Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Suppressing Mechanical Property Variability in Recycled Plastics via Bio-inspired Design

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Recycled plastic arranged as nacre-like bricks and mortar can cut stiffness variability by 89.5% while matching virgin stretch wrap.

desk verdict A careful computational study of a nacre-inspired design to suppress variability in recycled plastics, but the headline reductions are conditional on assumed input distributions and need experimental grounding. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02359 v1 pith:EWBFR2OI submitted 2025-02-04 physics.gen-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Dimitrios Georgiou , Danqi Sun , Xing Liu , Christos E Athanasiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords recycledplasticsnacre-inspiredcompositebrick-and-mortarstructuremechanicalpropertyvariabilitytension-shear-chainmodelMonteCarlosimulationstretchwrapLDPE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Recycled plastics are cheap but unreliable: their stiffness and stretchability vary from batch to batch, which keeps them out of products with tight specifications. This paper argues that variability can be suppressed by architecture instead of chemistry: arrange recycled plastic as stiff 'bricks' glued by soft polymer 'mortar,' the way nacre is built. In a case study on commercial stretch wrap, the authors' tension-shear-chain model reports an 89.5% reduction in effective modulus variability and a 42% reduction in elongation-at-break variability, with a mean modulus of 202.1 MPa that matches virgin material. If the result holds up experimentally, recycled plastics could meet demanding industrial requirements without additives or chemical reformulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a discrete tension-shear-chain network: recycled-plastic platelets are 'hard' elastic elements, cohesive tensile (CT) elements connect platelets within a layer, and cohesive shear (CS) elements link staggered layers, with bilinear traction-separation laws governing interface damage. Hard-element moduli and interface critical separations are sampled from Gaussian distributions, and thousands of realizations are solved by Newton iteration to build ensemble statistics. The structure's variability suppression is quantified by the coefficient of variation ratio, $CV_{\mathrm{composite}}/CV_{\mathrm{recyclate}}$. The CT elements set the stiffness, while the softer CS elements redistribute stress and carry deformation after CT damage, which is the mechanism by which randomness is filtered out.

What would settle it

Fabricate a composite with the paper's Table 2 geometry (rLDPE platelets 18 mm long, 6 mm high, 2.5 mm wide, 1 mm soft interfaces), tensile-test at least a few hundred specimens sampled from a real rLDPE stream, and compare the measured coefficient of variation of effective modulus to the predicted sub-1%. If the measured reduction does not approach 89.5%, or the mean modulus deviates substantially from 202 MPa, the central quantitative claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a brick-and-mortar architecture transfers the stochasticity of recycled plastic feedstock away from the structure's observable response. Soft, deterministic interfaces carry most of the deformation and redistribute stress, making the effective modulus and working strain nearly deterministic even when platelet stiffness and interface critical separations are random. For the stretch-wrap case, sampling $E_{\mathrm{hard}}$ as $\mathcal{N}(326.7, 30.8^2)$ MPa and interface critical separations with a 15% coefficient of variation yields an ensemble effective modulus of $202.1 \pm 2.0$ MPa and a working strain of $0.102 \pm 0.009$, cutting modulus variability by 89.5% and elongation-at-break variability by 42%. The authors present this as a chemistry-agnostic way to make recyclates behave like virgin polymers.

