Clean Technologies and Recycling, 4(1): 1–21.

DOI: 10.3934/ctr.2024001
Received: 06 December 2023
Revised: 04 March 2024
Accepted: 13 March 2024
Published: 02 April 2024
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/ctr

Review

Sustainability and innovation in 3D printing: Outlook and trends

Muhammad Ali Saqib1,*, Muhammad Sohail Abbas1 and Hiroyuki Tanaka2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, 54890 Lahore, Pakistan
2
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, 9211 116 Street,
Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada

* Correspondence: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +923371426343.

Abstract: The convergence of additive manufacturing (AM), sustainability, and innovation holds
significant importance within the framework of Industry 4.0. This article examines the environmentally
friendly and sustainable aspects of AM, more commonly referred to as 3D printing, a cutting-edge
technology. It describes the fundamentals of AM in addition to its diverse materials, processes, and
applications. This paper demonstrates how several 3D printing techniques can revolutionize
sustainable production by examining their environmental impacts. The properties, applications, and
challenges of sustainable materials, such as biodegradable polymers and recyclable plastics, are
thoroughly examined. Additionally, the research explores the implications of 3D printing in domains
including renewable energy component fabrication, water and wastewater treatment, and
environmental monitoring. In addition, potential pitfalls and challenges associated with sustainable 3D
printing are examined, underscoring the criticality of continuous research and advancement in this
domain. To effectively align sustainability goals with functional performance requirements, it is
imperative to address complexities within fused deposition modeling (FDM) printing processes,
including suboptimal bonding and uneven fiber distribution, which can compromise the structural
integrity and durability of biodegradable materials. Ongoing research and innovation are essential to
overcome these challenges and enhance the viability of biodegradable FDM 3D printing materials for
broader applications.

Keywords: additive manufacturing; 3D printing; Industry 4.0; sustainability; environmental

implications; sustainable materials; alternative energy sources
 2

1. Introduction

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 [1–3]. AM realizes the creation of products by adding successive layers of
material, utilizing data derived from design software [4–7]. 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 [11–13]. It has shortened lead times for
crucial replacement parts and optimized supply chains [14].

Figure 1. Layered manufacturing of a 3D-printed component.

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

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 3

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 [23–25]. 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 [31–35]. 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 [37–41].
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].

2. Problem statement and objectives

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

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 4

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.

3. Research methodology

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.

4. Discussion on findings

4.1. Material choice analysis

4.1.1. Recyclable plastics for extrusion-based 3DP

FDM plastics must be recycled to extend their life cycle and enable sustainable and eco-friendly

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 5

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].

Table 1. Common 3D printing thermoplastics and their applications.

Abbreviation Full name Applications References
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene Industry, Health care [45–47]
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].

Table 2. Material properties of extruded and recycled plastics (ABS, PLA, Nylon-6).
Material Yield tensile strength [MPa] Young's modulus [GPa] Melting temperature [°C] Source
ABS, extruded 13.0–65.0 1.00–2.65 177–320 [61–64]
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]

4.1.2. Biodegradable plastics for extrusion-based 3DP

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].
Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.
 6

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.

Table 3. Material properties of biodegradable polymers (PET, HIPS, PLA, PHA, PVA) for FDM.
Material Yield tensile strength Young's modulus [GPa] Melting temperature Source
[MPa] [°C]
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 48.8 3.093 plus/minus 0.194 - [76]
times
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 [78–80]. Respiration and fermentation can occur anaerobically [78,80].

4.1.3. Modified plastic filaments

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.

Table 4. Biodegradable and biomass-based filament compositions for greener FDM feedstock.
Material composition Filament diameter [mm] Extrusion temperature [°C] Source
PLA/lignin (5–15 wt%) 1.78 plus/minus 0.04 205 [82]
PLA/PHA/recycled wood fibers (10–20 2.85 plus/minus 0.1 210 [83]
wt%)
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]

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 7

4.1.4. Cellulose materials for extrusion-based 3DP

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 °C 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].

