Sustainability 13 06007 v3

sustainability
Review
A Systematic Literature Review on Additive Manufacturing in
the Context of Circular Economy
Stavros Ponis * , Eleni Aretoulaki, Theodoros Nikolaos Maroutas, George Plakas and Konstantina Dimogiorgi
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University Athens, 157 73 Athens, Greece;
aretoulaki@mail.ntua.gr (E.A.); maroutas@mail.ntua.gr (T.N.M.); plakasg@mail.ntua.gr (G.P.);
kwctantina_dim1@hotmail.com (K.D.)
* Correspondence: staponis@central.ntua.gr
Abstract: Additive Manufacturing (AM) is, undoubtedly, one of the most promising and potentially
disruptive technologies of the Industry 4.0 era, able to transform the traditional manufacturing
paradigm and fuel the generally accepted and necessary shift towards the conceptualisation, design
and adoption of sustainable and circular business models. The objective of this paper is to contribute
to the structure of the scientific field residing in the intersection of AM and Circular Economy (CE),
by determining the status of its current state-of-the-art, proposing an initial typology in an attempt
to contribute to the existing efforts of structuring this rather novice research area and pinpointing
research gaps where more focus should be put, and highlighting areas with a significant potential for
added-value future research. To that end, a sample of 206 papers, published from 2014 to 2020, was
retrieved from the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. After studying and critically evaluating
their content in full, contributions were classified into six thematic categories, providing a first

typology of the current literature, followed by a detailed section highlighting and taxonomizing
Citation: Ponis, S.; Aretoulaki, E.; existing review studies. Next, contributions of the three categories of interest are discussed followed
Maroutas, T.N.; Plakas, G.; by a critical evaluation of the study’s contribution, inherent limitations and future research potential.
Dimogiorgi, K. A Systematic
Literature Review on Additive Keywords: additive manufacturing; circular economy; sustainable manufacturing; Industry 4.0;
Manufacturing in the Context of 3D printing
Circular Economy. Sustainability 2021,
13, 6007. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13116007
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Barbara Motyl
The proliferation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, referred to as Industry 4.0, has
undoubtedly transformed the manufacturing industry by driving dramatic increases in
Received: 16 April 2021
Accepted: 25 May 2021
productivity and flexibility, enhancing strategical and operational decision-making and
Published: 26 May 2021
contributing to an improved overall industrial performance [1,2]. AM, also known as three-
dimensional (3D) printing, has been presented as an essential driving force behind Industry
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
4.0. AM uses digital 3D models to create parts by adding material in layers [3], offering the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
beneficial ability to build parts with geometric and material complexities [4], as opposed to
published maps and institutional affil- conventional subtractive manufacturing, where a product is shaped by removing material
iations. in order to achieve a desired shape [5]. The consumer driven nature of this manufacturing
paradigm, in that it inherently provides opportunities for mass customization by facilitating
the production of personalized products [6], justifies its growing utilization by industrial
companies, which strive to meet the ever-growing customer demand and eventually
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
blossom in this modern, continuously changing, competitive landscape.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Nevertheless, despite its economic benefits, the development of industrialization has
This article is an open access article
indisputably led to serious ramifications, several of the most significant of which pertain to
distributed under the terms and the deterioration of the environment. In fact, industrialization is deemed responsible for a
conditions of the Creative Commons multitude of deleterious consequences undermining the integrity of natural ecosystems,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// such as water [7], air [8] and soil pollution [9], resource depletion [10] and excessive land
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ use [11]. Under these conditions, the need to ensure companies’ environmental compliance
4.0/). without jeopardizing their production and, therefore, financial prosperity, is now more
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116007 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6007 2 of 28
imperative than ever. In light of the intrinsic mechanics of the conventional linear economy,
in which resources are considered to be unlimited, and economic benefits are placed above
all other criteria [12], the transition to a sustainable CE business model appears as a priority.
The CE concept and its 3R principles, i.e., “reduce, reuse, recycle”, are fully aligned with
combining economic growth and environmental protection by promoting the extension of
the useful life of products which have exhausted their physical and/or functional service
life and would otherwise be discarded, thus maximizing their utilization capacity and
maintaining their value for as long as possible [13].
This paper aspires to investigate the possibilities provided by the use of AM as an
enabler of CE. A systematic literature review is carried out in an attempt to propose
an initial typology of scientific contributions in the specific research area, establish a
foundation of knowledge through describing the output of the relevant scientific literature
and to synthesize the different perspectives on the matter, assess the research progress,
highlight future research directions and shed light on the prospects of adoption of this
innovative combination model by the industry. The remainder of the paper is organized
as follows: Section 2 presents the methodology followed in this study and provides the
details of the selection process for the papers included in the study sample. In Section 3,
a concise and coherent study on precedent review efforts is carried out in order to assess
research progress and facilitate our systematic literature review process, the results of
which are discussed in Section 4. Finally, the paper concludes with Section 5, summarizing
the study’s findings, while highlighting research limitations and future research potential.
2. Methodology
A systematic literature review was carried out in order to identify and critically
appraise the findings of relevant peer-reviewed studies while ensuring impartiality, metic-
ulousness and transparency. The data collection process was conducted on 31 March 2020
using the bibliographic databases of Scopus and Google Scholar (Figure 1). Therefore,
additional papers added on a later date to the two databases are not included in this study.
For Scopus, the authors used the following keyword string: “(“Additive manufactur*”
OR “3d print*” OR “rapid prototyp*” OR “additive production” OR “generative manu-
factur*”) AND (“recycl*” OR “circular economy”)”. The asterisk (*) at the end of a key
word ensures the inclusion of the term in both singular and plural forms as well as its
derivatives. This query was entered into Scopus’s default tab (Document Search form) and
the initial search of all document fields generated 615 results. Then, three inclusion criteria
were imposed to filter our results, the first of which was the selection of the search field
“Article Title, Abstract, Keywords”. Second, the time frame of our review was selected to
include studies dating from the last seven years, namely from 2014 to 31 March 2020, given
that AM and 3D printing are recently emerging scientific fields. In particular, all search
results dated after 2000, 97.0% of them after 2014 and 84.3% after 2017. Due to the rapid
development of the field, the chances of results dating from 2000 to 2013 (3%) containing
vitally useful information were slight. Third, in terms of document types, the authors
decided to only include articles, book chapters, reviews, conference papers and conference
reviews published after 1 April 2018. The reason for excluding conference publications
published prior to that date lies in the fact that if significant ideas had been proposed, they
would have already been published in journals during the last two years. Our search, after
excluding other document types and imposing the aforementioned search field and time
span constraints, yielded 446 results. Table 1 demonstrates the number of publications per
journal, for journals containing equal to or more than five publications. The journal with
the majority of studies was “Additive Manufacturing” with 24 publications (5.38%).
Figure 1. The Data Collection Process.
Table 1. Number of Publications per Journal.
Journal # * of Publications
Additive Manufacturing 24
Journal of Cleaner Production 13
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 11
Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC 10
Composites Part B: Engineering 8
Procedia Manufacturing 7
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 6
Construction and Building Materials 6
JOM 6
Table 1. Cont.
Journal # * of Publications
Polymers 6
Procedia CIRP 6
3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 5
ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 5
Key Engineering Materials 5
Materials 5
Minerals, Metals and Materials Series 5
Powder Technology 5
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 5
* Number of Publications.
After thoroughly examining their content, namely their abstract, keywords, table of
contents and main body, 222 papers were considered inadmissible on account of failing to
meet the subject criteria, thus resulting in 224 papers.
As for Google Scholar, since it includes scholarly articles from a wider variety of
sources compared to Scopus, keywords had to be more focused, so that results could be
controlled and manageable. Therefore, the keyword string used in this case was selected
to be the following: “(“Additive Manufacturing” AND “Circular Economy”)”. The initial
search of the query on documents’ full text yielded 1650 results. As opposed to Scopus,
Google Scholar only provides the option to search a query on a document’s title, a feature
embraced by the authors to limit the number of the results. After imposing the same
time frame criteria as before and rejecting document types deemed unreliable, such as
undergraduate dissertations, the sample from Google Scholar amounted to 451 results,
446 of which had already been retrieved in Scopus, ultimately diminishing the sample
to 5 publications. Overall, we were not able to retrieve the full text of 20 papers from
Scopus and 3 from Google Scholar, thereby decreasing the final sample size from both
bibliographic databases to 206 publications.
Figure 2 illustrates the number of publications over the selected time frame (1 January
2014–31 March 2020). It is remarkable that the first spark of notable scientific interest in
the field was observed in 2017, followed by an impetuous surge during the ensuing years.
In particular, publications seem to have almost tripled from 2017 to 2018, continued to
increase almost three and a half times during 2019 and are expected to almost quadruple
during 2020.
Next, the papers included in the sample of publications were extensively studied and
classified based on research subjects. AM and its interaction with, and contribution to, CE is
the core theme of the present study. For this reason, in an effort to classify the final sample
of publications into subject categories, the two thematic axes of “Additive Manufacturing”
and “Circular Economy” were divided into five smaller subcategories of interest, namely
(1) Additive Manufacturing Methods, (2) Additive Manufacturing Materials, (3) Recycling,
(4) Reuse and (5) Remanufacturing & Repair. It must be noted that initially, a sixth category
was used, so as to include publications which seemed relevant to the topic and contained
general information about the environment and CE; however, it was not clear into which
subject area they should be classified. Second, most papers can fall into more than one
category. Third, the classification was initially carried out by studying the papers’ abstracts.
Nevertheless, at a later stage, after examining each document’s full text, it was made clear
that they could be classified into more than one category. This is of course to be expected
when dealing with largely interrelated concepts. Last but not least, for the classification
to be achieved, further deliberations were conducted among the authors where necessary,
until unanimity was reached. With the aim of achieving unbiased results, the selected
publications were studied individually. The grouping decisions were then juxtaposed, in
order to discuss controversies and, eventually, eliminate them.
Figure 2. Number of publications per year (1 January 2014–31 March 2020).
Figure 3 illustrates the categorization of the 206 publications from the bibliographic
databases of Scopus and Google Scholar into the six forenamed thematic categories. As
displayed, “Additive Manufacturing Methods” has been studied by more than half of
the papers in our final sample (N = 119, 57.8%) as opposed to “Additive Manufacturing
Materials” (N = 26, 12.6%), which has been investigated to a less substantial degree.
Regarding the CE-oriented sub-categories, it is worth noting that “Recycling” is far and
away the most popular one, representing the research interest of exactly half of the papers in
our sample (N = 103, 50%), which is greater than twice the amount of papers in the “Reuse”
(N = 44, 21.4%) category and almost five times more papers (N = 22, 10.7%) compared
to “Remanufacturing & Repair”. It is worth mentioning that our systematic literature
review, the results of which will be presented in Section 4, focuses on the three CE-oriented
subcategories, namely “Recycling”, “Reuse” and “Remanufacturing & Repair” and how
they can be promoted by various “Additive Manufacturing Methods” and “Additive
Manufacturing Materials”.
Figure 3. Classification of the 206 selected publications into six thematic categories.
3. Previous Review Efforts

Before presenting the results of our systematic literature review, a brief and coherent
study on previous review efforts is undoubtedly necessary. This step was of paramount
importance in this paper, in terms of assessing the topic and sub-topic selection in preceding
literature reviews and identifying grey areas, which determined how to proceed in our
review as well as highlighted future research directions.
3.1. The Review Collection Process

