Bioplastic Paper 1 - Compressed

Effect of Starch and Plasticizer Type on the Water Absorption and Solubility of
Bioplastics
Samuel Penn and Holden Rembecki
Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center
Chemistry/IDS
12
Mrs. Hilliard & Mrs. Gravel
13 December 2022
Effect of Starch and Plasticizer Type on the Water Absorption and Solubility of
Bioplastics
With the introduction of petro-plastics, the global environment has been suffering.
Petro-plastic pollution is at an all time high and will continue to rise over the years.
Bioplastics may show themselves as an environmentally conscious alternative to the
more popular petro-plastics as they can function the same as petro-plastics while still
having some degree of biodegradability.
The purpose of this research is to determine whether there is a significant difference in
the water absorption and solubility of bioplastics synthesized with varying starch bases
and plasticizers. Using a variety of components such corn starch (C), potato starch (P),
fructose (F), and glycerol (G), bioplastics of four different compositions (CG, CF, PG,
PF) were made and then dispersed into different pieces. A total of 120 trials, thirty
samples of each of the four compositions were randomly selected and tested for water
absorption and solubility.
The hypothesis stated that the bioplastics made using fructose as the plasticizer
will absorb and dissolve the most in water as compared to plastics made using glycerol as
the plasticizer. Significant differences present in the water absorption and solubility trials
were found between CF vs. CG, CF vs. PF, CG vs. PF, CG vs. PG, and PF vs. PG. It was
determined that there was a significant difference in the average mass percentage change
between, CG vs. PF, PF vs. PG, CF vs. PF, and CF vs. PG. The hypothesis was rejected.
Potato and glycerol plastic absorbed the most water. Plastics plasticized with glycerol
gained the most mass by percentage with 21.1662% while fructose plastics changed by
8.9686%.
The second hypothesis stated that the starch type will not play a role in either the
water absorption nor the solubility of the plastics. This hypothesis was accepted as the
difference in average mass percentage change of corn starch based plastics and potato
starch based plastics was 3.7464% which is fairly insignificant. As for water solubility
trials, the difference in average mass percentage change of corn starch based plastics and
potato starch based plastics was larger at 12.3454%.
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………… 4
Problem Statement ……………………………………………………………………….14
Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………..15
Data and Observations …………………………………………………………………19
Data Analysis and Interpretation ………………………………………………………39
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….53
Appendix A: How to Synthesize Corn Starch and Glycerol Bioplastic …………………61
Appendix B: How to Synthesize Potato Starch and Glycerol Bioplastic ………………..65
Appendix C: How to Synthesize Potato Starch and Fructose Bioplastic………………...67
Appendix D: How to Synthesize Corn Starch and Fructose Bioplastic………………….70
Appendix E: Sample Calculation of t Statistic …………………………………………..72
Professional Contact ……………………………………………………………………73
Works Cited ……………………………………………………………………………74
Penn - Rembecki 1
Introduction
According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), “75 to 199
million tonnes of plastic are currently found in our oceans…the amount of plastic waste
entering aquatic ecosystems could nearly triple from 9-14 million tonnes per year in 2016
to a projected 23-37 million tonnes per year by 2040.” Furthermore, the Organization for
the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that, “Globally, only 9%
of plastic waste is recycled while 22% is mismanaged.” Plastic pollution plays a major
role in the global destruction of major wildlife habitats and the deaths of animals. Coral
reefs for instance provide coastline protection from storms and erosion, while providing
food (fishing), income, and protection for over half a billion people (NOAA). These
corals, however, face devastating outcomes when they are merely contacted with plastics
as, “The likelihood of disease increases from 4% to 89% when corals are in contact with
plastic.” (Lamb). This increased risk of disease, and associated degradation of marine
ecological health, is further exacerbated by Lamb’s estimation of 11.1 billion plastic
items entangled on coral reefs with a growth of 40% by the year 2040. This rapid growth
in plastics entangled within the coral reefs will have harmful effects on humans in the
sure future but are not assuring as the threat of plastics, and their associated pollution are
a recent creation and an emerging field (as compared to lumber and glass use). The
potential effects on humans have not been studied for long and therefore, only short-term
effects such as infertility, obesity, diabetes, and prostate and breast cancer are known. To
limit the harmful effects of plastic pollution, suitable bioplastics which can easily break
down into non-harmful particulates is key.

Penn - Rembecki 2
Bioplastics are polymers synthesized using organic materials, which include
fruit/vegetable starches, vegetable fats/oils, and food waste. Within this experiment,
bioplastics were synthesized using two types of starch, corn and potato, which represent
some of the most commonly used starches. Starches represent an interesting base of
bioplastics as it is so commonly available and the two compounds which make up starch,
amylose and amylopectin, are able to bond together forming long chains which, in turn,
make up the plastics. Starch based plastics with no additives, however, tend to be weak
and brittle but these conditions can be changed with the addition of plasticizers.
Plasticizers allow weak, brittle plastics to become stronger and more flexible while
forming hydrogen bonds with the starch compounds. Of the common plasticizers,
glycerol and fructose were used in this experiment due to relative availability and
previous research (Abotbina, Bilck, Edhirej, Krishnamurthy).
Plastics synthesized using corn or potato starch and glycerol or fructose
plasticizer were tested with water in various ways. First, the plastics were submerged in
water allowing the polymers to absorb it into the various cavities. This absorption
increases the mass of the bioplastic, which is being calculated to determine the water
absorption. This mass increase may seem trivial, however, if bioplastics are used in the
marine environment they will not only need to survive varying temperatures and
chemical degradation due to the salinity (among other particulates) of the water, but also
prolonged exposure to high moisture environments. If and when the plastics absorb water
it must be done to a safe capacity which will not negatively affect the work being done
with the parts. For example, if the plastics were used as netting made for fishing and
Penn - Rembecki 3
became oversaturated, the increase in weight may cause the various systems to break
down severely affecting what circumstances the bioplastics can be used in.
Rapid amounts of petro-plastic waste is produced every year, with plastic
production hitting an all time high of 460 metric tons in 2019 (OECD). There are various
ways the world has tried to slow down the pollution and littering of this plastic waste,
such as landfilling and incineration. Petro-plastics are unsuitable for landfilling as they
are not biodegradable (Vaverková). Also, incineration of petro-plastics releases toxic
pollutants into the atmosphere such as dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated
biphenyls. Given that these compounds are known to be mutagens and carcinogens with
linkages to harm to the nervous, thyroid, and respiratory systems, the discharge of these
gasses poses a serious hazard to both the environment and people (Verma). As they may
perform just as petro-plastics while keeping some degree of biodegradability, bioplastics
may prove to be a more environmentally friendly option to the more widely used
petro-plastics. Bioplastics can be produced from plant-based materials while maintaining
the same chemical structure that is comparable to various petro-plastics. This alternative
is less harmful to humans as bioplastics are biodegradable so they can be put in landfills
without any harm to the environment and wont release toxic pollutants into the
atmosphere.
Within the context of this experiment, both water absorption and solubility were
found by comparing the initial masses to the final masses of the bioplastics. Initial masses
were constant throughout the entire experiment as they were always the overall initial
mass of the plastics. The final masses varied as there was a final mass after soaking as
well as after drying, both were recorded (in total two final masses were recorded after
Penn - Rembecki 4
each treatment). Starch type and plasticizer type were compared to determine relevant
differences between the synthesis of the plastics and their overall water absorptions and
solubilities.
Penn - Rembecki 5
Review of Literature
Plastics play a large role in the global economy, largely to the detriment of the
global environment. Within the global economy, plastics, whether through production or
consumption, are valued at $609.01 billion in 2022 and are expected to reach $811.57
billion by the year 2030 (Grand View Research). Coupled with the economic growth of
plastics, production and consumption is growing at an unsustainable rate. Currently,
plastic production has hit an all time high of 460 metric tons in 2019, a doubling since
2000. This rapid rise of plastic production is expected to continue with the OECD
projecting plastic production to triple by the year 2060 to 1231 metric tons (OECD).
While production grows rapidly, disposal of the waste is lackluster at best with only 9%
of global plastic waste being recycled. Meanwhile, 22% of global plastic waste is
mismanaged or lost due to littering and a further 49% is landfilled (OECD). The United
States falls behind the world average, recycling just 4% and landfilling a further 73%,
however, management of littering and waste is better as only 4% of waste is lost due to
mismanagement (OECD).
With so much plastic waste being generated every year, it may seem that
excessive landfilling is the best alternative to rapid pollution and excessive littering,
however, plastics are unsuitable materials for landfilling due to their low densities and
non-biodegradability. Incineration is another possible alternative as it can generate energy
and reduce waste buildup, however, plastics, which make up 12% of all waste burned,
release toxic pollutants into the atmosphere such as dioxins, furans, mercury, and
polychlorinated biphenyls. The release of these gasses poses a great threat to the
environment and humans as it has been documented that these compounds are
Penn - Rembecki 6
carcinogens and mutagens with links to neurological, thyroid, and respiratory system
damage (Verma). Halogens, which are also seen to be released through the incineration of
plastics, play a great role in the rapid acceleration of climate change as they have been
seen as an adulterant of the troposphere’s “oxidizing power” which allows for it to rid
itself of various chemical compounds. This change allows greenhouse gasses such as
methane and carbon dioxide to remain in the atmosphere for longer periods of time than
would be normally permitted, while also altering the production process and rate of the
water aerosols which affect cloud properties and cool Earth (Hossaini). Bioplastics may
show themselves as an eco-friendly alternative to the more popular petro-plastics
(plastics derived from petroleum or other fossil fuels) as they can function just as
petro-plastics while retaining a degree of biodegradability (if applicable to the situation).
Bioplastics can be made using plant material bases while retaining the same, or similar,
chemical structure as various petro-plastics (such as linear polymers in polystyrene and
branched polymers in rubber), taking on the various qualities those plastics are coveted
for while retaining the ability to be made sustainably and renewed as resources
(starch/biopolymer bases) are made/grown in abundance (Rudin).

