Characterization of Chicken Feather Biocarbon for Use in Sustainable Biocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With over 1 billion tonnes of food waste generated annually, there is potential for the waste to be re-purposed. The generation of products from food-industry waste not only reduces the environmental burden of the materials but gives a new value to waste. A common waste material from the food industry is chicken feathers (ChF), a by-product of the chicken meat processing industry. In this work, ChF were subject to slow pyrolysis at varying temperatures. A complete analysis was completed to determine the yield, ash, chemical composition and morphology of the samples. X-ray diffraction analysis indicated that lower temperature samples were more amorphous, whereas higher temperature samples exhibited more graphitic content. After characterization, the biocarbon was combined with poly(lactic acid) (PLA) to generate sustainable 100 % biobased composites. Both composites had moduli that were more than 115% greater than that of the neat polymer. The success of the composites demonstrated that ChF biocarbon can be used as a sustainable and cost effective filler. The use of this material gives new purpose to a waste product and contributes to the goal of sustainable product development.
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 | 0.001 | 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".