Sorption Isotherm and Plasticization Effect of Moisture and Plasticizers in Pea Starch Film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pea starch films were produced with various plasticizers (glucose, fructose, mannose, sorbitol, and glycerol). Effects of plasticizer content (4.34 to 10.87 mmol/g of dry starch) and storage relative humidity (RH) (11.3% to 75.4%) on moisture content (MC), tensile strength (TS), elongation (E), modulus of elasticity (EM), and water vapor permeability (WVP) were evaluated using response surface methodology. MC was influenced strongly by RH. Glycerol-plasticized films had the highest MC, indicating that water molecules played a more important role in plasticizing starch films. Monosaccharide-plasticized films and polyol-plasticized films had similar TS values. However, monosaccharide-plasticized films had higher E values and lower EM values than polyol-plasticized films, meaning monosaccharides had better efficiency in plasticizing starch films. Recrystallization happened in glucose- and sorbitol-plasticized films when they were stored in high RH. Sorption isotherm studies showed the similar adsorption and desorption profiles for all 3 monosaccharide-plasticized films and a hysteresis. The Flory-Huggius model fitted experimental data best for starch films, while the BET model fitted the data marginally.
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) | 0.001 | 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".