Penn - Rembecki 7
Figure 1 and 2. Chemical Structure of Linear and Branched Polymers. Source:

Shrivastava, Anshuman. “Introduction to Plastics Engineering.” Introduction to Plastics
Engineering, William Andrew, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2018, pp. 17–48.
Polymers have several distinct chemical structures of which starch contains two
types. The first are linear polymers which, when used in conjunction with plasticizers and
various other compounds, can form plastics as the polymers. As the polymers are heated,
they become more malleable allowing for the polymers to “slip” in between each other
and form large, interwoven chains of these linear polymers. Within these woven chains
are areas of free volume which can be increased with the addition of plasticizers and
increased further with the decrease in the glass transition temperature (which falls with
the addition of plasticizers) (Chem Europe). A common example of a linear polymer is
amylose, one of the two polymers present in starches. The second polymer starch
contains amylopectin, a branched polymer. Branched polymers are similar to linear
polymers with one exception, instead of being a single, continuous strand with only two
terminal points, branched polymers have multiple branches with several terminal points.
When the plasticization process begins, these branches allow for an increased separation
between the polymer chains as opposed to what is seen during plasticization of linear
polymers. This increased separation allows the plastics to be less dense and retain a less
rigid and less crystalline structure as opposed to the linear polymer plasticization. With
Penn - Rembecki 8
the addition of plasticizers, the already abundant free volume of the polymer chains
increases further as the glass transition temperature falls, further contributing to the
decreased rigidity and increased flexibility of the plastics.
Bioplastics primarily use starches as their base, allowing the natural polymers of
amylose and amylopectin to act as the binder and foundation of the plastics. Amylose, see
in Figure 1, is a linear glucan built up by the polymerization of ɑ-d-glucopyranosyl
monomers (Bergthaller). When used as the primary starch in a bioplastic, the yielded
material usually shows stronger (measured with tensile tests to determine the degree of
which the plastic can be stretched before breaking), highly flexible (which can be
determined by either finding Young’s modulus or the modulus of elasticity, or performing
a fatigue test in which the material is repeatedly bent back and forth until it breaks)
mechanical properties (Krishnamurthy). Amylopectin, see Figure 2, is a polysaccharide,
or a molecule built of simple sugars which are monosaccharides linked together through
glycosidic linkages (a covalent bond which joins a carbohydrate molecule to another
group) (Udayan). Amylopectin has a highly branched structure as opposed to amylose
despite being built with relatively the same building blocks. This branched structure of
amylopectin produces bioplastics which show lower resistance to processes which require
high tensile strength and elongation (Krishnamurthy). Future research into bioplastics
should target the connections between amylose/amylopectin and the strength/flexibility of
the plastics themselves. If certain types of starch polymers (amylose and amylopectin)
afford the plastics certain mechanical properties which are better suited for certain
specialized applications, the use of that specific starch polymer must be used.
Penn - Rembecki 9
Figure 3. Chemical Structure of Amylose. Source: Bergthaller, Wolfgang, and Jürgen

Hollmann. “2.18 - Starch.” Comprehensive Glycoscience, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, pp.
579–612.
Figure 3 shows the chemical structure of the linear amylose molecule. The
linearity of this molecule allows synthesized plastics to retain a greater strength and
flexibility compared to those made using the similar, branched amylopectin polymers.
The increased tensile strength of plastics made specifically using amylose starch
polymers allows the synthesized plastics to elongate, or stretch, more before rapid rupture
of the plastics due to overwhelming stress. This increases the potential uses of the plastics
allowing for them to be used in high stress situations. The increased flexibility of the
plastics further increases the potential uses of the plastics such as high use, high strain
environments which pairs to perfection with its tensile strength characteristic.

Penn - Rembecki 10
Figure 4. Chemical Structure of Amylopectin. Source: “Amylopectin.” Wikipedia,

Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Nov. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylopectin.
Figure 4 shows the chemical structure of the amylopectin polymer commonly
found in starches. The highly branched structure of this polymer causes bioplastics to
have lower tensile strengths and lesser resistance to elongation. Lower tensile strength,
which can also be described as a lesser resistance to elongation, can be detrimental to the
potential uses of plastics as potentially lower amounts of undo stress, or unforeseen
stress, could overwhelm the plastic causing instantaneous rupture and forcing affected
plastics to be replaced. Amylose is a better suited polymer for most practical applications
as tensile strength and flexibility are incredibly important characteristics for most
applications.
Amylose and amylopectin polymers derived from starches for use in bioplastics
are perhaps the best idea for affordable and effective plastics (Jiang). Starches are easily
produced from several varieties of commonly cultivated fruits and vegetables with the
highest concentrations (21% by weight) being found in bananas, fresh prunes, and
persimmons for fruits, and beans, corn, and sweet potatoes (among others) for vegetables
(Woodlands Healing Research Center). These sources, unlike petroleum used to produce
petro-plastics, are inherently biodegradable (starch is often used as a food source
allowing for quick and effective biodegradability), overwhelming abundance (starches
provide 70-80% of worldwide calories), and annual renewability (starchy sources from
fruits and vegetables can be easily cultivated and reproduced) (Horstmann; Jiang).
Petroleum, however, is a fossil fuel which cannot be easily reproduced and while
petro-plastics may be recyclable, as previously stated only a very small percentage of

Penn - Rembecki 11
traditional plastics are being recycled each year, not enough to replace the ever growing
amount of plastic waste generated and disposed of each year.
Using pure starch with no additives yields a brittle plastic which displays
hydrophilic tendencies. Even worse, the plastics conditions and properties worsen upon
exposure to environmental conditions such as humidity (Krishnamurthy). In order to
reduce the effect of these properties, plasticizers are used. Plasticizers are used to
improve the mechanical properties, tensile strength and flexibility, of otherwise weak
bioplastics. Plasticizers work by destroying pre-existing hydrogen bonds between
hydroxyl groups (oxygen atoms with two lone pairs of electrons bonded to a hydrogen
atom) within the starch molecules and then bonding with the freed hydroxyl groups in a
process called starch gelatinization (Klecker; Tarique). These new bonds disrupt the
strong intra- and inter-molecular hydrogen bonds previously present within the starch by
embedding themselves into the chain polymers, significantly increasing the free volume
present within the material and lowering the glass transition temperature
(Krishnamurthy). The glass transition temperature is the temperature at which a material
transitions from a solid state to one which is more flexible and rubbery. Much like the
introduction of a plasticizer, reaching the glass transition temperature will increase the
free volume of the molecule (Shrivastava). It is important for plastics to achieve a lower
glass transition temperature as it improves the mechanical characteristics of the plastic.
The most notable improvement is flexibility, a major characteristic of the most used, and
therefore greatest threat to the environment, single-use plastics.

Penn - Rembecki 12
Figure 5. Plasticizers Disruption of Molecular Polymers Forces. Source: “Copolyesters as

Non-Toxic Plasticizers.” Polymer International, vol. 60, no. 8, Aug. 2011, pp.
1158–1161., https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.3122. Accessed 29 Nov. 2022.
As illustrated in Figure 5, plasticizers embed themselves into the chain polymers
significantly increasing the free volume present within the material. As the free volume
increases and the polymers move further apart, the glass transition temperature decreases
allowing for increased flexibility and strength. Without the addition of the plasticizer,
there would be very limited free volume as the polymer chains would be very close
together. This closeness would keep the glass transition temperature high while the
flexibility and strength of the plastic would be low.
Of the possible plasticizers two seem to be the most popular, glycerol (𝐶3𝐻8𝑂3)
and fructose (𝐶6𝐻12𝑂6) (Mukuze). Glycerol is the most common plasticizer as it has a
high plasticizing capacity while retaining thermal stability at high processing
temperatures. It also has the advantage of being incredibly easy to produce and a
resulting byproduct of approximately 10% of all biodiesel production. This corresponds
to over 100 million liters of glycerol produced in 2008 by Brazil alone. The only problem
with procuring glycerol as the byproduct of biodiesel production is the fact that the
resulting product is impurity ridden containing: water (𝐻2𝑂), methanol (𝐶𝐻4𝑂) residues,
sodium hydroxide (𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻), fatty acids and salts, esters, sulfur compounds, proteins, and
Penn - Rembecki 13
minerals (Bilck). In order to create a usable product, the glycerol must be refined which
can be an expensive process. Fructose is another widely used plasticizer touted for high
tensile strength plastics (Edhirej). Fructose is more widely available as it is a fruit sugar
easily derived from fruits, fruit juices, and honey with up to 74% of total sampled sugar
could be extracted by boiling fruit syrups (Fennir). The market of fructose is also nearly
double that of glycerol ($4.34 billion in 2019 for fructose and $2.4 billion in 2020 for
glycerol) pointing towards increased availability of this resource, allowing for it to be
used as a plasticizer more readily than glycerol (Grand View Research).
One of the largest industries producing plastic waste globally is packaging,
producing 146 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2015 (Ritchie). Within this industry
waterproof or water resistant packaging materials are a necessity to protect shipments and
ensure effective delivery to the consumer. Plastics, which, depending on the type, show
waterproof/resistant qualities were used as they were cheap to implement and effective. It
may seem as if this industry could use bioplastics in replacement of the single-use non
recyclable packaging materials, however, certain types are shown to be incredibly water
absorbent and soluble. In research done by Akshaya Krishnamurthy and Pavithra
Amritkumar, plastic films, which could be used as package wrapping, synthesized using
polylactic acid, glycerol plasticizer, and crude palm oil displayed both high water
absorption percentages and water solubility percentages, 178.6% and 45.45%
respectively (Krishnamurthy). Fructose plasticized films have been shown to absorb more
water than their glycerol counterparts at 187.87% and 98.82% respectively (Abotbina). It
should be noted, however, that these plastics did not contain polylactic acid as the plastics
synthesized by Krishnamurthy did. As these plastics absorb water at very high

Penn - Rembecki 14
percentages (while compared to initial dry mass), they would be unlikely to act as
suitable packaging material in an effort to reduce waste.
Water absorption of bioplastics occurs as a result of various conditions during the
synthesis process of the plastics. For example, if the plastics were made using a majority
of amylopectin starch polymers, a suitable amount of plasticizer, and the glass transition
temperature is lowered significantly, the available free volume within the plastics allows
water to penetrate the outer membranes filling the free volume. This in turn causes the
plastic to expand and increase in mass. Water solubility, however, acts opposite of water
absorption as the electronically polarized water molecules can dissolve the sugar
plasticizer molecules (fructose and glycerol) weakening the molecular bonds and plastic
as a whole. As the plastic dissolves, small bits of the plastic are left, flaking off of the
whole, the structural integrity of the plastic lessens and the plastics are weaker overall.
Penn - Rembecki 15
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine how different plasticizers (glycerol and fructose) and starch bases
(potato and corn starch), affect the water absorption and solubility of bioplastic.
Hypothesis:
Bioplastic made using fructose as the plasticizer will absorb and dissolve the most
in water as compared to plastics made using glycerol as the plasticizer. The type of starch
made will not affect the water absorption and solubility to a noticeable amount.
Data Measured:
The independent variables for this experiment are which type of starch base is
used, either potato or corn, and which type of plasticizer is used, either glycerol or
fructose. Both independent variables are being held to the same values each time, 10 g of
starch, and 8 mL of glycerol plasticizer, the fructose plasticizer is made using 12 g of
fructose and 4 mL of water. The dependent variables being examined are the absorption
and water solubility of the plastics measured using the percent mass either gained
(absorption) or lost (solubility).
A two-sample t test will be used to determine the statistical significance of either
independent variable. To compensate for possible abnormality within the data, thirty
trials of each plastic type were done, allowing the data to accurately represent the whole
population.
Penn - Rembecki 16
Experimental Design
Materials:
Plastics (See Appendix A-D) Graduated Cylinder (25 mL, 100 mL)
Scoopula (3) Ice Cube Trays (14 slots)
Weigh Boat Balance (0.001 g precision)
Procedure:
*Be sure to have and wear proper safety precautions before beginning experiment*
1. Add 25 ml of distilled water to each of the 14 slots in the ice cube mold and label
each mold slot 1 through 30 (will need to do this for 3 separate ice cube molds as
30 trials are needed for each combination).
2. Randomly draw individual pieces, one at a time, measure the initial mass and
record the data labeling each one 1-30.
3. After selecting and measuring the mass of 30 separate plastic pieces, drop each
piece into the corresponding number within the ice cube mold slots.
4. Submerge the bioplastic pieces for 5 minutes.
5. After 5 minutes remove each plastic, weigh it again, and record the final mass.
6. Calculate percent difference in mass before and after submerged in water (see
Appendix F).
7. Allow plastic pieces to dry on paper towels for two days at room temperature, be
cautious to label the plastics according to their trial number so they can be
reweighed appropriately.
8. After two days, reweigh plastics in order of trials and calculate mass percent lost.
Diagram:
Penn - Rembecki 17
Figure 6. Experimental Setup of Water Absorption and Solubility Trials
Figure 6 shows the experimental setup of the water absorption and solubility
trials. Of the materials present and used in the experiment, the balances of 0.001 gram
precision are not pictured.
Figure 7. Sample Water Absorption Trial
Figure 7 shows a sample water absorption trial. After the plastic pieces are
initially massed they are submerged in water for five minutes before being taken out and
reweighed.
Penn - Rembecki 18
Figure 8. Sample Massing of Water Absorption Trial
Figure 8 shows the sample massing of a water absorption trial. This is done before
and after the plastics have been submerged in water and the mass is recorded to the
0.0001 gram precision. The same process takes place after the plastics have been left to
dry.
Figure 9. Sample Massing of Two Water Solubility Trials
Figure 9 shows a sample massing of two water solubility trials. After the plastics
have dried, they are taken and weighed to the 0.0001 gram precision on either side of the
computer on which the measurements are recorded. The left scale represents odd
numbered trials while the right represents even numbered trials.

