Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38994065›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Ink-based additive manufacturing for electrochemical applications.

Runzhi Zhang, Tao Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. 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. Article
  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

2 authors.

Runzhi ZhangDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Tao SunDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, has drawn substantial attention in recent decades due to its efficiency and precise control in part fabrication. The limitations of conventional fabrication processes, especially regarding geometry complexity, supply chain, and environmental impact, have prompted the exploration of diverse AM technologies in electrochemistry. Especially, three ink-based AM techniques, binder jet printing (BJP), direct ink writing (DIW), and Inkjet Printing (IJP), have been extensively applied by numerous research teams to produce electrodes, catalyst scaffolds, supercapacitors, batteries, etc. BJP's versatility in utilizing a wide range of materials as powder feedstock promotes its potential for various electrode and battery applications. DIW and IJP stand out for their ability to handle multi-material manufacturing tasks and deliver high printing resolution. To capture recent advancements in this field, we present a comprehensive review of the applications of BJP, DIW, and IJP techniques in fabricating electrochemical devices and components. This review intends to provide an overview of the process-structure-property relationship in electrochemical materials and components across diverse applications manufactured using AM techniques. We delve into how the significantly improved design freedom over the structure offered by these ink-based AM techniques highlights the performance of electrochemical products. Moreover, we highlight their advantages in terms of material compatibility, geometry control, and cost-effectiveness. In specific cases, we also compare the performance of electrochemical components fabricated using AM and conventional manufacturing methods. Finally, we conclude this review article by offering some insights into the future development in this research field.

Identifiers

PMID38994065
PMCPMC11238056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.