Advertisement

Sustainability and environmental impact of fused deposition modelling (FDM) technologies

  • Luis SuárezEmail author
  • Manuel Domínguez
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

This paper consists in a review of environmental issues of additive manufacturing technologies, mainly in those related to fused deposition modelling. The versatility, reduction of equipment costs due to patents expiring and the great flexibility offered by 3D printers have driven the amazing increase of these technologies in the last years. On the other hand, the democratization of additive manufacturing also poses some issues regarding environment; it is important to also have into account the potential effects of these technologies in the environment, coming from energy consumption, materials, and wastes produced. A review of different research works dealing with environmental impact of additive manufacturing, such as products’ life cycle assessment, energy and materials consumption, and particles and gases releases (mainly due to health issues), has been performed. The assessment performed has helped highlighting the importance of environmental issues in additive manufacturing, according to the number of published papers. The main findings are the importance of establishing a method for applying eco-design principles taking into account the specific features of additive manufacturing.

Keywords

Sustainability Environmental impact Recycling Energy consumption Volatile organic compounds 3D printing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales at Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) [grant number 2019-ICF06].

References

  1. 1.
    Attaran M (2017) The rise of 3-D printing: the advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Bus Horiz 60(5):677–688Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffiths CA, Howarth J, De Almeida-Rowbotham G, Rees A, Kerton R (2016) A design of experiments approach for the optimisation of energy and waste during the production of parts manufactured by 3D printing. J Clean Prod 139:74–85Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Song, L. Clemon, and C. Telenko, Uncertainty and variability of energy and material use by fused deposition modeling printers in makerspaces, J Indl Ecol Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 22-May-2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rossi E, Di Nicolantonio M, Barcarolo P, and Lagatta J, Sustainable 3D printing: design opportunities and research perspectives, 2020, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paris H, Mokhtarian H, Coatanéa E, Museau M, Ituarte IF (2016) Comparative environmental impacts of additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 65(1):29–32Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang Y, Mak K, Zhao YF (2016) A framework to reduce product environmental impact through design optimization for additive manufacturing. J Clean Prod 137:1560–1572Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karlsson R, Luttropp C (2006) EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. J Clean Prod 14(15–16):1291–1298Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Godoy, Las cuatro claves del éxito del Ecodiseño, www.slowfashionnext.com, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.slowfashionnext.com/blog/2016/01/07/las-cuatro-claves-del-exito-del-ecodiseno/. [Accessed: 18-May-2019].
  9. 9.
    Oh S (2017) From an Ecodesign guide to a sustainable design guide: complementing social aspects of sustainable product design guidelines. Arch Des Res 30(2):47–64Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. McDonough and Partners, The Hannover principles design for sustainability, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivera Pedroza JC and Hernandis Ortuño B (2012) Aplicación de Criterios de Sostenibilidad al Modelo de Diseño Concurrente Para El Diseño De Un ‘Jardín Vertical Al Interior De Las Viviendas’, II Conferência Int. Des. Eng. e Gestão para a Inovação, no. October, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chun YY et al (2018) Identifying key components of products based on consumer- and producer-oriented ecodesign indices considering environmental impacts, costs, and utility value. J Clean Prod 198:1031–1043Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santolaria M, Oliver-Sol J, Gasol CM, Morales-Pinzón T, Rieradevall J (2011) Eco-design in innovation driven companies: perception, predictions and the main drivers of integration. The Spanish example. J Clean Prod 19(12):1315–1323Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mani M, Lyons KW, Gupta SK (2014) Sustainability characterization for additive manufacturing. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 119:419–428Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tuck C, Bourell DL, Hague R, Baumers M, Sreenivasan R (2011) Sustainability of additive manufacturing: measuring the energy consumption of the laser sintering process. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 225(12):2228–2239Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faludi J, Bayley C, Bhogal S, Iribarne M (2015) Comparing environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment. Rapid Prototyp J 21(1):14–33Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gebler M, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM, Visser C (2014) A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy 74(C):158–167Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Bourhis F, Kerbrat O, Dembinski L, Hascoet JY, and Mognol P (2014) Predictive model for environmental assessment in additive manufacturing process, in Procedia CIRP, 15:26–31.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kellens K, Baumers M, Gutowski TG, Flanagan W, Lifset R, Duflou JR (2017) Environmental dimensions of additive manufacturing: mapping application domains and their environmental implications. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S49–S68Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sreenivasan R, Goel A, Bourell DL (2010) Sustainability issues in laser-based additive manufacturing. Phys Procedia 5:81–90Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ford S, Despeisse M (2016) Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. J Clean Prod 137:1573–1587Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Le Bourhis F, Kerbrat O, Hascoet JY, Mognol P (2013) Sustainable manufacturing: evaluation and modeling of environmental impacts in additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(9–12):1927–1939Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu Z, Jiang Q, Zhang Y, Li T, and Zhang H.-C (2016) Sustainability of 3D printing: a critical review and recommendations, in Volume 2: Materials; Biomanufacturing; Properties, Applications and Systems; Sustainable Manufacturing, p. V002T05A004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baumers M, Duflou JR, Flanagan W, Gutowski TG, Kellens K, Lifset R (2017) Charting the environmental dimensions of additive manufacturing and 3D printing. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S9–S14Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bours J, Adzima B, Gladwin S, Cabral J, Mau S (2017) Addressing hazardous implications of additive manufacturing: complementing life cycle assessment with a framework for evaluating direct human health and environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S25–S36Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Despeisse M et al (2017) Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: a research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change 115:75–84Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Despeisse M and Ford S (2015) The role of additive manufacturing in improving resource efficiency and sustainability, in IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 460:129–136.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng T, Kellens K, Tang R, Chen C, Chen G (2018) Sustainability of additive manufacturing: an overview on its energy demand and environmental impact. Additive Manufacturing 21:694–704Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cunico MWM, Kai DA, Cavalheiro PM, de Carvalho J (2019) Development and characterisation of 3D printing finishing process applying recycled plastic waste. Virtual Phys Prototyp 14(1):37–52Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fullenwider B, Kiani P, Schoenung JM, Ma K (2019) Two-stage ball milling of recycled machining chips to create an alternative feedstock powder for metal additive manufacturing. Powder Technol 342:562–571Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh R, Singh H, Farina I, Colangelo F, Fraternali F (2019) On the additive manufacturing of an energy storage device from recycled material. Compos Part B Eng 156:259–265Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Wijk AJM, Van Wijk I (2015) 3D printing with biomaterials: towards a sustainable and circular economy. IOS Press, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steinle P (2016) Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer and indoor air measurements in office settings. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(2):121–132MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Babagowda RS, Kadadevara Math, Goutham R, and Srinivas Prasad KR (2018) Study of effects on mechanical properties of PLA filament which is blended with recycled PLA materials, in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 310:1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Den Bossche W, Peeters JR, Devoldere T, Duflou JR, Dewulf W (2014) Proof of concept of an elastomer based fastener enabling rapid disassembly. Procedia CIRP 15:234–238Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chen P et al (2018) Investigation into the processability, recyclability and crystalline structure of selective laser sintered polyamide 6 in comparison with polyamide 12. Polym Test 69:366–374Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang L, Kiziltas A, Mielewski DF, Lee EC, Gardner DJ (2018) Closed-loop recycling of polyamide12 powder from selective laser sintering into sustainable composites. J Clean Prod 195:765–772Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Domingues J, Marques T, Mateus A, Carreira P, Malça C (2017) An additive manufacturing solution to produce big green parts from tires and recycled plastics. Procedia Manuf 12:242–248Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAlister C, Wood J (2014) The potential of 3D printing to reduce the environmental impacts of production, 2014 ECEEE Ind. Summer Study Energy Effic Retool a Compet Sustain Ind 1:213–221Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jiang J, Xu X, Stringer J (2019) Optimization of process planning for reducing material waste in extrusion based additive manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 59:317–325Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Valášek P, Müller M, Proshlyakov A (2012) Effect of sedimentation on the final hardness of polymeric particle composites. Res Agric Eng 58(3):92–98Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mohammed MI et al (2017) A low carbon footprint approach to the reconstitution of plastics into 3D-printer filament for enhanced waste reduction. KnE Eng 2(2):234Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Czyżewski P et al (2018) Secondary use of ABS co-polymer recyclates for the manufacture of structural elements using the FFF technology. Rapid Prototyp J 24(9):1447–1454Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hart KR, Frketic JB, Brown JR (2018) Recycling meal-ready-to-eat (MRE) pouches into polymer filament for material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 21:536–543Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zander NE, Gillan M, Lambeth RH (2018) Recycled polyethylene terephthalate as a new FFF feedstock material. Addit Manuf 21:174–182Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Le VT, Paris H, Mandil G (2018) The development of a strategy for direct part reuse using additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies. Addit Manuf 22:687–699Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kucherov FA, Gordeev EG, Kashin AS, Ananikov VP (2017) Three-dimensional printing with biomass-derived PEF for carbon-neutral manufacturing. Angew Chem Int Ed 56(50):15931–15935Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xu W, Pranovich A, Uppstu P, Wang X, Kronlund D, Hemming J, Öblom H, Moritz N, Preis M, Sandler N, Willför S, Xu C (2018) Novel biorenewable composite of wood polysaccharide and polylactic acid for three dimensional printing. Carbohydr Polym 187:51–58Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Voet VSD, Schnelting GHM, Xu J, Loos K, Folkersma R, and Jager J (2018) Stereolithographic 3D printing with renewable acrylates, J Vis Exp, no. 139Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Voet VSD, Strating T, Schnelting GHM, Dijkstra P, Tietema M, Xu J, Woortman AJJ, Loos K, Jager J, Folkersma R (2018) Biobased acrylate photocurable resin formulation for stereolithography 3D printing. ACS Omega 3(2):1403–1408Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Behm JE, Waite BR, Hsieh ST, Helmus MR (2018) Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research. BMC Ecol 18(1):32Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Horta JF, Simões FJP, Mateus A (2018) Large scale additive manufacturing of eco-composites. Int J Mater Form 11(3):375–380Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brites F et al (2017) Cork plastic composite optimization for 3D printing applications. Procedia Manuf 12:156–165Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Girdis J, Gaudion L, Proust G, Löschke S, Dong A (2017) Rethinking timber: investigation into the use of waste macadamia nut shells for additive manufacturing. JOM 69(3):575–579Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sauerwein M, Doubrovski EL (2018) Local and recyclable materials for additive manufacturing: 3D printing with mussel shells. Mater Today Commun 15:214–217Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gkartzou E, Koumoulos EP, Charitidis CA (2017) Production and 3D printing processing of bio-based thermoplastic filament. Manuf Rev 4:1Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dong Y, Milentis J, Pramanik A (2018) Additive manufacturing of mechanical testing samples based on virgin poly (lactic acid) (PLA) and PLA/wood fibre composites. Adv Manuf 6(1):71–82Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kariz M, Sernek M, Obućina M, Kuzman MK (2018) Effect of wood content in FDM filament on properties of 3D printed parts. Mater Today Commun 14:135–140Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zeidler H, Klemm D, Böttger-Hiller F, Fritsch S, Le Guen MJ, Singamneni S (2018) 3D printing of biodegradable parts using renewable biobased materials. Procedia Manuf 21:117–124Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Montalvo Navarrete JI, Hidalgo-Salazar MA, Escobar Nunez E, Rojas Arciniegas AJ (2018) Thermal and mechanical behavior of biocomposites using additive manufacturing. Int J Interact Des Manuf 12(2):449–458Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kariz M, Sernek M, Kuzman MK (2016) Use of wood powder and adhesive as a mixture for 3D printing. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 74(1):123–126Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pitt K, Lopez-Botello O, Lafferty AD, Todd I, Mumtaz K (2017) Investigation into the material properties of wooden composite structures with in-situ fibre reinforcement using additive manufacturing. Compos Sci Technol 138:32–39Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Le Duigou A, Castro M, Bevan R, Martin N (2016) 3D printing of wood fibre biocomposites: from mechanical to actuation functionality. Mater Des 96:106–114Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Watson JK, Taminger KMB (2018) A decision-support model for selecting additive manufacturing versus subtractive manufacturing based on energy consumption. J Clean Prod 176:1316–1322Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rauch E, Dallasega P, Matt DT (2016) Sustainable production in emerging markets through distributed manufacturing systems (DMS). J Clean Prod 135:127–138Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cerdas F, Juraschek M, Thiede S, Herrmann C (2017) Life cycle assessment of 3D printed products in a distributed manufacturing system. J Ind Ecol 21:S80–S93Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bogers M, Hadar R, Bilberg A (2016) Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:225–239Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Khajavi SH, Partanen J, Holmström J (2014) Additive manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain. Comput Ind 65(1):50–63Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dematteo R et al (2013) Chemical exposures of women workers in the plastics industry with particular reference to breast cancer and reproductive hazards. NEW Solut A J Environ Occup Heal Policy 22(4):427–448Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pilou M, Mavrofrydi O, Housiadas C, Eleftheriadis K, Papazafiri P (2015) Computational modeling as part of alternative testing strategies in the respiratory and cardiovascular systems: inhaled nanoparticle dose modeling based on representative aerosol measurements and corresponding toxicological analysis. Nanotoxicology 9(sup1):106–115Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Azimi P, Fazli T, Stephens B (2017) Predicting concentrations of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds resulting from desktop 3D printer operation and the impact of potential control strategies. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S107–S119Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mendes L et al (2017) Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S94–S106Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Afshar-Mohajer N, Wu C-Y, Ladun T, Rajon DA, Huang Y (2015) Characterization of particulate matters and total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer. Build Environ 93:293–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ingeniería del DiseñoUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Ingeniería del DiseñoUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations