TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Novel materials can radically improve whole-system environmental impacts of additive manufacturing” [J. Clean. Prod. 212 (2019) 1580–1590](S0959652618337193)(10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.017)
AU - Faludi, Jeremy
AU - Van Sice, Corrie M.
AU - Shi, Yuan
AU - Bower, Justin
AU - Brooks, Owen
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - The authors regret that the primary 3D printing material described in this paper was misidentified: it was powdered mica, not pecan shell flour. The distributor falsely labelled it as pecan shell flour in all marketing materials, both online and on the jar itself, and still do despite complaints. The authors performed new life cycle assessments and found the differences in environmental impacts to be quite minor, with all whole-system LCA ReCiPe impacts within ±3.51% of the originally-published impacts and material-specific ReCiPe impacts within ±8.33% of the originally-published impacts, both in maximum utilization, as the following pages will show. The original paper's empirical measurements, such as printer electricity use and embodied impacts of the printer, remain unchanged. Still, the authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to readers. Table C1 below contains a summary: [Table presented] The following changes should be made to the paper: 1. Replace all “pecan” with “mica”, and “pecan shell flour” with “mica powders”. 2. Replace suggestions of “compostability” with “biodegradability”. Since neither mica nor sodium silicate are carbon-based molecules, it would not be certifiable as a compostable plastic under ASTM D6400. However, the authors empirically tested the 3D printed reference part described in the paper, and it degrades easily in water (within hours upon immersion). 3. In the highlights, replace the third bullet point: ...
AB - The authors regret that the primary 3D printing material described in this paper was misidentified: it was powdered mica, not pecan shell flour. The distributor falsely labelled it as pecan shell flour in all marketing materials, both online and on the jar itself, and still do despite complaints. The authors performed new life cycle assessments and found the differences in environmental impacts to be quite minor, with all whole-system LCA ReCiPe impacts within ±3.51% of the originally-published impacts and material-specific ReCiPe impacts within ±8.33% of the originally-published impacts, both in maximum utilization, as the following pages will show. The original paper's empirical measurements, such as printer electricity use and embodied impacts of the printer, remain unchanged. Still, the authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to readers. Table C1 below contains a summary: [Table presented] The following changes should be made to the paper: 1. Replace all “pecan” with “mica”, and “pecan shell flour” with “mica powders”. 2. Replace suggestions of “compostability” with “biodegradability”. Since neither mica nor sodium silicate are carbon-based molecules, it would not be certifiable as a compostable plastic under ASTM D6400. However, the authors empirically tested the 3D printed reference part described in the paper, and it degrades easily in water (within hours upon immersion). 3. In the highlights, replace the third bullet point: ...
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074468479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118910
DO - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118910
M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor
SN - 0959-6526
VL - 245
JO - Journal of Cleaner Production
JF - Journal of Cleaner Production
M1 - 118910
ER -