Load-bearing premise

The headline reductions are computed from assumed normal distributions for the recycled plastic's stiffness and for the interface failure separations, not from measurements of a specific real recycled batch, so the 89.5% and 42% figures are model predictions rather than demonstrated material properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, recycled LDPE can be fabricated into stretch wrap with a mean modulus of about 202 MPa, matching the 200 MPa target for virgin LDPE.
  • Stiffness variability would drop from roughly 9.4% coefficient of variation in the feedstock to under 1% in the composite, and elongation-at-break scatter would nearly halve.
  • The same structural recipe should work for other recycled polymers because it relies on mechanical contrast between hard and soft phases rather than on specific chemistry.
  • Larger networks and softer, more deterministic interfaces strengthen the suppression effect, giving designers a quantitative handle on the trade-off between variability and stiffness.
  • Because the composite can be unloaded and reloaded after CT damage as long as CS elements are intact, the structure may be reusable, an advantage the authors explicitly note.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 89.5% and 42% figures are model predictions tied to assumed Gaussian feedstock distributions and idealized cohesive laws; a direct fabrication-and-tensile-test campaign on actual rLDPE would be the real check, and the paper itself calls for such an experimental framework.
  • If confirmed, the design could be tailored per recycling source by measuring each batch's modulus distribution and choosing platelet geometry and interface stiffness accordingly, turning the same mechanism into a quality-control tool.
  • The model only tracks uniaxial in-plane response, so packaging-relevant behaviors such as tear propagation, puncture, creep, and multi-axial stretching are open questions beyond the paper's case.
  • A practical embodiment would need a manufacturing route to arrange recycled platelets with controlled overlap and interface thickness at scale; the paper does not specify how to produce the structure in stretch-wrap form, so this is an engineering gap rather than a mechanics gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a nacre-inspired brick-and-mortar composite made of recycled low-density polyethylene (rLDPE) platelets and soft polymeric interfaces as a way to suppress the mechanical property variability that limits the reuse of recycled plastics. The authors develop a tension-shear-chain spring network model with stochastic platelet moduli and stochastic interface critical separations, validate it against analytical spring-network solutions for serial-chain and alternating-column configurations, and then apply it to a case study of industrial stretch wrap. For this case study they report an 89.5% reduction in effective elastic modulus variability and a 42% reduction in elongation-at-break variability, while matching the virgin LDPE modulus of about 200 MPa. The manuscript frames these results as a demonstration that a chemistry-agnostic, mechanics-based design can make recycled plastics suitable for demanding industrial applications.

Significance. The underlying idea—using a nacre-like architecture to average out the stochasticity of recycled plastic feedstock—is novel and potentially impactful for the recycling community. The model is internally consistent, and the validation against analytical spring-network solutions (Sec. 2.3, Eqs. 14–15, Fig. 3) is a genuine strength; the equivalence between the discrete network and the analytical compliance for both limit cases gives confidence that the numerical implementation is correct. The convergence analysis (Fig. S4) and the explicit reporting of ensemble statistics also contribute to the paper's reproducibility. However, the headline quantitative claims (89.5% and 42% reductions) are predictions conditional on assumed input distributions rather than demonstrated properties of recycled LDPE. The case study inputs for platelet modulus and interface critical-separation variability are not fitted to primary data, and the elongation-at-break reduction is computed against an assumed 15% coefficient of variation for the interface, not against measured rLDPE elongation variability.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 3.2; Fig. 5C] The claimed 42% reduction in elongation-at-break variability is not computed against measured rLDPE elongation-at-break variability. The composite working-strain CV is reported as 8.8%, and the only baseline that yields approximately a 42% reduction is the assumed 15% CV of the interface critical separation δ_cr (15% → 8.8% ≈ 41%). The rLDPE yield strains cited in Sec. 3.2 and Fig. S1B (0.017, 0.03, 0.138) imply a CV on the order of 100%. Therefore the abstract's statement that the design 'reduces variability in ... elongation at break by 42%' is misleading; the reduction is relative to an assumed interface parameter, not to the property of the recycled material. Please rephrase the claim as a model prediction and explicitly state the baseline distribution used.
