TRADITIONAL-WITH-APPENDICES-AND-PRELIMINARIES-

Utilization of Chitosan Extracted from Green Mussel Shell (Perna viridis) as the Main
Component for Fire Resistant Bubble Wrap
Renalyn T. Damalerio 1,2,3, Maxine Jean S. Arellano 1,2,3, Melrhose Jade M. Balderas 1,2,3, Andrea
Rebeca F. Cabrillas 1,2,3, Franze Charls E. Camposano 1,2,3, Japchino S. Casipit Jr.1,2,3, David T.
Franco 1,2,3, Fritzy H. Mendoza 1,2,3, Paula Irishly A. Modesto 1,2,3, Alexis Rheiy M. Mojar 1,2,3,
Jeffrey B. Ramiro 1,2,3, Mikaela A. Sabido 1,2,3, Rhea Lyn Bartolata 1,2,3,4
1
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
2
Senior High School Department
3
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina
4
Research Adviser
May 2024
UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… ii
Approval Sheet
This research entitled: “Utilization of Chitosan Extracted from Green Mussel Shell (Perna
viridis) as Main Component for Fire Resistant Bubble Wrap” prepared and submitted by
Renalyn T. Damalerio et al. of STEM 204 – Ruby, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for research has been examined and now recommended for acceptance and approval.
Rhea Lyn Bartolata
Research Instructor
Panel of Examiners
Rhea Lyn Bartolata Jun Francis Ariola
Member Member
Queenie Badillos
Chair
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for research this 2nd semester,
school year 2023-2024.
Queenie B. Badillos
Department Head, STEM
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… iii
Certificate of Originality
We hereby declare that this research is our work and that, to the best of our knowledge and belief,
it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material to which a
substantial extent has been accepted for award of any other degree or diploma of a university or
other institute, except where due acknowledgment is made in the text.
We also declare that the intellectual content of this research is the product of our work, even
though we may have received assistance from the others on style, presentation, and language
expression.
Renalyn T. Damalerio
Principal Researcher
Maxine Jean S. Arellano
Melrhose Jade M. Balderas
Andrea Rebeca F. Cabrillas
Franze Charls E. Camposano
Japchino S. Casipit Jr.
David T. Franco
Fritzy H. Mendoza
Paula Irishly A. Modesto
Alexis Rheiy M. Mojar
Jeffrey B. Ramiro
Mikaela A. Sabido

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… iv
Acknowledgment
To everyone who help and support us to finish this research study, we would like to thank you. We
also acknowledge the following individuals whose contributions made this work possible to
complete:
Our research instructor, Ms. Rhea Lyn Bartolata, whose counsel, and assistance are
much valued;
Ms. Meleah Belchez, for validating the instrument that we used for the gathering of
data and for the suggestions to improve our research study;
Ms. Faith Deiezo, for also validating our research paper;
Mr. John Palma, for validating and helping us understand our gathered data
We can’t forget to express our gratitude to our family, whose unwavering love, courage, and
conviction never fail to motivate us.
Lastly, we are grateful to God Almighty for providing us with the knowledge, insight, and
understanding necessary to complete this study. We firmly feel that this research project would not
be possible at all without Him.
The Researchers

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… v
Dedication
First, we would like to dedicate this study to our Almighty God, who gave us strength and wisdom
in our daily existence.
To our loving parents, who have shown us such kindness and generosity in both material and
moral support, we hope that we have made you proud.
We are incredibly grateful to Ms. Rhea Lyn Bartolata, our research instructor, for her firm
patience, encouragement, and supply of inspiration and knowledge.
We are grateful to the panelists for providing us with the opportunity to carry out this study and for
their recommendations which helped to ensure the success of our research.
To our friends, thank you for your inspiration, love, and assistance.

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… vi
Table of Contents
Title Page i
Approval Sheet ii
Certificate of Originality iii
Acknowledgment iv
Dedication v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of Appendices x
Abstract 1
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Literature Review 4
2.1 Conceptual Framework 4
2.2 Variable Discussion 4
2.3 Definition of Terms 5
2.4 Statement of the Problem 6
2.5 Hypothesis 7
3.0 Research Methodology 9
3.1 Research Design 9
3.2 Research Instrument 9
3.3 Materials and Equipment 10
3.4 Methods of Experiment 11

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… vii
3.5 Statistical Treatment of Data 12
4.0 Presentation of Findings 14
5.0 Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendations 19
Summary of Findings 19
Conclusion 20
Recommendation 21
References 22

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Heat Sealability 14
Table 2: Tensile Strength 15
Table 3: Impact Resistance (Drop Test) 15
Table 4: Fire Resistance 16
Table 5: pH Level 16
Table 6: Biodegradability 17
Table 7: Solubility 18

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: IV-DV Model 4

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… x
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Certificate of Validation for Content Validator 23
Appendix B: Certificate of Validation for Grammarian 24
Appendix C: Certificate of Validation for Statistician 25
Appendix D: Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study 26
Appendix E: Research Instrument 27
Appendix F: Certification from Turnitin 45
Appendix G: Blueprint of the Product 46
Appendix H: Researcher Budget 47
Appendix I: Researcher’s Profile 49