Table 5. Cellulose-based feedstock materials and solidification methods for 3DP applications.
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 Solvent Evaporation 3DN-300, 20–41 psi pressure [89]
(80/20)
Spruce wooden chips/binding agents Aerosolized water as an Homemade Delta 3D printer [91]
activator
(methyl cellulose, gypsum, sodium - - -
silicate, cement)
Beech wood powder/PVAc (17.5/82.5, Drying (80 °C, 2 h) Homemade Delta 3D printer [91]
20/80)
Beech wood powder/UF (15/85, Drying (80 °C, 2 h) Homemade Delta 3D printer [91]
17.5/82.5)
Ground beech sawdust/ methyl Drying (60 °C, 5 days) Cartesian 3D printer [92]
cellulose (90/10)

4.2. Material choice analysis

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.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 8

Figure 2. Common sustainable additive manufacturing techniques.

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.

Table 6. Comprehensive comparison of material efficiency, energy efficiency, and waste

generation for 3D printing techniques.
3D printing process Material efficiency Energy efficiency Waste Comments Source
generation
FDM Moderate, depends Energy-efficient, heats Low Sustainability [93]
on material material during depends on material
printing choice.
Wire plus arc Moderate, Energy-efficient, relies Moderate Recycled wire [94]
additive improved with on arc welding feedstock can
manufacturing recycled wire technology enhance
(WAAM) feedstock sustainability.
Electron beam High, used in Energy-efficient with Low Highly material- [95,96]
freeform fabrication aerospace electron beams efficient, especially
(EBFF) applications for aerospace
applications.
Stereolithography Low, improvements Energy-efficient, uses Moderate Sustainability can [97]
(SLA) with resin recycling UV light for be enhanced
photopolymerization through resin
recycling.
Direct light Low, sustainability Energy-efficient, Moderate Material choice and [97]
processing (DLP) through material utilizes UV light for waste reduction are
selection curing critical for
sustainability.
Continued on next page

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 9

3D printing process Material efficiency Energy efficiency Waste Comments Source

generation
Selective laser High, highly Energy-efficient, laser Low Highly sustainable [97]
sintering (SLS) and sustainable for selectively fuses metal for metal
digital metal laser metal parts powder components.
sintering (DMLS)
Electron beam High, suitable for Energy-efficient, Low Sustainable for [98,99]
melting (EBM) aerospace and electron beams aerospace and
medical consume less energy medical
applications applications.
Selective laser High, sustainable Energy-efficient, uses Low Sustainable for [100]
melting (SLM) for metal parts laser to selectively metal parts with
melt metal powder high material
efficiency.
Laser metal Moderate, Energy efficiency Low Suitable for repair [101]
deposition (LMD) sustainable for depends on application and feature addition
repair and feature and power settings applications.
addition

4.3. Applications

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 [104–107].

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 10

Figure 3. 3D printing applications for sustainable environment.

4.3.1. Air quality monitoring

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].

4.3.2. Water and wastewater treatment

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].

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 11

4.3.3. Alternative energy sources

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 [127–129].

5. Limitations

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.

5.1. Fused filament fabrication parameter adjustments for sustainable 3D printing

• 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.

5.2. Void formation and mechanical weakness

• 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.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 12

5.3. Brittleness and limited performance of biodegradable materials

• 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.

6. Conclusions

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.

7. Future recommendations:

• 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.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this
article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 13

