pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09194 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Embedded Direct Ink Writing of Thermoset and Elastomeric Polymers via Frontal Polymerization

Mohammad Tanver Hossain , Yun Seong Kim , Pallab Layek , Pranav Krishnan , Youngbum Lee , Minjiang Zhu , Shubh Singh , Philippe H. Geubelle
show 5 more authors
Paul V. Braun Jeffery W. Baur Nancy R. Sottos Sameh H. Tawfick Randy H. Ewoldt
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 02:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft
keywords frontal polymerizationdirect ink writingembedded 3D printingthermoset polymerselastomeric polymersyield-stress fluidring-opening metathesis polymerization3D printing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embedding frontal polymerization direct ink writing in a yield-stress bath expands the range of printable thermoset and elastomeric formulations and feature sizes.

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

This paper establishes that printing in a yield-stress support medium overcomes the rheological limits, quenching at small scales, and need for immediate front following that constrain freestanding FP-DIW. The embedded setup suppresses instabilities during extrusion of low-viscosity inks, permits time-delayed solidification for fusing overlapping features, and uses microwave or boundary heating to start the self-propagating exothermic cure. Demonstrated with DCPD and COD formulations, the approach yields polymers whose glass transition temperatures span -50 to 160 °C and produces lattices, springs, interlocked, and multimaterial parts. A sympathetic reader would care because the method relaxes constraints that previously limited which polymer chemistries and architectures could be made rapidly and with low energy input.

Core claim

By performing frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization direct ink writing inside a yield-stress support bath, the authors decouple shape retention from ink rheology and allow the reaction front to propagate after deposition. This eliminates the requirement that the front closely track the nozzle, mitigates quenching in small-diameter features, and enables fusion of complex, mechanically interlinked structures. Two initiation routes—volumetric dielectric heating and surface heating at the bath boundary—reliably trigger the exothermic front across the tested scales and formulations. The resulting dicyclopentadiene- and cyclooctadiene-based materials exhibit tunable mechanical properties,

What carries the argument

Embedded FP-DIW with delayed solidification inside a yield-stress support medium, which suppresses gravitational and capillary instabilities during extrusion of low-viscosity inks and permits post-deposition front propagation and feature fusion.

If this is right

  • Formulations previously ruled out by rheology or quenching limits become printable.
  • Feature sizes can be reduced below the air-printing quenching threshold.
  • Overlapping and mechanically interlocked features can be fused after deposition.
  • Lattices, springs, and multimaterial parts with glass transition temperatures from -50 to 160 °C are achievable.
  • Rapid, energy-efficient fabrication extends to a wider set of thermoset and elastomeric architectures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same support-bath decoupling could relax constraints in other exothermic or rapid-curing additive manufacturing processes.
  • Testing additional ring-opening metathesis polymerization chemistries inside the bath would directly test how far the formulation range can be extended.
  • The approach suggests a route to printing soft robotic or biomedical structures that combine low-viscosity elastomeric regions with high-strength thermoset elements.

Load-bearing premise

The yield-stress support medium suppresses instabilities and enables proper front propagation and feature fusion without interfering with the polymerization chemistry or the final material properties.