UTILIZATION OF CHITOSAN EXTRACTED FROM… 1
ABSTRACT
Focusing on the protection of electronic devices, this research explores the use of
chitosan, made from green mussel shells, as a key ingredient in creating a fire-resistant
bubble film. The performance of the bubble wrap material was tested in an extensive
number of experiments that included biodegradability, solubility, fire resistance, impact
resistance, tensile strength, and heat sealability. The findings reported perfect solubility and
biodegradability, pointing out the potential to reduce environmental worries related to
conventional packaging materials. On the other hand, regarding the fire resistance tests,
satisfactory results were produced that demonstrated enhanced product safety. Though only
minor damages were detected during the drop test, depending on the formulation of the
bubble wrap, the test pointed towards such directions as development and more specialized
research. Despite these advantages, there are still some shortcomings in terms of heat
sealability and tensile strength, which point to potential directions for further study and
development. Considering all that has been said, this study lays the foundation for the
creation of safe and sustainable packaging solutions for a variety of industries, but
especially for electronics.
Keywords: Electronic Devices, Sustainable Packaging, Fire Resistant, Bubble Wrap

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The over usage of conventional plastics is one of the main issues facing modern society. Because it
is composed of non-biodegradable plastic, traditional bubble wrap contributes to microplastic
contamination and landfill debris. This study investigates the possibility of producing fire-resistant
bubble wrap utilizing green mussel shells and potato starch as waste materials. Bioplastics, which
are derived from starch-based materials like potato starch, show great potential as a substitute for
conventional plastics. These materials provide viable, eco-friendly substitutes for conventional
plastics that may lessen their negative effects on the environment and encourage the development
of a circular economy.
But in line with Mensah et al. (2022), the use of environmentally friendly materials like bio-
sourced plastics is increasing due to growing awareness of the environmental issues synthetic
plastics bring. Regrettably, the limited fire resistance of polymers originating from biomass limits
their application. Adding a flame retardant is an effective way to improve these polymers' fire
resistance. Nonetheless, the mechanical properties of the plastic shouldn't be impacted by the flame
retardant.
This research is centered on determining how effective it is to use green mussel shells,
especially chitosan as an essential ingredient in bubble wrap that can withstand fire. Also, the
primary focus of this study is to improve fire resistance, specifically tackling the difficulties
associated with the transportation of electronic equipment. Due to capacitors' low heat tolerance,
online purchases of electrical devices sometimes require exposure to high temperatures during
delivery, raising the possibility of possible explosions. By adding chitosan, our bioplastic bubble
wrap attempts to limit and control any possible fire from spreading outside the package.

Preserving ecosystems and preventing hazardous waste from spreading over the globe are two
of the study's objectives. Because conventional bubble wrap releases halogenated elements like
bromine and chlorine. Moreover, bubble wrap can be employed to package shipments of technology
due to its fire resistance. This is because the technology that is being provided could be heated given
the present global heat wave. This will guarantee that there are no technical problems for those who
ship.
This study is conducted to benefit the following:
Online Sellers. Enhance the safety of their shipments, ensuring that their products reach customers
intact and undamaged, thus minimizing the risk of returns or negative reviews due to shipping related
incidents.
Online Buyers. The product gives additional protection against risks of fire during shipping, giving
online shoppers of electronic devices peace of mind and guaranteeing the safe arrival of their
valuable purchases.
Students. Students can deepen their understanding of eco-friendly alternatives to traditional
packaging materials and gain awareness of the importance of waste reduction in mitigating the
environmental impact of plastics.
Teachers. By exploring the process of extracting chitosan from green mussel shells and its
utilization in fire-resistant bubble wrap, teachers can illustrate the integration of chemistry, biology,
and environmental studies in addressing contemporary issues.
Future Researchers. This study is a valuable reference for future researchers interested in
sustainable packaging materials and fire safety applications.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Extracted chitosan from
Bubble wrap
green mussel shells
Figure 1. IV-DV Model
In figure 1, the extracted chitosan from green mussel shells is the independent variable (IV)
and the bubble wrap is the dependent variable (DV). In this study, the utilization of the extracted
chitosan from the green mussel shells as additives will be used to produce a fire-resistant bubble
wrap. The arrow that represents the relationship between the two variables shows that the bubble
wrap (fire-resistant bubble wrap) will be the final product in the utilization of extracted chitosan
from green mussel shell.
2.2 Variable Discussion
2.2.1 Chitin/Chitosan
Mollusks like green mussel shells, snails, and oysters contain chitin, a complex polymer that acts
as a structural element. N-acetylglucosamine molecules make up the long-chain polymer. Chitin has
fire-resistant qualities because of its strong molecular structure and high nitrogen concentration.

This makes it appropriate for uses where fire safety is needed, including in construction materials or
protective clothes.
2.2.2 Bubble wrap
Traditional plastic bubble wrap has several disadvantages, such as environmental
contamination, flammability, and non-biodegradability. Researchers are looking into the practicality
of starch-based polymers, including potato starch, for creating biodegradable and fire-resistant
packaging, as discussed by Bwausaheb (2023) and Sunwane et al. (2021). The research on these
topics demonstrates how important it is to employ sustainable packaging techniques to address
environmental difficulties associated with the usage of traditional bubble wrap and to promote
creative, eco-friendly solutions.
2.3 Definition of Terms
Polymer (n.). A high molecular weight substance that is produced by condensation of many
smaller molecules when water, alcohol, or similar substances are removed, as in the case of nylon,
or by the addition of many smaller molecules, as in the case of polyethylene.
Glucose (n.). A kind of sugar present in plants, particularly fruit, that provides a significant
portion of the energy required by mammals.
Mussels (n.). A tiny marine animal having a firmly closed black shell made of two sections. You
can consume mussels.
Starch (n.). A white material found in high concentrations in potatoes and certain grains, such
rice.

