ArticlePolymers2026
Holistic Approach for the Comparative Assessment of Chemical Structure and Functional Properties of Major Categories of Agricultural Plastics.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluates the performance of major types of conventional and bio-based plastic items commonly used in agriculture to provide comprehensive insights into their key structural and functional properties, including the chemical composition of the polymer matrix and additives, mechanical behavior, and thermal and radiometric properties. Twelve agricultural plastic (AP) items were analyzed: covering mulch films, geotextile ground cover, protection fleece and low tunnel fleece cover, fertilizer sack, fly trap, irrigation pipe, tree binding net, guide for tree, silage film and hay bales protection fabric. This selection of APs also encompasses a broad range of basic polymers, including conventional materials (mainly polyethylene and polypropylene) and bio-based formulations (primarily starch- or lignocellulose-containing blends). Mass spectrometry and infrared spectroscopy analyses were performed to assess polymer composition and additives. Mechanical properties were assessed through tensile and puncture tests; in addition, radiometric, thermogravimetric, surface wettability, water absorption and permeability tests were also performed to assess other relevant physical characteristics. The study identified significant differences among bio-based biodegradable APs and compared them with their conventional polyolefin-based counterparts. Material composition and structure were found to critically influence water interactions, shaping the balance between durability, degradation, and crop protection performance. Notably, bio-based mulch films exhibited higher water vapor permeability (0.6-1.1 × 10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.