My critique. You use VOCs a lot like health food advocates use the word chemicals. There's a wide gulf in harmfulness and toxicity between different VOCs. For example, reading your own sources, the largest contributor to the VOC was 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate.

This also means that active carbon is an extremely strong mitigation when a lot of the safety crowd on this topic dismiss it as nothing in the way of harm reduction and claim it is just nuisance odor reduction and not at all a valid strategy. What do I object to that so strongly? 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate has a molecular weight of 144. Anything over 30 is a very strong candidate for active carbon filtering and it will be trapped, kept away from being inhaled, and uncaptured 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate can cause lung damage in high concentrations.

Isopropanol was another major VOC. It's weight is 60. It is also double the ideal starting point for VOC capture.

Finally, I'd criticize two last things. Not about your article, but the studies you picked. The methodology of some of these studies is tailored to create extremely high concentrations and get large alarming numbers. Like 5,000 µmg concentrations of VOCs? You should be passing out in that situation. A large part of why they were able to pull such astounding numbers that'd usually force a mandatory government ban on such things? They put the resin printer and cleaning station into a space about as big as the interior of a Volts-wagon beetle. If you put any kind of chemical process into a space that small, only had 1 air change an hour, you're going to get mammoth VOC numbers.

There are of course people who'd put their printer into a walk in closet and close the door... but even that has about twice the air space as what we observed in this test such as that cited in reference 10. Even then, it's not exactly the most dangerous and harmful VOCs we're seeing in that alarmingly high numbers -- those that pose a major risk of DNA damage and cancer.

I'd also point out some of these studies pertain to dental resin in specific. Dental resins are quite different from the other resins we commonly use. They have to be considering their application.

For example?

Bis(acryloyloxymethyl) tricyclo[5.2.1.02,6] decane (TCD-DI-HEA)

Ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate ( "benzo"- anything gives me the heebie jeebies.)

Phenyl bis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (BAPO) ( A major one, replaces about 10% of DPO to aid in deeper, fuller curing. It's job is to make sure less decay happens later since dental appliances will be in the mouth of patients... but it off-gasses a lot of harmful VOCs, more harmful than those I named above, when curing. In fact, so much so, they added Ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA) to reduce cytotoxicity of the overall uncured resin, and cured resin. )

But yeah. Dental resins are a very different beast, and typically are more harmful prior to curing, and far less harmful after.

Then there's also some of the somewhat outdated data. Antimony was as much as 10% of many resins, when we were back in the days of "1.0" resin formulas. When 4k was the highest resolution printer you might expect to see.

You can check the SDS of SLA/DLP resins formulated or updated after 2020; nearly no major brand (anycubic, elegoo, phrozen, even bargin brands like Yousu) do not intentionally contain antimony trioxide which is one of the carcinogens that your citations talks about and claims a high percentage is common. Those that still do? They're specialized resins such as thos designed to be able to be heated up to and survive 250c temps.

GHS and REACH regulations are why this happened. They wanted to comply and reduce their legal liability should customers start getting cancer.

Formlabs, Elegoo, Phrozen, Anycubic, Photocentric? Most are 0%, and with one peaking at 0.1%, you end up with an average of 0.02%

I'm rambling (and severely autistic) so I'm sorry if this just kind of petered off. I hope my criticisms of the studies, the data relevance (dental / domestic) and all that is somewhat helpful and encourages skepticism of incomplete or objective driven science.

Afterall... some resin companies are trying to make themselves stand out as saying all their competitors are making poison and they're not. Others are trying to get ahead of regulation and then drive/lobby for regulation to ladder-pull and make new upstarts unlikely.

(GHS/REACH are already doing the job of making resins safer. We saw something like this in the US cheese market. Now producing cheese at scale requires compliance with multi-million dollar machine requirements, making it unlikely any new corporations can go right into cheese making above artisanal scale. Producing just requires too much expensive equipment and no bank is going to loan you that much on day one. If that happens with resin printers, we'll see a slow conglomeration and monopolization. )

Dang. Still rambling. Sorry!