References

1. Ul Haq MI, Khuroo S, Raina A, et al. (2020) 3D printing for development of medical equipment
amidst coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—review and advancements. Res Biomed Eng 38:
305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42600-020-00098-0
2. Aziz R, Ul Haq MI, Raina A (2020) Effect of surface texturing on friction behaviour of 3D printed
polylactic acid (PLA). Polym Test 85: 106434.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106434
3. Chadha A, Ul Haq MI, Raina A, et al. (2019) Effect of fused deposition modelling process
parameters on mechanical properties of 3D printed parts. World J Eng 6: 550–559.
https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-09-2018-0329
4. Naveed N (2020) Investigate the effects of process parameters on material properties and
microstructural changes of 3D-printed specimens using fused deposition modelling (FDM). Mater
Technol 36: 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10667857.2020.1758475
5. Naveed N (2021) Investigating the Material Properties and Microstructural Changes of Fused
Filament Fabricated PLA and Tough-PLA Parts. Polym 13: 1487.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13091487
6. Ashrafi N, Duarte JP, Nazarian S, et al. (2018) Evaluating the relationship between deposition and
layer quality in large-scale additive manufacturing of concrete. Virtual Phys Prototyping 14: 135–
140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1532800
7. Kumar MB, Sathiya P (2021) Methods and materials for additive manufacturing: A critical review
on advancements and challenges. Thin-Walled Struct 159: 107228.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263823120311009
8. Rouf S, Raina A, Ul Haq MI, et al. (2022) 3D printed parts and mechanical properties: influencing
parameters, sustainability aspects, global market scenario, challenges and applications. Adv Ind
Eng Polym 5: 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2022.02.001
9. Ul Haq MI, Raina A, Ghazali MJ, et al. (2021) Potential of 3D printing technologies in developing
applications of polymeric nanocomposites, In: Jena H, Katiyar JK, Patnaik A, Tribology of
Polymer and Polymer Composites for Industry 4.0, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-
3903-6_10
10. Clarissa WHY, Chia CH, Zakaria S, et al. (2022) Recent advancement in 3-D printing:
nanocomposites with added functionality. Prog Addit Manuf 7: 325–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00232-z
11. Birosz MT, Andó M, Jeganmohan S (2021) Finite element method modeling of additive
manufactured compressor wheel. J Inst Eng (India): Ser D 102: 79–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-021-00251-8
12. Andó M, Birosz M, Jeganmohan S (2021) Surface bonding of additive manufactured parts from
multi-colored PLA materials. Measurement 169: 108583.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108583
13. Saini JS, Dowling L, Kennedy J, et al. (2020) Investigations of the mechanical properties on
different print orientations in SLA 3D printed resin. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C 234: 2279–2293.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406220904106

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 14

14. Węgrzyn N (2022) The use of additive manufacturing for production of commercial airplane
power plants components: A review. Saf Def 8: 2. Available from: https://sd-
magazine.eu/index.php/sd/article/view/185.
15. Wohlers T, Gornet T, Mostow N, et al. (2016) History of additive manufacturing. Wohlers Rep
2016–2022, 1–38. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4474824.
16. Bourell DL (2016) Perspectives on additive manufacturing. Annu Rev Mater Res 46: 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070115-031606
17. Chiarini A, Belvedere V, Grando A (2020) Industry 4.0 strategies and technological developments.
an exploratory research from Italian manufacturing companies. Prod Plann Control 31: 1385–
1398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1710304
18. Wu P, Wang J, Wang XY (2016) A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction
industry. Autom Constr 68: 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005
19. Ryan MJ, Eyers DR, Potter AT, et al. (2017) 3D printing the future: scenarios for supply chains
reviewed. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manage 47: 992–1014. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-
2016-0359
20. Marchi B, Zanoni S (2017) Supply chain management for improved energy efficiency: Review
and opportunities. Energies 10: 1618. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101618
21. Ford S, Despeisse M (2016) Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of
the advantages and challenges. J Cleaner Prod 137: 1573–1587. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616304395.
22. Mehrpouya M, Dehghanghadikolaei A, Fotovvati B, et al. (2019) The potential of additive
manufacturing in the smart factory industrial 4.0: A review. Appl Sci 9: 3865.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183865
23. Majeed A, Zhang YF, Ren S, et al. (2021) A big data-driven framework for sustainable and smart
additive manufacturing. Rob Comput Integr Manuf 67: 102026.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2020.102026
24. May G, Psarommatis F (2023) Maximizing energy efficiency in additive manufacturing: A review
and framework for future research. Energies 16: 4179. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104179
25. Hegab H, Khanna N, Monib N, et al. (2023) Design for sustainable additive manufacturing: A
review. Sustainable Mater Technol 35: e00576. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993723000118.
26. Ingarao G, Priarone PC, Deng YL, et al. (2018) Environmental modelling of aluminium based
components manufacturing routes: additive manufacturing versus machining versus forming. J
Cleaner Prod 176: 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.115
27. Kishawy HA, Hegab H, Saad E (2018) Design for sustainable manufacturing: approach,
implementation, and assessment. Sustainability 10: 3604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103604
28. Giudice F, Barbagallo R, Fargione G (2021) A design for additive manufacturing approach based
on process energy efficiency: electron beam melted components. J Cleaner Prod 290: 125185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125185
29. DeBoer B, Nguyen N, Diba F, et al. (2021) Additive, subtractive, and formative manufacturing of
metal components: a life cycle assessment comparison. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 115: 413–432.
Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-021-07173-5.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 15

