ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Quantitative Wear Models for Microscale Material Removal.
Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wear in microscale material removal is difficult to predict because material loss can proceed through several distinct pathways, including plastic deformation, adhesion, atom-by-atom attrition, tribochemical reactions, oxidation-assisted removal, and fracture. Since these mechanisms operate under different contact and environmental conditions, no single wear law is reliable across all cases. This review examines the main quantitative wear models used in microscale material removal, from classical Archard-type and Reye-type relations to atomistic Arrhenius-type descriptions and models developed for adhesive, tribochemical, oxidation-related, and fracture-dominated wear. Attention is given to the assumptions behind these models, the regimes in which they remain useful, and the conditions under which their predictions begin to fail. The discussion also considers how material properties, tool characteristics, operating conditions, and environmental factors act alone and in combination to influence wear behavior and the reliability of different models. Across the literature, a consistent conclusion is that model selection is most reliable when it is based on the active wear mechanism and the evolving contact state. On this basis, practical guidelines are outlined for different classes of contacts, and current limitations are discussed, including poor treatment of regime transitions, difficulty in parameter identification, and the gap between atomistic models and engineering use. Future progress will depend on multi-regime modeling, better treatment of coupled effects, and improved in situ characterization under realistic operating conditions.
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.