Introduction

Plastics are vital assets of humanity making it one of the hardest materials to be

replaced. Since then, plastics have already played a huge role in life, even in commercial

and industrial production. Due to the excessive use of non-biodegradable plastics, its

accumulation has been one of the major problems the world is experiencing but still

remains unsolved in several countries. It affects mostly the marine and terrestrial life

because people tend to throw it anywhere than disposing it on the proper area.

In 2016, a global pollution of more than 1 billion people produced over 320

million tons of plastic. This is set to double by 2034. There may now be around 5-25

trillion macro and micro plastic pieces floating in the open ocean weighing up to

269,000 tons.

Plastic is an everyday necessity in the Philippines causing it to become the

world’s largest source of plastic leaking into the ocean and has among the highest trash

collection rates in Southeast Asia (Porcalla, 2018).

Lately, due to the cause of plastic pollution, bioplastics appeared on the market

that can replace petroleum-based plastics and are completely safe and does not have

any harmful chemicals or toxins. Bioplastics are substance made from organic biomass

source that are made by a number of different processes. Some use micro-organisms to

process base materials, such as vegetable oils, cellulose, starches, acids and even

alcohol (Rouse, 2014).

1
 Several studies to produce bioplastic had been made for the recent years. These

include the bio plastic from banana peels and potato.

Bioplastic from banana peels can be used as packaging or as bag. Sodium

metabisulphite prevent growth of microorganism such as bacteria. Glycerol is added to

increase its flexibility. The degradation of bioplastic starts after 3 to 4 months from the

date of production. The bioplastic produced through this method could be substantial

and the biodegradable tractability is one of the main challenges in developing bioplastic

material. (Ghamande et al., 2018)

A new bioplastic was produced from rice straw, an agricultural waste that

generally is not recovered. For the synthesis the sample was treated by using the

Naviglio extractor, then it was dissolved by trifluoroacetic acid. The material

exhibits good mechanical properties, with tensile strength and elongation at break equal

to 45 MPa and 61% and 10 MPa and 63% for dried and wet dumbbells, respectively. It

results that the mechanical properties of the produced bioplastic, in its dry state, are

comparable to those of polystyrene, while cast bioplastic in wet state is similar to

plasticized polyvinyl chloride. This demonstrates the high mechanical performance of

the newly obtained bioplastic both in dry and wet status. The morphology of bio-based

material, investigated by scanning electron microscopy, showed a uniform and compact

surface structure. 2D X-ray Diffraction analysis reveals that bioplastic is essentially

amorphous. Mass loss test noted that it is completely decomposed after being

embedded in soil for 105 days. Industrial and environmental advantages of the newly

2
obtained biomaterial are evaluated in terms of embodied energy and

CO2 footprint production and in comparison with thermoplastic starch and other

plastics. Finally, shape memory test revealed promising dual shape effects of the

biomaterial, with a partial but significant shape recovery. In summary, depending on the

environmental humidity, the material shows a dual mechanical behavior that can be

exploited to obtain shrink films and sheet or to drive shape memory effect. Therefore,

we suggest rice straw bioplastic as a new potential eco-material for different application

fields. (Bilo et al., 2018)

From these research conducted, the researchers thought of an

alternative raw material to produce biodegradable plastic. Guava is a tropical plant with

light green or yellow when ripe and contains edible seeds. It contains high amount of

pectin and with a pH level of 3-4. Since pectin is an essential substance in thickening, it

becomes a possible raw material bioplastic production.

Statement of the Problem

1. Is there any possibility in using guava fruit peel extract as a component in

bioplastic?

2. Is there a significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid in the

plastic formula in terms of:

a. Biodegradability

b. Solubility

3
 c. Tensile strength?

3. What is the significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and the

guava bioplastic in terms of:

a. Appearance

b. Durability

c. Cost-effectiveness?

Hypothesis

Ha: It is possible to make bioplastic from guava fruit peel extract.

Ho: There is no possibility to make bioplastic from guava peel extract.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and

the guava bioplastic.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the standard vinegar bioplastic and

the guava bioplastic.

