ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of the rejuvenation effect of waste engine oil bottom from different recycling processes on aged asphalt.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study systematically compares the rejuvenation mechanisms and efficacy of waste engine oil bottom (WEOB) residues obtained via distillation and membrane filtration for rejuvenating aged asphalt. A series of experiments-including SARA (saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes) fractionation, dynamic shear rheometry (DSR), gel permeation chromatography (GPC), and atomic force microscopy (AFM)-were conducted to characterize the chemical composition, rheological properties, molecular weight distribution, and micromorphology of both types of WEOB and the resulting rejuvenated asphalt. The results reveal that the rejuvenation mechanism primarily relies on supplementation and dilution by low-molecular-weight components (saturates and aromatics), coupled with capability for dissolution and dispersion of asphaltene aggregates. Both types of WEOB effectively restored the penetration, softening point, and rheological properties of the aged asphalt, bringing the aged asphalt's macro-performance and microstructure closer to those of virgin asphalt. Notably, WEOB derived from membrane filtration (MWEOB) demonstrated superior rejuvenation performance compared to distillation-derived WEOB (DWEOB). However, due to the limited capacity of WEOB to dissolve and disperse aged asphaltene aggregates, the recovery of ductility in the rejuvenated asphalt remained suboptimal. These findings provide theoretical support for optimizing process selection and engineering applications of WEOB-based rejuvenating agents.
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.