
In this work, the notion of function of bounded variation in 2-normed spaces was established (Definition 4.2), the set of functions of bounded (2,k)-variation was endowed with a norm (Theorem 4.5), and it was proved that such a set is a Banach space (Theorem 4.6). In addition, the fundamental properties of the functions of bounded (2,k)-variation in the formalism of 2-Hilbert and 2-normed spaces were studied (see Theorems 4.1, 4.3, 4.4). Also, it was shown how to endow a 2-normed space with a function of bounded (2,k)-variation from a classical Hilbert space (Proposition 4.1). A series of examples and counterexamples are presented that enrich the results obtained in this work (4.1 and 4.2).
Citation: Cure Arenas Jaffeth, Ferrer Sotelo Kandy, Ferrer Villar Osmin. Functions of bounded (2,k)-variation in 2-normed spaces[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24166-24183. doi: 10.3934/math.20241175
[1] | José Luis Díaz Palencia, Saeed ur Rahman, Antonio Naranjo Redondo . Analysis of travelling wave solutions for Eyring-Powell fluid formulated with a degenerate diffusivity and a Darcy-Forchheimer law. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 15212-15233. doi: 10.3934/math.2022834 |
[2] | Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Hajid Alsubaie, Ayman A. Aly, Ahmed Alotaibi . A novel numerical dynamics of fractional derivatives involving singular and nonsingular kernels: designing a stochastic cholera epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3484-3522. doi: 10.3934/math.2023178 |
[3] | Parveen Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Badr Saad T. Alkahtani, Sara S. Alzaid . A robust numerical study on modified Lumpy skin disease model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 22941-22985. doi: 10.3934/math.20241116 |
[4] | Noelia Bazarra, José R. Fernández, Jaime E. Muñoz-Rivera, Elena Ochoa, Ramón Quintanilla . Analytical and numerical analyses of a viscous strain gradient problem involving type Ⅱ thermoelasticity. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 16998-17024. doi: 10.3934/math.2024825 |
[5] | Rahat Zarin, Amir Khan, Pushpendra Kumar, Usa Wannasingha Humphries . Fractional-order dynamics of Chagas-HIV epidemic model with different fractional operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18897-18924. doi: 10.3934/math.20221041 |
[6] | Abdon Atangana, Seda İğret Araz . Extension of Chaplygin's existence and uniqueness method for fractal-fractional nonlinear differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5763-5793. doi: 10.3934/math.2024280 |
[7] | Manal Alqhtani, Khaled M. Saad . Numerical solutions of space-fractional diffusion equations via the exponential decay kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 6535-6549. doi: 10.3934/math.2022364 |
[8] | Muhammad Farman, Ali Akgül, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Dilshad Ahmad, Aqeel Ahmad, Sarfaraz Kamangar, C Ahamed Saleel . Epidemiological analysis of fractional order COVID-19 model with Mittag-Leffler kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 756-783. doi: 10.3934/math.2022046 |
[9] | Abdon Atangana, Ali Akgül . Analysis of a derivative with two variable orders. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7274-7293. doi: 10.3934/math.2022406 |
[10] | Khaled zennir, Djamel Ouchenane, Abdelbaki Choucha, Mohamad Biomy . Well-posedness and stability for Bresse-Timoshenko type systems with thermodiffusion effects and nonlinear damping. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2704-2721. doi: 10.3934/math.2021164 |
In this work, the notion of function of bounded variation in 2-normed spaces was established (Definition 4.2), the set of functions of bounded (2,k)-variation was endowed with a norm (Theorem 4.5), and it was proved that such a set is a Banach space (Theorem 4.6). In addition, the fundamental properties of the functions of bounded (2,k)-variation in the formalism of 2-Hilbert and 2-normed spaces were studied (see Theorems 4.1, 4.3, 4.4). Also, it was shown how to endow a 2-normed space with a function of bounded (2,k)-variation from a classical Hilbert space (Proposition 4.1). A series of examples and counterexamples are presented that enrich the results obtained in this work (4.1 and 4.2).
Additive manufacturing (AM) is driven by the primary goal of reducing both the time and steps required in the manufacturing process. This objective is achieved through the utilization of rapid prototyping technologies, which leverage 3D modelling software, such as computer-aided design (CAD), to expedite product design [1,2,3]. AM realizes the creation of products by adding successive layers of material, utilizing data derived from design software [4,5,6,7]. AM can be broadly categorized into two distinct types: single step manufacturing, which involves material fusion [7] to attain the fundamental geometry, and multistep manufacturing, which employs an adhesion principle, executed through a series of sequential processes [8]. A 3D-printed part and the layered manufacturing process are depicted in Figure 1. Selective laser sintering (SLS), stereo lithography (SLA), fused deposition modelling (FDM), laminated object manufacturing (LOM), and other AM techniques demonstrate how technology is evolving to achieve product geometry and optimize manufacturing [9]. With the least amount of material needed, AM is renowned for printing polymers, alloys, metals, and biomedical materials [10]. To combine materials for consolidated mechanical, optical, and physical properties, researchers took advantage of AM's interdisciplinary potential [11,12,13]. It has shortened lead times for crucial replacement parts and optimized supply chains [14].
