Polyolefin-Based Cladding Panels from Discarded Fishing Ropes: A Sustainable Solution for Managing Fishing Gear Waste in Isolated Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the potential for recycling fishing rope waste from the Magdalen Islands, Canada, into sustainable wall cladding panels, addressing both environmental concerns and waste management challenges. A comprehensive characterization of the fishing ropes was conducted using various analytical techniques to assess their suitability for recycling. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) identified polyethylene (PE) and isotactic polypropylene (iPP) as the main polymers present in the ropes, with a composition of approximately 25% PE and 75% PP. The effects of photodegradation were evaluated through carbonyl index analysis, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), tensile testing, and gel permeation chromatography (GPC). The results showed reduced crystallinity, a 20% decrease in tensile strength, and lower molecular weights due to environmental exposure in comparison with unused ropes. However, melt flow rate (MFR) measurements aligned with virgin HDPE and PP values used in rope manufacturing, indicating suitable processability for recycling. Panels produced from recycled fishing ropes exhibited lower flexural and impact properties compared to commercial alternatives due to the presence of mineral contaminants and voids in the panels as revealed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). This comprehensive investigation provides valuable insights into the potential repurposing of fishing rope waste, contributing to the development of sustainable waste management strategies for coastal communities.
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 | 0.001 | 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".