MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410250007 · doi:10.28991/hef-2025-06-01-015

Global Trends in Agricultural Waste-Based Bioplastic Research: A Scientometric Review

2025· review· en· W4410250007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Salfauqi Nurman, Masyudi Masyudi, Saudah, Irhamni Irhamni, Diana Diana, Fadlan Hidayat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Earth and Future · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioplasticAgricultureEnvironmental scienceEngineeringWaste managementBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research of utilizing agricultural waste has been established for over 6 decades, yet problems regarding plastic waste remain the biggest challenge in environmental issues. The aim of this study was to capture the publication, thematic, and collaborative trends in agricultural waste-based bioplastic research through bibliometric or scientometric analysis. Metadata of relevant research was downloaded from the Scopus database as of November 9, 2024, utilizing a pre-determined combination of keywords. We included records from original research and English-written documents, which were further manually screened for relevance. Scienntometric analysis was analyzed using both bibliometrix and VOSviewer. We found 1,451 records being relevant to the scientometric studies, where the publication peaked at 2024 (n = 170). The most relevant source title was the Science of The Total Environment (n=40), followed by polymer and agricultural-related titles. The words “plastic,” “film,” and “mechanical strength” were the most commonly used, with occurrences reaching 3532, 1471, and 1008 times in the abstract. The thematic analysis revealed that the “bioplastic for food packaging” and “starch” are motor and declining themes, respectively. The VOSviewer visualization of keywords co-occurrence revealed “starch” and “bioplastic” as the dominant keywords with total link strengths (TLSs) of 12 and 13, respectively. An Indonesian university, Universitas Sumatera Utara, was the most productive (n=45). However, the country is in 18th position (n=329) with the least average citations per document (5.5). China and the United States were the most productive countries (n=194 and 99, respectively) that received a total of 3523 and 3345 citations, respectively. Collaboration between China and the United States was established with a TLS of 14, with other observed collaborations such as India, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Brazil. In conclusion, the research is growing rapidly each year, with China-based institutions leading the field, while countries like Indonesia are beginning to gain recognition. The main focus of innovation in this research is on producing bioplastics for food packaging, which is the most reported area. Additionally, there is a trend toward exploring alternative raw materials, indicating a reduced utilization of starch. Future research should aim to optimize bioplastic production by exploring diverse approaches and fostering international collaboration. Doi: 10.28991/HEF-2025-06-01-015 Full Text: PDF

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Earth and FutureSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207