Penn - Rembecki 19
Data and Observations
Table 1
Corn Starch and Fructose Plastic Water Absorption Trials and Data
Water Absorption
Corn and Mass Mass Mass
Trial
Fructose (Initial) (g) (Final) (g) Change
1 0.3689 0.3488 -0.0201
2 0.5913 0.6829 0.0916
3 1.0910 1.4211 0.3301
4 0.1712 0.2105 0.0393
5 0.6051 0.7803 0.1752
6 0.3919 0.4482 0.0563
7 0.2309 0.3350 0.1041
8 0.2828 0.3008 0.0180
9 0.2482 0.3475 0.0993
10 0.1828 0.2094 0.0266
11 0.1789 0.2488 0.0699
12 0.1682 0.2178 0.0496
13 0.1672 0.2332 0.0660
14 0.1416 0.1767 0.0351
15 0.2091 0.2726 0.0635
16 0.2894 0.3278 0.0384
17 0.1265 0.1600 0.0335
18 0.0825 0.0897 0.0072
19 0.1502 0.1470 -0.0032

20 0.1928 0.2091 0.0163
21 0.2737 0.3650 0.0913
22 0.1316 0.1872 0.0556
23 0.1681 0.2145 0.0464

Penn - Rembecki 20
Water Absorption
Trial
24 0.1218 0.1322 0.0104
25 0.1612 0.2645 0.1033
26 0.1130 0.1518 0.0388
27 0.1017 0.1110 0.0093
28 0.1451 0.1836 0.0385
29 0.1557 0.1887 0.0330
30 0.1977 0.2364 0.0387

Average 0.2480 0.3067 0.0587
Table 1 shows a complete overview of all data connected in affiliation with
plastics made using a corn starch base and fructose as the plasticizer. Plastic pieces were
selected at random from designated bags, weighed to the thousandth degree precision,
soaked in twenty milliliters of water for four minutes and forty-five seconds, and
reweighed in accordance with trial number.
Table 2
Corn Starch and Glycerol Plastic Water Absorption Trials and Data
Water Absorption
Trial
Glycerol (Initial) (g) (Final) (g) Change
31 0.5815 0.6081 0.0266
32 2.4076 2.7991 0.3915
33 0.5584 0.5313 -0.0271
34 0.5391 0.5722 0.0331
35 0.3768 0.3925 0.0157
36 0.8269 0.9565 0.1296
37 0.3629 0.4014 0.0385
38 0.7641 0.7572 -0.0069
Penn - Rembecki 21
Water Absorption
Trial
39 1.5667 1.8761 0.3094
40 0.4705 0.5416 0.0711
41 0.3502 0.5448 0.1946
42 0.1994 0.1932 -0.0062
43 0.3162 0.3660 0.0498
44 0.3142 0.3379 0.0237
45 0.4998 0.4464 -0.0534
46 0.4550 0.5227 0.0677
47 0.6805 0.7546 0.0741
48 0.2590 0.2573 -0.0017
49 0.1507 0.1632 0.0125
50 0.1960 0.2143 0.0183
51 0.6332 0.6079 -0.0253
52 0.8636 1.0167 0.1531
53 0.4159 0.4172 0.0013
54 0.5408 0.5470 0.0062
55 0.2733 0.3217 0.0484
56 0.1138 0.1504 0.0366
57 0.3225 0.3166 -0.0059
58 0.2970 0.3932 0.0962
59 0.6931 0.7970 0.1039
60 0.8582 0.8092 -0.0490
Average 0.5629 0.6204 0.0575
plastics made using a corn starch base and glycerol as the plasticizer. Plastic pieces were
Penn - Rembecki 22
selected at random from designated bags, weighed to the thousandth degree precision,
soaked in twenty milliliters of water for four minutes and forty-five seconds, and
reweighed in accordance with trial number.
Table 3
Potato Starch and Fructose Water Absorption Trials and Data
Water Absorption
Potato and Mass Mass Mass
Trial
61 0.3268 0.3210 -0.0058
62 0.5606 0.4440 -0.1166
63 0.5652 0.6603 0.0951
64 0.5896 0.5265 -0.0631
65 0.4575 0.4567 -0.0008
66 0.4189 0.3416 -0.0773
67 0.6686 0.8032 0.1346
68 0.4122 0.3803 -0.0319
69 0.6054 0.5267 -0.0787
70 0.6078 0.6377 0.0299
71 0.6961 0.5492 -0.1469
72 0.3781 0.3050 -0.0731
73 0.4393 0.4071 -0.0322
74 0.2802 0.1922 -0.0880
75 0.6689 0.5482 -0.1207
76 0.8279 0.7122 -0.1157
77 0.3381 0.3606 0.0225
78 0.5595 0.4687 -0.0908
79 0.5650 0.6682 0.1032
80 0.2484 0.2693 0.0209
81 0.2206 0.2378 0.0172
Penn - Rembecki 23
Water Absorption
Trial
82 0.2161 0.2430 0.0269
83 0.5084 0.5278 0.0194
84 0.3358 0.2747 -0.0611
85 0.3469 0.4348 0.0879
86 0.1581 0.1633 0.0052
87 0.1982 0.1870 -0.0112
88 0.2398 0.1427 -0.0971
89 0.2352 0.1809 -0.0543
90 0.3854 0.3103 -0.0751
Average 0.4353 0.4094 -0.0259
plastics made using a potato starch base and fructose as the plasticizer. Plastic pieces
were selected at random from designated bags, weighed to the thousandth degree
precision, soaked in twenty milliliters of water for four minutes and forty-five seconds,
and reweighed in accordance with trial number.
Table 4
Potato Starch and Glycerol Water Absorption Trials and Data
Water Absorption
Trial
91 0.2452 0.2579 0.0127
92 0.4520 0.4925 0.0405
93 0.2104 0.2690 0.0586
94 0.7061 0.7842 0.0781
95 0.5647 0.7383 0.1736
Penn - Rembecki 24
Water Absorption
Trial
96 0.2465 0.6455 0.3990
97 0.4912 0.6150 0.1238
98 0.3288 0.4286 0.0998
99 0.5438 0.5575 0.0137
100 0.2119 0.3030 0.0911
101 0.2778 0.3586 0.0808
102 0.2333 0.2871 0.0538
103 0.4558 0.5283 0.0725
104 0.3781 0.3726 -0.0055
105 0.1315 0.1909 0.0594
106 0.3232 0.3247 0.0015
107 0.2399 0.3054 0.0655
108 0.2237 0.2916 0.0679
109 0.4745 0.5749 0.1004
110 0.2715 0.3211 0.0496
111 0.1796 0.2547 0.0751
112 0.3502 0.3676 0.0174
113 0.2570 0.4184 0.1614
114 0.0997 0.1630 0.0633
115 0.2636 0.3586 0.0950
116 0.1805 0.2393 0.0588
117 0.2007 0.2991 0.0984
118 0.2004 0.3100 0.1096
119 0.3579 0.5069 0.1490
120 0.1704 0.2175 0.0471
Average 0.3090 0.3927 0.0837
Penn - Rembecki 25
plastics made using a potato starch base and glycerol as the plasticizer. Plastic pieces
were selected at random from designated bags, weighed to the thousandth degree
precision, soaked in twenty milliliters of water for four minutes and forty-five seconds,
and reweighed in accordance with trial number.
Table 5
Average Masses After Soaking
Water Absorption Trials
Type of Average Initial Average Final Average Mass
Plastic Mass (g) Mass (g) Change (g)
Corn and
Fructose 0.2480 0.3067 0.0587
Corn and
Glycerol 0.5629 0.6204 0.0575
Potato
and
Fructose 0.4353 0.4094 -0.0259
Potato
and
Glycerol 0.3090 0.3927 0.0837
Table 5 uses data presented in tables 1-4 to show the averages of the initial
masses, final masses, and the average mass change for the four types of plastics
synthesized and tested. These data points will be used to determine differences in water
absorption and solubility as they are linked to the different initial components of the
plastics.
Penn - Rembecki 26
Table 6
Observations of Corn Starch and Fructose Plastics Associated with Water Absorption
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Corn and Researcher started coughing while moving the
1
Fructose ice tray, slightly spilled over water.
Trials were split into two sections, 1-14, and
15-30, the second half sat on paper towel longer
Corn and
1-30 than the first half and appeared to have absorbed
Fructose
less, could be due to drying while waiting to be
massed.
Table 6 shows notable trial observations for corn starch based plastics using
fructose as a plasticizer during the water absorption trials. Trials done with this specific
plastic type were different from others as half of the plastic trials were done at one time,
and the other half was done after the first trials were finished. This was the only type of
plastics for which this treatment was done. Plastics were not weighed between trials but
were instead left on paper towel while the others dried, this may have dried out these
plastics more than other types which had different treatment.
Table 7
Observations of Corn Starch and Glycerol Plastics Associated with Water Absorption
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Pieces are stickier, may have higher water content
Corn and
31-60 than others, small bits may be sticking to larger
Glycerol
pieces affecting mass
Corn and
57
Glycerol Plastic was dropped, nothing appeared to fall off
Table 7 shows notable trial observations associated with corn starch based plastics
using glycerol as a plasticizer during the water absorption trials. Unlike other types of
plastic, these pieces remained slightly tacky after several days of drying. Despite this fact,
Penn - Rembecki 27
the plastics were added to the designated plastic baggie allowing for them to be randomly
assigned. During the random selection process, small bits of plastic which may have
stuck to the larger pieces grabbed, were allowed to remain stuck to the larger pieces,
possibly resulting in skewed masses.
Table 8
Observations of Potato Starch and Fructose Plastics Associated with Water Absorption
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Potato and Plastic lost many particles while extracting from
66
Fructose tray
Table 8 shows notable trial observations associated with potato starch based
plastics using fructose as a plasticizer during the water absorption trials. While only one
notable instance of plastic “shedding” was recorded, this plastic showed the greatest
tendency to shed when compared to all other types of plastic. This could be associated
with the more soluble nature of potato starch compared to corn starch as well as the more
soluble fructose compared to glycerol.
Table 9
Observations of Potato Starch and Glycerol Plastics Associated with Water Absorption
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Potato and
107
Glycerol Lost bits of plastic placing onto scale
Table 9 shows notable trial observations associated with potato starch based
plastics using glycerol as a plasticizer during the water absorption trials. Trials went
fairly smoothly without interruption with the exception of trial 107. Within this trial, the
plastic stuck to the scoopula used to move the plastics into the weighboats resulting in a
mass which was smaller than it likely would have been without the missing pieces.
Penn - Rembecki 28
However, simply looking at the data would suggest no major impact on the data as it
appears as if the change in mass is similar to others of similar initial mass and others in
similar trial locations.
Table 10
Corn Starch and Fructose Water Solubility Trials and Data
Water Solubility
Trial
Fructose (Initial)(g) (Final)(g) Lost
1 0.3689 0.2334 0.1355
2 0.5913 0.4136 0.1777
3 1.0910 0.9107 0.1803
4 0.1712 0.1158 0.0554
5 0.6051 0.4527 0.1524
6 0.3919 0.2617 0.1302
7 0.2309 0.1703 0.0606
8 0.2828 0.1890 0.0938
9 0.2482 0.2005 0.0477
10 0.1828 0.0793 0.1035
11 0.1789 0.1282 0.0507
12 0.1682 0.1390 0.0292
13 0.1672 0.1299 0.0373
14 0.1416 0.1155 0.0261
15 0.2091 0.1600 0.0491
16 0.2894 0.2191 0.0703
17 0.1265 0.1004 0.0261
18 0.0825 0.0612 0.0213
19 0.1502 0.1032 0.0470
20 0.1928 0.1412 0.0516
21 0.2737 0.2131 0.0606
Penn - Rembecki 29
Water Solubility
Trial
22 0.1316 0.1188 0.0128
23 0.1681 0.1324 0.0357
24 0.1218 0.0902 0.0316
25 0.1612 0.1519 0.0093
26 0.1130 0.0893 0.0237
27 0.1017 0.1000 0.0017
28 0.1451 0.1128 0.0323
29 0.1557 0.1245 0.0312
30 0.1977 0.1265 0.0712
Average 0.2480 0.1861 0.0619
Table 10 shows a complete overview of all data connected in affiliation with corn
starch based, fructose plasticized plastics within water solubility trials. Trials were
blocked, one type of plastic was done at a time, to prevent unnecessary confusion during
the weighing, soaking, and reweighing process. Plastic pieces were left to sit at room
temperature for two days after the reweigh process for the water absorption trials. After
this period, the pieces were reweighed in accordance with trial number and the mass loss
of the plastic pieces was derived.
Table 11
Corn Starch and Glycerol Water Solubility Trials and Data
Water Solubility
Trial
Glycerol (Initial)(g) (Final)(g) Lost
31 0.5815 0.4074 0.1741
32 2.4076 2.1441 0.2635
33 0.5584 0.3286 0.2298
Penn - Rembecki 30
Water Solubility
Trial
34 0.5391 0.3853 0.1538
35 0.3768 0.2433 0.1335
36 0.8269 0.7294 0.0975
37 0.3629 0.2511 0.1118
38 0.7641 0.5304 0.2337
39 1.5667 1.3589 0.2078
40 0.4705 0.4068 0.0637
41 0.3502 0.2314 0.1188
42 0.1994 0.1092 0.0902
43 0.3162 0.1951 0.1211
44 0.3142 0.2551 0.0591
45 0.4998 0.2986 0.2012
46 0.4550 0.3851 0.0699
47 0.6805 0.4562 0.2243
48 0.2590 0.1550 0.1040
49 0.1507 0.1083 0.0424
50 0.1960 0.1272 0.0688
51 0.6332 0.3896 0.2436
52 0.8636 0.7364 0.1272
53 0.4159 0.2697 0.1462
54 0.5408 0.3561 0.1847
55 0.2733 0.1926 0.0807
56 0.1138 0.0780 0.0358
57 0.3225 0.2147 0.1078
58 0.2970 0.2722 0.0248
59 0.6931 0.5986 0.0945
Penn - Rembecki 31
Water Solubility
Trial
60 0.8582 0.5960 0.2622
Average 0.5629 0.4270 0.1359
Table 11 shows a complete overview of all data connected in affiliation with corn
starch based, glycerol plasticized plastics within water solubility trials. Trials were
Table 12
Potato Starch and Fructose Water Solubility Trials and Data
Water Solubility
Trial
61 0.3268 0.1950 0.1318
62 0.5606 0.3481 0.2125
63 0.5652 0.3411 0.2241
64 0.5896 0.3522 0.2374
65 0.4575 0.2819 0.1756
66 0.4189 0.2355 0.1834
67 0.6686 0.4274 0.2412
68 0.4122 0.2360 0.1762
69 0.6054 0.2824 0.3230
70 0.6078 0.3625 0.2453
71 0.6961 0.4485 0.2476
72 0.3781 0.1825 0.1956
Penn - Rembecki 32
Water Solubility
Trial
73 0.4393 0.2423 0.1970
74 0.2802 0.1278 0.1524
75 0.6689 0.3588 0.3101
76 0.8279 0.4894 0.3385
77 0.3381 0.1909 0.1472
78 0.5595 0.3076 0.2519
79 0.5650 0.3524 0.2126
80 0.2484 0.1453 0.1031
81 0.2206 0.1000 0.1206
82 0.2161 0.1442 0.0719
83 0.5084 0.3061 0.2023
84 0.3358 0.1443 0.1915
85 0.3469 0.1037 0.2432
86 0.1581 0.0772 0.0809
87 0.1982 0.0947 0.1035
88 0.2398 0.1853 0.0545
89 0.2352 0.0762 0.1590
90 0.3854 0.1902 0.1952
Average 0.4353 0.2443 0.1910
potato starch based, fructose plasticized plastics within water solubility trials. Trials were

