/ Essays / Sciences

Print

Disclaimer: This work has been submit t ed by a st udent . This is not an example of t he work produced by our Essay Writ ing Service. You can v

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendat ions expressed in t his mat erial are t hose of t he aut hors and do not necessarily reflect t he

Karl Lenin Danganan

Angelo Bassig

Jumar Damiar

Argel Largado

Jasper Lorenzo Francisco

Joshua Adrianne Oasay

Denzel Umerez

ABSTRACT

Silicon dioxide (SiO2), also known as silica, is a chemical compound t hat comes in different forms and has a variet y of uses. One form is silica ge
t o prevent molds in food product s.

Silica is t he main mat erial in our project because it has wat er-repelling propert ies and our group planned t o creat e hydrophobic bioplast ics wit h
One way is t he prot ect ion for elect ronic gadget s from wat er. Anot her met hod is t o speed up t he cleaning of food cont ainers. Wit h t he hydroph
cont ainers easier.

To t est our plast ics we produced for hydrophobic propert ies (or wet abilit y), we used a t est ing met hod known as t he drop cont act met hod. Tw
concent rat ion. A graduat ed dropper was used t o drop 1mL of wat er on each plast ic sample over a dish. The amount of wat er on t he dish shows

Our result s show t hat as t he concent rat ion of t he silicon dioxide increases, t he wat er repelled decreases.

Background of the Study:

SiO2 is a subst ance used t o produce modern plast ics. The group came up wit h an idea of making use of t he said subst ance t o produce hydroph
act ivit ies in our daily lives. Through t his, we could also expand t he capabilit y of t he silicon dioxide which may be used also in different ways.

Research Hypothesis:

If silicon dioxide is added as a mat erial in t he product ion of plast ics, t hen a more hydrophobic plast ic will be produced.

Objectives of the Study

General Object ive:

This st udy was conduct ed t o t est t he effect iveness of silicon dioxide in producing hydrophobic plast ics.

Specific Object ives:

1. Produce an inexpensive and durable hydrophobic bioplast ic mat erial.

2. Test t he hydrophobicit y of t he bioplast ic produced using t he drop cont act t est ing met hod.

Significance of the Study

The researchers chose t he t opic because of t he advant ages t hat could be given t o us people not only in our homes but on ot her fields of indus
reason why t he researchers would like t o int roduce new t echnology in t he form of hydrophobic plast ics. If t he project would be successful, hyd
inst ances, dust s on plast ics could be easily washed away by pouring wat er int o t he surface of t he plast ic. Hydrophobic plast ics could also be a
t echnologies from wat er penet rat ion. It would also bring advant ages in st oring food product s in t he refrigerat or like meat s and fishes. The prod
household mat erials.

Scope and Limitations

1. The research shall only focus in t he abilit y of plast ic t o repel wat er.
2. Ot her charact erist ics of a plast ic shall be maint ained.
3. In t he product ion of t he plast ic, silicon dioxide will be t he only addit ion t o t he regular raw mat erials of t he process.

Review of Related Literature

Repellant Plastics

GE accomplished t his by modifying a mat erial t hat ’s a mainst ay of it s plast ics business. And t hey t ook t heir inspirat ion from t he leaves of t he lo
leaves reveals t heir nanocryst alline wax st ruct ure. The lot us leaf surface has cells 5-10 micromet ers wide, on t op of which are t iny wax cryst al
like perfect spheres.

GE set out t o mimic t his pat t ern on t he surface of it s polycarbonat e mat erial, essent ially by “roughening” t he surface in a specific way. Tao Den
done wit h a “chemical t reat ment of t he surface.”GE succeeded wit h it s prot ot ype last summer, but only began discussing t he advance in recen
opaque, not t ransparent . That means it would not work for plast ic windows or clear food cont ainers. But a clear version is not far off. “That ’s co

Even get t ing t he opaque versions int o real product s will t ake some t ime. GE est imat es it will be at least five years before commercializat ion, on
t hough – about how long it t akes for all t he ket chup t o drip out of t oday’s plast ic bot t les.

Hydrophobic Glasses

BalcoNano st at ed t hat t here are t wo cat egories of what is known in t he market as “self-cleaning” glass. These t wo cat egories are: glass coat e
glass coat ed or applied wit h a hydrophobic prot ect ive coat ing.

The microscopically rough surface of glass is what makes it hard t o clean. Dirt , bact eria and ot her part icles can get deep int o t he glasses t hat

To solve t his problem, we can make t he surface of t he glass very wat er repelling or hydrophobic. Applying a hydrophobic coat ing t o t he glass g
surface creat ed by t he hydrophobic coat ing. This form of glass works in a similar way t o “Teflon” works on a frying pan. It produces a non-st ick
coat ing or applicat ions of t his t ype are silica based and creat e a nano-scale film t hat covers t he microscopic valleys and peaks on t he surface
grime from clinging ont o t he glass or fixing t o t he surface.

