MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885974169 · doi:10.11159/icepr18.157

Mechanical Properties of Recycled Polyethylene / Polypropylene Material with Embedded Pharmaceutical Waste

2018· article· en· W2885974169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zara Mawla, Wael Slika, Walid Saad, George Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypropylenePolyethyleneMaterials scienceComposite materialWaste managementPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) into the environment has recently gained significant interest [1,2].Pharmaceutical waste represents one source of waste that contributes to the accumulation of PPCPs in the environment [3,4].In a previous study, the use of mixed plastics composed primarily of polyethylene/polypropylene (PE/PP) reclaimed from municipal solid waste (MSW) streams was assessed for the immobilization of expired pharmaceuticals [5].In this study, the mechanical properties of matrix materials composed of reclaimed low density PE (LDPE), high density PE (HDPE), and PP and other plastics are determined.The potential use of the resulting materials depends on the pharmaceuticals leaching behavior and the mechanical properties of the end product.It was recently shown that the leaching profile reveals the recycled plastic material provide an efficient barrier the leaching of embedded.PE/PP boards were tested for tension, compression, bending, and water absorption according to relevant ASTM standards D638, D695, D790, and D570, respectively.Two mixed formulations were tested: a light board composed of 65% (LDPE), 10% (HDPE), and 25% of PP and other plastics, and a heavy board composed of 75% LDPE, 20% HDPE, and 5% of PP and other plastics.The tensile strength testing results reveal an average of 2.9 ± 0.23 MPa for the lighter board, and 4.92 ± 2.2 MPa for the heavier board.In the case of compressive strength, the lighter board revealed an average of 4.55 ± 1.24 MPa , and 7.78 ± 0.81 MPa for the heavier board and in the case of flexural strength results revealed an average of 6.64 ± 0.64 MPa for the lighter board, and 22.8 ± 2.31 MPa for the heavier board.These findings show the matrix materials have promising potential to be used in construction applications, and provide a sustainable option for reducing plastics in MSW streams, as well as providing a potential solution for the treatment of expired pharmaceutical waste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on New TechnologiesSame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207