Guava
Guava
Guava
Plastics are vital assets of humanity making it one of the hardest materials to be
replaced. Since then, plastics have already played a huge role in life, even in commercial
and industrial production. Due to the excessive use of non-biodegradable plastics, its
accumulation has been one of the major problems the world is experiencing but still
remains unsolved in several countries. It affects mostly the marine and terrestrial life
because people tend to throw it anywhere than disposing it on the proper area.
In 2016, a global pollution of more than 1 billion people produced over 320
million tons of plastic. This is set to double by 2034. There may now be around 5-25
trillion macro and micro plastic pieces floating in the open ocean weighing up to
269,000 tons.
world’s largest source of plastic leaking into the ocean and has among the highest trash
Lately, due to the cause of plastic pollution, bioplastics appeared on the market
that can replace petroleum-based plastics and are completely safe and does not have
any harmful chemicals or toxins. Bioplastics are substance made from organic biomass
source that are made by a number of different processes. Some use micro-organisms to
process base materials, such as vegetable oils, cellulose, starches, acids and even
1
Several studies to produce bioplastic had been made for the recent years. These
increase its flexibility. The degradation of bioplastic starts after 3 to 4 months from the
date of production. The bioplastic produced through this method could be substantial
and the biodegradable tractability is one of the main challenges in developing bioplastic
generally is not recovered. For the synthesis the sample was treated by using the
to 45 MPa and 61% and 10 MPa and 63% for dried and wet dumbbells, respectively. It
results that the mechanical properties of the produced bioplastic, in its dry state, are
the newly obtained bioplastic both in dry and wet status. The morphology of bio-based
amorphous. Mass loss test noted that it is completely decomposed after being
embedded in soil for 105 days. Industrial and environmental advantages of the newly
2
obtained biomaterial are evaluated in terms of embodied energy and
plastics. Finally, shape memory test revealed promising dual shape effects of the
biomaterial, with a partial but significant shape recovery. In summary, depending on the
environmental humidity, the material shows a dual mechanical behavior that can be
exploited to obtain shrink films and sheet or to drive shape memory effect. Therefore,
we suggest rice straw bioplastic as a new potential eco-material for different application
alternative raw material to produce biodegradable plastic. Guava is a tropical plant with
light green or yellow when ripe and contains edible seeds. It contains high amount of
pectin and with a pH level of 3-4. Since pectin is an essential substance in thickening, it
bioplastic?
2. Is there a significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid in the
a. Biodegradability
b. Solubility
3
c. Tensile strength?
3. What is the significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and the
a. Appearance
b. Durability
c. Cost-effectiveness?
Hypothesis
Ha: There is a significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and
Ho: There is no significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and
Ha: There is a significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid in
Ho: There is no significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid
4
Significance of the Study
bioplastic and help solve the earth’s problem towards plastic pollution with minimal
The researchers seek to find an alternative way in making bioplastic using guava
fruit peel extract. This study will lessen the harm on marine and terrestrial life and
human health which receive the worst effect when it comes to plastic pollution.
Community – clogged drainage due to the too much plastic consumption is one
of the issues that the community has been solving. By the production of
bioplastic, the use of synthetic plastic will lessen and the degradation process
Students – this research can contribute to the future studies of students related
consumption of synthetic plastic, the higher the chances of fast global warming
and climate change. The production of biodegradable plastic from guava peel
5
Scope and Delimitations
This study focuses on the utilization of guava fruit peel extract as an ingredient in
making bioplastic. This study is limited to the effectiveness of the alternative bioplastic,
the varying amount of citric acid on the bioplastic, and the availability of the authorized
people to certify the significant difference of guava bioplastic and vinegar bioplastic.
Several tests fulfilled the sufficient data needed regarding the significant difference.
Respondents from the municipality of Concepcion, Tarlac were asked for their ratings.
Materials Cost
Cornstarch ₱20.00
Foil ₱20.00
Vinegar ₱0.00
Total: ₱75.00
6
Methodology
Research Design
Study Site
The study was conducted at the Golveo’s residence, Green Village Concepcion,
Tarlac.