Amylopectin (n.). A high molecular weight, branching structure starch component that does not
gel in aqueous solutions.
Amylose (n.). Compared to amylopectin, it is soluble in water and produces a vivid blue color
when combined with iodine.
Fire Resistance (n.). Is the property of materials or their assemblies that prevents or retards the
passage of excessive heat, hot gasses, or flames under conditions of use.
Bioplastic (n.). Bioplastics are a type of plastic that can be made from natural resources such as
vegetable oils and starches.
Halogen (n.). Any of the elements like astatine, iodine, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and chlorine.
They easily produce negative ions and are all monovalent.
2.4 Statement of the Problem
The main objective of this study is to address current environmental issues associated with
traditional plastic-based packaging, including bubble wrap, which is commonly used in the
manufacturing sector. The use of green mussel shells and Solanum tuberosum starch (potato
starch) as main ingredients in the production of fire-resistant bubble wrap is the main topic
of this study.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of performance of potato starch bubble wrap in the following categories:
1.1 Heat sealability
1.2 Tensile strength
1.3 Impact resistance
1.4 Fire resistance
2. How much can the following factors affect the effectiveness of potato starch bubble wrap?
2.1 Biodegradability
2.2 Solubility
3. Which of the following is the most effective formulation of potato starch-based materials
to produce bubble wrap?
a. 22.5 grams of potato starch, 300 ml of water, 4.5 ml of glycerin, 3 mg of citric
acid, 20 grams of chitosan
b. 22.5 grams of potato starch, 300 ml of water, 4.5 ml of glycerin, 3 mg of citric
c. 22.5 grams of potato starch, 300 ml of water, 4.5 ml of glycerin, 3 mg of citric
2.5 Hypothesis
(Null Hypothesis)
There is no significant difference in the strength of seals produced at different temperatures
and durations of heat sealing. Increasing the level of chitosan additives does not result in a change

in tensile strength. Regardless of the surface type and drop height, the damage incurred by the
bubble wrap remains consistent. The different levels of chitosan used in the formulations have no
observable effects on fire resistance. There is no noticeable change in weight observed for the
material exposed to soil and water for different durations, suggesting that it is not biodegradable.
Exposure of the bubble wrap to water for varying durations does not result in any changes in its
solubility.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The researchers employed a quantitative experimental research design approach in the study due to
its structured approach to formulating and testing the product, which involves utilizing chitosan
extracted from green mussel shells as the primary component for fire-resistant bubble wrap. By
systematically formulating the bubble wrap with chitosan, we aim to investigate its effectiveness in
enhancing fire resistance compared to conventional bubble wrap materials. Through controlled
testing methodologies and data analysis, we seek to validate the hypothesis that incorporating
chitosan derived from green mussel shells can indeed improve the fire-resistant properties of bubble
wrap, thus contributing to advancements in packaging materials with enhanced safety features.
3.2 Research Instrument
To gather information for the research study, the researchers used tables as our record sheet and
utilized the checklist with verbal interpretation. The checklist will determine if it accomplishes the
given tests. The method of gathering the data would be experimental to test the product. The research
instrument will be divided into 3 different formulas: 20 grams, 30 grams, and 40 grams of chitosan.
There will be 3 different trials to test the six different tests according to the statement of the problem.
Lastly, after testing, using the pass and fail checklist with the verbal interpretation, we will determine
the best-suited formula for the product.
Through expert consultation, the researchers verified the validity of the research instrument, the
obtained data, and the testing to ensure it was accurate and factual. The data was carefully organized,
and the researchers arrived at their conclusions through brainstorming and researching different

related literature and studies that helped in developing the instrument. Additionally, maintaining
accuracy with minimal errors and enhancing the finished work's credibility and dependability were
the goals.
3.3 Materials and Equipment
Materials
- 2 ½ kg Green Mussel Shell
- 420 grams of Chitosan
- 1.5 kg Potato Starch
- 2 kg Glycerin
- 500 grams Sodium Hydroxide
- 1 kg Citric Acid
- 885 ml of hydrochloric acid
Equipment
- 20 pairs of plastic gloves - 24 recycle bottles
- Blender - Scissor
- 100 pcs. of latex gloves - Propane gas stove
- 2 boxes of surgical facemask - Food processor
- 1 roll of aluminum foil - 2 hair straighteners
- 2 rolls of baking paper - Weighing scale
- 5 pcs of safety glasses - 2 mortar and pestle
- 2 glass beakers - Whisk
- 2 strainers - Pot
- 2 trays - Tupperware
- 2 silicon tray/mold - 1 PPE suit