Penn - Rembecki 33
Table 13
Potato Starch and Glycerol Water Solubility Trials and Data
Water Solubility
Trial
91 0.2452 0.1716 0.0736
92 0.4520 0.3246 0.1274
93 0.2104 0.1654 0.0450
94 0.7061 0.5193 0.1868
95 0.5647 0.4416 0.1231
96 0.2465 0.1933 0.0532
97 0.4912 0.4107 0.0805
98 0.3288 0.2082 0.1206
99 0.5438 0.3454 0.1984
100 0.2119 0.1330 0.0789
101 0.2778 0.2067 0.0711
102 0.2333 0.1566 0.0767
103 0.4558 0.3244 0.1314
104 0.3781 0.2509 0.1272
105 0.1315 0.0871 0.0444
106 0.3232 0.2077 0.1155
107 0.2399 0.1745 0.0654
108 0.2237 0.1443 0.0794
109 0.4745 0.2790 0.1955
110 0.2715 0.1577 0.1138
111 0.1796 0.1023 0.0773
112 0.3502 0.2107 0.1395
113 0.2570 0.2182 0.0388
114 0.0997 0.0604 0.0393
115 0.2636 0.1581 0.1055
116 0.1805 0.0925 0.0880
Penn - Rembecki 34
Water Solubility
Trial
117 0.2007 0.1180 0.0827
118 0.2004 0.1439 0.0565
119 0.3579 0.2324 0.1255
120 0.1704 0.0995 0.0709
Average 0.3090 0.2113 0.0977
potato starch based, glycerol plasticized plastics within water solubility trials. Trials were
Table 14
Average Masses After Drying
Water Average Average Average Mass
Solubility Initial Mass Final Mass Change Percent
Corn and
Fructose 0.2480 0.1861 0.0619
Corn and
Glycerol 0.5629 0.4270 0.1359
Potato and
Fructose 0.4353 0.2443 0.1910
Potato and
Glycerol 0.3090 0.2113 0.0977
Table 14 uses data presented in Table 4 to show the averages of the initial masses,
final masses, and the mass change for the four types of plastics synthesized and tested
Penn - Rembecki 35
with water solubility. These data points will be used to determine differences in water
solubility as they are linked to the different initial components of the plastics.
Table 15
Observations of Corn Starch and Fructose Plastic Associated with Water Solubility Trials
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Corn and
13
Fructose Dried plastic stuck to paper towel
Corn and Plastic pieces were noticeably smaller, appeared to
1-30
Fructose be weaker and almost chalky
Table 15 shows the trial observations of the trials of corn starch based, fructose
plasticized plastic that were taken for water solubility. Not as many instances were
accounted for as there was very little movement and/or mechanical processes needed as
plastics were allowed to dry, at room temperature, on the paper towel the pieces were
initially placed on. The plastics were manually moved from one piece of paper towel to
another to transport between the tabletop and the counter on which the scales were. The
pieces were then weighed before being placed back on the paper towel and, when all
were weighed, taken back to the tabletop as other types of plastics were weighed.
Table 16
Observations of Potato Starch and Fructose Plastic Associated with Water Solubility
Trials
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Potato and Plastic piece fell off baking tray before being
89
Fructose weighed
Plastic pieces may be out of order, while transporting
Potato and
61-90 the plastics pieces moved but were put back in order
Fructose
as accurately as possible
Penn - Rembecki 36
Table 16 shows the trial observations of the trials of potato starch based, fructose
initially placed on. The plastics were manually moved from one piece of paper towel to
another to transport between the tabletop and the counter on which the scales were.
During this transportation, the paper towel the plastic pieces were sitting on top of
shifted, causing several pieces to move out of their designated area. Pieces were moved
back to their original spaces as carefully as possible and masses were analyzed and
compared to ensure that the pieces were recorded for the correct trial. The pieces were
then weighed before being placed back on the paper towel and taken back to the tabletop
as other types of plastics were weighed.
Table 17
Observations of Potato Starch and Fructose Plastic Associated with Water Solubility
Trials
Trial Type of
Observation
Number Plastic
Small but noticeable pieces of plastic appear to have
Potato and fallen away from main plastic pieces, almost a chalky
91-120
Glycerol dust on the paper towel pieces are sitting on, likely
from dried water from inside/coating the plastics
Table 17 shows the trial observations of the trials of corn starch based, fructose
initially placed on. The dried plastics of this type were very representative of all plastics,
Penn - Rembecki 37
developing a chalky exterior and appearing to be weaker structurally than the initial
pieces before being submerged in water and dried.
Figure 10. Dried Potato Starch and Glycerol Plastics
Figure 10 shows twenty-one of the potato starch based, glycerol plasticized plastic
pieces after the pieces had gone through water absorption trials and then dried. Pieces
appear to be chalky and have left a white residue on the paper towels. The pieces also
appear to be smaller than the initial iteration of the same plastic pieces.
Figure 11. Partial Water Absorption Setup for Potato and Glycerol Plastics
Figure 11 shows a partial experimental setup containing 14 of the total 30 trials
run for an individual plastic. Plastics were numbered and then submerged in similarly
Penn - Rembecki 38
numbered ice cube tray compartments for four minutes forty-five seconds before being
removed and reweighed.
Figure 12. Particulate Accumulation of Potato Starch and Fructose Plastics After Water
Absorption Trials
Particulates accumulated at the bottom of the ice cube trays for nearly every type
of plastic, although potato starch based, fructose plasticized plastics accumulated more
than others. However, all of the plastics began to rapidly deteriorate and flake apart if
they were submerged in water for periods of time exceeding five minutes.
Penn - Rembecki 39
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The two sets of data collected, percentage of mass change due to water absorption
and percentage of mass change due to dissolution within the water, are quantitative, as
they are numerical values being compared among other values to determine the effects of
each plastics’ composition on either numerical metric. Thirty trials of each type of plastic
were done to ensure that even if the data collected was abnormal, a two-sample t test
could be used to determine whether there were significant differences of the percentage
mass change due to water absorption and percentage mass change due to dissolution in
water as a result of the composition of the plastics. Although the plastic type was not
randomized for each trial and were instead blocked together, trials within each plastic
type blocking were randomized to reduce confounding effects such as water temperature
which may have sped up the dissolution process of the plastics.
Figure 13. Box Plot of Mass Percentage Change Through Water Absorption Trials
Penn - Rembecki 40
Figure 13 displays boxplots of the mass percentage change of water absorption for
all types of plastic. The boxplots appear to be relatively normally distributed with no
obvious skew, however three of the four plastics have an outlier. Corn and fructose, corn
and glycerol, and potato and glycerol all have outliers within their data and, in the case of
potato and glycerol, the outlier is miles above every other data point of any trial. All of
the distributions have similar ranges with potato and fructose having the largest range of
65.8308%. Potato and glycerol follows with a range of 43.2697%, followed by corn and
glycerol of 38.8063%, and lastly corn and fructose with 26.4338%. Some of the boxes
share a great deal of overlap and therefore, require a statistical test to determine
significance such as corn and fructose vs. potato and glycerol. However, there are some
which show no overlap, or insignificant overlap characterized by less than a 25% overlap.
Plastics which show insignificant overlap, and therefore do not require a statistical test to
determine significance are: corn and fructose vs. potato and fructose, corn and fructose
vs. corn and glycerol, corn and glycerol vs. potato and glycerol, and potato and fructose
vs. potato and glycerol. As the box plots of these plastics share under 25% overlap, a
statistical test is not needed to determine significance and data can be interpreted to be
significant. The medians of corn and fructose and potato and glycerol are noticeably
similar with a difference of only 2.8335%, while the median of potato and fructose is the
lowest being the only negative number of -7.5344%, signaling a loss of mass percentage
for the plastic pieces of potato starch and fructose plasticizer. This minute difference in
medians between plastics synthesized using corn starch and potato starch (as the highest
medians were seen in the corn starch and fructose and the potato starch and glycerol
trials) was expected as it was hypothesized that starch type would not play a major factor
Penn - Rembecki 41
in water absorption. This fact is further backed up as the average It should be noted that
a plastic synthesized using glycerol, the potato and glycerol plastics, had the largest mass
change median of 28.4687%. The second largest was synthesized using fructose, being
the corn starch and fructose plastic, with a median of 25.6352%. The average mass
percentage change for plastics synthesized using fructose as the plasticizer was 8.9686%.
Meanwhile, the average mass percentage change for plastics synthesized using glycerol
as the plasticizer was 21.1662%. This is an interesting development as it was expected
that plastics synthesized using fructose as the plasticizer would absorb the most water
when compared to those synthesized using glycerol but the data showed that, yes a
fructose plasticized plastic absorbed the most, but glycerol plastics could (and did) absorb
more than various fructose plasticized plastics.
Figure 14. Box Plot of Mass Percentage Change Through Water Dissolution Trials
Figure 14 displays boxplots of the mass percentage change of water solubility for
all types of plastic. The boxplots appear to be relatively normally distributed with no
Penn - Rembecki 42
obvious skew, however two of the four plastics have an outlier. Corn and fructose and
potato and fructose have outliers within their data and, in the case of corn and fructose,
have two outliers on either end of the data. Three of the distributions have similar ranges
with potato and glycerol having the largest range of 33.6562%. Corn and glycerol follows
with a range of 29.8731% followed by potato and fructose of 29.0050%, and lastly corn
and glycerol with 10.0139%. These ranges are smaller than those of the water absorption
trials. Some of the boxes share a great deal of overlap and therefore, require a statistical
test to determine significance such as corn and fructose vs. corn and glycerol. However,
there are some which show no overlap, or insignificant overlap characterized by less than
a 25% overlap. Plastics which show insignificant overlap, and therefore do not require a
statistical test to determine significance are: corn and fructose vs. potato and fructose,
corn and glycerol vs. potato and fructose, and potato and fructose vs. potato and glycerol.
As the box plots of these plastics share under 25% overlap, a statistical test is not needed
to determine significance and data can be interpreted to be significant. The medians of
corn and glycerol and potato and glycerol are noticeably similar with a difference of only
3.7188%, while the median of potato and fructose is again the lowest being -43.1418%
signaling the greatest mass percentage change. The minute difference between the
medians presented between the corn starch and potato starch plastics (seen in the corn
starch and glycerol trials and the potato starch and glycerol trials) was an expected
characteristic of the data as it was hypothesized that starch type would play no
meaningful role in the water solubility of the plastics. It should be noted, however, that
the absolute largest (absolute value) median value for the water solubility trials were seen
in the potato and fructose trials with a median loss of 43.1418% of initial mass. The
Penn - Rembecki 43
second absolute largest median value for the water solubility trials were seen in the potato
and glycerol trials with a median loss of 34.4150% of initial mass. This is an unexpected
result as it was expected that fructose plasticized plastics (both corn starch and potato
starch based) would dissolve the most when soaked in water, which would result in the
largest (absolute value) median values of mass lost, however, even though the plastic
with the largest median mass loss was one which was plasticized using fructose, the
second highest was not the other fructose plasticized plastic but was instead one
plasticized using glycerol.
Table 18
Data Used to Conduct Two-Sample t Test Comparing Plastics for Water Absorption
Trials
Water Absorption
Average Mass
Type of Average Initial Average Final Standard
Percentage
Plastic Mass (g) Mass (g) Deviation
Change
Corn and
Fructose 0.2480 0.3067 23.9064 15.1493
Corn and
Glycerol 0.5629 0.6204 9.9748 13.5937
Potato and
Fructose 0.4353 0.4094 -5.9692 16.2460
Potato and
Glycerol 0.3090 0.3927 32.3576 30.0997
Table 18 shows the averages of the initial masses, final masses, the average mass
percentage change, and the standard deviation for the four types of plastics synthesized
and tested. These data points will be used to determine differences in water absorption
and solubility as they are linked to the different initial components of the plastics.
Throughout the water absorption trials, it was determined that there were five
statistically significant differences between the mass change due to water absorption
Penn - Rembecki 44
associated with the various plastics. Of these five statistically significant differences, four
were determined to be statistically significant based solely on the graph of the box plots
and insignificant overlap (<25% overlap) between the boxes. These graphically-present,
statistically significant differences were determined to be those of: corn and fructose vs.
corn and glycerol, corn and fructose vs. potato and fructose, corn and glycerol vs. potato
and glycerol, and potato and fructose vs. potato and glycerol. The fifth statistically
significant difference in masses after water absorption trials was seen in corn and glycerol
vs. potato and fructose, however, this could not be determined through simply viewing on
the graph of the box plots and instead needed a two-sample t test to be performed to
determine significance.
Simple Random Sample: Both samples are selected using a SRS for their
respective population for the experiment
Independence Condition: Both samples are independent of each other
Large Counts: n ≥ 30 or if n < 30 the graph of the data shows no extreme