30. Yoris-Nobile AI, Lizasoain-Arteagab E, Slebi-Acevedo CJ, et al. (2022) Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis to determine the performance of 3D
printed cement mortars and geopolymers. J Sustainable Cem-Based Mater 12: 609–626.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2022.2099479
31. Jayawardane H, Davies IJ, Leadbeater G, et al. (2021) ‘Techno-eco-efficiency’ performance of
3D printed impellers: an application of life cycle assessment. Int J Sustainable Manuf 5: 44–80.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSM.2021.116871
32. Kreiger M, Pearce JM (2013) Environmental life cycle analysis of distributed three-dimensional
printing and conventional manufacturing of polymer products. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 1:
1511–1519. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/sc400093k.
33. Gopal M, Lemu HG (2023) Sustainable additive manufacturing and environmental implications:
Literature review. Sustainability 15: 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010504
34. Peng T, Kellens K, Tang RZ, et al. (2018) Sustainability of additive manufacturing: An overview
on its energy demand and environmental impact. Addit Manuf 21: 694–704. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214860417302646.
35. Mecheter A, Tarlochan F, Kucukvar M (2023) A review of conventional versus additive
manufacturing for metals: life-cycle environmental and economic analysis. Sustainability 15:
12299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612299
36. Tinoco MP, Mendonça ÉM, Fernandez LIC, et al. (2022) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and
environmental sustainability of cementitious materials for 3D concrete printing: A systematic
literature review. J Build Eng 52: 104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104456
37. Shuaib M, Haleem A, Kumar S, et al. (2021) Impact of 3D printing on the environment: A
literature-based study. Sustainable Oper Comput 2: 57–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.04.001
38. Kokare S, Oliveira JP, Godina R (2023) Life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing
processes: A review. J Manuf Syst 68: 536–559. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027861252300081X.
39. Mehrpouya M, Vosooghnia A, Dehghanghadikolaei A, et al. (2021) The benefits of additive
manufacturing for sustainable design and production. Sustainable Manuf 29–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818115-7.00009-2
40. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, et al. (2021) Role of additive manufacturing applications towards
environmental sustainability. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res 4: 312–322. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254250482100049X.
41. Woodward DG (1997) Life cycle costing—theory, information acquisition and application. Int J
Proj Manage 15: 335–344. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786396000890.
42. Camacho DD, Clayton P, O'Brien WJ, et al. (2018) Applications of additive manufacturing in the
construction industry—A forward-looking review. Autom Constr 89: 110–119. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580517307847.
43. Sepasgozar SME, Shi A, Yang LM, et al. (2020) Additive manufacturing applications for industry
4.0: A systematic critical review. Buildings 10: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120231
44. Paolini A, Kollmannsberger S, Rank E (2019) Additive manufacturing in construction: A review
on processes, applications, and digital planning methods. Addit Manuf 30: 100894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 16