3.4 Methods of Experiment
Researchers assessed the capabilities of fire-resistant bubble wrap using different formulations,
which consist of potato starch, water, glycerin, citric acid, and chitosan. The researchers conducted
heat sealability testing, which was tabulated in Table 1, classifying the material into low, acceptable,
and high sealing strengths. The tensile strength of the bubble wrap was tested on table 2, with the
ultimate tensile strength in Megapascal (MPa). The material was classified as "bending resistant"
for a tensile strength of 15 MPa or "flexible plastic" for a tensile strength below 14 MPa. Drop tests
on Table 3 revealed the material's impact resistance, providing insights into its durability and
defensive potential in real-life applications. The procedure involves dropping the bubble wrap from
three different heights onto different surfaces, such as concrete, marble, or tiles, in successive trials.
The study assessed the fire-resistant properties of bubble wrap in Table 4, analyzing key outcomes
like combustion duration, surface area burned, holes, and flame dripping. The researchers used UL
94 ratings and systematic data collection to determine if bubble wrap could prevent fires and inform
fire safety applications. The study also included a list of pH levels in Table 5, with high
biodegradability indicating pH levels of seven or eight and pH levels below 3 or over 10 indicating
extremely acidic conditions. The experimenters determined whether bubble wrap could be
hazardous to the environment and if it could be used for applications where biodegradability is a
critical factor by systematically recording pH values and translating them as per the legend.
The researchers evaluated the degradation of bubble wrap in land and water conditions using Table
6, which showed weight loss over time. The study aimed to determine the material's environmental
implications, potential uses in waste management, and biodegradable packaging applications.
Solubility was determined by comparing the initial and ultimate weights of the substance, as shown
in Table 7. Solubility percentages ranged from 10% to 15%, indicating soluble compounds and
insoluble ones. This method helps determine if compounds are soluble in water or not.

3.5 Statistical Treatment of Data
The information that the researchers collected is statistically assessed in addition to the data
instrument and data required for the study. The project's data examination employed the following
statistical tools:
1. Mean
The average outcome of the product's tests for tensile strength, solubility, and fire resistance is
represented by the mean. This gives the researchers information regarding the performance or
reliability of the fire-resistant bubble wrap.
The statistical tool formula is:
Where:
x̄ - Mean of the data
X - Sum of all data collected
N - Number of data collected
2. Mode
For the impact resistance test result, it’ll be represented by mode. Looking for which damage type
appears most for each formulation and listing it down to know the performance of the product during
drop test.
3. T-test
For biodegradability and solubility, it’ll be represented by t-test. This test will determine if there’s a
significant difference between the mean of the two testing.

The statistical tool formula is:
Where:
= T-test
= Mean
= Theoretical value
= Standard deviation
= Variable set size

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
The data acquired from the various tests we ran are presented in this chapter. The said data were
arranged in a graph and tabular format in response to the questions raised in the statement of
the problem.
TABLE 1
Heat Sealability
Table 1 shows the results of heat sealability testing of the three formulations. Low seal strength was
observed for Formulation 1 for sealing time of 10, 8, and 8 seconds at temperatures of 130°C, 140°C,
and 150°C, respectively. At 130°C, 140°C, and 160°C, Formulation 2 also demonstrated low seal
strength after sealing for 9, 8, and 6 seconds. Similar results were obtained with Formulation 3 when
sealing times of 9, 8, and 6 seconds were applied at 130°C, 140°C, and 160°C.

TABLE 2
Tensile Strength
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Fomula 1 Fomula 2 Fomula 3
Table 2 shows the mean tensile strength values for formulations 1, 2, and 3. The line graph
indicates that out of the three formulations, Formulation 1 has the lowest mean tensile strength
value at 0.0583 Mpa, while both Formulations 2 and 3 have 0.0642 Mpa.
TABLE 3
Impact Resistance (Drop Test)
Formulation Surface Type Damage Type
1 Concrete and Marble Scratch, Dent, Abrasion,

Corner crushing

Edge Crushing
Tale 3 shows the results of impact resistance. Formulation 1 with a surface type of concrete and
marble, the damage types are scratch, dent, abrasion, and edge crushing. With the same surface type,

Formula 2 damage types are scratch, dent, abrasion, corner crushing and Formula 3 have scratch,
dent, and abrasion.
TABLE 4
Fire Resistance
4
Frequency
3
2
1
0
UL 94-5VA UL 94-5VB UL 94 V-0 UL 94 V-1 UL 94-HB
UL 94 RATING
Formulation 1 Formulation 2 Formulation 3
Table 4 shows the results of the fire resistance of the three formulations. Formulation 1 exhibits a
frequency of 3 for both UL 94-5VB and UL 94 HB ratings. The frequencies for UL 94-5VA, UL
94-VB, and UL 94 HB in Formulation 2 are 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Similar outcomes to
Formulation 2 are shown by Formulation 3. All formulations fail the vertical test, as there are no
ratings for UL 94 V-0 and UL 94 V-1.
TABLE 5

Table 5 shows the pH values of Formulations 1, 2, and 3. The bar graph demonstrates that
Formulation 1 has a mean pH of 5.66666 indicating a weakly acidic nature. Both Formulations 2
and 3 exhibit similar mean pH values of 5.33333, which highlights their weak acidic properties.
TABLE 6
Biodegradability
Table 6 illustrates that each formulation exhibits a distinct mean: Formulation 1 at 75.34%,
Formulation 2 at 68.08%, and Formulation 3 at 65.70%. Notably, Formulation 1 yields the highest
mean.

TABLE 7
Solubility
Table 7 illustrates that each formulation exhibits a distinct mean: Formulation 1 at 71.05%,
Formulation 2 at 67.95%, and Formulation 3 at 60.21% Notably, formulation 1 yields the highest
percentage.