There are advant ages and disadvant ages of hydrophobic coat ed glass. An advant age is t hat everyt hing t hat get s put on t he glass can be easily
splash or t wo. A disadvant age is t hat coat ings may differ from manufact urer t o manufact urer, and t hat applicat ion is not easy. Fact ory applied c
ext ernal condit ions. Cost wise t he hydrophobic coat ings and applicat ions are usually about half t he cost of t he hydrophilic t ype glasses.

Many indust ries and manufact urers commonly use silica powders alone or in combinat ion wit h ot her ingredient s. The mineral has moist ure absor
const ruct ion mat erials, cosmet ics, and some foods.

Silica is one of t he most common minerals on t he planet . It is a component of sand and quart z along wit h ot her minerals. Manufact urers obt ain
Some companies make synt het ic silica, but bot h t ypes commonly st art wit h silica sand. Bot h nat ural and synt het ic silica powders are frequent l

Microscopic diat oms, which are hard-shelled skelet al remains of single celled plant s, also cont ain silicon dioxide. These remains exist in salt and
amorphous silica. They are frequent ly ground int o granules or a fine powder, somet imes called silica flour. Diat omaceous eart h silica may be use

Quart z powders or glass powders are silica sand heat ed t o ext reme t emperat ures and melt ed. Art isans and manufact urers mold and shape t he
polyvinyl chloride glue, and corrosive resist ant coat ings all cont ain silica powders. In some of t hese product s, t he silica act s as a t hickening or h

Some cleansers and det ergent s cont ain silica powders. The granulat ed mineral scrubs surfaces by means of mechanical abrasion. Silica det erge
cleaners. Abrasive act ion is also desired in some t oot hpast es, which cont ain diat omaceous eart h silica as one of t he ingredient s. When used in h
irrit at ions.

Silica cosmet ics cont ain t he silky t ranslucent powder t o absorb skin oils. The mineral is t hought t o be hypoallergenic and some believe t he subs
purchase silica powders and add t he subst ance t o lawns or soil t o increase moist ure ret ent ion. Some believe t he powdered form also det ers or
inflammat ion or possibly cancer.

Food and pharmaceut ical indust ries commonly use silica powders for t he mineral’s abilit y t o absorb up t o 50% of it s weight in moist ure. Food gr
ant i-caking agent in coffee creamers, powdered foods, and seasonings. The self-cont ained gel packs frequent ly found in medicat ions and over

Bioplastics

Bioplast ic isnot made from pet roleum, which is a non-renewable resource. Bioplast ics come fromsust ainable & renewable resources. Corn regrow
compost able. Best case scenario it ends in a commercial compost facilit y where it compost s, and is used t o feed t he soil and grow more plant

Biodegradable Bioplast ic t akes longer t o biodegrade in home compost s, where condit ions are uncont rolled and are rarely opt imal. If it does end
There are different biodegradable plast ics available, each wit h t heir own propert ies:

PLA is made from ferment ed corn st arch, and is a great alt ernat ive t o convent ional pet roleum based plast ic in many applicat ions. PLA is t ransp
bagasse or cardboard t o act as a moist ure or grease barrier. It is used t o make our bags, bowls, cupsand lids.

CPLA is a combinat ion of PLA, chalk and ot her biodegradable addit ives and can wit hst and t emperat ures of up t o 95°C wit hout deforming. It is u
disposable cut lery and coffee cup lids.

Definition of Terms

For t his research st udy, one must know and underst and t he following t erms:

Plastics are one of class of organic compounds made from hydrocarbons, prot eins, cellulose, or resins t hat can be molded, ext ruded, cast , or o
are just plast ics developed from cornst arch.

Hydrophobicity is a charact erist ic of a mat erial t o repel wat er.

Drop contact is a t est ing met hod t o det ermine t he hydrophobicit y of t he mat erial. It is done by dropping a const ant amount of wat er on a sam
wat er t he sample repels.

METHODOLOGY

Procedure

1. Preparation of materials

The researchers prepared t he various raw mat erials t hat make up t he bioplast ic: powdered silica, st arch, vinegar, glycerin and wat er. Three diffe
and C. The mat erials and t hen placed in different cont ainers, grouped as: ‘A’ for 0% concent rat ion, ‘B’ for 1% concent rat ion, ‘C’ for 2% concent ra

B. Production of the Plastic

The mat erials ment ioned above are mixed t hen heat ed unt il t he mixt ure boils and creat es a clear subst ance. Aft er heat ing, t he mixt ure is place
aside t o dry unt il it produced a durable plast ic.

For t he const ant group; t he researchers mixed 48g of cornst arch, 314ml of wat er, 8ml of vinegar, and anot her 8ml of glycerin. Thus 330 ml of m
sample. For 1% concent rat ion; 3.3 ml of t he 330 ml mixt ure is removed and replaced wit h 6.3g of powdered SiO2. The 330 ml wit h 1% concent r
plast ic sample. For 2% concent rat ion; 6.6 ml of t he 330 ml mixt ure is removed and replaced wit h 12.6g of powdered SiO2. The 330 ml wit h 2% c
each plast ic sample. For 3% concent rat ion; 9.9 ml of t he 330 ml mixt ure is removed and replaced wit h 18.9g of powdered SiO2. The 330 ml wit h
concent rat ion for each plast ic sample.

