Submitted:
17 July 2024
Posted:
19 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Optimization using RSM
2.2.2. Degradable Plastic Synthesis
2.3. Characterization and Testing
2.3.1. Water Absorption
2.3.2. Biodegradability Rate
2.3.3. Mechanical Properties
2.3.4. Chemical Characterization
2.3.5. Thermal Properties
2.3.6. Morphological Properties
3. Results
3.1. Water Absorption Result
| Run | A: Starch (g) |
B: PLA (g) |
Water Absorption Experiment (%) |
Water Absorption Predicted Value (%) |
% Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5 | 7.82843 | 6.2 | 5.1 | 1.1 |
| 2 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 6.4 | 0 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 6.4 | 0 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 6.4 | 0 |
| 5 | 3.5 | 3 | 15.06 | 13.6 | 1.5 |
| 6 | 1.08579 | 5 | 7.41 | 6.5 | 1.0 |
| 7 | 3.91421 | 5 | 11.13 | 12.1 | 1.0 |
| 8 | 1.5 | 7 | 5.69 | 7.1 | 1.5 |
| 9 | 2.5 | 2.17157 | 7.45 | 8.6 | 1.1 |
| 10 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 6.4 | 0.0 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 3 | 5.08 | 5.0 | 0.1 |
| 12 | 3.5 | 7 | 6.44 | 6.5 | 0.1 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 6.4 | 0.0 |
| Source of Water aborption |
Sum of square | Df | Mean Square |
F-value | р-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 79.54 | 5 | 15.91 | 12.93 | 0.0020 | Significant |
| X1 | 31.96 | 1 | 31.96 | 25.99 | 0.0014 | |
| X2 | 11.95 | 1 | 11.95 | 9.72 | 0.0169 | |
| X1.X2 | 21.30 | 1 | 21.30 | 17.31 | 0.0169 | |
| X1² | 14.33 | 1 | 14.33 | 11.65 | 0.0112 | |
| X2² | 0.3141 | 1 | 0.3141 | 0.2554 | 0.6288 | |
| Residual | 8.61 | 7 | 1.23 | - | - | |
| Lack of Fit | 8.61 | 3 | 2.87 | - | - | |
| Pure Error | 0.0000 | 4 | 0.0000 | - | - | |
| Cor Total | 88.15 | 12 | - | - | - |
| Std. Dev. | 1.11 | R2 | 0.9023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 7.42 | Adjusted R2 | 0.8326 |
| C.V. % | 14.94 | Predicted R2 | 0.3054 |
| Adeq Precision | 11.4307 |

3.2. Biodegradability Rate Result
| Run | A: Starch (g) |
B: PLA (g) |
Biodegradability Experiment (%) |
Biodegradability Predicted Value (%) | % Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5 | 7.82843 | 21.18 | 18.2 | -1.7938 |
| 2 | 2.5 | 5 | 33.63 | 32.3 | -3.1928 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 5 | 33.63 | 32.3 | -3.1928 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 5 | 33.63 | 32.3 | -3.1928 |
| 5 | 3.5 | 3 | 49.9 | 49.3 | -4.8875 |
| 6 | 1.08579 | 5 | 19.27 | 22.3 | -2.2131 |
| 7 | 3.91421 | 5 | 41.08 | 42.2 | -4.1795 |
| 8 | 1.5 | 7 | 12.55 | 15.3 | -1.5130 |
| 9 | 2.5 | 2.17157 | 42.77 | 46.4 | -4.595,1 |
| 10 | 2.5 | 5 | 33.63 | 32.3 | -3.1928 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 3 | 38.25 | 35.2 | -3.4833 |
| 12 | 3.5 | 7 | 26.29 | 29.3 | -2.9051 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 5 | 33.63 | 32.3 | 3192.8 |
| Source of Biodegradability |
Sum of square | Df | Mean Square |
F-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1192.14 | 2 | 596.07 | 87.43 | < 0.0001 | Significant |
| X1 | 395.28 | 1 | 395.28 | 57.98 | < 0.0001 | |
| X2 | 796.86 | 1 | 796.86 | 116.89 | < 0.0001 | |
| Residual | 68.17 | 10 | 6.82 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 68.17 | 6 | 11.36 | |||
| Pure Error | 0.0000 | 4 | 0.0000 | |||
| Cor Total | 1260.32 | 12 |
| Std. Dev. | 2.61 | R2 | 0.9459 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 32.26 | Adjusted R2 | 0.9351 |
| C.V. % | 8.09 | Predicted R2 | 0.8882 |
| Adeq Precision | 27.1221 |

3.3. Determination of Optimum Condition Result
3.4. Mechanical Properties Results
3.5. Chemical Characterization Result
3.6. Thermal Properties Result
3.6.1. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) Result
3.6.2. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) Result
3.6.3. Melt Flow Rate (MFR) Result

3.6. Morphological Properties Result
4. Discussion
4.1. Water Absorption Analysis
4.2. Biodegradability Rate Analysis
4.3. Tensile Strenght, Elongation and Young Modulus Analysis
3.5. FTIR Analysis
3.6. Thermal Properties Analysis
3.6.1. TGA Analysis
3.6.2. DSC Analysis
3.6.3. MFR Analysis
