ArticlePolymers2025
Rheology for Wood Plastic Composite Extrusion-Part 1: Laboratory vs. On-Line Rheometry.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Wood and Wood Polymer Composites.Polymers · 2026Article
- Rheology for Wood Plastic Composite Extrusion Part 2: Process Simulation and Experimental Verification.Polymers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Common polymeric materials (neat polymers) are quite well known, and their properties are often available in appropriate material databases. However, material data, e.g., rheological data, for materials such as polymer blends, polymer composites (including wood plastic composites), and filled plastics are simply lacking in material databases. This paper addresses the problem of determining viscosity curves for one of the most widely used advanced polymeric materials: wood plastic composites. Studies were conducted in laboratory and production settings, i.e., on-line. Laboratory tests were conducted in two ways: on the basis of classical rheometric measurements, i.e., High-Pressure Capillary Rheometry (HPCR), and on the basis of Melt Flow Index (MFI) measurements, also including tests based on a limited number of measurement points. Tests in production conditions, i.e., on-line, were conducted during the extrusion process using the measurement of the process output (material flow rate) and pressure in a specialized extrusion die. The test results (viscosity curves) obtained from Melt Flow Index (MFI) measurements and on-line measurements were presented and evaluated against the background of the results (viscosity curves) obtained from classical capillary rheometry measurements (HPCR). Due to the lack of rheological data of wood plastic composites in available databases, in-house research methods based on the two-point viscosity curve determination in the plastometric (MFI) tests and the tests under production conditions, that is, on-line, have been proposed. The two-point method, based on the power law model, is quick and easy to implement, and allows for solving many polymer processing issues analytically. On-line tests have the significant advantage of being conducted under the actual flow conditions of the tested material, rather than under laboratory conditions, as is the case with rheometric and plastometric tests, which do not take into account the processing history of the tested material. The issues of rheology and modeling of wood plastic composite processing, e.g., extrusion and injection molding, which have not yet been resolved and require practical solutions, were also discussed. The results of this part of the study (viscosity curves and models) will be used in the second part of the study to evaluate the impact of rheological testing methods and rheological models on the accuracy of process modeling (extrusion).
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.