ReviewPolymers2024
Evaluation of the Viability of 3D Printing in Recycling Polymers.
Review in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Variations in the Thermomechanical and Structural Properties during the Cooling of Shape-Memory R-PETG.Polymers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increased use of plastics in industrial and agricultural applications has led to high levels of pollution worldwide and is a significant challenge. To address this plastic pollution, conventional methods such as landfills and incineration are used, leading to further challenges such as the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, increasing interest has been directed to identifying alternative methods to dispose of plastic waste from agriculture. The novelty of the current research arose from the lack of critical reviews on how 3-Dimensional (3D) printing was adopted for recycling plastics, its application in the production of agricultural plastics, and its specific benefits, disadvantages, and limitations in recycling plastics. The review paper offers novel insights regarding the application of 3D printing methods including Fused Particle Fabrication (FPF), Hot Melt Extrusion (HME), and Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) to make filaments from plastics. However, the methods were adopted in local recycling setups where only small quantities of the raw materials were considered. Data was collected using a systematic review involving 39 studies. Findings showed that the application of the 3D printing methods led to the generation of agricultural plastics such as Polylactic Acid (PLA), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), which were found to have properties comparable to those of virgin plastic, suggesting the viability of 3D printing in managing plastic pollution. However, limitations were also associated with the 3D printing methods; 3D-printed plastics deteriorated rapidly under Ultraviolet (UV) light and are non-biodegradable, posing further risks of plastic pollution. However, UV stabilization helps reduce plastic deterioration, thus increasing longevity and reducing disposal. Future directions emphasize identifying methods to reduce the deterioration of 3D-printed agricultural plastics and increasing their longevity in addition to UV stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.