AM stands as a transformative technology, significantly reducing the need for human intervention and reliance on service providers, particularly in remote areas. Its capability to enable users to 3D print machine repair parts bring forth a new era of self-sufficiency. The open-access nature of 3D printing design software fosters user adoption while concurrently saving resources. One of the most distinctive features of AM is its ability to facilitate fast mass customization, a realm in which conventional manufacturing methods often fall short [15]. Moreover, AM has effectively curbed labor and transportation costs by enabling on-demand production of products and parts. Unlike subtractive manufacturing, AM minimizes material waste by adding material only where needed, thus optimizing resource utilization [16,17].
Despite the high initial setup costs associated with 3D printing machines, AM-produced goods remain less expensive than those manufactured through traditional processes. The essentiality of AM in Industry 4.0 is evident, especially in the realm of mass customization [18]. The convergence of AM with technologies like AI, and cloud computing has given rise to the concept of digital twins, capable of addressing printing issues through monitoring, control, and real-time corrections [19].
Sustainable development, a critical global imperative, necessitates a delicate balance between social, environmental, technological, and economic facets. Extensive literature on additive manufacturing underscores the diversity in research methodologies, emphasizing the need to evaluate new sustainable technologies. Some studies compare qualitative and quantitative methods [20], while others delve into the integration of sustainability into firm strategies [21,22]. The energy-efficient nature of AM, along with its capacity to minimize material waste and inventory, positions it as a sustainable manufacturing solution [23,24,25]. Nonetheless, challenges such as hazardous powder emissions [26] and non-recyclable waste [27] persist, complicating assessments of AM's overall environmental impact [20,28].
A product's environmental impact is measured over the course of its life cycle through life cycle assessment (LCA) [29]. Goal definition, scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation are among the LCA phases [30]. Numerous studies have been conducted on LCA techniques and applications [31,32,33,34,35]. Environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness are key considerations in product design. Decision-makers can compare the cost-effectiveness of investments and business decisions with the aid of the economic life cycle assessment (LCC) [36]. LCC analysis uses goal definition, scoping, and life cycle inventory analysis to identify the most economical course of action. LCC has a wealth of theoretical and practical documentation and is being used more and more in industry and government [37,38,39,40,41].
In the context of industry-specific applications, AM has demonstrated profound implications across various sectors including construction, medical, and manufacturing. Recent studies have explored emerging additive manufacturing technologies in 3D printing of cementitious materials within the construction industry [42]. Additionally, investigations into binder jetting 3D printing and large-scale construction applications provide valuable insights into the diverse applications of AM in construction [43,44].
The use of AM, particularly 3D printing, in industrial settings opens up a plethora of opportunities for sustainable production in the context of Industry 4.0. Nonetheless, despite promising developments, incorporating environmentally friendly practices and materials into 3D printing poses challenges. There is a critical knowledge gap regarding the full scope of environmental consequences, material limitations, and overall sustainability of various 3D printing techniques. Furthermore, the translation of sustainable practices, such as the use of recyclable and biodegradable materials, from theoretical frameworks to practical applications in 3D printing has largely gone unexplored. Existing literature emphasizes the importance of conducting extensive research into the environmental impact, material properties, and practicality of sustainable 3D printing.
This research aims to fill the gaps mentioned above and contribute to the long-term evolution of additive manufacturing by achieving the following goals:
• Investigate the environmental implications of various 3D printing techniques, such as energy efficiency, material efficiency, and waste generation, to gain a thorough understanding of their sustainability profiles.
• Evaluate the properties and limitations of sustainable materials used in extrusion-based 3D printing, such as recyclable plastics, biodegradable polymers, and modified filaments, providing insights into their applicability and potential challenges.
• To understand the potential impact of 3D printing on sustainable development, investigate its role in specific domains such as renewable energy component fabrication, water and wastewater treatment, and environmental monitoring.
• Identify and analyze the limitations and challenges of using sustainable materials in 3D printing, with a focus on issues such as material translation accuracy, print quality, and structural integrity.
A thorough and comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) technique was used in this study to examine the complex interactions among innovation, sustainability, and additive manufacturing. The first stage was a laborious search that produced a large number of papers that were carefully selected based on inclusion criteria that guaranteed relevancy, with a focus on peer-reviewed sources and recent publications within the previous ten years. We have arranged the literature into major theme categories, including the foundations of additive manufacturing, sustainable materials, environmental implications, technique analysis, applications, and limits, in order to present an ordered study. Using a qualitative methodology, a comprehensive thematic analysis was conducted on the chosen literature to extract important conclusions and insights, promoting a nuanced comprehension of the condition of the field's study at the moment. The information was then carefully organized into parts that made sense and covered diverse aspects of innovation, sustainability, and additive manufacturing. Relationships between the various concepts were then identified and clarified. For every article that was chosen, a critical quality evaluation was carried out, analyzing factors including the article's relevance to the study subject, the technique used, and the reliability of the sources. To ensure the authenticity of the results, a thorough validation procedure was used, which included cross-referencing data from several sources, depending on credible journals and conference proceedings, and carefully examining and addressing any differences. Adhering to ethical guidelines, appropriate reference and recognition were upheld throughout the work, underscoring a dedication to scholarly honesty.
