ArticlePolymers2025
Environmental Degradation of Footbed Materials Under Different Conditions.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Different types of polymeric materials are used as footbeds in shoes. Environmental degradation behavior of polymeric footbed materials is an important parameter for understanding materials' environmental footprint. Most of the previous studies focus on geotextiles, polymeric insulation materials, and exposure behaviors that are not the same due to the nature of applications of geotextiles and insulations being completely different from the footbeds. There is a lack of studies to understand artificial weathering, the influence of physical-chemical factors, and the subsequent behavior of different types of footbeds. In this paper, we have selected three needle-punched nonwoven footbed materials and studied their environmental degradation behavior by subjecting them to artificial weathering using different exposure durations, viz. 120 h, 240 h, and 360 h. The physical-chemical properties of polymeric footbed materials were characterized by Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The selected polymeric footbed materials were made from recycled polyester (RPET), hemp, and shoddy fibers. Furthermore, the RPET footbed was tested for biodegradation in soil and compost conditions for 120 days. The footbed materials were also tested for physical and performance (tensile and abrasion resistance) properties. Hemp footbed materials undergo abiotic degradation after 120 h, but in the case of RPET, it undergoes abiotic degradation after 360 h, resulting in a fragmentation process due to synergistic effects of chemical and hydrolytic degradations. From the DSC results, RPET undergoes a slight thermal transition under abiotic degradation after 360 h, indicating that environmental abiotic factors influence degradation behavior. The tensile and abrasion resistance properties of RPET were the highest, followed by hemp and shoddy materials. The tensile strength range of the materials was between 50.74 and 851.44 N. The weight loss range after abrasion resistance was 0.016-0.014%. From the RPET biodegradation test in soil and compost conditions, the evolved CO
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.