build and receive a part using traditional 

manufacturing (e.g., machining, molding) processes. However, 3D printing can turn computeraided design (CAD) models into physical parts within a few hours, producing one-off concept 

models, functional prototypes, and even small production runs for testing. 3D printing allows 

designers and engineers to bring ideas to fruition faster, and it helps companies bring products 

more quickly to the market. In addition to industrial applications, 3D printers are now available 

for use in diverse non-industrial places such as makerspaces, schools (including colleges and 

universities), libraries, and small businesses. A makerspace is a place where people with shared 

interests, especially in computing or technology, can gather to work on projects while sharing 

ideas, equipment, and knowledge.

Concerns have been raised about potential exposure to ultrafine particles (having a primary 

particle size less than 100 nanometers) and chemicals in addition to possible safety hazards from 

using 3D printers [Bharti and Singh 2017; Chan et al. 2018; CLEAPSS 2020; Moorefield-Lang 

2014; Roney et al. 2016; Sesto 2017]. Despite the rapid growth in availability and use of 3D 

printers, little scientific literature has focused on the potential implications of exposure to emissions from 3D printing equipment. Substances associated with similar types of plastics and resins that are used in 3D printers have been identified as causative agents of occupational diseases 

in the manufacturing sector. For example, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), along with metal dust emissions and ultrafine particles, can 

cause disease, and all have been detected in 3D printer emissions [Stefaniak et al. 2017a, 2017b, 

2019a,b,c; Steinle 2016; Stephens et al. 2013]. Because 3D printing is an emerging industry 

with a relatively short history, it is difficult to know the potential occupational health outcomes 

stemming from exposure to these emissions. 

To understand the potential health and safety risks, NIOSH has evaluated emissions from 

different printer and feedstock combinations operating in chamber studies and workplace 

environments. NIOSH then used this knowledge to create risk management recommendations 

to protect workers. This document summarizes the findings and suggests options for controls 

to protect workers and users from exposures to ultrafine particles, chemicals, and safety hazards 

while using 3D printers in makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small businesses.
2 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

2 Types of 3D Printing in 

Non-industrial Workplaces

There are several types of 3D printing processes, but fused filament fabrication and vat photopolymerization are the types most likely to be found in makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small 

businesses due to lower purchase and material costs [Bharti and Singh 2017]. 

2.1 Fused filament fabrication 

Fused filament fabrication (FFF) is the most common type of 3D printing process and is used 

by most desktop 3D printers (Figure 1). FFF printers are the most popular for libraries simply 

because they are inexpensive, take up minimal space, and are easy to set up and use [Bharti and 

Singh 2017; Moorefield-Lang 2014].

Figure 1. FFF desktop 3D printers. Photo by MakerBo

Feedstock material in the form of a filament is fed into the extruder of the printer head (Figure 2), 

where the filament is heated to a temperature high enough to soften or melt it. This softened 

filament then extrudes from the computer-controlled nozzle to create an object one layer at a time. 

The print platform lowers, or the print head raises, to add subsequent layers and eventually to 

complete the printed part. 

Some FFF printers use a support material in addition to the modeling material. The modeling 

material is what constitutes the final product, while the support acts as scaffolding that can be 

removed (broken off or dissolved) after printing is complete. 

Desktop FFF 3D printers use a wide variety of filament materials including, but not limited to, 

the following:

 Polylactic acid (PLA)

 Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)

 Nylon

 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG)

 Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)

 Polycarbonate (PC)

 High-impact polystyrene (HIPS)

 Other polymers including those containing ceramic materials
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 3

The most commonly used types of 3D printer media are PLA, ABS, and nylon. PLA is a type of 

biodegradable plastic made from a variety of natural substances that include sugar, corn starch, or 

sugar cane. Many features make PLA desirable for 3D printing. It is the filament of choice for most 

extrusion-based 3D printers because it can be printed at a low temperature (typically 190–220°C, 

or 374–428°F), and it does not require a heated bed [Tyson 2018]. ABS is a plastic made from 

petroleum-based substances. ABS is quite strong and is often used to create toys such as Lego® building blocks [Hoffman 2018]. Nylon is a synthetic polymer created from a chemical class of 

substances known as polyamides. Nylon is resilient, strong, and durable, yet flexible. It melts at a 

higher temperature (about 240°C , or 464°F) than ABS and PLA filaments [Hoffman 2018]. 

Figure 2. Schematic of a fused filament print head

Illustration by NIOSH
4 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

PET is rarely used as a 3D printing filament, but its variant PETG is becoming increasingly 

popular. The “G” stands for “glycol-modified,” and the resulting filament is clearer, less brittle, and most importantly, more amenable for printing than its base form (i.e., PET). For this 

reason, PETG is often considered an excellent middle ground filament between PLA and ABS, 

since it is more flexible and durable than PLA and easier to print with than ABS [All3DP 2022]. 

Once the 3D object is formed, it may undergo post-processing such as removal of support materials 

chemically, or manually smoothing edges by sanding, or painting. 

2.2 Vat photopolymerization

Vat photopolymerization technology uses a vat of liquid photopolymer resin that is cured by an 

ultraviolet (UV) or laser light source focused onto a build platform (Figure 3). The light source 

causes a reaction with photoinitiators in the resin that induce cross-linking of resin polymers, 

which results in solidification. By repeatedly exposing layers of resin to ultraviolet light, an object is 

built layer by layer. This 3D printing process is popular for its fine details and exactness. 

Once completed, the 3D object is removed from the printer and detached from the supporting 

platform. The 3D object usually undergoes post-processing, which typically involves placing the 

3D object in a chemical bath (often isopropanol) to remove any excess resin and then post-curing 

in a UV oven. These actions render the finished item stronger and more stable. Depending on 

the object, it may then go through a hand-sanding process and subsequent painting. Photopolymers are thermosets, meaning that the material strengthens as it is heated, and once cured by 

a UV light, it cannot be remelted. Vat photopolymerization 3D printing technologies include, 

but are not limited to, the following: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), 

continuous liquid interface production (CLIP), and daylight polymer printing (DPP).

Figure 3. Vat photopolymerization, SLA printer using a “bottom-up” approach to build a part. Image

source: Proform Rapid Prototyping, 2018. “Stereolithography 3D Printing” (https://www.proform.

en/technologies/3d-printing/stereolithography)

Illustration by PROFORM AG
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 5

3 Potential Health and Safety Risks

from the Use of 3D Printers

Potential health and safety hazards vary widely depending on the technology and materials used, 

as well as where the printers are located and any controls that may be in place. 