Despite possible gaps in the developing subject, this study attempted to include a variety of viewpoints and acknowledged its limits by concentrating only on material published up until the deadline. The positionality of the researchers was openly acknowledged, taking into account their prior knowledge in pertinent domains while scrupulously preserving neutrality throughout the thorough investigation of innovation, sustainability, and additive manufacturing. With the use of this SLR approach, significant insights and important patterns might be extracted, advancing our understanding of this dynamic and ever-evolving field of study.
FDM plastics must be recycled to extend their life cycle and enable sustainable and eco-friendly AM. Their linear molecular chain structure allows thermoplastics to soften when heated and harden when cooled, making them recyclable [42]. Thermoset plastics cure irreversibly. Reusability depends on this fundamental difference. Table 1 lists common 3D printing thermoplastics like ABS and PLA. Tensile strength and Young's modulus, which measure tensile elasticity, are crucial. ABS is ideal for high-stress tooling parts, while PLA is better for healthcare and prosthetics [43,44].
Abbreviation | Full name | Applications | References |
ABS | Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene | Industry, Health care | [45,46,47] |
PLA | Polylactic acid | Health care, Industry | [46,47] |
PC | Polycarbonate | Health care | [48] |
PET | Polyethylene terephthalate | Industry | [49] |
HIPS | High-impact polystyrene | Industry | [50] |
PHA | Polyhydroxyalkanoates | Health care, Industry | [51] |
PVA | Polyvinyl alcohol | Health care | [52] |
PCL | Polycaprolactone | General application, Health care | [53] |
Mechanical or chemical recycling can recycle thermoplastics. Mechanical recycling melts shredded plastic into 3D printer feedstock filament. While economically beneficial, each recycling cycle degrades material properties due to chain-scission reactions caused by impurities, lowering molecular weight by 46% and viscosity by 80% as examined by P. Jagadeesh et al, also an observed lower tensile strength for recycled part as compared to its virgin counterpart [54,55] this is also exemplified in Table 2 with ABS. Material properties can also contribute in varying other parameters such as natural frequencies [56]. Conversely, chemical recycling depolymerizes plastic through a chemical reaction to reproduce it [57]. The open-source Recyclebot recycles plastic waste into 3D printing filament, reducing embodied energy and environmental impact compared to standard filament manufacturing [57,58]. The melt-extrude cycle degrades physical properties. Regenerating and purifying nylon-6 waste does better at maintaining FDM filament material properties [59,60].
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
ABS, extruded | 13.0-65.0 | 1.00-2.65 | 177-320 | [61,62,63,64] |
ABS, recycled | 32 | 2.125 | 177-320 | [65] |
PLA, extruded | 30 | 2.3 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, extruded | 35.0-186 | 0.450-3.50 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, recycled | 55.79-86.91 | 1.64 | 205 | [65,66] |
Biodegradable plastics degrade naturally due to their composition. Photodegradation, thermal-oxidative degradation, and microorganism metabolization of polymer chains are enabled by the sun's UV light [67]. Degradation depends on material structure, chemical composition, and environment [68]. AM made from biodegradable materials reduces waste and avoids landfills. Composting these materials reduces landfill volumes [69].
PET, HIPS, PLA, PHA, and PVA are biodegradable polymers used in FDM. While PET is recyclable, some bacteria can biodegrade it [70]. Due to its high impact resistance, HIPS may warp when printed and be degraded by certain bacteria [71]. PLA is biodegradable and made from plant starch. Another bioplastic, PHA, is produced by microorganisms and has petroleum-like properties. Water-soluble, petroleum-based PVA is biodegradable and recyclable [72]. Table 3 lists the tensile strengths and melting temperatures of the mentioned materials.
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
PET | 45.0-90.0 | 0.107-5.20 | 120-295 | [73,74] |
HIPS | 26 | 140-295 | [75] | |
PLA | 8.00-103 | 1.97 | 220-240 | [74] |
PLA, recycled once | 51 | 0.050-13.8 | - | [75] |
PLA, recycled five times | 48.8 | 3.093 plus/minus 0.194 | - | [76] |
PHA | 15-40 | 3.491 plus/minus 0.098 | 1.0-2.0 | [76,77] |
Extrusion-based 3D printing uses thermoplastics, but recycling them requires energy and degrades their properties. Some plastics take at least 50 years to biodegrade, depending on conditions (aerobic or anaerobic). Aerobic bacteria decompose plastic into carbon dioxide and water using oxygen [78,79,80]. Respiration and fermentation can occur anaerobically [78,80].