45. Valino AD, Dizon JRC, Espera Jr AH, et al. (2019) Advances in 3D printing of thermoplastic
polymer composites and nanocomposites. Prog Polym Sci 98: 101162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.101162
46. Lee JY, An J, Chua CK (2017) Fundamentals and applications of 3D printing for novel materials.
Appl Mater Today 7: 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2017.02.004
47. Prabhakar MM, Saravanan AK, Lenin AH, et al. (2021) A short review on 3D printing methods,
process parameters and materials. Mater Today: Proc 45: 6108–6114. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785320378317.
48. Picard M, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2020) Recent advances in additive manufacturing of
engineering thermoplastics: challenges and opportunities. RSC Adv 10: 36058–36089. Available
from: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra04857g.
49. Blok LG, Longana ML, Yu H, et al. (2018) An investigation into 3D printing of fibre reinforced
thermoplastic composites. Addit Manuf 22: 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.039
50. Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Berto F (2019) 3D Printing of polymer composites: A short review.
Mater Des Process Commun 2: e97. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.97
51. Fred Fischer, Stratasys, Inc. Thermoplastics: the best choice for 3D printing. WHITE PAPER.
Available from: https://www.smg3d.co.uk/files/ssys-wp-thermoplastics-09-11_ashx.pdf.
52. Ramya A, Vanapalli SI (2016) 3D printing technologies in various applications. Int J Mech Eng
Technol 7: 396–409. Available from: https://www.robolab.in/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/IJMET_07_03_036.pdf.
53. Martinez DW, Espino MT, Cascolan HM, et al. (2022) A comprehensive review on the application
of 3D printing in the aerospace industry. Key Eng Mater 913: 27–34. https://doi.org/10.4028/p-
94a9zb
54. Jagadeesh P, Rangappa SM, Siengchin S, et al. (2022) Sustainable recycling technologies for
thermoplastic polymers and their composites: A review of the state of the art. Polym Compos 43:
5831–5862. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.27000
55. Sethi B (2016) Methods of recycling. Recycl Polym: Methods, Charact Appl, 55–114.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527689002.ch3
56. Dogu O, Pelucchi M, Vijver RV, et al. (2021) The chemistry of chemical recycling of solid plastic
waste via pyrolysis and gasification: state-of-the-art, challenges, and future directions. Prog
Energy Combust 84: 100901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100901
57. Jubinville D, Esmizadeh E, Saikrishnan S, et al. (2020) A comprehensive review of global
production and recycling methods of polyolefin (PO) based products and their post-recycling
applications. Sustainable Mater Technol 25: e00188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2020.e00188
58. Zhang F, Zhao YT, Wang DD, et al. (2021) Current technologies for plastic waste treatment: A
review. J Cleaner Prod 282: 124523. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620345674.
59. Markandeya N, Joshi AN, Chavan NN, et al. (2023) Plastic recycling: challenges, opportunities,
and future aspects. Adv Mater Recycled Waste, 317–356. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323856041000147.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 17

60. Kumar M, Bolan S, Padhye LP, et al. (2023) Retrieving back plastic wastes for conversion to
value added petrochemicals: Opportunities, challenges and outlooks. Appl Energy 345: 121307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121307
61. Kazemi M, Kabir SF, Fini EH (2021) State of the art in recycling waste thermoplastics and
thermosets and their applications in construction. Resour Conserv Recycl 174: 105776.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105776
62. Cheng FM, Li HD, Jiang W, et al. (2006) Properties of compatibilized nylon 6/ABS polymer
blends. J Macromol Sci, Part B: Phys 45: 557–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222340600770095
63. Lay M, Thajudin NLN, Hamid ZAA, et al. (2019) Comparison of physical and mechanical
properties of PLA, ABS and nylon 6 fabricated using fused deposition modeling and injection
molding. Composites Part B 176: 107341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107341
64. Al-Mazrouei N, Al-Marzouqi AH, Ahmed W (2022) Characterization and sustainability potential
of recycling 3D-printed nylon composite wastes. Sustainability 14: 10458.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710458
65. Kuram E, Ozcelik B, Yilmaz F (2015) The effects of recycling process on thermal, chemical,
rheological, and mechanical properties of PC/ABS binary and PA6/PC/ABS ternary blends. J
Elastomers Plast 48: 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095244315576239
66. Farina I, Singh N, Colangelo F, et al. (2019) High-performance nylon-6 sustainable filaments for
additive manufacturing. Materials 12: 3955. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12233955
67. Gomes TE, Cadete MS, Dias-de-Oliveira J, et al. (2022) Controlling the properties of parts 3D
printed from recycled thermoplastics: A review of current practices. Polym Degrad Stab 196:
109850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109850
68. Andrady AL, Barnes PW, Bornman JF, et al. (2022) Oxidation and fragmentation of plastics in a
changing environment; from UV-radiation to biological degradation. Sci Total Environ 851:
158022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158022
69. Dilkes-Hoffman LS, Pratt S, Lant PA, et al. (2019) The role of biodegradable plastic in solving
plastic solid waste accumulation. Plast Energy, 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
813140-4.00019-4
70. Cano-Vicent A, Tambuwala MM, Hassan SS, et al. (2021) Fused deposition modelling: current
status, methodology, applications and future prospects. Addit Manuf 47: 102378. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214860421005327.
71. Gregory DA, Fricker ATR, Mitrev P, et al. (2023) Additive manufacturing of
polyhydroxyalkanoate-based blends using fused deposition modelling for the development of
biomedical devices. J Funct Biomater 14: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14010040
72. Vaes D, Puyvelde PV (2021) Semi-crystalline feedstock for filament-based 3D printing of
polymers. Prog Polym Sci 118: 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2021.101411
73. Bakır AA, Atik R, Özerinç S (2021) Mechanical properties of thermoplastic parts produced by
fused deposition modeling: A review. Rapid Prototyping J 27: 537–561.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2020-0061
74. Fico D, Rizzo D, Casciaro R, et al. (2022) A review of polymer-based materials for fused filament
fabrication (FFF): Focus on sustainability and recycled materials. Polymers 14: 465.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030465