What would settle it

Printing an identical low-viscosity DCPD-based ink formulation both in air and embedded, then measuring whether the embedded version produces stable sub-millimeter features without quenching while the air-printed version fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09194 by Jeffery W. Baur, Minjiang Zhu, Mohammad Tanver Hossain, Nancy R. Sottos, Pallab Layek, Paul V. Braun, Philippe H. Geubelle, Pranav Krishnan, Randy H. Ewoldt, Sameh H. Tawfick, Shubh Singh, Youngbum Lee, Yun Seong Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Embedded frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization (FROMP) using a yield [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rheological characterization of DCPD ink and support bath. (a) Ink rheology. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Printing fidelity and thermomechanical properties of pDCPD obtained from em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of PBD fraction on ink rheology, print fidelity, and thermomechanical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tuning rheology, thermal transitions, and mechanical behavior of FROMP copoly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Demonstration of complex 3D structures fabricated via embedded FROMP print [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Direct ink writing (DIW) using frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization (FROMP) offers a compelling route to the rapid and energy-efficient fabrication of thermoset and elastomeric polymer architectures, leveraging a self-propagating exothermic curing reaction. While FP-DIW excels at freestanding path printing due to the rapid solidification, it is constrained by stringent rheological requirements, a lower bound on achievable feature size due to quenching, and the need for the reaction front to closely follow the nozzle during printing. Here, we overcome these constraints by leveraging embedded 3D printing to implement FP-DIW with delayed solidification, thereby decoupling shape retention and solidification from ink chemistry and rheology. The use of a yield-stress support medium enables extrusion of low-viscosity inks by suppressing gravitational and capillary instabilities, mitigating front quenching at small diameters, and allowing time-delayed solidification to fuse complex, overlapping, and mechanically interlinked features after deposition. Two complementary thermal initiation strategies are introduced:\ volumetric dielectric heating via microwaves and surface heating at the boundary of the support bath. Formulations based on dicyclopentadiene (DCPD), cyclooctadiene (COD), and mixtures thereof, result in tunable final mechanical properties with glass transition temperatures spanning $-50$ to $160 $$^\text{o}$C. The versatility of this approach is demonstrated through the fabrication of lattices, springs, mechanically interlocked, and multimaterial architectures. Compared to printing in air, this embedded approach introduces a substantially broader range of possible formulations, material properties, feature sizes, and architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates an embedded direct ink writing (DIW) technique integrated with frontal ring-opening metathesis polymerization (FROMP) for rapid fabrication of thermoset and elastomeric structures. Using a yield-stress support bath and two initiation methods (microwave volumetric heating and boundary surface heating), low-viscosity DCPD/COD-based inks are extruded and solidified after deposition, enabling lattices, springs, interlocked multimaterial parts, and tunable glass transition temperatures spanning -50 to 160°C. The central claim is that embedding overcomes constraints of freestanding FP-DIW (rheological limits, quenching at small diameters, and need for immediate front following), thereby substantially broadening accessible formulations, feature sizes, and architectures.

Significance. If the broadening of printable parameter space is confirmed quantitatively, this approach would meaningfully expand the utility of frontal polymerization in additive manufacturing by relaxing viscosity and geometry constraints while retaining rapid, energy-efficient curing. The experimental demonstrations of functional parts with tunable properties via simple monomer mixtures provide concrete evidence of versatility. Strengths include the physical realization of delayed solidification for complex overlapping features and the use of complementary initiation strategies that appear to maintain front propagation across scales.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Discussion: The headline claim that the embedded approach 'introduces a substantially broader range of possible formulations, material properties, feature sizes, and architectures' compared to printing in air is not supported by side-by-side quantitative benchmarks. No data are provided on the minimum stable extruded diameter or maximum allowable ink viscosity for identical DCPD/COD formulations printed in air versus the yield-stress bath, nor are quenching thresholds or failure rates tabulated. Without these comparisons, the magnitude of the claimed expansion cannot be assessed and may be modest or formulation-specific.
  2. [Results] Results section on support medium and initiation: The assumption that the yield-stress bath suppresses instabilities without interfering with polymerization chemistry or final properties (e.g., no alteration of Tg or mechanical performance) is stated but not directly verified through control experiments comparing embedded versus air-printed samples of the same ink. Similarly, the two initiation strategies are shown to work in the demonstrated cases, but no systematic data on quenching avoidance (e.g., front velocity measurements or failure rates at sub-millimeter diameters) are reported to confirm reliability across the claimed scales.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from explicit protocols or parameter tables for ink formulations, bath composition, microwave power settings, and printing speeds to enable reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text should clarify whether reported feature sizes are nominal nozzle diameters or measured post-print dimensions, and include scale bars or error estimates where possible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with our responses and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Discussion: The headline claim that the embedded approach 'introduces a substantially broader range of possible formulations, material properties, feature sizes, and architectures' compared to printing in air is not supported by side-by-side quantitative benchmarks. No data are provided on the minimum stable extruded diameter or maximum allowable ink viscosity for identical DCPD/COD formulations printed in air versus the yield-stress bath, nor are quenching thresholds or failure rates tabulated. Without these comparisons, the magnitude of the claimed expansion cannot be assessed and may be modest or formulation-specific.