To make greener FDM feedstock, companies are developing filaments from biodegradable plastics and biomass-based fillers (Table 4). To mimic wood, these bio composite filaments contain up to 40% biomass-based fillers like bamboo, pine, birch, or olive wood fibers [81]. This innovation could lead to more sustainable AM materials.
Material composition | Filament diameter [mm] | Extrusion temperature [℃] | Source |
PLA/lignin (5-15 wt%) | 1.78 plus/minus 0.04 | 205 | [82] |
PLA/PHA/recycled wood fibers (10-20 wt%) | 2.85 plus/minus 0.1 | 210 | [83] |
PLA/wood flour (5 wt%) | 1.75 | 210 | [81] |
PLA/cellulose fiber (0-20%) | 2.85 | 210 | [84] |
PVA/cellulose nanocrystals (2-10 wt%) | 1.7 | [85] | |
PCL/cocoa shell waste (0-50%) | 1.75 | 120 | [86] |
Extrusion-based 3D printing (3DP) materials' environmental impacts are crucial to the sustainability of this additive manufacturing (AM) process. Cellulose materials are a cost-effective and eco-sustainable alternative. Cellulose, the most abundant renewable biopolymer in plant cell walls and a structural component, has promise. Due to their tendency to decompose at high temperatures and swell in narrow-diameter nozzles, unmodified cellulose materials are not suitable for extrusion-based 3DP [87,88]. Table 5 lists feedstock cellulose-based materials. Tenhunen et al. investigated rigid cellulose acetate and flexible acetoxypropyl with acetic acid and acetone for textile applications. The branched structure of acetoxypropyl cellulose reduced adhesive properties, making it a promising material for textile customization and functionalization [89]. Henke and Treml tested spruce chips, similar to those used in particle boards, with various binders. Their 3DP process involved depositing a dry mixture of bulk and binder, then adding water as an activator for material solidification [90]. Kariz et al. used a piston to extrude two beech wood powder feedstocks with different adhesives (polyvinyl acetate and urea formaldehyde). This process took 2 hours to solidify on a heated bed at 80 ℃ and then another 2 weeks to cure, longer than conventional AM methods [91]. Rosenthal et al. also studied the liquid deposition of a paste-like suspension of ground beech sawdust and methyl cellulose, a lubricant and binding agent. Despite poor mechanical properties, the authors created an extrudable feedstock of 89% sawdust [92].
Material composition | Method of solidification | Printer used | Source |
Cellulose acetate/acetic acid (30/70) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Acetoxypropyl cellulose/acetone (80/20) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Spruce wooden chips/binding agents | Aerosolized water as an activator | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
(methyl cellulose, gypsum, sodium silicate, cement) | - | - | - |
Beech wood powder/PVAc (17.5/82.5, 20/80) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Beech wood powder/UF (15/85, 17.5/82.5) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Ground beech sawdust/ methyl cellulose (90/10) | Drying (60 ℃, 5 days) | Cartesian 3D printer | [92] |
Below is a flowchart depicting the names of the nine sustainable 3D printing techniques. Each node in the flowchart in Figure 2 represents one of these techniques, providing a quick visual reference.
Following the flowchart, a detailed Table 6 presents a comprehensive comparison of these methods based on material efficiency, energy efficiency, and waste generation. This data will help readers gain a deeper understanding of the sustainability aspects associated with each 3D printing technique.
3D printing process | Material efficiency | Energy efficiency | Waste generation | Comments | Source |
FDM | Moderate, depends on material | Energy-efficient, heats material during printing | Low | Sustainability depends on material choice. | [93] |
Wire plus arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) | Moderate, improved with recycled wire feedstock | Energy-efficient, relies on arc welding technology | Moderate | Recycled wire feedstock can enhance sustainability. | [94] |
Electron beam freeform fabrication (EBFF) | High, used in aerospace applications | Energy-efficient with electron beams | Low | Highly material-efficient, especially for aerospace applications. | [95,96] |
Stereolithography (SLA) | Low, improvements with resin recycling | Energy-efficient, uses UV light for photopolymerization | Moderate | Sustainability can be enhanced through resin recycling. | [97] |
Direct light processing (DLP) | Low, sustainability through material selection | Energy-efficient, utilizes UV light for curing | Moderate | Material choice and waste reduction are critical for sustainability. | [97] |
Selective laser sintering (SLS) and digital metal laser sintering (DMLS) | High, highly sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, laser selectively fuses metal powder | Low | Highly sustainable for metal components. | [97] |
Electron beam melting (EBM) | High, suitable for aerospace and medical applications | Energy-efficient, electron beams consume less energy | Low | Sustainable for aerospace and medical applications. | [98,99] |
Selective laser melting (SLM) | High, sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, uses laser to selectively melt metal powder | Low | Sustainable for metal parts with high material efficiency. | [100] |
Laser metal deposition (LMD) | Moderate, sustainable for repair and feature addition | Energy efficiency depends on application and power settings | Low | Suitable for repair and feature addition applications. | [101] |
Figure 3 depicts how 3D printing transforms manufacturing, changing its environmental impact throughout the product life cycle and promoting sustainability. Since additive manufacturing builds products layer by layer without cutting or reshaping, it uses fewer resources and produces less waste. Support structures are usually removed after production and reused in most 3D printing methods, causing few material losses [102]. The manufacturing process is shorter and more direct with 3D printing, reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions [102]. Technology that allows on-site production could reduce shipping-related carbon emissions. 3D printing has the potential to reduce industrial net CO2 emissions and energy use, but it must be implemented in mass production, production speed improved, and printable materials made more accessible. Considering a 'rebound effect' where efficiency increases activity is also important [102,103]. Some 3D printing methods such as laser metal deposition, are better for material reuse than others, like FDM, which uses less energy but produces emissions [104,105,106,107].