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 18

75. Squires AD, Lewis RA (2018) Feasibility and characterization of common and exotic filaments
for use in 3D printed terahertz devices. J Infrared Millimeter Terahertz Waves 39: 614–635.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10762-018-0498-y
76. Atakok G, Kam M, Koc HB (2022) A review of mechanical and thermal properties of products
printed with recycled filaments for use in 3D printers. Surf Rev Lett 29: 2230002.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218625X22300027
77. Gilding DK, Reed AM (1979) Biodegradable polymers for use in surgery—poly (ethylene oxide)
poly (ethylene terephthalate) (PEO/PET) copolymers: 1. Polymer 20: 1454–1458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-3861(79)90008-9
78. Alshehrei F (2017) Biodegradation of synthetic and natural plastic by microorganisms. J Appl
Environ Microbiol 5: 8–19. Available from: https://pubs.sciepub.com/jaem/5/1/2/.
79. Sharma M, Sharma P, Sharma A, et al. (2015) Microbial degradation of plastic-A brief review.
CIBTech J Microbiol 4: 85–89. Available from: https://www.cibtech.org/J-
Microbiology/PUBLICATIONS/2015/Vol-4-No-1/13-CJM-MARCH-013-SUBHASH-
MICROBIAL.pdf.
80. Zeenat, Elahi A, Bukhari DA, et al. (2021) Plastics degradation by microbes: a sustainable
approach. J King Saud Univ Sci 33: 101538. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1018364721001993.
81. Bhagia S, Bornani K, Agrawal R, et al. (2021) Critical review of FDM 3D printing of PLA
biocomposites filled with biomass resources, characterization, biodegradability, upcycling and
opportunities for biorefineries. Appl Mater Today 24: 101078.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2021.101078
82. Hassan M, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2024) 3D printing in upcycling plastic and biomass waste to
sustainable polymer blends and composites: A review. Mater Des 237: 112558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112558
83. Anwajler B, Zdybel E, Tomaszewska-Ciosk E (2023) Innovative polymer composites with natural
fillers produced by additive manufacturing (3D Printing)—A literature review. Polymers 15: 3534.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15173534
84. Rett JP, Traore YL, Ho EA (2021) Sustainable materials for fused deposition modeling 3D printing
applications. Adv Eng Mater 23: 2001472. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202001472
85. Ji AQ (2023) Utilization of biomass and industrial waste on 3D printing. Available from:
https://experts.esf.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01SUNY_ESF&filePid=13682174800048
26&download=true.
86. Zhao HY, Jia Y, Chen GX, et al. (2023) Research status and progress of biomass-based 3D printing
materials. Innovative Technol Print Packag 991: 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-
9024-3_79
87. Zander NE, Park JH, Boelter ZR, et al. (2019) Recycled cellulose polypropylene composite
feedstocks for material extrusion additive manufacturing. ACS Omega 4: 13879–13888.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b01564
88. Kuhnt T, Camarero-Espinosa S (2021) Additive manufacturing of nanocellulose based scaffolds
for tissue engineering: Beyond a reinforcement filler. Carbohydr Polym 252: 117159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117159

