000			03284nam a22003257a 4500
003			OSt
005			20250308014614.0
008			240603b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_bEnglish. _cCvSU-CCAT Campus Library. _erda.
050			_aUM QK 495.P783 _bN47 2011
100			_aNepomuceno, Mark Cedric P., author. _913379
245			_aWater hyacinth as alternative raw material in making pin boards / _cMark Cedric P. Nepomuceno, Mark Angelo P. Rodriguez, and Irjay P. Rolloda.
260			_aRosario, Cavite : _bCavite State University-CCAT Campus, _c2011.
300			_aii, 46 leaves : _billustrations ; _c28 cm
500			_aUndergraduate Thesis (LSHS) -- Cavite State University-CCAT Campus, 2011.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and appendices.
520			_aNepomuceno, 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.
546			_aIn English text
650			_aWater hyacinth. _914871
650			_aAlternative materials. _915012
650			_aPin boards. _915066
650			_aPin penetrability. _915067
650			_aCork board comparison. _915068
700			_aRodriguez, Mark Angelo P., author. _915069
700			_aRolloda, Irjay P., author. _915070
700			_aMerced, Caridad S., adviser. _910334
700			_aMerced, Caridad S., technical critic. _913227
942			_2lcc _cT/M/D _e _hQK 495.P783 N47 2011 _kUM _i
999			_c3587 _d3587