    Authors: We agree that direct side-by-side quantitative benchmarks for identical low-viscosity formulations would provide stronger support for the magnitude of the expansion. Such comparisons are not feasible in the current work because the inks employed (low-viscosity DCPD/COD mixtures) cannot retain shape when printed freestanding in air due to gravitational and capillary instabilities, as outlined in the introduction. The embedded approach specifically targets this regime. We have revised the abstract to remove 'substantially' and qualified the claim in the discussion by referencing literature rheological limits for freestanding FP-DIW. We also added a brief table summarizing typical viscosity and diameter constraints from prior FP-DIW studies to better contextualize the accessible parameter space. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section on support medium and initiation: The assumption that the yield-stress bath suppresses instabilities without interfering with polymerization chemistry or final properties (e.g., no alteration of Tg or mechanical performance) is stated but not directly verified through control experiments comparing embedded versus air-printed samples of the same ink. Similarly, the two initiation strategies are shown to work in the demonstrated cases, but no systematic data on quenching avoidance (e.g., front velocity measurements or failure rates at sub-millimeter diameters) are reported to confirm reliability across the claimed scales.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit control experiments comparing embedded versus air-printed samples of the exact same low-viscosity ink are not possible, as air printing fails for these formulations. However, we have verified that the support bath does not alter polymerization by comparing Tg and mechanical properties of embedded-printed samples to equivalent bulk-cured samples (without bath), showing no significant differences; these data will be added to the revised manuscript and SI. For quenching avoidance, the demonstrations include reliable front propagation at sub-millimeter scales, but we agree systematic velocity and failure-rate data would strengthen the claim. We have added front velocity measurements versus diameter for both initiation methods in the revised results section. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental demonstration without derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This is an experimental methods paper describing physical fabrication processes, ink formulations, and observed print outcomes for embedded frontal polymerization DIW. No equations, fitted models, predictive derivations, or mathematical claims appear in the provided text or abstract. All results are direct physical consequences of the described procedures (e.g., yield-stress bath enabling low-viscosity extrusion and delayed fusion), with no load-bearing steps that reduce to inputs by construction, no self-citation chains justifying uniqueness, and no ansatzes or renamings of known results. The central claim of a 'substantially broader range' is framed as an empirical observation from the demonstrated lattices and architectures rather than a derived prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental materials paper; relies on established polymer chemistry and 3D printing principles with no new physical axioms or entities postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • DCPD/COD mixture ratios
    Compositions chosen and tuned to span desired Tg and mechanical properties across formulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5648 in / 1190 out tokens · 62914 ms · 2026-05-12T02:11:11.720596+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The use of a yield-stress support medium enables extrusion of low-viscosity inks by suppressing gravitational and capillary instabilities, mitigating front quenching at small diameters, and allowing time-delayed solidification to fuse complex, overlapping, and mechanically interlinked features after deposition.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. D. Robertson, M. Yourdkhani, P. J. Centellas, J. E. Aw, D. G. Ivanoff, E. Goli, E. M. Lloyd, L. M. Dean, N. R. Sottos, P. H. Geubelle, J. S. Moore, S. R. White, Nature 2018, 557

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    T. D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K. T. Nguyen, D. Hui, Composites Part B: Engineering 2018, 143, 172

