Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies

Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Fruit and Vegetable Wastes as Potential Component of

Biodegradable Plastic
Rency Mecy Orenia, Alejandro Collado III, Mary Grace Magno, Lina T. Cancino
BS Biology, Natural Science Department, Pangasinan State University, Lingayen Campus
Lingayen, Pangasinan, Philippines

Abstract - Plastic is a material that is very useful to every individual. Commercially plastics that are
often used nowadays are petroleum based polymers which take longer years to degrade. These plastics
when burned have a negative impact to human and to the environment. They have also detrimental effect
to the marine and other aquatic lives when disposed to oceans and other bodies of water. Due to the
increasing plastic waste all over the world, researchers are seeking for an alternative that can pass the
requirements to be called biodegradable. This study utilized fruit and vegetable wastes as a component
in making biodegradable plastic and used additives such as: polyvinyl alcohol as binder, glycerin as
plasticizer, soya oil as stabilizer and 5 ml glacial acetic acid. Different formulations were carried out.
The products produced were subjected into different tests such as: biodegradability test, chemical
solubility test, air test and tensile stress test and were compared to one another. The tests conducted
suggest that Formulation 5, which contains 100 g powdered peels, has the largest tensile stress indicating
that it has the most tensile strength with considerable biodegradation and chemical solubility..

Keywords – Biodegradability, Bioplastic, Biopolymer

INTRODUCTION environment [4]. Plastic takes hundreds of years

Plastics are used by most people almost every to decompose. The production of plastics
day, everywhere. It is considered as the most contributes negatively to our planet’s energy
used polymer in our daily lives as it is cheap, problem, since it utilizes nonrenewable
readily available, is durable and has flexible resources of petroleum and natural gas.
material. Plastic polymers are made from Nowadays, millions of oil barrels are used to
building blocks of monomers and are used as manufacture plastics, which are estimated to be
packaging, automobile parts, in industries and 8% of the global petroleum consumption [5].
other things that aid human needs. Due to the Because plastic uses limited fossil resources and
robust property of plastic, the production and is non-biodegradable, which make plastic a
demand of it is ever increasing [1]. Applications waste for a very long time and may cause many
and uses of plastic have many advantages for risks to human health and to the environment
industrial and human purposes [2]. Although it [6].
is proven to have many advantages, It is in this sense that caught the
environmental impact of plastic is still an issue researchers’ deep concern in looking into the
worldwide. The generation of public waste is safety of human health and in finding some
expected to continue growing due to the solutions to environmental problems. As cited
increasing needs and population growth of by Garcia et al. [7] in their study that due to the
humans around the globe [3]. As of 2015, risks brought by the conventional plastics, it is
approximately 6,300 metric tons of plastic now becoming mandatory to direct research
wastes had been generated, around 9% of which efforts toward innovative and cost-effective
had been recycled, 12% was incinerated and fabrication of environmentally degradable
79% was accumulated in the natural plastics demonstrating performances similar to

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

61
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

conventional ones. One of which is the OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

introduction of biodegradable plastics or bio- This study was geared to the
plastic. Bio-plastic imposes significance in development of a biodegradable plastic using
combating the environmental problems brought different combinations of natural occurring
by conventional plastics. Reducing the polymers from fruit and vegetable wastes. It
dependence on fossil fuels and the related aimed to make a good, environment-friendly,
environmental impacts are the contribution of and toxic-free bioplastic. Also, it aimed to
bio-plastics [8]. Bio-based plastics are made create a biodegradable plastic and a bioplastic
with natural based materials. Bio-plastics are that will match the quality in terms of tensile
type of plastic made perfectly or wholly from stress and chemical resistance of many
natural polymers acquired from renewable conventional plastics being used today.
biomass that can be degraded through natural
process by microorganisms [9]. Thus, this type MATERIALS AND METHOD
of plastic can help reduce waste disposal
problems. Moreover, bioplastics can be
manufactured from easily available cheap Duration and Locale of the Study
materials containing of stored or extracted starch The experimentations for the production of
and or cellulose which are naturally occurring bioplastics were conducted at Chemistry
polymer [8]. Laboratory of Pangasinan State University,
Growing population requires more Lingayen Campus. Tests for different
production of food to sustain life. Most of the characteristics were also done in the same
foods people eat today are fruits and vegetables laboratory on February to April, 2018.
which are known to be healthier than meat.
Many fruits and vegetable wastes are being left Collection of Fruit and Vegetable Wastes
in the market. Hence, fruits and vegetables, Fresh fruit and vegetable wastes were
being rich in starch and cellulose, have been collected from the local market of Lingayen,
considered as a potential feedstock for the Pangasinan. The peels were washed with tap
production of bio-fuels [10]. Cellulose is the water and were sun dried for 24 hours.
most abundant renewable polymer in nature,
being the main building component of our Preparation of chemicals
planet’s vegetation. It is a crystalline unbranched The Polyvinyl alcohol was bought from
polymer with straight chain conformation, ideal Tough Stony Scientific Lab, Inc. located in
for the formation of strong fibers. Similarly, Sta.Cruz, Manila. The glycerin, glacial acetic
starch too is a natural polymer that is usually acid and soya oil were bought in Limpan
found in some fruits. Starch consists of two Merchandise located in Dagupan City. The
types of polysaccharides, amylase and acetone and distilled water were bought from
amylopectin. Amylose and amylopectin are Mercury Drugstore in Lingayen, Pangasinan.
considered as a potential for bioplastic The collected, washed and sun dried fruit and
production [11]. vegetable wastes were used for the production of
It is the great desire of the researchers to bioplastic.
look into the safety and welfare of the Fiftygrams of polyvinylalcohol was
environment. Thus, it is in this aspect that this diluted in 100 ml distilled cold water to avoid
study had been considered that is - the fruit and formation of lumps, as it becomes sticky and the
vegetable wastes as a potential component of tendency to form lumps increases as temperature
biodegradable plastic. rises [12]. The soya oil, glacial acetic acid and
glycerin were measured using a graduated
cylinder.