outliers or skewness.
Figure 15. Conditions for Two-Sample t Test for Water Absorption Plastic Trials
Within the scope of the experiment, plastics were selected at random from baggies
containing a single type of plastic. This random sampling of each type of plastic in order
to determine the order for which the plastic pieces (not type) were tried satisfies the
random sampling condition of the two-sample t test. As each plastic was made separately,
stored separately, selected at random separately, and tried separately from every plastic of
a different type, it satisfies the independence condition of the two-sample t test. As there
were outliers within the data of the experiment, thirty or more trials needed to take place
to account for the skew associated with outliers. Both types of plastic, primary (plastic
Penn - Rembecki 45
who is named first), and second (plastic who is named second) were conducted with
thirty trials, satisfying the large counts condition of the two-sample t test.
µ𝑎 = average mass percentage change of primary

𝐻0: µ𝑎 = µ𝑏 plastic during water absorption trials
𝐻𝑎: µ𝑎 ≠ µ𝑏 µ𝑏 = average mass percentage change of secondary
plastic during water absorption trials
Figure 16. Sample Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis for Two-Sample t Test Water
Absorption Trials
Figure 16 displays the null and alternative hypothesis of the two-sample t test
used to analyze the mass change due to water absorption trials. The average mass percent
change of the primary plastic pieces (plastic who is named first) during the water
absorption trials is represented by µ𝑎 meanwhile, the average mass percent change of the
secondary plastic pieces (plastic who is named second) during the water absorption trials
is represented by µ𝑏. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the
average mass percentage change of both the primary and secondary plastics. The
alternative hypothesis, however, states that there is a difference between the average mass
percentage change of both primary and secondary plastics.

Penn - Rembecki 46
Figure 17. Two-Sample t Test Results for Corn and Glycerol vs. Potato and Fructose
Within the Scope of Water Absorption Trials and Graph of Shaded P-value
Figure 17 shows the results of the two-sample t test on the data collected for corn
and glycerol plastics versus potato and fructose plastics within the water absorption trials.
This statistical test resulted in a t statistic of 4.1226 which corresponds to a P-value of
0.0001. As the P-value is below the α level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. There
is significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass percentage change
between corn and glycerol plastics and potato and fructose plastics. Assuming the null
hypothesis was true, there is a 0.01% chance the observed difference, or one even more
extreme, was due to random chance alone.
Meanwhile, there was only one difference in water absorption values that was
determined to be statistically insignificant. This was found to be from the corn and
fructose vs. potato and glycerol tests and needed to be determined using a two-sample t
test as the two box plots shared immense overlap and statistical significance could not be
determined based solely on what little difference was visible.
Figure 18. Two-Sample t Test Results for Corn and Fructose vs. Potato and Glycerol
Within the Scope of Water Absorption Trials and Graph of Shaded P-value
Penn - Rembecki 47
and fructose plastics versus potato and glycerol plastics within the water absorption trials.
This statistical test resulted in a t statistic of -1.3737 which corresponds to a P-value of
0.1767. As the P-value is above the α level of 0.05, the null hypothesis cannot be
rejected. There is not significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass
percentage change between corn and fructose plastics and potato and glycerol plastics.
Assuming the null hypothesis was true, there is a 17.67% chance the observed difference,
or one even more extreme, was due to random chance alone.
Table 19
Data Used to Conduct Two-Sample t Test Comparing Plastics for Water Solubility Trials
Water Solubility
Average Mass
Type of Average Initial Average Final Standard
Percentage
Plastic Mass (g) Mass (g) Deviation
Change
Corn and
Fructose 0.2480 0.1861 -24.4608 10.1282
Corn and
Glycerol 0.5629 0.4270 -28.1226 10.6661
Potato and
Fructose 0.4353 0.2443 -44.4487 9.8545
Potato and
Glycerol 0.3090 0.2113 -32.8255 8.3591
Table 19 shows the averages of the initial masses, final masses, the average mass
percentage change, and the standard deviation for the four types of plastics synthesized
and tested. These data points will be used to determine differences in water absorption
and solubility as they are linked to the different initial components of the plastics.
Throughout the water solubility trials, it was determined that there were four
statistically significant differences between the mass change due to water absorption
Penn - Rembecki 48
associated with the various plastics. Of these five statistically significant differences,
three were determined to be statistically significant based solely on the graph of the box
plots and insignificant overlap (<25% overlap) between the boxes. These
graphically-present, statistically significant differences were determined to be those of:
corn and fructose vs. potato and fructose, corn and glycerol vs. potato and fructose, and
potato and fructose vs. potato and glycerol. The fourth statistically significant difference
in masses after water solubility trials was seen in corn and fructose vs. potato and
glycerol, however, this could not be determined through simply viewing on the graph of
the box plots and instead needed a two-sample t test to be performed to determine
significance.
Simple Random Sample: Both samples are selected using a SRS for their
respective population for the experiment
Independence Condition: Both samples are independent of each other
Large Counts: n ≥ 30 or if n < 30 the graph of the data shows no extreme

