Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34327115›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in chemical engineering2020

A review of 3D printing techniques for environmental applications.

Mallikarjuna N Nadagouda, Megan Ginn, Vandita Rastogi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in chemical engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Mallikarjuna N NadagoudaWater Infrastructure Division, Chemical Methods and Treatments Branch, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA.
Megan GinnDepartment of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, United States.
Vandita RastogiDepartment of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, United States.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With a wide variety of techniques and compatible materials, three-dimensional (3D) printing is becoming increasingly useful in environmental applications in air, water, and energy. Through the advantages of quick production, cost-effectiveness, customizable design, the ability to produce complex geometries, and more, 3D printing has supported improvements to air quality monitors, filters, membranes, separation devices for water treatment, microbial fuel cells, solar cells, and wind turbines. It also supports sustainable manufacturing through reduced material waste, energy use, and carbon emissions. Applications of 3D printing within four environmental disciplines are described in this article: sustainable manufacturing, air quality, water and wastewater, and alternative energy sources.

Identifiers

PMID34327115
PMCPMC8318092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.