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

62
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Production of plastic powdered peels which are : 25 g, 50 g, 75 g and

The collected peels were washed well 100 g were added into a beaker no 2 to no.4
with distilled water and drained. They were respectively , then for beaker no.1 to 5, a
dried in an oven at 40°C overnight. The peels solution of 55 ml polyvinyl alcohol diluted with
were further sundried until all the moisture 100ml water was added to the hot mixture and
content evaporated. The dried peels were mix thoroughly. While boiling, 2.5 ml soya oil,
chopped into small pieces and grinded until 5 ml glacial acetic acid and 90 ml glycerin were
powdered form. Table 1 presents the different added in every beaker. The mixture was
bioplastic formulations. Five beakers were continuously stirred until a sticky appearance
prepared and labeled as F1 for fomulation1 was obtained. The hot sticky mixture was
which was served as negative control, F2 for poured into the pan covered with foil. It was
formulation 2, F3 for formulation, F4 for then flattened to produce a thin bioplastic film.
formulation 4 and F5 for formulation 5. For This was sundried for two to three days. The
every beaker, a 300 ml of distilled was poured produced bioplastic were then kept in an open
and boiled. While boiling, a desired amount of pan for testing.

Table 1.Bioplastic formulations

Component Formulation 1 Formulation 2 Formulation 3 Formulation 4 Formulation 5
(Negative Control)
Powdered Peels --- 25 grams 50 grams 75 grams 100 grams
Polyvinyl Alcohol (ml) 55 ml 55 ml 55 ml 55 ml 55 ml
Soya Oil (ml) 2.5 ml 2.5 ml 2.5 ml 2.5 ml 2.5 ml
Glacial Acetic Acid (ml) 5 ml 5 ml 5 ml 5 ml 5 ml
Distilled Water (ml) 300 ml 300 ml 300 ml 300 ml 300 ml
Glycerin 90 ml 90 ml 90 ml 90 ml 90 ml
partially degraded and 3 = completely
Determination of the Different degraded.
Characteristics of Biodegradable Plastic
To determine the different Solubility Test
characteristics of the produced biodegradable Test to ascertain their solubility was also
plastics, samples of each of the different conducted by using another set of samples of
bioplastics formulations were cut into strips. the different bioplastics formulations with a
Three replicates of the different formulations dimension of 20mm length and 10 mm width.
together with the negative control were They were immersed individually in various
subjected for several testing. These were inorganic solvents such as: distilled water,
labeled as: F1 for negative control, F2 for 25 35% sulfuric acid and 10% ammonia and
gram peels, F3 for 50 gram peels, F4 for 75 organic solvents namely: 70% ethyl alcohol,
gram peels and F5 for 100 gram peels. commercial acetone and glacial acetic acid.
Five ml of every solvent were poured into a
Biodegradability Test petri dish and the samples of Formulation 1
The samples of the different to Formulation 5 were put into it respectively.
formulations together with the negative The samples were immersed for 2 hours and
control with the dimension of 20mm length observe their changes in appearance. They
and 10 mm width were labeled accordingly were scored accordingly as to: 1 = insoluble;
and were buried in a soil 10 cm. deep [13]. 2 = partially soluble and 3 = completely
After two weeks, samples were unearthed soluble.
and the observations were noted and scored
as accordingly as to: 1 = not degraded 2 = Air Test

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

63
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

The bioplastic samples with a dimension comparisons, rather than pre-planned

of 20mm length and 10 mm width were comparisons, among group means in an analysis
exposed to open air for a week. The changes of variance (ANOVA) experiment. These tests
in the physical appearance were noted and also showed which formulation is the best in
scored as to: 1 = no change and 2 = crinkled. terms of the various tests conducted.