  2. [Sec. 3.2; Table 2] The input distribution for the rLDPE platelet modulus, E_hard ~ N(326.7, 30.8^2) MPa, is not derived from a statistical fit to rLDPE data. The mean is the midpoint of the two cited values 234.2 and 419.2 MPa, and the standard deviation is set so that these endpoints fall at approximately ±3σ. The cited sources report only two modulus values, so neither the normality assumption nor the 9.4% CV is supported by primary data. Because the headline 89.5% reduction is computed against this assumed input CV, the result is a design-specific prediction. The paper should include a sensitivity analysis over plausible input CVs and clearly label the results as conditional on the assumed feedstock distribution.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The model validation resets the rHDPE modulus standard deviation from the measured value of 654 MPa to 200 MPa, with the stated justification 'to ensure E_eff corresponds to a reasonable normal distribution.' This means the validated regime does not cover the measured 54% CV of the rHDPE data, and more importantly, the validation addresses only the effective modulus of the elastic network; it does not validate the elongation-at-break prediction, which depends on the damage/softening branch of the cohesive law. Since the abstract's second quantitative claim concerns elongation at break, there is no validation for that prediction. Please either extend the validation to include a case with known analytical solution for the damage process or restrict the demonstrated claims to modulus variability.
  4. [Sec. 3.2; Fig. 5D] The result that the bio-inspired structure 'achieves the same modulus as the virgin stretch wrap' (202.1 MPa vs. ~200 MPa) is obtained by selecting the interface stiffness, interface thickness, platelet length, and platelet height specifically to match the 200 MPa target, as described in Sec. 3.1 and Table 2. This is a design-tuning exercise rather than an independent outcome of the model. The text should state explicitly that the parameters were chosen to match the target modulus, and it should report the sensitivity of the effective modulus to these tuning parameters so that the reader can assess how robust the 'same modulus' result is to manufacturing variations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The phrase 'Shadow Figure 2C, D' appears to be a typo; it should read 'Figure 2C, D.'
  2. [Eq. (12)] The definition of σ_dmg as 'the stress at the last increment before damage is detected in the structure' is ambiguous. Does this mean the first increment where any element enters the damaging regime, or the last increment before the structure's overall failure? Please clarify, as the value of E_eff depends on this choice.
  3. [Fig. 5B and 5C] The blue distributions labeled 'rLDPE' in Figure 5 are not clearly explained. For modulus, the blue curve presumably represents the assumed N(326.7, 30.8^2) input distribution; for working strain, it is unclear what data the blue curve represents. Please state explicitly how these baseline distributions were generated and whether they are measured data or assumed model inputs.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The term 'working strain ε_w' is defined as 'the strain at its fracture' for the composite, but later it is compared to the yield strain of rLDPE. Since the hard platelets are modeled as linear elastic, the composite does not have a yield strain in the same sense as rLDPE. Please clarify the intended comparison and define ε_w consistently throughout.
  5. [Table 1; Table 2] The units for cohesive parameters are given as 'MPa/mm/mm', which is nonstandard and confusing. Please use conventional units such as MPa for tractions and mm for separations, or specify the stiffness units explicitly.
  6. [Discussion] The phrase 'universally applicable, chemistry-agnostic approach' in the abstract and conclusions is stronger than what is demonstrated, since the case study uses a specific combination of rLDPE platelets and generic soft polymeric interfaces. Consider softening this claim to 'potentially applicable across different polymer chemistries' until the design is tested with a wider range of recyclates.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 42% elongation-at-break variability reduction is measured against an assumed 15% interface CV, not against measured rLDPE variability, so one headline prediction reduces to an assumed input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (case study), Discussion, and Abstract headline]
    "Consequently, the critical separation displacement of the interfaces is assumed to be also normally distributed with a CV of 15%. We sample E_hard as N(326.7, 30.8²) ... The working strain of the bio-inspired rLDPE composite structure is comparable to that of rLDPE, effectively suppressing the variability, with a CV of only 8.8% (Figure 5C). ... demonstrating comparable applicability with up to 89.5% reduction in stiffness variability and a 42% reduction in elongation at break variability."

