PLA is basically plant starch. most 3d printing is done with PLA
Everytime i come across a 3d printing post
Submitted 20 hours ago by Rhaxapopouetl@ttrpg.network to [deleted]
https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/3d0becac-b7f3-4a0e-8297-632ffac3f256.jpeg
Comments
thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 19 hours ago
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 23 minutes ago
made from doesn’t mean same properties (e.g. biodegradability)
Kolanaki@pawb.social 18 hours ago
The plastic filament I use can be near infinitely recycled and is also biodegradable.
JelleWho@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Do you rather have me buying a complete new device than printiner a spare part with PLA (not derived from oil)?
MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours ago
Also, the most common 3D printing filament is made of the bioplastic polylactic acid, which is typically derived from corn. Whether that is strictly “better” from an environmental perspective is a fair question.
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 19 hours ago
The only thing that matters is if it’s biodegradable. If the plastic won’t break down naturally, it doesn’t matter if it’s made from starch or crude oil.
Polylactic acid is a low weight semi-crystalline bioplastic used in agriculture, medicine, packaging and textile. Polylactic acid is one of the most widely used biopolymers, accounting for 33% of all bioplastics produced in 2021. Although biodegradable in vivo, polylactic acid is not completely degradable under natural environmental conditions, notably under aquatic conditions. Polylactic acid disintegrates into microplastics faster than petroleum-based plastics and may pose severe threats to the exposed biota.
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 hours ago
From what I've seen, at the bare minimum, it will break down completely back into plant polymers faster than other plastics could hope to break down into anything non-dangerous to the environment, and even if it does break down into microplastics quicker, I'd rather have something like that, which can then later break down into plant polymers, rather than something that slowly leeches microplastics into the environment for the next few centuries, and doesn't really break down into anything much less dangerous past that point.
To cite some interesting points from the paper you referenced:
The biodegradation of polylactic acid occurs in two main steps: fragmentation and mineralization. [...] which can be biotic or abiotic. For instance, biotic hydrolysis involves microorganisms and/or enzymes, whereas abiotic hydrolysis involves mechanical weathering.
This means it can break down via multiple mechanisms, with or without the presence of any microbes, but only given specific environmental circumstances, which is why it doesn't work well in aquatic environments, as previously mentioned. However, some of it does still break down there, and if it later exits that aquatic environment, other processes can begin to break down what remains.
The authors concluded that polylactic acid and its blends are similar to non-biodegradable plastics in terms of biodegradation in aquatic environment.
[They] proposed that low temperatures along with low bacterial density make the sea water unsuitable for the biodegradation of polylactic acid.
However, on the microplastics point, while they do state it degrades quickly, in terms of overall quantity of microplastics produced, it's actually lower than other common plastics.
The authors reported that polylactic acid forms almost 18 times fewer microplastics as compared to the petroleum-based plastic, polypropylene.
They do still mention that it will still likely have many negative effects on marine life, though, even given that. Surely we'll stop dumping plastics in the ocean now, for the good of the planet! Or not, because profits matter more, am I right?
From another study, it seems that soil with certain combinations of bacteria, at regular temperatures found in nature, could mineralize about 24% of PLA in 150 days, which is pretty damn good compared to how long it would take non-bioplastics to do so.
And of course, when put into dedicated composting facilities that can reach high temperatures, PLA can be composted extremely effectively. And this is just regular PLA we're talking about, not things like cPLA, which can be 100% composted within regular composting facilities within 2-4 months. (coincidentally, most biodegradable utensils are now made of cPLA)
I wouldn't doubt we start seeing even more compostable variants of filament for 3D printers specifically popping up as actual distribution and manufacturing for the material becomes more cost effective and widespread. I was able to find cPLA filament at a reasonable price just from a simple search, and there's even a biodegradable flexible filament as an alternative to TPU, made of oyster powder, which is 100% compostable (though is about 4-8X the price of regular TPU per gram as of now)
None of this discounts any of the current environmental impacts of 3D printing materials, of course, but a lot of PLA now can already be almost entirely, if not actually entirely composted in local municipal composting facilities, and there's even more compostable alternatives that exist today.
I compost my failed or no-longer-needed PLA prints, and my city even explicitly states to put it in my compost bin, as it's supported by our composting system.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Look, you see the world around you? You think it’s worth saving? We had a good run, time to burn it down
unknown1234_5@kbin.earth 19 hours ago
yes my 3d printer is the problem, not factories or corporations.
DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
The AI needs all your electricity now. Please only use the bare minimum electricity so the giant corporations can get their profits.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
also me not turning off the faucet while i brush my teeth, sorry for planet earth guys 😔
Carmakazi@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
What do you think the net pollution of Luigi’s alleged Glock and suppressor print is, all things considered?
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I’m not sure of the numbers, but it was a net positive for the public’s health even if the difference is fairly small.
pennomi@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Any 3D printed gun is carbon negative if used to take out virtually any human. People do not live sustainable lives.
AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 hours ago
This paper estimates the CO2e emissions of roughly a 1kg spool (estimates are done by length of filament, not weight, but weight would end up being about 1kg) of PLA filament at 3.10kg of CO2e.
The model used to print the alleged ghost gun is the FMDA 19.2 by "the Gatalog," which when I load it into my slicer shows an estimated 55g of filament used to print when using 15% infill, and 94g with 100% solid infill, for an estimated 0.1705-0.2914 CO2e of emissions for the printed parts. (This doesn't include any support material, depending on print positioning)
There's no easy way to determine how much of that could theoretically end up as microplastics though.
As for the metal parts, I have no clue lmao, I don't care to estimate it that much.Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
How much co2 emissions did he save if he capped a CEO tho?
MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
The fashion industry and the automotive industry are far and away the largest contributors to global microplastics. I’m not even sure if 3d printing people crack the top 100.
The majority of the 3d printed slop people see around is printed in PLA because it’s the cheapest and easiest to print typically. PLA will completely degrade in a few months in the correct conditions. At worst it will still break down after a few hundred years.
The more expensive and chemically complex filaments are a different story. The good news is that most people only print “useful” things with those more expensive materials. I have never seen anyone printing a Pikachu toothpaste poop dispenser out of carbon fiber reinforced nylon filament.
Of all the things to be worried about in terms of micro plastics 3d printing really shouldn’t bother you. There are many MANY much larger fish to fry in that department first.
Thoath@leminal.space 20 hours ago
Do you…drive a car? Rubber rubbing off from your tires onto the road is the main contribution to ocean micro plastics as your tires are filled with them suspended in the tire…
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 24 minutes ago
tbf what matters here more is microplastic production per capita rather than overall production
UsernameHere@lemy.lol 20 hours ago
Tires are the 2nd largest contributor to microplastics in the ocean. Synthetic fabric like nylon, polyester, etc. are the main contribution.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Aw man there goes my all polyester 70’s wardrobe!
Flipper@feddit.org 20 hours ago
Insert scroll of truth meme here.
Thoath@leminal.space 19 hours ago
Image
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 20 hours ago
Tires are made of rubber though.
Thoath@leminal.space 20 hours ago
Tires have suspended micro plastics in the rubber, and small particles of rubber are still under the ‘micro plastics’ umbrella as a synthetic plastic polymer, glad you have such an understanding
Skua@kbin.earth 19 hours ago
Rubber, including natural rubber, is a hydrocarbon polymer and should probably count as a plastic in any useful definition of the word for this context. Normally natural rubber is biodegradable, of course, but we vulcanise it for usage in tyres, and that makes it much less so. As such, tyres are a huge source of either microplastic pollution or, if you want to call it something else, functionally-identical microrubber pollution
umbrella@lemmy.ml 17 hours ago
what happens to be the highest?
Thoath@leminal.space 17 hours ago
UsernameHere has it right below you love
db2@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Your mom.