Tensile Stress RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Samples of each of the bioplastics of Biodegradability Test
different formulations were taken and cut with The products used for testing were
the dimension of 100mm for height, 19 mm for coded and labeled with Formulation 1 to
length and 0.1 mm thick each. Three replicates Formulation 5. Formulation 1 as the negative
of the different formulations were used and a control, Formulation 2 for 25 gram peels,
200 g load was hanged into each sample. The Formulation 3 for 50 gram peels, Formulation
initial length and the final length after loading 4 for 75 gram peels, Formulation 5 for 100
were recorded and solved for the Strain; The gram peels.
Hook’s Law for determining the stress was used: As stated by the American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) in 2011 [14], a
Tensile Stress = E (Strain) in N/mm2 bioplastic to be considered biodegradable should
𝐹 (𝐿˳) degrade naturally in a short period of time.
And E = 𝐴 (𝛥𝐿) Therefore, the first test done was the
Where: biodegradability. After 2 weeks of being buried,
the exhumed plastic strips were graded and
E is the modulus of elasticity or Young’s scored accordingly. They were graded as 1 = not
modulus, a material property that describes its degraded, 2 = partially degraded and 3 =
stiffness in N/mm2 completely degraded as used by [15].
A is the area perpendicular to the tensile stress in In Table 3, a quantitative result of
mm2 biodegradability test based on the descriptive
interpretation of the different bioplastic
Lo is the initial length in mm formulations are shown. The table shows that
Lf is the final length in mm the Formulation 1 which is the negative control
was partially degraded after two weeks of being
Strain is computed as (Lf-Lo) / Lo buried. The negative control is a mixture of
chemicals which are polyvinyl alcohol, soya oil,
Data Analysis glacial acetic acid, glycerin and distilled water.
After all the tests were done, the
recorded results and data were analyzed by
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is a
statistical technique that assesses potential
differences in a scale-level dependent variable
by a nominal-level variable having 2 or more
categories. A Scheffe Test was also used for
one-way test comparison; it is a
statistical test that is used to make unplanned

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

64
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 3. Results of the biodegradability test of the different formulations

Formulation Replicate Biodegradability Result

1 ( Negative control) 1 2
2 2
3 3
2 (25 g peels) 1 3
2 3
3 3
3 (50 g peels) 1 3
2 3
3 3
4 (75 g peels) 1 3
2 3
3 3
5 (100 g peels) 1 3

Table 3 shows that the formulation 2 to It can be noted from Table 4 that the p
formulation 5 was completely degraded. The value between the different formulations is 1.00
presence of peels attributed to the complete which is greater than .05 level of significance.
degradation of the samples because the peels This simply means that they are not statistically
have a property to be easily degraded [16]. It significant so, the null hypothesis that there is no
can also be supported by another study significant difference among the different
conducted that the presence of Polyvinyl formulations is thereby .accepted. Thus, the
alcohol (PVA) also helps in the degradation of bioplastics made from peels of different
the samples because it can be completely formulation together with the negative control
mineralized by microorganisms [17]. are comparable in terms of biodegradability.
Another statistical tool was used to
A similar study was done where there is further analyze the significant differences of
also a rapid degradation in their product [13]. different formulations as compared to negative
The rapid degradation is due to the composting control in terms of biodegradability which is the
process, which occurred in two stages: an active Scheffe test.
composting stage and a curing period. In the first Table 5, presents the significant difference for
stage, the temperature rose and remained biodegradability test of the different
elevated as long as there was available oxygen, formulations using Scheffe .The tabulated result
which resulted in strong microbial activity, of the negative control and the result of every
while on the second stage, the temperature formulation in triplicate form were also
decreased but the plastic strips continued to included. P values as well as their interpretations
compost at a slower rate [18]. whether significant or not are also indicated.

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

65
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 4. Significant difference for biodegradability test of the different formulations.