3D printing is used to make air quality monitors. Salamone et al. 3D-printed nEMoS, a nano environmental monitoring system that measures indoor air quality. Cheap and reliable, nEMoS reports CO2 concentration and other environmental parameters [108]. The customization capabilities of 3D printing have helped create casings for other air quality monitors like iAir for indoor air quality and HOPE for outdoor air quality [109,110]. Wang et al. created a small, portable wearable particulate matter monitor using 3D printing, advancing miniaturized sensors [111]. Pollutant filters and scrubbers are 3D printed. A flexible air filter with a photocatalyst by Xu et al. removes NO from the air [112]. Additionally, 3D printing has enabled unique geometry in scrubber components like the Vortecone scrubber's circular channel [113].
Advanced 3D printing technology has enabled new water and wastewater treatment methods. The customization capabilities of 3D printing could lead to cheaper membranes, a cost-effective and efficient alternative to conventional methods [114,115]. 3D printing is ideal for ceramic membrane-based treatment materials [116], but it struggles to print structures below submicron resolution and material compatibility [115,117]. 3D-printed ceramic water filters and oil-water separation meshes have been studied [118,119]. Super hydrophilic membranes and air filters can be 3D printed to improve pollutant removal [120].
3D-printed microbial fuel cells, wind turbine blades, and photovoltaic (PV) cells are being tested in renewable energy technologies. Microbial fuel cells, which generate power and oxidize organic pollutants in wastewater, benefit from 3D printed anodes that have better microbial adhesion and area [121,122]. Flexible solar cells are printed on metal foils and translucent plastics using 3D printing. This technology also creates ultra-thin microcell arrays with flexible front electrodes that perform similarly to solar cells [123]. Since their geometries can be optimized, 3D-printed photovoltaic cells have higher energy densities than flat, stationary panels [123,124]. Researchers have used 3D printing to create turbine blades that mimic plant leaves and self-heating mesh for blade de-icing [125,126]. Small, affordable residential wind turbines can be built using 3D printing, providing a sustainable power source [127,128,129].
In the pursuit of sustainable manufacturing practices, the integration of biodegradable materials within FDM 3D printing processes presents several challenges that impact both structural integrity and environmental goals.
• Achieving accurate printing with biodegradable materials necessitates meticulous parameter adjustments and printer configurations tailored to the specific characteristics of each material [130].
• The diverse melting points, moisture contents, and compositional variations inherent in biodegradable polymers complicate the standardization of printing parameters, demanding continuous calibration for optimal results.
• Factors such as extrusion temperature, printing speed, nozzle diameter, and filament quality significantly influence the printing outcome, adding complexity to the process and potentially reducing efficiency.
• The layer-by-layer construction inherent in FDM 3D printing introduces voids and inconsistencies between layers, compromising the mechanical strength and durability of printed objects.
• These voids act as stress concentration points, diminishing fracture toughness and overall structural integrity [131].
• The challenges associated with void formation stem from suboptimal extrusion parameters, inaccurate temperature settings, filament quality issues, and inadequate bed adhesion, among others.
• Despite efforts to mitigate void formation through parameter adjustments, achieving uniform mechanical properties across different biodegradable materials remains elusive due to their varied material characteristics.
• Biocomposite filaments composed of biodegradable materials exhibit increased brittleness and limited heat resistance compared to traditional non-biodegradable materials [132].
• Uneven fiber distribution within the polymer matrix exacerbates microvoid formation, further compromising material strength and longevity.
• These limitations, coupled with accelerated moisture deterioration and high production costs, pose significant challenges to the widespread adoption of biodegradable materials in FDM 3D printing applications.
• The performance gap between biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials underscores the need for ongoing research and innovation to enhance the mechanical properties and processing capabilities of sustainable printing materials.