Ha: There is a significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid in

the plastic formula.

Ho: There is no significant variation between the different amounts of citric acid

in the plastic formula.

4
Significance of the Study

This study aims to provide an inexpensive, environmental-friendly and toxic-free

bioplastic and help solve the earth’s problem towards plastic pollution with minimal

effects to the environment and humans.

The researchers seek to find an alternative way in making bioplastic using guava

fruit peel extract. This study will lessen the harm on marine and terrestrial life and

human health which receive the worst effect when it comes to plastic pollution.

This study is beneficial to the:

 Community – clogged drainage due to the too much plastic consumption is one

of the issues that the community has been solving. By the production of

bioplastic, the use of synthetic plastic will lessen and the degradation process

will become much easier.

 Students – this research can contribute to the future studies of students related

to plastic pollution and will be a basis in conducting tests.

 Environment – plastic pollution falls on the environment. The higher the

consumption of synthetic plastic, the higher the chances of fast global warming

and climate change. The production of biodegradable plastic from guava peel

can be a great solution to limit the use of synthetic plastic.

5
Scope and Delimitations

This study focuses on the utilization of guava fruit peel extract as an ingredient in

making bioplastic. This study is limited to the effectiveness of the alternative bioplastic,

the varying amount of citric acid on the bioplastic, and the availability of the authorized

people to certify the significant difference of guava bioplastic and vinegar bioplastic.

Several tests fulfilled the sufficient data needed regarding the significant difference.

Respondents from the municipality of Concepcion, Tarlac were asked for their ratings.

Materials and Funding

Materials Cost

Guava fruit ₱0.00

Cornstarch ₱20.00

Pure glycerin ₱35.00

Distilled water ₱0.00

Foil ₱20.00

Vinegar ₱0.00

Total: ₱75.00

6
 Methodology

Research Design

The researchers used the experimental method to determine the effectiveness

of the controlled variable (guava fruit peels extract) as bioplastic.

Study Site

The study was conducted at the Golveo’s residence, Green Village Concepcion,

Tarlac.

Materials and Procedure

The researchers gathered 1 kilogram of guava fruits in Green Village Concepcion,

Tarlac and were grated using a standard cheese grater. 180 ml was extracted from the

guava fruit peels. The seeds were disposed properly and using a strainer, the extract was

strained. 5 ml, 10 ml, and 15 ml of guava fruit extract was individually mixed in different

bowls with 15 g of corn starch, 5 ml of glycerin, and 60 ml of distilled water.

The mixture was then placed in a pan in a medium-low heat fire and stirred

continuously using spoon until it becomes translucent and gel-like. The gel-like mixture

was poured and spread on an aluminum foil. The foil with the product was placed under

the sun for 3 hours until it cools and hardens. Once dried and firm, the residue was

peeled off from the foil.

7
Testing the Product

Three trials were conducted to test the difference between the significant

variations on the bioplastic. Trial 1 with 5 ml of guava fruit peel extract, trial 2 with 10

ml of guava fruit peel extract and trial 3 with 15 ml of guava fruit peel extract, mixed

with the stated amount of glycerin, corn starch and distilled water. The resulting

products were compared in terms of biodegradability, tensile strength, and solubility.

The possibility of the guava fruit peels extract as a component in making bioplastic was

tested by changing the amount of extract in each trials and testing on how much weight

needed to tear the bioplastic apart.

In terms of biodegradability, the bioplastics were buried under the soil inside the

containers and left open for 30 days and noted how much grams degraded. In terms of

solubility, the bioplastics were soaked in the water inside the containers and noted how

many days it takes to dissolve the bioplastic. And In terms of tensile strength, standard

weights were put on the bioplastic and noted how many grams it needed to break. The

trial with the most acceptable results was compared to the standard vinegar bioplastic

in terms of appearance, durability, and cost-effectiveness.

Statistical Treatment

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized in this study. T-test was also used to

determine the significant difference of guava bioplastic and vinegar bioplastic in terms

of biodegradability, solubility, and tensile strength. Statistical analyzing was used in

analyzing the data.