3.1 Pre-printing 

Depending on the type of 3D printing, some pre-printing activities can have potential health 

and safety risks. Some activities with higher potential for inhalation and skin exposures during 

pre-printing include cleaning the printer heads and nozzles [NIOSH 2020a]. This hazard is due 

to the associated solvents and other cleaners used during this step and the potential exposure to 

those chemicals. Some chemicals in liquid resins used for vat photopolymerization 3D printing 

may cause skin irritation or sensitization [Bowers 2022]. Inadvertent contact with the nozzle of 

an FFF 3D printer during pre-printing heating can cause skin burns. Activities with lower potential for inhalation and skin exposures include loading solid filaments into printers, changing 

printer heads/nozzles, and prepping the build plate [NIOSH 2020a]. 

3.2 Printing

Potential exposures can occur during the 3D printing process. Activities with higher potential 

for exposures during the print process include using printers in a small workspace or general 

office area, working near the printer, and attending to a printer quickly after print failures and 

during printer start up [Azimi et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2015; NIOSH 2020a; Stefaniak et al. 

2017b; Steinle 2016; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et al. 2016]. 

Activities with lower potential for exposure include printing in an enclosed chamber equipped 

with a filtering device, or exhausted to the outdoors, and using video camera monitoring to 

avoid standing too close to the printer [Azimi et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2015; NIOSH 2020a; 

Stefaniak et al. 2017b; Steinle 2016; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et al. 2016]. 

3.3 Post-printing

Post-printing work activities can also result in variable potential for exposure. Some examples of 

activities with higher potential for exposure include opening printer doors, removing support 

structures using solvents or other chemicals, or post-processing activities with filaments that 

contain nanomaterials [Azimi et al. 2016; Dunn et al. 2020a; Kim et al. 2015; NIOSH 2020a; 

Stefaniak et al. 2017a; Steinle 2016; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et al. 2016]. 

Exposure during post-printing can be decreased by cleaning or finishing a printed object inside a 

containment (enclosed) system, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) including appropriate gloves, changing printer filaments, and scraping the build plate with hand tools [Azimi et 

al. 2016; Kim et al. 2015; NIOSH 2020a; Steinle 2016; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et al. 2016]. 
6 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

3.4 Maintenance and cleaning

Maintenance and cleaning (including housekeeping) are work activities that can have variable 

potential for exposure based on the type of printing being done. Examples of activities with higher 

potential for inhalation and skin exposures include cleaning the printer head/build plate with solvents, 

and maintenance of the printer [NIOSH 2020a,b]. Preventative maintenance in these printers may 

also expose workers and users to the print materials, laser, electrical, and robotic hazards. 

Examples of work activities with lower potential for exposure include changing the filament(s), 

general housekeeping, and collecting waste [NIOSH 2020a]. 

3.5 Emissions

Polymer feedstock materials can release ultrafine particles (< 100 nm diameter) and volatile and 

semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs) if sufficiently heated [Azimi et al. 2016; Bharti and Singh 

2017; Du Preez et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2015; Moorefield-Lang 2014; Stefaniak et al. 2017a,b, 2018, 

2019a,b,c; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2017]. Exposures to ultrafine particles and 

VOCs in combination have been associated with adverse respiratory (asthma; cough; itchiness of eyes, 

nose, and throat) and cardiovascular health effects (hypertension) [Chan et al. 2018; Donaldson et al. 

2004; House et al. 2017; Rumchev et al. 2007; Stefaniak et al. 2017b]. 

Research has shown that emissions generated from 3D printing processes depend on the type 

of 3D printing filament or resin used. Furthermore, the filament material, coloration, extruder 

temperature, and many other factors can influence particle and VOC emission rates [Deng et al. 

2016; Dunn et al. 2020a,b; Du Preez et al. 2018; Floyd et al. 2017; Hall et al. 2019; Kim et al. 

2015; Stabile et al. 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017a,b, 2018, 2019a,b,c; Stephens et al. 2013; Yi et 

al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2017]. Printing with engineered nanomaterial-containing filaments can 

emit nanomaterial-containing, ultrafine particulate matter [Stefaniak et al. 2018]. 

Stefaniak et al. [2019a] evaluated emissions from vat photopolymerization printers and determined 

they released particles and organic vapors during operation at levels similar to or exceeding those of 

other types of 3D printing processes. The average particle and VOC emission yields were significantly higher and particle sizes were significantly smaller for DLP-type printers compared with 

SLA-type printers, indicating an influence of printer technology on emissions. The results from 

chemical analyses have shown that emissions included multi-constituent particles composed of 

metals such as chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), iron (Fe), and/or zinc (Zn) [Stefaniak et al. 2019a].

Emission rates found in NIOSH studies using an enclosed chamber with FFF printers were comparable to those of other published studies using similar 3D printing materials [Azimi et al. 2016; 

Mendes et al. 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017a, 2019c; Steinle 2016; Yi et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2017]. 

Note that predicting exposure levels to printer emissions is difficult when based solely on controlledenvironment chamber studies. Workplaces will have many variables, such as room design, ventilation 

type and rate, workers or users moving around in the room, and characteristics of the emission 

source. A NIOSH field study determined that background-corrected particulate concentrations in 

a conference room with multiple operating FFF printers were much lower than those particulate 

concentrations measured from one printer in a test chamber. This was likely due to the conference 

room’s greater size and supply air ventilation (12–14 air changes per hour), as compared with the 

enclosed test chamber [Dunn et al. 2020b]. 
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 7

Differences in FFF printer emissions evaluated in a chamber study primarily depended on the 

extruder temperature (higher temperatures resulted in larger emissions), while other conditions 

such as filament color and build plate temperature had smaller effects [Zhang et al. 2017]. 

Filament brand, likely through differences in trace components in the bulk material, also had a 

substantial effect on emissions [Zhang et al. 2017].

Inhaling emissions from certain filaments used in the material extrusion processes (FFF printers) 

appears to be the primary route of exposure, and this exposure can be associated with adverse 

respiratory and cardiovascular health effects [House et al. 2017, Chan et al. 2018, Stefaniak et 

al. 2017c]. House et al. [2017] reported a case of work-related asthma in a worker exposed to 

emissions while operating material extrusion processes using an ABS filament. In a survey of 

workers who were directly involved in the maintenance and use of 3D printers using PLA, ABS, 

and nylon filaments, 59% (27 of 46) reported respiratory symptoms [Chan et al. 2018]. In an 

animal toxicology study, the mean arterial pressure of the test group was 28% higher than the 

control group, which indicated that inhalation of emissions was responsible for the observed 

acute hypertension [Stefaniak et al. 2017a]. It is unclear if these respiratory and cardiovascular 

effects are associated with inhaling emitted particles, organic vapors, or both. Given these emerging reports of adverse health effects from 3D printing exposures, the magnitude and characteristics of the emissions and potential exposures need to be understood so that informed decisions 

can be made about risk management.

3.6 Solvents

Solvents, including isopropanol, ethanol, methanol, acetone, or chloroform, are sometimes used 

in post-printing processes that involve material surface finishing, vapor polishing, support material 

removal, or cleaning of the build plate. Many solvents are flammable, and associated vapors can 

create an explosion hazard in areas with inadequate ventilation. 

