There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Additive manufacturing (AM) alias 3D printing translates computer-aided design (CAD) virtual 3D models into physical objects. By digital slicing of CAD, 3D scan, or tomography data, AM builds objects layer by layer without the need for molds or machining. AM enables decentralized fabrication of customized objects on demand by exploiting digital information storage and retrieval via the Internet. The ongoing transition from rapid prototyping to rapid manufacturing prompts new challenges for mechanical engineers and materials scientists alike. Because polymers are by far the most utilized class of materials for AM, this Review focuses on polymer processing and the development of polymers and advanced polymer systems specifically for AM. AM techniques covered include vat photopolymerization (stereolithography), powder bed fusion (SLS), material and binder jetting (inkjet and aerosol 3D printing), sheet lamination (LOM), extrusion (FDM, 3D dispensing, 3D fiber deposition, and 3D plotting), and 3D bioprinting. The range of polymers used in AM encompasses thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers, hydrogels, functional polymers, polymer blends, composites, and biological systems. Aspects of polymer design, additives, and processing parameters as they relate to enhancing build speed and improving accuracy, functionality, surface finish, stability, mechanical properties, and porosity are addressed. Selected applications demonstrate how polymer-based AM is being exploited in lightweight engineering, architecture, food processing, optics, energy technology, dentistry, drug delivery, and personalized medicine. Unparalleled by metals and ceramics, polymer-based AM plays a key role in the emerging AM of advanced multifunctional and multimaterial systems including living biological systems as well as life-like synthetic systems.
Nanomaterials continue to bring promising advances to science and technology. In concert have come calls for increased regulatory oversight to ensure their appropriate identification and evaluation, which has led to extensive discussions about nanomaterial definitions. Numerous nanomaterial definitions have been proposed by government, industry, and standards organizations. We conducted a comprehensive comparative assessment of existing nanomaterial definitions put forward by governments to highlight their similarities and differences. We found that the size limits used in different definitions were inconsistent, as were considerations of other elements, including agglomerates and aggregates, distributional thresholds, novel properties, and solubility. Other important differences included consideration of number size distributions versus weight distributions and natural versus intentionally-manufactured materials. Overall, the definitions we compared were not in alignment, which may lead to inconsistent identification and evaluation of nanomaterials and could have adverse impacts on commerce and public perceptions of nanotechnology. We recommend a set of considerations that future discussions of nanomaterial definitions should consider for describing materials and assessing their potential for health and environmental impacts using risk-based approaches within existing assessment frameworks. Our intent is to initiate a dialogue aimed at achieving greater clarity in identifying those nanomaterials that may require additional evaluation, not to propose a formal definition.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.