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Z. Ding, C. Yuan, X. Peng, T. Wang, H. J. Qi, M. L. Dunn, Science Advances 2017, 3, 4, e1602890

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    A.SydneyGladman, E.A.Matsumoto, R.G.Nuzzo, L.Mahadevan, J.A.Lewis, Nature Materials 2016, 15, 4, 413

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Kalkal, S

    A. Kalkal, S. Kumar, P. Kumar, R. Pradhan, M. Willander, G. Packirisamy, S. Kumar, B. D. Malhotra, Additive Manufacturing 2021, 46, 102088

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Sun, L. Wang, Y. Ni, H. Zhang, X. Cui, J. Li, Y. Zhu, J. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, M. Li, Nature Communications 2023, 14. 24

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Kuang, J

    X. Kuang, J. Wu, K. Chen, Z. Zhao, Z. Ding, F. Hu, D. Fang, H. J. Qi, Science Advances 2019, 5, 5, eaav5790

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    J. A. Herman, R. Telles, C. C. Cook, S. C. Leguizamon, J. A. Lewis, B. Kaehr, T. J. White, D. J. Roach, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 52, 2414209

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Bischoff, S

    A. Bischoff, S. Jamshididana, Z. Miller, K. Hernandez, N. Gonsalves, A. Olarra, E. Yoo, J. A. Herman, D. J. Roach, Advanced Functional Materials 2026, 36, 33, e22676

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    D. J. Roach, X. Sun, X. Peng, F. Demoly, K. Zhou, H. J. Qi, Advanced Functional Materials 2022, 32, 36, 2203236

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    J. Choi, O. C. Kwon, W. Jo, H. J. Lee, M. W. Moon, 3D Printing and Additive Manu- facturing 2015, 2

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Abliz, Y

    D. Abliz, Y. Duan, L. Steuernagel, L. Xie, D. Li, G. Ziegmann, Polymers and Polymer Composites 2013, 21

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Corker, H

    A. Corker, H. C. Ng, R. J. Poole, E. García-Tuñón, Soft Matter 2019, 15, 1444

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    J. A. Pojman, V. M. Ilyashenko, A. M. Khan, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1996, 92, 2825

    work page 1996

  15. [15]

    Ziaee, J

    M. Ziaee, J. W. Johnson, M. Yourdkhani, ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Ziaee, I

    M. Ziaee, I. Naseri, J. W. Johnson, K. A. Franklin, M. Yourdkhani, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2023, 5

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    X. Luo, Y. M. Kim, M. Lee, E. B. Mejia, Y. Shi, N. R. Sottos, J. W. Baur, Y. Xia, Advanced Materials 2025, 37, 30, 2505141

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    B. A. Suslick, J. Hemmer, B. R. Groce, K. J. Stawiasz, P. H. Geubelle, G. Malucelli, A. Mariani, J. S. Moore, J. A. Pojman, N. R. Sottos, Chemical Reviews 2023, 123, 6, 3237

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    J. E. Aw, X. Zhang, A. Z. Nelson, L. M. Dean, M. Yourdkhani, R. H. Ewoldt, P. H. Geubelle, N. R. Sottos, Advanced Materials Technologies 2022, 7, 9, 2200230

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    M. A. Al Mahmud, A. V. Aucoin, J. A. Pojman, Journal of Polymer Science 2025, 63, 14, 2853. 25

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Tiani, J

    R. Tiani, J. A. Pojman, L. Rongy, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2025, 162, 12, 124903

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Y. Gao, F. Shaon, A. Kumar, S. Bynum, D. Gary, D. Sharp, J. A. Pojman, P. H. Geubelle, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 2021, 31, 7, 073113

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Bansal, J

    K. Bansal, J. A. Pojman, D. Webster, M. Quadir, ACS Macro Letters 2020, 9, 2, 169

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    J. J. Lessard, E. B. Mejia, A. J. Kim, Z. Zhang, M. G. Berkey, Z. S. Medina-Barreto, R. H. Ewoldt, N. R. Sottos, J. S. Moore, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146, 11, 7216

