The eruption of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (corona virus disease, COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, and its global spread has led to an exponentially growing number of infected patients, currently exceeding over 6.6 million and over 390,000 deaths as of the 5th of June 2020. In this pandemic situation, health systems have been put under stress, and the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) exceeded the delivery capabilities of suppliers. To address this issue, 3D printing was identified as a possible solution to quickly produce PPE items such as face shields, mask straps, masks, valves, and ear savers. Around the world, companies, universities, research institutions, and private individuals/hobbyists stepped into the void, using their 3D printers to support hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and even refugee camps by providing them with PPE. In Germany, the makervsvirus movement took up the challenge and connected thousands of end users, makers, companies, and logistic providers for the production and supply of face shields, protective masks, and ear savers. The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) also joined the makervsvirus movement and used its facilities to print headbands for face shield assemblies and ear savers. Within this paper, the challenges and lessons learned from the quick ramp up of a research laboratory to a production site for medium-sized batches of PPE, the limitations in material supply, selection criteria for suitable models, quality measures, and future prospects are reported and conclusions drawn.

Nanotechnology is closely related to the tailored manufacturing of nanomaterials for a huge variety of applications. However, such applications with newly developed materials are also a reason for concern. The DaNa^2.0 project provides information and support for these issues on the web in condensed and easy-to-understand wording. Thus, a key challenge in the field of advanced materials safety research is access to correct and reliable studies and validated results. For nanomaterials, there is currently a continuously increasing amount of publications on toxicological issues, but criteria to evaluate the quality of these studies are necessary to use them e.g., for regulatory purposes. DaNa^2.0 discusses scientific results regarding 26 nanomaterials based on actual literature that has been selected after careful evaluation following a literature criteria checklist. This checklist is publicly available, along with a selection of standardized operating protocols (SOPs) established by different projects. The spectrum of information is rounded off by further articles concerning basics or crosscutting topics in nanosafety research. This article is intended to give an overview on DaNa^2.0 activities to support reliable toxicity testing and science communication alike.