ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
An explorative study on respiratory health among operators working in polymer additive manufacturing.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Particle and Chemical Emissions During Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) Using Commercial ABS- and PET-G-Based Filaments.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phospholipid composition in small airway lining fluid among tunnel construction workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica.Lipids in health and disease · 2025Article
- 3D printing: Balancing innovation for sustainability with emerging environmental and health risks.iScience · 2025Review
- Assessment of the carcinogenic potential of particulate matter generated from 3D printing devices in Balb/c 3T3-1-1 cells.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Occupational exposure and health surveys at metal additive manufacturing facilities.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), or 3D printing, is a growing industry involving a wide range of different techniques and materials. The potential toxicological effects of emissions produced in the process, involving both ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are unclear, and there are concerns regarding possible health implications among AM operators. The objective of this study was to screen the presence of respiratory health effects among people working with liquid, powdered, or filament plastic materials in AM. Methods: In total, 18 subjects working with different additive manufacturing techniques and production of filament with polymer feedstock and 20 controls participated in the study. Study subjects filled out a questionnaire and underwent blood and urine sampling, spirometry, impulse oscillometry (IOS), exhaled NO test (FeNO), and collection of particles in exhaled air (PEx), and the exposure was assessed. Analysis of exhaled particles included lung surfactant components such as surfactant protein A (SP-A) and phosphatidylcholines. SP-A and albumin were determined using ELISA. Using reversed-phase liquid chromatography and targeted mass spectrometry, the relative abundance of 15 species of phosphatidylcholine (PC) was determined in exhaled particles. The results were evaluated by univariate and multivariate statistical analyses (principal component analysis). Results: Exposure and emission measurements in AM settings revealed a large variation in particle and VOC concentrations as well as the composition of VOCs, depending on the AM technique and feedstock. Levels of FeNO, IOS, and spirometry parameters were within clinical reference values for all AM operators. There was a difference in the relative abundance of saturated, notably dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (PC16:0_16:0), and unsaturated lung surfactant lipids in exhaled particles between controls and AM operators. Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences between AM operators and controls for the different health examinations, which may be due to the low number of participants. However, the observed difference in the PC lipid profile in exhaled particles indicates a possible impact of the exposure and could be used as possible early biomarkers of adverse effects in the airways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.