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
We have completed numerous tests to thoroughly evaluate how well each formulation performs.
Each one showed different seal strengths when sealed at different temperatures and durations, as
seen in our heat sealability experiments. For instance, Formulation 1 had low seal strength at 130°C
for 10 seconds and 140°C for 8 seconds, but stronger seals at 150°C for 8 seconds. Formulation 2
also had weak seals at 130°C for 9 seconds and 140°C for 8 seconds, but better ones at 160°C for 6
seconds. Formulation 3 had similar results with weak seals at 130°C for 9 seconds and 140°C for 8
seconds, but stronger ones at 160°C for 6 seconds. All three formulations underwent surface,
vertical, and horizontal burn tests for fire resistance. While they passed the horizontal and surface
tests, they all failed the vertical test. The horizontal test resulted in UL 94 H-B, and the surface test
resulted in UL 94-5VB. For tensile strength, Formulation 1 ranged from 0.04165 MPa to 0.09147
MPa, interpreted as "flexible plastic." Formulation 2 ranged similarly, while Formulation 3 ranged
from 0.05063 MPa to 0.09147 MPa, also characterized as "flexible plastic."
In terms of impact resistance, drop tests revealed that each formulation sustained different levels of
damage at varying heights and surface types. Formulation 1 is susceptible to getting scratched,
dented, abraded, and crushed at the corners. Formulation 2 experiences edge crushing, scratches,
dents, and abrasions, whereas Formulation 3 mostly suffers from scratches, dents, and maybe some
abrasions. Regarding biodegradability, all formulations showed good biodegradability with weight
loss on land. Furthermore, all calculated t-values: Formulation 1 at 5.57, Formulation 2 at 6.38, and
Formulation 3 at 6.18, surpass the critical t-value of 4.303, indicating compelling evidence to reject
the null hypothesis stating that there is no noticeable change in weight observed for the material

exposed to soil for different durations, suggesting that it is not biodegradable . Formulation 1
displayed a pH level of 5.66666, suggesting mild acidity, whereas Formulations 2 and 3 exhibited a
pH of 5.33333, also indicating mild acidity. In terms of solubility, Formulation 1 demonstrated
46.90% solubility in water after two days, which rose to 66.44% by the third day and peaked at
99.82% by the fifth day. Formulation 2 demonstrated 42.41% solubility after two days, increasing
to 64.53% on day three and further to 96.91% on day five. Similarly, Formulation 3 showed
increasing water solubility, reaching 37% after two days, 51.97% after three days, and 91.66% after
five days. All calculated t-values: Formulation 1 at 4.31, Formulation 2 at 4.14, and Formulation 3
at 4.94, surpass the critical t-value of 4.303, indicating compelling evidence to reject the null
hypothesis which states that exposure of the bubble wrap to water for varying durations resulted to
no changes in its solubility.
Conclusion
The test results, as shown above, indicate that the material has excellent organic breakdown and
biodegradability, so it makes a viable choice for environmentally friendly packaging solutions. It is
not heat-sealable; thus, other sealing techniques are to be utilized, such as gluing. Such could affect
product design and production processes.
Moreover, the material reflects exceptional resistance to fire (except vertically), which means it
would be very suitable for applications requiring fire safety measures, such as electronic gadgets.
Its acceptable tensile strength and impact resistance give longevity and adaptability to a variety of
real-world applications. All things considered; the material has positive properties. However, its
limited heat sealability means the thought of using other sealing methods is necessary, even though
it may be used to produce packaging that is both fire-safe and environmentally friendly.

Recommendation
After the study the researchers recommend the following:
1. Future researchers should be more thorough and careful on getting the right concentration for
making the bioplastic to strengthen its tensile strength and to research more for some substance that
will improve the product transparency.
2. Online sellers should always consider the weight of the product. The product must not be super
heavy to prevent the destruction of bubble wrap during shipping.
3. Online buyers should be responsible when it comes to disposing the bubble wrap. Once used it is
suggested to bury it under ground or soak in water for faster decomposing.
4. Teachers should promote the usage of alternative packaging materials and why is it important to
consider environment when designing products.
5. Students should continue researching and making products that will not just be useful to the public
but also economically friendly.

REFERENCES
Mensah, R. A., Shanmugam, V., Narayanan, S., Renner, J. S., Babu, K., Neisiany, R. E., Försth, M.,
Sas, G., & Das, O. (2022). A review of sustainable and environment-friendly flame
retardants used in plastics. Polymer Testing, 108(107511),107511.
Retrieved: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesti ng.2022.107511
Sonawane, P. (2021). Potato Starch Based Bioplastic As Alternative Packaging
Materials.
Retrieved:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3902389

Appendices
APPENDIX A
Certificate of Validation for Content Validator

APPENDIX B
Certificate of Validation for Grammarian

APPENDIX C
Certificate of Validation for Statistician

APPENDIX D
Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study

APPENDIX E
Research Instrument
The researchers utilized tables as their research instrument and primary method of data gathering.
These tables were utilized to assess various performance aspects of fire-resistant bubble wrap,
including its heat-sealability, tensile strength, impact resistance, fire resistance, biodegradability,
and solubility. By using tables, the researchers aimed to accumulate enough data for them to conduct
a thorough analysis and conclusions by the end of the study.
Formula 1:
a. 67 grams of Potato Starch, 900 ml of water, 13.5 ml of Glycerin, 9 mg of Citric Acid, 20
grams of Chitosan
Table 1.
Factors
Verbal
Sealing
Trials Sealing Time Interpretation
Temperature
1.1 Heat 1
Sealability
2
Legend:
1. Low Seal Strength: Below 2 to 3 seconds at a temperature of 130 degrees to 140
degrees.
2. Acceptable Seal Strength: Meets the sealing time of 2 to 3 seconds at temperature of 130
degrees to 140 degrees.
3. High Seal Strength: Significantly exceeds the sealing time of 2 to 3 seconds at
temperature of 130 degrees to 140 degrees.

