Valorization of Hemp Hurds as Bio-Sourced Additives in PLA-Based Biocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sourced from agricultural waste, hemp hurds are a low-cost renewable material with high stiffness; however, despite their potential to be used as low-cost filler in natural fiber reinforced polymer biocomposites, they are often discarded. In this study, the potential to add value to hemp hurds by incorporating them into poly(lactic acid) (PLA) biopolymer to form bio-based materials for packaging applications is investigated. However, as with many plant fibers, the inherent hydrophilicity of hemp hurds leads to inferior filler-matrix interfacial interactions, compromising the mechanical properties of the resulting biocomposites. In this study, two chemical treatments, alkaline (NaOH) and alkaline/peroxide (NaOH/H2O2) were employed to treat hemp hurds to improve their miscibility with poly(lactic acid) (PLA) for the formation of biocomposites. The effects of reinforcement content (5, 10, and 15 wt. %), chemical treatments (purely alkaline vs. alkaline/peroxide) and treatment cycles (1 and 3 cycles) on the mechanical and thermal properties of the biocomposites were investigated. The biocomposites of treated hemp hurd powder exhibited enhanced thermal stability in the temperature range commonly used to process PLA (130–180 °C). The biocomposites containing 15 wt. % hemp hurd powder prepared using a single-cycle alkaline/peroxide treatment (PLA/15APHH1) exhibited a Young’s modulus of 2674 MPa, which is 70% higher than that of neat PLA and 9.3% higher than that of biocomposites comprised of PLA containing the same wt. % of untreated hemp hurd powder (PLA/15UHH). Furthermore, the tensile strength of the PLA/15APHH1 biocomposite was found to be 62.6 MPa, which was 6.5% lower than that of neat PLA and 23% higher than that of the PLA/15UHH sample. The results suggest that the fabricated PLA/hemp hurd powder biocomposites have great potential to be utilized in green and sustainable packaging applications.
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) | 0.000 | 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".