Acetone can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, and chloroform causes depression of the 

central nervous system and is identified as possibly carcinogenic [IARC 1999, NIOSH 2007]. 

Some support materials used in 3D printing are removed by dissolving them in an alkaline (basic) 

bath containing a 2% solution of sodium hydroxide at pH 13. Sodium hydroxide is corrosive, can 

cause chemical burns, and is also a respiratory irritant [NIOSH 2007].

In addition to relevant safety data sheets (SDSs), the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical 

Hazards (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-149/default.html) is a useful resource on key 

information for many chemicals found in the work environment.

3.7 Heat

Temperatures of 190°C to 260°C are typically reached by the FFF extrusion nozzle to soften plastic to 

the right consistency for 3D printing [Tyson 2018]. Such temperatures can cause skin burns if users 

touch heated components or products before they have time to cool. Skin burns are also common 

when 3D printer users try to remove melted plastic from the nozzle while the nozzle is still hot.

Some 3D printers may have heated build platforms that operate between 55°C to 120°C. Heated 

build platforms improve print quality by keeping the extruded plastic warm, and thus they prevent 

warping. The heated build platform may be hot enough to cause a thermal skin burn. 
8 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

While properly functioning and set, nozzles are usually below the temperature required to create 

a fire hazard.

3.8 Mechanical risks/moving parts

3D printers contain many moving parts that include stepper motors, pulleys, threaded rods, 

carriages, and small fans. Even though most stepper motors do not have enough power to cause 

serious injuries, they can still trap a user’s finger, long hair, loose clothing, head covering, or head 

scarf. Although many systems isolate the moving parts behind enclosures, caution should be 

taken if the printer is opened for maintenance or repair if the unit is not de-energized. See the 

OSHA resource “Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)” (https://www.osha.gov/

control-hazardous-energy).

3.9 Lasers

Vat photopolymerization SLA printers use high-powered lasers (which is an acronym for “light 

amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”). These 3D printers use lasers that present a skin 

and eye hazard (FDA Class IIIb or IV), but are considered nonhazardous during printing (FDA 

Class I) because the laser is enclosed within the printing chamber. Maintenance of the printer may 

expose users to unguarded lasers if the unit is not de-energized. Effects of exposure to unguarded, 

energized Class IIIb or Class IV lasers can range from skin burns to irreversible injury to the skin 

and eyes, including blindness. Lasers may also present a fire hazard. See the OSHA website for 

more resources at “Laser Hazards” (https://www.osha.gov/laser-hazards/hazards) and “Control of 

Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)” (https://www.osha.gov/control-hazardous-energy). 

3.10 Electrical

Most desktop FFF 3D printers do not have any added electrical safety features beyond regular 

internal fuses or external transformers. The voltages in the exposed parts of 3D printers usually 

do not exceed 12V to 24V, which is generally considered safe [Selection and use of work practices, 

29 CFR 1910.333, 2022]. More generalizable potential hazards may originate from using the 

electrical machinery itself. Shock or mechanical injury during maintenance, or malfunction, is 

possible if the unit is not de-energized. Sparking electrical equipment can also potentially be a 

source of ignition for fire or explosion. See the OSHA resource “Control of Hazardous Energy” 

(https://www.osha.gov/control-hazardous-energy).

3.11 Noise

High noise levels are typically not a concern with 3D printing, but they should still be considered a potential hazard. A single 3D printer may not seem noisy, but the noise of several printers 

placed together in a room could exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 85 

dB(A) as an 8-hour time-weighted average [NIOSH 1998]. If a user needs to raise their voice to 

be heard within an arm’s length of a printer, the noise level could be a hazard [NCEH 2022]. In 

such a case, a hazard assessment is recommended.

Post-processing activities can generate high noise levels and should be considered as potential 

hazards when 3D printing. For example, cutting, grinding, and polishing activities typically 

generate high noise levels, especially when using power tools.
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 9

3.12 Robotics and automated systems

Automated systems are essential in large-scale 3D printing applications and may also show up in 

makerspaces or small businesses. Additional autonomous systems may be further incorporated 

for support processes (such as loading feedstock), unloading products, transporting consumables 

and products, and in post-processes. Such systems may create or mitigate potential hazards related 

to their operations. For instance, a robotic system that helps remove and transport products may 

reduce the worker’s ergonomic stress, but it adds the potential hazard of collision with the robot. 

Similarly, the ability to operate remotely or autonomously may lower exposures to health and 

safety hazards (e.g., hazards from inhalation) at the 3D printer but may increase the rate of user 

error (and associated hazards) in the workplace [Roth et al. 2019].

3.13 Take-home exposures

Contamination of work surfaces and areas can lead to exposures. Operators may inadvertently 

transport materials beyond the workplace on their shoes, garments, body, and personal items. 

This is especially likely for resins and semi- or non-VOCs, but may also occur with metals. These 

exposures may be unanticipated and uncontrolled and may represent a secondary exposure risk 

for others (such as family members) who may come into contact with the resins or other chemicals from the clothing [Roth et al. 2019]. These exposures may be of additional concern when 

3D printers are used in homes and garages by home-based businesses and hobbyists. 

4 Risk Management Considerations

4.1 Risk management plan

The management of makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small businesses should write a comprehensive risk management plan for 3D printing. The plan should be readily available and accessible 

to all students, patrons, and employees, including temporary employees, contractors, trainees, and 

other users. The development of the plan should be a collaborative effort that includes all affected 

workers and users. The plan should address all aspects of safely using 3D printers and printing 

materials throughout the facility, and it should specify measures that the employer is taking to 

protect employees and all users. Since chemicals are used in the forms of polymers, resins, and 

solvents, the requirements of the “OSHA Hazard Communication Standard” (https://www.

osha.gov/hazcom) must be met, including providing SDSs and training all affected employees 

[Hazard communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200, 2022]. The plan should characterize the hazards 

associated with each of the work activities (pre-printing, printing, post-printing, post-processing, 

maintenance, and cleaning) and provide best practices and standard operating procedures that 

follow the hierarchy of controls (Section 4.2) to reduce the potential hazards. 

Health and safety committees can be used to engage workers in developing risk management 

plans, including for risks associated with 3D printing. Both employee and management representatives should be included on the committee. Helpful guidance can be found on the OSHA 

website at “Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs” (https://www.osha.gov/

shpguidelines/index.html).
10 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

4.2 Hierarchy of controls

Health and safety professionals have learned to prioritize certain types of controls over others because they are effective, practical, and reliable. Such a strategy is known as the hierarchy of controls 

(Figure 4). The hierarchy of controls groups actions by their likely effectiveness in eliminating 

hazards and/or reducing risks. In most cases, the preferred approach is at the top of the hierarchy. 

