Mechanical and Thermal Characteristics of Pea Starch Films Plasticized with Monosaccharides and Polyols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Edible starch films were produced from pea starch and various plasticizers (mannose, glucose, fructose, and glycerol and sorbitol) at the ratio of 4.34, 6.50, 8.69, and 10.87 mmol plasticizer per gram of starch. After film specimens were conditioned at 50% relative humidity, mechanical properties (tensile strength, elongation, and modulus of elasticity), water vapor permeability (WVP), moisture content, and thermomechanical properties (G’ and tan8) were determined as a function of plasticizer concentration. At all concentration levels, monosaccharides (mannose, glucose, and fructose) made the starch films stronger (higher tensile strength) and more stretchable than polyols (glycerol and sorbitol), while WVP of monosaccharide‐plasticized starch films were lower than those of polyol‐plasticized starch films, especially at higher plasticizer concentration levels. Except for 4.34 mmol/g of mannose‐plasticized film, all the other films showed similar modulus of elasticity at the same plasticizer concentration. Polyol‐plasticized films had lower T than the monosaccharide‐plasticized films. Glucose‐ and sorbitol‐plasticized films needed more activation energy to go through glass transition than others. After all, research results showed that not only the polyols but also the monosaccharides were effective in plasticizing starch films. It is concluded that molecular size, configuration, total number of functional hydroxyl group of the plasticizer as well as its compatibility of the plasticizers with the polymer could affect the interactions between the plasticizers and starch molecules, and consequently the effectiveness of plasticization.
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".