MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sorption Isotherm and Plasticization Effect of Moisture and Plasticizers in Pea Starch Film

2008· article· en· W2112051984 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Zhang, Jung H. Han

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasticizerPolyolStarchMonosaccharideSorptionGlycerolMaterials scienceChemical engineeringAdsorptionSorbitolPolymer chemistryChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite materialPolyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207