    The 42% reduction is not computed against measured rLDPE elongation-at-break or yield-strain variability (Fig. S1B: 0.017, 0.03, 0.138; CV on the order of 100%). It equals 1 - 8.8/15 = 41.3%, i.e., the composite working-strain CV of 8.8% is compared to the assumed 15% CV of the interface critical separation, an input parameter chosen by the authors rather than a measured property of rLDPE. The claimed headline reduction is therefore a direct algebraic function of an assumed model input, not an independent prediction about recycled LDPE. The paper itself concedes that 'idealized interfacial properties' need experimental validation and that literature input variability 'undermines the reliability of model predictions,' reinforcing that this number is conditional on the assumed baseline.

full rationale

The mathematical skeleton of the paper is not fully circular: E_eff and working strain are obtained by Monte Carlo sampling of stated input distributions through a tension-shear-chain network, and the 89.5% modulus-variability reduction (9.4% input CV to ~1% output CV) is a genuine propagation result, not a restatement of the input. No load-bearing self-citation is used: the nacre brick-mortar suppression mechanism is explicitly credited to Yan et al. [18] (external to the present authors), and the authors' own references appear only in peripheral discussion of testing infrastructure. However, the 42% elongation-at-break claim in the abstract and conclusion is circular in the specific sense that its baseline is an assumed model parameter: Section 3.2 assumes a 15% CV for interface critical separations, reports an 8.8% CV for composite working strain, and 1 - 8.8/15 = 41.3%, which matches the reported 42%. Measured rLDPE yield strains (0.017, 0.03, 0.138) would give a far larger baseline CV, so the headline number is an artifact of the assumed input rather than a demonstrated material property. The validation in Section 2.3 also substitutes sigma=200 for the measured sigma=654, explicitly 'to ensure E_eff corresponds to a reasonable normal distribution,' so the validated regime does not cover the measured variability; this is a validity concern, not itself a circular step. Because one of the two central quantitative demonstrations reduces to an assumed input, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate, while the 89.5% modulus reduction retains independent model content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a network model whose inputs are partly assumed (Gaussian platelet modulus, 15% CV on interface critical separation) and whose parameters are tuned to a target modulus. The model itself is validated for stiffness against analytic spring-network formulas, but the headline variability reductions are not experimentally confirmed.

free parameters (5)
  • rLDPE platelet modulus standard deviation sigma_E = 30.8 MPa (CV 9.4%)
    Chosen in Sec. 3.2 for the stretch-wrap case study; the two cited rLDPE moduli (234.2 MPa and 419.2 MPa) do not determine this standard deviation, so it is an assumption rather than a measured population statistic.
  • Interface critical separation coefficient of variation = 15% for both CT and CS
    Assumed in Sec. 3.2 to represent variability in the softening regime; no literature estimate is given for rLDPE interfaces, and this CV controls the claimed 42% reduction in elongation-at-break variability.
  • Validation sigma for rHDPE modulus = 200 MPa instead of measured 654 MPa
    Sec. 2.3 explicitly resets sigma from 654 to 200 'to ensure E_eff corresponds to a reasonable normal distribution'; the validation therefore does not use the empirical scatter of the 40 samples.
  • Interface cohesive parameters for case study = CT {4,0.15,1.2}, CS {6,0.6,1.5}
    Table 2 values are described as selected to minimize variability while keeping modulus near 200 MPa, so they are fitted to the virgin-material target rather than measured from a fabricated composite.
  • Platelet geometry and network size = l=18 mm, h=6 mm, w=2.5 mm, {8,5} network
    Chosen in Sec. 3.2 based on the sensitivity analysis to hit the desired stiffness and working strain window; these choices affect the predicted variability reduction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hard elements are linear elastic and vertical contraction is negligible under uniaxial loading.
    Sec. 2.1 states this assumption; it rules out large-deformation effects that matter for stretch wrap, which is loaded well beyond small strain.
  • domain assumption Platelet modulus is Gaussian distributed without truncation (Eq. 11).
    Sec. 2.2 uses a two-parameter Gaussian for E_hard; Gaussian assigns small probability to negative moduli, and no positivity constraint is discussed.
  • domain assumption Interfaces are deterministic in the elastic regime and only the critical separation is stochastic.
    Sec. 2.2 models elastic-regime interface properties as deterministic; this is a simplification that makes the mortar a variability sink.
  • domain assumption Traction-separation parameters for the case study are representative of soft adhesives.
    Sec. 2.3 says the interfacial cohesive properties are assigned values representative of soft materials [32,33], rather than measured for the chosen rLDPE-adhesive system.
  • domain assumption Nacre's brick-and-mortar architecture suppresses sensitivity to microstructural randomness.
    Invoked from Ref. [18] and related literature; the paper does not question or rederive this, but relies on it as the design rationale.
  • domain assumption The stretch-wrap working strain can be represented by the yield strain of rLDPE (0.017 to 0.138).
    Sec. 3.2 defines the working strain first as fracture strain, then equates it to yield strain of the recyclate; the two definitions are not identical and the baseline for the claimed 42% reduction is ambiguous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Suppressing Mechanical Property Variability in Recycled Plastics via Bio-inspired Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWBFR2OI

@misc{pith2026250202359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Suppressing Mechanical Property Variability in Recycled Plastics via Bio-inspired Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWBFR2OI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02359}
}
read the original abstract

