A Comparative Analysis of the Climate Impact Assessment of 3D Printing Materials

3D printing, technically called additive manufacturing, has high hopes of being material-efficient toward sustainable production potential. The printing material significantly changes the total environmental effect of the process itself. This study presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparison based on three common thermoplastic filaments: Polylactic Acid (PLA), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) and Polyethene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG). The analysis covers four stages of the life cycle: raw material extraction, manufacturing, usage, and end-of-life recycling, with openLCA and using the ecoinvent 3.10 database support. Impacts were evaluated on major fronts like Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification, Eutrophication Potential, Ozone Layer Depletion, Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential, plus human toxicity using the Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) method in functional terms by applying a 125 cm³ 3D printed cube as the unit for fair comparison. PLA proves to be the least environmentally impactful material since it is derived from renewable sources, consumes less energy, and partially biodegrades. In most categories, ABS proves to be the most impactful material, as it is also derived from fossil resources and requires more energy during recycling. PETG proves to be better than ABS but does not prove to be as sustainable as PLA, particularly in climate change and acidification impacts. This finding can lead to environmental sustainability through increased consumption of PLA material in additive manufacturing, together with improved agricultural practices and recycling methods.