While the integration of biodegradable materials in FDM 3D printing holds promise for advancing sustainability objectives, inherent complexities pose significant hurdles to achieving desired structural quality and functional performance. Addressing these limitations requires a multifaceted approach, including the development of standardized printing parameters, advancements in material science, and continued innovation in additive manufacturing technologies. By acknowledging and addressing these challenges, researchers and industry stakeholders can pave the way for the widespread adoption of sustainable 3D printing practices in diverse application domains.
• Explore novel materials and formulations to improve mechanical properties and reduce brittleness.
• Develop standardized printing parameters and configurations for diverse biodegradable materials to enhance printing accuracy and efficiency.
• Investigate advanced bonding techniques and infill strategies to minimize void formation and enhance structural integrity.
• Foster collaborations between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies to drive innovation and address sustainability challenges in 3D printing technologies.
The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
J. Brokman, M. Burger, G. Gilboa, Spectral total-variation processing of shapes-theory and applications, ACM T. Graphic., 43 (2024), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641845 doi: 10.1145/3641845
![]() |
[2] |
D. Bugajewska, D. Bugajewski, H. Hudzik, BVϕ-solutions of nonlinear integral equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 287 (2003), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00550-X doi: 10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00550-X
![]() |
[3] |
D. Bugajewska, D. Bugajewski, G. Lewicki, On nonlinear integral equations in the space of functions of bounded generalized ϕ-variation, J. Integral Equ. Appl., 21 (2009), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1216/JIE-2009-21-1-1 doi: 10.1216/JIE-2009-21-1-1
![]() |
[4] |
V. V. Chistyakov, On mappings of bounded variation, J. Dyn. Control Syst., 3 (1997), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02465896 doi: 10.1007/BF02465896
![]() |
[5] |
V. V. Chistyakov, On the theory of multivalued mappings of bounded variation of one real variable, Sb. Math., 189 (1998), 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1070/SM1998v189n05ABEH000321 doi: 10.1070/SM1998v189n05ABEH000321
![]() |
[6] |
V. V. Chistyakov, Metric-valued mappings of bounded variation, J. Math. Sci., 111 (2002), 3387–3429. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016054010760 doi: 10.1023/A:1016054010760
![]() |
[7] | Y. J. Cho, Theory of 2-inner product spaces, Nova Publishers, 2001. |
[8] |
C. Diminnie, S. Gähler, A. White, Strictly convex linear 2-normed spaces, Math. Nachr., 59 (1974), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19740590127 doi: 10.1002/mana.19740590127
![]() |
[9] |
C. Diminnie, S. Gähler, A. White, Remarks on strictly convex and strictly 2-convex 2-normed spaces, Math. Nachr., 88 (1979), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19790880128 doi: 10.1002/mana.19790880128
![]() |
[10] |
O. Ferrer, C. Guzmán, J. Naranjo, Strongly bounded variation functions in Krein spaces, J. Math. Comput. Sci., 36 (2025), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.22436/jmcs.036.02.08 doi: 10.22436/jmcs.036.02.08
![]() |
[11] |
S. Gähler, Lineare 2-normierte Räume, Math. Nachr., 28 (1964), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19640280102 doi: 10.1002/mana.19640280102
![]() |
[12] | C. Jordan, Sur la serie de Fourier, CR Acad. Sci. Paris, 92 (1881), 228–230. |
[13] | H. Mazaheri, R. Kazemi, Some results on 2-inner product spaces, Novi Sad J. Math., 37 (2007), 35–40. |
[14] |
Z. Lewandowska, Bounded 2-linear operators on 2-normed sets, Galsnik Mathematicki, 39 (2004), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.3336/gm.39.2.11 doi: 10.3336/gm.39.2.11
![]() |
[15] |
S. N. Lal, S. Bhattacharya, C. Sreedhar, Complex 2-normed linear spaces and extension of linear 2-functionals, Z. Anal. Anwend., 20 (2001), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.4171/ZAA/1003 doi: 10.4171/ZAA/1003
![]() |
[16] |
A. Weerasinghe, A bounded variation control problem for diffusion processes, SIAM J. Control Optim., 44 (2005), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012903436119 doi: 10.1137/S0363012903436119
![]() |
[17] |
A. G. White, 2-Banach spaces, Math. Nachr., 42 (1967), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19690420104 doi: 10.1002/mana.19690420104
![]() |
[18] |
X. Xie, Y. Liu, P. Li, J. Huang, The bounded variation capacity and Sobolev-type inequalities on Dirichlet spaces, Adv. Nonlinear Anal., 13 (2024), 20230119. https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2023-0119 doi: 10.1515/anona-2023-0119
![]() |
[19] |