The escalating plastic waste crisis demands global action, yet mechanical recycling - currently the most prevalent strategy - remains severely underutilized. Only a small fraction of the total plastic waste is recycled in this manner, largely due to the significant variability in recycled plastics' mechanical properties. This variability stems from compositional fluctuations and impurities introduced throughout the materials' lifecycle and the recycling process, deterring industries with stringent product specifications from adopting recycled plastics on a wider scale. To overcome this challenge, we propose a composite structure inspired by nacre's microstructure - a natural material known for its exceptional mechanical performance despite its inherent randomness across multiple length scales. This bio-inspired design features stiff recycled plastic platelets ("bricks") within a soft polymeric matrix ("mortar"). We use a tension-shear-chain model to capture the deformation mechanism of the structure, and demonstrate, through a case study of commercial stretch wrap, that the proposed design reduces variability in effective elastic modulus by 89.5% and in elongation at break by 42%, while achieving the same modulus as the virgin stretch wrap material. These findings highlight the potential of the proposed bio-inspired design to enhance the mechanical performance of recycled plastics, but also demonstrate that a universally applicable, chemistry-agnostic approach can substantially broaden their applications, paving the way for sustainable plastic waste management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Suppressing variability through a bio-inspired composite structure. (A) Summary of literature data [6–8,20–27] demonstrating the significant variability in the mechanical properties of recyclable plastics (Details in Figure S1). Plot of the modulus and the elongation at break of rPET, rHDPE, rLDPE and rPP. (B) Schematic of a nacre-inspired recyclable composite structure. Blocks of recycled plastics with uncertainty … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Bio-inspired composite compared to rLDPE as industrial stretch wrap. (A) The bio-inspired rLDPE composite structure, utilizing rLDPE as hard platelets, shows potential for use in industrial stretch wrap. (B) Frequency distribution in effective modulus 𝐸𝑒𝑓𝑓 of bio-inspired structure (red) and rLDPE (blue) for 200 network simulations. The modulus of the virgin LDPE is 200MPa (dashed line). (C) Frequency distribution i… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Plastic Pollution

    Hannah Ritchie, Veronika Samborska and Max Roser (2023) - “Plastic Pollution” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: “https://ourworldindata.org/plastic -pollution” [Online Resource], (n.d.)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Rosenboom, R

    J.-G. Rosenboom, R. Langer, G. Traverso, Bioplastics for a circular economy, Nat Rev Mater 7 (2022) 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8 2022

  3. [3]

    Nixon, Z.O.G

    K.D. Nixon, Z.O.G. Schyns, Y . Luo, M.G. Ierapetritou, D.G. Vlachos, L.T.J. Korley, T.H. Epps, III, Analyses of circular solutions for advanced plastics waste recycling, Nature Chemical Engineering 1 (2024) 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-024-00121-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s44286-024-00121-6 2024

  4. [4]

    Schyns, M.P

    Z.O.G. Schyns, M.P. Shaver, Mechanical Recycling of Packaging Plastics: A Review, Macromol Rapid Commun 42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.202000415

    doi:10.1002/marc.202000415 2021

  5. [5]

    Athanasiou, X

    C.E. Athanasiou, X. Liu, H. Gao, A Perspective on Democratizing Mechanical Testing: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Advance Sustainable Material Adoption and Decentralized Manufacturing, J Appl Mech 91 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4066085

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4066085 2024

  6. [9]

    Espinosa, J.E

    H.D. Espinosa, J.E. Rim, F. Barthelat, M.J. Buehler, Merger of structure and material in nacre and bone – Perspectives on de novo biomimetic materials, Prog Mater Sci 54 (2009) 1059 –1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.05.001 2009

  7. [10]

    Cranford, A

    S.W. Cranford, A. Tarakanova, N.M. Pugno, M.J. Buehler, Nonlinear material behaviour of spider silk yields robust webs, Nature 482 (2012) 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10739

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10739 2012

  8. [11]

    C. Fox, K. Chen, M. Antonini, T. Magrini, C. Daraio, Extracting Geometry and Topology of Orange Pericarps for the Design of Bioinspired Energy Absorbing Materials, Advanced Materials (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202405567

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.202405567 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [12]

    A. Chen, U. Ezimora, S. Lee, J.-H. Lee, G.X. Gu, Sea sponge-inspired designs enhance mechanical properties of tubular lattices, Int J Mech Sci 285 (2025) 109815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2024.109815

    2025

  2. [13]

    H. Gao, B. Ji, I.L. Jäger, E. Arzt, P. Fratzl, Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: Lessons from nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (2003) 5597 –5600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0631609100

    2003 doi

  3. [14]

    Jackson, J

    A. Jackson, J. Vincent, R. Turner, The mechanical design of nacre, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 234 (1988) 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1988.0056