outliers or skewness.
Figure 19. Conditions for Two-Sample t Test for Water Solubility Plastic Trials
Within the scope of the experiment, plastics were selected at random from baggies
containing a single type of plastic. This random sampling of each type of plastic in order
to determine the order for which the plastic pieces (not type) were tried satisfies the
random sampling condition of the two-sample t test. As each plastic was made separately,
stored separately, selected at random separately, and tried separately from every plastic of
a different type, it satisfies the independence condition of the two-sample t test. As there
were outliers within the data of the experiment, thirty or more trials needed to take place
to account for the skew associated with outliers. Both types of plastic, primary (plastic
Penn - Rembecki 49
who is named first), and secondary (plastic who is named second) were conducted with
thirty trials, satisfying the large counts condition of the two-sample t test.
µ𝑎 = average mass percentage change of primary

𝐻0: µ𝑎 = µ𝑏 plastic during water solubility trials
𝐻𝑎: µ𝑎 ≠ µ𝑏 µ𝑏 = average mass percentage change of secondary
plastic during water solubility trials
Figure 20. Sample Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis for Two-Sample t Test Water
Absorption Trials
Figure 20 displays the null and alternative hypothesis of the two-sample t test
used to analyze the mass change due to water absorption trials. The average mass percent
change of the primary plastic pieces (plastic who is named first) during the water
absorption trials is represented by µ𝑎 meanwhile, the average mass percent change of the
secondary plastic pieces (plastic who is named second) during the water absorption trials
is represented by µ𝑏. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the
average mass percentage change of both the primary and secondary plastics. The
alternative hypothesis, however, states that there is a difference between the average mass
percentage change of both primary and secondary plastics.

Penn - Rembecki 50
Figure 21. Two-Sample t Test Results for Corn and Fructose vs. Potato and Glycerol
Within the Scope of Water Solubility Trials and Graph of Shaded P-value
and fructose plastics versus potato and glycerol plastics within the water solubility trials.
0.0010. As the P-value is below the α level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. There
is significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass percentage change
between corn and fructose plastics and potato and glycerol plastics. Assuming the null
hypothesis was true, there is a 0.10% chance the observed difference, or one even more
extreme, was due to random chance alone.
Meanwhile, there were only two differences in water solubility values that were
determined to be statistically insignificant. This was found to be from the corn and
fructose vs. corn and glycerol tests and the corn and glycerol vs. potato and glycerol tests.
As the box plots showing these values were deemed to share significant overlap (>25%
overlap) a two-sample t test was performed on these datasets to determine significance.

Penn - Rembecki 51
Figure 22. Two-Sample t Test Results for Corn and Fructose vs. Corn and Glycerol
and fructose plastics versus corn and glycerol plastics within the water solubility trials.
percentage change between corn and fructose plastics and corn and glycerol plastics.

Penn - Rembecki 52
Figure 23. Two-Sample t Test Results for Corn and Glycerol vs. Potato and Glycerol
and glycerol plastics versus potato and glycerol plastics within the water absorption trials.
percentage change between corn and glycerol plastics and potato and glycerol plastics.
Of the plastics synthesized, potato and glycerol absorbed the most water with a
median water absorption percentage of 28.4687% while corn and fructose plastic had a
median water absorption percentage of 25.6352%. Through the water absorption trials,
glycerol plasticized plastics had the highest average water absorption percentage with an
average mass change of 21.1662% while fructose plasticized plastics had an average
mass percentage change of only 8.9686%. Within the water absorption trials, the potato
and fructose plastic had a median mass percent change of -43.1418%. Notably, the
Penn - Rembecki 53
second largest (absolute value) median mass percent change was that of potato and
glycerol with a median percentage change of -34.4150%. The difference between
average mass percent change for the water absorption trials (like starches grouped
together) was 3.7464% while the average mass percent change for the solubility trials
(like starches grouped together was 12.3454%.

Penn - Rembecki 54
Conclusion
The experiment was carried out in order to determine a significant difference in
the water absorption and water solubility of synthesized bioplastics after a change in
starch and plasticizer. Bioplastics of four various compositions of corn starch, potato
starch, fructose, and glycerol were created and broken into various pieces. Thirty pieces
of each of the four compositions were randomly selected and tested for water absorption
and water solubility which amassed a total of 120 trials. After measuring the initial mass
and final mass (two final masses, one after water absorption trials, and one after water
solubility trials) of each of the thirty pieces of each of the four plastic compositions (corn
and fructose, corn and glycerol, potato and fructose, potato and glycerol) that were tested,
the average mass percent change was measured (see Data Analysis and Interpretation).
The first hypothesis stated that the bioplastics synthesized using fructose as the
plasticizer will absorb and dissolve the most in water as compared to plastics made using
glycerol as the plasticizer. This hypothesis was rejected as the highest average mass
percent change in water absorption was the plastic made using potato starch and glycerol
with an average value of 32.3576% mass change. Further evidence used to reject the
hypothesis is the fact that the box plot of mass percentage change of water absorption
trials (Figure 13) shows potato and glycerol plastics as achieving the highest mass
percentage change of any plastic, with the second largest coming from corn and fructose
plastics, and a close third coming from corn and glycerol plastics. Even further, the
average mass percentage change for plastics synthesized using fructose plasticizer is
8.9686%. Meanwhile, the average mass percentage change for plastics synthesized using
glycerol plasticizer is 21.1662%. This stark divide between fructose and glycerol
Penn - Rembecki 55
plasticized plastics is a direct contradiction and clear evidence in favor of rejecting this
hypothesis.
The second hypothesis stated that starch type (corn starch or potato starch) will
have an unnoticeable effect on both the water absorption and solubility of the bioplastics.
This hypothesis was accepted as the difference in the largest medians of the water
absorption trials, corn and fructose, potato and glycerol, had a difference of 2.8335%.
Additionally, the difference in the average mass percentage change of corn starch based
plastics and potato starch based plastics is 3.7464%. These data points indicate that even
though there is a slight difference between the mass change through water absorption
trials, it is to a nearly unnoticeable amount. For the water solubility trials, the difference
between the medians of corn and glycerol, and potato and glycerol plastics is remarkably
small, being 3.7188%. The average mass change percentage for water solubility trials,
however, shows a larger difference, being 12.3454%. With this being said, it can be
concluded that starch type did not play a significant role in the water absorption and
solubility of bioplastics, accepting this hypothesis.
The data of the mass percentage change from water absorption determined
that there is significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass percentage
change between corn and fructose plastics (CF) vs. corn and glycerol plastics (CG), corn
and glycerol plastics (CG) vs. potato and fructose plastics (PF), corn and glycerol plastics
(CG) vs. potato and glycerol plastics (PG), potato and fructose plastics (PF) vs. potato
and glycerol plastics (PG), and corn and fructose plastics (CF) vs. potato and fructose
plastics (PF). It was also determined that there is no significant evidence that there is a
difference in the average mass percentage change between corn and fructose plastics (CF)
Penn - Rembecki 56
vs. potato and glycerol plastics (PG). According to the box plot of mass percentage
change through water absorption trials (Figure 13), the comparisons of CF vs. PF and PF
vs. PG were not within the range of each other meaning there was no need to conduct a t
test. However, the comparisons of CF vs. CG, CG vs PF, CF vs PG, and CG vs. PG were
within the range of each other meaning there was a need to conduct a t test.
The data of the mass percentage change from water absorption determined that
there is significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass percentage
change between, CG vs. PF, PF vs. PG, CF vs. PF, and CF vs. PG. It was also determined
that there is not significant evidence that there is a difference in the average mass
percentage change between CF vs. CG, CG vs. PG. According to the box plot of mass
percentage change through water dissolution trials (Figure 14), the comparisons of CF vs.
PF and CG vs. PF were not within the range of each other meaning there was no need to
conduct a t test. However, the comparisons of CF vs. CG, PF vs. PG, CF vs PG, and CG
vs. PG were within the range of each other meaning there was a need to conduct a t test.
This conclusion, the rejection of the first hypothesis, is contradictory to
previous research on bioplastics. In “Synthesis and Characterization of Eco-Friendly
Bioplastic from Low-Cost Plant Resources - SN Applied Sciences” by Akshaya
Krishnamurthy and Pavithra Amritkumar, students at Women’s Christian College in
Chennai, India, it was determined that bioplastics synthesized using polylactic acid,
glycerol, and crude palm oil absorbed 178.6% of their initial weight on average.
Meanwhile, in “Development and Characterization of Cornstarch-Based Bioplastics
Packaging Film Using a Combination of Different Plasticizers” by Walid Abotbina,
faculty of engineering at the University of Putra Malaysia, it was determined that