M. Yazdi, E. Zarei, S. Adumene, R. Abbassi, P. Rahnamayiezekavat, Uncertainty modeling in risk assessment of digitalized process systems, Method. Chem. Process Saf., 6 (2022), 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mcps.2022.04.005 doi: 10.1016/bs.mcps.2022.04.005
![]() |
1. | Rahat Zarin, Numerical study of a nonlinear COVID-19 pandemic model by finite difference and meshless methods, 2022, 6, 26668181, 100460, 10.1016/j.padiff.2022.100460 | |
2. | Rahat Zarin, Amir Khan, Ramashis Banerjee, Qualitative analysis and numerical simulation of fractal-fractional COVID-19 epidemic model with real data from Pakistan, 2022, 1745-5030, 1, 10.1080/17455030.2022.2143932 | |
3. | Fawaz K. Alalhareth, Usama Atta, Ali Hasan Ali, Aqeel Ahmad, Mohammed H. Alharbi, Analysis of Leptospirosis transmission dynamics with environmental effects and bifurcation using fractional-order derivative, 2023, 80, 11100168, 372, 10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.063 |
Abbreviation | Full name | Applications | References |
ABS | Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene | Industry, Health care | [45,46,47] |
PLA | Polylactic acid | Health care, Industry | [46,47] |
PC | Polycarbonate | Health care | [48] |
PET | Polyethylene terephthalate | Industry | [49] |
HIPS | High-impact polystyrene | Industry | [50] |
PHA | Polyhydroxyalkanoates | Health care, Industry | [51] |
PVA | Polyvinyl alcohol | Health care | [52] |
PCL | Polycaprolactone | General application, Health care | [53] |
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
ABS, extruded | 13.0-65.0 | 1.00-2.65 | 177-320 | [61,62,63,64] |
ABS, recycled | 32 | 2.125 | 177-320 | [65] |
PLA, extruded | 30 | 2.3 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, extruded | 35.0-186 | 0.450-3.50 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, recycled | 55.79-86.91 | 1.64 | 205 | [65,66] |
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
PET | 45.0-90.0 | 0.107-5.20 | 120-295 | [73,74] |
HIPS | 26 | 140-295 | [75] | |
PLA | 8.00-103 | 1.97 | 220-240 | [74] |
PLA, recycled once | 51 | 0.050-13.8 | - | [75] |
PLA, recycled five times | 48.8 | 3.093 plus/minus 0.194 | - | [76] |
PHA | 15-40 | 3.491 plus/minus 0.098 | 1.0-2.0 | [76,77] |
Material composition | Filament diameter [mm] | Extrusion temperature [℃] | Source |
PLA/lignin (5-15 wt%) | 1.78 plus/minus 0.04 | 205 | [82] |
PLA/PHA/recycled wood fibers (10-20 wt%) | 2.85 plus/minus 0.1 | 210 | [83] |
PLA/wood flour (5 wt%) | 1.75 | 210 | [81] |
PLA/cellulose fiber (0-20%) | 2.85 | 210 | [84] |
PVA/cellulose nanocrystals (2-10 wt%) | 1.7 | [85] | |
PCL/cocoa shell waste (0-50%) | 1.75 | 120 | [86] |
Material composition | Method of solidification | Printer used | Source |
Cellulose acetate/acetic acid (30/70) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Acetoxypropyl cellulose/acetone (80/20) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Spruce wooden chips/binding agents | Aerosolized water as an activator | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
(methyl cellulose, gypsum, sodium silicate, cement) | - | - | - |
Beech wood powder/PVAc (17.5/82.5, 20/80) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Beech wood powder/UF (15/85, 17.5/82.5) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Ground beech sawdust/ methyl cellulose (90/10) | Drying (60 ℃, 5 days) | Cartesian 3D printer | [92] |
3D printing process | Material efficiency | Energy efficiency | Waste generation | Comments | Source |
FDM | Moderate, depends on material | Energy-efficient, heats material during printing | Low | Sustainability depends on material choice. | [93] |
Wire plus arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) | Moderate, improved with recycled wire feedstock | Energy-efficient, relies on arc welding technology | Moderate | Recycled wire feedstock can enhance sustainability. | [94] |
Electron beam freeform fabrication (EBFF) | High, used in aerospace applications | Energy-efficient with electron beams | Low | Highly material-efficient, especially for aerospace applications. | [95,96] |
Stereolithography (SLA) | Low, improvements with resin recycling | Energy-efficient, uses UV light for photopolymerization | Moderate | Sustainability can be enhanced through resin recycling. | [97] |
Direct light processing (DLP) | Low, sustainability through material selection | Energy-efficient, utilizes UV light for curing | Moderate | Material choice and waste reduction are critical for sustainability. | [97] |
Selective laser sintering (SLS) and digital metal laser sintering (DMLS) | High, highly sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, laser selectively fuses metal powder | Low | Highly sustainable for metal components. | [97] |
Electron beam melting (EBM) | High, suitable for aerospace and medical applications | Energy-efficient, electron beams consume less energy | Low | Sustainable for aerospace and medical applications. | [98,99] |