Table 2.
Trials Ultimate Tensile Verbal
Strength (MPa) Interpretation
1.2 Tensile Strength
Legend:
1. Bending Resistant – 15 MegaPascal and up
2. Flexible Plastic – 14 MegaPascal and down

Table 3.
Trials Surface Type Height Damage
1m
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
1 1m
Marble or Tiles 1.5 m
1.3 Impact 2m
Resistance (Drop
1m
Test)
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
2 1m
2m
1m
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
3 1m
2m

Table 3.
Burned Flaming
Time (Burn Verbal
Surface Hole Present Drops
Stops) Interpretation
1.4 Fire Area Present
Resistance TRIAL Seconds Inches Yes No Yes No
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Legend:
1. UL 94-5VA Surface Burn; Burning stops within 60 seconds, test specimens MAY NOT
have a burn-through (no hole). This is the highest (most flame retardant) UL94 rating.
2. UL 94-5VB Surface Burn; Burning stop within 60 seconds, test specimens MAY HAVE a
burn-through (A hole may be present).
3. UL 94 V-0 Vertical Burn; Burning stops within 10 seconds, NO flaming drips are
allowed.
allowed.
5. UL 94 V-2 Vertical Burn; Burning stops within 60 seconds, flaming drips ARE allowed.
6. UL 94 H-B Horizontal Burn; Slow horizontal burn test (H-B) is considered "self-
extinguishing". The lowest (least flame retardant) UL94 rating.

Table 5.
TRIALS pH Value VERBAL INTERPRETATION
pH Level
2
Legend:
1. Good pH number biodegradability: Usually 7 or 8 (neutral to slightly alkaline).
2. Not a good pH number biodegradability: Either below 3 and above 10 (highly acidic or
highly alkaline).

Table 6.
Biodegradability (Land)
TIME INITIAL FINAL WEIGHT VERBAL

DURATION WEIGHT WEIGHT LOSS INTERPRETATION
Weight
Loss
Legend:
1. Good weight loss biodegradability: Exhibiting a weight loss within the range of 15.1% to
99.7%.
2. Not a good weight loss biodegradability: Falls precisely at 15.0%.
Table 7.
Time Initial Weight (g) Final Weight (g) Water Solubility in
B. Solubility Duration %
Legend:
1. Good solubility – 10-15%
2. Bad solubility – Higher than 15%

Formula 2:
b. 67 grams of Potato Starch, 900 ml of water, 13.5 ml of Glycerin, 9 mg of Citric Acid, 30
grams of Chitosan
Table 1.
Factors Verbal
Trials Sealing Time Sealing Interpretation
Temperature
1.2 Heat 1
Sealability
2
Legend:
degrees.

Table 2.
Ultimate Tensile Verbal
Trials
1
Legend:
1. Bending Resistant – 15 MPa and up
2. Flexible Plastic – 14 MPa and down

Table 3.
1m
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
1 1m
1.3 Impact 2m
Resistance (Drop
1m
Test)
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
2 1m
2m
1m
Concrete 1.5 m
2m
3 1m
2m

Table 3.
Time (Burn Burned Flaming Verbal
Stops) Surface Hole Present Drops Interpretation
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Legend:
allowed.
allowed.

Table 3.
pH Level
2
Legend:
highly alkaline).

Table 3.

Weight
Loss
Legend:
99.7%.
Table 7.
Legend:

Formula 3:
c. 67 grams of Potato Starch, 900 ml of water, 13.5 ml of Glycerin, 9 mg of Citric Acid, 40
grams of Chitosan
Table 1.
Factors Verbal
Trials Sealing Time Sealing Interpretation
Temperature
1.3 Heat 1
Sealability
2
Legend:
degrees.

Table 2.
Trials Ultimate Tensile Verbal
1
Legend:
1. Bending Resistant – 15 MPa and up
2. Flexible Plastic – 14 MPa and down

Table 3.
1m
Concrete
1.5 m
1
2m
1m
Marble or Tiles
1.5 m
2m
1.3 Impact
Resistance (Drop 1m
Test) Concrete
1.5 m
2
2m
1m
Marble or Tiles
1.5 m
2m
1m
3 Concrete
1.5 m
2m
1m
Marble or Tiles
1.5 m
2m

Table 3.
Time (Burn Burned Flaming Verbal
Stops) Surface Hole Present Drops Interpretation
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Legend:
allowed.
allowed.

Table 3.
pH Level
2
Legend:
highly alkaline).

Table 3.