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 19

89. Pereira C, Pereira AM, Freire C, et al. (2020) Nanoengineered textiles: from advanced functional
nanomaterials to groundbreaking high-performance clothing. Handbook of Functionalized
Nanomaterials for Industrial Applications, 611–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816787-
8.00021-1
90. Henke K, Treml S (2013) Wood based bulk material in 3D printing processes for applications in
construction. Eur J Wood Prod 71: 139–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-012-0658-z
91. Kariz M, Sernek M, Kuzman MK (2015) Use of wood powder and adhesive as a mixture for 3D
printing. Eur J Wood Prod 74: 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-015-0987-9
92. Kromoser B, Reichenbach S, Hellmayr R, et al. (2022) Circular economy in wood construction—
Additive manufacturing of fully recyclable walls made from renewables: proof of concept and
preliminary data. Constr Build Mater 344: 128219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128219
93. Nadagouda MN, Ginn M, Rastogi V (2020) A review of 3D printing techniques for environmental
applications. Curr Opin Chem Eng 28: 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2020.08.002
94. Khosravani MR, Reinicke T (2020) On the environmental impacts of 3D printing technology.
Appl Mater Today 20: 100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100689
95. Gao CJ, Wolff S, Wang S (2021) Eco-friendly additive manufacturing of metals: Energy efficiency
and life cycle analysis. J Manuf Syst 60: 459–472. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278612521001357.
96. Peng T (2016) Analysis of energy utilization in 3D printing processes. Proc CIRP 40: 62–67.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827116000706.
97. Kanyilmaz A, Demir AG, Chierici M, et al. (2022) Role of metal 3D printing to increase quality
and resource-efficiency in the construction sector. Addit Manuf 50: 102541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102541
98. Abdalla H, Fattah KP, Abdallah M, et al. (2021) Environmental footprint and economics of a full-
scale 3D-printed house. Sustainability 13: 11978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111978
99. Kamran M, Saxena A (2016) A comprehensive study on 3D printing technology. MIT Int J Mech
Eng 6: 63–69. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310961474_A_Comprehensive_Study_on_3D_Printin
g_Technology.
100. Weng YW, Li MY, Ruan SQ, et al. (2020) Comparative economic, environmental and productivity
assessment of a concrete bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a precast approach. J
Cleaner Prod 261: 121245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121245
101. Maffia S, Chiappini F, Maggiani G, et al. (2023) Enhancing productivity and efficiency in
conventional laser metal deposition process for Inconel 718—Part II: advancing the process
performance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 129: 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12197-0.
102. Nguyen D, Murialdo M, Hornbostel K, et al. (2019) 3D Printed polymer composites for CO2
capture. Ind Eng Chem Res 58: 22015–22020. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04375
103. Thakkar H, Eastman S, Hajari A, et al. (2016) 3D-printed zeolite monoliths for CO2 removal from
enclosed environments. ACS Appl Mater Interface 8: 27753–27761.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b09647
104. Ligon SC, Liska R, Stampfl J, et al. (2017) Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive
manufacturing. Chem Rev 117: 10212–10290. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 20

105. Soliman A, AlAmoodi N, Karanikolos GN, et al. (2020) A review on new 3-D printed materials’
geometries for catalysis and adsorption: paradigms from reforming reactions and CO2 capture.
Nanomaterials 10: 2198. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10112198
106. Sola A (2022) Materials requirements in fused filament fabrication: A framework for the design
of next-generation 3D printable thermoplastics and composites. Macromol Mater Eng 307:
2200197. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.202200197
107. Nazir MH, Al-Marzouqi AH, Ahmed W, et al. (2023) The potential of adopting natural fibers
reinforcements for fused deposition modeling: Characterization and implications. Heliyon 9:
e15023. Available from: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)02230-2.pdf.
108. Salamone F, Danza L, Meroni I, et al. (2017) A low-cost environmental monitoring system: How
to prevent systematic errors in the design phase through the combined use of additive
manufacturing and thermographic techniques. Sensors 17: 828.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s17040828
109. Zhao L, Yao YJ, Huang S, et al. (2023) Design and implementation of a low-cost and multi-
parameter indoor air quality detector based on IoT. Int J Comput Appl T 72: 296–307.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCAT.2023.133879
110. Aizlewood C, Dimitroulopoulou C (2006) The HOPE project: The UK experience. Indoor Built
Environ 15: 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X06069578
111. Wang Y, Mackenzie FV, Ingenhut B, et al. (2018) AP4. 1-miniaturized 3D printed particulate
matter sensor for personal monitoring. 17th International Meeting on Chemical Sensors.
https://doi.org/10.5162/IMCS2018/AP4.1
112. Xu X, Xiao SN, Willy HJ, et al. (2020) 3D-printed grids with polymeric photocatalytic system as
flexible air filter. Appl Catal B 262: 118307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118307
113. Kumar AR, Arya S, Levy A, et al. (2020) Scale and numerical modeling to determine operating
points of a non-clogging vortecone filter in mining operation. Prog Scale Model Int J 1, Article 7.
Available from: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/psmij/vol1/iss1/7/.
114. Aghaei A, Firouzjaei MD, Karami P, et al. (2022) The implications of 3D-printed membranes for
water and wastewater treatment and resource recovery. Can J Chem Eng 100: 2309–2321.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.24488
115. Tijing LD, Dizon JRC, Ibrahim I, et al. (2020) 3D printing for membrane separation, desalination
and water treatment. Appl Mater Today 18: 100486. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352940719306055.
116. Ye YY, Du Y, Hu TY, et al. (2021) 3D printing of integrated ceramic membranes by the DLP
method. Ind Eng Chem Res 60: 9368–9377. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c02224
117. Kotz F, Helmer D, Rapp BE (2020) Emerging technologies and materials for high-resolution 3D
printing of microfluidic chips. Microfluidics in Biotechnology 37–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2020_141
118. Jonhson W, Xu X, Bian K, et al. (2022) 3D-printed hierarchical ceramic architectures for ultrafast
emulsion treatment and simultaneous oil-water filtration. ACS Mater Lett 4: 740–750.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.2c00147
119. Jin Z, Mei H, Liu H, et al. (2022) High-strength, superhydrophilic/underwater superoleophobic
multifunctional ceramics for high efficiency oil-water separation and water purification. Mater
Today Nano 18: 100199. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258884202200027X.