3.7. SEM Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Merino, Danila, Ana Isabel Quilez-Molina, Giovanni Perotto, Andrea Bassani, Giorgia Spigno, and Athanassia Athanassiou. “A Second Life for Fruit and Vegetable Waste: A Review on Bioplastic Films and Coatings for Potential Food Protection Applications.” Green Chemistry 24, no. 12 (2022): 4703–27. [CrossRef]
- Huang, Jijiang, Andrei Veksha, Wei Ping Chan, Apostolos Giannis, and Grzegorz Lisak. “Chemical Recycling of Plastic Waste for Sustainable Material Management: A Prospective Review on Catalysts and Processes.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 154 (February 2022): 111866. [CrossRef]
- Lestari, Prieskarinda, and Yulinah Trihadiningrum. “The Impact of Improper Solid Waste Management to Plastic Pollution in Indonesian Coast and Marine Environment.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 149 (December 2019): 110505. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Chaofan, Chengyu Wang, Guoliang Cao, Dawei Wang, and Shih-Hsin Ho. “A Sustainable Solution to Plastics Pollution: An Eco-Friendly Bioplastic Film Production from High-Salt Contained Spirulina Sp. Residues.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 388 (April 2020): 121773. [CrossRef]
- Farajpour, Romina, Zahra Emam Djomeh, Sohrab Moeini, Hamid Tavakolipour, and Shila Safayan. “Structural and Physico-Mechanical Properties of Potato Starch-Olive Oil Edible Films Reinforced with Zein Nanoparticles.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 149 (April 2020): 941–50. [CrossRef]
- Meereboer, Kjeld W., Manjusri Misra, and Amar K. Mohanty. “Review of Recent Advances in the Biodegradability of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Bioplastics and Their Composites.” Green Chemistry 22, no. 17 (2020): 5519–58. [CrossRef]
- Lackner, Maximilian, Anindya Mukherjee, and Martin Koller. “What Are ‘Bioplastics’? Defining Renewability, Biosynthesis, Biodegradability, and Biocompatibility.” Polymers 15, no. 24 (December 13, 2023): 4695. [CrossRef]
- Abe, Mateus Manabu, Júlia Ribeiro Martins, Paula Bertolino Sanvezzo, João Vitor Macedo, Marcia Cristina Branciforti, Peter Halley, Vagner Roberto Botaro, and Michel Brienzo. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Bioplastics Production from Starch and Lignocellulosic Components.” Polymers 13, no. 15 (July 28, 2021): 2484. [CrossRef]
- Jayarathna, Shishanthi, Mariette Andersson, and Roger Andersson. “Recent Advances in Starch-Based Blends and Composites for Bioplastics Applications.” Polymers 14, no. 21 (October 27, 2022): 4557. [CrossRef]
- Nwuzor, Iheoma Chigoziri, Henry Chukwuka Oyeoka, Simeon Chukwudozie Nwanonenyi, and Gina Odochi Ihekweme. “Biodegradation of Low-Density Polyethylene Film/Plasticized Cassava Starch Blends with Central Composite Design for Optimal Environmental Pollution Control.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances 9 (February 2023): 100251. [CrossRef]
- Yusoff, Noorul Hidayah, Kaushik Pal, Thinakaran Narayanan, and Fernando Gomes De Souza. “Recent Trends on Bioplastics Synthesis and Characterizations: Polylactic Acid (PLA) Incorporated with Tapioca Starch for Packaging Applications.” Journal of Molecular Structure 1232 (May 2021): 129954. [CrossRef]
- Jumaidin, Ridhwan, Syahmah Shafie, Rushdan Ahmad Ilyas, and Muchlis Muchlis. “Effect of Coconut Fiber Loading on the Morphological, Thermal, and Mechanical Properties of Coconut Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic Starch/Beeswax Composites.” Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology 31, no. S1 (October 27, 2023): 157–73. [CrossRef]
- Yang, Shu, Kaikai Chen, Hongming Xiang, Yingwen Wang, and Chenyan Huang. “The Optimized Preparation Conditions of Cellulose Triacetate Hollow Fiber Reverse Osmosis Membrane with Response Surface Methodology.” Polymers 15, no. 17 (August 28, 2023): 3569. [CrossRef]
- Magesh, A., K. Jayabalan, R. Rajesh Kannan, P. Rathakrishnan, M. Dilipkumar, and M. Suriyaprakash. “Optimization and Production of Bioplastic from Bio Waste Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM).” Environmental Quality Management 32, no. 1 (September 2022): 179–90. [CrossRef]
