Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33918609›Full record

ArticlePolymers2021

Effect of Sanding and Plasma Treatment of 3D-Printed Parts on Bonding to Wood with PVAc Adhesive.

Mirko Kariž, Daša Krapež Tomec, Sebastian Dahle, Manja Kitek Kuzman, Milan Šernek, Jure Žigon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surface Modification of Bamboo Charcoal by ONanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Plasma and Polymers: Recent Progress and Trends.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mirko KarižBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-8088-2570
Daša Krapež TomecBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-1879-3830
Sebastian DahleBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-7568-0483
Manja Kitek KuzmanBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Milan ŠernekBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-9365-6126
Jure ŽigonBiotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-8326-0988
University of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufacturing is becoming increasingly important for manufacturing end products, not just prototyping. However, the size of 3D-printed products is limited due to available printer sizes and other technological limitations. For example, making furniture from 3D-printed parts and wooden elements requires adequate adhesive joints. Since materials for 3D printing usually do not bond very well with adhesives designed for woodworking, they require special surface preparation to improve adhesion. In this study, fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D-printed parts made of polylactic acid (PLA), polylactic acid with wood flour additive (Wood-PLA), and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) polymers were bonded to wood with polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) adhesive. The surfaces of the samples were bonded as either non-treated, sanded, plasma treated, or sanded and plasma treated to evaluate the effect of each surface preparation on the bondability of the 3D-printed surfaces. Different surface preparations affected the bond shear strength in different ways. The plasma treatment significantly reduced water contact angles on all tested printing materials and increased the bond tensile shear strength of the adhesive used. The increase in bond strength was highest for the surfaces that had been both sanded and plasma treated. The highest increase was found for the ABS material (untreated 0.05 MPa; sanded and plasma treated 4.83 MPa) followed by Wood-PLA (from 0.45 MPa to 3.96 MPa) and PLA (from 0.55 MPa to 3.72 MPa). Analysis with a scanning electron microscope showed the smooth surfaces of the 3D-printed parts, which became rougher with sanding with more protruded particles, but plasma treatment partially melted the surface structures on the thermoplastic polymer surfaces.

Indexed as

3D printingABSadhesive bondingbeech woodPLAplasma treatment

Identifiers

PMID33918609
PMCPMC8069302
OpenAlexW3156564836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.