F P value Significance
Between Groups 4.000 1.000 Not significant
Total 1.000
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5. Significant difference for biodegradability test of the different formulations using Scheffe
(I) TRT (J) TRT Mean Difference (I-J) P value Significance

2.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant

3.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant
1.00
4.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant
5.00 -.66667 .109 Not Significant
1.00 .66667 .109 Not significant
3.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
2.00
4.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
5.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
1.00 .66667 .109 Not significant
2.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
3.00
4.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
5.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
1.00 .66667 .109 Not significant
2.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
4.00
3.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
5.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
1.00 .66667 .109 Not significant
2.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
5.00
3.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant
4.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

It can be gleaned from Table 5, that all robust after exposing to different kinds of
formulations are not statistically significant organic and inorganic chemicals. The different
having the p values greater than the level of bioplastic formulations including the negative
significance which is 0.05 leading to the control were properly labeled and immersed in
acceptance of the null hypotheses. This simply the various solvents at the same time. Solubility
means that the different formulations and the is another important characteristic feature, where
negative control have almost the same results in it is essential to have bioplastic material which is
terms of biodegradability, as it was proven less soluble in water than any other solvents
during the experimentation that all of different [15].
formulations with powdered peels degraded. The bioplastics were immersed in ethyl
alcohol, acetone, ammonia, distilled water,
Chemical Solubility glacial acetic acid and sulfuric acid. The changes
Chemical solubility is the property of in the physical appearance were recorded and
solid, liquid, or gaseous chemical substance scored as to: 1 = insoluble, 2 = partially soluble
called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid, or and 3 = completely soluble.
gaseous solvent. This test investigates the
capacity of the formulated plastic to remain

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

66
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

completely soluble; formulation 2 and

Table 6. Results in the chemical solubility of the different formulations

Formulation Replicate Ethyl Alcohol (70 %) Acetone Glacial Acetic Ammonia (10%) Sulfuric Acid Water
Acid

1 (negative control) 1 1 1 2 3 3 3
2 1 1 2 3 3 3
3 1 1 2 3 3 3
2 (25 g peels) 1 1 1 1 2 3 2
2 1 1 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 2 2 2
3 (50 g peels) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 1 1 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 2 1 1
4 (75 g peels) 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 (100g peels) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
formulation 3 became partially soluble. The
It can be perceived from Table 5, that all different formulation also showed physical
the samples and negative control when changes in appearance when immersed in water
immersed in 70% ethyl alcohol and acetone have and sulfuric acid. Discrepancies of results in
similar quantitative value of 1 which means that every formulation were noted because physical
no reaction was observed during the test which properties of the polymer have an effect in its
indicates that they are insoluble. According to solubility, particularly for liquids that cause
[19], binder such as polyvinyl alcohol is appreciable swelling. In order to be absorbed
insoluble in organic solvents. This is the reason into a polymer, there must be a sufficient space
why all the formulations of the produced so that the polymer will have a chain flexibility
bioplastic are insoluble in ethyl alcohol, acetone to accommodate a liquid molecule [20].
and glacial acetic acid. The reaction of negative
control from the different formulations varies
when the samples were immersed in glacial
acetic acid. The negative control is partially
soluble while the different formulations are all
insoluble. For the reaction of different samples
into ammonia, it was noted that the formulation
1 which is the negative control and contains
purely the chemicals was soluble, while
formulation 2 to formulation 3 had an average
quantitative value of 2 with a qualitative
description as partially soluble. Formulation 4 is
insoluble to ammonia. Similarly, the effect of
sulfuric acid differs for every formulation. In
Formulation 1,all the replicates became

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

67
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 7. Significant difference for solubility test of the different formulations using one way ANOVA.
F P value Sig.

AMMONIA Between Groups .66667 .351 Not significant

SULFURIC Between Groups 23.500 .000 Significant
WATER Between Groups 17.000 .000 Significant

Table 8. Significant difference solubility of the different formulations when

immersed to ammonia using Scheffe Test.

Dependent Variable (I) (J) TRT Mean Difference (I- P value Significant
TRT J)
2 .66667 .351 Not significant
3 1.000 .084 Not significant
1
4 .66667 .351 Not significant
5 1.00000 .084 Not significant
1 -.66667 .351 Not significant
3 33333 .883 Not significant
2
4 .0000 1.0000 Not significant
5 .33333 .883 Not significant
1 -1.000 .084 Not significant
2 -.33333 .863 Not significant
AMMONIA Scf 3
4 -.33333 .863 Not significant
5 .0000 1.000 Not significant
1 -.66667 .351 Not significant
2 .0000 1.000 Not significant
4
3 .3333 .863 Not significant
5 .3333 .883 Not significant
1 -1.00000 .084 Not significant
2 -.3333 .863 Not significant
5
3 .00000 1.000 Not significant
4 -.33333 .883 Not significant