As illustrated by Figure 4, after imposing the same time frame and search field criteria
as described in Section 2, but limiting document type to include “Review”, the study sample
from Scopus decreased to 19 results. Of these review results, only 15 were included in this
analysis, with the remaining four being rejected. In particular, “Plastic Waste Management
in Indonesia: Review” [14], was rejected due to the inability to access the full-text of the
publication. Furthermore, “Research Progress in Recycling and Reuse of Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Resin Composites” [15], was excluded, due to its irrelevance to our topic as
well as being written in a language other than English. Finally, “Paper-based Chemical and
Biological Sensors: Engineering aspects” [16] and “Recent Advances in Sulfonated Resin
Catalysts for Efficient Biodiesel and Bio-derived Additives Production” [17] were also deemed
unacceptable, since their main subject was not relevant to either AM or CE. Table 2 provides
a comprehensive description of the main details of each review retrieved from the Scopus
bibliographic database, with the last column indicating whether it is considered acceptable
or not.
Figure 4. The Review Collection Process.
Table 2. A comprehensive description of the core theme of reviews from Scopus (1 January 2014–31
March 2020).
Acceptable?
References The Study Deals with . . .
(Yes/No)
The identification of the most significant hurdles in recycling
[14] N
efforts in Indonesia.
The clarification of the interaction between laser and metal
[18] Y
powder, with a strong focus on its side effects.
Friction stir processing in the modification of the cast structure,
[19] superplastic deformation behavior, preparation of fine-grained Y
Mg alloys and Mg-based surface composites, and AM.
Table 2. Cont.
Acceptable?
(Yes/No)
The classification of laser-based AM technologies, operational
principles of direct laser metal deposition, feedstock quality
[20] Y
requirements, material laser interaction mechanism, and
metallurgy of Ti-6AL-4V alloy.
Processing techniques used in recycling of thermoplastics
polymers with different types of reinforcements, especially for
[21] AM applications. It bridges the gaps for use of primary (1◦ ), Y
secondary (2◦ ), tertiary (3◦ ) and quaternary (4◦ ) routes as an
industrial processing standard with low cost AM technology.
The principles and capabilities offered by the existing metal
AM technology for object repair and restoration namely, direct
[22] Y
energy deposition, powder bed fusion, and cold
spray technology.
3D metal AM from an interdisciplinary perspective, providing
an overview on sustainability, basic principles, and a
[23] conceptual framework on environmental performance, implicit Y
constraints regarding materials, recycling and use/reuse tools
for extended life cycle.
The Directed Energy Deposition (DED) process and its role in
[24] Y
the repairing of metallic components.
The recycling techniques and evolution of resin-based
[15] N
thermosetting and thermoplastic carbon fibers.
How rising technologies from Industry 4.0 can be integrated
[25] with CE practices to establish a business model that reuses and Y
recycles wasted material such as scrap metal or e-waste.
The main policies that have motivated the transition to a CE
[26] Y
model and within this, to CO2 recycling.
The fundamental aspects of the production of polyurethane
foams (PUFs), the new challenges that the PUFs industry is
[27] Y
expected to confront regarding process methodologies in the
near future are outlined and some alternatives.
Recent trends, such as fast prototyping of reactors via 3D
[28] printing of flow channels, miniaturisation and use of Y
multi-physics modelling.
The sustainability of AM, the context of which is introduced,
[29] Y
with a focus on energy and environmental impacts.
Cation-exchange resins, micro and mesoporous acidic resins,
supported acidic ionic liquids, ionomeric membranes and the
[17] N
use of alternative organic polymer-based acidic catalysts
(hybrid systems).
The current progress of Metal AM feedstock and various
powder characteristics related to the Selective Laser Melting
[30] Y
process, with a focus on the influence of powder granulometry
on feedstock and final part properties.
Various recent sustainable manufacturing ideas applied in the
prominent sectors with an aim to either recycle/reuse the
[31] Y
discarded ones or to produce a fresh part in
eco-friendly manners.
Table 2. Cont.
Acceptable?
(Yes/No)
The design, chemistry and engineering aspects of the
[16] N
development of paper-based chemosensors and biosensors.
The advanced shape memory technology with a focus on
[32] Y
polymeric materials.
As for Google Scholar, after filtering the results to only include reviews, two new
entries were found. However, the review entitled “Plastic Recycling in Additive Manu-
facturing: A systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular economy” [33]
was rejected, since its date of publication (15 April 2020) is outside the predetermined
study period. Similarly to before, Table 3 provides a comprehensive description of the
main details of both reviews retrieved from Google Scholar.
Table 3. A comprehensive description of the core theme of reviews from Google Scholar (1 January
2014–31 March 2020).
Acceptable?
Reference The Study Deals with . . .
(Yes/No)
The current advances on thermoplastic recycling processes via
[33] N
AM technologies.
The guidelines and parameters that can guide the paths to the
[34] Y
integration of AM with the concept of CE.
3.2. Review Classification

The 16 review papers resulting from the aforementioned process were extensively
studied and classified based on two coding criteria, research subjects and review types.
The results of this classification are presented in this section.
3.2.1. Review Subject

The core theme of every single one of the 16 reviews was identified, facilitating the
process of classification into five categories of interest (Table 4), which are described below:
(1) “Additive Manufacturing Methods”, which includes reviews specializing in specific
AM methods; (2) “Sustainability”, which refers to reviews concentrating on recycling,
reuse, remanufacturing, repair and, in general, environmentally friendly production with
minimization of resource and raw material consumption; (3) “Additive Manufacturing
Materials”, which includes reviews focusing on specific materials, their properties and
how they are able to affect modern 3D printing technology; (4) “Digitization—Industry
4.0”, which refers to reviews examining the modernization and digitization of conventional
processes in the context of AM, with the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID),
Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data Analytics, Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence (AI),
etc.; (5) “Practical Applications”, which includes case studies and experimental applications,
providing quantitative results and practical conclusions. It is worth mentioning that studies
can be classified into more than one category.
Nearly two thirds of the reviews in our sample (N = 10, 62.5%) fall into the “Sus-
tainability” category, followed by “Additive Manufacturing Materials” (N = 6, 37.5%),
“Additive Manufacturing Methods” (N = 4, 25%) and “Practical Applications” (N = 4, 25%).
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Digitization-Industry 4.0” (N = 3, 18.75%) is the
most under-reviewed category, and thus additional research is needed on that category.
However, reflecting on the fact that the advent of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing is relatively
new, this conclusion is plausible.
Table 4. Review Classification based on five Thematic Categories.
Additive Additive
Digitization-Industry Practical
References Manufacturing Sustainability Manufacturing
4.0 Applications
Methods Materials
[21] X X
[18] X X X
[20] X X
[19] X
[23] X X X
[25] X X
[22] X
[24] X X
[34] X
[27] X
[26] X X
[29] X X
[28] X
[31] X
[30] X X X
[32] X
# * of Publications 4 10 6 3 4
% 25% 62.5% 37.5% 18.75% 25%
* Number of Publications.
3.2.2. Review Type

According to the works presented in [35], a review study is a type of research which
synthesizes past work with a view to accelerating the accumulation and assimilation of
recent knowledge into the existing body of knowledge. A broad spectrum of review types,
abiding by different criteria, have been recognized in the literature and in an attempt to
provide a reference review typology; the authors in [36] identified fourteen discrete review
types based on the Search–Appraisal–Synthesis–Analysis (SALSA) analytical framework.
In this paper, we utilize their typology and identify four review types in which the reviews
of our sample fall, i.e., Systematic, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed-methods types.
More specifically, a Systematic Review meticulously synthesizes empirical evidence
stemming from an exhaustive search, while abiding by pre-determined guidelines and eligi-
bility criteria (inclusion/exclusion criteria) so as to answer a specific research question [37].
The reviews examined in this typology are capable of being systematic, depending on their
compliance or non-compliance with pre-specified requirements. A Qualitative Review inte-
grates the findings of qualitative studies, namely exploratory research divulging insights
into a problem and elaborating on concepts using non-numerical data. A Quantitative
Review integrates the findings of quantitative studies, namely studies generating numerical
data, with a view to disclosing patterns in research. Finally, a Mixed-methods Review
combines both qualitative and quantitative components.
Table 5 presents the classification of the 16 reviews into the five above-described
review type categories. “Qualitative” reviews were proven to be the most dominant type
of review in our sample (N = 6, 37.5%), followed by “Quantitative” (N = 5, 31.25%) and
“Mixed-methods” reviews (N = 2, 12.5%). Moreover, less than a fifth (N = 3, 18.75%) of
the reviews fall into the “Systematic” category, a lack justifying the need for additional
pertinent efforts. The limited number of systematic literature reviews combined with
the fact that their objective was to assess the current literature under the lens of quite
specific research questions, sparked our interest in pursuing a systematic literature review
specifically dedicated to a broader evaluation of the developments in the field. Indeed,
given that the main subjects addressed in these reviews are limited to the capabilities of
metal AM for object repair and restoration in the context of CE [22], the exploration of
Industry 4.0 technologies (including AM) as enablers of CE through the proposition of a
circular business model [25] and the suggestion of guidelines and parameters enabling the
integration of AM with the concept of CE [34], to our knowledge, a systematic literature

review devoted to AM in the context of CE, as a whole, has not yet been attempted. This gap
is addressed in the present systematic literature review, the results of which are presented
as follows.
Table 5. Review Classification based on the typology proposed in [36].
References Systematic Qualitative Quantitative Mixed-Methods

[21] X
[18] X
[20] X
[19] X
[23] X
[25] X
[22] X
[24] X
[34] X
[27] X
[26] X
[29] X
[28] X
[31] X
[30] X
[32] X
Number of Publications 3 6 5 2
% 18.75% 37.5% 31.25% 12.5%
4. Recycling, Reuse, Remanufacturing and Repair with the Help of AM

While there is a variety of alternative approaches to dealing with end-of-life mate-
rials and products, only three of them could help reintroduce some of their remaining
value into production systems: recycling, reuse and remanufacturing [38]. In this context,
resources—after their useful life has been exceeded—are recovered and recycled, reused
or remanufactured to create new products, thus abiding by CE principles towards the
development of a regenerative economic system, contributing to diminishing the burden
on the environment by making sure resources remain in use for as much time as possi-
ble. In this section, recycling, reuse and remanufacturing, as well as repair—which is
intrinsically linked to remanufacturing-, are examined under the lens of the production
process of AM, and pertinent literature efforts resulting from our systematic literature
review are presented.
4.1. Recycling
As already mentioned, recycling takes place when a product can no longer serve
any function and would otherwise be disposed of as waste [39]. How 3D printing can
contribute to embracing the value of waste, after its collection and separation, is an issue
that is of interest to researchers, since AM is capable of being used as a recycling process,
exploiting materials made of recyclable components with both environmental and eco-
nomic advantages [40]. Logistically speaking, the successful implementation of recycling
systems is contingent upon the size and location of production facilities and new forms of
manufacturing, such as AM, have the potential to decentralize them, consequently increas-
ing overall flexibility, and reducing logistical costs and delivery times, while, at the same
time, diminishing environmental impacts [41,42]. Decentralized distributed manufacturing
techniques are becoming all the more common [43], providing excellent opportunities for
the development of local closed-loop recycling systems [44]. In this subsection, two aspects
of distributed manufacturing are investigated through the lens of AM: (1) Distributed recy-
cling and (2) Closed-loop supply chains, followed by efforts pertinent to the (3) Recycling
of different types of waste.
4.1.1. Distributed Recycling