Penn - Rembecki 57
bioplastics synthesized using fructose as the plasticizer absorbed 187.87% of their initial
weight on average. As 187.87% is greater than 178.6%, glycerol plasticized bioplastics
should absorb less than water on average as compared to those plasticized with fructose.
The results of this experiment, however, contradicted this previous research as the
bioplastic with the largest average water absorption was synthesized using glycerol as the
plasticizer.
Possible key differences separating this research from that which was done
previously are the type of starch base used, water absorption testing characteristics, and
overall size and thickness of the synthesized plastics. Within this research, corn and
potato starch were used as the bioplastic base while fructose and glycerol were used as
the plasticizers. In some of the previously mentioned research articles, different starches
were used as the bases. Krishnamurthy used jackfruit waste (seeds and husk) flour along
with sago as the starches. Polylactic acid, a thermoplastic monomer derived from corn
starch using Lactobacillus to produce lactic acid, was used as an additional plasticizer in
conjunction with several other plasticizers within Krishnamurthy’s research. Both
Krishnamurthy and Abotbina also used varying plasticizer concentrations (weight based)
as opposed to a simple, flat plasticizer amount for each type of plastic.
Water absorption testing was also different as compared to previous research
done. Within this experiment, plastics weighed before being left to soak in 25 mL of
distilled water for five minutes and forty-five seconds. The plastics were then reweighed
with the final mass being recorded and the percent mass change being calculated.
Meanwhile, both Krishnamurthy and Abotbina were working with biofilms which were
easily submerged for twenty-four hours. This treatment was initially thought of for this
Penn - Rembecki 58
experiment but after testing it was determined that the bioplastics synthesized degraded
too quickly to be submerged for longer than the five minutes forty-five seconds finally
decided upon for final testing.
The last key difference between this experiment and previous research are the
sizes and thicknesses of the synthesized plastics. Within this experiment the plastics were
much thicker than the biofilms used in previous research. This fact may have
compromised the structural integrity of the thick bioplastics during the soaking process as
water filled free volume present within the plastics and dissolved the starch and
plasticizer sugars (both fructose and glycerol are sugars) within the plastics. This
degradation of the plastics, seen occurring during initial tests as particulates built up at
the bottom of the ice cube trays, reduce the amount of time the plastics were allowed to
be submerged from twenty-four hours to just five minutes forty-five seconds as
previously stated.
This research can be taken two different ways by the scientific community,
because the results contradicted previous research done exploring bioplastics and water
absorption/solubility, it could change how plasticizers are seen in testing. It could
redefine the relationships between water absorption/solubility and glycerol and fructose
plasticizers to one which shows glycerol as a more significant factor when it comes to
water absorption/solubility. The scientific community could also see that potato starch
based plastics, plasticized with glycerol had the largest mass percent change from water
absorption and use this to produce plastics which can be used to clean spills. In a similar
light, the development of corn starch based plastics, plasticized using fructose, could be
improved as these plastics are the least soluble plastics and therefore could be used in
Penn - Rembecki 59
high humidity/water exposed environments as they will lose the least mass. Therefore,
the plastics would retain their initial strength. In fact, all plastics based using corn starch
would be able to be best used in high humidity/water exposed environments as they
dissolve the least as compared to potato starch based plastics.
Throughout the experiment, plenty of design errors and weaknesses could be
indicated. One error involved was the boiling of the plastic mixture during the
synthesization process. The time given to boil was different for each combination of
plastic which created an inconsistency throughout the experiment. In order to test the
water absorption of the plastics, each plastic piece was then submerged in twenty-five
milliliters of water for five minutes and forty-five seconds. Thirty plastic pieces could not
be dropped into each of the twenty-five milliliter sections of water at the same time
which created uneven timing. Consistent timing for how long the plastics absorbed water
would create more accurate results. The plastics themselves had setbacks as some pieces
of each were fragile and cracked off/lost particles during testing. This created unequal
measuring for the mass of the plastics. These problems can be solved through the
implementation of various standards kept constant for each experiment. The problem of
the time given to boil could be fixed using a timer where the boiling process of each of
the various plastics would be stopped exactly at the same time as one another. This would
allow for the initial water content of each plastic to be roughly constant as instead of
inaccurate, “eyeballed” measurements, precise timing would determine how much water
is let to boil off. The inconsistency of how long each piece of plastic was submerged in
water can be fixed using metal mesh that can carry each of the thirty pieces of plastic.
This mesh can then be lowered into a body of water and then raised out at a given time
Penn - Rembecki 60
which gives an equivalent amount of time for water absorption of each piece. This would
solve the problem of uneven submersion time for each plastic piece as each piece was
placed into and pulled out of the water by hand dramatically altering the submersion time
among similar pieces. This uneven timing not only allows more water to fill the free
volume of the plastics, but also allows for the water to break-down the bonds of the
starches and plasticizers, dissolving the plastics left in the water for more time than
similar plastics which were removed from the water sooner.
For further research within the area of creating bioplastics, others should look into
the strength of the plastics after water absorption and dissolution. This additional testing
would allow the scope of the plastics to be expanded as if the water absorption/solubility
does not act to the detriment of bioplastics, they could be used in underwater, marine life
experiments and studies as a nontoxic, biodegradable alternative to other common
plastics. Water temperature should also be analyzed as a variable as if the plastics cannot
survive prolonged exposure to warm/hot water and maintain structural integrity and
strength, their application would be limited further. It should also be noted that solubility
is affected by both the solvent and the temperature and therefore relationships between
these factors should be explored. Last, the synthesized bioplastics should be compared to
other similarly structured plastics in terms of water absorption/solubility and strength.
This can be done through the testing of starch polymers rather that specific starch types
as the amylose and amylopectin polymers of starch can be separated and individually
tested to compare bioplastics to commercial plastics such as polystyrene (styrofoam) for
amylose, or vinyl acetate for amylopectin (Rudin; . If the bioplastics had similar strength
and water resistances as compared to the common plastics, it may be a worthwhile

Penn - Rembecki 61
investment, whereas if the bioplastics presented inferior results, it may be more
worthwhile to investigate other eco-friendly plastic opportunities which can provide
similar resistances and characteristics without being lesser products.

Penn - Rembecki 62
Appendix A: How to Synthesize Corn Starch and Glycerol Bioplastic
Materials:
Glycerol (16 mL) (2) Watch Glass

0.1M Hydrochloric Acid (24 mL) Graduated Cylinder (10 mL, 25 mL, 100
0.1M Sodium Hydroxide (24 mL) mL)
Distilled Water (200 mL) Balance (0.001 g precision)
Funnel (2) Beaker (500 mL)
(2) Weigh Boat Silicon Pen Blank Mold (0.8” x 0.8” x 6”)
Heat Resistant Glove Syringe (10 mL)
(2) Hot Plate (2) Scoopula
Corn Starch (20 g)
Procedure:
1. Add 10 g of corn starch, 8 mL of glycerol plasticizer, 12 mL of 0.1M

hydrochloric acid, and 100 mL of distilled water to a 500 mL beaker.
2. Set up a hot plate to high, use a stir bar set to low, add watch glass to cover top of
the beaker, and add a thermometer between the lip of the beaker and watch glass.
3. Let the solution boil for 15 minutes or until the solution is just under the 100 mL
mark of the beaker, do not let the solution dry boil.
4. Add just enough 0.1M sodium hydroxide to neutralize the mixture, this should be
approximately the same amount of hydrochloric acid added initially, 12 mL.
5. Pour the mixture into a Silicone Pen Blank Mold and leave to sit to dry at room
temperature for approximately 2 days.
6. Once the solution has cooled and hardened to touch, remove plastics and leave
upside down on aluminum foil inside of a fume hood to dry pieces out faster.
7. After plastics have hardened considerably (should not be tacky to the touch,
should hold shape, should not be easily compressible) add all pieces to a plastic
bag labeled according to type of plastic.
8. Repeat steps 1-7.
Diagram:
Penn - Rembecki 63
Figure 24. Experimental Setup of Corn Starch and Glycerol Plastics
Figure 24 shows the experimental setup used to make bioplastics using corn
starch and glycerol.
Figure 25. Setup for the Synthesis of Bioplastics

Penn - Rembecki 64
Figure 25 shows a sample synthesis of bioplastics. In this example corn starch
based, glycerol plasticized bioplastics are being made, however, the experimental setup is
the same for each type of plastic made.
Figure 26. Plastic Solution Boiling and End Boil Line Representation
The boiling process during the synthesis of the bioplastics is extremely variable.
The solution should be boiled until the level of the liquid is under the 100 mL line. Once
this has been achieved, the solution should be quickly poured into the molds and left to
set at room temperature.

Penn - Rembecki 65
Figure 27. Plastic Solution Beginning the Drying Process While in the Pen Blank Molds
After the plastic solution has been synthesized, the solution must be poured
quickly into the molds. Once this is done, the molds must be left at room temperature
until the plastics have solidified where they can then be removed from the molds and
placed underneath the fume hood to continue the drying process.

Penn - Rembecki 66
Appendix B: How to Synthesize Potato Starch and Glycerol Bioplastic
Materials:
Glycerol (16 mL) (2) Watch Glass

0.1M Hydrochloric Acid (24 mL) Graduated Cylinder (10 mL, 25 mL, 100
0.1M Sodium Hydroxide (24 mL) mL)
Distilled Water (200 mL) Balance (0.001 g precision)
Funnel (2) Beaker (500 mL)
(2) Weigh Boat Silicon Pen Blank Mold (0.8” x 0.8” x 6”)
Heat Resistant Glove Syringe (10 mL)
(2) Hot Plate (2) Scoopula
Potato Starch (20 g)
Procedure:
1. Add 10 g of potato starch, 8 mL of glycerol plasticizer, 12 mL of 0.1M

hydrochloric acid, and 100 mL of distilled water to a 500 mL beaker.
Diagram:
Penn - Rembecki 67
Figure 28. Experimental Setup of Potato Starch and Glycerol Plastics
Figure 28 shows the experimental setup used to make bioplastics using potato
starch and glycerol.

Penn - Rembecki 68
Appendix C: How to Synthesize Potato Starch and Fructose Bioplastic
Materials:
Fructose (24 g) Glass Stir Rod

0.1M Hydrochloric Acid (24 mL) (2) Watch Glass
0.1M Sodium Hydroxide (24 mL) Graduated Cylinder (10 mL, 25 mL, 100
Distilled Water (216 mL) mL)
Funnel Balance (0.001 g precision)
(2) Weigh Boat (2) Beaker (25 mL, 500 mL)
Heat Resistant Glove Silicon Pen Blank Mold (0.8” x 0.8” x 6”)
(2) Hot Plate Syringe (10 mL)
Potato Starch (20 g) (2) Scoopula
Procedure:
1. Create a fructose syrup by weighing out 12 g of fructose and adding to a 25 mL

beaker along with 8 mL of distilled water, dissolve the fructose by stirring the
solution with a glass stir rod.
2. Add 10 g of potato starch, fructose plasticizer, 12 mL of 0.1M hydrochloric acid,

and 100 mL of distilled water to a 500 mL beaker.
Diagram:
Penn - Rembecki 69
Figure 29. Experimental Setup of Potato Starch and Fructose Plastics
Figure 29 shows the experimental setup used to make bioplastics using potato
starch and fructose.

Penn - Rembecki 70
Figure 30. Preparation of the Fructose Plasticizer
Figure 30 shows the fructose used to plasticize various bioplastics. After the
fructose was added to the beaker as shown, 8 mL of water was added and the mixture was
continuously stirred until the solution was homogenous after which it can be added to the
beaker containing the whole plastic solution and the synthesis can begin.
Penn - Rembecki 71
Appendix D: How to Synthesize Corn Starch and Fructose Bioplastic
Materials:
Fructose (24 g) Glass Stir Rod

0.1M Hydrochloric Acid (24 mL) (2) Watch Glass
0.1M Sodium Hydroxide (24 mL) Graduated Cylinder (10 mL, 25 mL, 100
Distilled Water (216 mL) mL)
Funnel Balance (0.001 g precision)
(2) Weigh Boat (2) Beaker (25 mL, 500 mL)
Heat Resistant Glove Silicon Pen Blank Mold (0.8” x 0.8” x 6”)
(2) Hot Plate Syringe (10 mL)
Corn Starch (20 g) (2) Scoopula
Procedure:
1. Create a fructose syrup by weighing out 12 g of fructose and adding to a 25 mL

beaker along with 8 mL of distilled water, dissolve the fructose by stirring the
solution with a glass stir rod.
2. Add 10 g of corn starch, fructose plasticizer, 12 mL of 0.1M hydrochloric acid,

and 100 mL of distilled water to a 500 mL beaker.

