Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1005–1020 | Cite as

Effect of microfibrillated cellulose and fines on the drainage of kraft pulp suspension and paper strength

  • Tero TaipaleEmail author
  • Monika Österberg
  • Antti Nykänen
  • Janne Ruokolainen
  • Janne Laine
Original Paper

Abstract

Different types of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) and fines suspensions were produced, characterized, and then added to a papermaking pulp suspension. High and medium molar mass cationic polyelectrolytes were used as fixatives. The drainage behavior of the pulp suspensions with additives were evaluated against the strength properties of hand sheets made thereof. The effects of salt concentration, pH, fixative type, dosage and type of fibrillar material on drainage were examined. All the MFC and fines samples produced had clearly different properties due to their dissimilar production methods, and they also introduced specific responses on the measured drainage and paper strength. Generally, the addition of MFC decreased the drainage rate of pulp suspension and increased the strength of paper. However, it was shown that by optimum selection of materials and process conditions an enhancement of the strength properties could be achieved without simultaneously deteriorating the drainage.

Keywords

Drainage Fines Microfibrillated cellulose MFC Paper Strength 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support from UPM-Kymmene Corporation. The work was a part of the Nanosellu I –project established by the Finnish Centre for Nanocellulosic Technologies. Dr. J. Campbell is thanked for his linguistic support. We also thank the laboratory staff and research colleagues at Aalto University School of Science and Technology and at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland for their skilful assistance, observations and co-operation throughout the work.

