MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410198916 · doi:10.1016/j.addlet.2025.100286

Multimaterial 3D printing of structured surfaces for increased hydrophobicity of biocomposite materials

2025· article· en· W4410198916 on OpenAlexafffund
Kayah St. Germain, Damien Marchand, Laurence Chocinski‐Arnault, Hani E. Naguib, Fabienne Touchard

Bibliographic record

VenueAdditive Manufacturing Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanada Research Chairs
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversité de PoitiersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiocompositeMaterials sciencePolymer science3D printingComposite materialNanotechnologyComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Material extrusion 3D printing is an up-and-coming additive manufacturing method that is continuously being explored for its many benefits including rapid prototyping, high degree of customizability, and low material waste production, among others. One of the most widely used materials in material extrusion 3D printing is polylactic acid (PLA) due to its ease of printability and bio-origins. Recently, new biofiller reinforced PLA biocomposite filaments have begun being sold commercially, but the introduction of the biofiller creates problems of increased hydrophilicity and hygroscopicity. In this study, a possible solution to this problem was explored by using multimaterial 3D printing to add a thin, structured outer layer to the biocomposite in either pure PLA or TPU. This layer helps limit any external moisture from coming into contact with the underlying biocomposite by creating a barrier with increased hydrophobicity. A grid, triangle, and honeycomb pattern were each tested at 50%, 75%, and 100% pattern densities for each material. It was found that, along with the pattern that was printed, the filament deposition process created additional roughness that influenced the way the water droplets interacted with the surface. All the patterned surfaces displayed a higher water contact angle than when the material was printed in a flat manner. Additionally, factors that influence the feasibility of using this outer structured layer to improve the surface hydrophobicity of biocomposite parts were explored, including material compatibility and adhesion.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdditive Manufacturing LettersSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207