Tarlac and were grated using a standard cheese grater. 180 ml was extracted from the
guava fruit peels. The seeds were disposed properly and using a strainer, the extract was
strained. 5 ml, 10 ml, and 15 ml of guava fruit extract was individually mixed in different
The mixture was then placed in a pan in a medium-low heat fire and stirred
continuously using spoon until it becomes translucent and gel-like. The gel-like mixture
was poured and spread on an aluminum foil. The foil with the product was placed under
the sun for 3 hours until it cools and hardens. Once dried and firm, the residue was
7
Testing the Product
Three trials were conducted to test the difference between the significant
variations on the bioplastic. Trial 1 with 5 ml of guava fruit peel extract, trial 2 with 10
ml of guava fruit peel extract and trial 3 with 15 ml of guava fruit peel extract, mixed
with the stated amount of glycerin, corn starch and distilled water. The resulting
The possibility of the guava fruit peels extract as a component in making bioplastic was
tested by changing the amount of extract in each trials and testing on how much weight
In terms of biodegradability, the bioplastics were buried under the soil inside the
containers and left open for 30 days and noted how much grams degraded. In terms of
solubility, the bioplastics were soaked in the water inside the containers and noted how
many days it takes to dissolve the bioplastic. And In terms of tensile strength, standard
weights were put on the bioplastic and noted how many grams it needed to break. The
trial with the most acceptable results was compared to the standard vinegar bioplastic
Statistical Treatment
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized in this study. T-test was also used to
determine the significant difference of guava bioplastic and vinegar bioplastic in terms
8
Results and Discussion
Table 1
Amount of Amount of
Amount of Amount of
guava distilled
Trials cornstarch glycerin Results
extract water
(g) (ml)
(ml) (ml)
The
bioplastic
1 5 15 5 60
tore apart
on 195 g
The
bioplastic
2 10 15 5 60
tore apart
on 195 g
The
bioplastic
3 15 15 5 60
tore apart
on 205 g
Table 1.1 shows the different trials on the amount of the guava fruit peels extract and
on how much weight needed to tear the bioplastic apart. It shows that the greater the
amount of guava extract, the greater the weight it can take. The first trial with 5 ml of
guava extract, the second trial with 10 ml of guava extract, and the third trial with 15 ml
of guava extract using the constant amount of cornstarch, glycerin, and distilled water.
9
Table 2
Amount
Initial Final Amount Span of
of
Trials Weight Weight degraded time
extract
(g) (g) (g) (days)
(ml)
1 5 50 46.7 3.3 30
2 10 52 48.6 3.4 30
3 15 54 50.4 3.6 30
Table 2.1 shows the results of the biodegradability of the three trials in the span of 30
days. With the first trial having 50 grams of weight and losing 3.3 grams making its final
weight 46.7 grams. While trial 2 having 52 grams of weight before the testing and 48.6
grams after losing a total of 3.4 grams. The trial 3 having 54 grams of weight and losing
10
Table 2.2 Results in Solubility
1 5 50 66 2.75
2 10 52 66 2.75
3 15 54 72 3
Table 2.2 shows the results of solubility in the three and and how many days before it
dissolved in water. Trial 1 and trial 2 show that it took 66 hours or 2.75 days before it
dissolved in water. While trial 3 shows that it took 72 hours or 3 days before it dissolves
in the water.
11
Table 2.3 Results in Tensile Strength
1 5 195 1.911
2 10 195 1.911
3 15 205 2.009
Tables 2.3 shows the results in the tensile strength of the bioplastic. On the first and
second trial, the bioplastic tore apart with the weight 195 grams or 1.911 mPa. And on
the third trial, the bioplastic tore apart with the weight of 205 grams or 2.009 mPa.
12
Table 2.4 Results of Analysis of Variance in Biodegrability, Solubility, and Tensile
Strength
Biodegradabilit
y
(grams 3.3 3.4 3.6
degraded/30
days)
Solubility
(days needed to 2.75 2.75 3
dissolve)
Tensile Strength
1.911 2.009 2.009
(mPa)
Table 2.1 shows that the greater the amount of guava extract, the greater the amount
of force the bioplastic could resist. However, the greater the amount of guava extract,
the longer it degrades on soil and dissolves in water. With the hypothesis being: Ho:
13
Table 2.5 Means of the Trials in Analysis of Variance
Trials Mean
Trial 1 (5 ml) 2.65
Trial 2 (10 ml) 2.72
Trial 3 (15 ml) 2.87
The mean of trial 1 is 2.65, the trial 2 being 2.72, and the trial 3 being 2.87 in terms of
The P value being 0.06 is less than the critical f value which is 5.14. Therefore, the null
Table 3
14
X1 X – X1 (X-X1)2 X2 X – X2 (X-X2)2
Table 3.1.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms
of Appearance
No. of Tabular
Degree of
Bioplastic Mean Respondent Variance T-test
Freedom
s Value
15
Guava
4.2 10 0.62 9
bioplastic
Standard 0.56 2.262
Vinegar 4.4 10 0.71 9
bioplastic
Table 3.1.2 shows the computed t-value which is 0.56 is less than tabular value which is
that there is no significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and guava
Table 3.2.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms
of Durability
16
X1 X – X1 (X-X1)2 X2 X – X2 (X-X2)2
Table 3.2.1 shows the ratings of respondents, the difference between the ratings, and
the means of the 10 ratings in both guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in
terms of durability. It shows that the sum of ratings of the 10 respondents for the
standard vinegar bioplastic is 42, while 44 for the guava bioplastic. The sum of the
difference between the ratings and the mean for standard vinegar bioplastic was 5.6
17
s Value
Guava
4.4 10 0.49 9
bioplastic
Standard 0.6 2.262
Vinegar 4.2 10 0.62 9
bioplastic
Table 3.2.2 shows the computed t-value which is 0.6 is less than tabular value which is
that there is no significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and guava
18
Table 3.3.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms
of Cost-effectiveness
Table 3.3.1 shows the ratings of respondents, the difference between the ratings, and
the means of the 10 ratings in both guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in
terms of cost-effectiveness. It shows that the sum of ratings of the 10 respondents for
the standard vinegar bioplastic is 44, while 42 for the guava bioplastic. The sum of the
difference between the ratings and the mean for standard vinegar bioplastic was 10.1
19
No. of Tabular
Degree of
Bioplastic Mean Respondent Variance T-test
Freedom
s Value
Guava
4.8 10 0.4 9
bioplastic
Standard 2.82 2.262
Vinegar 3.7 10 1.12 9
bioplastic
Table 3.3.2 shows the computed t-value which is 2.82 is greater than tabular value
means that there is a significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and
20
Summary of Findings
The three trials (5 ml, 10 ml, and 15 ml of guava extract) were compared in terms
trial degraded 3.3 grams, the second trial degraded 3.4 grams, and the third trial
degraded 3.6 grams within 30 days. In terms of solubility, the first and second trial both
dissolved in water within 2.75 days. The third trial dissolved within exactly 3 days in
water. And in terms of tensile strength, during the first trial, the bioplastic was torn after
putting 195 grams (1.911 mPa) using the standard weights. On the second and third
trial, both bioplastics were torn after putting 205 grams (2.009 mPa) using also the
standard weights. The null hypothesis is accepted in the ANOVA. Thus, there is no
The guava bioplastic was compared to the standard vinegar bioplastic using T-
between the guava bioplastic and the standard bioplastic in terms of appearance and
guava bioplastic is cheaper than the vinegar bioplastic. Thus, there is a significant
difference between the guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in terms of
cost-effectiveness.
