Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37265543›Full record

Review3 Biotech2023

An insight on sources and biodegradation of bioplastics: a review.

Nag Pooja, Ishita Chakraborty, Md Hafizur Rahman, Nirmal Mazumder

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in 3 Biotech, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nag PoojaManipal, Karnataka 576104 India Department of Biophysics, Manipal School of Life Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
Ishita ChakrabortyManipal, Karnataka 576104 India Department of Biophysics, Manipal School of Life Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
Md Hafizur RahmanDepartment of Quality Control and Safety Management, Faculty of Food Sciences and Safety, Khulna Agricultural University, Khulna, Bangladesh.
Nirmal MazumderManipal, Karnataka 576104 India Department of Biophysics, Manipal School of Life Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education.ORCID 0000-0001-8068-6484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Durability and affordability are two main reasons for the widespread consumption of plastic in the world. However, the inability of these materials to undergo degradation has become a significant threat to the environment and human health To address this issue, bioplastics have emerged as a promising alternative. Bioplastics are obtained from renewable and sustainable biomass and have a lower carbon footprint and emit fewer greenhouse gases than petroleum-based plastics. The use of these bioplastics sourced from renewable biomass can also reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, which are limited in availability. This review provides an elaborate comparison of biodegradation rates of potential bioplastics in soil from various sources such as biomass, microorganisms, and monomers. These bioplastics show great potential as a replacement for conventional plastics due to their biodegradable and diverse properties.

Indexed as

BiodegradationBioplasticsCelluloseConventional plasticsStarch

Identifiers

PMID37265543
PMCPMC10230146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.