An emerging technical area with great potential for the development of plastic waste
recycling models is that concerning the concept of distributed recycling for AM in the
context of CE [45]. Traditionally, recycling has been focused on large, centralized structures
in order to take advantage of economies of scale. Nevertheless, this approach has several
drawbacks pertaining to increased complexity resulting from the transportation of large
but lightweight plastics [46,47]. AM makes it possible for discarded plastics, instead of
being transported en masse to recycling centers or landfills, to be converted into feedstock
for 3D printing [48]. The advantages are numerous and relevant to the reduction of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the carbon footprint as well as energy savings
of the order of one thousand million MJ per year [49–51]. In particular, compared to
traditional plastic manufacturing methods, such as plastic injection molding, in 3D printing
the filling density of a product can be controlled and, by reducing it to the minimum
necessary for mechanical functionality, no substantial waste of material should be produced
and energy consumption as well as GHG emissions should be reduced, all of which
contribute to achieving environmental sustainability [47]. Moreover, distributed recycling
is proven to be essential in areas where material supply is limited, yet waste production
and demand for custom components are high [52]: circumstances justifying the model’s
growing adoption [49] and the reversing of the historical trend towards central recycling
facilities [53,54].
The authors of [53] studied distributed recycling through a RecycleBots network, for
the production of filament made of HDPE (high-density polyethylene). Their research
aimed to determine whether this method is more environmentally advantageous compared
to traditional HDPE recycling. The results demonstrated that the former method uses
less embodied energy than the best-case scenario used for the latter method. Similarly,
the authors of [47] combined the distributed recycling method using a vertical Recyclebot
to make filament with distributed manufacturing using a delta RepRap to print useful
products from post-consumer waste. It was concluded that traditional ABS (acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene) production consumes at least twice as much energy as the proposed
distributed approach.
The works presented in [55] focus on Gigabot X, an open source 3D printer able to
recycle plastics on a large scale, with the help of which objects were printed and then tested
for their mechanical properties. First, virgin PLA (polylactic acid) was analyzed, and then
compared—in terms of tensile strength—to four kinds of recycled plastic, namely recycled
PLA from previous prints (the most commonly used plastic in AM), recycled ABS (the
second most commonly used plastic in AM), recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate)
(the most common plastic waste) and, last but not least, recycled PP (polypropylene) (the
second most common plastic waste). The authors of [54] found out that recycled PC
(polycarbonate) could be efficiently used as a raw material for AM directly with a Gigabot
X, while it also appeared to be an effective material in a broad spectrum of uses, able to
replace more expensive solutions for both consumers and the industry.
The authors of [42] examined a model in which 3D model files are sent digitally,
for their production via 3D printers. In this model, the objects are manufactured and
assembled in a decentralized network with high-performance printers and specialized
personnel for the final assembly and finishing steps. The authors of [45] successfully
investigated technical avenues for the distributed recycling of polymer composites by
converting windshield wiper blades into useful, high-value biomedical products, such
as fingertip grips for hand prosthetics. Last but not least, the authors in [56] addressed
the market need for environmentally sustainable and ethically constructed products by
developing an “ethical product standard” for 3D printing filament, based on existing
fair trade standards, technical and life cycle analysis of recycled filament production
and 3D printing manufacturing. Ultimately, the proposed “ethical product standard”
identified six key pillars, namely minimum pricing, fair trade implementation as well
as labor, environmental, safety, health and social standards, including the ones covering
discrimination, harassment, freedom of association, collective bargaining and discipline.
Theoretically, the adoption of the distributed recycling model is possible. Decentral-
ized recycling is capable of eliminating the barriers associated with conventional recycling,
mainly due to cost-effective open source technology, shorter distances and decreased
amounts of transportable plastic waste [42]. Nonetheless, it remains a thorny issue among
experts. On the one hand, it is alleged that consumers will turn to the most convenient
solution, namely the online purchase of AM products. On the other hand, others predict a
significant market opportunity for “consumer production”. In the final analysis, the future
most likely lies in a mix of both perspectives, determined by a plethora of constraints,
such as energy budgets, feedstock materials, design know-how and intricacy of assembly—
limitations which are already present in the manufacturing status quo, but will take a
different shape in the future [41].
4.1.2. Closed-Loop Supply Chain

Overall, two types of recycling networks coexist, reverse supply chain and closed-loop
supply chain [57]. The first case refers to a network responsible for the recovery of disposed
products followed by their recycling or reuse in other products. The second one refers to a
network that integrates both the upstream and downstream supply chain, meaning that
the forward value chain process, from the supplier to the customer, is followed by a reverse
one, where the products are recovered for recycling or reuse [46].
Closed-loop production systems are increasingly considered to be a promising strat-
egy to reduce the environmental impact of industrial activities. As a matter of fact, CE
represents a system where resource flows are closed-loops [58], the optimization of which is
one of the most efficient strategies for an environmentally sustainable production [38]. This
is where the authors in [46] focused their research, by proposing a closed-loop recycling
model, assisted by 3D printing technology. In this model, a particular type of plastic is
collected locally from different waste sources and then transported for recycling, to be used
for the production of plastic filament for AM. The proposed plan is an optimal closed-loop
supply chain configuration, dictated by constraints, such as the capacity of each recycling
point and guided towards the maximization of economic gains and minimization of envi-
ronmental consequences. The authors of [59] investigated closed-loop manufacturing with
ABS across multiple recycling phases using AM. Filament production parameters were
examined using virgin, one-time recycled and two-times recycled ABS. The methodology
described in this study may provide a practical solution for the management of recyclable
ABS polymer waste, such as plastics from electronic waste or the interior of cars.
With a view to expanding the application of closed-loop production, more knowledge
and skills are needed. To that end, the authors of [38] created a closed-loop process chain
for continuous material utilization, which they integrated into the learning factory (“Die
Lernfabrik”) at the Technical University of Braunschweig in Germany, in order to provide
engineers with the opportunity for practical experience in closed-loop production systems.
The developed process chain is capable of producing work pieces for the production line
as well as recycling them at the end of their useful life. A plethora of learning modules on
direct digital manufacturing, AM and the environmental perspective of manufacturing
were developed. The need for sufficient knowledge is also supported by the authors
of [60], who claim that studies on the recycling of 3D printing materials are extremely
limited. To address this knowledge gap, the main objective of their study was to investigate
the potential use of closed-loop recycling of PLA in 3D printing, in terms of changes in
properties and pertinent environmental impacts. In particular, PLA was extruded into
a filament and fed into an FDM (Fused Deposition Modelling) 3D printer. The printed
products were shredded, turned into filament and re-processed. The cycle was repeated
until the material could not be further printed in 3D. During each cycle, a specific amount of
sample was extracted for analysis, so as to detect possible changes in its properties. Virgin
PLA was then mixed with recycled PLA in different proportions, as a way to improve its
properties and upgrade the quality of the final product.
To sum up, at the end of their life cycle, products are collected as waste and then
separated to treat possible mixed or contaminated materials. The usable pieces are shredded
and then turned into feedstock for 3D printing and ultimately new products, the creation of
which thereby closes the material loop [38,46]. In this closed-loop paradigm, value is added
to waste, as it can contribute to the generation of new products as well as the reduction
of energy consumption and GHG emissions [46]. In short, closed-loop practices can be a
viable approach to waste management and the adoption of CE [60].
4.1.3. Recycling of Different Types of Waste

Plastic
Plastics are indispensable, omnipresent, durable, versatile, corrosion-resistant materi-
als, integrated into a wide range of applications with a view to accommodating our modern
society’s increasing needs. Our ever-growing population dictates the continuous evolution
of the plastics industry [61] in order for it to ultimately flourish in today’s constantly shift-
ing competitive landscape [62]. Production of new plastics in 2015 surpassed 300 million
tonnes [63], whereas from the 1950s to 2015 it aggregately exceeded 8.3 billion tonnes, half
of which was manufactured after 2004 [64]. In addition to the traditional plastic waste
streams, the increase in the use of 3D printers has led to the demand for more plastics
and, therefore, the increase of plastic waste [65], the recycling of which is one of the most
essential elements for the adoption of the CE [46], as it is a recoverable resource able to be
used for the re-creation of products of commercial value [61]. Indeed, even 3D printers
themselves produce waste, for example, through failed or test prints or broken parts and
structures, such as supports and bases, which are discarded as waste after their use [66].
Still, 3D printing is capable of aiding and accelerating CE by providing a possibility of
valorization of end-of-life plastics in a continuous sustainable loop. Several efforts have
been found in the literature and presented below, focusing on the recycling of plastic waste
with the help of AM.
The authors of [67] transferred disposable plastic bottles to a crusher where they were
cut into small equal plastic parts, then melted and passed to an extruder, where filament
was produced. The proposed model is a technologically viable and fully environmentally
friendly solution, since defective products can be re-inserted into the crusher on the spot
and reused. Similarly, the authors of [65] also studied a recycling model for producing
filament for 3D printers made of ABS and PLA waste. The proposed system consists of
separate machines for grinding the material, extruding it in the form of a filament and
adapting it to the desired diameter. In terms of appearance and dimensional accuracy, the
items did not differ significantly, however, the recycled product was discolored. In terms of
mechanical performance, the maximum pre-fracture stress was reduced by approximately
11%, while an increase in its stiffness and fragility was also observed.
The authors of [68] examined the suitability—compared to the commonly used ABS—
of recycled HDPE in the form of flakes and pellets to determine if it can be used as a
feedstock for 3D printers. This research is a reference guide for future studies on the utiliza-
tion of plastic waste in 3D printing, always aligned with CE principles. The findings of the
experiment carried out by the authors in [49], on the mechanical properties of recyclable
PLA for AM, concluded that recycling a filament once or twice did not significantly affect
its mechanical properties and durability, as opposed to when undergoing further recycling
cycles. In fact, recycling a filament three times led to increased standard deviation.
The authors of [69] developed feedstock filament wire made of recycled polymer
waste as base matrix with SiC/Al2 O3 reinforcement for sustainable development. After
testing its tensile and mechanical properties, it was concluded that this technique would
encourage researchers to use waste polymer in AM applications. The author of [51]
compared the properties of parts 3D printed with virgin PLA to those printed with recycled
PLA by testing their tensile yield strength, modulus of elasticity, shear yield strength
and hardness. The results demonstrated that the parts 3D printed with recycled material
exhibited mechanical properties similar to the parts 3D printed with virgin material, thus
promoting the adoption of this method for reducing consumed resources, energy, costs and
carbon dioxide emissions in 3D printing.
The authors of [44] used recycled plastic waste for 3D printing surface finishing
post-processing, as a means to repair defective surfaces, weld broken parts and enhance
the roughness and mechanical strength of objects in a sustainable way. Environmentally
speaking, this process returned at least 9% of the generated waste as input to production.
The authors of [70] conducted research on the synthesis of a new eco-polyol based on
PLA waste to be utilized for the production of foams used in various applications, such as
thermal insulation. The authors of [71] used recycled plastic bottles and containers as 3D
printing filament to manufacture low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The filament
was made of at least 90% recycled material.
The authors of [48] proposed a methodology to evaluate the recyclability of thermo-
plastics used as feedstock for 3D printers, which then applied using recycled PLA for
FFF (Fused Filament Fabrication). The results of the experiments demonstrated excellent
prospects for the use of recycled material in open-source 3D printers. Still, it was con-
firmed that recycling deteriorates the mechanical properties and consequently the quality
of the final product. The authors of [72] examined various types of virgin and recycled
plastic (LDPE, HDPE, PET and PP) for the production of filament through a multi-criteria
decision-making process. The authors concluded that recycled PET exhibits better prop-
erties and performance than virgin PET, hence laying a solid foundation for its adoption
and use by AM as an alternative filament for 3D printing. Finally, the authors of [73]
analyzed the obstacles that arise in the recycling of plastic with regard to its subsequent
use in AM by conducting interviews with experts in the field. A total of 22 obstacles were
identified, which were classified into five general categories: technical, economic, social,
organizational and regulatory.
All in all, the plastics industry has demonstrated a wide spectrum of ways to exploit
discarded plastic items in many applications and fields [74]. However, more attention
should be paid to studying the variety of stages of the recycling process rather than just the
collection of plastic waste [46]. The most common procedure to treat plastic waste for 3D
printing is to crush it and cut it into small parts which are then extruded into a filament [75].
Another way to utilize plastic waste is to mix it with new material [59], even metal [76],
which has been proven to greatly improve the final product’s mechanical properties [59].
Unfortunately, every time a polymer is subjected to a thermal cycle in order to be recycled,
its mechanical properties deteriorate [55]. For instance, the tensile strength of recycled
materials is much lower than that of virgin materials [77]. This not only means that the
produced objects will not exhibit the expected strength, but also that their mechanical
properties will not be able to be recovered [78]. The deterioration of mechanical properties
can be attributed to thermomechanical reactions during reprocessing, the natural aging
of the material and the presence of additives [77]. In general, the same material can be
subjected to up to five recycling cycles without the need for further addition of virgin
material or other additives to ameliorate its mechanical properties [55].
Electronic Waste and Magnets