Selective laser melting (SLM) | High, sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, uses laser to selectively melt metal powder | Low | Sustainable for metal parts with high material efficiency. | [100] |
Laser metal deposition (LMD) | Moderate, sustainable for repair and feature addition | Energy efficiency depends on application and power settings | Low | Suitable for repair and feature addition applications. | [101] |
Abbreviation | Full name | Applications | References |
ABS | Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene | Industry, Health care | [45,46,47] |
PLA | Polylactic acid | Health care, Industry | [46,47] |
PC | Polycarbonate | Health care | [48] |
PET | Polyethylene terephthalate | Industry | [49] |
HIPS | High-impact polystyrene | Industry | [50] |
PHA | Polyhydroxyalkanoates | Health care, Industry | [51] |
PVA | Polyvinyl alcohol | Health care | [52] |
PCL | Polycaprolactone | General application, Health care | [53] |
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
ABS, extruded | 13.0-65.0 | 1.00-2.65 | 177-320 | [61,62,63,64] |
ABS, recycled | 32 | 2.125 | 177-320 | [65] |
PLA, extruded | 30 | 2.3 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, extruded | 35.0-186 | 0.450-3.50 | 205 | [65,66] |
Nylon-6, recycled | 55.79-86.91 | 1.64 | 205 | [65,66] |
Material | Yield tensile strength [MPa] | Young's modulus [GPa] | Melting temperature [℃] | Source |
PET | 45.0-90.0 | 0.107-5.20 | 120-295 | [73,74] |
HIPS | 26 | 140-295 | [75] | |
PLA | 8.00-103 | 1.97 | 220-240 | [74] |
PLA, recycled once | 51 | 0.050-13.8 | - | [75] |
PLA, recycled five times | 48.8 | 3.093 plus/minus 0.194 | - | [76] |
PHA | 15-40 | 3.491 plus/minus 0.098 | 1.0-2.0 | [76,77] |
Material composition | Filament diameter [mm] | Extrusion temperature [℃] | Source |
PLA/lignin (5-15 wt%) | 1.78 plus/minus 0.04 | 205 | [82] |
PLA/PHA/recycled wood fibers (10-20 wt%) | 2.85 plus/minus 0.1 | 210 | [83] |
PLA/wood flour (5 wt%) | 1.75 | 210 | [81] |
PLA/cellulose fiber (0-20%) | 2.85 | 210 | [84] |
PVA/cellulose nanocrystals (2-10 wt%) | 1.7 | [85] | |
PCL/cocoa shell waste (0-50%) | 1.75 | 120 | [86] |
Material composition | Method of solidification | Printer used | Source |
Cellulose acetate/acetic acid (30/70) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Acetoxypropyl cellulose/acetone (80/20) | Solvent Evaporation | 3DN-300, 20-41 psi pressure | [89] |
Spruce wooden chips/binding agents | Aerosolized water as an activator | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
(methyl cellulose, gypsum, sodium silicate, cement) | - | - | - |
Beech wood powder/PVAc (17.5/82.5, 20/80) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Beech wood powder/UF (15/85, 17.5/82.5) | Drying (80 ℃, 2 h) | Homemade Delta 3D printer | [91] |
Ground beech sawdust/ methyl cellulose (90/10) | Drying (60 ℃, 5 days) | Cartesian 3D printer | [92] |
3D printing process | Material efficiency | Energy efficiency | Waste generation | Comments | Source |
FDM | Moderate, depends on material | Energy-efficient, heats material during printing | Low | Sustainability depends on material choice. | [93] |
Wire plus arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) | Moderate, improved with recycled wire feedstock | Energy-efficient, relies on arc welding technology | Moderate | Recycled wire feedstock can enhance sustainability. | [94] |
Electron beam freeform fabrication (EBFF) | High, used in aerospace applications | Energy-efficient with electron beams | Low | Highly material-efficient, especially for aerospace applications. | [95,96] |
Stereolithography (SLA) | Low, improvements with resin recycling | Energy-efficient, uses UV light for photopolymerization | Moderate | Sustainability can be enhanced through resin recycling. | [97] |
Direct light processing (DLP) | Low, sustainability through material selection | Energy-efficient, utilizes UV light for curing | Moderate | Material choice and waste reduction are critical for sustainability. | [97] |
Selective laser sintering (SLS) and digital metal laser sintering (DMLS) | High, highly sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, laser selectively fuses metal powder | Low | Highly sustainable for metal components. | [97] |
Electron beam melting (EBM) | High, suitable for aerospace and medical applications | Energy-efficient, electron beams consume less energy | Low | Sustainable for aerospace and medical applications. | [98,99] |
Selective laser melting (SLM) | High, sustainable for metal parts | Energy-efficient, uses laser to selectively melt metal powder | Low | Sustainable for metal parts with high material efficiency. | [100] |
Laser metal deposition (LMD) | Moderate, sustainable for repair and feature addition | Energy efficiency depends on application and power settings | Low | Suitable for repair and feature addition applications. | [101] |