Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
If these monoliths work as well practically as they do here in a small-scale test, then we might actually have a chance at minimising the damage done by unregulated release of PFAS, which would be good for all of us.
Having said that, I do fear that the rise of these "fix it in post" environmental solutions will be used by big bads to justify the continuation of bad environmental practices because "ThE sCiEnTiStS wIlL jUsT cLeAn It Up AfTeR"
“ThE sCiEnTiStS wIlL jUsT cLeAn It Up AfTeR”
Yep I know nothing below will happan thanks to our world political motives But. .
If we charge for manufacture. By dramatically increasing the cost to use these chemicals. To fund said science. We win both battles. Reduce desire to use, while increasing investments on alternatives. And fund clean up.
yeah, it is exactly what's happened with plastics since they became a thing
As somehow living in that region of Sweden, that was my first thought!
Forskarna räddar världen med spiddekauga!
can we stop calling 3d printer filament "ink"? i sort of get it if it's a resin bath but this is clearly FDM printed, and in no fucking universe can you call filament "ink"
its probably not a filament, just like a vat of goop like you see in the concrete and chocolate printers
Ah, and I got all excited about this post thinking it was about instant noodles...
3D printing, cleaning some forever chemicals while making a fuckton of microplastics.
(I know this is ceramic, I’m talking about 3D printing in general)
3D printing is a broad subject. Covering most materials.
It is just current home printing that is mainly plastics. Because the cost rises with other materials. Plastics allows $200 or more printers.
But it dose not have to stay bad. We are starting to see more and more research into effective plastic replacements. And the expansion of cheap 3d printing can theoretically speed up the distribution of those alternatives.
Believe me I am well aware of that. I just thought the irony too god to stay quiet.
How much of the micro plastics from 3d printing make it to the outside? It does make a lot micro plastics, but most people have their printers inside. Do we know if most of that plastic makes it outside? Or is just contaminating the homes of people who 3D print.
Or is this like one of those, it's bad so there is no acceptable degree of usage?
With the amount of open bed, cheaper printers, a lot. Keeping them inside does not prevent them from entering the environment. As well we need to breath to start with, so airflow will take it outside. Add vacuum cleaning and waste disposal. Unless the plastics are trapped and melted into larger clumps. They get into the environment. This is why they are so dangerous.
Even with enclosed printers. Unless very well filtered and some plan for disposal of that filter that prevents this. It's just an extra delay.
Some plastic types are better than others. And I honestly think development of thermo plastic replacements is better than stopping 3d printing.
there are some PLA derivatives designed to compost quickly, PLA itself will probably compost faster than most other plastics, not that that's a very high bar
You never take your trash out? Also those microplastic go everywhere. Stick to your clothes your shoes…