ArticlePolymers2026
Mechanical Properties of PUR and Latex Foams as Predictors for Seating or Lying Comfort.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flexible polyurethane (PUR) foams and latex rubber foams are widely used in furniture and mattress cushioning, yet conventional standardized mechanical tests only partially capture comfort-relevant behavior, particularly in layered constructions where material interactions and sequencing can alter elastic response. This study aimed to compare the mechanical (elastic) properties of selected three-layer composites of approximately 60 mm thickness (composed of conventional PUR, high-resilience PUR, low-resilience PUR, and latex foam) and to preliminarily assess whether combining foam types improves support of such setup and whether changing layer order modifies elasticity and support. Indentation hardness testing of multilayer cushions was conducted by ISO 2439:2008 Method E. Six three-layer systems (Alpha-Zeta) were assembled in two groups. Group X showed nearly identical support factors (2.6-2.7), high recovery (64.3-66.2%), low hysteresis loss (24.3-24.5%), and overlapping force-indentation (IFD) curves, indicating minimal effect of layer order and dominance of the PUR layers. Group Y exhibited higher but more sequence-dependent support (3.1-3.7), markedly reduced, wider range recovery (30.0-45.9%), increased hysteresis (33.0-34.7%), and more dispersed IFD curves. Placing high-resilience foam at the top partially improve recovery, whereas locating low-resilience foam at the surface increase energy loss. The research contributes in part to the body of knowledge about the behavior of the tested materials according to standardized rules. These preliminary results can be compared with other research findings and used in the preparation of testing models for multilayer foam composites, thereby generating new knowledge to improve the design of future experiments, which will result in increased sitting and lying comfort.
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.