ArticlePolymers2026
Impact of Base Rubber and Cure Systems in Additive Manufacturing of Fully Compounded Thermoset Elastomers.
Article in Polymers, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While the effects of formulation variables of a rubber compound are well established for conventional rubber manufacturing techniques, their role in extrusion-based additive manufacturing remains underexplored. This study explores the impact of different base rubbers (NBR and EPDM) and curing agents (sulfur and peroxide) on processability and final part characteristics in material extrusion additive manufacturing applications. Under identical printing conditions, sulfur-cured NBR exhibits greater post-print shrinkage (12%) than sulfur-cured EPDM (7%). However, sulfur-cured NBR achieves a higher degree of adhesion between printed layers than sulfur-cured EPDM, as suggested by the % retention of the bulk materials' ultimate stress by the printed parts (84-100% and 51-62%, respectively). Additionally, a peroxide-cured NBR formulation was compared against the same sulfur-cured NBR formulation. Printed parts from the peroxide-cured NBR formulation showed higher shrinkage (16%) and lower % retention of the bulk materials' ultimate stress (26-33%) than the sulfur-cured NBR formulation. Additionally, the tensile behavior of all three rubber compounds was found to be strongly dependent on printing orientation, showing the anisotropic behavior typical of extrusion-based additive manufacturing. Sulfur-cured NBR showed the least anisotropy for stress at break (0.82) and strain at break (0.90), whereas peroxide-cured NBR showed the highest anisotropy in stress (0.74) and strain (0.82). The anisotropy ratios for sulfur-cured NBR and EPDM compounds were very similar for stress (0.82 vs. 0.82) and comparable for strain (0.90 vs. 0.87). Notably, the peroxide cure system provided almost twice as much available printing time as the sulfur cure system. This report on the effects of base rubber and curing agents on 3D printability and part properties provides a background to guide future efforts to design rubber compounds for 3D printing applications.
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.