Article
Version 1
Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed
Impact of the Fused Deposition (FDM) Printing Process on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Chemistry and Structure
,
,
,
,
,
*
Version 1
: Received: 31 March 2017 / Approved: 3 April 2017 / Online: 3 April 2017 (17:34:40 CEST)
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Cuiffo, M.A.; Snyder, J.; Elliott, A.M.; Romero, N.; Kannan, S.; Halada, G.P. Impact of the Fused Deposition (FDM) Printing Process on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Chemistry and Structure. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 579. Cuiffo, M.A.; Snyder, J.; Elliott, A.M.; Romero, N.; Kannan, S.; Halada, G.P. Impact of the Fused Deposition (FDM) Printing Process on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Chemistry and Structure. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 579.
Journal reference: Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 579
DOI: 10.3390/app7060579
Abstract
Polylactic Acid (PLA) is an organic polymer commonly used in fused deposition (FDM) printing and biomedical scaffolding that is biocompatible and immunologically inert. However, variations in source material quality and chemistry make it necessary to characterize the filament and determine potential changes in chemistry occurring as a result of the FDM process. We used several spectroscopic techniques, including laser confocal microscopy, Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and photoacousitc FTIR spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) in order to characterize both the bulk and surface chemistry of the source material and printed samples. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) were used to characterize morphology, crystallinity, and the glass transition temperature following printing. Analysis revealed calcium carbonate-based additives which were reacted with organic ligands and potentially trace metal impurities, both before and following printing. These additives became concentrated in voids in the printed structure. This finding is important for biomedical applications as carbonate will impact subsequent cell growth on printed tissue scaffolds. Results of chemical analysis also provided evidence of the hygroscopic nature of the source material and oxidation of the printed surface, and SEM imaging revealed micro and sub-micron scale roughness that will also impact potential applications.
Keywords
PLA; fused deposition modeling (FDM); surface characterization; vibrational spectroscopy; laser confocal microscopy; X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
Subject
MATERIALS SCIENCE, Polymers & Plastics
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments (1)
We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.
Leave a public commentSend a private comment to the author(s)
Commenter:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
While this work is very useful and well-written, I have a few questions/suggestions for improvement for the final version of the paper.
1. Overall: PLA is extremely sensitive to humidity and processing temperature. I have had entire new rolls of PLA in my lab scrapped due to long exposure to humidity above 60%. Could you add a brief discussion of this and talk about some of the processing implications of the humidity? 3-4 sentences will suffice. And please include your processing conditions (temperature and humidity, if available) for the samples you made in this study.
2. Introduction (optional but nice): Could you provide a figure demonstrating the FDM process? Not every reader understands the mechanics of the process and if you have space, it would be nice to include.
3. Introduction: Can you provide a reference for the glass transition and melting temperatures? Does Reference (6) cover this? If so, please make it more clear. Makerbot filament usually contains additives that give it slightly different properties (higher melting temperature and higher brittleness from my experience) than PLA filament from Makergeeks or Hatchbox or other sources. Did you use Makerbot-brand filament or another brand? This is relevant to understanding your results.
4. Materials and Methods: In your description of the processing parameters (resolution, speed, etc), could you provide a few sentences explaining your choice of parameters? The nozzle diameter is also a very relevant bit of information. In my experience with both PLA and Makerbots, Makerbots usually do not do well with PLA with a nozzle diameter less than 0.5mm. Also, can you give your filament retraction distance?
5. Figure 4 (pg 10): The defects in the surface likely were caused by extrusion problems and temperature instability that I have observed affects Makerbot printers more than other varieties. Using a large nozzle (+0.5), slowing print speed, and using tool steel nozzles (as opposed to brass ones) seems to help with this. Replacing the nozzles every 100 hours or so helps as well (I always use a new set of nozzles for each batch of experimental samples for my studies). A brief discussion of this would be great. You can talk about it here or in the discussion section.
Once again, congratulations on an excellent study. Please email me when it is published, as I want to add this paper to my catalog of references. Feel free to contact me with any questions.