This approach eliminates or substitutes hazardous materials or processes, or installs engineering 

controls to reduce potential exposures. Until such controls are in place, or if they are not effective 

or practical, administrative measures and PPE might be needed. NIOSH’s “Hierarchy of Controls” 

webpage (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/) provides more information.

The range of experience by those who operate 3D printers in makerspaces, schools, libraries, and 

small businesses reinforces the value of the hierarchy of controls. Approaches near the bottom 

of the hierarchy depend heavily on training, compliance, and oversight. Users of varying education and skill, or with varying incentives, may not react as much to training and compliance 

measures. In contrast, controlling material usage and instituting engineering controls are usually 

effective, in addition to being something that printer and facility owners can manage independently of the user. Because 3D printing may be a part of the larger mission of makerspaces, 

schools, libraries, and small businesses, safety resources should be used efficiently.

The recommendations in the following sections are actions that address 3D printing health and 

safety in the workplace.

Illustration by NIOSH

Figure 4. Hierarchy of controls (adapted from ANSI/ASSE Z590.3-2011
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 11

4.3 Elimination/substitution

Eliminating or substituting hazardous processes or materials removes or reduces hazards and 

protects users more effectively than other approaches. Eliminating a hazard removes it completely, 

such as removing unnecessary, hazardous post-processing steps. Substituting materials could be 

done by choosing to build with lower-particle emission materials. Researchers have noted that 

printing with ABS material yields higher airborne ultrafine particle concentrations than PLA 

materials [Byrley et al. 2019; Kim et al. 2015; Stefaniak et al. 2017b, 2019c]. This suggests 

substituting PLA for ABS can reduce the hazard from ultrafine particulate emissions, provided 

printing PLA is within the printer’s specifications and otherwise appropriate for the task. 

Evaluating the type of material used and deciding whether substitutions can be made can be a 

valuable practice. Ongoing research has found that 3D printer emissions can vary just because of 

the color of filaments. For example, a field study noted that True Orange PLA filament produced 

lower ultrafine particle emissions (three to four orders of magnitudes lower) than Slate Gray 

impact-resistant PLA filament or True Yellow ABS filament [Dunn et al. 2020b]. The True Orange 

PLA also produced lower ultrafine particle emissions than filaments tested in other 3D printing 

studies [Azimi et al. 2016; Mendes et al. 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017b; Steinle 2016]. Emission 

rates for True Orange PLA were also at least three orders of magnitude lower than those measured 

during a study by Stefaniak et al. [2017b] of eight different PLA and ABS filaments. Where emissions data are available for feedstocks of varying color and materials, designers, managers, and users 

should consider their options to minimize emissions. 

4.4 Engineering controls

Engineering controls reduce user exposures by removing the hazard from the process or by placing 

a barrier between the hazard and the user. Properly designed, used, and maintained engineering 

controls protect users effectively without placing primary responsibility of implementation on 

the user. For example, acceptable room ventilation should help remove particles and maintain 

a healthy work environment. Based on assessing three makerspaces at a university, Secondo et 

al. [2020] recommended a minimum of six air changes per hour (ACH) within the makerspace 

and/or using a portable HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filter to lower ultrafine particle 

concentrations during printer operation. A study by Viitanen et al. [2021] concluded that for 

regular or long-time use of desktop 3D printers, the general ventilation specification of three 

ACH was not a sufficient control measure for ultrafine emissions. Some localities may also have 

specific codes that require mechanical exhaust in addition to room ventilation.

Engineering controls can also include placing 3D printers inside ventilated enclosures, or 

installing printers under a fume hood or next to a local exhaust to provide source control. Such 

a strategy is more efficient than general dilution ventilation. NIOSH engineers have evaluated 

control of particulate emissions (including ultrafine) at the point of generation using local exhaust ventilation (LEV) and HEPA filtration [Dunn et al. 2020b, Stefaniak et al. 2019a]. Using 

a filtered enclosing hood placed over a 3D printer resulted in a reduction of 97% to 99% of 

particle emissions [Hall et al. 2019]. Viitanen et al. [2021] retrofitted an enclosure around a 3D 

printer and were able to reduce particle emissions by 97%. When a LEV system was attached 

to the enclosure and the exhausted air was vented outdoor through a HEPA filter, the reduction 

increased to 99% [Viitanen et al. 2021]. 
12 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

Furthermore, NIOSH engineers designed and tested a custom low-cost engineering control to 

fit one type of a 3D printer (the MakerBot Replicator+ printer) that effectively captured and 

reduced printer emissions by at least 98% [Dunn et al. 2020b]. To accomplish this reduction in 

particle number concentration, they replaced the existing plastic cover that supplied cooling air 

from three directions to the extruder with a NIOSH-designed print head capture hood. This print 

head was 3D printed. The hood supplied cooling air in only one direction (Figure 5). In addition, 

NIOSH engineers added a hose connection and an expanded slot for air suction to the NIOSH 

capture hood (Figure 6). They measured emissions in a conference room with 20 printers operating 

simultaneously, each equipped with LEV (Figure 7). The use of this engineering control reduced 

the peak particle concentrations (size ranging from 10 to 420 nm in diameter) from greater than 

20,000 particles per cubic centimeter (p/cm3) to less than background (1,000 p/cm3). When 

equipped with a HEPA and charcoal filter, this low-cost control could potentially be retrofitted 

onto other 3D printer brands and models to reduce both particle and VOC emissions. 

Figure 5. 3D-printed replacement extruder cover to capture and exhaust ultrafine particles 

[Dunn et al. 2020b

Illustrations and Photos by NIOSH
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 13

Photo by NIOSH

Figure 6. Low-cost air cleaner assembly connected to a modified extruder cover [Dunn et al. 2020b

Figure 7. Twenty MakerBot Replicator+ 3D printers equipped with individual local exhaust 

ventilation (LEV) engineering controls in a conference room [Dunn et al. 2020b

Photo by NIOSH

NIOSH engineers have developed other custom low-cost engineering controls for open frame 

desktop 3D printers in addition to the one developed for the MakerBot Replicator+ 3D printer. 