8
 Results and Discussion

Table 1

Possibility of producing bioplastic from guava fruit peels extract

Table 1.1 The amount of guava extract used to produce bioplastic

Amount of Amount of
Amount of Amount of
guava distilled
Trials cornstarch glycerin Results
extract water
(g) (ml)
(ml) (ml)

The
bioplastic
1 5 15 5 60
tore apart
on 195 g

The
bioplastic
2 10 15 5 60
tore apart
on 195 g

The
bioplastic
3 15 15 5 60
tore apart
on 205 g

Table 1.1 shows the different trials on the amount of the guava fruit peels extract and

on how much weight needed to tear the bioplastic apart. It shows that the greater the

amount of guava extract, the greater the weight it can take. The first trial with 5 ml of

guava extract, the second trial with 10 ml of guava extract, and the third trial with 15 ml

of guava extract using the constant amount of cornstarch, glycerin, and distilled water.

9
 Table 2

Results of Analysis of Variance

Table 2.1 Results in Biodegradability

Amount
Initial Final Amount Span of
of
Trials Weight Weight degraded time
extract
(g) (g) (g) (days)
(ml)

1 5 50 46.7 3.3 30

2 10 52 48.6 3.4 30

3 15 54 50.4 3.6 30

Table 2.1 shows the results of the biodegradability of the three trials in the span of 30

days. With the first trial having 50 grams of weight and losing 3.3 grams making its final

weight 46.7 grams. While trial 2 having 52 grams of weight before the testing and 48.6

grams after losing a total of 3.4 grams. The trial 3 having 54 grams of weight and losing

3.6 grams after the testing making it 50.4 grams.

10
 Table 2.2 Results in Solubility

Amount of Initial Span of time Span of time

Trials extract Weight to dissolve to dissolve
(ml) (g) (hours) (days)

1 5 50 66 2.75

2 10 52 66 2.75

3 15 54 72 3

Table 2.2 shows the results of solubility in the three and and how many days before it

dissolved in water. Trial 1 and trial 2 show that it took 66 hours or 2.75 days before it

dissolved in water. While trial 3 shows that it took 72 hours or 3 days before it dissolves

in the water.

11
 Table 2.3 Results in Tensile Strength

Trials Amount of extract Weight needed to Grams converted to

tore the bioplastic mPa
(ml)
apart
(unit of Force)
(g)

1 5 195 1.911

2 10 195 1.911

3 15 205 2.009

Tables 2.3 shows the results in the tensile strength of the bioplastic. On the first and

second trial, the bioplastic tore apart with the weight 195 grams or 1.911 mPa. And on

the third trial, the bioplastic tore apart with the weight of 205 grams or 2.009 mPa.

12
 Table 2.4 Results of Analysis of Variance in Biodegrability, Solubility, and Tensile

Strength

Trial 2 (10 ml Trial 3 (15 ml

Trial 1 (5 ml of
of guava of guava
guava extract)
extract) extract)

Biodegradabilit
y
(grams 3.3 3.4 3.6
degraded/30
days)
Solubility
(days needed to 2.75 2.75 3
dissolve)
Tensile Strength
1.911 2.009 2.009
(mPa)

Table 2.1 shows that the greater the amount of guava extract, the greater the amount

of force the bioplastic could resist. However, the greater the amount of guava extract,

the longer it degrades on soil and dissolves in water. With the hypothesis being: Ho:

M1=M2=M3, Ha: At least 1 difference

13
 Table 2.5 Means of the Trials in Analysis of Variance

Trials Mean
Trial 1 (5 ml) 2.65
Trial 2 (10 ml) 2.72
Trial 3 (15 ml) 2.87

The mean of trial 1 is 2.65, the trial 2 being 2.72, and the trial 3 being 2.87 in terms of

biodegradability, solubility, and tensile strength.

Table 2.6 Sums of Squares, Degrees of Freedom, and Mean Squares

Sum of Degrees of Mean Critical F

Source P value
Squares Freedom Square value
Between 0.07 2 0.035
Within 3.24 6 0.54 5.14 0.06
Total: 3.31 8

The P value being 0.06 is less than the critical f value which is 5.14. Therefore, the null

hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no difference between the means.

