ArticleRSC applied polymers2026
Up/down frunk: comparing recycling methods for non-woven poly(ethylene terephthalate) from an electric vehicle.
Article in RSC applied 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When assessing optimal recycling routes for a specific plastic product, the object geometry and formulation complexity play a significant role. For example, poly(ethylene terephthalate), PET, depolymerization processes that work well on bottles may not apply well to other sectors. Here, we compare the technical feasibility of two recycling methods for a non-woven PET textile from an electric vehicle. We consider thermomechanical recycling through shredding and re-extruding to produce a new filament, as well as chemical recycling by glycolysis. The success of each technique and the scale up thereof is compared, along with the need for pretreatment. Thermomechanical recycling proved challenging, as the material did not feed consistently into the extruder, resulting in an inconsistent and degraded filament. Glycolysis was successful, and indeed faster than when utilizing bottle feedstocks, and could be readily scaled to 1 kg of material. Therefore, for a non-woven PET with a carbon black colorant, glycolysis performed better than mechanical processing, highlighting the need to consider object-level technical feasibility alongside sustainability when proposing recycling methods.
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.