The rapid increase of e-waste also emerges as one of the most serious problems of the
last decades [79,80], while their low recycling and reuse rates aggravate the situation even
more [80]. Although e-waste recycling began in the 2000s and is strengthened with the
product stewardship legislation targeting televisions and computers [41], e-waste recycling
rates amount to only 15%, mostly due to its complex nature. In particular, e-waste consists
of a plethora of materials, including metal, glass and plastic, the largest amount of which
is made up by the latter, representing about 40–58%, by weight, of mobile phones and
70% of printers. In total, plastic makes up almost 20% of all electronic waste [80]. The
authors of [80] studied the recycling and conversion into sustainable filament of plastic
from electronic waste and in particular printers at the end of their life cycle. The effects
of repeated recycling, up to four extrusion cycles, were studied. 3D printing using plastic
electronic waste has proven to be more flexible compared to virgin plastic, rendering
e-waste very suitable to be utilized in 3D printing [59].
The recycling of magnets containing expensive rare earth elements (REEs) has at-
tracted the attention of researchers, owing to potential disruptions in the supply of REEs.
The authors of [81] used Nd-Fe-B magnets to develop a magnet recycling process via
cryomilling and subsequent remanufacturing of the bonded magnets. The recycled magnet
demonstrated enhanced density and remanence compared to the starting bonded magnets.
The authors of [82] investigated the preparation of filament for 3D printing of bonded
magnets using recycled Sm-Co powder recovered from industrial grinding swarfs and
blended into PLA. It was shown that magnetic properties did not deteriorate, but instead
ameliorated, possibly as a consequence of reduced particle rotation when loading recycled
Sm-Co powder into PLA, compared to the original powder.
Glass, Sand and Concrete

As far as the construction sector is concerned, cement is known to be associated with
high carbon dioxide emissions; thus, efforts are being made to find renewable sustainable
materials [83]. Glass is a 100% recyclable material, so it can be recovered from waste and
recycled for other uses, for instance as a replacement for the necessary additives in concrete.
In general, the construction sector is a viable option for utilizing recycled glass, since
cement is the most widely consumed material after water [84].
3D printing has begun to draw the attention of the construction sector [85]. The
authors of [84] explored the possibility of replacing the necessary additives in cement-
based materials used in 3D printing with recycled glass, and investigated the potential
effects on concrete both in its liquid and solid form. In the same vein, the authors of [86]
carried out a case study in Singapore, where a large amount of sand remains unused
as waste after construction or demolition. The authors of [87] developed a technique
in which sand and mineral binders are used to 3D print monolithic concrete materials.
This technique was then used to generate more complex building components, whose
mechanical properties were compared to the corresponding conventionally constructed
objects, showing promising results both in terms of performance and aesthetics. The
authors of [88] utilized glass fibers from scrap turbine blades as a reinforcing additive in
thermoplastic filament for 3D printing. Their research addressed the problem of increasing
wind turbine waste levels, while at the same time focusing on improving the mechanical
properties of 3D printed products.
Rubber Tires
Only approximately 10% of discarded rubber tires are used for the creation of new
products, in spite of the fact that rubber powder is completely sustainable, as it is created
mechanically without releasing harmful substances into the atmosphere. The authors of [89]
focused on the use of elastomeric powder from end-of-life tire material in AM. Furthermore,
3D Printing with latex, as proved by the authors, does not affect the mechanical properties
of final products. However, it was concluded that it alters their thickness. In the same
context, the authors of [61] proved that it is possible to 3D print big parts, such as furniture,
made from a blend of 60% of tire waste granulate and 40% of recycled PP. Furthermore,
another solution to the recycling of discarded tires is the production of ground tire rubber
for 3D printing, which can generate both environmental and economic advantages, since
its use as filler in other materials is able to reduce manufacturing costs [40].
Taking everything into account, various research efforts have been conducted with
respect to recycling supported by AM in the context of CE, in the form of distributed
manufacturing, presenting a plethora of economic and environmental incentives. The
adoption of a distributed recycling model—despite it being a subject of contention among
experts—and closed-loop supply chain models have been proven to be radical approaches
of distributed manufacturing, emerging as sustainable initiatives for future business success.

However, the subject is still at its infancy, with the majority of publications taking part
in our review focusing on plastic waste and just a slight number on electronics, magnets,
glass, sand, concrete and rubber tires, arousing the need for experimentation with different
types of wastes in various conditions and settings.
4.2. Reuse
4.2.1. Reuse after Recycling
An important issue which must be taken into account when it comes to designing
products is their subsequent disposal, explored under the lens of recycling and reuse. In
other words, material selection in product design should be guided by its added value
as waste for its subsequent use as feedstock for the manufacture of new products [41].
The more AM becomes acknowledged, the more powder is needed as raw material, thus
highlighting the need for its recycling and reuse [90]. In fact, the production of parts
made of recycled metal powder using AM methods is an emerging process that growingly
attracts scientific interest [91]. Approximately 80–90%, according to the authors of [92],
or even up to 95–97%, according to the authors of [93], of used powder does not melt
during 3D printing and can be reused, which shows enormous potential for resource
efficiency [91,93–96], rendering material waste a sustainable resource, with added value
for AM [95,97].
Although the recycling of metal powder for AM is of paramount significance to the
reduction of costs, processing time, energy consumption and material waste [91], the main
question lies in how it affects powder quality and consequently the properties of final
products [78]. Ideally, unused powder could be recycled and reused countless times [73].
However, its morphology, mechanical performance and composition change with each
cycle of recycling, and material quality deteriorates [91,98] due to increases in the molecular
weight of the residue [73,92,98]. This is because the repeated oxidation of recycled powder
changes particle size distribution and the powder becomes thinner. Therefore, the indicated
number of recycles is limited [91] so as not to jeopardize the quality of final products and,
therefore, the reliability of AM [90]. There is a broad spectrum of studies in the literature
presenting a variety of recycling strategies, where the same powder is used repeatedly
from 5 to over 30 times [91].
There are multiple ways to recycle waste powder and, hence, bring economic benefits,
as it is a less costly process than the supply of virgin raw material [90]. Since low-quality
powder might affect final products, techniques to maintain its quality throughout its life are
required [73,91]. Waste powder can be refreshed with virgin unused powder [99] at a rate
of at least 30–50% [73,92,100,101], and thus reused for a few more times for the manufacture
of high quality products [73] before it becomes waste with no way of recovery [100]. In
the literature, this process of recycling and reusing waste powder from AM processes to
subsequent ones has been extensively studied, aiming to reduce the energy footprint and
maximize economic performance, always guided towards the adoption of a CE model
where waste is not discarded but utilized in new production processes [90].
Metal
The authors of [102] investigated the effects of reusing Ti-6Al-4V ELI powder before
and during the printing process, and evaluated the impact of reuse times on the tensile
properties of solid SLM (Selective Lase Melting) material. The authors concluded that
powder flowability ameliorated as reuse times increased while, after 31 reuse cycles, it
was observed that its tensile strength slightly increased. Ti-6Al-4V powder was also the
focus of [20], in which the possibility of its reuse in aerospace applications was explored.
The authors of [99] compared the characteristics of virgin and recycled powders followed
by the corresponding items produced in industrial systems. The authors of [103], after
10 successful reuses of 17-4 PH stainless steel powder, observed no significant changes in
the chemical composition and crystallographic phases between the virgin and recycled
powder. These results can be generalized to cover all metal-based AM methods. The
authors of [104] also examined 17-4PH powder employed in the SLM process—in terms
of morphology, chemical composition and microstructure—in three different states: (1)
virgin state, (2) after recycling 10 times and (3) after recycling 20 times. The purpose of
this study was to detect changes in powder properties in order to determine the maximum
number of reuse cycles for optimal performance. The results indicated major changes in
the powder after 20 reuses that could detrimentally impact the mechanical properties of
final products, leading the authors to recommend that reuse cycles should be conducted in
a controlled manner.
The authors of [96] concentrated on 304L steel powder that was recycled and reused
seven times in the L-PBF (Laser Powder Bed Fusion) process to examine the differences
between virgin and heat-affected powder formed during processing. They proved that
the powder changes morphologically, chemically and microstructurally with repeated
reuse. The authors of [105] studied 316L steel powder, concluding that it can be reused for
multiple builds with minimal differences in the mechanical properties of final products.
Similarly, the authors of [94] carried out a thorough characterization on the surface and
microstructure of both virgin and recycled stainless steel 316 L powders employed in
the SLM process. The results divulged that changes are not notable, thus promoting
the reusability of recycled powders for several cycles. The authors of [106] developed a
simplified method for evaluating changes in the morphology, composition and flowability
of powder used in the SLM process. They inferred—by comparing powders commonly
used in AM—that, due to their low density, lightweight alloys are most affected by reuse. In
particular, AlSi10Mg was proven to be the most sensitive to reuse, followed by Inconel 718.
On the contrary, Ti6Al4V was the least affected by reuse. The authors of [78] also examined
Ti6Al4V alloy samples produced by EBM (Electron Beam Melting), the recycling of which
turned out to adversely influence the lifespan of the final product, compared to the same
product made of virgin powder. The authors of [107] studied and compared two types of
metal powder used in the PBF process, based on their rheological properties; recycled FS
316L and virgin MetcoAddTM 316L-A powder. They confirmed that mixing both powders
results in a high-quality raw material for reuse. The authors of [108] examined the surface
alterations in virgin and reused Alloy 718 powders during the EBM process. The authors
of [109] developed an environmentally friendly and reusable metal ink for the 3D printing
of very dense metallic structures. The metallic ink consists of steel micro powders, a
biodegradable polymer called chitosan, acetic acid and deionized water. It can be used for
the low-cost production of metallic structures and then reused.
Plastic
The authors of [110] focused on the recycling of Polyamide 12 (PA12) powder after
SLS (Selective Laser Sintering) and its reuse as filament for FDM. The properties and
performance of recycled PA12 are similar to those of virgin PA12, so it can be successfully
used in the FDM method, bringing about a twofold advantage. Not only does it tackle
the issue of SLS waste but it also—given its low cost—diminishes the cost of molten
deposition molding, hence benefiting the 3D printing industry as a whole. Still, the authors
of [111] proposed a more general methodology model for this process which is described
as follows: To begin with, due to the thermomechanical cycles the powder has undergone,
it has to be analyzed to find out its melting and crystallization points. With the aim of
improving its mechanical properties, the use of ceramic or metal additives is necessitated,
whereas, to enhance its plasticity, plasticizers or other additives should be employed. This
mix of materials then needs to be tested to confirm or refute its ability to be used in the
development of filament for FDM. In case that discrepancies in properties between recycled
and virgin filament are recognized, the former must be modified accordingly with various
additives in order for it to be usable. From an economic perspective, the use of recycled
powder was proven to be more profitable.
The authors of [112] evaluated the possibility of reusing heat-exposed PET powder,
proving that when exposed to print bed temperatures for approximately one hundred
hours, it can be reused without refreshing it with virgin powder. On the contrary, PA12
powder, even when exposed for just one hour, showed a rapid increase in its molecular
weight, which significantly affected its rheology and melt flow. Therefore, PA12 powder
needs to be refreshed with virgin powder at a rate of 30–70%. The same results were found
in [113], which demonstrated that recycled PET powder is fit to be used in FFF printing,
as long as the material is thoroughly cleaned and dried. The authors of [101] examined
nylon and indicated that it can be successfully reused without compromising the quality of
final products.
Sand and Concrete