Weight
Loss
Legend:
99.7%.
Table 7.
Legend:

APPENDIX F
Certification from Turnitin

APPENDIX G
Blueprint of the Product

APPENDIX H
Research Budget
PROJECT TITLE: Utilization of Chitosan Extracted from Green Mussel Shell (Perna viridis) as the
Main Component for Fire Resistant Bubble Wrap
PROJECT LEADER: Renalyn T. Damalerio
INSTITUTION: Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina
DESCRIPTION OF QTY COST TOTAL JUSTIFICATION (eg., rental

THE ITEM PER COST of welding machine to assemble
ITEM parts of the product)
100.00
for 1 kg
Green Mussels 2 and 270.00 For the extraction of chitosan
1/2kg 70.00
for ½ kg
Potato Starch 1.5kg 87.00 261.00 For creating bioplastic

for 500g
Glycerin 2kg 163.00 326.00 For creating bioplastic

for 1 kg
MATERIALS Sodium Hydroxide 500 87.00 87.00 For the extraction of chitosan
ml
Citric Acid 1kg 105.00 105.00 For creating bioplastic
Hydrocholric Acid 1 270.00 270.00 For the extraction of chitosan
120 60.00
pcs for 10 For safety measures (handling
Gloves pcs. and 230.00 chemicals)
110.00
for 100
pcs.
Blender 1 555.00 555.00 For the extraction of chitosan
Goggles 5 21.00 105.00 For safety measures (handling

chemicals)
2 29.00 For safety measures (handling

Facemask Boxe per box 58.00 chemicals)
-s
Aluminum Foil 1 20.00 20.00 For creating bioplastic
Baking Paper 1 100.00 100.00 For creating bioplastic
Gelatin 1 30.00 30.00 For creating bioplastic

Silicone Molde 1 200.00 200.00 For creating bioplastic
DESCRIPTION OF QTY COST TOTAL JUSTIFICATION

THE ITEM PER COST
ITEM
Other Project
Expenses Tranportation 1 50.00 50.00 Buying the necessary materials
(eg., shipping costs and equipment
of material, supply,
photocopying, Compensation (Blender) 1 90.00 90.00 Compensation for the blender
printing, etc.) that we broke while pulverizing
Jounal Print 1 13.00 13.00 For the requirements
Print 1 126.00 126.00 For the research paper
Print 1 20.00 20.00 For the research paper
TOTAL EXPENSES: 2,916.00

APPENDIX I
Researcher’s Profile
RENALYN TABEGUE DAMALERIO
Barangay San Luis, Antipolo City, Rizal
Cell Number: 09622610175
e-mail address: damaleriorenalyn5@gmail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
BIRTHDAY: August 03,2005
BIRTHPLACE: Lajog, Bohol
AGE: 18
NATIONALITY: Filipino
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
CIVIL STATUS: Single
FATHER’S NAME: Raul T. Damalerio
MOTHER’S NAME: Ramonita T. Damalerio
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
SENIOR HIGH: PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA
San Roque, Marikina City
2022-2024
SECONDARY: BAGONG NAYON II NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
San Isidro, Antipolo City
2018-2022
PRIMARY: BAGONG NAYON IV ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2012-2018

MAXINE JEAN SANTOS ARELLANO
596 Shoe Ave. Conception Uno, Marikina City
e-mail address: arellanomax2146@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: Febuary 14, 2006
BIRTHPLACE: Quezon City
AGE: 18
FATHER'S NAME: Markleen B. Arellano
MOTHER' NAME: Jennifer D. Santos
2022-2024
SECONDARY: SAN MATEO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Guitnang Bayan 1, San Mateo, Rizal 2022
PRIMARY: JUSCTICE VICENTE SANTIAGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ampid 1, San Mateo, Rizal 2018

MELRHOSE JADE MORTEL BALDERAS
7c Triguhan Street Tañong Marikina City
e-mail address: melrhosemortel.balderas@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: December 09, 2003
BIRTHPLACE: Marikina City
AGE: 20
FATHER’S NAME: Rhonnie C. Balderas
MOTHER’S NAME: Melanie M. Balderas
2022-2024
SECONDARY: JESUS DELA PEÑA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Jesus Dela Peña, Marikina City
2016-2022
PRIMARY: LEODEGARIO VICTORINO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Jesus Dela Peña, Marikina City, 2010-2016

ANDREA REBECA FRANCISCO CABRILLAS
Barangay San Isidro, Antipolo City, Rizal
e-mail address: cabiii0320@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: March 20,2006
BIRTHPLACE: Antipolo City
AGE: 18
RELIGION: N/A
FATHER’S NAME: Rodrigo S. Cabrillas
MOTHER’S NAME: Anasor F. Cabrillas
2022-2024
SECONDARY: BAGONG NAYON II NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
2018-2022
PRIMARY: BAGONG NAYON IV ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2012-2018

FRANZE CHARLS EROT CAMPOSANO
339 Bankers Village V Guitnang Bayan, San Mateo, Rizal
e-mail address: camposanofranze@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: August 06, 2006
AGE: 17
FATHER'S NAME: Ronnel B. Camposano
MOTHER' NAME: Jessa E. Camposano
2022-2024
SECONDARY: AMPID II NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
San Mateo, Rizal
2018-2022
PRIMARY: SAN MATEO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
San Mateo, Rizal, 2012-2018

JAPCHINO SENOBIO CASIPIT JR.
Riogrande St. Malanday, Marikina City
e-mail address: cjapchino@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: June 7, 2006
AGE: 17
FATHER'S NAME: Japchino F. Casipit Sr.
MOTHER' NAME: Josephine N. Senobio
2022-2024
SECONDARY: MALANDAY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Purok IV Malanday, Marikina City
2019-2022
PRIMARY: MALANDAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
48 Visayas St., Marikina City
2012-2022