    1988

  4. [15]

    Evans, Z

    A.G. Evans, Z. Suo, R.Z. Wang, I.A. Aksay, M.Y . He, J.W. Hutchinson, Model for the robust mechanical behavior of nacre, J Mater Res 16 (2001) 2475 –2484. https://doi.org/10.1557/JMR.2001.0339

    2001

  5. [16]

    R.Z. Wang, Z. Suo, A.G. Evans, N. Yao, I.A. Aksay, Deformation mechanisms in nacre, J Mater Res 16 (2001) 2485–2493. https://doi.org/10.1557/JMR.2001.0340

    2001

  6. [17]

    J. Sun, B. Bhushan, Hierarchical structure and mechanical properties of nacre: A review, RSC Adv 2 (2012) 7617–7632. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ra20218b

    2012 doi

  7. [18]

    Yan, Z.L

    Y . Yan, Z.L. Zhao, X.Q. Feng, H. Gao, Nacre’s brick–mortar structure suppresses the adverse effect of microstructural randomness, J Mech Phys Solids 159 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104769

    2022

  8. [19]

    Barthelat, C.-M

    F. Barthelat, C.-M. Li, C. Comi, H.D. Espinosa, Mechanical properties of nacre constituents and their impact on mechanical performance, J Mater Res 21 (2006) 1977 –1986. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2006.0239

    2006

  9. [28]

    B. Ji, H. Gao, Mechanical properties of nanostructure of biological materials, J Mech Phys Solids 52 (2004) 1963–1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2004.03.006

    2004 doi

  10. [29]

    Luo, Z.P

    W. Luo, Z.P. Bažant, Fishnet model for failure probability tail of nacre -like imbricated lamellar materials, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114 (2017) 12900 –12905. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714103114

    2017 doi

  11. [30]

    Léger, C

    L. Léger, C. Creton, Adhesion mechanisms at soft polymer interfaces, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366 (2008) 1425 –1442. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2166

    2008

  12. [31]

    Verdier, G

    C. Verdier, G. Ravilly, Peeling of polydimethylsiloxane adhesives: The case of adhesive failure, J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 45 (2007) 2113–2122. https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.21045

    2007 doi

  13. [32]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Yuk, S. Lin, G.A. Parada, X. Zhao, Tough and tunable adhesion of hydrogels: experiments and models, Acta Mechanica Sinica 33 (2017) 543 –554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-017-0661-z

    2017 doi

  14. [33]

    Khayer Dastjerdi, E

    A. Khayer Dastjerdi, E. Tan, F. Barthelat, Direct Measurement of the Cohesive Law of Adhesives Using a Rigid Double Cantilever Beam Technique, Exp Mech 53 (2013) 1763 –1772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-013-9755-0. 22

    2013 doi

  15. [34]

    Plastic Film 6025

    Chaz Miller (2010) - “Plastic Film 6025” Published online at waste360.com. Retrieved from: “https://www.waste360.com/waste-recycling/plastic-film-6025” [Online Resource], (n.d.)

    2010

  16. [35]

    Fortune Business Insights, Stretch Wrap Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Cast Wrap and Blown Wrap), By Material (Polyethylene (PE), [Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)], Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Polyp ropylene (PP), Biaxially ...

    2024

  17. [36]

    Ranjan, S

    V .P. Ranjan, S. Goel, Degradation of Low-Density Polyethylene Film Exposed to UV Radiation in Four Environments, J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000453

    2019

  18. [37]

    Ayoub, A.K

    G. Ayoub, A.K. Rodriguez, B. Mansoor, X. Colin, Modeling the visco -hyperelastic–viscoplastic behavior of photodegraded semi-crystalline low-density polyethylene films, Int J Solids Struct 204– 205 (2020) 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2020.08.025

    2020 doi

  19. [38]

    Rujnić Havstad, I

    M. Rujnić Havstad, I. Tucman, Z. Katančić, A. Pilipović, Influence of Ageing on Optical, Mechanical, and Thermal Properties of Agricultural Films, Polymers (Basel) 15 (2023) 3638. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15173638

    2023 doi

  20. [39]

    Thoden van Velzen, S

    E.U. Thoden van Velzen, S. Chu, F. Alvarado Chacon, M.T. Brouwer, K. Molenveld, The impact of impurities on the mechanical properties of recycled polyethylene, Packaging Technology and Science 34 (2021) 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2551