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

68
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 9. Significant difference for solubility test result of the different in sulfuric using the Scheffe test.
Dependent (I) TRT (J) TRT Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Significance
Variable
2 .66667 .109 Not significance
3 1.000* .012 Significant
1
4 1.000* .012 Significant
5 2.000* .000 Significant
1 -.66667 .109 Not significant
3 .33333 .655 Not significant
2
4 .33333 .655 Not significant
5 1.333* .002 Significant
1 -1.000* .012 Significant
2 -.333 .655 Not significant
Sulfuric Scheffe 3
4 .000 1.000 Not significant
5 1.000* .012 Significant
1 -1.000* .012 Significant
2 -.333 .655 Not significant
4
3 .000 1.000 Not significant
5 1.000* .012 Significant
1 -2.000* .000 Significant
2 -1.333* .002 Significant
5
3 -1.000* .012 Significant
4 -1.000* .012 Significant

The table shows that all of the maybe because of the least amount of peels
formulations has a pvalue greater than 0.05 level contained in it.
of significance which means that they are not When comparing formulation 2 to some
statistically significant. Since all formulations other formulations, only the Formulation 5
except formulation 1contain peels, thus they shows the significant difference. Thus,
have the same effect in terms of solubility when Formulation 1,3 and 4 are not statistically
immersed in ammonia. significant.
The result to the ammonia test indicates In Formulation 3 compared to other
that no change was happened to the bioplastic. formulations, Formulation 1 and 5 have a p
The ammonia test describes the ability of the value lesser than 0.05 and are statistically
formulations that contain peels to remain intact significant. Formulation 2 and Formulation 4 are
even when exposed to ammonia. Ammonia is not statistically significant when compared to
one of the materials for cleaning products. Formulation 3.
Another similar study, made by [15] which Formulation 4 compared to some other
focused on banana peels to produce plastic formulations, Formulation 1 and 5 have a p
films, their study proves that peels used in the value lesser than 0.05 and are statistically
formulation are stable and intact. significant. Formulation 2 and Formulation 3 are
Table 9 shows the p value of the different not statistically significant when compared to
formulations. It can be noticed that the Formulation 4.
Formulation 1 (negative control) when However, the comparison of
compared to Formulation, 3, 4 and 5 showed a Formulation 5 to other formulations shows a
significant value lesser than 0.05. However, significant difference thereby rejecting the null
Formulation 2 have a p value greater than 0.05 hypothesis. This may be due to the large
indicating that the Formulation 2 has almost the amount of peels content that makes them
same reaction with that of negative control in

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

69
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

intact as confirmed by [15] in their study using

banana peels.

Table 10. Significant difference for the solubility of the different formulations in water using the Scheffe test.
Dependent (I) TRT (J) TRT Mean Difference (I- P Value Significance
Variable J)

2 .66667 .351 Not significant

3 1.333* .018 Significant
1
4 2.000* .001 Significant
5 2.000* .001 Significant
1 -.66667 .351 Not significant
3 .66667 .351 Not significant
2
4 1.333* .018 Significant
5 1.333* .018 Significant
1 -1.333* .018 Significant
2 -.66667 .351 Not significant
WATER Scheffe 3
4 .66667 .351 Not significant
5 .66667 .351 Not significant
1 -2.000* .001 Significant
2 -1.333* .018 Significant
4
3 -.66667 .351 Not significant
5 .000 1.000 Not significant
1 -2.000* .001 Significant
2 -1.333* .018 Significant
5
3 -.66667 .351 Not significant
4 .000 1.000 Not significant

In Table 10, when Formulation 1 was Formulation 4 are not significant, which means
compared to Formulation 2, 3, 4 and 5, only the that the solubility in water of Formulation3,4
formulation 2 has a p value greater than 0.05 and and 5 are almost similar.
shows no significant difference. All other
formulations are significant. Similarly, in Air Test
comparing Formulation 2 to others, the The air test is subjected to test the
Formulation 1 and 3 shows no significant ability of the plastic to stay intact when left in an
difference while Formulation 4 and Formulation open space for 7 days. The table below shows
5 are highly significant. the result visual assessment for the air test.
For formulation 3 comparison with Table 11, presents the results of the different
respect to others, only the Formulation 1 shows formulations when exposed to air. The results
a significant difference. When Formulation 4 gathered were acquired through visual
was compared to Formulation1, 2, 3 and 5, assessment. They obtained data were scored
Formulation 1 and 2 obtained a p value lesser accordingly as to 1 = no change and 2 =
than 0.05 which means that Formulation 4 has a crinkled.
significant difference to these two formulations.
In comparing Formulation 5 to others,
Formulation 1 and Formulation 2 show a
significant difference while Formulation 3 and

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

70
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 11. Results in the air test of the different formulations and products
Formulation Replicates Change in appearance
1 1 1
2 1
3 1
2 1 2
2 2
3 2
3 1 2
2 1
3 1
4 1 2
2 1
3 1
5 1 1
2 1
3 1

Table 12. Significant difference for the air test of the different formulations using the One-way ANOVA.

