Extrusion and Characterization of Soy Protein Film Incorporated with Soy Cellulose Microfibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A biodegradable alternative material to synthetic plastics was explored in this study through the extrusion of soy protein isolate (SPI) composite films containing soy cellulose microfibers (SMF). SMF were isolated from soy pods and stems using a chemo-mechanical method. The fibers produced through successive treatments were characterized by microscopy, x-ray diffraction, and Fourier transform infrared analysis. SMF/SPI composite films (0.08 to 0.3 mm thick), containing different concentrations of cellulose fibers, were produced using a single-screw extruder (0.625″ screw; 24 : 1 L/D ratio; 100 – 120 min−1; 120 to 150 °C barrel temperature) and characterized. Homogenous films with uniform distribution of SMF were obtained with the highest concentration of 0.5 % w/w SMF/SPI. Increasing fiber content resulted in the formation of aggregates. As with other protein films, mechanical properties of the extruded pristine SPI and composite films were negatively affected by humidity. At the optimal concentration of 0.25 % w/w SMF/SPI, films exhibited improved mechanical performance at elevated relative humidity (84 %) when compared to the pristine SPI films.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".