- De Dios-Avila, Ndahita, Juan Manuel Tirado-Gallegos, Claudio Rios-Velasco, Gregorio Luna-Esquivel, Néstor Isiordia-Aquino, Paul Baruk Zamudio-Flores, Mario Orlando Estrada-Virgen, and Octavio Jhonathan Cambero-Campos. “Physicochemical, Structural, Thermal and Rheological Properties of Flour and Starch Isolated from Avocado Seeds of Landrace and Hass Cultivars.” Molecules 27, no. 3 (January 28, 2022): 910. [CrossRef]
- Nofar, Mohammadreza, Dilara Sacligil, Pierre J. Carreau, Musa R. Kamal, and Marie-Claude Heuzey. “Poly (Lactic Acid) Blends: Processing, Properties and Applications.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 125 (March 2019): 307–60. [CrossRef]
- Gupta, Kapil, and Neelesh Kumar Jain. Near-Net Shape Manufacturing of Miniature Spur Gears by Wire Spark Erosion Machining. Materials Forming, Machining and Tribology. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Moria, Kawthar Mostafa, Hifsa Khurshid, Muhammad Raza Ul Mustafa, Areej Alhothali, and Omaimah Omar Bamasag. “Application of the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) in the Optimization of Acenaphthene (ACN) Removal from Wastewater by Activated Carbon.” Sustainability 14, no. 14 (July 13, 2022): 8581. [CrossRef]
- Waday, Yasin Ahmed, and Ermias Girma Aklilu. “ANN and RSM Modeling for the Synthesis of Avocado Seed Starch Combined Orange Peel Extract Antimicrobial Packaging Film.” Edited by Pengwu Xu. International Journal of Polymer Science 2023 (June 16, 2023): 1–11. [CrossRef]
- Tessanan, Wasan, Pranee Phinyocheep, and Taweechai Amornsakchai. “Sustainable Materials with Improved Biodegradability and Toughness from Blends of Poly(Lactic Acid), Pineapple Stem Starch and Modified Natural Rubber.” Polymers 16, no. 2 (January 14, 2024): 232. [CrossRef]
- Tabassum, Noshabah, Uzaira Rafique, Maria Qayyum, Abdallah A. A. Mohammed, Saira Asif, and Awais Bokhari. “Kaolin–Polyvinyl Alcohol–Potato Starch Composite Films for Environmentally Friendly Packaging: Optimization and Characterization.” Journal of Composites Science 8, no. 1 (January 11, 2024): 29. [CrossRef]
- Zahri, Khadijah Nabilah Mohd, Azham Zulkharnain, Claudio Gomez-Fuentes, Suriana Sabri, Khalilah Abdul Khalil, Peter Convey, and Siti Aqlima Ahmad. “The Use of Response Surface Methodology as a Statistical Tool for the Optimisation of Waste and Pure Canola Oil Biodegradation by Antarctic Soil Bacteria.” Life 11, no. 5 (May 20, 2021): 456. [CrossRef]
- Amaba, Adrian Seth, Kristine Claire Villanueva, Noel Peter Tan, Francis Dave Siacor, and Maria Kristina Paler. “Preparation of Bioplastic Film from Chitosan and Mango (Mangifera Indica L. Anacardiaceae) Kernel Starch by Casting Method.” Applied Chemical Engineering 6, no. 3 (November 20, 2023). [CrossRef]
- Cao, Xiaoqing, Lu Li, Fengwei Zhang, Linxiong Shi, Fangyuan Zhang, Xuefeng Song, Wuyun Zhao, and Fei Dai. “Optimization of the Green Fibre Paper Film Preparation Process Based on Box–Behnken Response Surface Methodology.” Coatings 13, no. 12 (November 30, 2023): 2025. [CrossRef]
- Cao, Xiaodong, Yun Chen, Peter R. Chang, and Michel A. Huneault. “Preparation and Properties of Plasticized Starch/Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Composites.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 106, no. 2 (October 15, 2007): 1431–37. [CrossRef]
- Anitha, R., K. Jayakumar, G. Vijay Samuel, M. Esther Joice, M. Sneha, and D. Sathya Seeli. “Synthesis and Characterization of Starch-Based Bioplastics: A Promising Alternative for a Sustainable Future.” In The International Conference on Processing and Performance of Materials (ICPPM 2023), 30. MDPI, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowska, Patrycja. “The Effect of Concentration and Type of Plasticizer on the Mechanical Properties of Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Organic-Inorganic Hybrids.” In Recent Advances in Plasticizers, edited by Mohammad Luqman. InTech, 2012. [CrossRef]
- Jade, Stanley, Culliton David, Jovani Sancho, Neves Cunha, and A Jonay. “Mechanical Properties of Starch-Protein Blend Bioplastics.” Wjert 8, no. 12 (2022): 01–19.