    2021 doi

  21. [40]

    Mellott, A

    S.R. Mellott, A. Fatemi, Fatigue behavior and modeling of thermoplastics including temperature and mean stress effects, Polym Eng Sci 54 (2014) 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.23591

    2014 doi

  22. [41]

    Meran, O

    C. Meran, O. Ozturk, M. Y uksel, Examination of the possibility of recycling and utilizing recycled polyethylene and polypropylene, Mater Des 29 (2008) 701 –705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2007.02.007

    2008 doi

  23. [42]

    Pedroso, D.S

    A.G. Pedroso, D.S. Rosa, Mechanical, thermal and morphological characterization of recycled LDPE/corn starch blends, Carbohydr Polym 59 (2005) 1 –9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.08.018

    2005 doi

  24. [43]

    Saikrishnan, D

    S. Saikrishnan, D. Jubinville, C. Tzoganakis, T.H. Mekonnen, Thermo -mechanical degradation of polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) blends exposed to simulated recycling, Polym Degrad Stab 182 (2020) 109390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2020.109390

    2020

  25. [44]

    G.-F. Shan, W. Yang, B.-H. Xie, M.-B. Yang, Mechanical Properties and Morphology of LDPE/PP Blends, Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part B 46 (2007) 963 –974. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222340701457253

    2007 doi

  26. [45]

    Choy, W.P

    C.L. Choy, W.P. Leung, H.C. Ng, Mechanical relaxations and moduli of isotropic and oriented linear low‐density polyethylene, J Appl Polym Sci 32 (1986) 5883 –5901. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1986.070320719. 23

    1986

  27. [46]

    Athanasiou, Y

    C.-E. Athanasiou, Y . Bellouard, A Monolithic Micro-Tensile Tester for Investigating Silicon Dioxide Polymorph Micromechanics, Fabricated and Operated Using a Femtosecond Laser, Micromachines (Basel) 6 (2015) 1365–1386. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi6091365

    2015 doi

  28. [47]

    Athanasiou, M

    C.-E. Athanasiou, M. -O. Hongler, Y . Bellouard, Unraveling Brittle -Fracture Statistics from Intermittent Patterns Formed During Femtosecond Laser Exposure, Phys Rev Appl 8 (2017) 054013. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.054013

    2017 doi

  29. [48]

    Athanasiou, X

    C.E. Athanasiou, X. Liu, B. Zhang, T. Cai, C. Ramirez, N.P. Padture, J. Lou, B.W. Sheldon, H. Gao, Integrated simulation, machine learning, and experimental approach to characterizing fracture instability in indentation pillar -splitting of materials, J Mech Phys Solids 170 (2...

    2023

  30. [49]

    Athanasiou, C.D

    C.E. Athanasiou, C.D. Fincher, C. Gilgenbach, H. Gao, W.C. Carter, Y .-M. Chiang, B.W. Sheldon, Operando measurements of dendrite-induced stresses in ceramic electrolytes using photoelasticity, Matter 7 (2024) 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2023.10.014

    2024 doi

  31. [50]

    Nazir, C.E

    S.I. Nazir, C.E. Athanasiou, Y . Bellouard, On the behavior of uniaxial static stress loaded micro- scale fused silica beams at room temperature, Journal of Non -Crystalline Solids: X 14 (2022) 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nocx.2022.100083

    2022

  32. [51]

    Liu, C.E

    X. Liu, C.E. Athanasiou, N.P. Padture, B.W. Sheldon, H. Gao, A machine learning approach to fracture mechanics problems, Acta Mater 190 (2020) 105 –112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2020.03.016

    2020 doi

  33. [52]

    Liu, C.E

    X. Liu, C.E. Athanasiou, N.P. Padture, B.W. Sheldon, H. Gao, Knowledge extraction and transfer in data-driven fracture mechanics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2104765118

    2021 doi

  34. [53]

    Patel, Z.O.G

    A.D. Patel, Z.O.G. Schyns, T.W. Franklin, M.P. Shaver, Defining quality by quantifying degradation in the mechanical recycling of polyethylene, Nat Commun 15 (2024) 8733. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52856-8

    2024 doi

  35. [54]

    Vialon, H

    T. Vialon, H. Sun, G.J.M. Formon, P. Galanopoulo, C. Guibert, F. Averseng, M.-N. Rager, A. Percot, Y . Guillaneuf, N.J. Van Zee, R. Nicolaÿ, Upcycling Polyolefin Blends into High -Performance Materials by Exploiting Azidotriazine Chemistry Using Reactiv e Extrusion, J Am Chem ...

