Retrogradation and Antiplasticization of Thermoplastic Starch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petrochemical-based plastics are widely used in modern society due to their high effective mechanical and barrier properties (Farris et al., 2009; Siracusa et al., 2008). However, petrochemical-based plastics have become an environmental concern as they are not biodegradable or recyclable. Replacing the petrochemical-based polymers with biopolymers which are renewable has become an attractive idea and necessitates research on bioplastics (Debeaufort et al., 1998). Among the biopolymers, starch is considered as one of the most promising candidates for bioplastics due to its abundant availability, annually renewability, competitive price, and potential performance, including thermoplasticity (Lai & Padua, 1997; Mali et al., 2005). Native starch does not have thermoplastic properties. However, when additional plasticizers, elevated temperatures and shear are present, native starch does exhibit thermoplastic properties. Standard techniques, such as extrusion and injection moulding, used for producing petrochemical-based plastics, can be used in thermoplastic processing of starch (Guilbert et al., 1997). Some of thermoplastic starch (TPS) has been developed into commercial products, like compost bags, packaging materials (loose fillers and films), coatings, mulch films and disposable diapers (Jovanovic et al., 1997; Lai et al., 1997). TPS film and coating are being developed for the meat, poultry, seafood, fruit, vegetable, grains and candies industry sectors (Debeaufort et al., 1998). A drawback for use of starch is that TPS products age with time during storage due to starch retrogradation, which significantly changes quality, acceptability, and shelf-life of the TPS products. This review will summarize the current knowledge of TPS pertaining to its plasticization, retrogradation, and antiplasticization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".