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    E. M. Lloyd, E. C. Feinberg, Y. Gao, S. R. Peterson, B. Soman, J. Hemmer, L. M. Dean, Q. Wu, P. H. Geubelle, N. R. Sottos, J. S. Moore, ACS Central Science 2021, 7, 4, 603

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Krishnan, J

    P. Krishnan, J. J. Lessard, J. S. Moore, N. R. Sottos, ACS Macro Letters 2025, 14, 5, 570

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    L. M. Dean, Q. Wu, O. Alshangiti, J. S. Moore, N. R. Sottos, ACS Macro Letters 2020, 9

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    W. Eom, M. T. Hossain, V. Parasramka, J. Kim, R. W. Y. Siu, K. A. Sanders, D. Piorkowski, A. Lowe, H. G. Koh, M. F. L. De Volder, D. S. Fudge, R. H. Ewoldt, S. H. Tawfick, Nature Communications 2025, 16, 1, 842

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    M. T. Hossain, W. Eom, V. Parasramka, J. Kim, R. W. Y. Siu, K. A. Sanders, D. Piorkowski, A. Lowe, H. G. Koh, M. F. L. De Volder, D. S. Fudge, R. H. Ewoldt, S. H. Tawfick, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 2025, 16, 1, 842

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    M. T. Hossain, W. Eom, P. Layak, J. Kim, C. Darling, A. Lowe, D. S. Fudge, S. H. Tawfick, R. H. Ewoldt, Advanced Science 2025, 12, 48, e12414

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Bhattacharjee, S

    T. Bhattacharjee, S. M. Zehnder, K. G. Rowe, S. Jain, R. M. Nixon, W. G. Sawyer, T. E. Angelini, Science Advances 2015, 1, 8, e1500655

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    C. S. O’Bryan, T. Bhattacharjee, S. Hart, C. P. Kabb, K. D. Schulze, I. Chilakala, B. S. Sumerlin, W. G. Sawyer, T. E. Angelini, Science Advances 2017, 3

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    C. S. O’Bryan, T. Bhattacharjee, S. L. Marshall, W. Gregory Sawyer, T. E. Angelini, Bioprinting 2018, 11, e00037. 26

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    C. S. O’Bryan, C. P. Kabb, B. S. Sumerlin, T. E. Angelini, ACS Applied Bio Materials 2019, 2

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    L. M. Friedrich, J. E. Seppala, Soft Matter 2021, 17

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    L. M. Friedrich, R. T. Gunther, J. E. Seppala, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14, 28, 32561

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    J. Zhao, M. Hussain, M. Wang, Z. Li, N. He, Additive Manufacturing 2020, 32

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    R. L. Truby, M. Wehner, A. K. Grosskopf, D. M. Vogt, S. G. Uzel, R. J. Wood, J. A. Lewis, Advanced Materials 2018, 30

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    J. T. Muth, D. M. Vogt, R. L. Truby, Y. Mengüç, D. B. Kolesky, R. J. Wood, J. A. Lewis, Advanced Materials 2014, 26, 36, 6307

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    McDougall, J

    L. McDougall, J. Herman, E. Huntley, S. Leguizamon, A. Cook, T. White, B. Kaehr, D. J. Roach, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2023, 15, 50, 58897

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Y. B. Lee, Y. S. Kim, C. Chen, M. T. Hossain, B. A. Suslick, R. H. Ewoldt, S. H. Tawfick, J. S. Moore, N. R. Sottos, P. V. Braun, Advanced Materials 2025, 37, 43, e08568

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    D. R. Darby, A. J. Greenlee, R. H. Bean, D. C. Fairchild, V. C. Rodriguez, A. L. Jansen, S. C. Gallegos, S. P. Ramirez, J. S. Moore, S. C. Leguizamon, L. N. Appelhans, Nature Communications 2025, 16, 1, 6291

