MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409258196 · doi:10.55092/am20250007

Creating custom 3D printing material colors using optical modeling of waste plastic

2025· article· en· W4409258196 on OpenAlexaff
Kimia Aghamohammadesmaeilketabforoosh, Joshua Givans, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Manufacturing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
Keywords3D printingMaterials sciencePlastic wasteProcess engineeringEngineering drawingComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)EngineeringWaste managementComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed recycling and additive manufacturing (DRAM) offer a unique promise for obtaining a circular economy. To maintain or even enhance the value of common 3D printing feedstocks like polylactic acid (PLA) waste an approach to further incentivize prosumers to use recycled feedstocks is to provide something the market currently does not—custom filament colors. To enable prosumers to create custom colors from their own recycled 3D printing waste this article presents a new open-source software named SpecOptiBlend. Specifically, this study introduces a novel method for customizing color filaments by recycling waste 3D printing samples, thereby enhancing the capabilities of color 3D printing. Traditional 3D printing is limited by a narrow range of filament colors, and even multi-color printing heads can utilize only a limited number of colored filaments among the available options. The new approach here repurposes discarded prototypes and unused samples back into the printing cycle with desired colors, allowing for a broader spectrum of colors and gradients. This enables engineers and designers to create more intricate and functionally graded materials. To do this, waste plastics are quantified after processing for spectral reflectance, then Kubelka-Munk theory provides the initial estimate for color mixing. Three discrete optimization techniques are applied: Nelder-Mead, Limited-memory BFGS with bounds, and Sequential Least Squares Quadratic Programming. To determine the optimal method, assessment criteria include the application of root mean square (RMS) and the color difference (ΔE CIE-2000). Three case studies were conducted, and the Nelder-Mead method was found to provide an optimal balance between the precision of color differences and the RMS, essential for producing high-quality colors. This research has provided a free tool that will now enable prosumers to convert their plastic waste into specific custom colors to enable DRAM.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced ManufacturingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207