ArticleChemistryOpen2026
Tuning the Properties of 3D-Printed Electrochemical Devices by Using Different Fused Deposition Modeling Printers and Setups.
Article in ChemistryOpen, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing has emerged as an accessible and versatile approach for the fabrication of electrochemical sensors, the type of printer and manufacturing setup might affect the quality of the ultimate device. In this work, the electrochemical performance of conductive polylactic acid (PLA)-based printed sensors have been tuned by interrogating different cost classes and hardware configurations. Electrochemical behavior was investigated using cyclic voltammetry with both inner- and outer-sphere redox probes, namely potassium ferricyanide (III) and hexaammineruthenium (III) chloride, to evaluate surface accessibility and electron-transfer properties. Scanning electron microscopy and tensile tests were additionally performed to characterize electrode morphology and mechanical stability. Among the evaluated 3D printers, high-performance systems characterized by higher automation, improved motion control, and greater extrusion stability demonstrated satisfactory outcomes. In contrast, entry-level open-platform systems showed lower surface utilization and reduced electrochemical performance. The results demonstrate that all printing platforms were capable of producing sensors with electrochemical functionality, comparable mechanical properties, and well-defined architectures. However, despite negligible differences among PLA filaments, it is clear that printing time, automation, and hardware flexibility represent central factors in selecting the most suitable platform for next scaling of electrode manufacturing.
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.