Penn - Rembecki 72
Diagram:
Figure 31. Experimental Setup of Corn Starch and Fructose Plastics
Figure 31 shows the experimental setup used to make bioplastics using corn
starch and fructose.

Penn - Rembecki 73
Appendix E: Sample Calculation of t Statistic
𝑥1 − 𝑥2
𝑡= 2 2
𝑠1 𝑠2
𝑛1
+ 𝑛2
23.9064 − 9.9748
𝑡= 2 2
(15.1493) (13.5937)
30
+ 30
𝑡 = 3. 74895
Figure 32. t value Calculations for Corn and Fructose vs. Corn and Glycerol Water
Absorption Tests
Figure 32 displays the equation used to find the t value for the Corn and Fructose
vs. Corn and Glycerol water absorption tests with the first one showing the formula for
the t test while the second one shows it with the values plugged in. The variables
𝑥1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑥2represents the mean mass percentage change of Corn and Fructose, and the
2 2
Corn and Glycerol recorded samples. The variable 𝑠1 and 𝑠2 represents the standard
deviation of samples from the Corn and Fructose, and the Corn and Glycerol tests. The
variable n represents the number of trials conducted for the tests.

Penn - Rembecki 74
Appendix F: Sample Calculation of Mass Percentage Change
(𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙)−(𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 % 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)
× 100
(0.3488)−(0.3689)
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 % 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = (0.3689)
× 100
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 % 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = − 5. 4486%

Figure 33. Sample Calculation of Mass Percentage Change for Trial One of Corn and
Fructose Trials
Figure 33 displays the equation used to find the mass percentage change used for
both the water absorption and solubility trials. Both initial mass (mass before the trial)
and final mass (mass after trial) are needed and compared to determine the mass change.
It should be noted that the initial mass for each trial is constant for both the water
absorption and solubility trials whereas the final mass varies between the two trials.
Penn - Rembecki 75
Professional Contact
Figure 34. Email Correspondence with Professional Contact
Figure 34 above highlights some of the email correspondence with Jeane
Deatherage, the program coordinator of the ASM Materials Foundation. Sadly, they did
not respond to several questions posed after the initial correspondence.

Penn - Rembecki 76
Works Cited
Abotbina, Walid, et al. “Development and Characterization of Cornstarch-Based
Bioplastics Packaging Film Using a Combination of Different Plasticizers.”
MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 11 Oct. 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13203487.
“Amylopectin.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Nov. 2022,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylopectin.
“Appendix 3: Starch Content of Vegetables and Fruits .” Woodlands Healing Research
Center,
http://woodmed.com/index.php/health-information/basic-health-maintenance-diet/
135-appendix-3-starch-content-of-vegetables-and-fruits.
Bergthaller, Wolfgang, and Jürgen Hollmann. “2.18 - Starch.” Comprehensive
Glycoscience, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 579–612.
Bilck, Ana Paula, et al. “Using Glycerol Produced from Biodiesel as a Plasticiser in
Extruded Biodegradable Films.” Polímeros, Associação Brasileira De Polímeros,
2015, https://www.scielo.br/j/po/a/VGdkNkfxfQHLnSTHS5qkpwJ/.
“Copolyesters as Non-Toxic Plasticizers.” Polymer International, vol. 60, no. 8, Aug.
2011, pp. 1158–1161., https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.3122. Accessed 29 Nov. 2022.
“Coral Reef Ecosystems.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/marine-life/coral-reef-ecosy
Penn - Rembecki 77
stems#:~:text=Coral%20reefs%20protect%20coastlines%20from,food%2C%20in
come%2C%20and%20protection.
“The Current Plastics Lifecycle Is Far from Circular.” OECD,
https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/plastics-lifecycle-is-far-from-circular.
htm#:~:text=Population%20growth%20and%20higher%20incomes,economic%2
0growth%20by%20almost%2040%25.
Fennir, M. A., et al. “An Investigation of Sugar Extraction Methods and the Use of
Microwave Power for Date Syrup Processing: Efficiency and Color Related
Considerations.” The Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy :
a Publication of the International Microwave Power Institute, U.S. National
Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15078066/.
Klecker, Christina, et al. “Matrix Chemistry Controlling Stem Cell Behavior.” Biology
and Engineering of Stem Cell Niches, Elsevier/Academic Press, London, 2017,
pp. 195–213.
Krishnamurthy, Akshaya, and Pavithra Amritkumar. “Synthesis and Characterization of
Eco-Friendly Bioplastic from Low-Cost Plant Resources - SN Applied Sciences.”
SpringerLink, Springer International Publishing, 17 Oct. 2019,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1460-x.
Lamb, Joleah B., et al. “Plastic Waste Associated with Disease on Coral Reefs.” Science,
vol. 359, no. 6374, 2018, pp. 460–462., https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3320.

Penn - Rembecki 78
Mukuze, Stephen, et al. “Comparison of Fructose and Glycerol as Plasticizers in Cassava
Bioplastic Production.” Advanced Journal of Graduate Research, vol. 6, no. 1,
July 2019, pp. 41–52., https://doi.org/10.21467/ajgr.6.1.2019.
Plastic Market Size, Share & Trends Report, 2022 - 2030. Grand View Research,
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/global-plastics-market.
Plastic Pollution Is Growing Relentlessly as Waste Management and Recycling Fall
Short, Says OECD. OECD,
https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-wa
ste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm#:~:text=Some%20key%20findings
%20from%20the,by%20growth%20in%20emerging%20markets.
“Plasticizer.” Chem Europe,
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Plasticizer.html#:~:text=Plasticize
rs%20work%20by%20embedding%20themselves,plastic%20and%20making%20
it%20softer.
Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. Plastic Pollution. Our World in Data, 1 Sept. 2018,
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#:~:text=Packaging%2C%20for%20ex
ample%2C%20has%20a,half%20of%20the%20global%20total.
Rudin, Alfred, and Phillip Choi. “Introductory Concepts and Definitions.” The Elements
of Polymer Science & Engineering (Third Edition), 3rd ed., Academic Press,
2013, pp. 1–62.

Penn - Rembecki 79
Shrivastava, Anshuman. “Introduction to Plastics Engineering.” Introduction to Plastics
Engineering, William Andrew, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2018, pp. 1–16.
Tarique, J., et al. “Effect of Glycerol Plasticizer Loading on the Physical, Mechanical,
Thermal, and Barrier Properties of Arrowroot (Maranta Arundinacea) Starch
Biopolymers.” Scientific Reports, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 6 July 2021,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34230523/.
Vaverková, Magdalena Daria. “Landfill Impacts on the Environment-Review.” MDPI,
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 3 Oct. 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100431
Verma, Rinku, et al. “Toxic Pollutants from Plastic Waste- A Review.” Procedia
Environmental Sciences, vol. 35, 2016, pp. 701–708.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1878-0296(16)30084-6
“Visual Feature: Beat Plastic Pollution.” UNEP, United Nations,
https://www.unep.org/interactives/beat-plastic-pollution/.

Bioplastic Paper 1 - Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bioplastic Paper 1 - Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Starch and Plasticizer Type on the Water Absorption and Solubility of

Samuel Penn and Holden Rembecki

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Mrs. Hilliard & Mrs. Gravel

According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), “75 to 199

ecological health, is further exacerbated by Lamb’s estimation of 11.1 billion plastic

down into non-harmful particulates is key.

Bioplastics are polymers synthesized using organic materials, which include

previous research (Abotbina, Bilck, Edhirej, Krishnamurthy).

Plastics synthesized using corn or potato starch and glycerol or fructose

Rapid amounts of petro-plastic waste is produced every year, with plastic

are not biodegradable (Vaverková). Also, incineration of petro-plastics releases toxic

perform just as petro-plastics while keeping some degree of biodegradability, bioplastics

petro-plastics. Bioplastics can be produced from plant-based materials while maintaining

plastics, production and consumption is growing at an unsustainable rate. Currently,

non-biodegradability. Incineration is another possible alternative as it can generate energy

show themselves as an eco-friendly alternative to the more popular petro-plastics

petro-plastics while retaining a degree of biodegradability (if applicable to the situation).

chemical structure as various petro-plastics (such as linear polymers in polystyrene and

(starch/biopolymer bases) are made/grown in abundance (Rudin).

Figure 1 and 2. Chemical Structure of Linear and Branched Polymers. Source:

the addition of plasticizers) (Chem Europe). A common example of a linear polymer is

contains amylopectin, a branched polymer. Branched polymers are similar to linear

decreased rigidity and increased flexibility of the plastics.

in Figure 1, is a linear glucan built up by the polymerization of ɑ-d-glucopyranosyl

determined by either finding Young’s modulus or the modulus of elasticity, or performing

mechanical properties (Krishnamurthy). Amylopectin, see Figure 2, is a polysaccharide,

glycosidic linkages (a covalent bond which joins a carbohydrate molecule to another

group) (Udayan). Amylopectin has a highly branched structure as opposed to amylose

should target the connections between amylose/amylopectin and the strength/flexibility of

Figure 3. Chemical Structure of Amylose. Source: Bergthaller, Wolfgang, and Jürgen

environments which pairs to perfection with its tensile strength characteristic.

Figure 4. Chemical Structure of Amylopectin. Source: “Amylopectin.” Wikipedia,

Figure 4 shows the chemical structure of the amylopectin polymer commonly

potential uses of plastics as potentially lower amounts of undo stress, or unforeseen

petro-plastics, are inherently biodegradable (starch is often used as a food source

allowing for quick and effective biodegradability), overwhelming abundance (starches

petro-plastics may be recyclable, as previously stated only a very small percentage of

amount of plastic waste generated and disposed of each year.

exposure to environmental conditions such as humidity (Krishnamurthy). In order to

bioplastics. Plasticizers work by destroying pre-existing hydrogen bonds between

(Krishnamurthy). The glass transition temperature is the temperature at which a material

glass transition temperature as it improves the mechanical characteristics of the plastic.

therefore greatest threat to the environment, single-use plastics.

Figure 5. Plasticizers Disruption of Molecular Polymers Forces. Source: “Copolyesters as

As illustrated in Figure 5, plasticizers embed themselves into the chain polymers

flexibility and strength of the plastic would be low.

high plasticizing capacity while retaining thermal stability at high processing

resulting byproduct of approximately 10% of all biodiesel production. This corresponds

glycerol) pointing towards increased availability of this resource, allowing for it to be

used as a plasticizer more readily than glycerol (Grand View Research).

One of the largest industries producing plastic waste globally is packaging,

absorbent and soluble. In research done by Akshaya Krishnamurthy and Pavithra

absorption percentages and water solubility percentages, 178.6% and 45.45%

synthesized by Krishnamurthy did. As these plastics absorb water at very high

suitable packaging material in an effort to reduce waste.

Water absorption of bioplastics occurs as a result of various conditions during the

starch, and 8 mL of glycerol plasticizer, the fructose plasticizer is made using 12 g of

(absorption) or lost (solubility).

A two-sample t test will be used to determine the statistical significance of either

4. Submerge the bioplastic pieces for 5 minutes.

Figure 6. Experimental Setup of Water Absorption and Solubility Trials

precision are not pictured.