Mean Square P value Significance

Significant
Between Groups .190 .002

where no change was observed due to the

Table 11 provides the recorded data for air test. presence of the organic material [19].
They are scored according to change in their
physical appearance. All of the replicates of In Table 13, it can be noted that
Formulation 2 showed a crinkled appearance, Formulation 2 has a p value lesser than .05
while some replicates of Formulation 3 and 4 when compared to Formulation 1, 4 and 5,
also showed a crinkled appearance after 7 days indicating that in terms of the air test, these
of exposure, while the rest of the formulations formulations are significantly different from
do not have a change in physical appearance. each other. The rest of the compared
formulations are not significantly different.
The table shows the p value of the air
test of 0.002 which indicates that there is a
significant difference between groups meaning
that the reaction of the different formulations in
terms of exposure to air are comparable and
almost the same. Thus, the null hypothesis is
hereby rejected.

The results for the air test shows that

even after exposing to the open space, the
formulated bioplastic is still intact. A similar
study was conducted that the bioplastic made
from agricultural wastes had the same result

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

71
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 13. Significant Difference for the air test of the different formulations using Scheffe Test.

(I) TRT (J) TRT Mean Difference (I-J) P value Significance

2.00 -1.00000* .012 Significance

3.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant

1.00
4.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

5.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

1.00 1.00000* .012 Significant

3.00 .33333 .655 Not significant

2.00
4.00 1.00000* .012 Significant

5.00 1.00000* .012 Significant

1.00 .66667 .109 Not significant

2.00 -.33333 .655 Not significant

3.00
4.00 .66667 .109 Not significant

5.00 .66667 .109 Not significant

1.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

2.00 -1.00000* .012 Significant

4.00
3.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant

5.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

1.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

2.00 -1.00000* .012 Significant

5.00
3.00 -.66667 .109 Not significant

4.00 .00000 1.000 Not significant

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

72
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 14. Tensile Strain and Tensile Stress of the different formulations of produced bioplastics.
Formulation Tensile Strain, 𝐹 (𝐿˳)
Young’s Modulus, , Tensile Stress
𝛥𝐿 𝐴 (𝛥𝐿)
N/𝑚𝑚2
N/𝑚𝑚2
𝐿˳
1 0.13 7.94 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

0.13 7.94 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

0.13 7.94 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

2 0.29 3.56 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0325N/𝑚𝑚2

0.29 3.56 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0325N/𝑚𝑚2

0.29 3.56 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

3 0.25 4.13N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

0.25 4.13 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2

0.25 4.13 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0322N/𝑚𝑚2
4 0.20 6.18N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0324N/𝑚𝑚2

0.10 11.35 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.135N/𝑚𝑚2

0.23 5.52 N/𝑚𝑚2 1.0326N/𝑚𝑚2

5 0.8 13.93 N/𝑚𝑚2 11.14 N/𝑚𝑚2

0.8 13.93 N/𝑚𝑚2 11.14 N/𝑚𝑚2

0.8 13.93 N/𝑚𝑚2 11.14 N/𝑚𝑚2

Table 15. Significant difference for tesnsile stress of the

different using the one way ANOVA.

