How do identical 3D-printed pots of different materials impact the growth of mung beans?

Urban horticulture improves human quality of life and ecosystem health by enhancing biodiversity, improving air quality, reducing urban heat, and promoting sustainable food production in cities. However, urban agriculture and indoor horticulture face several challenges, particularly in selecting suitable pots. The global gardening pots market size was valued at USD 18.33 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.7% from 2024 to 2030 [1]. Customers' reliance on single use pots generates needless environmental harm, flimsy plastic pots can leach harmful chemicals like Bisphenol A into plants, and tend to crack and splinter under rapidly changing temperatures like those common indoors.  Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in plastics and epoxy resins, and it can enter the environment through various sources, including wastewater, landfills, and industrial processes (NIH). BPA bioaccumulates in our ecosystem and gets biomagnified (Wang, Qiang et al). This occurrence, combined with a personal interest in connecting engineering with the environment, prompted an exploration to re-engineer horticultural pots to make them more environmentally friendly and see their effects on plant growth.

As a student with backgrounds in environmental science and engineering from various classes and activities, I wanted to integrate my knowledge of modern manufacturing methods and materials options. 3D printing has become one of the biggest ways customizable pots are made, a good candidate for its quick turnarounds and batch production. Modifications users make are typically done with the use of Computer Aided Design software like Fusion360 following tutorials as short as 8 minutes. Modifications can be made to the pot’s form, such as adding, removing, or resizing drainage holes to further suit a unique plant’s needs, rather than having to use a poorly adapted mass-manufactured pot. 

Another example of user-defined modifications could be attaching mount-compatible fixtures to minimize the amount of desk space or floor space used, and position the plant for better solar light intake — this is useful as space in urban agriculture is uncommon, and space with consistent solar exposure even less so. Customizability is a key factor in pot selection, yet most mass-produced pots are vacuum-formed for cost efficiency, resulting in standardized sizes and features that limit adaptability. However, standardized designs fail to accommodate spatial constraints or varying light conditions. This one-size-fits-all approach prevents efficient use of floor space and limits solutions for optimizing plant growth in indoor environments. 

In this experiment, I wanted to see the effect of pots made of different materials on the growth of mung bean seedlings. I chose PLA, Wood Infused PLA, ABS, and ASA. The control material was store bought, premade compostable paperboard pots. These pots provide an inexpensive and popular option, although uncustomizable. 

ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, printed in black) is stronger than most other filaments, with good wear resistance and good temperature resistance compared to its counterparts. ABS is also UV resistant, and can withstand temperatures up to 85 Degrees Celsius. This makes for a good candidate that experiences prolonged sunlight exposure or is even used outdoors. However, ABS releases heightened volumes of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and UltraFine Particles (UFPs), making it more hazardous to immediate and distant surroundings. This must be resolved through printing enclosures and carbon filters, but not everyone has access to such technologies. 

ASA (Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate, printed in white) has the benefits of ABS while being safer to print – both environmentally and to the users. MatterHackers, a popular 3D Printing Filament developer, has cited ASA as more environmentally friendly due to lower VOC emissions. As both filaments are likely to release VOCs when degrading as a result of UV exposure, ASA is the better option for prolonged sunlight exposure to minimize the effects of VOC exposure on humans, which include eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, and damage to organs or the nervous system. 

PLA (Polylactic acid, printed in gloss pink) is one of the most common materials used for 3D printing. The PLA is derived from high-starch plants so it takes less energy to produce relative to its petroleum-based counterparts. PLA is also biodegradable — although it will not degrade naturally, it can be composted across 90 days in temperatures of at least 60 Degrees C and humidity upwards of 90%. It decomposes into CO2, Lactic acid, and water3, 7. Unlike the acrylonitriles, PLA can warp and deform when subjected to prolonged UV exposure — Acrylonitriles would instead become more brittle. 

WPLA (Wood fiber infused polylactic acid, printed in wood brown): Wood PLA retains the same mechanical and otherwise physical characteristics as PLA, while having a different color and finish. This color has proven better for sanding, painting, and other cosmetic applications.

Mung beans (Vigna radiata) were chosen for this experiment for their high protein content, being a nutrition staple, fast growing quality and reliability. Mung beans best germinate in easily accessible temperatures — 25-30 degrees Celsius, and temperatures outside this range can inhibit or delay germination. The beans were sprouted, then transplanted into the pots to ensure consistent foundations for growth in each pot type. Mung beans grow relatively fast, so any characteristics of the pot inhibiting its growth would become apparent across the short time frame. 

Previous analysis of 3D Printed Plant pot material has been conducted suggesting that naturally formulated and derived bioplastics show similar performance to traditional pots, although with limited sample size and not having tested acrylonitrile plastics alongside naturally derived plastics and porous paperboard traditional pots. Further research was suggested with larger sample sizes of materials. 

The ANOVA test resulted in an F-statistic of 4.53 and a p-value of 3.51310-11. Since the p-value is significantly below 0.05, we can conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in plant growth across different pot materials under these experimental circumstances. The null hypothesis can be rejected. Wood PLA pots sustained the highest average growth, with a variance that increased over time. Control pots showed the most consistent results, shown by the fact that they had the lowest variance. 