DAVID JOAQUIN TUDTUD FRANCO
Jesus Dela Pena, Marikina City
e-mail address: joaquintudtud@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: October 2, 2006
BIRTHPLACE: Pangasinan
AGE: 17
FATHER'S NAME: Dennis V. Franco
MOTHER'S NAME: Flordeluz T. Franco
2022-2024
SECONDARY: TAÑONG HIGH SCHOOL
Lopez Jaena St. , Tañong, Marikina City
2022
ELEMENTARY: LEODEGARIO VICTORINO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
A. Bonifacio Ave, Marikina City
2018

FRITZY HAGUNOS MENDOZA
Silangan, San Mateo, Rizal
e-mail address: mendozafritzy@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: August 05, 2006
BIRTHPLACE: Zamboanga Del Sur
AGE: 17
FATHER'S NAME: Florante M. Mendoza
MOTHER'S NAME: Nilda H. Mendoza
2022-2024
SECONDARY: SILANGAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
2018-2022
ELEMENTARY: SILANGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2012-2018

PAULA IRISHLY ALEGARBES MODESTO
24 Kapwa St., San Roque, Marikina City
e-mail address: paulairishlymodesto08@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: April 08, 2006
BIRTHPLACE: Ajuy, Ilo-Ilo City
AGE: 18
FATHER'S NAME: Benedicto M. Modesto
MOTHER'S NAME: Rona A. Modesto
2022-2024
SECONDARY: SAN ROQUE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
2018-2021
ELEMENTARY: SAN ROQUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2017-2018

ALEXIS RHEIY MALIBIRAN MOJAR
Ma. Corazon Subd., Cupang, Antipolo City
e-mail address: alexisrheiym@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: July 17, 2006
BIRTHPLACE: Parang, Marikina City
AGE: 17
FATHER'S NAME: Albert D.C Mojar
MOTHER'S NAME: Rhea H. Malibiran
2022-2024
SECONDARY: MAYAMOT NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
2018-2021
ELEMENTARY: SSS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
2011-2018

JEFFREY BAQUIAL RAMIRO
#49 Sitaw St., Tumana, Marikina City
e-mail address: jeffreyramiro6@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: July 05, 2004
AGE: 19
FATHER'S NAME: Isidro A. Ramiro Jr.
MOTHER'S NAME: Patrocenia B. Ramiro
2022-2024
SECONDARY: CONCEPCION INTEGRATED SCHOOL
2018-2022
ELEMENTARY: CONCEPCION INTEGRATED SCHOOL
2012-2018

MIKAELA ALCOVINDAS SABIDO
Twinville Subd., Concepcion Uno, Marikina City
e-mail address: elasabido@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY: June 29, 2005
BIRTHPLACE: Masbate City
AGE: 18
FATHER'S NAME: Misaela A. Sabido
MOTHER'S NAME: Charmie A. Sabido
2022-2024
SECONDARY: MARIKINA HIGH SCHOOL
Marikina City
2018-2022
ELEMENTARY: JOSE ZURBITO SR. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
A. Bonifacio Ave, Marikina City
2010-2018


TRADITIONAL-WITH-APPENDICES-AND-PRELIMINARIES-

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRADITIONAL-WITH-APPENDICES-AND-PRELIMINARIES-

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilization of Chitosan Extracted from Green Mussel Shell (Perna viridis) as the Main

Component for Fire Resistant Bubble Wrap

Rhea Lyn Bartolata

Rhea Lyn Bartolata Jun Francis Ariola

school year 2023-2024.

Department Head, STEM

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

other institute, except where due acknowledgment is made in the text.

Maxine Jean S. Arellano

Melrhose Jade M. Balderas

Andrea Rebeca F. Cabrillas

Franze Charls E. Camposano

Japchino S. Casipit Jr.

Paula Irishly A. Modesto

Alexis Rheiy M. Mojar

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

data and for the suggestions to improve our research study;

Ms. Faith Deiezo, for also validating our research paper;

conviction never fail to motivate us.

be possible at all without Him.

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

in our daily existence.

moral support, we hope that we have made you proud.

patience, encouragement, and supply of inspiration and knowledge.

their recommendations which helped to ensure the success of our research.

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Certificate of Originality iii

List of Tables viii

2.0 Literature Review 4

2.1 Conceptual Framework 4

2.2 Variable Discussion 4

2.3 Definition of Terms 5

2.4 Statement of the Problem 6

3.0 Research Methodology 9

3.1 Research Design 9

3.2 Research Instrument 9

3.3 Materials and Equipment 10

3.4 Methods of Experiment 11

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

4.0 Presentation of Findings 14

5.0 Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendations 19

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Table 1: Heat Sealability 14

Table 2: Tensile Strength 15

Table 3: Impact Resistance (Drop Test) 15

Table 4: Fire Resistance 16

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Figure 1: IV-DV Model 4

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Appendix A: Certificate of Validation for Content Validator 23

Appendix B: Certificate of Validation for Grammarian 24

Appendix C: Certificate of Validation for Statistician 25

Appendix D: Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study 26

Appendix E: Research Instrument 27

Appendix F: Certification from Turnitin 45

Appendix G: Blueprint of the Product 46

Appendix H: Researcher Budget 47

Appendix I: Researcher’s Profile 49

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

number of experiments that included biodegradability, solubility, fire resistance, impact

biodegradability, pointing out the potential to reduce environmental worries related to

especially for electronics.

Keywords: Electronic Devices, Sustainable Packaging, Fire Resistant, Bubble Wrap

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MARIKINA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT