↓ Skip to main content

Response Surface Methodology for the Optimization of Preparation of Biocomposites Based on Poly(lactic acid) and Durian Peel Cellulose

Overview of attention for article published in The Scientific World Journal, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Response Surface Methodology for the Optimization of Preparation of Biocomposites Based on Poly(lactic acid) and Durian Peel Cellulose
Published in
The Scientific World Journal, June 2015
DOI 10.1155/2015/293609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patpen Penjumras, Russly Abdul Rahman, Rosnita A. Talib, Khalina Abdan

Abstract

Response surface methodology was used to optimize preparation of biocomposites based on poly(lactic acid) and durian peel cellulose. The effects of cellulose loading, mixing temperature, and mixing time on tensile strength and impact strength were investigated. A central composite design was employed to determine the optimum preparation condition of the biocomposites to obtain the highest tensile strength and impact strength. A second-order polynomial model was developed for predicting the tensile strength and impact strength based on the composite design. It was found that composites were best fit by a quadratic regression model with high coefficient of determination (R (2)) value. The selected optimum condition was 35 wt.% cellulose loading at 165°C and 15 min of mixing, leading to a desirability of 94.6%. Under the optimum condition, the tensile strength and impact strength of the biocomposites were 46.207 MPa and 2.931 kJ/m(2), respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Lecturer 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 27 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Chemical Engineering 10 9%
Materials Science 8 7%
Chemistry 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 40 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The Scientific World Journal
#1,500
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,537
of 278,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Scientific World Journal
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.