Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval). Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
This Project Outcomes Report for the General Public is displayed verbatim as submitted by the Principal Investigator (PI) for this award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Report are those of the PI and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation; NSF has not approved or endorsed its content.
Graphitic carbon nitride has emerged as a promising engineered nanomaterial for diverse applications. In the past decade, nanosized graphitic carbon nitride has been extensively used for water treatment, air purification, antimicrobials, energy storage, electronics, sensing, biomedical engineering, and membrane separation, owing to its unique 2D nanostructure, excellent photoreactivity under visible light irradiation, remarkable chemical stability and biocompatibility, and affordable cost in manufacture. With global production and usage, incidental release and inappropriate disposal of graphitic carbon nitride are inevitable, which may raise growing concerns in scientific communities and policy makers, considering the potential adverse environmental and health impacts of this engineered nanomaterial. The goal of our study is to evaluate and understand the environmental transformation, fate, and toxicity of graphitic carbon nitride in natural aquatic environments and engineering systems to advance regulations.
In this collaborative project, we developed new analytical techniques - scanning tunneling microscopy-based tip-enhanced Raman spectroscopy to detect chemical information with a high degree of spatial resolution (angstrom scale) and expand its application to environmental science, an area that remains fundamentally unexplored with single-molecule sensitivity. This discovery not only sheds light on the unique environmental transformation of emerging photoreactive nanomaterials but also provides guidelines for designing robust nanomaterials for engineering applications. This project involves the cross-disciplinary collaboration of an environmental scientist and engineer, theoretical chemist, and an experimental chemist. This collaborative model may serve as a model for other fields of study. Graduate and undergraduate research assistants were trained under the project, and they will be the future leading workforce in environmental chemistry and water quality engineering.
Last Modified: 08/12/2022 Modified by: Nan Jiang
Please report errors in award information by writing to: [email protected] .
share this!
August 16, 2024
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
peer-reviewed publication
trusted source
by Harvard Medical School
Researchers have developed a machine learning-powered blood test that analyzes more than 200 proteins to gauge a person's rate of biological aging, which the team says can be used to estimate the person's risk of developing 18 major age-related diseases and of dying prematurely from any cause.
The work helps validate the use of the proteome—the entire set of proteins present in the body at a given time—as an accurate gauge of how old a person is, not in years, but in terms of how their cells are functioning.
The findings provide insight into the biological pathways that lead to a person developing multiple age-related diseases , open doors to better understanding how genes and environment interact in aging, and could help researchers develop treatments for age-related diseases and assess their effectiveness.
Though the test is currently restricted to the research lab, the team is working on developing it into something anyone can order at a doctor's office.
Austin Argentieri, HMS research fellow in medicine in the Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, is lead author of the study, published Aug. 8 in Nature Medicine and discusses his team's findings below.
Can we develop a proteomic aging clock that can help predict the risk of common age-related diseases?
Age is the major determinant for most common chronic diseases but is an imperfect surrogate for aging, which is the driver of age-related multimorbidity (having more than one chronic health condition) and mortality.
Aging can be estimated more precisely by using 'omics data to capture the biological functioning of an individual in comparison to an expected level of functioning for a given chronological age.
While the most common biological aging clocks use DNA methylation, protein levels may provide a more direct mechanistic and functional insight into aging biology. Moreover, the proteome is the most common target for drug development.
However, previous proteomic age clock studies have not been validated independently across populations with diverse genetic and geographic backgrounds.
So far, none have been developed in large or well-powered general population samples that allow for association testing across a wide spectrum of age-related disorders, multimorbidity, and mortality.
We developed a machine learning model that uses blood proteomic information to estimate a proteomic age clock in a large sample of participants from the UK Biobank. Our sample included 45,441 participants ranging from 40 to 70 years old.
We further validated this model in two biobanks across the world: 3,977 participants aged 30-80 from the China Kadoorie Biobank and 1,990 participants aged 20-80 from the FinnGen biobank in Finland. These biobanks are geographically and genetically distinct populations that have distinct age ranges and morbidity profiles from the UK Biobank.
We identified 204 proteins that accurately predict chronological age, and we further identified a set of 20 aging-related proteins that capture 91% of the age prediction accuracy of the larger model.
We demonstrated that our proteomic age clock showed similar age prediction accuracy in the independent participants from China and Finland compared with its performance in the UK Biobank.
We found that proteomic aging was associated with the incidence of 18 major chronic diseases—including diseases of the heart, liver, kidney, and lung; diabetes; neurodegeneration, such as Alzheimer's disease; and cancer—as well as multimorbidity and all-cause mortality risk.
Proteomic aging was also associated with age-related measures of biological, physical, and cognitive function, including telomere length, frailty index, and several cognitive tests.
We provide some of the largest and most comprehensive evidence to date demonstrating that proteomic aging is a common biological signature related to numerous age-related functional traits, morbidities, and mortality.
We also provide some of the first evidence that a proteomic age clock can be highly generalizable across human populations of diverse genetic ancestries, age ranges, and morbidity profiles.
Multimorbidity is an important problem in clinical and population health that has a major impact on the cost of health care. Our proteomic clock gives us a first insight into the pathways that form the biological basis for multimorbidity.
In the near future, proteomic age clocks can be used to study the relationship between genetics and environment in aging, yielding novel insights into the drivers of aging and multimorbidity across the life span.
An important avenue will also be to use proteomic clocks as a biomarker for the effectiveness of preventive interventions targeting aging and multimorbidity.
Furthermore, proteomic clocks may be used to accelerate drug development and clinical trials through identification of high- and low-risk patients. For example, less than 1% of those in the bottom decile of proteomic aging developed Alzheimer's over the following 10–15 years.
Explore further
Feedback to editors
Aug 17, 2024
Aug 16, 2024
Related stories.
Aug 8, 2024
May 1, 2024
Aug 14, 2024
Oct 31, 2023
Aug 1, 2024
Jul 3, 2023
Aug 15, 2024
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).
Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request
Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.
Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.
Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.
Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.
More information Privacy policy
We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.
Experimental research, often considered to be the “gold standard” in research designs, is one of the most rigorous of all research designs. In this design, one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels (random assignment), and the results of the treatments on outcomes (dependent variables) are observed. The unique strength of experimental research is its internal validity (causality) due to its ability to link cause and effect through treatment manipulation, while controlling for the spurious effect of extraneous variable.
Experimental research is best suited for explanatory research (rather than for descriptive or exploratory research), where the goal of the study is to examine cause-effect relationships. It also works well for research that involves a relatively limited and well-defined set of independent variables that can either be manipulated or controlled. Experimental research can be conducted in laboratory or field settings. Laboratory experiments , conducted in laboratory (artificial) settings, tend to be high in internal validity, but this comes at the cost of low external validity (generalizability), because the artificial (laboratory) setting in which the study is conducted may not reflect the real world. Field experiments , conducted in field settings such as in a real organization, and high in both internal and external validity. But such experiments are relatively rare, because of the difficulties associated with manipulating treatments and controlling for extraneous effects in a field setting.
Experimental research can be grouped into two broad categories: true experimental designs and quasi-experimental designs. Both designs require treatment manipulation, but while true experiments also require random assignment, quasi-experiments do not. Sometimes, we also refer to non-experimental research, which is not really a research design, but an all-inclusive term that includes all types of research that do not employ treatment manipulation or random assignment, such as survey research, observational research, and correlational studies.