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Y. S. Kim, M. Zhu, M. T. Hossain, D. Sanders, R. Shah, Y. Gao, J. S. Moore, N. R. Sottos, R. H. Ewoldt, P. H. Geubelle, S. H. Tawfick, Advanced Materials 2025, 2406265

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    D. G. Ivanoff, J. Sung, S. M. Butikofer, J. S. Moore, N. R. Sottos, Macromolecules 2020, 53, 19, 8360

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    E. B. Mejia, L. McDougall, N. Gonsalves, D. R. Darby, A. J. Greenlee, A. Commisso, J. A. Johnson, N. Sottos, L. N. Appelhans, A. W. Cook, S. C. Leguizamon, D. J. Roach, npj Advanced Manufacturing 2025, 2, 1, 18

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Román-Manso, R

    B. Román-Manso, R. D. Weeks, R. L. Truby, J. A. Lewis, Advanced Materials 2023, 35, 15, 2209270

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Manimaran, M

    M. Manimaran, M. N. Norizan, M. H. M. Kassim, M. R. Adam, N. Abdullah, M. N. F. Norrrahim, RSC Advances 2025, 15, 18, 14088. 27

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Chandrasekaran, T

    S. Chandrasekaran, T. Basak, R. Srinivasan, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2013, 48, 22

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    M. T. Hossain, R. H. Ewoldt, Physics of Fluids 2022, 34, 5, 053105

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    M. T. Hossain, R. H. Ewoldt, Journal of Rheology 2024, 68, 1, 113

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    L. E. Porath, N. Ramlawi, J. Huang, M. T. Hossain, M. Derkaloustian, R. H. Ewoldt, C. M. Evans, Chemistry of Materials 2024, 36, 4, 1966

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    M. T. Hossain, R. Tiwari, R. H. Ewoldt, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 2024, 74, 101866

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    A. Z. Nelson, R. H. Ewoldt, Soft Matter 2017, 13, 7578

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Zhang, W

    J. Zhang, W. Ding, U. Hampel, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2023, 640, 940

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    X. Deng, C. Qi, S. Meng, H. Dong, T. Wang, Z. Liu, T. Kong, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 50, 2406825

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Duraivel, D

    S. Duraivel, D. Laurent, D. A. Rajon, G. M. Scheutz, A. M. Shetty, B. S. Sumerlin, S. A. Banks, F. J. Bova, T. E. Angelini, Science 2023, 379, 6638, 1248

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    M. T. Hossain, C. W. Macosko, G. H. McKinley, R. H. Ewoldt, Rheologica Acta 2025, 64, 1, 67

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    R. H. Ewoldt, M. T. Johnston, L. M. Caretta, Experimental Challenges of Shear Rhe- ology: How to Avoid Bad Data, 207–241, Springer New York, New York, NY, ISBN 978-1-4939-2065-5, 2015

    work page 2065

  59. [59]

    C. W. Macosko, Rheology: Principles, Measurements, and Applications, Wiley-VCH, 1st edition, 1994

    work page 1994

  60. [60]

    M. T. Hossain, D. Piorkowski, A. Lowe, W. Eom, A. Shetty, S. H. Tawfick, D. S. Fudge, R. H. Ewoldt, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 2025, 22, 229, 20250503

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    R. H. Ewoldt, C. Saengow, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 2022, 54, 413

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    M. C. Marsh, M. T. Hossain, R. H. Ewoldt, Physics of Fluids 2025, 37, 4, 043114

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Mours, H

    M. Mours, H. H. Winter, Rheologica Acta 1994, 33, 5, 385

    work page 1994

  64. [64]

    Piau, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 2007, 144, 1, 1

    J. Piau, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 2007, 144, 1, 1. 28

    work page 2007