Mean Square P value Significance

Significant
Between Groups 60.783 .000

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

73
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Table 16. Significant difference for the tensile stress of the different formulations using Scheffe
(I) TRT (J) TRT Mean Difference (I-J) P value Significance
2.00 .00003 1.000 Not significant
3.00 .00083 1.000 Not significant
1.00
4.00 -.18383* .001 Significant
5.00 -10.10917* .000 Significant
1.00 -.00003 1.000 Not significant
3.00 .00080 1.000 Not significant
2.00
4.00 -.18387* .001 Significant
5.00 -10.10920* .000 Significant
1.00 -.00083 1.000 Not significant
2.00 -.00080 1.000 Not significant
3.00
4.00 -.18467* .001 Significant
5.00 -10.11000* .000 Significant
1.00 .18383* .001 Significant
2.00 .18387* .001 Significant
4.00
3.00 .18467* .001 Significant
5.00 -9.92533* .000 Significant
1.00 10.10917* .000 Significant
2.00 10.10920* .000 Significant
5.00
3.00 10.11000* .000 Significant
4.00 9.92533* .000 Significant
which really indicates that it has the greatest
tensile strength.
Tensile Stress It can be noted from Table 14 that
Tensile stress refers to a force that Formulation 5 which is the biodegradable
attempts to pull apart or stretch a material It was plastics made from 100 g powdered peels has
calculated using the formula of tensile strain, by the highest tensile stress. Formulation 5 that had
Young;s Modulus. It shows the ability of the the highest tensile stress could be due to the
plastic to remain intact after carrying a specific quantity of glycerine combined to the large
amount of load. amount of powdered peels used which improve
Samples of each of the bioplastics of its mechanical strength. The stress of
different formulations were taken and cut with formulation 5 was also higher than that of the
the dimension of 100mm for height, 19 mm for negative control and the rest of the formulations
length and 0.1 mm thick each. Three replicates which really indicates that it has the greatest
of the different formulations were used and a tensile strength.
200 g load was hanged into each sample. The result of the significant difference
It can be noted from Table 14 that may be due to the big discrepancy of result
Formulation 5 which is the biodegradable obtained in the tensile stress test because
plastics made from 100 g powdered peels has Formulation 5 with highest peel content which is
the highest tensile stress. Formulation 5 that 100 g, obtained the highest tensile stress,
had the highest tensile stress could be due to the followed by Formulation 2 . The other
quantity of glycerine combined to the large formulations with the lesser content of peels had
amount of powdered peels used which improve a low tensile stress. The tensile stress of the
its mechanical strength. The stress of object is directly proportional to its tensile
formulation 5 was also higher than that of the strength, which means that the Formulation 5
negative control and the rest of the formulations which has the greatest tensile stress has the most

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

74
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

tensile strength. Thus, the null hypothesis that https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/

there is a significant difference between and 1.4965761
among the different formulations is hereby
rejected. This confirms the result obtained using [2] Kaewphan, N., Gheewala, S., 2013,
one-way ANOVA. “Greenhouse Gas Evaluation and
Market Oppurtunity of Bioplastic Bags
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION from Cassava in Thailand”, Journal of
Sustainable Energy & Environment 4
After all the tests and observation done, 15-19. Retrieved from:
it is then concluded that in terms of https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/acc1/63
biodegradability, the different formulations are bb395a131016ca1622850fa08cd186389
not significantly different from each other 7.pdf
because they degraded naturally. The
formulations of 100g peels have an
[3] European Commission, 2011. Plastic
incomparable solubility compared to other
Waste in the Environment, Final Report.
formulations. Air test also showed that 100g
peels can still be intact after 7 days of exposure
[4] Geyer, R., Jambeck, K., Law, L., 2017.
into open space. The 100g peels formulation Production, use and fate of all the
also showed the best result in tensile stress plastics ever made.Sci. Adv.
indicating that it has the highest tensile strength.
3,e1700782.
It is therefore concluded that Formulation 5,
which contain 100g peels is the best among the
[5] Bayer, I.S., Guzman-Puyol, S., Heredia-
different bioplastics formulations.
Guerrero, J.A., Ceseracciu, L.,
The bioplastic produced through this Pignatelli, F., Cingolani, R.R.,
method is a preliminary study only and could be Athanassiou, A. 2014. Direct
substantial and the biodegradable tractability is Transformation of Edible Vegetable
one of the main challenges in developing Waste into Bioplastics.
bioplastic material. Thus, the following
recommendations are hereby considered: (1) To [6] European Commission, 2011. Plastic
purchase necessary and appropriate equipment, Waste in the Environment, Final Report.
materials and supplies to be used in the several
[7] Garcia, H., Rui Ferreira, R., Celso
tests of physical and chemical characteristics of
Martins, C., Andrea, F., Sousa, A.F.,
bioplastics to attain accurate results. (2) The
Carmen, S.R.,Freire, C.S.R., Silvestre,
researchers also recommend the use of an
A.J.D., Kunz, W., Rebelo, L.P.N.,
aromatic yet useful component to remove the
Pereira, C.S. 2014. Ex Situ
unpleasant smell of the plastic caused by
Reconstitution of the Plant Biopolyester
glycerin and glacial acetic acid.
Suberin as a Film. Biomacromolecules.
REFERRENCES DOI: 10.1021/bm500201s. Retrieved
from
[1] Fathanah, U., Lubis, M.R., Rosnelly, https://vdocuments.site/downloadex-
C.M., Moulana, R., 2013, “Making and situ-reconstitution-of-the-plant-
Characterizing Bioplastic from Cassava biopolyester-suberin-as-a-film
(Manihot utilissina)” International
Conference of Chemical Engineering on [8] Kaewphan, N., Gheewala, S., 2013,
Social Science and Applications. “Greenhouse Gas Evaluation and
Retrieved on February 2018 from: Market Oppurtunity of Bioplastic Bags
from Cassava in Thailand”, Journal of

