TY  - BOOK
AU  - Nepomuceno, Mark Cedric P., author.
AU  - Rodriguez, Mark Angelo P., author.
AU  - Rolloda, Irjay P., author.
AU  - Merced, Caridad S., adviser.
AU  - Merced, Caridad S., technical critic.
TI  - Water hyacinth as alternative raw material in making pin boards
AV  - UM QK 495.P783 N47 2011
PY  - 2011///
CY  - Rosario, Cavite
PB  - Cavite State University-CCAT Campus
KW  - Water hyacinth
KW  - Alternative materials
KW  - Pin boards
KW  - Pin penetrability
KW  - Cork board comparison
N1  - Undergraduate Thesis (LSHS) -- Cavite State University-CCAT Campus, 2011; Includes bibliographical references and appendices
N2  - Nepomuceno, Mark Cedric R., Rodriguez, Mark Angelo P., Rolloda, Irjay
P. Science Education Laboratory School, Cavite State University - Rosario
"WATER HYACINTH AS AN
Cavite, 2010-2011.
ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL IN PREPARING PIN BOARD",
Rosario,
Campus,
Adviser: Mrs. Caridad A. Merced
This study was conducted at Muzon 2, Sapa 3, and Tejeros Convention in
Rosario, Cavite from December 2010 to February 2011. With the objective of
determining if there is a significant difference between water hyacinth as an
alternative material in making pin board when compared with the commercial
cork board in terms of pin penetrability, appearance, texture, durability, water
absorption.
The Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used in the study
with three treatments and two replications. The treatments were: To - control
(commercial cork board), T; - pin board made from 25 grams of water hyacinth
and 100 grams of wood glue, T2 - pin board made from 50 grams of water
hyacinth and 100 grams of wood glue, T3 pin board made from 75 grams of
water hyacinth and 100 grams of wood glue. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was then used for test significance.
Based on the findings of the study and with the use of descriptive analysis,
it was found out that the treatments used can be an alternative pin board. The
ANOVA table showed that there is a significant difference between the
commercial pin board and the water hyacinth board in terms of their penetrability,
appearance, texture. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted.

With respect to the durability, based on test conducted, it was found out
that all the treatments have a significant difference in comparison to the control
group. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. In water absorption as also
based on the test conducted, TiRz was found out to have no significant difference
with To. The null hypothesis is then accepted

ER  -