C. Testing and Data Gathering

The produced plast ic is t est ed on it s hydrophobic propert ies by comparing t he amount of wat er repelled by each of t he concent rat ions (using
each concent rat ion t hat we used are 2 cm by 2 cm. The st at ist ical t est we have select ed for t his st udy is one-way ANOVA wit h Tukey’s mult ip

D. Analysis

If t he silica-concent rat ed group shows a not ewort hy dist inct ion t o t he cont rol, we can conclude t hat SiO2 is effect ive in making hydrophobic p

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Concent rat ion of Silica Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Mean

 0.65 mL 0.60 mL 0.65 mL 0.63 mL
Control or 0%

0.75 mL 0.75 mL 0.75 mL 0.75 mL

1%

0.80 mL 0.80 mL 0.75 mL 0.78 mL

2%

0.75 mL 0.80 mL 0.80 mL 0.78 mL

3%

TABLE 1 Amount of water repelled by the produced bioplastics with different silica concentrations

Reflect ed in Table 1 t he evidence showing variabilit y in t he amount of wat er repelled by t he plast ics produced using different concent rat ions o
mL) is shared 2% and 3% concent rat ion.

FIGURE 1 Line graph showing the correlation between the values of the amount of water repelled

Then, t he researchers t est ed t he dat a obt ained using one-way ANOVA wit h Tukey’s mult iple comparisons t est t o see if t here is a significant dif
of t he t est , t here is a very significant difference (0.0002) on 0% vs 1% and ext remely significant differences on 0% vs 2% and 0% vs 3%. Howev
compared wit h each ot her. Furt hermore, t here is posit ive correlat ion (0.9012).

CONCLUSION

The purpose of t his st udy is t o det ermine t he effect of silicon dioxide (SiO2) powder t o t he product ion of hydrophobic bioplast ics. According t
bioplast ic evident ly makes it more hydrophobic. However, varying t he concent rat ion does not affect t he hydrophobicit y of t he plast ic.

RECOMMENDATION

The research group recommends adding more variat ions t o t he concent rat ions t o give a bet t er comparison of t he experiment . Adding more t ria
accurat e. Also, using Tapioca st arch is a great alt ernat ive for making t he bioplast ic. Remember t o make t he right calculat ions for t he concent ra
t hat t he comparison is accurat e.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BalcoNano™. (n.d.). Hydrophobic Glasses. Ret rieved from BalcoNano: ht t p://www.balconano.com/HydrophobicGlass.aspx

Craig Freudenrich, P. (n.d.). How Plastics Work. Ret rieved from Howst uffworks: ht t p://science.howst uffworks.com/plast ic5.ht m

Hall, M. J., & Barwick, S. (2013, April 10). What Are the Different Uses of Silica Powders? Ret rieved from wiseGEEK: ht t p://www.wisegeek.com/wh

Mempro Mat erials. (n.d.). Silicon Dioxide Nanofiber Materials. Ret rieved from Mempro: ht t p://mempro.com/product s/ceramic-nanofiber-mat eria

Rice Universit y News Release. (2010, Sept ember 1). Silicon oxide circuits break barrier. Ret rieved from Underst anding Nano: ht t p://www.underst

Talbot , D. (2006, February 23). Super-Repellent Plastic. Ret rieved from MIT Technology Review: ht t p://www.t echnologyreview.com/news/40537
st arch/

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Total Cost of the Project

 Cornstarch â±£ 120.00

Distilled water â±£ 63.00

Vinegar â±£ 26.00

Glycerin â±£ 79.00

Powered SiO 2 â±£ 15.00

Laboratory Fee â±£ 200.00

Tarpaulin printing â±£ 360.00

Total project cost: â±£ 863.00

APPENDIX B

Ordinary One-Way ANOVA

(at α = 0.05)

ANOVA t able SS DF MS F (DFn, DFd) P value

Treat ment (bet ween columns) 0.04563 3 0.01521 F (3, 8) = 24.33 P = 0.0002

Residual (wit hin columns) 0.005000 8 0.0006250    

Tot al 0.05063 11      

ANOVA summary  

F 24.33

P value 0.0002

P value summary ***

Are differences among means st at ist ically significant ? (P < 0.05) Yes

R square 0.9012

APPENDIX C

Tukey’s Multiple Comparisons

(at α = 0.05)

Tukey’s mult iple comparisons t est Mean Diff. 95% CI of diff. Significant ? Summary
 0% vs. 1% -0.1167 -0.1820 t o -0.05130 Yes **

0% vs. 2% -0.1500 -0.2154 t o -0.08463 Yes ***

0% vs. 3% -0.1500 -0.2154 t o -0.08463 Yes ***

1% vs. 2% -0.03333 -0.09870 t o 0.03203 No Ns

1% vs. 3% -0.03333 -0.09870 t o 0.03203 No Ns

2% vs. 3% 0.0 -0.06537 t o 0.06537 No Ns

[Sir Jay1]revise

/ Essays / Sciences