Table 3

Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic

Respondents Standard Vinegar Bioplastic Guava Bioplastic

14
 X1 X – X1 (X-X1)2 X2 X – X2 (X-X2)2

A 5 -0.6 0.36 5 -0.8 0.64

B 5 -0.6 0.36 5 -0.8 0.64

C 4 0.4 0.16 4 0.2 0.04

D 5 -0.6 0.36 3 1.2 1.44

E 5 -0.6 0.36 4 0.2 0.04

F 5 -0.6 0.36 5 -0.8 0.64

G 3 1.4 1.96 5 -0.8 0.64

H 5 -0.6 0.369 4 0.2 0.04

I 3 1.4 1.96 3 1.2 1.44

J 4 0.4 0.16 4 0.2 0.04

Total 44 6.4 42 5.6

Table 3.1.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms
of Appearance

Table 3.1.2 T-test Results

No. of Tabular
Degree of
Bioplastic Mean Respondent Variance T-test
Freedom
s Value

15
 Guava
4.2 10 0.62 9
bioplastic
Standard 0.56 2.262
Vinegar 4.4 10 0.71 9
bioplastic

Table 3.1.2 shows the computed t-value which is 0.56 is less than tabular value which is

2.262 at 5 percent of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis Ho is accepted. It means

that there is no significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and guava

bioplastic in terms of appearance.

Table 3.2.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms

of Durability

Respondents Standard Vinegar Bioplastic Guava Bioplastic

16
 X1 X – X1 (X-X1)2 X2 X – X2 (X-X2)2

A 3 1.2 1.44 4 0.4 0.16

B 4 0.2 0.04 4 0.4 0.16

C 3 1.2 1.44 5 -0.6 0.36

D 5 -0.8 0.64 5 -0.6 0.36

E 4 0.2 0.04 4 0.4 0.16

F 5 -0.8 0.64 3 1.4 1.96

G 5 --0.8 0.64 4 0.4 0.16

H 4 0.2 0.04 5 -0.6 0.36

I 5 -0.8 0.64 5 -0.6 0.36

J 4 0.2 0.04 5 -0.6 0.36

Total 42 5.6 44 4.4

Table 3.2.1 shows the ratings of respondents, the difference between the ratings, and

the means of the 10 ratings in both guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in

terms of durability. It shows that the sum of ratings of the 10 respondents for the

standard vinegar bioplastic is 42, while 44 for the guava bioplastic. The sum of the

difference between the ratings and the mean for standard vinegar bioplastic was 5.6

and 4.4 for the guava bioplastic.

Table 3.2.2 T-test Results

Bioplastic Mean No. of Variance Degree of T-test Tabular

Respondent Freedom

17
 s Value
Guava
4.4 10 0.49 9
bioplastic
Standard 0.6 2.262
Vinegar 4.2 10 0.62 9
bioplastic

Table 3.2.2 shows the computed t-value which is 0.6 is less than tabular value which is

2.262 at 5 percent of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis Ho is accepted. It means

that there is no significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and guava

bioplastic in terms of durability.

18
Table 3.3.1 Comparison of the Standard Vinegar Bioplastic and Guava Bioplastic in terms

of Cost-effectiveness

Standard Vinegar Bioplastic Guava Bioplastic

Respondents
X1 X – X1 (X-X1)2 X2 X – X2 (X-X2)2

A 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

B 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

C 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

D 5 -1.3 1.69 3 1.8 3.24

E 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

F 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

G 1 2.7 7.29 5 -0.2 0.04

H 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

I 4 -0.3 0.09 5 -0.2 0.04

J 3 0.7 0.49 5 -0.2 0.04

Total 37 10.1 48 3.6

Table 3.3.1 shows the ratings of respondents, the difference between the ratings, and

the means of the 10 ratings in both guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in

terms of cost-effectiveness. It shows that the sum of ratings of the 10 respondents for

the standard vinegar bioplastic is 44, while 42 for the guava bioplastic. The sum of the

difference between the ratings and the mean for standard vinegar bioplastic was 10.1

and 3.6 for the guava bioplastic.

Table 3.3.2 T-test Results

19
 No. of Tabular
Degree of
Bioplastic Mean Respondent Variance T-test
Freedom
s Value
Guava
4.8 10 0.4 9
bioplastic
Standard 2.82 2.262
Vinegar 3.7 10 1.12 9
bioplastic

Table 3.3.2 shows the computed t-value which is 2.82 is greater than tabular value

which is 2.262 at 5 percent of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis Ho is rejected. It

means that there is a significant difference between standard vinegar bioplastic and

guava bioplastic in terms of cost-effectiveness.

20
Summary of Findings

The three trials (5 ml, 10 ml, and 15 ml of guava extract) were compared in terms

of biodegradability, solubility, and tensile strength. In terms of biodegradability, the first

trial degraded 3.3 grams, the second trial degraded 3.4 grams, and the third trial

degraded 3.6 grams within 30 days. In terms of solubility, the first and second trial both

dissolved in water within 2.75 days. The third trial dissolved within exactly 3 days in

water. And in terms of tensile strength, during the first trial, the bioplastic was torn after

putting 195 grams (1.911 mPa) using the standard weights. On the second and third

trial, both bioplastics were torn after putting 205 grams (2.009 mPa) using also the

standard weights. The null hypothesis is accepted in the ANOVA. Thus, there is no

difference between the variations of the guava extract in the bioplastic.

The guava bioplastic was compared to the standard vinegar bioplastic using T-

test in terms of appearance, durability, and cost-effectiveness. The null hypothesis is

accepted in both appearance and durability. Therefore, there is no significant difference

between the guava bioplastic and the standard bioplastic in terms of appearance and

durability. The null hypothesis is rejected in terms of cost-effectiveness because the

guava bioplastic is cheaper than the vinegar bioplastic. Thus, there is a significant

difference between the guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in terms of

cost-effectiveness.

The guava bioplastic had almost the same physical properties with that of the

vinegar bioplastic. Different guava extract concentrations slightly affected the bioplastic.

21
Thus, making the guava extract a possible component in making bioplastic. The guava

bioplastic is also generally acclaimed to be water soluble and biodegradable.

Conclusion

The different amounts of guava extract did not affect the outcome of the

bioplastic. Thus, there is no significant variation in the plastic formula in terms of

biodegradability, solubility, and tensile strength.

There is no significant difference between the guava plastic and standard vinegar

bioplastic in terms of appearance and durability. Guava bioplastic is cheaper than the

standard vinegar bioplastic, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a

significant difference between the guava bioplastic and standard vinegar bioplastic in

terms of cost-effectiveness. Thus, guava bioplastic is a possible substitute to standard

vinegar bioplastic.

Recommendations

The researchers recommended the following for further study:

1. Find an appropriate machine that will test the quality of the bioplastic.

2. Find a laboratory that offers biodegradability test.

3. Use sanitary equipment when making the bioplastic.

4. Use standard weights in testing the tensile strength of the bioplastic.

22
 References

Kurudufu P: Recycling plastic. Practical action Eastern Africa. 2009. Accessed 2

October,2009.http://practicalaction.org/docs/technical_information_service/rec

ycling_plastics.pdf

Yaradoddi, Jayachandra & Patil, Vinay & Ganachari, Dr. Sharanabasava & Banapurmath,

Nagaraj & Hunashyal, Anand & Shettar, Ashok. (2016). Biodegradable Plastic

Production from Fruit Waste Materials and its Sustainable Use for Green

Applications. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Allied

Science. 56-66.

Nkwachukwu, O.I., Chima, C.H., Ikenna, A.O. et al. Int J Ind Chem. (2013). Focus on

potential environmental issues on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic

recycling in developing countries. International Journal of Industrial Chemistry.

