ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing opens up new possibilities in customization and manufacturing, but brings
with it tremendous intellectual property vulnerabilities, including financially motivated knockoffs and intentional sabotage. Novel methods for chemical tagging and authentication address these vulnerabilities, taking
advantage of analytical advances to create fast, secure validate-anywhere options. Simply requiring that the
blueprint file contain an authorization code is not enough to prevent all types of 3D counterfeiting. The
authorization code validates the printing process, but leaves no trace of that validation (or the lack of it) on the
product that is generated. New research, described here, uses under-the-surface taggant layers, detectable using
portable chemical analyzers such as spectrometers. This under-the-skin tagging represents a substantial advance
in security. The tagging in layers also represents a considerable advance over simply mixing a taggant chemical
into a single printing medium since it makes possible a much larger number of tag options. The ability of UVcured commodity chemicals to apply and adhere to a wide range of materials and remain undetectable in the
visible spectral region is a key enabler of the technology. The near-infrared region of the electromagnetic
spectrum has been shown to be useful for distinguishing specific regions of absorption of the tagging compounds not present in the substrate. This property is what makes the selected compounds particularly effective
as covert taggants: the human eye cannot detect their presence, but the spectrometer can.
Introduction
181
182
also threatens their brand, their quality, and their market: how
can they distinguish a branded athletic shoe from a knockoff,
or a customized medical implant from a dangerous chunk of
plastic, if both are 3D printed? In the case of a so-called void
attack,6 an evildoer may intentionally alter 3D instructions so
that the resulting object contains an invisible hole and
therefore performs badly.
Brand owners currently spend millions on ensuring that
their products in the marketplace are genuine, employing
quality inspectors, secret shoppers, security teams, and forensic laboratories, many incorporating rapid, noninvasive,
nondestructive, spectroscopic, and other physicochemical analytical tools.7,8,17 These teams check distributors, monitor
suspect products at customs in cooperation with border authorities, and visit retailers to monitor their supply chain.
When knockoffs slip through, the brand owners are alerted.
This may occur because an unhappy customer returns a suspect
product, often because it failed, and the brand owners laboratories spend time and money searching for the cause of
failure or attempting to prove that the failed product is in fact a
fake. Authentication is the fastest growing segment of the
broader anticounterfeiting market because fasterand more
portableways to check on products save money, time, and
reputation. The existing anticounterfeiting effort is, however,
insufficient to meet the challenges of 3D printing, inspiring
InfraTracs 3D solutions.
Applications for additive manufacturing technologies that
may need to identify a genuine product include architecture,
construction, industrial design, automotive, aerospace, military, engineering, dental and medical industries, biotech (implantables, human tissue replacement, dose-calibrated drugs),
fashion, footwear, jewelry, eyewear, food, and spare parts.
Current Taggant-Based Methods for Anticounterfeiting
of 3D-Printed Objects
FLANK ET AL.
As for toxicity, most of the established quantum dot materials contain cadmium, lead, or arsenic. The superior
quantum dot material for fluorescence in the visible light
range is cadmium selenide, which is likely to encounter
compliance problems under Europes RoHS, Restriction of
the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Directive13; the common infraredemitting quantum dots made of lead selenide, lead sulfide, or
indium arsenide face similar restrictions. The development of
nontoxic quantum dot materials is an active area of basic
research,14 but they are not yet commercially viable.
Overall, quantum dot synthesis more closely resembles
engineering on an atomic level rather than normal chemical
synthesis. Quantum dots do not have a predefined structure or
predefined properties; their properties are derived from the
exact size and shape of each individual quantum dot in the
sample, and not all have the same physical properties or optical specifications.15 Engineering a solution to a given
problem (e.g., solubility in a particular polymer) can be a
considerable challenge in light of the fact that the process
must be able to synthesize high-quality reproducible particles.
Another anticounterfeiting method, used on electronic
parts within the U.S. Department of Defense, employs altered
segments of botanical DNA as a taggant. This has the advantage of millions of possible taggants, but the authentication requires polymerase chain reaction analysis, currently a
sophisticated and rather cumbersome process. DNA taggants
can be used in certain types of 3D printing, but of course not
in the high-heat versions.