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.

 21

120. Sreedhar N, Kumar M, Al Jitan S, et al. (2022) 3D printed photocatalytic feed spacers functionalized
with β-FeOOH nanorods inducing pollutant degradation and membrane cleaning capabilities in
water treatment. Appl Catal B 300: 120318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120318
121. Sreelekshmy BR, Rajappan AJ, Basheer R, et al. (2020) Tuning of surface characteristics of
anodes for efficient and sustained power generation in microbial fuel cells. ACS Appl Bio Mater
3: 6224–6236. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.0c00753
122. Cai T, Meng LJ, Chen G, et al. (2020) Application of advanced anodes in microbial fuel cells for
power generation: A review. Chemosphere 248: 125985. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653520301776.
123. Mishra S, Ghosh S, Singh T (2020) Progress in materials development for flexible perovskite
solar cells and future prospects. ChemSusChem 14: 512–538.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002095
124. Liu CH, Xiao CY, Xie CC, et al. (2021) Flexible organic solar cells: materials, large-area
fabrication techniques and potential applications. Nano Energy 89: 106399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106399
125. Tian YX, Wang XQ, Li J, et al. (2022) Rapid manufacturing of turbine blades based on reverse
engineering and 3D printing technology. Proceedings of 2022 Chinese Intelligent Systems
Conference, 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6203-5_53
126. Rahimizadeh A, Kalman J, Fayazbakhsh K, et al. (2021) Mechanical and thermal study of 3D
printing composite filaments from wind turbine waste. Polym Compos 42: 2305–2316.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.25978
127. Dzogbewu TC, Beer DJ (2023) Additive manufacturing of selected ecofriendly energy devices.
Virtual Phys Prototyp 18: e2150230. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2023.2276245
128. Browne MP, Redondo E, Pumera M (2020) 3D printing for electrochemical energy applications.
Chem Rev 120: 2783–2810. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00783
129. Wang H, Xiong BD, Zhang ZT, et al. (2023) Small wind turbines and their potential for internet
of things applications. iScience 26: 107674. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10497799/.
130. Kantaros A, Soulis E, Petrescu FIT, et al. (2023) Advanced composite materials utilized in
FDM/FFF 3D printing manufacturing processes: the case of filled filaments. Materials 16: 6210.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16186210
131. Al-Maharma AY, Patil SP, Markert B (2020) Effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of
additively manufactured components: A critical review. Mater Res Express 7: 122001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/abcc5d
132. Okolie O, Kumar A, Edwards C, et al. (2023) Bio-based sustainable polymers and materials: From
processing to biodegradation. J Compos Sci 7: 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7060213

© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access

article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Clean Technologies and Recycling Volume 4, Issue 1, 1–21.