| Title |
Development of a Simple Mechanical Screening Method for Predicting the Feedability of a Pharmaceutical FDM 3D Printing Filament
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmaceutical Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11095-018-2432-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jehad M. Nasereddin, Nikolaus Wellner, Muqdad Alhijjaj, Peter Belton, Sheng Qi |
| Abstract |
The filament-based feeding mechanism employed by the majority of fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printers dictates that the materials must have very specific mechanical characteristics. Without a suitable mechanical profile, the filament can cause blockages in the printer. The purpose of this study was to develop a method to screen the mechanical properties of pharmaceutically-relevant, hot-melt extruded filaments to predetermine their suitability for FDM. A texture analyzer was used to simulate the forces a filament is subjected to inside the printer. The texture analyzer produced a force-distance curve referred to as the flexibility profile. Principal Component Analysis and Correlation Analysis statistical methods were then used to compare the flexibility profiles of commercial filaments to in-house made filaments. Principal component analysis showed clearly separated clustering of filaments that suffer from mechanical defects versus filaments which are suitable for printing. Correlation scores likewise showed significantly greater values with feedable filaments than their mechanically deficient counterparts. The screening method developed in this study showed, with statistical significance and reproducibility, the ability to predetermine the feedability of extruded filaments into an FDM printer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 199 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 16% |
| Unknown | 63 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 68 | 34% |
| Engineering | 23 | 12% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 76 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,413,000
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Research
#2,173
of 2,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,529
of 331,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Research
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.