Chemical Fingerprinting
183
Inexpensive
Sturdy,
long-lasting
Secure
Millions of possible
codes
Safe
184
FLANK ET AL.
Scan Vulnerabilities
FIG. 3. Subsurface fingerprinting can be placed in an inconspicuous nonload-bearing location for later field authentication. The covert fingerprint is chemically distinct,
but not visible to the naked eye.
FIG. 4. Many readily available plastics are easily distinguished using NIR spectroscopy. NIR, near-infrared.
efficient job of distinguishing plastics and requires no analytical expertise from the end user. This ability transfers well
to the authentication of 3D printing, in particular in light of
the fact that the repertoire of available materials is similar. An
example of plastic distinguishability is given in Figure 4.16
The astute reader will then ask how easy it is to reverse
engineer spectroscopic fingerprinting. Since the technique
185
The most effective anticounterfeiting solutions deny detection personnel access to the coding secrets employed to
FIG. 5. Even before full chemometric analysis, it is possible to use spectroscopy to discern clear chemical differences
between samples such as a, b, and c.
186
FLANK ET AL.
FIG. 6.
FIG. 7.
FIG. 8.
187
The region 16001750 nm highlights differences between the fingerprinting and the matrix materials.
Combinatoric smarts are being leveraged in the newer multiple jet printers and they are particularly amenable to this
type of anticounterfeiting protection.
Hardware
Recycling
FIG. 9. This figure zooms in on additional differences between the fingerprinting and the matrix materials. The two ABS
samples do not overlap perfectly.
188
FIG. 10.
FLANK ET AL.
Fingerprinted material can be distinguished from both of the pure matrix substances using NIR spectroscopy.
Authentication
The covert nature of the taggants makes it hard for counterfeiters to find the markings, much less copy them. Even an
expert counterfeiter with sophisticated spectrographic skills
who manages to find the taggant signature will have no way to
copy it since spectroscopy cannot be reverse engineered.
As for field authentication, the more people who can spotcheck, the stronger the protection. If the spot-check can be
spoofed, however, the security plummets. So, for example, if
the protection is a hologram or printed code that itself can be
counterfeited, spot-checking can backfire: it can become a
training ground for unscrupulous actors, who learn how to
copy the anticounterfeiting method.
So the optimal protection is something that a counterfeiter
cannot spoof, even if he knows about it. Spectroscopically
detectable chemical codes fit into this safe category.
The next requirement is for easy verification. It is most
practical to use codes that can be detected in seconds with a
handheld device, for example, a spectrometer. Other methods
may require forensic-level analysis using a laboratory instrument. Testing every object is a wildly optimistic plan;
in actual practice, only a small portion can be tested. Developments that make testing easier, faster, less expensive,
and more accessible enhance security in the real world.
Conclusion
In sum, anticounterfeiting for 3D printing is best accomplished with a solution that is as follows:
1. Campbell TA, Cass WJ. 3D printing will be a counterfeiters best friend. Scientific American, 2013.
2. Hornick JF. IP licensing in a 3D printed world. World
Trademark Review, 2015.
3. Pierce JE, Schwarz SJ. IP strategies for the rise of 3D
printing. Venable, 2015. www.venable.com/ip-strategiesfor-the-rise-of-3d-printing-0414-2015/ (accessed April 29,
2015).
4. Paulsen C. Proceedings of the Cybersecurity for Direct
Digital Manufacturing (DDM) Symposium. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR)-8041, 2015.
189
13. European Parliament. Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the
European Union, 2011.
14. Kovalenko MV, et al. Prospects of nanoscience with nanocrystals. ACS Nano 2015;9:10121057.
15. Cui J, Beyler AP, Bischof TS, Wilson MWB, Bawendi MG.
Deconstructing the photon stream from single nanocrystals:
from binning to correlation. Chem Soc Rev 2014;43:1287
1310.
16. Lotfi A. Plastic Recycling, 2009. www.lotfi.net/recycle/
plastic.html (accessed May 19, 2015).
17. Marketsandmarkets.com. Anti-counterfeiting packaging
market by technology. Marketsandmarkets.com, 2014.