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

75
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

Sustainable Energy & Environment 4 [14] ASTM Standards 2011. Standard

15-19. Retrieved from: terminology relating to plastics. Annual
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/acc1/63 Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 8(1),
bb395a131016ca1622850fa08cd186389 American Society for Testing and
7.pdf Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
D883-96
[9] Goodall C, 2011, Bioplastics: an
important component of global [15] Yaradoddi, J., Patil, V., Ganachari, S.,
sustainability. Retreived on March 2018, Banapurmath, N., Hunashyal, A.,
from: Shettar, A., 2016 “Biodegradable Plastic
http://www.biomebioplastics.com/uploa Production from Fruit Waste Material
ds/files/white_paper_doc.pdf. and its Sustainable Use for Green
Applications” International Journal of
[10] Singh, A.; Kuila, A.; Adak, S.; Bishai, Pharmaceutical Research & Allied
M.; Barnejee, R., 2012, Utilization of Sciences. Retrieved on March 2018
vegetable wastes for bioenergy from:
generation. Agr. Res., 1, 213−222. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
Retrived on March 2018 from: n/309923037BIODEGRADABLE_PLA
http://www.academia.edu/8212836/Utili STIC_PRODUCTION_FROM_FRUIT_
zation_of_Vegetable_Wastes_for_ WASTE_MATERIAL_AND_ITS_SUS
Bioenergy_Generation TAINABLE_USE_FOR_GREEN_APP
LICATIONS.
[11] Mali, S., Grossmann, M.V.E., Garcia,
M.A., Martino, M.N. and Zaritzky, N.E., [16] Ghamande, M., Kulkarni, A., Shah. N.,
(2002), Microstrucural characterization Kothari, S., Bhosale, S., 2018. Bio-
of yam starch films. Carbohydrate Plastic (Generating Plastic from Banana
Polymers, 50, 379-386. Retrived from: Peels). Retrieved on March 2018 from:
catalogo.latu.org.uy/opac_css/doc_num. http://data.conferenceworld.in/25FebEM
php?explnum_id=946 SSH/9.pdf

[12] Silverson Machine, Inc. 2016. [17] Shimao, M., 2001. Biodegradation of
Preparation of polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) plastics. Retrieved from:
Solutions. Retrieved on March 2018 https://www.googlw.com/url?sa=t&sour
from: ce=web&rct=j&urenvismadrasuniv.org/
http://www.silverson.com/us/resource- Biodegradation/pdf/Biodegradation%25
library/application-reports/preparation- 20of%2520plastics.pdf&ved=ahUKEwj
of-polyvinyl-alcohol-pva-solutions/ Rn6TjpjbAhVKvbwKHRtBDOgQFjAA
egQIBhAB&uusg=AOvVaw0wolqR0q6
gIZF16PFhjxt
[13] Azahari, N.A., Othman, N., Ishmail, H.,
2011. Biodegradation Studies of [18] Kale, G., Kijchavengkul, T., Auras, R.,
Polyvinyl/Corn Starch Blend Films in Rubino, M., Selk, S. E. & Singh, S. P.
Solid and Solution Media. Retrieved on (2007). Compostability of bioplastic
March 2018 from: packaging materials: An overview.
http://jps.usm.my/studies-of-polyvinyl- Macromol. Biosci., 7(3), 255–277.
alcohol-corn-starch-blend/ Retrieved on November 2017 from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/
10.1002/mabi.200600168

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

76
 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, (2018)
ISSN 2651-6691 (Print)
ISSN 2651-6705 (Online)

[19] Jack, I.R., Ngah, S.A., Osagie O.F.,

Emenike, I.G., 2017. Biodegradable
Plastic from Renewable Sources.
Retrieved on November 2017 from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007
/BF02931273

[20] Arnold, J.C., 2003. Environmental

Effects on Crack Growthin Polymers.
Swansea University.
https://www.sciencediect.com/topics/ma
terials-science/solubility-of-polymer

ISSN 2651-6691 (Print) | ISSN 2651-6705 (Online) | asianjournal.org

77