Nepomuceno, Mark Cedric P., author. <br/><br/>
Water hyacinth as alternative raw material in making pin boards / 
Mark Cedric P. Nepomuceno, Mark Angelo P. Rodriguez, and Irjay P. Rolloda. 
 - Rosario, Cavite :  Cavite State University-CCAT Campus,  2011. 
 - ii, 46 leaves :  illustrations ;  28 cm 
<br/><br/> Undergraduate Thesis (LSHS) -- Cavite State University-CCAT Campus, 2011. 
<br/><br/>Includes bibliographical references and appendices. 
<br/><br/> Nepomuceno, Mark Cedric R., Rodriguez, Mark Angelo P., Rolloda, Irjay<br/>P. Science Education Laboratory School, Cavite State University - Rosario<br/>"WATER HYACINTH AS AN<br/>Cavite, 2010-2011.<br/>ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL IN PREPARING PIN BOARD",<br/>Rosario,<br/>Campus,<br/>Adviser: Mrs. Caridad A. Merced<br/>This study was conducted at Muzon 2, Sapa 3, and Tejeros Convention in<br/>Rosario, Cavite from December 2010 to February 2011. With the objective of<br/>determining if there is a significant difference between water hyacinth as an<br/>alternative material in making pin board when compared with the commercial<br/>cork board in terms of pin penetrability, appearance, texture, durability, water<br/>absorption.<br/>The Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used in the study<br/>with three treatments and two replications. The treatments were: To - control<br/>(commercial cork board), T; - pin board made from 25 grams of water hyacinth<br/>and 100 grams of wood glue, T2 - pin board made from 50 grams of water<br/>hyacinth and 100 grams of wood glue, T3 pin board made from 75 grams of<br/>water hyacinth and 100 grams of wood glue. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)<br/>was then used for test significance.<br/>Based on the findings of the study and with the use of descriptive analysis,<br/>it was found out that the treatments used can be an alternative pin board. The<br/>ANOVA table showed that there is a significant difference between the<br/>commercial pin board and the water hyacinth board in terms of their penetrability,<br/>appearance, texture. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted.<br/><br/>With respect to the durability, based on test conducted, it was found out<br/>that all the treatments have a significant difference in comparison to the control<br/>group. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. In water absorption as also<br/>based on the test conducted, TiRz was found out to have no significant difference<br/>with To. The null hypothesis is then accepted.<br/> 
<br/><br/><br/>In English text 
<br/><br/><label>Subjects--Topical Terms: </label><br/>Water hyacinth.<br/>Alternative materials.<br/>Pin boards.<br/>Pin penetrability.<br/>Cork board comparison.
<br/><br/><label>LC Class. No.: </label>UM QK 495.P783  / N47 2011