    2024 doi

  36. [55]

    Stathatou, L

    P.M. Stathatou, L. Corbin, J.C. Meredith, A. Garmulewicz, Biomaterials and Regenerative Agriculture: A Methodological Framework to Enable Circular Transitions, Sustainability 15 (2023) 14306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914306

    2023 doi

  37. [56]

    L. Yang, H. Li, Y . Zhang, N. Jiao, Environmental risk assessment of triazine herbicides in the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea and their toxicity to phytoplankton at environmental concentrations, Environ Int 133 (2019) 105175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105175. 1 Supp...

    2019

  38. [58]

    Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

  39. [59]

    Literature Data on the mechanical properties of Recycled Plastics

    Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA *Corresponding author: Christos E Athanasiou (athanasiou@gatech.edu) Figure S1. Literature Data on the mechanical properties of Recycled Plastics. (A) Tensile Strengt...

  40. [60]

    Pattanakul, S

    C. Pattanakul, S. Selke, C. Lai, J. Miltz, Properties of recycled high density polyethylene from milk bottles, J Appl Polym Sci 43 (1991) 2147–2150. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1991.070431122

    1991

  41. [61]

    La Mantia, M

    F.P. La Mantia, M. Vinci, Recycling poly(ethyleneterephthalate), Polym Degrad Stab 45 (1994) 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-3910(94)90187-2

    1994 doi

  42. [62]

    Boldizar, A

    A. Boldizar, A. Jansson, T. Gevert, K. Möller, Simulated recycling of post -consumer high density polyethylene material, Polym Degrad Stab 68 (2000) 317 –319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141 - 3910(00)00012-4

    2000 doi

  43. [63]

    da Costa, V .D

    H.M. da Costa, V .D. Ramos, M.G. de Oliveira, Degradation of polypropylene (PP) during multiple extrusions: Thermal analysis, mechanical properties and analysis of variance, Polym Test 26 (2007) 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2007.04.003

    2007 doi

  44. [64]

    Brachet, L.T

    P. Brachet, L.T. Høydal, E.L. Hinrichsen, F. Melum, Modification of mechanical properties of recycled polypropylene from post-consumer containers, Waste Management 28 (2008) 2456–2464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.021

    2008 doi

  45. [65]

    Mendes, A.M

    A.A. Mendes, A.M. Cunha, C.A. Bernardo, Study of the degradation mechanisms of polyethylene during reprocessing, Polym Degrad Stab 96 (2011) 1125 –1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.02.015

    2011 doi

  46. [66]

    H. Jin, J. Gonzalez -Gutierrez, P. Oblak, B. Zupančič, I. Emri, The effect of extensive mechanical recycling on the properties of low density polyethylene, Polym Degrad Stab 97 (2012) 2262–2272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.07.039

    2012 doi

  47. [67]

    Oblak, J

    P. Oblak, J. Gonzalez -Gutierrez, B. Zupančič, A. Aulova, I. Emri, Processability and mechanical properties of extensively recycled high density polyethylene, Polym Degrad Stab 114 (2015) 133 –

    2015

  48. [68]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2015.01.012

    2015 doi

  49. [69]

    Aurrekoetxea, M.A

    J. Aurrekoetxea, M.A. Sarrionandia, I. Urrutibeascoa, M.Ll. Maspoch, Effects of recycling on the microstructure and the mechanical properties of isotactic polypropylene, J Mater Sci 36 (2001) 2607–2613. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017983907260

    2001 doi

  50. [70]

    Eriksen, J.D

    M.K. Eriksen, J.D. Christiansen, A.E. Daugaard, T.F. Astrup, Closing the loop for PET, PE and PP waste from households: Influence of material properties and product design for plastic recycling, Waste Management 96 (2019) 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.005

    2019 doi

  51. [71]

    Cecon, G.W

    V .S. Cecon, G.W. Curtzwiler, K.L. V orst, Evaluation of mixed #3–7 plastic waste from material recovery facilities (MRFs) in the United States, Waste Management 171 (2023) 313 –323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.09.002

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.