The authors of [87] explored innovative uses of recycled aggregates and their reuse
in the construction sector and architecture. A strategy was proposed for the formation
of a “waste map” in the area between Como and Milan, designed to optimize waste
management locally through proper planning and thus contribute to reduction in energy
consumption, resource use and GHG emissions in the long run. The work presented in [90]
also focuses on the construction sector and, in particular, the possibilities of mixing used
metal powder with cement to improve the quality of concrete constructions in addition
to reaping the environmental benefits of reusing wasted powder. The authors of [85]
considered the possibility of replacing sand in construction with recycled glass. Even
though the results indicated that the mechanical strength of recycled glass concrete is
inferior to the sand aggregates concrete, the flow properties of the former are superior
to the latter, thus elucidating the need for creating equilibrium between the mechanical
strength and flowability of the mix design.
In conclusion, the reuse of recycled powder can yield both economic and environmen-
tal benefits [93], and a plethora of studies have been devoted to emphasizing its potential
for sustainable production supported by AM. Reducing the cost of filament through the
reuse of used powder mixed with virgin powder, and the consequent reduction in the
amount of virgin powder required [103], enhances the tendency of all the more industries
towards the utilization of AM. Nevertheless, this approach has not yet been universally
adopted, primarily owing to the potentially reduced quality resulting from such a raw
material, as observed in Ti and Al alloys [93]. This hesitancy towards the reuse of recycled
powder predominantly concerns industries that are completely intolerant of risk, such
as aircraft and biomedical applications [94]. Continuous thermal changes, environmen-
tal conditions, laser-powder interactions, etc., are able to affect powder characteristics
and lead to the production of objects with altered chemical composition and mechanical
properties [18,101].
Thus, a deeper analysis of powder properties is required in order to be able to de-
termine its quality before deciding whether to reject or reuse it, always aligned with the
target of minimizing resource consumption. The addition of particles can be employed
to enhance mechanical or other properties, such as thermal and electrical conductivity,
stiffness or elasticity of a structure [89]. Another way to improve powder manufacturing is
by ameliorating the gas atomization process or preventing out gassing of the melt pool [91].
However, it has been shown in the literature that the mechanical properties of final parts
could be improved, decreased or unaffected by the reuse of feedstock material [18] and,
regardless, material powder, even recycled, remains a high quality raw material compared
to, for example, low quality plastic waste (bottles, bags, etc.).
4.2.2. Reuse without Recycling

The authors of [114] worked on the issue of direct material reuse without the need
for recycling. In particular, their study investigated a combination of additive (EBM, SLM,
Direct Metal Deposition—DMD) and subtractive (Computer Numerically Controlled—
CNC machining) manufacturing, a strategy that leads to the creation of metal components
directly from end-of-life parts. This strategy makes full use of resources, reduces waste
production and energy consumption and, hence, helps alleviate environmental impacts.
The authors of [115] developed a project called EDUCABOT3D in order to raise awareness
in high school students about e-waste with the support of AM. A mobile robot chassis
was modeled using two ways of control between sensors and actuators, one with a rapid
prototyping board and another one assembled with components of obsolete electronic
devices in a printed circuit board. The authors of [116] also conducted in-depth research
on waste reuse without recycling. “Project RE_” explores AM as a “do-it-yourself” tool for
the reuse of end-of-life products. For instance, used cans and jars were transformed into
pencil holders or piggy banks through the addition of customized lids.
In summary, powder reuse—after or without recycling—appears as an extremely use-
ful practice, promoting the sustainability, quality and cost-effectiveness of parts. However,
powders of different materials can be affected in different ways depending on a plethora of
factors. These factors include the number of recycles prior to reuse, the rate of refreshment
with virgin powder, the AM process employed, material properties, experimental condi-
tions, etc., giving the space to explore a multitude of scenarios, which is a necessary step
towards the optimization of the process. Moreover, the limited number of publications on
reuse without recycling reflects the need for additional research on the matter, given its
potential to dispense businesses—whenever possible—from the cost of recycling as well as
to provide resource efficiency.
4.3. Remanufacturing & Repair

4.3.1. Remanufacturing
As already stated, one of the main pillars of CE is the recapture of value of end-of-life
products that would otherwise be lost. Remanufacturing is defined as “the rebuilding of
a product to specifications of the original manufactured product using a combination of
reused, repaired and new parts” [117]. In this process, an item is disassembled, cleaned,
inspected, restored, reassembled and tested by skilled workers [22], and returns to an
as-new condition [22,117]. Remanufacturing is undeniably more environmentally sound
compared not only to conventional landfilling techniques [118], but also to recycling.
Indeed, it is more efficient in that it retains durable cores in their next life cycles, thus
diminishing the need to build new components each time [22].
The potential of remanufacturing to give new life to end-of-life products is a great
driving force for AM [119], through which special geometries can be generated permitting
part optimization and redesign [23]. Remanufacturing often also relies immensely on
subtractive manufacturing. First, the part is machined to remove unwanted material and
then new material is added on top to achieve the required geometry. Thus, the item is
either upgraded with new functionalities or the broken part is repaired [118].
The authors of [118] focused on a hybrid subtractive–additive remanufacturing
method, through which material can be removed from and added to a used part, in
order to sustain or upgrade its functionality. The aim of their research is to obtain the
optimal hybrid remanufacturing strategy, which is achieved through an innovative algo-
rithm, examining a specific part bearing a loading, so as to help engineers calculate what
features should be removed or added. The authors of [117] have paid great attention to
the use of AM in remanufacturing and described the following key steps for this process:
after a product is received, it is thoroughly cleaned to remove dust and impurities. It is
then inspected to evaluate the internal and external conditions of its core and to decide
whether it can be remanufactured or, in the case of defects, repaired through AM. The AM
technology that should be employed is dependent upon the material, shape and volume of
the core of the product. According to the works presented in [117,120], the most used AM
methods for remanufacturing are DED and PBF, while the authors of [121] also add FDM.
As for the type of the material, the authors of [117] deem metal, plastic and ceramic to be
fit to be used in PBF, as opposed to DED in which only metal can be used.
The authors of [122] proposed an innovative recycling and remanufacturing process

