The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recycled polypropylene blends as novel 3D printing materials
Abstract
Abstract Consumer-grade plastics can be considered a low-cost and sustainable feedstock for fused filament fabrication (FFF) additive manufacturing processes. Such materials are excellent candidates for distributed manufacturing, in which parts are printed from local materials at the point of need. Most plastic waste streams contain a mixture of polymers, such as water bottles and caps comprised of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP), and complete separation is rarely implemented. In this work, blends of waste PET, PP and polystyrene (PS) were processed into filaments for 3D printing. The effect of blend composition and styrene ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS) compatibilizer on the resulting mechanical and thermal properties were probed. Recycled PET had the highest tensile strength at 35 ± 8 MPa. Blends of PP/PET compatibilized with SEBS and maleic anhydride functionalized SEBS had tensile strengths of 23 ± 1 MPa and 24 ± 1 MPa, respectively. The non-compatibilized PP/PS blend had a tensile strength of 22 ± 1 MPa. PP/PS blends exhibited reduced tensile strength to ca. 19 ± 1–3 MPa with the addition of SEBS. Elongation to failure was generally improved for the blended materials compared to neat recycled PET and PS. The glass transition was shifted to higher temperatures for all of the blends except the 50–50 wt. % PP/PET blend. Crystallinity was decreased for the blends, but was highest in the 75–25 wt. % PP/PS and the 50-50 wt. % PP/PET blend with SEBS-maleic anhydride. Solvent extraction of the dispersed phase revealed polypropylene was the matrix phase in both the 50–50 wt. % PP/PET and PP/PS blends.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Torres, N., Robin, J. J., & Boutevin, B. (2000) · European Polymer Journal · doi:10.1016/s0014-3057(99)00301-8 · Cited by 248
Recycled PET Nanofibers for Water Filtration Applications
Zander, N., Gillan, M., & Sweetser, D. (2016) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma9040247 · Cited by 126
Self-citationLa Mantia, F. P., Botta, L., Morreale, M., & Scaffaro, R. (2011) · Polymer Degradation and Stability · doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.10.017 · Cited by 118
Cited by
3D printing filament as a second life of waste plastics—a review
Mikula, K., Skrzypczak, D., Izydorczyk, G., Warchoł, J., Moustakas, K., Chojnacka, K., & Witek-Krowiak, A. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10657-8 · Cited by 382
Spoerk, M., Holzer, C., & Gonzalez‐Gutierrez, J. (2020) · Journal of Applied Polymer Science · doi:10.1002/app.48545 · Cited by 317
Various FDM Mechanisms Used in the Fabrication of Continuous-Fiber Reinforced Composites: A Review
Karimi, A., Rahmatabadi, D., & Baghani, M. (2024) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym16060831 · Cited by 201
Kassab, A., Al Nabhani, D., Mohanty, P., Pannier, C., & Ayoub, G. Y. (2023) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym15193881 · Cited by 141
Balu, R., Dutta, N. K., & Roy Choudhury, N. (2022) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym14224788 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Zander, N. E., Gillan, M., Burckhard, Z., & Gardea, F.
- Venue
- Additive Manufacturing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 122-130
- ISSN
- 2214-7810 (ISSN-L)
- 2214-8604
- OpenAlex
- W2900173549
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recycled polypropylene blends as novel 3D printing materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.009
- The paper
- Zander, N. E., Gillan, M., Burckhard, Z., & Gardea, F. (2019). Recycled polypropylene blends as novel 3D printing materials. Additive Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.