Recycling of biodegradable biobased polymer/agave fiber biocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biodegradable biobased polymers are a promising solution to reduce the dependence on conventional plastics and minimize their environmental impact. This work evaluated the recycling capacity of a biodegradable polymer (MaterBi) and its composite with agave fibers. The materials were reprocessed by several cycles using compression molding. Service life simulation was performed using accelerated weathering. Samples from each reprocessing cycle were characterized in terms of melt flow index (MFI), color, porosity, water absorption, compostability, and mechanical and thermal properties. The MFI of MaterBi increased with each cycle, going from 3.5 to 95 g/10 min for the first to sixth cycles and from 2 to 117 g/10 min for the first and fourth cycles for the biocomposite. Reprocessing produced chain scission and modified the thermal and mechanical properties. MaterBi exhibited competitive mechanical properties compared to conventional polymers, even after four reprocessing cycles (tensile, flexural, and impact strengths of 27, 55 MPa, and 30 J/m). Besides potential cost reductions, the agave fiber addition positively affected the tensile and flexural modulus, which remained after the fourth cycle in 1100 and 2300 MPa. The results confirmed that MaterBi and its biocomposites can be recycled for several cycles, extending their useful life before final biodegradation. Highlights MaterBi (MB) and its agave fiber biocomposites are suitable for reprocessing. MB tensile and flexural properties remained stable after four reprocessing cycles. Agave fibers make MB more prone to weathering, impacting its properties. MB and its biocomposites degrade in water and compost conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".