by: Angel Diane C.

De Jesus
 With the world's fast developing
countries, rapid increase in the production
of disposable plastic products is alarming
as it overpower the world's ability to deal
with it. Plastic takes a long time to
decompose and can leach toxic chemicals
in our soil and water which imposes threat
to humam health, environment, wildlife
and general public. Since plastic becomes
an everyday necessity for humans, it's one
of the most versatile product in the new
world, from bottles, toys, bags, containers
and other durable materials.
 Researches in the production of
bioplastic is one of the greatest
innovation to reduce the waste products
brought by the plastic industry. A
combination of polymer, plasticizer,
solvent and acid is the simplest way to
make bioplastic. In accordance, the
researcher was inspired to create
bioplastic from Dayap (Citrus
aurantiifolia) fruit extract as it contains
citric acid with a ph level of about 2.8.
1. Is there any possibility of using Dayap
(Citrus aurantiifolia) fruit extract as
component in making bioplastic?
2. Is there any significant difference
between dayap bioplastic and standard
vinegar bioplastic in terms of:
a. Appearance
b. Texture
3. Will there be percent weight loss in
the dayap bioplastic within a span of
time?
 The researcher performed three
trials. In trial 1, 7ml of extract was used
from 46 grams key lime fruit. In trial 2,
14 ml of extract was used from the
same 46 grams key lime fruit in trial 1.
In trial 3, 21 ml of extract was used
from 48 grams key lime fruit. Each fruit
extracts collected from the key lime in
the three trials were mixed in a bowl
with 10 grams of corn starch, 5 ml of
glycerin and 60 ml of tap water.
 The product undergoes
biodegradability test.
The three trials performed were
compared to each other based on
appearance and texture. The trial
with the most acceptable result
from the questionnaires and surveys
was compared to the standard
vinegar bioplastic.
 Table 1
Dayap Bioplastic
Initial Weight (g) 50 grams
Final Weight (g) 41.8 grams
Amount Degraded (g) 8.2 grams
Amount Left (g) 41.8 grams
Percent Weight Loss (%) 16.4 %
Span of Time (days) 46 days
Amount of Extract (ml) 7ml
 Table 1 shows that 8.2
grams has been degraded
from the 50 grams original
weight and left 41.8 grams
of bioplastic. In a span of
46 days, 16.4% of the
bioplastic's weight was lost.
 Table 2.1

Dayap Bioplastic Standard Vinegar Bioplastic

Responde Respondent
x1 (x1– 1) (x1– 1)2 x2 (x2– 2) (x2– 2)2
nts s

A 4 -0.2 0.04 F 5 1.4 1.96

B 3 -1.2 1.44 G 3 -0.6 0.36

C 4 -0.2 0.04 H 3 -0.6 0.36

D 5 0.8 0.64 I 3 -0.6 0.36

E 5 0.8 0.64 J 4 0.4 0.016

 The table 2.1 shows the ratings of
the five respondents between the
alternative and the standard
bioplastic in terms of appearance.
It shows that the sum of ratings of
the five respondents for the
alternative bioplastic was 21 and 18
for the standard and the sum of the
differences between the ratings and
the mean for alternative was 2.8
and 3.2 for the standard ones.
 Table 2.1.2

Number of T T
Degree of
Bioplastic Mean Respondent Variance (tabular (compute
Freedom
s ) Value d) Value

Dayap

(alternative)
4.2 5 0.7 4
2.13
Vinegar
1.10
(standard)
3.6 5 0.8 4 2
Table 2.1.2 shows the tabular value is
equivalent to 2.132 at 5 percent level
of significance. The computed value is
1.10 which is less than the tabular
value of t, thus, it is not significant. It
means that the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant
difference between the dayap
bioplastic and standard vinegar
bioplastic in terms of appearance.
 Table 2.2

Dayap Bioplastic Standard Vinegar Bioplastic

Respondent
x1 (x1– 1) (x1– 1)2 Respondents x2 (x2– 2) (x2– 2)2
s

A 5 0.8 0.64 F 4 0.4 0.16

B 4 -0.2 0.04 G 4 0.4 0.16

C 4 -0.2 0.04 H 3 -0.6 0.36

D 4 -0.2 0.04 I 3 -0.6 0.36

E 4 -0.2 0.04 J 4 0.4 0.16

 The table 2.2 shows the ratings of
the five respondents between the
alternative and the standard
bioplastic in terms of texture. It
shows that the sum of ratings of the
five respondents for the alternative
bioplastic was 21 and 18 for the
standard and the sum of the
differences between the ratings and
the mean for alternative was 0.8 and
1.2 for the standard ones.
 Table 2.2.2

Number Degree T T
of Varianc of (tabul (compu
Bioplastic Mean Responde Freedo ar) ted)
e
nts m Value Value

Dayap
(alternativ
e) 4.2 5 0.2 4

Vinegar 2.132 1.90

(standard) 3.6 5 0.3 4
Table 2.2.2 shows the tabular value is
equivalent to 2.132 at 5 percent level
of significance. The computed value is
1.90 which is less than the tabular
value of t, thus, it is not significant. It
means that the null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significant
difference between the dayap
bioplastic and standard vinegar
bioplastic in terms of texture.
The plastic derived from the
mixture of Dayap fruit extract,
glycerin, cornstarch and water
as well as the vinegar made
plastic can be a substitute to
the commercial plastic widely
used today since there is no
significant difference between
the two.
The biodegradability test
reflects that Dayap plastic is
capable of being broken down
by natural processes in a short
period time. Thus, it is
biodegradable.