Biodegradation of bio-sourced and synthetic organic electronic materials towards green organic electronics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ubiquitous use of electronic devices has led to an unprecedented increase in related waste as well as the worldwide depletion of reserves of key chemical elements required in their manufacturing. The use of biodegradable and abundant organic (carbon-based) electronic materials can contribute to alleviate the environmental impact of the electronic industry. The pigment eumelanin is a bio-sourced candidate for environmentally benign (green) organic electronics. The biodegradation of eumelanin extracted from cuttlefish ink is studied both at 25 °C (mesophilic conditions) and 58 °C (thermophilic conditions) following ASTM D5338 and comparatively evaluated with the biodegradation of two synthetic organic electronic materials, namely copper (II) phthalocyanine (Cu-Pc) and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS). Eumelanin biodegradation reaches 4.1% (25 °C) in 97 days and 37% (58 °C) in 98 days, and residual material is found to be without phytotoxic effects. The two synthetic materials, Cu-Pc and PPS, do not biodegrade; Cu-Pc brings about the inhibition of microbial respiration in the compost. PPS appears to be potentially phytotoxic. Finally, some considerations regarding the biodegradation test as well as the disambiguation of "biodegradability" and "bioresorbability" are highlighted.
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".