The guava bioplastic had almost the same physical properties with that of the
vinegar bioplastic. Different guava extract concentrations slightly affected the bioplastic.
21
Thus, making the guava extract a possible component in making bioplastic. The guava
Fazit
The different amounts of guava extract did not affect the outcome of the
There is no significant difference between the guava plastic and standard vinegar
bioplastic in terms of appearance and durability. Guava bioplastic is cheaper than the
significant difference between the guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in
vinegar bioplastic.
Recommendations
1. Find an appropriate machine that will test the quality of the bioplastic.
22
References
October,2009.http://practicalaction.org/docs/technical_information_service/rec
ycling_plastics.pdf
Yaradoddi, Jayachandra & Patil, Vinay & Ganachari, Dr. Sharanabasava & Banapurmath,
Nagaraj & Hunashyal, Anand & Shettar, Ashok. (2016). Biodegradable Plastic
Production from Fruit Waste Materials and its Sustainable Use for Green
Science. 56-66.
Nkwachukwu, O.I., Chima, C.H., Ikenna, A.O. et al. Int J Ind Chem. (2013). Focus on
Institute of Chemical Research of Catalonia (ICIQ). (2017, July 14). When life gives you
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714093808.htm
Plasticizers for Starch Films. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences,
3D Printing Media Network. (2016). Bioplastic From Orange Peels and Coffee Developed
/www. 3dprintingmedia.network/iaac-shows-off-3d-printable-bioplastic-made-
from-orange-peels/amp/
23
APPENDICES
= 0.5 H0 = M1 = M2 = M3 Ha = Atleast/Difference
1.
dfBETWEEN = k – 1 DfWITHIN = N - k DfTOTAL= 2 + 6
dfBETWEEN = 2 DfWITHIN = 6
FCRIT = 5.14
2. 1 = 2.65
G
=
∑X 3. SSTOTAL = ∑ ¿¿
N ¿ of datas
= (3.3-2.75)2 + (2.75-2.75)2 +
(1.911-2.75)2 + (3.4-2.75)2+ (2.75-
G 24.729 2.75)2+ (2.009-2.75)2+ (3.6-
2 = 2.72 =
N 9 2.75) + (3-2.75) + (2.009-2.75)2
2 2
G
3 = 2.87 =2.75 SSTOTAL = 3.31
N
24
MSBETWEEN = 0.035 MSWITHIN = 0.54 F = 0.06
7. FCRIT = 0.06
SD12 =
SD12 = 6.4
10−1
SD12 = 0.71
SD22 =
SD22 = 5.6
10−1
SD22 = 0.62
SD12 =
SD12 = 5.6
10−1
SD12 = 0.62
SD22 =
25
4.4
SD22 =
10−1
SD22 = 0.49
SD12 =
SD12 = 10.1
10−1
SD12 = 1.12
SD22 =
SD22 = 3.6
10−1
SD22 = 0.4
⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2
4.2−4.4
t=
0.71 0.62
√ 10
+
10
−0.21
¿
√0.071+ 0.062
t=¿0.56
26
Computation of the T-test for the Durability
⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2
4.8−3.7
t=
1.12 0.4
√ +
10 10
1.1
¿
√0.152
t=¿2.82
⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2
4.4−4.2
t=
0.62 0.49
√ 10
+
10
0.2
¿
√0.11
t=¿0.6
27
Documentation
1 kg of guava fruit.
28
.
29
The extract from the guava fruit peels.
Adding 60 ml of water.
30
Adding 5 ml of glycerin.
31
Adding 15 g of cornstarch.
32
Heating the solution in a pan.
33