based on AM of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites, which creates filament
with superior mechanical performance. This process has the potential to develop a “green”
composite based on AM, so that there is no dependence on carbon fibers, while at the
same time delivering enhanced mechanical properties and significant environmental and
economic benefits. Important issues to consider are the material recovery rates and energy
consumption levels of the recycling process. In this study, an overall material recovery
rate of 75% was accomplished, where continuous carbon fiber was 100% recovered and
converted into an impregnated filament without any damage to the properties of carbon
fiber. The overall energy consumption for recycling and remanufacturing was higher
compared to the conventional processes and could be further ameliorated by improving
production efficiency.
To sum up, the most important aspects of AM in the context of CE are the efficiency in
resource and energy consumption and product lifespan extension, criteria fully accommo-
dated by remanufacturing [23]. On the contrary, recycling requires additional energy to be
expended, not to mention the fact that the energy bound to the product is lost [114], while
remanufacturing requires approximately 20–25% of the energy consumed for the initial
production of an item. Thus, remanufacturing emerges as an ideal solution for managing
components that have been used, failed or reached the end of their life [118].
4.3.2. Repair
The implementation of effective production techniques designed to extend a product’s
lifespan through repair is a topic that has been of great concern to researchers [23,116], and
although AM has been generally used for prototyping, its use for repair, especially through
the 3D printing of spare parts, is increasing rapidly [123]. The key difference between
repair and remanufacturing lies in the fact that in order to repair a part, the issue causing its
failure would have to be recognized and then repaired, whereas in remanufacturing, that
part would have to undergo diverse processes and end up indiscernible from a new one,
meaning that it would essentially restart its lifecycle [124]. While conventional processes
necessitate the manual reparation of a component and then it’s attachment to the broken
part, AM can directly build-up in the position of the broken part layer by layer [125,126].
The ability to immediately repair an item instead of dumping it in a landfill actively
combats waste generation and resource depletion [123], thus promoting CE principles.
Of the different AM techniques, only three are applied for repair, namely DED, FDM
and PBF [22]. In [22], each of the three AM methods used for repair was meticulously
analyzed. Laser Cladding (LC), which is commonly used in the application of DED, is
able to repair damaged parts—even in the case of wide solid constructions—or cracks by
applying material on the damaged surface. It is worth noting that geometrical complexity
remains a major challenge in this process. FDM is used to create new parts and fit to
replace damaged ones, considering that it might be more advantageous for a part to be
self-produced by the user instead of ordered from the manufacturer, especially for parts no
longer available for purchase. Last but not least, PBF—in contrast to the aforementioned
two methods—requires the object surface to be flat and parallel to the platform previous to
the repair process. The authors of [127] analyzed a polymerization strategy to develop 3D
printing reprocessable thermosets allowing users to convert a printed 3D structure into a
new shape, repair a broken part by simply 3D printing new material onto the damaged site
and recycle unwanted printed parts so that the material can be reused. With conventional
thermosetting 3D printing materials, when a part is broken, it is not able to be repaired
since its chemically crosslinked networks are permanently damaged. However, with this
approach, printed parts are repairable through thermally activated self-healing.
The authors of [128] compared the environmental ramifications of conventional and
LBM-based manufacturing through a case study for the repair of a gas turbine burner.
Contrary to the conventional repair process, only a low percentage of material needs to be
removed and turned into scrap through the AM repair process, thus preventing additional
material waste. The work presented in [44] deals with 3D printing surface finishing post-
processing with the use of recycled plastic waste. In this study, the proposed process
was performed on four types of surface defects, i.e., (1) warping holes, (2) skip layers or
intermittent deposition, (3) stair effect gaps and (4) excessive air gap, using plastic paste
made of recycled FDM waste. This method makes it possible to substantially reduce the
use of support materials, hence directly promoting waste recycling and indirectly reducing
waste generation. The authors of [129] described a project in which secondary raw materials
are reused for the repair of vending machines for beverage containers (internal aluminum
structures and 3D printed plastic parts).
As a final note, a key parameter in complying with CE criteria is optimizing part design
and guiding it towards easy maintenance, repair and restoration, i.e., ease of assembly and
disassembly, consideration of the degree to which the component can be repaired by the
user himself/herself, etc. [41]. A way to facilitate this orientation process is by making
a technological leap through the creation of digital databases where spare part designs
are stored and utilized at all times for various functions of the supply chain [23]. Digital
storages of spare part designs allow direct exchange of information for their production
and custom repair, thereby enabling the production of spare parts on-demand, fast repair
and the reduction of required storage capacity for inventory to a minimum [116].
In summation, the superiority of remanufacturing—in terms of energy expenditure
and material utilization—against conventional landfilling and recycling processes renders
it a prominent practice for the treatment of end-of-life products. At the same time, it
triggers the need for more research on the issue, with an emphasis on the application of
information and technology as well as innovations, not only allowing the optimization of
the products’ upgrade, restoration and repair, but also assisting the operation of the entire
supply chain.
5. Conclusions
The research presented in this paper aims to contribute to the structure of the scientific
field residing in the intersection of AM and CE by determining the status of its current
state-of-the-art, proposing an initial typology of existing research efforts, identifying re-
search gaps and highlighting areas with a significant potential for added-value future
research and applications. In this direction, a classification of 206 publications from the
bibliographic databases of Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted, into six thematic
categories. The main subject directions identified in our sample concentrate on “Additive
Manufacturing Methods”, “Additive Manufacturing Materials”, “Recycling”, “Reuse”
and “Remanufacturing & Repair”. The most popular ones gravitate towards “Additive
Manufacturing Methods” and “Recycling”, each representing the topics of at least half of
the papers in our sample. On the contrary, “Additive Manufacturing Materials”, “Reuse”
and “Remanufacturing & Repair” account for an eighth, fifth and tenth of the selected
publications, respectively: a lack underlining the need for more emphasis on these subjects
in the future, especially remanufacturing, which, as described in the literature review, is
environmentally friendlier than recycling and, therefore, has strong potential benefits for
sustainable manufacturing. Attention should also be paid to reusing, especially without
recycling, given the limited efforts carried out on the matter. In terms of AM materials,
plastic, metal, e-waste, magnets, glass, sand, concrete and rubber tires—in descending
order from the most to the least studied—were identified in the literature.
Before conducting our systematic literature review, the authors needed to assess
relevant antecedent reviews, for the purpose of which a second data collection process
ensued. The selected reviews were categorized based on their subject and type according
to the typology proposed by the authors of [36]. The subject categories identified in our
review sample were the following: “Sustainability”, “Additive Manufacturing Materials”,
“Additive Manufacturing Methods”, “Practical Applications” and “Digitization-Industry
4.0”. The vast majority of the reviews focus on recycling, reuse, remanufacturing and repair;
in other words, they are related to sustainability issues, whereas AM materials, methods
and practical applications have been investigated to a lesser extent. The application of
modern digitized technologies and the study of their capabilities have been the least
reviewed research directions. This lack is justifiable due to the recent advent of Industry
4.0, but necessitates further research in the future, since the digitalization of AM via the
integration of “smart” technological innovations and production systems is expected to play
an essential role in revolutionizing the industry by reducing overall costs and increasing
quality and efficiency. The primary review types identified in our sample turned out to
be four, i.e., systematic, quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods reviews. Qualitative
reviews have been the most common ones, as opposed to systematic reviews, the lack of
which, although addressed by the present paper, is fairly alarming, alerting to the need for
more pertinent efforts in the years to come.
Furthermore, in this systematic literature review, three key controversial research
topics were identified for future development of the field. First, the extent to which
distributed recycling will be adopted, as stated in our review, remains an equivocal issue
among experts [41]. Therefore, future research should focus on the examination of various
scenarios in which both domestic and globalized manufacturing are implemented to
different extents, based on the respective needs and circumstances, with a view to achieving
“the best of both worlds”. Second, again, with regard to recycling, additional emphasis
should be paid to the effects of thermal cycles on product mechanical properties during
the various recycling stages. Last but not least, our final remark concerns the limited
reuse of recycled powder, despite the reduced filament costs entailed [103], due to its
potentially reduced quality. This illustrates the need for a more thorough analysis of
powder properties, which will allow the assessment of its quality before deciding whether
to reject or reuse it. At the same time, a multitude of other factors, including the number of
recycles prior to reuse, the rate of refreshment with virgin powder, the type of AM process,
experimental conditions, etc., should also be studied more extensively, a necessary step
towards the performance improvement of the process. Finally, it must be noted that this
study, despite its value, is not devoid of limitations. For instance, a plethora of papers were
rejected due to non-abidance by the inclusion criteria, which were subjectively selected
by the authors, as described in the methodology section. Nonetheless, the full texts of the
final sample of 206 papers were thoroughly studied by all authors individually, who then
discussed ambiguities until agreement was reached and papers were cautiously classified
into categories before being analysed.
Author Contributions: All of the authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of research,
methodology, data gathering, writing, editing and proofreading of the original draft. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The present work is co-funded by the European Union and Greek national funds through
the Operational Program “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (EPAnEK), under the
call “RESEARCH-CREATE-INNOVATE” (project code: T1E∆K-05095 and Acronym: TRACKPLAST).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means, How to Respond. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond (accessed on 26 May 2021).
2. Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The Expected Contribution of Industry 4.0 Technologies for Industrial
Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 383–394. [CrossRef]
3. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B.; Khorasani, M. Additive Manufacturing Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014;
Volume 17.
4. Guo, N.; Leu, M.C. Additive Manufacturing: Technology, Applications and Research Needs. Front. Mech. Eng. 2013, 8, 215–243.
[CrossRef]
5. Tofail, S.A.; Koumoulos, E.P.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Bose, S.; O’Donoghue, L.; Charitidis, C. Additive Manufacturing: Scientific
and Technological Challenges, Market Uptake and Opportunities. Mater. Today 2018, 21, 22–37. [CrossRef]
6. Ngo, T.D.; Kashani, A.; Imbalzano, G.; Nguyen, K.T.; Hui, D. Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing): A Review of Materials,
Methods, Applications and Challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 143, 172–196. [CrossRef]
7. Ebenstein, A. The Consequences of Industrialization: Evidence from Water Pollution and Digestive Cancers in China. Rev. Econ.
Stat. 2012, 94, 186–201. [CrossRef]
8. Patnaik, R. Impact of Industrialization on Environment and Sustainable Solutions–Reflections from a South Indian Region. IOP
Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 120, 012016. [CrossRef]
9. Mishra, R.K.; Mohammad, N.; Roychoudhury, N. Soil Pollution: Causes, Effects and Control. Trop. For. Res. Inst. 2015, 3, 20–30.
10. Mudakkar, S.R.; Zaman, K.; Khan, M.M.; Ahmad, M. Energy for Economic Growth, Industrialization, Environment and Natural
Resources: Living with Just Enough. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 580–595. [CrossRef]
11. Lu, Q.; Liang, F.; Bi, X.; Duffy, R.; Zhao, Z. Effects of Urbanization and Industrialization on Agricultural Land Use in Shandong
