Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38086869›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Direct ink writing of high-resolution cellulose structures.

Farnaz Rezaei, Daniel O Carlsson, Jimmy Hedin Dahlstrom, Jonas Lindh, Stefan Johansson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Farnaz RezaeiDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Uppsala University, 75105, Uppsala, Sweden. Farnaz.rezaei@angstrom.uu.se.
Daniel O CarlssonCytiva, Björkgatan 30, 753 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jimmy Hedin DahlstromCytiva, Björkgatan 30, 753 23, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jonas LindhDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Uppsala University, 75105, Uppsala, Sweden.
Stefan JohanssonDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Uppsala University, 75105, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

Sweden's Innovation Agency VINNOVA 2019-00029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D printing is envisioned to play an important role in the production of membranes for e.g., water purification and bio-separation applications due to the prospect of creating new and cleverly designed structures. Among different 3D printing techniques, direct ink writing offers the opportunity to print a wide variety of materials with high-detail resolution. There is a range of parameters that need to be optimized in order to develop robust printing techniques at that scale. In this study, cellulose acetate (CA), which is a biocompatible material, has been used as an ink. In order to examine the printability and the possibility of printing features as small as a few µm, nozzles with different diameters and inks with varying amounts and molecular weights of CA were investigated. Findings in this study indicate that, depending on the wetting on the underlaying structure, the nozzle's internal and external diameter affects the detail resolution of the printed structure. Different inks result in different widths of printed strands and generally a higher amount and higher molecular weights of CA results in higher detail resolution. However, too high amount of CA and molecular weight will increase the clogging risk in the nozzle. In this study, the internal size of the nozzle was 3 µm, and by selecting a  suitable ink, it was possible to print strands down to 1 µm size and 6 µm inter-strand distance in the air, bridging supports with limited sagging. Furthermore, wall structures consisting of 300 layers, corresponding to about 300 µm in total height, were successfully printed.

Identifiers

PMID38086869
PMCPMC10716474

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.