Treatment and control groups. In experimental research, some subjects are administered one or more experimental stimulus called a treatment (the treatment group ) while other subjects are not given such a stimulus (the control group ). The treatment may be considered successful if subjects in the treatment group rate more favorably on outcome variables than control group subjects. Multiple levels of experimental stimulus may be administered, in which case, there may be more than one treatment group. For example, in order to test the effects of a new drug intended to treat a certain medical condition like dementia, if a sample of dementia patients is randomly divided into three groups, with the first group receiving a high dosage of the drug, the second group receiving a low dosage, and the third group receives a placebo such as a sugar pill (control group), then the first two groups are experimental groups and the third group is a control group. After administering the drug for a period of time, if the condition of the experimental group subjects improved significantly more than the control group subjects, we can say that the drug is effective. We can also compare the conditions of the high and low dosage experimental groups to determine if the high dose is more effective than the low dose.
Treatment manipulation. Treatments are the unique feature of experimental research that sets this design apart from all other research methods. Treatment manipulation helps control for the “cause” in cause-effect relationships. Naturally, the validity of experimental research depends on how well the treatment was manipulated. Treatment manipulation must be checked using pretests and pilot tests prior to the experimental study. Any measurements conducted before the treatment is administered are called pretest measures , while those conducted after the treatment are posttest measures .
Random selection and assignment. Random selection is the process of randomly drawing a sample from a population or a sampling frame. This approach is typically employed in survey research, and assures that each unit in the population has a positive chance of being selected into the sample. Random assignment is however a process of randomly assigning subjects to experimental or control groups. This is a standard practice in true experimental research to ensure that treatment groups are similar (equivalent) to each other and to the control group, prior to treatment administration. Random selection is related to sampling, and is therefore, more closely related to the external validity (generalizability) of findings. However, random assignment is related to design, and is therefore most related to internal validity. It is possible to have both random selection and random assignment in well-designed experimental research, but quasi-experimental research involves neither random selection nor random assignment.
Threats to internal validity. Although experimental designs are considered more rigorous than other research methods in terms of the internal validity of their inferences (by virtue of their ability to control causes through treatment manipulation), they are not immune to internal validity threats. Some of these threats to internal validity are described below, within the context of a study of the impact of a special remedial math tutoring program for improving the math abilities of high school students.
The simplest true experimental designs are two group designs involving one treatment group and one control group, and are ideally suited for testing the effects of a single independent variable that can be manipulated as a treatment. The two basic two-group designs are the pretest-posttest control group design and the posttest-only control group design, while variations may include covariance designs. These designs are often depicted using a standardized design notation, where R represents random assignment of subjects to groups, X represents the treatment administered to the treatment group, and O represents pretest or posttest observations of the dependent variable (with different subscripts to distinguish between pretest and posttest observations of treatment and control groups).
Pretest-posttest control group design . In this design, subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, subjected to an initial (pretest) measurement of the dependent variables of interest, the treatment group is administered a treatment (representing the independent variable of interest), and the dependent variables measured again (posttest). The notation of this design is shown in Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1. Pretest-posttest control group design
The effect E of the experimental treatment in the pretest posttest design is measured as the difference in the posttest and pretest scores between the treatment and control groups:
E = (O 2 – O 1 ) – (O 4 – O 3 )
Statistical analysis of this design involves a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the treatment and control groups. The pretest posttest design handles several threats to internal validity, such as maturation, testing, and regression, since these threats can be expected to influence both treatment and control groups in a similar (random) manner. The selection threat is controlled via random assignment. However, additional threats to internal validity may exist. For instance, mortality can be a problem if there are differential dropout rates between the two groups, and the pretest measurement may bias the posttest measurement (especially if the pretest introduces unusual topics or content).
Posttest-only control group design . This design is a simpler version of the pretest-posttest design where pretest measurements are omitted. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.2.
Figure 10.2. Posttest only control group design.
The treatment effect is measured simply as the difference in the posttest scores between the two groups:
E = (O 1 – O 2 )
The appropriate statistical analysis of this design is also a two- group analysis of variance (ANOVA). The simplicity of this design makes it more attractive than the pretest-posttest design in terms of internal validity. This design controls for maturation, testing, regression, selection, and pretest-posttest interaction, though the mortality threat may continue to exist.
Covariance designs . Sometimes, measures of dependent variables may be influenced by extraneous variables called covariates . Covariates are those variables that are not of central interest to an experimental study, but should nevertheless be controlled in an experimental design in order to eliminate their potential effect on the dependent variable and therefore allow for a more accurate detection of the effects of the independent variables of interest. The experimental designs discussed earlier did not control for such covariates. A covariance design (also called a concomitant variable design) is a special type of pretest posttest control group design where the pretest measure is essentially a measurement of the covariates of interest rather than that of the dependent variables. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.3, where C represents the covariates:
Figure 10.3. Covariance design
Because the pretest measure is not a measurement of the dependent variable, but rather a covariate, the treatment effect is measured as the difference in the posttest scores between the treatment and control groups as:
Figure 10.4. 2 x 2 factorial design
Factorial designs can also be depicted using a design notation, such as that shown on the right panel of Figure 10.4. R represents random assignment of subjects to treatment groups, X represents the treatment groups themselves (the subscripts of X represents the level of each factor), and O represent observations of the dependent variable. Notice that the 2 x 2 factorial design will have four treatment groups, corresponding to the four combinations of the two levels of each factor. Correspondingly, the 2 x 3 design will have six treatment groups, and the 2 x 2 x 2 design will have eight treatment groups. As a rule of thumb, each cell in a factorial design should have a minimum sample size of 20 (this estimate is derived from Cohen’s power calculations based on medium effect sizes). So a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design requires a minimum total sample size of 160 subjects, with at least 20 subjects in each cell. As you can see, the cost of data collection can increase substantially with more levels or factors in your factorial design. Sometimes, due to resource constraints, some cells in such factorial designs may not receive any treatment at all, which are called incomplete factorial designs . Such incomplete designs hurt our ability to draw inferences about the incomplete factors.
In a factorial design, a main effect is said to exist if the dependent variable shows a significant difference between multiple levels of one factor, at all levels of other factors. No change in the dependent variable across factor levels is the null case (baseline), from which main effects are evaluated. In the above example, you may see a main effect of instructional type, instructional time, or both on learning outcomes. An interaction effect exists when the effect of differences in one factor depends upon the level of a second factor. In our example, if the effect of instructional type on learning outcomes is greater for 3 hours/week of instructional time than for 1.5 hours/week, then we can say that there is an interaction effect between instructional type and instructional time on learning outcomes. Note that the presence of interaction effects dominate and make main effects irrelevant, and it is not meaningful to interpret main effects if interaction effects are significant.
Hybrid designs are those that are formed by combining features of more established designs. Three such hybrid designs are randomized bocks design, Solomon four-group design, and switched replications design.
Randomized block design. This is a variation of the posttest-only or pretest-posttest control group design where the subject population can be grouped into relatively homogeneous subgroups (called blocks ) within which the experiment is replicated. For instance, if you want to replicate the same posttest-only design among university students and full -time working professionals (two homogeneous blocks), subjects in both blocks are randomly split between treatment group (receiving the same treatment) or control group (see Figure 10.5). The purpose of this design is to reduce the “noise” or variance in data that may be attributable to differences between the blocks so that the actual effect of interest can be detected more accurately.
Figure 10.5. Randomized blocks design.
Solomon four-group design . In this design, the sample is divided into two treatment groups and two control groups. One treatment group and one control group receive the pretest, and the other two groups do not. This design represents a combination of posttest-only and pretest-posttest control group design, and is intended to test for the potential biasing effect of pretest measurement on posttest measures that tends to occur in pretest-posttest designs but not in posttest only designs. The design notation is shown in Figure 10.6.
Figure 10.6. Solomon four-group design
Switched replication design . This is a two-group design implemented in two phases with three waves of measurement. The treatment group in the first phase serves as the control group in the second phase, and the control group in the first phase becomes the treatment group in the second phase, as illustrated in Figure 10.7. In other words, the original design is repeated or replicated temporally with treatment/control roles switched between the two groups. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the treatment either during the first or the second phase. This design is most feasible in organizational contexts where organizational programs (e.g., employee training) are implemented in a phased manner or are repeated at regular intervals.
Figure 10.7. Switched replication design.
Quasi-experimental designs are almost identical to true experimental designs, but lacking one key ingredient: random assignment. For instance, one entire class section or one organization is used as the treatment group, while another section of the same class or a different organization in the same industry is used as the control group. This lack of random assignment potentially results in groups that are non-equivalent, such as one group possessing greater mastery of a certain content than the other group, say by virtue of having a better teacher in a previous semester, which introduces the possibility of selection bias . Quasi-experimental designs are therefore inferior to true experimental designs in interval validity due to the presence of a variety of selection related threats such as selection-maturation threat (the treatment and control groups maturing at different rates), selection-history threat (the treatment and control groups being differentially impact by extraneous or historical events), selection-regression threat (the treatment and control groups regressing toward the mean between pretest and posttest at different rates), selection-instrumentation threat (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the measurement), selection-testing (the treatment and control groups responding differently to the pretest), and selection-mortality (the treatment and control groups demonstrating differential dropout rates). Given these selection threats, it is generally preferable to avoid quasi-experimental designs to the greatest extent possible.
Many true experimental designs can be converted to quasi-experimental designs by omitting random assignment. For instance, the quasi-equivalent version of pretest-posttest control group design is called nonequivalent groups design (NEGD), as shown in Figure 10.8, with random assignment R replaced by non-equivalent (non-random) assignment N . Likewise, the quasi -experimental version of switched replication design is called non-equivalent switched replication design (see Figure 10.9).
Figure 10.8. NEGD design.
Figure 10.9. Non-equivalent switched replication design.
In addition, there are quite a few unique non -equivalent designs without corresponding true experimental design cousins. Some of the more useful of these designs are discussed next.
Regression-discontinuity (RD) design . This is a non-equivalent pretest-posttest design where subjects are assigned to treatment or control group based on a cutoff score on a preprogram measure. For instance, patients who are severely ill may be assigned to a treatment group to test the efficacy of a new drug or treatment protocol and those who are mildly ill are assigned to the control group. In another example, students who are lagging behind on standardized test scores may be selected for a remedial curriculum program intended to improve their performance, while those who score high on such tests are not selected from the remedial program. The design notation can be represented as follows, where C represents the cutoff score:
Figure 10.10. RD design.
Because of the use of a cutoff score, it is possible that the observed results may be a function of the cutoff score rather than the treatment, which introduces a new threat to internal validity. However, using the cutoff score also ensures that limited or costly resources are distributed to people who need them the most rather than randomly across a population, while simultaneously allowing a quasi-experimental treatment. The control group scores in the RD design does not serve as a benchmark for comparing treatment group scores, given the systematic non-equivalence between the two groups. Rather, if there is no discontinuity between pretest and posttest scores in the control group, but such a discontinuity persists in the treatment group, then this discontinuity is viewed as evidence of the treatment effect.
Proxy pretest design . This design, shown in Figure 10.11, looks very similar to the standard NEGD (pretest-posttest) design, with one critical difference: the pretest score is collected after the treatment is administered. A typical application of this design is when a researcher is brought in to test the efficacy of a program (e.g., an educational program) after the program has already started and pretest data is not available. Under such circumstances, the best option for the researcher is often to use a different prerecorded measure, such as students’ grade point average before the start of the program, as a proxy for pretest data. A variation of the proxy pretest design is to use subjects’ posttest recollection of pretest data, which may be subject to recall bias, but nevertheless may provide a measure of perceived gain or change in the dependent variable.
Figure 10.11. Proxy pretest design.
Separate pretest-posttest samples design . This design is useful if it is not possible to collect pretest and posttest data from the same subjects for some reason. As shown in Figure 10.12, there are four groups in this design, but two groups come from a single non-equivalent group, while the other two groups come from a different non-equivalent group. For instance, you want to test customer satisfaction with a new online service that is implemented in one city but not in another. In this case, customers in the first city serve as the treatment group and those in the second city constitute the control group. If it is not possible to obtain pretest and posttest measures from the same customers, you can measure customer satisfaction at one point in time, implement the new service program, and measure customer satisfaction (with a different set of customers) after the program is implemented. Customer satisfaction is also measured in the control group at the same times as in the treatment group, but without the new program implementation. The design is not particularly strong, because you cannot examine the changes in any specific customer’s satisfaction score before and after the implementation, but you can only examine average customer satisfaction scores. Despite the lower internal validity, this design may still be a useful way of collecting quasi-experimental data when pretest and posttest data are not available from the same subjects.
Figure 10.12. Separate pretest-posttest samples design.
Nonequivalent dependent variable (NEDV) design . This is a single-group pre-post quasi-experimental design with two outcome measures, where one measure is theoretically expected to be influenced by the treatment and the other measure is not. For instance, if you are designing a new calculus curriculum for high school students, this curriculum is likely to influence students’ posttest calculus scores but not algebra scores. However, the posttest algebra scores may still vary due to extraneous factors such as history or maturation. Hence, the pre-post algebra scores can be used as a control measure, while that of pre-post calculus can be treated as the treatment measure. The design notation, shown in Figure 10.13, indicates the single group by a single N , followed by pretest O 1 and posttest O 2 for calculus and algebra for the same group of students. This design is weak in internal validity, but its advantage lies in not having to use a separate control group.
An interesting variation of the NEDV design is a pattern matching NEDV design , which employs multiple outcome variables and a theory that explains how much each variable will be affected by the treatment. The researcher can then examine if the theoretical prediction is matched in actual observations. This pattern-matching technique, based on the degree of correspondence between theoretical and observed patterns is a powerful way of alleviating internal validity concerns in the original NEDV design.
Figure 10.13. NEDV design.
Experimental research is one of the most difficult of research designs, and should not be taken lightly. This type of research is often best with a multitude of methodological problems. First, though experimental research requires theories for framing hypotheses for testing, much of current experimental research is atheoretical. Without theories, the hypotheses being tested tend to be ad hoc, possibly illogical, and meaningless. Second, many of the measurement instruments used in experimental research are not tested for reliability and validity, and are incomparable across studies. Consequently, results generated using such instruments are also incomparable. Third, many experimental research use inappropriate research designs, such as irrelevant dependent variables, no interaction effects, no experimental controls, and non-equivalent stimulus across treatment groups. Findings from such studies tend to lack internal validity and are highly suspect. Fourth, the treatments (tasks) used in experimental research may be diverse, incomparable, and inconsistent across studies and sometimes inappropriate for the subject population. For instance, undergraduate student subjects are often asked to pretend that they are marketing managers and asked to perform a complex budget allocation task in which they have no experience or expertise. The use of such inappropriate tasks, introduces new threats to internal validity (i.e., subject’s performance may be an artifact of the content or difficulty of the task setting), generates findings that are non-interpretable and meaningless, and makes integration of findings across studies impossible.
The design of proper experimental treatments is a very important task in experimental design, because the treatment is the raison d’etre of the experimental method, and must never be rushed or neglected. To design an adequate and appropriate task, researchers should use prevalidated tasks if available, conduct treatment manipulation checks to check for the adequacy of such tasks (by debriefing subjects after performing the assigned task), conduct pilot tests (repeatedly, if necessary), and if doubt, using tasks that are simpler and familiar for the respondent sample than tasks that are complex or unfamiliar.
In summary, this chapter introduced key concepts in the experimental design research method and introduced a variety of true experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Although these designs vary widely in internal validity, designs with less internal validity should not be overlooked and may sometimes be useful under specific circumstances and empirical contingencies.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Simulation and experimental investigation on additive manufacturing of highly dense pure tungsten by laser powder bed fusion.
Graphical Abstract
2. experimental, 2.1. feedstock powder, 2.2. laser powder bed fusion process, 2.3. microstructural characterization, 2.4. finite element analysis, 3.1. temperature field in fea, 3.2. stress field in fea, 3.3. surface morphology, 3.4. cross-sectional morphology, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
No. | 11 | 12 | 13 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P (W) | 300 | 300 | 300 | 325 | 325 | 325 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 375 | 375 | 375 |
V (mm/s) | 400 | 500 | 600 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 400 | 500 | 600 |
VED (J/mm ) | 312.5 | 250 | 208.3 | 338.5 | 270.8 | 225.7 | 364.6 | 291.7 | 243.1 | 390.6 | 312.5 | 260.4 |
Laser Power (W) | Scanning Velocity (mm/s) | |
---|---|---|
H-VED | 350 | 400 |
M-VED | 300 | 500 |
L-VED | 250 | 600 |
Density (kg/m ) | Specific Heat (J/kgK) | Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) | |
---|---|---|---|
Tungsten substrate | 16,900 | 209 | 97.1 |
Tungsten powder bed | 10,100 | 209 | 38.6 |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Qin, E.; Li, W.; Zhou, H.; Liu, C.; Wu, S.; Shi, G. Simulation and Experimental Investigation on Additive Manufacturing of Highly Dense Pure Tungsten by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Materials 2024 , 17 , 3966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163966
Qin E, Li W, Zhou H, Liu C, Wu S, Shi G. Simulation and Experimental Investigation on Additive Manufacturing of Highly Dense Pure Tungsten by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Materials . 2024; 17(16):3966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163966
Qin, Enwei, Wenli Li, Hongzhi Zhou, Chengwei Liu, Shuhui Wu, and Gaolian Shi. 2024. "Simulation and Experimental Investigation on Additive Manufacturing of Highly Dense Pure Tungsten by Laser Powder Bed Fusion" Materials 17, no. 16: 3966. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163966
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
COMMENTS
A research study could conduct pre-experimental research design when a group or many groups are under observation after implementing factors of cause and effect of the research.
Abstract. Experimental research serves as a fundamental scientific method aimed at unraveling cause-and-effect relationships between variables across various disciplines. This paper delineates the ...
Experimental design is the process of planning an experiment to test a hypothesis. The choices you make affect the validity of your results.
Experimental Design Experimental design is a process of planning and conducting scientific experiments to investigate a hypothesis or research question. It involves carefully designing an experiment that can test the hypothesis, and controlling for other variables that may influence the results.
Experimental research is a quantitative research method with a scientific approach. Learn about the various types and their advantages.
Study, experimental, or research design is the backbone of good research. It directs the experiment by orchestrating data collection, defines the statistical analysis of the resultant data, and guides the interpretation of the results. When properly described in the written report of the experiment, it serves as a road map to readers, 1 helping ...
Experimental research is best suited for explanatory research—rather than for descriptive or exploratory research—where the goal of the study is to examine cause-effect relationships. It also works well for research that involves a relatively limited and well-defined set of independent variables that can either be manipulated or controlled.
The study design used to answer a particular research question depends on the nature of the question and the availability of resources. In this article, which is the first part of a series on "study designs," we provide an overview of research study designs and their classification. The subsequent articles will focus on individual designs.
Experiments are used to study causal relationships. You manipulate one or more independent variables and measure their effect on one or more dependent variables. Experimental design means creating a set of procedures to systematically test a hypothesis. A good experimental design requires a strong understanding of the system you are studying.
Experimental research differs from other research approaches, as it has greater control over the objects of its study. When you conduct experimental research, you are not going to merely describe a condition, determine the status of something, or record past events as in other non-experimental methods described in the previous chapter.
Experimental research design is centrally concerned with constructing research that is high in causal (internal) validity. Randomized experimental designs provide the highest levels of causal validity. Quasi-experimental designs have a number of potential threats to their causal validity. Yet, new quasi-experimental designs adopted from fields ...
Here is a brief overview from the SAGE Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods: Experimental design is one of several forms of scientific inquiry employed to identify the cause-and-effect relation between two or more variables and to assess the magnitude of the effect (s) produced. The independent variable is the experiment or treatment applied ...
In clinical research, our aim is to design a study which would be able to derive a valid and meaningful scientific conclusion using appropriate statistical methods. The conclusions derived from a research study can either improve health care or result in inadvertent harm to patients. Hence, this requires a well‐designed clinical research ...
Experimental Research The major feature that distinguishes experimental research from other types of research is that the researcher manipulates the independent variable. There are a number of experimental group designs in experimental research. Some of these qualify as experimental research, others do not.
Experimental research is the most familiar type of research design for individuals in the physical sciences and a host of other fields. This is mainly because experimental research is a classical scientific experiment, similar to those performed in high school science classes.
Find out what experimental research is, discover the types of experimental research design and learn about the advantages of this research, along with examples.
Observational vs. Experimental Study: A Comprehensive Guide. Explore the fundamental disparities between experimental and observational studies in this comprehensive guide by Santos Research Center, Corp. Uncover concepts such as control group, random sample, cohort studies, response variable, and explanatory variable that shape the foundation ...
Experimental research is commonly used in sciences such as sociology and psychology, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine etc. It is a collection of research designs which use manipulation and controlled testing to understand causal processes. Generally, one or more variables are manipulated to determine their effect on a dependent variable.
Experimental research is research that involves using a scientific approach to examine research variables. Below are some famous experimental research examples. Some of these studies were conducted quite a long time ago. Some were so
6. Experimental research allows cause and effect to be determined. The manipulation of variables allows for researchers to be able to look at various cause-and-effect relationships that a product, theory, or idea can produce. It is a process which allows researchers to dig deeper into what is possible, showing how the various variable ...
Experimental research is widely implemented in education, psychology, social sciences and physical sciences. Experimental research is based on observation, calculation, comparison and logic. Researchers collect quantitative data and perform statistical analyses of two sets of variables. This method collects necessary data to focus on facts and ...
What is experimental research? Experimental research is the process of carrying out a study conducted with a scientific approach using two or more variables. In other words, it is when you gather two or more variables and compare and test them in controlled environments.
Deresa ST, Xu J, Shan B, et al. (2021) Experimental investigation on flexural behavior of full-scale glued laminated bamboo (glubam)-concrete composite beams: a case study of using recycled concrete aggregates. Engineering Structures 233: 111896.
The objective of this study was to identify the most common injury scenarios and determine current research gaps for addressing fall incidents associated with aerial lifts.
The research team uses an integrated simulation and experimental approach. They study an important yet overlooked process of contaminant transformation in the natural system that involves photochemical reactions on naturally occurring and anthropogenic materials.
Austin Argentieri, HMS research fellow in medicine in the Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, is lead author of the study, published Aug. 8 in Nature ...
Chapter 10 Experimental Research. Experimental research, often considered to be the "gold standard" in research designs, is one of the most rigorous of all research designs. In this design, one or more independent variables are manipulated by the researcher (as treatments), subjects are randomly assigned to different treatment levels ...
To study the influence of shale physical properties on sand production, a shale rock plate was used as the propped material in the API fracture conductivity experiment. The results show that when the closure pressure exceeds the critical fracture point of shale, the critical flow velocity for sand production will decrease on a large scale.
Tungsten and its alloys have a high atomic number, high melting temperature, and high thermal conductivity, which make them fairly appropriate for use in nuclear applications in an extremely harsh radioactive environment. In recent years, there has been growing research interest in using additive manufacturing techniques to produce tungsten components with complex structures. However, the ...
This study introduces a novel splitting distributor design to achieve a uniform gas-liquid flow distribution in parallel microchannels. The design comprises channels that sequentially reduce width by a factor of half and wedge/flow-focusing geometric modifications at the splitting junctions to facilitate efficient splitting dynamics of bubbles. The present study confirms that this ...