Peninsula of China. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1710–1714. [CrossRef]
12. European Cluster Collaboration Platform. European Cluster Collaboration Platform Difference between the Circular Economy
and the Linear Economy. Available online: https://clustercollaboration.eu/community-news/difference-between-circular-
economy-and-linear-economy (accessed on 17 February 2021).
13. European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Accelerating the Transition to the Circular Economy: Improving
Access to Finance for Circular Economy Projects; European Commission Publications Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
14. Laila, N.; Ardianto; Das, P.K.; Singh, S. Plastic Waste Management in Indonesia: Review. Available online: /paper/Plastic-
Waste-Management-in-Indonesia%3A-Review-Laila-Ardianto/aee4a2e8904d15624f7614c89075911dfdc50603 (accessed on
17 February 2021).
15. Fangtao, R.; Jian, S.; Zhenzhen, X.; Jian, X. Research Progress in Recycling and Reuse of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Resin Composites.
Fangzhi Xuebao 2019, 40, 152–157.
16. Ahmed, S.; Bui, M.-P.N.; Abbas, A. Paper-Based Chemical and Biological Sensors: Engineering Aspects. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016,
77, 249–263. [CrossRef]
17. Trombettoni, V.; Lanari, D.; Prinsen, P.; Luque, R.; Marrocchi, A.; Vaccaro, L. Recent Advances in Sulfonated Resin Catalysts for
Efficient Biodiesel and Bio-Derived Additives Production. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2018, 65, 136–162. [CrossRef]
18. Santecchia, E.; Spigarelli, S.; Cabibbo, M. Material Reuse in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: Side Effects of the Laser—Metal Powder
Interaction. Metals 2020, 10, 341. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, W.; Han, P.; Peng, P.; Zhang, T.; Liu, Q.; Yuan, S.-N.; Huang, L.-Y.; Yu, H.-L.; Qiao, K.; Wang, K.-S. Friction Stir Processing
of Magnesium Alloys: A Review. Acta Metall. Sin. Engl. Lett. 2020, 33, 43–57. [CrossRef]
20. Sibisi, P.N.; Popoola, A.P.I.; Arthur, N.K.; Pityana, S.L. Review on Direct Metal Laser Deposition Manufacturing Technology for
the Ti-6Al-4V Alloy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 107, 1163–1178. [CrossRef]
21. Kumar, R.; Singh, R.; Ahuja, I.P.S.; Hashmi, M.S.J. Processing Techniques of Polymeric Materials and Their Reinforced Composites.
Adv. Mater. Process. Technol. 2020, 6, 591–607. [CrossRef]
22. Wahab, D.A.; Azman, A.H. Additive Manufacturing for Repair and Restoration in Remanufacturing: An Overview from Object
Design and Systems Perspectives. Processes 2019, 7, 802.
23. Oros Daraban, A.E.; Negrea, C.S.; Artimon, F.G.; Angelescu, D.; Popan, G.; Gheorghe, S.I.; Gheorghe, M. A Deep Look at Metal
Additive Manufacturing Recycling and Use Tools for Sustainability Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5494. [CrossRef]
24. Saboori, A.; Aversa, A.; Marchese, G.; Biamino, S.; Lombardi, M.; Fino, P. Application of Directed Energy Deposition-Based
Additive Manufacturing in Repair. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3316. [CrossRef]
25. Nascimento, D.L.M.; Alencastro, V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Lona, L.R.; Tortorella, G. Exploring
Industry 4.0 Technologies to Enable Circular Economy Practices in a Manufacturing Context: A Business Model Proposal. J.
Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 607–627. [CrossRef]
26. Navarro, J.C.; Centeno, M.A.; Laguna, O.H.; Odriozola, J.A. Policies and Motivations for the CO2 Valorization through the
Sabatier Reaction Using Structured Catalysts. A Review of the Most Recent Advances. Catalysts 2018, 8, 578. [CrossRef]
27. Gama, N.V.; Ferreira, A.; Barros-Timmons, A. Polyurethane Foams: Past, Present, and Future. Materials 2018, 11, 1841. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Walsh, F.C.; de Léon, C.P. Progress in Electrochemical Flow Reactors for Laboratory and Pilot Scale Processing. Electrochimica Acta
2018, 280, 121–148. [CrossRef]
29. Peng, T.; Kellens, K.; Tang, R.; Chen, C.; Chen, G. Sustainability of Additive Manufacturing: An Overview on Its Energy Demand
and Environmental Impact. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 21, 694–704. [CrossRef]
30. Tan, J.H.; Wong, W.L.E.; Dalgarno, K.W. An Overview of Powder Granulometry on Feedstock and Part Performance in the
Selective Laser Melting Process. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 18, 228–255. [CrossRef]
31. Singh, S.; Ramakrishna, S.; Gupta, M.K. Towards Zero Waste Manufacturing: A Multidisciplinary Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
168, 1230–1243. [CrossRef]
32. Yang, W.G.; Lu, H.; Huang, W.M.; Qi, H.J.; Wu, X.L.; Sun, K.Y. Advanced Shape Memory Technology to Reshape Product Design,
Manufacturing and Recycling. Polymers 2014, 6, 2287–2308. [CrossRef]
33. Sanchez, F.A.C.; Boudaoud, H.; Camargo, M.; Pearce, J.M. Plastic Recycling in Additive Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature
Review and Opportunities for the Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121602. [CrossRef]
34. Betim, D.V.; Heymann, M.C.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Costa, H.G. Analysis of the Application of Additive Manufacturing
in the Circular Economy: An Integrative Literature Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Production and
Operations Management Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 14–16 December 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp.
1075–1084.
35. Mack, C.A. How to Write a Good Scientific Paper; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2018.
36. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J.
2009, 26, 91–108. [CrossRef]
37. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D.
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions:
Explanation and Elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [CrossRef]
38. Juraschek, M.; Cerdas, F.; Posselt, G.; Herrmann, C. Experiencing Closed Loop Manufacturing in a Learning Environment.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 57–64. [CrossRef]
39. Wu, H.; Wu, R. The Role of Educational Action Research of Recycling Process to the Green Technologies, Environment Engineering,
and Circular Economies. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 1639–1645. [CrossRef]
40. Alkadi, F.; Lee, J.; Yeo, J.-S.; Hwang, S.-H.; Choi, J.-W. 3D Printing of Ground Tire Rubber Composites. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.
Green Technol. 2019, 6, 211–222. [CrossRef]
41. Giurco, D.; Littleboy, A.; Boyle, T.; Fyfe, J.; White, S. Circular Economy: Questions for Responsible Minerals, Additive Manufac-
turing and Recycling of Metals. Resources 2014, 3, 432–453. [CrossRef]
42. Santander, P.; Cruz Sanchez, F.A.; Boudaoud, H.; Camargo, M. Closed Loop Supply Chain Network for Local and Distributed
Plastic Recycling for 3D Printing: A MILP-Based Optimization Approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154. [CrossRef]
43. Wu, H. Education for Environment Sustainability: 3D Printing’s Role in Transformation of Plastic Industry. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng.
Technol. 2019, 10, 128–134. [CrossRef]
44. Cunico, M.W.M.; Kai, D.A.; Cavalheiro, P.M.; de Carvalho, J. Development and Characterisation of 3D Printing Finishing Process
Applying Recycled Plastic Waste. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2019, 14, 37–52. [CrossRef]
45. Dertinger, S.C.; Gallup, N.; Tanikella, N.G.; Grasso, M.; Vahid, S.; Foot, P.J.S.; Pearce, J.M. Technical Pathways for Distributed
Recycling of Polymer Composites for Distributed Manufacturing: Windshield Wiper Blades. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157.
[CrossRef]
46. Pavlo, S.; Fabio, C.; Hakim, B.; Mauricio, C. 3D-Printing Based Distributed Plastic Recycling: A Conceptual Model for Closed-Loop
Supply Chain Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation,
Stuttgart, Germany, 17–20 June 2018.
47. Zhong, S.; Pearce, J.M. Tightening the Loop on the Circular Economy: Coupled Distributed Recycling and Manufacturing with
Recyclebot and RepRap 3-D Printing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 48–58. [CrossRef]
48. Sanchez, F.A.C.; Boudaoud, H.; Hoppe, S.; Camargo, M. Polymer Recycling in an Open-Source Additive Manufacturing Context:
Mechanical Issues. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 17, 87–105. [CrossRef]
49. Lanzotti, A.; Martorelli, M.; Maietta, S.; Gerbino, S.; Penta, F.; Gloria, A. A Comparison between Mechanical Properties of
Specimens 3D Printed with Virgin and Recycled PLA. Procedia CIRP 2019, 79, 143–146. [CrossRef]
50. Zander, N.E.; Gillan, M.; Burckhard, Z.; Gardea, F. Recycled Polypropylene Blends as Novel 3D Printing Materials. Addit. Manuf.
2019, 25, 122–130. [CrossRef]
51. Anderson, I. Mechanical Properties of Specimens 3D Printed with Virgin and Recycled Polylactic Acid. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf.
2017, 4, 110–115. [CrossRef]
52. Hart, K.R.; Frketic, J.B.; Brown, J.R. Recycling Meal-Ready-to-Eat (MRE) Pouches into Polymer Filament for Material Extrusion
Additive Manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 21, 536–543. [CrossRef]
53. Kreiger, M.A.; Mulder, M.L.; Glover, A.G.; Pearce, J.M. Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Recycling of Post-Consumer High
Density Polyethylene for 3-D Printing Filament. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 70, 90–96. [CrossRef]
54. Reich, M.J.; Woern, A.L.; Tanikella, N.G.; Pearce, J.M. Mechanical Properties and Applications of Recycled Polycarbonate Particle
Material Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing. Materials 2019, 12, 1642. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Woern, A.L.; Byard, D.J.; Oakley, R.B.; Fiedler, M.J.; Snabes, S.L.; Pearce, J.M. Fused Particle Fabrication 3-D Printing: Recycled
Materials’ Optimization and Mechanical Properties. Materials 2018, 11, 1413. [CrossRef]
56. Feeley, S.R.; Wijnen, B.; Pearce, J.M. Evaluation of Potential Fair Trade Standards for an Ethical 3-D Printing Filament. J. Sustain.
Dev. 2014, 7. [CrossRef]
57. Govindan, K.; Soleimani, H.; Kannan, D. Reverse Logistics and Closed-Loop Supply Chain: A Comprehensive Review to Explore
the Future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 240, 603–626. [CrossRef]
58. Sauerwein, M.; Doubrovski, E.L. Local and Recyclable Materials for Additive Manufacturing: 3D Printing with Mussel Shells.
Mater. Today Commun. 2018, 15, 214–217. [CrossRef]
59. Mohammed, M.I.; Wilson, D.; Gomez-Kervin, E.; Tang, B.; Wang, J. Investigation of Closed-Loop Manufacturing with Acrylonitrile
Butadiene Styrene over Multiple Generations Using Additive Manufacturing. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 13955–13969.
[CrossRef]
60. Zhao, P.; Rao, C.; Gu, F.; Sharmin, N.; Fu, J. Close-Looped Recycling of Polylactic Acid Used in 3D Printing: An Experimental
Investigation and Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1046–1055. [CrossRef]
61. Domingues, J.; Marques, T.; Mateus, A.; Carreira, P.; Malça, C. An Additive Manufacturing Solution to Produce Big Green Parts
from Tires and Recycled Plastics. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 12, 242–248. [CrossRef]
62. Diaonescu, R. Status and Trends in the Global Manufacturing Sector; IIoT-Worldcom: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2018; Available online:
http://iiot-world.com/industrial-iot/connected-industry/status-and-trends-in-the-global-manufacturing-sector/ (accessed on
26 May 2021).
63. Beckman, E. The World’s Plastic Problem in Numbers. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/the-
world-of-plastics-in-numbers/ (accessed on 17 February 2021).
64. Mortillaro, N. Humans Have Produced 8.3 Billion Tonnes of Plastic, Researchers Say. Available online: https://www.cbc.ca/
amp/1.4210279 (accessed on 17 February 2021).
65. Lee, D.; Lee, Y.; Lee, K.; Ko, Y.; Kim, N. Development and Evaluation of a Distributed Recycling System for Making Filaments
Reused in Three-Dimensional Printers. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2019, 141, 021007. [CrossRef]
66. Charles, A.; Bassan, P.M.; Mueller, T.; Elkaseer, A.; Scholz, S.G. On the Assessment of Thermo-Mechanical Degradability of
Multi-Recycled ABS Polymer for 3D Printing Applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Design
and Manufacturing, Budapest, Hungary, 4–5 July 2019; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 363–373.
67. Romero-Alva, V.; Alvarado-Diaz, W.; Roman-Gonzalez, A. Design of a 3D Printer and Integrated Supply System. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE XXV International Conference on Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computing (INTERCON), Lima, Peru,
8–10 August 2018; pp. 1–4.
68. Chong, S.; Pan, G.-T.; Khalid, M.; Yang, T.C.-K.; Hung, S.-T.; Huang, C.-M. Physical Characterization and Pre-Assessment of
Recycled High-Density Polyethylene as 3D Printing Material. J. Polym. Environ. 2017, 25, 136–145. [CrossRef]
69. Singh, N.; Singh, R.; Ahuja, I.P.S. Recycling of Polymer Waste with SiC/Al2O3 Reinforcement for Rapid Tooling Applications.
Mater. Today Commun. 2018, 15, 124–127. [CrossRef]
70. Paciorek-Sadowska, J.; Borowicz, M.; Isbrandt, M. New Poly (Lactide-Urethane-Isocyanurate) Foams Based on Bio-Polylactide
Waste. Polymers 2019, 11, 481. [CrossRef]
71. Mosaddek, A.; Kommula, H.K.; Gonzalez, F. Design and Testing of a Recycled 3D Printed and Foldable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
for Remote Sensing. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Dallas, TX,
USA, 12–15 June 2018; pp. 1207–1216.
72. Exconde, M.K.J.E.; Co, J.A.A.; Manapat, J.Z.; Magdaluyo, E.R., Jr. Materials Selection of 3D Printing Filament and Utilization of
Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in a Redesigned Breadboard. Procedia CIRP 2019, 84, 28–32. [CrossRef]
73. Peeters, B.; Kiratli, N.; Semeijn, J. A Barrier Analysis for Distributed Recycling of 3D Printing Waste: Taking the Maker Movement
Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241. [CrossRef]
74. Singh, R.; Singh, J.; Singh, S. Investigation for Dimensional Accuracy of AMC Prepared by FDM Assisted Investment Casting
Using Nylon-6 Waste Based Reinforced Filament. Measurement 2016, 78, 253–259. [CrossRef]
75. Fateri, M.; Kaouk, A.; Cowley, A.; Siarov, S.; Palou, M.V.; González, F.G.; Marchant, R.; Cristoforetti, S.; Sperl, M. Feasibility Study
on Additive Manufacturing of Recyclable Objects for Space Applications. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 24, 400–404. [CrossRef]
76. Singh, R.; Singh, H.; Farina, I.; Colangelo, F.; Fraternali, F. On the Additive Manufacturing of an Energy Storage Device from
Recycled Material. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 156, 259–265. [CrossRef]
77. Turku, I.; Kasala, S.; Kärki, T. Characterization of Polystyrene Wastes as Potential Extruded Feedstock Filament for 3D Printing.
Recycling 2018, 3, 57. [CrossRef]
78. Popov, V.V., Jr.; Katz-Demyanetz, A.; Garkun, A.; Bamberger, M. The Effect of Powder Recycling on the Mechanical Properties
and Microstructure of Electron Beam Melted Ti-6Al-4 V Specimens. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 834–843. [CrossRef]
79. Czyżewski, P.; Bieliński, M.; Sykutera, D.; Jurek, M.; Gronowski, M.; Ryl, Ł.; Hoppe, H. Secondary Use of ABS Co-Polymer
Recyclates for the Manufacture of Structural Elements Using the FFF Technology. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 1447–1454. [CrossRef]
80. Gaikwad, V.; Ghose, A.; Cholake, S.; Rawal, A.; Iwato, M.; Sahajwalla, V. Transformation of E-Waste Plastics into Sustainable
Filaments for 3D Printing. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 14432–14440. [CrossRef]
81. Gandha, K.; Ouyang, G.; Gupta, S.; Kunc, V.; Paranthaman, M.P.; Nlebedim, I.C. Recycling of Additively Printed Rare-Earth
Bonded Magnets. Waste Manag. 2019, 90, 94–99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Khazdozian, H.A.; Manzano, J.S.; Gandha, K.; Slowing, I.I.; Nlebedim, I.C. Recycled Sm-Co Bonded Magnet Filaments for 3D
Printing of Magnets. AIP Adv. 2018, 8, 056722. [CrossRef]
83. Stolz, B.; Mülhaupt, R. Cellular, Mineralized, and Programmable Cellulose Composites Fabricated by 3D Printing of Aqueous
Pastes Derived from Paper Wastes and Microfibrillated Cellulose. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2020, 305, 1900740. [CrossRef]
84. Annapareddy, A.; Li, M.; Tan, M.J.; Ting, A.G.H.; Tay, D.Y.W.; Ting, A.G.H.; Tay, D.Y.W.; Annapareddy, A.; Li, M.; Tan, M.J. Effect
of Recycled Glass Gradation in 3D Cementitious Material Printing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Progress in Additive
Manufacturing (Pro-AM 2018), Singapore, 14–17 May 2018; Volume 50, p. 55.
85. Ting, G.H.A.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Qian, Y.; Tan, M.J. Utilization of Recycled Glass for 3D Concrete Printing: Rheological and Mechanical
Properties. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2019, 21, 994–1003. [CrossRef]
86. Annapareddy, A.; Panda, B.; Ting, A.G.H.; Li, M.; Tan, M.J. Flow and Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed Cementitious Material
with Recycled Glass Aggregates. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Progress in Additive Manufacturing
(Pro-AM 2018), Singapore, 14–17 May 2018; pp. 14–17.
87. Baiani, S.; Altamura, P. Waste Materials Superuse and Upcycling in Architecture: Design and Experimentation. TECHNE 2018, 16,
142–151. [CrossRef]
88. Rahimizadeh, A.; Kalman, J.; Fayazbakhsh, K.; Lessard, L. Recycling of Fiberglass Wind Turbine Blades into Reinforced Filaments
for Use in Additive Manufacturing. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 175, 107101. [CrossRef]
89. Quetzeri-Santiago, M.A.; Hedegaard, C.L.; Castrejón-Pita, J.R. Additive Manufacturing with Liquid Latex and Recycled End-of-
Life Rubber. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 6, 149–157. [CrossRef]
90. Melugiri-Shankaramurthy, B.; Sargam, Y.; Zhang, X.; Sun, W.; Wang, K.; Qin, H. Evaluation of Cement Paste Containing Recycled
Stainless Steel Powder for Sustainable Additive Manufacturing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 227, 116696. [CrossRef]
91. Gorji, N.E.; Saxena, P.; Corfield, M.; Clare, A.; Rueff, J.P.; Bogan, J.; O’Connor, R. A New Method for Assessing the Utility of
Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) Feedstock. Mater. Charact. 2020, 161, 110167. [CrossRef]
92. Wang, L.; Kiziltas, A.; Mielewski, D.F.; Lee, E.C.; Gardner, D.J. Closed-Loop Recycling of Polyamide12 Powder from Selective
Laser Sintering into Sustainable Composites. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 765–772. [CrossRef]
93. Lutter-Günther, M.; Bröker, M.; Mayer, T.; Lizak, S.; Seidel, C.; Reinhart, G. Spatter Formation during Laser Beam Melting of
AlSi10Mg and Effects on Powder Quality. Procedia CIRP 2018, 74, 33–38. [CrossRef]
94. Gorji, N.E.; O’Connor, R.; Mussatto, A.; Snelgrove, M.; González, P.M.; Brabazon, D. Recyclability of Stainless Steel (316 L)
Powder within the Additive Manufacturing Process. Materialia 2019, 8, 100489. [CrossRef]
95. Turner, C.; Moreno, M.; Mondini, L.; Salonitis, K.; Charnley, F.; Tiwari, A.; Hutabarat, W. Sustainable Production in a Circular
Economy: A Business Model for Re-Distributed Manufacturing. Sustain. Switz. 2019, 11, 4291. [CrossRef]
96. Sutton, A.T.; Kriewall, C.S.; Karnati, S.; Leu, M.C.; Newkirk, J.W. Characterization of AISI 304L Stainless Steel Powder Recycled
in the Laser Powder-Bed Fusion Process. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 100981. [CrossRef]
97. Idrees, M.; Jeelani, S.; Rangari, V. Three-Dimensional-Printed Sustainable Biochar-Recycled PET Composites. ACS Sustain. Chem.
Eng. 2018, 6, 13940–13948. [CrossRef]
98. Antonov, M.; Ivanov, R.; Holovenko, Y.; Goljandin, D.; Rahmaniahranjani, R.; Kollo, L.; Hussainova, I. 3D Printing of Plain and
Gradient Cermets with Efficient Use of Raw Materials. Key Eng. Mater. 2019, 799, 239–245. [CrossRef]
99. Sillani, F.; Kleijnen, R.G.; Vetterli, M.; Schmid, M.; Wegener, K. Selective Laser Sintering and Multi Jet Fusion: Process-Induced
Modification of the Raw Materials and Analyses of Parts Performance. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 27, 32–41. [CrossRef]
100. Kumar, S.; Czekanski, A. Development of Filaments Using Selective Laser Sintering Waste Powder. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165,
1188–1196. [CrossRef]
101. Kozlovsky, K.; Schiltz, J.; Kreider, T.; Kumar, M.; Schmid, S. Mechanical Properties of Reused Nylon Feedstock for Powder-Bed
Additive Manufacturing in Orthopedics. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 26, 826–833. [CrossRef]
102. Quintana, O.A.; Alvarez, J.; Mcmillan, R.; Tong, W.; Tomonto, C. Effects of Reusing Ti-6Al-4V Powder in a Selective Laser Melting
Additive System Operated in an Industrial Setting. JOM 2018, 70, 1863–1869. [CrossRef]
103. Ahmed, F.; Ali, U.; Sarker, D.; Marzbanrad, E.; Choi, K.; Mahmoodkhani, Y.; Toyserkani, E. Study of Powder Recycling and Its
Effect on Printed Parts during Laser Powder-Bed Fusion of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2020, 278, 116522.
[CrossRef]
104. Zapico, P.; Giganto, S.; Barreiro, J.; Martinez-Pellitero, S. Characterisation of 17-4PH Metallic Powder Recycling to Optimise the
Performance of the Selective Laser Melting Process. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 1273–1285. [CrossRef]
105. Heiden, M.J.; Deibler, L.A.; Rodelas, J.M.; Koepke, J.R.; Tung, D.J.; Saiz, D.J.; Jared, B.H. Evolution of 316L Stainless Steel Feedstock
Due to Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 25, 84–103. [CrossRef]
106. Cordova, L.; Campos, M.; Tinga, T. Revealing the Effects of Powder Reuse for Selective Laser Melting by Powder Characterization.
JOM 2019, 71, 1062–1072. [CrossRef]
107. Gong, H.; Xing, X.; Gu, H. Rheological Properties of Two Stainless Steel 316L Powders for Additive Manufacturing. IOP Conf. Ser.
Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 689, 012003. [CrossRef]
108. Gruber, H.; Henriksson, M.; Hryha, E.; Nyborg, L. Effect of Powder Recycling in Electron Beam Melting on the Surface Chemistry
of Alloy 718 Powder. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2019, 50, 4410–4422. [CrossRef]
109. Xu, C.; Wu, Q.; L’Espérance, G.; Lebel, L.L.; Therriault, D. Environment-Friendly and Reusable Ink for 3D Printing of Metallic
Structures. Mater. Des. 2018, 160, 262–269. [CrossRef]
110. Feng, L.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Q. PA12 Powder Recycled from SLS for FDM. Polymers 2019, 11, 727. [CrossRef]
111. Kumar, S.; Czekanski, A. Roadmap to Sustainable Plastic Additive Manufacturing. Mater. Today Commun. 2018, 15, 109–113.
[CrossRef]
112. Gu, H.; Bashir, Z.; Yang, L. The Re-Usability of Heat-Exposed Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) Powder for Laser Sintering. Addit.
Manuf. 2019, 28, 194–204. [CrossRef]
113. Zander, N.E.; Gillan, M.; Lambeth, R.H. Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate as a New FFF Feedstock Material. Addit. Manuf.
2018, 21, 174–182. [CrossRef]
114. Paris, H.; Mandil, G. The Development of a Strategy for Direct Part Reuse Using Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing
Technologies. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 687–699.
115. Teixeira, G.; Bremm, L.; dos Santos Roque, A. Educational Robotics Insertion in High Schools to Promote Environmental
Awareness about E-Waste. In Proceedings of the 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on
Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE), Joȧo Pessoa, Brazil, 6–10 November 2018; pp. 591–597.
116. Sauerwein, M.; Doubrovski, E.; Balkenende, R.; Bakker, C. Exploring the Potential of Additive Manufacturing for Product Design
in a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 1138–1149. [CrossRef]
117. Lahrour, Y.; Brissaud, D. A Technical Assessment of Product/Component Re-Manufacturability for Additive Remanufacturing.
Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 142–147. [CrossRef]
118. Liu, J.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, Y.; Qureshi, A.; Ahmad, R. A Topology Optimization Method for Hybrid Subtractive–Additive Remanufac-
turing. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Green Technol. 2020, 7, 939–953. [CrossRef]
119. Guo, L.; Chen, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, J. Research on Additive Manufacturing Technology. In Proceedings of the Seventh Asia
International Symposium on Mechatronics, Singapore, 19–22 September 2019; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp.
937–951.
120. Leino, M.; Pekkarinen, J.; Soukka, R. The Role of Laser Additive Manufacturing Methods of Metals in Repair, Refurbishment and
Remanufacturing—Enabling Circular Economy. Phys. Procedia 2016, 83, 752–760. [CrossRef]
121. Van Thao, L.E.; Mandil, H.P.G. Extraction of features for combined additive manufacturing and machining processes in a
remanufacturing context. In Advances on Mechanics, Design Engineering and Manufacturing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2017; pp. 179–189.
122. Tian, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, Q.; Dilmurat, A.; Li, D.; Ziegmann, G. Recycling and Remanufacturing of 3D Printed Continuous Carbon
Fiber Reinforced PLA Composites. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1609–1618. [CrossRef]
123. Wilkinson, S.; Cope, N. 3D printing and sustainable product development. In Green Information Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 161–183.
124. Reames, L. Remanufacture vs. Repair: What Is the Difference? Available online: https://htscoatings.com/blogs/our-craft-our-
culture/remanufacture-versus-repair (accessed on 17 February 2021).
125. Liu, H.; Hu, Z.; Qin, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Huang, S. Parameter Optimization and Experimental Study of the Sprocket Repairing
Using Laser Cladding. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 91, 3967–3975. [CrossRef]
126. Petrat, T.; Graf, B.; Gumenyuk, A.; Rethmeier, M. Laser Metal Deposition as Repair Technology for a Gas Turbine Burner Made of
Inconel 718. Phys. Procedia 2016, 83, 761–768. [CrossRef]
127. Zhang, B.; Kowsari, K.; Serjouei, A.; Dunn, M.L.; Ge, Q. Reprocessable Thermosets for Sustainable Three-Dimensional Printing.
Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1831. [CrossRef]
128. Walachowicz, F.; Bernsdorf, I.; Papenfuss, U.; Zeller, C.; Graichen, A.; Navrotsky, V.; Rajvanshi, N.; Kiener, C. Comparative
Energy, Resource and Recycling Lifecycle Analysis of the Industrial Repair Process of Gas Turbine Burners Using Conventional
Machining and Additive Manufacturing. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S203–S215. [CrossRef]
129. Tur, A.I.; Kokoulin, A.N.; Yuzhakov, A.A.; Polygalov, S.V.; Troegubov, A.S.; Korotaev, V.N. Beverage Container Collecting Machine
Project. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 317, 012006. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 13 06007 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 06007 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 06007 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116007 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. The Data Collection Process.

Table 1. Number of Publications per Journal.

Figure 2. Number of publications per year (1 January 2014–31 March 2020).

3. Previous Review Efforts

3.1. The Review Collection Process

Figure 4. The Review Collection Process.

3.2. Review Classification

3.2.1. Review Subject

Table 4. Review Classification based on five Thematic Categories.

3.2.2. Review Type

integration of AM with the concept of CE [34], to our knowledge, a systematic literature

Table 5. Review Classification based on the typology proposed in [36].

References Systematic Qualitative Quantitative Mixed-Methods

4. Recycling, Reuse, Remanufacturing and Repair with the Help of AM

4.1.1. Distributed Recycling

4.1.2. Closed-Loop Supply Chain

4.1.3. Recycling of Different Types of Waste

Electronic Waste and Magnets

Glass, Sand and Concrete

of distributed manufacturing, emerging as sustainable initiatives for future business success.

Sand and Concrete

4.2.2. Reuse without Recycling

4.3. Remanufacturing & Repair

The authors of [122] proposed an innovative recycling and remanufacturing process

You might also like