Comparative Degradation of LDPE, HDPE and HMHDPE under Different Soil Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Present work includes, degradation of polyethylene under different environmental conditions to know the effect of physical, chemical and biological factors prevailing in those conditions on degradation of polyethylene. Plastic films viz., Low density polyethylene (LDPE), High density polyethylene (HDPE) and High molecular weight high density polyethylene (HMHDPE) each were incubated in three different conditions viz., black soil, sandy soil and red soil for a period of 3 months. The changes in the properties of plastic films after incubation was studied by change in the weight of the plastic film and mechanical parameters like tensile strength, breaking load and percentage of elongation. Among all the plastic films HDPE was found to be highly susceptible with 33% weight loss and 40% reduction in percentage of elongation compared to LDPE with 26% weight loss and 34 % reduction in percentage of elongation in black soil. Whereas HMHDPE found to be highly resistant in all the soils with no significant weight loss and percentage of elongation (15%). None of the plastic films had shown degradation in sandy soil even after incubation for 3 months. FTIR spectroscopy results showed that HDPE film incubated in black soil had undergone extensive degradation when compared with un incubated HDPE film.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".