For example, NIOSH engineers developed a LEV control for the Monoprice Maker Ultimate 

3D Printer MK11 that is at least 99.6% efficient in capturing particle (size range = 10–420 nm) 

emissions when evaluated with and without controls in laboratory chamber experiments [NIOSH 

2022]. The LEV control for the Monoprice MK11 was developed and tested with the same filtration system used on the MakerBot Replicator+ 3D printer. Figure 8 shows a 3D CAD drawing 

of the Monoprice MK11 control, and Figure 9 depicts the evaluated version connected to the 3D 

printer and hose/fan/filter system.
14 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses Illustration by NIOSH

Figure 8. 3D CAD drawing of a 

NIOSH-designed LEV control for a 

Monoprice Maker Ultimate MK11 3D 

printer [NIOSH 2022]

Figure 9. The NIOSH-designed LEV control for the 

Monoprice Maker Ultimate MK 11, connected to a 

filtration system [NIOSH 2022]

Photo by NIOSH

These low-cost engineering controls are just two examples of custom engineering controls that can be 

designed and installed on individual, open-frame-style desktop 3D printers. NIOSH will continue to 

design these types of systems for other popular 3D printers. NIOSH has made the designs publicly 

available through the National Institutes of Health website at “NIH 3D” (https://3d.nih.gov/)—an 

open-source library of 3D printable designs. These and other retrofit engineering controls can 

reduce 3D printer emissions, thereby reducing the potential for worker exposures. Before retrofit 

engineering controls are added to 3D printers in the workplace, a qualified safety and health professional should do a risk assessment. The assessment should verify that adding the engineering control 

does not increase fire risk, violate Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) approval, void 

the manufacturer’s warranty, or cause additional safety or health risks. NRTL is an independent 

laboratory that tests and certifies electrical products for the North American market. Engineering 

controls introduced by the manufacturer into the original design of a 3D printer are preferred over 

retrofit controls.

Users of multiple 3D printers could also consider building an enclosed rack around the printer 

shelves with see-through Plexiglas® or clear acrylic doors and walls. The rack should also have a

ventilation fan so that emissions are exhausted to the outdoors (Figure 10). An appropriately sized 

fan could also be fitted with a filter to trap VOCs and particulates. The design should consider 

electrical supply limitations and avoid the use of power strips. A similar custom-built ventilated 

enclosure effectively reduced particle concentrations in a print room by over 99% and reduced the 

total organic chemical concentration by almost 70% (Figure 11) [NIOSH 2017]. 
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 15

Illustration by NIOSH

Figure 10. Drawing of a ventilated Plexiglas® enclosure surrounding a bank of 3D printers

Photo by NIOSH

Figure 11. Custom-built ventilated enclosure connected to a floor fan with particle and organic filters

Custom enclosures can be built in multiple configurations to hold a wide variety of different sizes 

and numbers of 3D printers. When designing an enclosure to contain emissions from multiple 3D 

printers, be sure to consider the amount and location of exhaust airflow and the sizing and location of make-up air slots in the enclosure. Ventilated enclosures should be designed with enough 

ventilation to remove VOCs and particles while maintaining temperatures inside the enclosure that 
16 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

are consistent with operating specifications recommended by the manufacturers of the 3D printing 

equipment. Some designers of enclosures for 3D printers take advantage of the heat generated by 

heated build plates and hot extruder nozzles. They locate exhaust air takeoffs near the top of the 

enclosure while providing slots for make-up air near the bottom of the enclosure. Another common design of enclosures is to use a cross-flow of air, with exhaust air takeoffs on one end and open 

slots on the other (Figure 10).

Sizing and placement of exhaust air ducts and make-up air slots on ventilated enclosures may 

also depend on the need to reduce air velocities inside the enclosure. This prevents warping of the 

3D-printed product while still maintaining containment and temperature requirements. Higher 

airflow will be necessary to contain emissions if doors to the chamber are left open. Exhaust airflow 

from custom chambers can be exhausted to the outdoors. Federal, state, and local air pollution 

control requirements should be consulted. The airflow could be filtered and recirculated, provided the control has been evaluated to ensure contaminants are not released back into the room. 

Custom enclosure containment efficiency can be evaluated qualitatively using smoke visualization 

techniques or quantitatively using tracer gas techniques or ultrafine particle measurements. In 

addition, solvents and other VOCs in the room air can be quantified using air sampling techniques 

with charcoal tubes or other suitable sampling media (see Section 5.0).

Figure 12. Exhausting to the outdoors using a manufacturerinstalled connection. Illustration by NIOS
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 17

Additional engineering controls to be considered include the following:

 Connecting larger enclosed 3D printers to rigid or flexible exhaust ducting to route 

emissions to the outdoors (Figure 12). 

 Printing in a room that is under a negative air pressure differential relative to adjacent 

areas. This means air flows into the printing area from surrounding areas.

 Using HEPA-filtered LEV near printing. If concerned about VOCs, add gas and vapor 

filters to LEV. 

 Using a ventilated glove box or containment system for cleaning and finishing activities 

involving chemicals (for example, cleaning or spray-painting parts).

 Using a ventilated enclosure or downdraft table for cutting and grinding parts during 

post-processing.

 Locating exhaust fans to minimize runs of exhaust duct at positive pressure relative to the 

room(s).

 Using a HEPA-filtered and fire/explosion-certified vacuum to collect waste.

 Grounding and bonding of equipment for static, fire, and electrical safety. 

 Maintaining clearance from combustibles and installed fire suppression nozzles (sprinklers).

 Placing printers in areas with fire detection and suppression systems.

 Using “sticky mats” on floors at printing area exits/entrances to minimize transfer of particles on the soles of footwear from inside the 3D printing area to other areas of the facility.

 Selecting the lowest printing temperature that achieves the desired result. 

 Utilizing enclosures or guards (such as silicon nozzle socks or an aluminum cover) that 

prevent the user from coming into contact with the various parts that pose a risk of burn, 

such as the nozzle and heated bed. 

 Equipping enclosures with an interlock system that pauses any printing when the 

enclosure access is opened.

Recent research by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the United Kingdom found that 

exposures from an FFF 3D printer could be reduced by the following: 

 Setting a lower printer nozzle temperature.

 Using a filament with a lower emission rate. 

 Placing the printer in a clear enclosing hood fitted with an extraction fan and particulate filter.

 Maintaining an enclosure “clearance time” of about 20 minutes after printing is complete 

before opening [Hall et al. 2019].
18 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

4.5 Administrative controls

“Administrative controls” refer to employer-established work practices and policies to reduce or 

prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer commitment and user 

acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary to ensure that policies and 

procedures are followed consistently. If the risk cannot be avoided, policies should limit personnel 

exposure to 3D printers, printer emissions, and associated activities. For example, keep printers in 

a separately ventilated room that users only enter when necessary to retrieve completed parts or do 

printer maintenance. 

Administrative controls can include the following:

General 

 Incorporating 3D printing into the workplace safety (risk management) plan.

 Training users on 3D printing hazards and available controls.

 Restricting access to 3D printing areas to essential personnel only.

 Developing written procedures that cover receiving and disposing of materials (filaments, 

resins, solvents), operation, and maintenance activities.

 Maintaining controls that came on the printer (e.g., laser protection, heat shields, 

machine guarding).

 Considering purchase of 3D printers that have an approval from a Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

 Reducing time spent near the printing process (e.g., by remote monitoring, or leaving 

the area when direct intervention or monitoring is not required).

 Maintaining as much distance as possible between printers and users.

 Confining long hair, loose clothing, head coverings, or head scarves before using any 

3D printing devices.

 Prohibiting the consumption of food or drinks in work areas.

 Storing and working with small quantities of solvents in well ventilated areas that are 

away from possible ignition sources and ensuring that containers are suitable, clearly 

labeled, and stored appropriately.

Cleaning

 Cleaning work areas frequently, including between prints or daily. 

 Using wet wiping for cleaning purposes. 

 Using a HEPA-filtered vacuum. Do not dry sweep or use compressed air. 

 Properly handling filters during removal, replacement, and disposal, as well as checking 

and replacing seals as needed. 

 Handling and disposing of all waste materials (including cleaning materials and gloves) 

in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 19

Spills

 Maintaining a chemical spill kit nearby, particularly if solvents are used for maintenance 

and/or post-processing activities.

 Providing an emergency eyewash station in the immediate vicinity of any process that 

uses alkaline chemicals or other solvents. 

 Using absorbent pads in the event of leak or spill of printing material or other chemicals.

Hot temperatures

 Turning off an FFF printer if the nozzle clogs and allowing time to ventilate and cool 

down before removing the cover.

Lasers

 Following guidance issued by the Laser Institute of America (LIA): American National 

Standard for Safe Use of Lasers (ANSI Z136) [LIA 2014].

Noise

 Following the OSHA regulations for occupational noise exposures if noise levels equal or 

exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of 85 decibels measured on 

the A scale [Occupational noise exposure, 29 CFR 1910.95, 2022]. 

4.6 Personal protective equipment

PPE is the least effective means for controlling hazardous exposures. Proper use of PPE requires 

a comprehensive program and a high level of user involvement and commitment. The correct 

PPE must be chosen for each hazard. Supporting programs such as training, fit testing, changeout 

schedules, and medical assessment (for respirator usage) may be needed or required by law. PPE 

should not be the sole method for controlling hazardous exposures. Because PPE is only effective if 

properly selected, used, and maintained, PPE should be relied upon only until effective engineering 

and administrative controls are in place. When using PPE as a control, the following suggestions 

should be considered: 

 Following all PPE recommendations found in the SDS for the materials (print media, 

solvents, etc.) in use.

 Using respiratory protection when indicated and when engineering controls cannot control exposures, and in accordance with federal regulations [General requirements, 29 CFR 

1910.132, 2022; Respiratory protection, 29 CFR 1910.134, 2022]. NIOSH guidance 

on respirators can be found on the “Respirators” webpage at www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/

respirators/.

 Using eye protection (safety glasses, goggles, or face shields) during activities where airborne particulates or liquid spraying may be present (e.g., pouring resins, using solvents, 

cutting, grinding, or sanding).

 Consult manufacturer’s guidance on when laser eye protection is necessary. If uncertain, 

consult an occupational safety and health professional.
20 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

 Using nitrile or appropriate chemical-resistant gloves.

 Using thermal gloves to prevent burns from hot printer heads. 

 Considering the use of lab coats or coveralls.

 Preventing migration or cross-contamination of materials into non-work areas by not 

allowing PPE to be worn outside work areas. 

 Using PPE that is appropriate for the surrounding activities. For example, a user cleaning a 

printer next to another workstation may require the other user to wear the same level of PPE.

5 Exposure Assessment

The emissions from 3D printers can be evaluated using industrial hygiene sampling tools and 

techniques [Hall et al. 2019; Stefaniak et al. 2019a]. A person experienced with industrial hygiene 

sampling techniques should be consulted. Direct reading instruments such as condensation particle 

counters or optical particle counters can determine variations in number, mass concentration, and/

or approximate size range of particles. Since not all instruments can determine the presence of all 

types of particles at all size ranges, a suite of direct-reading instruments may be necessary. Using 

these instruments in data-log mode, along with accurate field notes detailing user work processes 

throughout the day, can provide insight into specific activities or tasks that contribute to an increase or decrease in particle concentrations or counts.

VOCs can be collected using either specific sampling collection media (such as sorbent tubes) connected to a sampling pump, or by the use of diffusion badges, an evacuated cylinder, or a photoionization detector. Metals can be collected on various filter media. Analysis should be completed by 

a laboratory proficient in industrial hygiene sample analysis, such as a laboratory accredited by the 

American Industrial Hygiene Association. The sampling results can be compared by knowledgeable 

health and safety professionals to established occupational exposure limits such as the NIOSH 

RELs, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) threshold limit 

values, and OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) [Air contaminants, 29 CFR 1910.1000, 

2022; ACGIH 2022; NIOSH 2007].

Noise levels can be determined using a sound level meter and results compared with the NIOSH 

REL of 85 decibels, A-weighted (dBA) (for 8 hours), and OSHA PEL of 90 dBA (for 8 hours) 

[NIOSH 1998; Occupational noise exposure, 29 CFR 1910.95, 2022]. Note that OSHA has a 

hearing conservation requirement when noise levels equal or exceed an 8-hour TWA sound level of 

85 dB measured on the A scale [Occupational noise exposure, 29 CFR 1910.95, 2022]. The free 

NIOSH Sound Level Meter App (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noise/app.html) is useful 

for identifying areas or tasks that should be further evaluated by calibrated instruments. The app 

should not be used to assess compliance with OSHA standards, however.
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 21

6 Additional Information

The NIOSH workplace poster “3D Printing with Filaments: Health and Safety Questions to Ask” 

(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2020-115/default.html) (Appendix A) presents different control options and information to reduce exposure to potential hazards [NIOSH 2020a]. The poster 

has information on the following:

 Characterization of potential hazards

 Work activities

 Engineering controls

 Administrative controls

 PPE

While it is unlikely that makerspaces, schools, libraries, and other small businesses would be using 

metal powder bed fusion 3D printers, NIOSH has also produced a workplace poster that addresses 

printing with metal powders, “3D Printing with Metal Powders: Health and Safety Questions to 

Ask” (https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2020114) [NIOSH 2020b].

The UK Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services 

(CLEAPSS) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have also produced a guidance publication 

that applies to schools; “3D Printing In Schools and Colleges: Managing the Risks” is available at 

http://dt.cleapss.org.uk/Resource-File/3D-printing-in-schools-and-colleges-managing-the-risks.

pdf [CLEAPSS 2020]. The HSE also has published “Measuring and Controlling Emissions from 

Polymer Filament Desktop 3D Printers” [Hall et al. 2019].

7 Conclusions

The rapid growth and improvements in 3D printing technology have enabled many industries to 

benefit from it, and 3D printers are increasingly being used in non-industrial workplaces such as 

makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small businesses. People have expressed concerns about potential exposure to ultrafine particles and VOCs emitted from 3D printers in these workplace settings. 