Institute of Chemical Research of Catalonia (ICIQ). (2017, July 14). When life gives you

lemons, make bioplastics. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 5, 2019 from

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714093808.htm

Zuzanna Żołek-Tryznowska, Łukasz Cichy. (2018). Glycerol Derivatives as a Modern

Plasticizers for Starch Films. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

Department of Graphic Engineering and Design.

3D Printing Media Network. (2016). Bioplastic From Orange Peels and Coffee Developed

by IAAC to Be 3D Printable. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/amp/s

/www. 3dprintingmedia.network/iaac-shows-off-3d-printable-bioplastic-made-

from-orange-peels/amp/

23
 APPENDICES

= 0.5 H0 = M1 = M2 = M3 Ha = Atleast/Difference

1.
dfBETWEEN = k – 1 DfWITHIN = N - k DfTOTAL= 2 + 6

dfBETWEEN = 3 – 1 DfWITHIN = 9 - 3 DfTOTAL = 8

dfBETWEEN = 2 DfWITHIN = 6
FCRIT = 5.14

2. 1 = 2.65
G
=
∑X 3. SSTOTAL = ∑ ¿¿
N ¿ of datas
= (3.3-2.75)2 + (2.75-2.75)2 +
(1.911-2.75)2 + (3.4-2.75)2+ (2.75-
G 24.729 2.75)2+ (2.009-2.75)2+ (3.6-
2 = 2.72 =
N 9 2.75) + (3-2.75) + (2.009-2.75)2
2 2

G
3 = 2.87 =2.75 SSTOTAL = 3.31
N

SSWITHIN = ∑ ¿¿ 1 SSBETWEEN = SSTOTAL – SSWITHIN

= (3.3-2.65)2 +(2.75-2.65)2+(1.911-
2.65)2+(3.4-2.72)2+(2.75-
= 3.31-3.24
2.72)2+(2.009-2.72)2+(3.6-
2.87)2+(3-2.87)2+(2.009-2.87)2
SSWITHIN = 3.24 = 0.07

SSBETWEEN SSWITHIN MSBETWEEN

4. MSBETWEEN = dfBETWEENMSWITHIN = F= dfWIITHIN SSWITHIN

0.07 3.24 0.035

= = =
2 6 0.54

24
 MSBETWEEN = 0.035 MSWITHIN = 0.54 F = 0.06

7. FCRIT = 0.06

0.06 <5.14 HO is rejected HO = M1 = M2 = M3

P = 0.0855

Variance for the appearance:

SD12 =

SD12 = 6.4
10−1

SD12 = 0.71

SD22 =

SD22 = 5.6
10−1

SD22 = 0.62

Variance for the durability:

SD12 =

SD12 = 5.6
10−1

SD12 = 0.62

SD22 =

25
 4.4
SD22 =
10−1

SD22 = 0.49

Variance for the cost-effectiveness:

SD12 =

SD12 = 10.1
10−1

SD12 = 1.12

SD22 =

SD22 = 3.6
10−1

SD22 = 0.4

Computation of the T-test for the Appearance

⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2

4.2−4.4
t=
0.71 0.62
√ 10
+
10

−0.21
¿
√0.071+ 0.062

t=¿0.56

26
 Computation of the T-test for the Durability

⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2

4.8−3.7
t=
1.12 0.4
√ +
10 10

1.1
¿
√0.152

t=¿2.82

Computation of the T-test for the Cost-effectiveness

⃓ x́1− x́ 2 ⃓
t=
S D 21 S d 22
√ N1
+
N2

4.4−4.2
t=
0.62 0.49
√ 10
+
10

0.2
¿
√0.11

t=¿0.6

27
 Documentation

1 kg of guava fruit.

Preparation of the materials.

28
.

Washing the guava fruits.

Grating the guavas.

29
The extract from the guava fruit peels.

Adding 60 ml of water.

30
 Adding 5 ml of glycerin.

Adding 5 ml, 10 ml, 15 ml of the guava fruit peels extract.

31
Adding 15 g of cornstarch.

Mixing the solution.

32
 Heating the solution in a pan.

Spreading the gel-like substance on the foil.

33