- Fabra, María José, Marta Martínez-Sanz, L.G. Gómez-Mascaraque, Rafael Gavara, and Amparo López-Rubio. “Structural and Physicochemical Characterization of Thermoplastic Corn Starch Films Containing Microalgae.” Carbohydrate Polymers 186 (April 2018): 184–91. [CrossRef]
- Jiménez, Rosalía, Gloria Sandoval-Flores, Sofía Alvarado-Reyna, Sanjuana Elizabeth Alemán-Castillo, Rubén Santiago-Adame, and Gonzalo Velázquez. “Extraction of Starch from Hass Avocado Seeds for the Preparation of Biofilms.” Food Science and Technology 42 (2022): e56820. [CrossRef]
- Navasingh, Rajesh Jesudoss Hynes, Manoj Kumar Gurunathan, Maria P. Nikolova, and Jolanta B. Królczyk. “Sustainable Bioplastics for Food Packaging Produced from Renewable Natural Sources.” Polymers 15, no. 18 (September 14, 2023): 3760. [CrossRef]
- Łopusiewicz, Łukasz, Paweł Kwiatkowski, Emilia Drozłowska, Paulina Trocer, Mateusz Kostek, Mariusz Śliwiński, Magdalena Polak-Śliwińska, Edward Kowalczyk, and Monika Sienkiewicz. “Preparation and Characterization of Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Based Bioactive Composite Films Modified with Fungal Melanin and Carvacrol.” Polymers 13, no. 4 (February 5, 2021): 499. [CrossRef]
- Gbadeyan, Oluwatoyin J., Linda Z. Linganiso, and Nirmala Deenadayalu. “Assessment and Optimization of Thermal Stability and Water Absorption of Loading Snail Shell Nanoparticles and Sugarcane Bagasse Cellulose Fibers on Polylactic Acid Bioplastic Films.” Polymers 15, no. 6 (March 21, 2023): 1557. [CrossRef]
- Tan, Shiou Xuan, Hwai Chyuan Ong, Andri Andriyana, Steven Lim, Yean Ling Pang, Fitranto Kusumo, and Gek Cheng Ngoh. “Characterization and Parametric Study on Mechanical Properties Enhancement in Biodegradable Chitosan-Reinforced Starch-Based Bioplastic Film.” Polymers 14, no. 2 (January 11, 2022): 278. [CrossRef]
- Sanyang, Muhammed, Salit Sapuan, Mohammad Jawaid, Mohamad Ishak, and Japar Sahari. “Effect of Plasticizer Type and Concentration on Tensile, Thermal and Barrier Properties of Biodegradable Films Based on Sugar Palm (Arenga Pinnata) Starch.” Polymers 7, no. 6 (June 18, 2015): 1106–24. [CrossRef]
- Mohammed, Abdulrahman A. B. A., Zaimah Hasan, Abdoulhdi A. Borhana Omran, Abdulhafid M. Elfaghi, M.A. Khattak, R. A. Ilyas, and S. M. Sapuan. “Effect of Various Plasticizers in Different Concentrations on Physical, Thermal, Mechanical, and Structural Properties of Wheat Starch-Based Films.” Polymers 15, no. 1 (December 23, 2022): 63. [CrossRef]
- Marichelvam, M. K., Mohammad Jawaid, and Mohammad Asim. “Corn and Rice Starch-Based Bio-Plastics as Alternative Packaging Materials.” Fibers 7, no. 4 (April 9, 2019): 32. [CrossRef]
- López Terán, Jorge Luis, Elvia Victoria Cabrera Maldonado, Judith Del Carmen Araque Rangel, José Poveda Otazo, and María Isabel Beltrán Rico. “Development of Antibacterial Thermoplastic Starch with Natural Oils and Extracts: Structural, Mechanical and Thermal Properties.” Polymers 16, no. 2 (January 8, 2024): 180. [CrossRef]
- Jozinović, Antun, Mario Kovač, Vesna Ocelić Bulatović, Dajana Kučić Grgić, Martina Miloloža, Drago Šubarić, and Đurđica Ačkar. “Biopolymeric Blends of Thermoplastic Starch and Polylactide as Sustainable Packaging Materials.” Polymers 16, no. 9 (May 1, 2024): 1268. [CrossRef]
- Calambás Pulgarin, Heidy Lorena, and Carolina Caicedo. “Barrier, Mechanical, Thermal, and Rheological Properties of Plasticized Biopolymeric Films Manufactured by Co-Extrusion.” Processes 12, no. 3 (March 6, 2024): 524. [CrossRef]
- Morales, Johanna, Rose Mary Michell, Alicia Sommer-Márquez, and Denis Rodrigue. “Effect of Biobased SiO2 on the Morphological, Thermal, Mechanical, Rheological, and Permeability Properties of PLLA/PEG/SiO2 Biocomposites.” Journal of Composites Science 7, no. 4 (April 8, 2023): 150. [CrossRef]
- Dewi, Rozanna, Novi Sylvia, Zulnazri, Medyan Riza, Januar Siregar, and Budhi Kusuma. “Characterization of Sago Starch-Based Degradable Plastic with Agricultural Waste Cellulose Fiber as Filler.” AIMS Environmental Science 11, no. 2 (n.d.): 304–23. [CrossRef]
- Dimonie, Doina, Marius Petrache, Celina Damian, Liliana Anton, Miruna Musat, Ştefan-Ovidiu Dima, Cosmin Jinescu, and Rapa Maria. “New Evidences on the Process Sensitivity of Some Renewable Blends Based on Starch Considering Their Melt Rheological Properties.” International Journal of Polymer Science 2016 (2016): 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Yuxuan, Yuke Zhong, Qifeng Shi, and Sen Guo. “Study of the Preparation and Properties of TPS/PBSA/PLA Biodegradable Composites.” Journal of Composites Science 5, no. 2 (February 4, 2021): 48. [CrossRef]
- Dewi, Rozanna, Novi Sylvia, Zulnazri, and Medyan Riza. “Melt Flow Index (MFI) Analysis of Sago Based Thermoplastic Starch Blend with Polypropylene and Polyethylene.” Materials Today: Proceedings 87 (2023): 396–400. [CrossRef]
- Coltelli, Maria-Beatrice, Luca Panariello, Pierfrancesco Morganti, Serena Danti, Adone Baroni, Andrea Lazzeri, Alessandra Fusco, and Giovanna Donnarumma. “Skin-Compatible Biobased Beauty Masks Prepared by Extrusion.” Journal of Functional Biomaterials 11, no. 2 (April 6, 2020): 23. [CrossRef]
- Sangeetha, V.H., Harekrishna Deka, T.O. Varghese, and S.K. Nayak. “State of the Art and Future Prospectives of Poly(Lactic Acid) Based Blends and Composites.” Polymer Composites 39, no. 1 (January 2018): 81–101. [CrossRef]
- Hamad, Kotiba, Mosab Kaseem, and Fawaz Deri. “Melt Rheology of Poly(Lactic Acid)/Low Density Polyethylene Polymer Blends.” Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science 01, no. 04 (2011): 208–14. [CrossRef]
- Amin, Md. Ruhul, Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury, and Md. Arefin Kowser. “Characterization and Performance Analysis of Composite Bioplastics Synthesized Using Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles with Corn Starch.” Heliyon 5, no. 8 (August 2019): e02009. [CrossRef]
- Żołek-Tryznowska, Zuzanna, Ewa Bednarczyk, Mariusz Tryznowski, and Tomasz Kobiela. “A Comparative Investigation of the Surface Properties of Corn-Starch-Microfibrillated Cellulose Composite Films.” Materials 16, no. 9 (April 23, 2023): 3320. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Bin, Xin Yang, Lingchen Liu, Liang Chen, Jia Teng, Xiaopeng Zhu, Jianmin Zhao, and Qing Wang. “Spatial and Seasonal Variations in Biofilm Formation on Microplastics in Coastal Waters.” Science of The Total Environment 770 (May 2021): 145303. [CrossRef]
- Yang, Jianlei, Yern Chee Ching, Cheng Hock Chuah, and Nai-Shang Liou. “Preparation and Characterization of Starch/Empty Fruit Bunch-Based Bioplastic Composites Reinforced with Epoxidized Oils.” Polymers 13, no. 1 (December 29, 2020): 94. [CrossRef]
- Engel, Juliana B., Alan Ambrosi, and Isabel C. Tessaro. “Development of Biodegradable Starch-Based Foams Incorporated with Grape Stalks for Food Packaging.” Carbohydrate Polymers 225 (December 2019): 115234. [CrossRef]
- Szatkowski, Piotr, Jacek Gralewski, Katarzyna Suchorowiec, Karolina Kosowska, Bartosz Mielan, and Michał Kisilewicz. “Aging Process of Biocomposites with the PLA Matrix Modified with Different Types of Cellulose.” Materials 17, no. 1 (December 20, 2023): 22. [CrossRef]




| Run | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Dependent Variable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1: Starch (g) | X2: PLA (g) | Y1: Water Absorption (%) | Y2: Biodegradability (%) | |
| 1 | 2.5 | 7.82843 | 6.2 | 21.18 |
| 2 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 33.63 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 33.63 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 33.63 |
| 5 | 3.5 | 3 | 15.06 | 49,9 |
| 6 | 1.08579 | 5 | 7.41 | 19.27 |
| 7 | 3.91421 | 5 | 11.13 | 41.08 |
| 8 | 1.5 | 7 | 5.69 | 12.55 |
| 9 | 2.5 | 2.17157 | 7.45 | 42.77 |
| 10 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 33.63 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 3 | 5.08 | 38.25 |
| 12 | 3.5 | 7 | 6.44 | 26.29 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.41 | 33.63 |
| Name | Goal | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Weight | Upper Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | In Range | 1.5 | 3.5 | 1 | 1 |
| Y2 | In Range | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Y1 | Minimize | 5.08 | 15.06 | 1 | 1 |
| Y2 | Maximize | 12.55 | 49.9 | 1 | 1 |
| X1 | X2 | Y1 | Y2 | Desirability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.894 | 3.000 | 5.763 | 37.988 | 0.797 |
| Run | Starch (g) |
PLA (g) |
Tensile strenght (MPa) |
Elongation (%) |
Modulus Young (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.8 | 3 | 10.127 | 85.75 | 190.02 |
| Sample Name | MFR [g/10 menit] |
| Avocado seed starch-based degradable plastics + PLA | Not measurable. Sample melted before measurement. |
| Sample Name | MFR Value | References |
|---|---|---|
| Sugarcane bagasse cellulose-based degradable plastics | [230°C/5 kg] 1.02 ± 0.68 g/10 min |
[42] |
| Corn cob cellulose-based degradable plastics | The sample was not measured, since it did not melt completely, rendering the measurement invalid. | [42] |
| Thermoplastic starch + polypropylene (TPS + PP) |
[230 °C/2.16 kg] 10.9 ± 0.1 g/10 min |
[45] |
| Thermoplastic starch + polyethylene (TPS + PE) |
[190 °C/2.16 kg] 13.5 ± 0.1 g/10 min |
[45] |
| Pure polypropylene (PP) using injection molding | [230°C/5 kg] 5–20 g/10 min |
[45] |
| Pure polyethylene (PE) using injection molding | [190°C/5 kg] 13–25 g/10 min |
[45] |
| PP and PE standard value using compression molding |
[230 °C/5 kg] 2 g/10 min |
[45] |
| PP and PE standard value using blow molding |
[190 °C/5 kg] 0.05–0.15 g/10 min |
[45] |
| Poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate) (PBSA) | [160°C/2.16 kg] 2.7 ± 0.1 g/10 min) |
[46] |
| PLA (material datasheet by Biomer for L9000) | 3 – 6 g/10 min | [47] |
| Polypropylene (PP) standard value |
[230°C/5 kg] 1–5 g/10 min |
[41,48] |
| Polyethylene (PE) standard value |
[230°C/5 kg] 1-3 g/10 min |
[41,48] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: 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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).