This report provides a variety of options and considerations to manage the potential occupational 

health and safety risks in non-industrial workplaces. Always remember that no set of safety recommendations can be “one-size-fits-all,” because a variety of printing types, processes, and print 

materials can be used in different frequencies and durations while 3D printing in different settings. 

Makerspaces, schools, libraries, and small businesses should develop a site-specific risk management 

plan that follows the hierarchy of controls, as described in this report, as a basic reference. Using 

ventilated enclosures, LEV, administrative controls, and PPE can prevent unnecessary exposures, 

control odors, and reduce emissions during 3D-printing and associated tasks.
22 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

References

ACGIH [2022]. ACGIH® TLVs and BEIs: threshold limit values for chemical substances and

physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Worldwide, 2022, https://www.acgih.org/science/tlv-bei-guidelines/.

Air contaminants, 29 CFR 1910.1000 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/

CFR-2022-title29-vol6/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol6-sec1910-1000.pdf.

All3DP [2022]. The ultimate filament guide best 3D printer filament: the main types in 2022. 

München, Germany: All3DP GmbH, https://all3dp.com/1/3d-printer-filament-types-3d-printing-3d-filament/.

ANSI/ASSE [2011]. PtD Standard Z590.3-2011, Prevention through Design: guidelines for 

addressing occupational risks in design and redesign processes. Des Plaines, IL: American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Safety Engineers, https://store.assp.org/PersonifyEbusiness/Store/Product-Details/productId/226753699.

Azimi P, Zhao D, Pouzet C, Crain N, Stephens B [2016]. Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds from commercially available desktop three-dimensional printers with multiple filaments. Environ Sci Technol 50(3):1260–1268, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04983.

Bharti N, Singh S [2017]. Three-dimensional (3-D) printers in libraries: perspective and 

preliminary safety analysis. J Chem Educ 94(7):879–885, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.

jchemed.6b00745. 

Bowers LN, Ranpara AC, Roach KA, Knepp AK, Arnold ED, Stefaniak AB, Virji MA [2022]. 

Comparison of product safety data sheet ingredient lists with skin irritants and sensitizers present 

in a convenience sample of light-curing resins used in additive manufacturing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 133:105198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105198.

Byrley P, George BJ, Boyes WK, Rogers K [2019]. Particle emissions from fused deposition 

modeling 3D printers: evaluation and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 655:395–407, https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.070. 

Campbell I, Bourell D, Gibson I [2012]. Additive manufacturing: rapid prototyping comes of age. 

Rapid Prototyp J 18(4):255–258, https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541211231563. 

Campbell T, Williams C, Ivanova O, Garrett B [2011]. Could 3-D printing change the world? 

Technologies, potential, and implications of additive manufacturing. Washington, DC: Atlantic 

Council, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/could-3d-printingchange-the-world/.

Chan FL, House R, Kudla I, Lips-zyc JC, Rajaram N, Tarlo SM [2018]. Health survey of employees 

regularly using 3D printers. Occup Med 68(3):211, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqy042. 

CLEAPSS [2020]. 3D printing in schools and colleges: managing the risks. Consortium of Local 

Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services (CLEAPSS) and the Health and Safety 

Executive (HSE), http://dt.cleapss.org.uk/Resource-File/3D-printing-in-schools-and-collegesmanaging-the-risks.pdf. 

Deng Y, Cao SJ, Chen A, Guo Y [2016]. The impact of manufacturing parameters on submicron 

particle emissions from a desktop 3D printer in the perspective of emission reduction. Build Environ 

104:311–319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.021. 
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 23

Donaldson K, Stone V, Tran CL, Kreyling W, Borm PJ [2004]. Nanotoxicology. Occup Environ 

Med 61:727–728, http://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.013243.

Du Preez S, Johnson A, LeBouf RF, Linde SJL, Stefaniak AB, Du Plessis J [2018]. Exposures 

during industrial 3-D printing and post-processing tasks. Rapid Prototyp J 24(5):865–871, http://

doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2017-0050.

Dunn KL, Dunn KH, Hammond D, Lo S [2020a]. Three-dimensional printer emissions and 

employee exposures to ultrafine particles during the printing of thermoplastic filaments containing carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers. J Nanoparticle Res 22(46):1–13, https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11051-020-4750-8.

Dunn KL, Hammond D, Menchaca K, Dunn KH, Roth G [2020b]. Reducing ultrafine particulate emission from multiple 3D printers in an office environment using a prototype engineering 

control. J Nanoparticle Research 22(5):112, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-04844-4. 

Floyd EL, Wang J, Regens JL [2017]. Fume emissions from a low-cost 3-D printer with various filaments. J Occup Environ Hyg 14:523–533, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1302587. 

General requirements, 29 CFR 1910.132 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/

pkg/CFR-2022-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol5-sec1910-132.pdf.

Hall S, Pengelly I, Staff J, Plant N, Evans G [2019]. Measuring and controlling emissions from 

polymer filament desktop 3D printers. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Derbyshire, UK: 

Health and Safety Executive, https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr1146.pdf. 

Hazard communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/

pkg/CFR-2022-title29-vol6/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol6-sec1910-1200.pdf. 

Hoffman T [2018]. 3D printer filaments explained. PC Magazine, April 28, https://www.pcmag.

com/how-to/3d-printer-filaments-explained.

House R, Rajaram N, Tarlo SM [2017]. Case report of asthma associated with 3D printing. Occup 

Med 67(8):652–654, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqx129. 

IARC [1999]. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol. 73. Lyon, 

France: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, https://

monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono73.pdf. 

ILO [2010]. International Chemical Safety Card. Chloroform. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health 

Organization, International Labour Office, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/icsc/showcard.display?p_

lang=en&p_card_id=0027&p_version=2

ISO [2015]. Additive manufacturing—general principles—terminology. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization ISO/ASTM, https://www.iso.org/standard/69669.html. 

Kim Y, Yoon C, Ham S, Park J, Kim S, Ohhun Kwon, Tsai P-J [2015]. Emissions of nanoparticles 

and gaseous material from 3D printer operation. Environ Sci Technol 49:12044–12053, https://

doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02805. 

LIA [2014] American national standard for safe use of lasers. Orlando, FL: Laser Institute of America, 

https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/lia/ansiz1362014. 

Mendes L, Kangas A, Kukko K, Mølgaard B, Säämänen A, Kanerva T, Ituarte IF, Huhtiniemi 

M, Stockmann-Juvala H, Partanen J, Hämeri K, Eleftheriadis K, Viitanen [2017]. Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer. J Indust Ecol 21:S94–S106, https://doi.

org/10.1111/jiec.12569.
24 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

Moorefield-Lang H [2014]. Makers in the library: case studies of 3-D printers and makerspaces in 

library settings. Library Hi Tech 32(4):583–593, https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2014-0056.

NCEH [2022]. What noises cause hearing loss? Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental 

Health, https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html.

NIOSH [1998]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational noise exposure. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 98-126, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/. 

NIOSH [2007]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149, https://www.cdc.

gov/niosh/docs/2005-149/default.html.

NIOSH [2017]. Evaluation of 3-D printer emissions and personal exposures at a manufacturing 

workplace. By Stefaniak AB, Hammond DR, Johnson AR, Knepp AK, LeBouf RF. Morgantown, 

WV: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HHE 2017-0059-3291, https://www.cdc.

gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2017-0059-3291.pdf.

NIOSH [2020a]. 3D printing with filaments: health and safety questions to ask. Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2020-115, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2020-115/default.html.

NIOSH [2020b]. 3D printing with metal powders: health and safety questions to ask. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2020-114, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2020-114/default.html.

NIOSH [2022]. Design and evaluation of low cost, custom, retrofitted engineering controls for 

3D printing. By O’Connor C, Barnes C, Kent L, Hammond D. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, EPHB Report No. 2022-DFSE-959, https://www.

cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/2022-DFSE-959.pdf.

Occupational noise exposure, 29 CFR 1910.95 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2022-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol5-sec1910-95.pdf. 

Respiratory protection, 29 CFR 1910.134 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/

pkg/CFR-2022-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol5-sec1910-134.pdf. 

Roney S, Klein A, Hart A [2016]. The health effects of 3D printing: basic steps you can take to 

protect your patrons and staff. American Libraries Magazine, October 11, https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/10/11/the-health-effects-of-3d-printing/.

Roth GA, Geraci CL, Stefaniak A, Murashov V, Howard J [2019]. Potential occupational hazards 

of additive manufacturing, J Occup Environ Hyg 16(5):321–328, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459

624.2019.1591627. 
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses| 25

Rumchev K, Brown H, Spickett J [2007]. Volatile organic compounds: do they present a risk to 

our health? Rev Environ Health 22(1):67–82, https://doi.org/10.1515/REVEH.2007.22.1.39.

Scungio M, Vitanza T, Stabile L, Buonanno G, Morawska L [2017]. Characterization of particle 

emission from laser printers, Sci Total Environ 586:623–630, https://www.sciencedirect.com/

science/article/pii/S0048969717302711.

Secondo L, Adawi H, Cuddehe J, Hopson K, Schumacher A, Mendoza L, Cartin C, Lewinski N 

[2020]. Comparative analysis of ventilation efficiency on ultrafine particle removal in university 

MakerSpaces. Atmos Environ 224:117321.

Selection and use of work practices, 29 CFR 1910.333 (2022), PDF file, https://www.govinfo.

gov/content/pkg/CFR-2022-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2022-title29-vol5-sec1910-333.pdf. 

Sesto [2017]. 3D printing in schools—health & safety FAQ. Javelin Technologies, Inc., https://

www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2017/01/3d-printing-school-health-safety-faq/. 

Stabile L, Scungio M, Buonanno G, Arpino F, Ficco G [2017]. Airborne particle emission of 

a commercial 3D printer: the effect of filament material and printing temperature. Indoor Air 

27:398–408, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.12310. 

Stefaniak AB, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, Virji MA, Birch ME, Ham JE,Wells JR, Qi C, SchweglerBerry D, Friend S, Johnson AR, Martin SB Jr., Qian Y, LeBouf RF, Birch Q, Hammond D [2018]. 

Three-dimensional printing with nano-enabled filaments releases polymer particles containing 

carbon nanotubes into air. Indoor Air 28(6):840–851, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12499.

Stefaniak AB, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, Luxton TP, Peloquin DM, Baumann EJ, Ham JE, Wells JR, 

Johnson AR, LeBouf RF, Su F-C, Martin SB, Virji MA [2019a]. Particle and vapor emissions from 

vat polymerization desktop-scale 3-dimensional printers, J Occup Environ Hyg 16:8, 519–531, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2019.1612068. 

Stefaniak AB, Johnson AR, du Preez S, Hammond DR, Wells JR, Ham JE, LeBouf RF, Martin 

SB Jr., Duling MG, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, de Beer DJ, du Plessis JL [2019b]. Insights into 

emissions and exposures from use of industrial-scale additive manufacturing machines. Saf Health 

Work 10(2):229–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2018.10.003.

Stefaniak AB, Johnson AR, du Preez S, Hammond DR, Wells JR, Ham JE, LeBouf RF, Menchaca 

KW, Martin SB Jr., Duling MG, Bowers LN, Knepp AK, Su FC, de Beer DJ, du Plessis JL [2019c]. 

Evaluation of emissions and exposures at workplaces using desktop 3-dimensional printers. J Chem 

Health Saf 26(2):19–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.11.001.

Stefaniak AB, LeBouf RF, Duling MG, Yi J, Abukabda A, McBride CR, Nurkiewicz TR [2017a]. 

Inhalation exposure to 3-dimentional printer stimulates acute hypertension and microvascular 

dysfunction. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 335(15):1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2017.09.016. 

Stefaniak AB, LeBouf RF, Yi J, Ham J, Nurkiewicz T, Schwegler-Berry D, Chen B, Wells J, Duling 

M, Lawrence R, Martin S, Johnson A, Virji M [2017b]. Characterization of chemical contaminants generated by a desktop fused deposition modeling 3-dimensional printer. J Occup Environ 

Hyg 14(7):540–550, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1302589.

Steinle P [2016]. Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer and indoor air measurements in office settings. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(2):121–132, https://doi.org/10.1080/1545962

4.2015.1091957.
26 | Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses

Stephens B, Azimi P, El Orch Z, Ramos T [2013]. Ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D 

printers. Atmos Environ 79(2013):334–339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050.

Tyson M [2018]. Advanced guide to printing PLA filament. 3D Printing Solutions, May 21, 

https://www.3dprintingsolutions.com.au/User-Guides/how-to-3d-print-pla-filament. 

Viitanen A-K, Kallonen K, Kirsi K, Kanerva T, Saukko E, Hussein T, Hämeri K, Säämänen 

A. [2021]. Technical control of nanoparticle emissions from desktop 3D printing. Indoor Air 

31(4):1061–1071, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12791.

Yi J, LeBouf R, Duling M, Nurkiewicz T, Chen B, Schwegler-Berry D [2016]. Emission of particulate matter from a desktop three-dimensional (3D) printer. J Toxicol Environ Part A 79(11) 

453–465, https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1166467. 

Zhang Q, Wong JPS, Davis AY, Black MS, Weber RJ [2017]. Characterization of particle emissions 

from consumer fused deposition modeling 3-D printers. Aerosol Sci Technol 51(11):1275–1286, 

https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2017.1342029.
Approaches to Safe 3D Printing: A Guide for Makerspace Users, Schools, Libraries, and Small Businesses | 27

Appendix A: Workplace Poster 
Promoting productive workplaces through safety and health research

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2024-103

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2024103