Bioplastic classifications and innovations in antibacterial, antifungal, and antioxidant applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional plastics exacerbate climate change by generating substantial amounts of greenhouse gases and solid wastes throughout their lifecycle. To address the environmental and economic challenges associated with petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics have emerged as a viable alternative. Bioplastics are a type of plastic that are either biobased, biodegradable, or both. Due to their biodegradability and renewability, bioplastics are established as earth-friendly materials that can replace nonrenewable plastics. However, early bioplastic development has been hindered by higher production costs and inferior mechanical and barrier properties compared to conventional plastics. Nevertheless, studies have shown that the addition of additives and fillers can enhance bioplastic properties. Recent advancements in bioplastics have incorporated special additives like antibacterial, antifungal, and antioxidant agents, offering added values and unique properties for specific applications in various sectors. For instance, integrating antibacterial additives into bioplastics enables the creation of active food packaging, extending the shelf-life of food by inhibiting spoilage-causing bacteria and microorganisms. Moreover, bioplastics with antioxidant additives can be applied in wound dressings, accelerating wound healing by preventing oxidative damage to cells and tissues. These innovative bioplastic developments offer promising opportunities for developing sustainable and practical solutions in various fields. Within this review are two main focuses: an outline of the bioplastic classifications to understand how they fit in as the coveted conventional plastics substitute and an overview of the recent bioplastic innovations in the antibacterial, antifungal, and antioxidant applications. We cover the use of different polymers and additives, presenting the findings and potential applications within the last decade. Although current research primarily focuses on food packaging and biomedicine, the exploration of bioplastics with specialized properties is still in its early stages, offering a wide range of undiscovered opportunities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".