The Alternate Hypothesis of this experiment is supported by the results of this experiment.. Wood PLA and PLA pots performed better and worse than the cardboard control pots respectively. The acrylonitrile pots, which released residual VOCs from the printing process into the plant’s soil, performed the worst by producing the lowest of average heights. Plants of each pot, on average, exhibited a general upwards trend in height over the 7 days. Final heights ranged from 0 cm to 3.8 cm, seen in the Wood-infused PLA pots. These pots had the highest growers, causing its average height to be far above the rest – unlike those of the acrylonitriles, which had the lowest averages. The low average heights of plants in the acrylonitrile pots is in part due to the sprouts that failed to grow past the top layer of soil, resulting in a height of 0 for those specific plants. This occurred in two of five samples grown in ASA pots. In general, the data shows that the wood infused PLA provided the healthiest growth environment, allowing for the plants to grow taller. In conclusion, the wood-infused PLA pots exhibited the best growth due to their porous structure allowing for aeration, and a lack of VOCs leaching into the soil due to the use of PLA over Acrylonitriles. 

Strengths:

There were several strengths and limitations in this experiment. The precision of the measurements' height measurements were precise due to the use of Pittsburg digital calipers. Measurements of each day were taken on the same calibration at 9 am. This reduced the effects of any measurement error, but may have resulted in inconsistencies across days. 

Controlled variables ensure reliability in comparisons. The use of a wide range of 3D printed materials with varying characteristics ensured that viability of 3D printed materials were properly assessed.

Limitations:

Only one non-3D printed material was assessed, making for reduced context in the conclusion. Other popular materials for plant pots could be assessed as benchmarks alongside the 3D Printed pots, like glazed and unglazed terracotta pots. The small sample of 5 pots per material could also reduce statistical significance. The amount of pots per material should be increased to increase statistical significance and decrease the impacts of random error. Relatively short experimental time frames could reduce significance of long term results. Experiments should be run for longer (ex. 14+ days) to increase statistical significance. 

Only few environmental conditions were tested, leading to less transferrable results. increased diversity of environmental conditions (UV exposure, temperature, humidity) should be tested. Extensions to the experiment may explore more efficient methods to produce eco-friendly 3D printed pots, under different circumstances.

3D PLA Printed pots could be used in urban agriculture, where floor space is frequently limited. The advantage of 3D Printed is that they can be used in custom vertical solutions to aid in space efficiency, like designing adaptable and varied wall mounts or editing the dimensions and shapes of pots to fit their spaces. The disadvantage of this application is that 3D printing is time consuming. Filament is repeatedly laid in single lines to produce the final structure, which is inherently an inefficient process. More research should be done on a varied number of plants. 

1. Pots Planters & More. (n.d.). Are plastic pots bad for plants? Retrieved from https://potsplantersandmore.com/blog/are-plastic-pots-bad-for-plants/?srsltid=AfmBOopUC0XshtqMZ5Z0uhYQnB1Qb8PKXwDG8kneS2D6OohMQf4XQnGg.

2. “Bisphenol A (BPA).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa. Accessed 21 Mar. 2025. 

3. Wang, Qiang et al. “Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of emerging bisphenol analogues in aquatic organisms from Taihu Lake, China.” The Science of the total environment vol. 598 (2017): 814-820. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.167

4. Grand View Research. (2024). Gardening pots market size, share & trends analysis report, 2024 - 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/gardening-pots-market.

5. Practical Prints. (2023, May 7). 3D printed plant pots [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq6en48zgVs&ab_channel=PracticalPrints.

6. AgriTechTomorrow. (2024, May 17). How can we make urban agriculture more sustainable? Retrieved from https://www.agritechtomorrow.com/article/2024/05/how-can-we-make-urban-agriculture-more-sustainable/15517.

7. Bitfab. (n.d.). 3D printed plant pots. Retrieved from https://bitfab.io/blog/3d-printed-plant-pots/.

8. Zhou, Y., et al. (2016). Volatile organic compounds emissions from 3D printing. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(21), 12148–12156. ACS Publications. Retrieved from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b04983?ref=article_openPDF.

9. Printables. (n.d.). Bentobox v2.0: Carbon filter for Bambu Lab X1C enclosure. Retrieved from https://www.printables.com/model/272525-bentobox-v20-carbon-filter-for-bambu-lab-x1c-enclo?lang=de.

10. MatterHackers. (n.d.). ABS vs ASA filament in 3D printing. Retrieved from https://www.matterhackers.com/articles/abs-vs-asa-filament-in-3d-printing?srsltid=AfmBOoo-7Pzml446jGrNYclnK1fgdmbbxQ_P-66Y-40cEDrDVzIm_8vz.

11. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (n.d.). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Retrieved from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/pollutants-and-contaminants/volatile-organic-compounds-vocs#:~:text=and%20environmental%20concerns-,Exposure%20to%20VOC%20vapors%20can%20cause%20a%20variety%20of%20health,are%20suspected%20or%20proven%20carcinogens.

12. Dey, A., Rahman, M. M., Gupta, A., Yodo, N., & Lee, C. W. (2023). A performance study on 3D-printed bioplastic pots from soybean by-products. Sustainability, 15(13), 1053. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/1053.

13. Xometry. (n.d.). What is PLA? Retrieved from https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/what-is-pla/#:~:text=PLA%20is%20an%20opaque%20plastic,the%20presence%20of%20a%20catalyst.

14. Wevolver. (n.d.). ASA vs PLA. Retrieved from https://www.wevolver.com/article/asa-vs-pla.

15. Bambu Lab Store. (n.d.). Activated carbon air filter. Retrieved from https://us.store.bambulab.com/products/activated-carbon-air-filter.

16. Green SXM. (n.d.). Composting PLA plastic. Retrieved from https://greensxm.com/composting-pla-plastic/.