ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Comparative Multi-Scale Study on the Regeneration Mechanisms of a Bio-Based and a Petroleum-Based Asphalt Rejuvenator.
Article in Materials (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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Growing demand for pavement maintenance promotes reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) recycling, yet multi-scale comparative research on rejuvenators remains limited. This study compared a commercial bio-based Rejuvenator A and a petroleum-based Rejuvenator B to reveal how chemical compositions control asphalt regeneration. Following JTG 3410-2025 standards, asphalt binders underwent extended RTFOT aging (75, 112.5, and 150 min) and were externally blended with rejuvenators at 5%, 7.5%, and 10% by binder mass. A multi-scale framework combining macro tests, interfacial characterization, SARA fraction analysis, ATR-FTIR, and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations was established. Results indicated that the two rejuvenators acted via different mechanisms. Rejuvenator B contained 31.64% saturates and restored aged asphalt mainly through physical dilution and softening. This rejuvenator formed 0-80 hydrogen bonds dominated by weak C-H···O interactions, and the corresponding rejuvenated asphalt yielded a CII of 0.293. It was effective for 75 min-aged binders yet produced more oxidation products after re-aging. Conversely, Rejuvenator A, characterized by 68.10% aromatics and 20.17% resins, exhibited a 3-5° lower equilibrium contact angle, and a roughly 13% shorter relative penetration time than Rejuvenator B. Its network of 150-250 hydrogen bonds effectively disrupted asphaltene aggregates, reducing the CII to 0.180. Consequently, Rejuvenator A successfully restored 112.5 min- and 150 min-aged asphalt with significantly lower secondary oxidation. These performance differences were governed by aromatic and polar fractions rather than feedstock origins. While quantitative findings are sample-specific, the established framework provides theoretical references for engineering rejuvenator selection and high-performance regenerant design.
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.