References

  1. Aaltio EA (1962) The effect of highly beaten birch pulp fraction on the properties of kraft paper. Paperi Puu 44:217–222Google Scholar
  2. Ahola S (2008) Properties and interfacial behaviour of cellulose nanofibrils. Doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, TKK, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahola S, Österberg M, Laine J (2008a) Cellulose nanofibrils adsorption with poly(amide-amine) epichlorohydrin studied by QCM-D and application as a paper strength additive. Cellulose 15:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahola S, Salmi J, Johansson L-S, Laine J, Österberg M (2008b) Model films from native cellulose nanofibrils, preparation, swelling, and surface interactions. Biomacromolecules 9:1273–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alén R (2000) Structure and chemical composition of wood. In: Stenius P, Pakarinen H (eds) Papermaking science and technology, book 3 forest products chemistry. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 12–57Google Scholar
  6. Andersson K, Sandström A, Ström K, Barla P (1986) The use of cationic starch and colloidal silica to improve the drainage characteristics of kraft pulps. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 1:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andresen M, Johansson L-S, Tanem BS, Stenius P (2006) Properties and characterization of hydrophobized microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 13:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aulin C, Ahola S, Josefsson P, Nishino T, Hirose Y, Österberg M, Wågberg L (2009) Nanoscale cellulose films with different crystallinities and mesostructures-their surface properties and interaction with water. Langmuir 25:7675–7685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berglund L (2005) Cellulose-based nanocomposites. In: Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (eds) Natural fibers, biopolymers, and biocomposites. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 807–832Google Scholar
  10. Borsa J, Racz I, Obendorf SK, Bodor G (2000) Slight carboxymethylation of cellulose. Lenzinger Ber 79:18–24Google Scholar
  11. Britt KW, Unbehend JE, Shridharan R (1986) Observations on water removal in papermaking. Tappi J 69:76–79Google Scholar
  12. Buléon A, Colonna P, Planchot V, Ball S (1998) Starch granules: structure and biosynthesis. Int J Biol Macromol 23:85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell WB (1959) The mechanism of bonding. Tappi 42:999–1001Google Scholar
  14. Carlsson G, Kolseth P, Lindström T (1983) Polyelectrolyte swelling behavior of chlorite delignified spruce wood fibers. Wood Sci Technol 17:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole CA, Hubbe MA, Heitmann JA (2008) Water release from fractionated stock suspensions. Part 1-effects of the amounts and types of fiber fines. Tappi J 7:28–32Google Scholar
  16. Davies LM, Harris PJ (2003) Atomic force microscopy of microfibrils in primary cell walls. Planta 217:283–289Google Scholar
  17. Ding S-Y, Himmel M (2006) The maize primary cell wall microfibril: a new model derived from direct visualization. J Agric Food Chem 54:597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donnan FG, Harris AB (1911) The osmotic pressure and conductivity of aqueous solutions of Congo-red, and reversible membrane equilibria. J Chem Soc 99:1554–1577Google Scholar
  19. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M, Marcovich NE, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, Weder C, Thielemans W, Toman M, Renneckar S, Gindl W, Veigel S, Keckes J, Yano H, Abe K, Nogi M, Nakagaito AN, Mangalam A, Simonsen J, Benight AS, Bismarck A, Berglund LA, Peijs T (2010) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eklund D, Lindström T (1991) Paper chemistry an introduction. DT Paper Science, Grankulla, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Eriksen Ø, Syverud K, Gregersen Ø (2008) The use of microfibrillated cellulose produced from kraft pulp as strength enhancer in TMP paper. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 23:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fors C (2000) The effect of fibre charge on web consolidation in papermaking. Licentiate thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  23. Grignon J, Scallan AM (1980) Effect of pH and neutral salts upon the swelling of cellulose gels. J Appl Polym Sci 25:2829–2843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henriksson M, Berglund LA, Isaksson P, Lindström T, Nishino T (2008) Cellulose Nanopaper Structures of High Toughness. Biomacromolecules 9:1579–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrick FW, Casebier RL, Hamilton JK, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: morphology and accessibility. J App Polym Sci Symp (Proc Cellul Conf, 9th, 1982, Part 2) 37:797–813Google Scholar
  26. Heux L, Dinand E, Vignon MR (1999) Structural aspects in ultrathin cellulose microfibrils followed by 13C CP-MAS NMR. Carbohydr Polym 40:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubbe MA, Heitmann JA (2007) Review of factors affecting the release of water from cellulosic fibers during paper manufacture. Bioresourses 2:500–533Google Scholar
  28. Jakob HF, Fengel D, Tschegg SE, Pratzl P (1995) The elementary cellulose fibril in picea abies: comparison of transmission electron microscopy, small-angle X-ray scattering, and wide-angle x-ray scattering results. Macromolecules 28:8782–8787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kajanto I (1998) Structural mechanics of paper and board. In: Niskanen K (ed) Papermaking science and technology, book 16 paper physics. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 193–221Google Scholar
  30. Ketola H, Andersson T (1999) Dry strength additives. In: Neimo L (ed) Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 4 Papermaking Chemistry. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 269–287Google Scholar
  31. Krogerus B, Eriksson L, Sundberg A, Mosbye J, Ahlroth A, Östlund I, Sjöström L (2002) Fines in closed circuits—Final report. SCAN Forsk report 740. (http://www.nordicinnovation.net/_img/Fines-final_report.doc, in 23.02.2010)
  32. Laine J, Lövgren L, Stenius P, Sjöberg S (1994a) Potentiometric titration of unbleached kraft cellulose fibre surfaces. Colloids Surf A 88:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laine J, Stenius P (1997) Effect of charge on the fiber and paper properties of bleached industrial kraft pulps. Paperi Puu 79:257–266Google Scholar
  34. Laine J, Stenius P, Carlsson G, Ström G (1994b) Surface characterization of unbleached kraft pulps by means of ESCA. Cellulose 1:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin T, Yin X, Retulainen E, Nazhad MM (2007) Effect of chemical pulp fines on filler retention and paper properties. Appita J 60:469–473Google Scholar
  36. Lindström T (1992) Chemical factors affecting the behavior of fibers during papermaking. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 7:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindström T, Carlsson G (1982) The effect of chemical environment on fiber swelling. Sven Papperstidn 85:R14–R20Google Scholar
  38. Lindström T, Wågberg L (1983) Effects of pH and electrolyte concentration on the adsorption of cationic polyacrylamides on cellulose. Tappi J 66:83–85Google Scholar
  39. Lobben T (1977) Effects of the fines on the paper strength properties of chemical pulps. Nor Skogind 31:93–97Google Scholar
  40. Lobben T (1978) On the influence of the pulp components on the shrinkage and elongation of paper. Nor Skogind 32:80–84Google Scholar
  41. Lumiainen J (1998) Refining of chemical pulp. In: Paulapuro H (ed) Papermaking science and technology, book 8 papermaking part 1, stock preparation and wet end. Fapet Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  42. Manners DJ (1989) Recent developments in our understanding of amylopectin structure. Carbohydr Polym 11:87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Myllytie P (2009) Interactions of polymers with fibrillar structure of cellulose fibres: a new approach to bonding and strength in paper. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, TKK, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagakaito AN, Yano H (2005) Novel high-strength biocomposites based on microfibrillated cellulose having nano-order-unit web-like network structure. Appl Phys A 80:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neale SM (1929) The swelling of cellulose and its affinity relations with aqueous solutions. J Textile Inst 20:T373–T400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Niskanen K, Kärenlampi P (1998) In-plane tensile properties. In: Niskanen K (ed) Papermaking science and technology, book 16 paper physics. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 139–191Google Scholar
  47. Norell M, Johansson K, Persson M (1999) Retention and drainage. In: Neimo L (ed) Papermaking science and technology, book 4 papermaking chemistry. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 43–81Google Scholar
  48. Pääkkö M, Ankerfors M, Kosonen H, Nykänen A, Ahola S, Österberg M, Ruokolainen J, Laine J, Larsson PT, Ikkala O, Lindström T (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis combined with mechanical shearing and high-pressure homogenization for nanoscale cellulose fibrils and strong gels. Biomacromolecules 8:1934–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pääkkö M, Vapaavuori J, Silvennoinen R, Kosonen H, Ankerfors M, Lindström T, Berglund LA, Ikkala O (2008) Long and entangled native cellulose I nanofibers allow flexible aerogels and hierarchically porous templates for functionalities. Soft Matter 4:2492–2499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reid IJD, Daul GC (1947) The partial carboxymethylation of cotton to obtain swellable fibers. Text Res J 17:554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Retulainen E, Luukko K, Fagerholm K, Pere J, Laine J, Paulapuro H (2002) Papermaking quality of fines from different pulps—the effect of size, shape and chemical composition. Appita J 55:457–467Google Scholar
  52. Retulainen E, Moss P, Nieminen K (1993a) Effect of fines on the properties of fibre networks. In: Baker CF (ed) Products of papermaking, Vol. 2, Transactions of the 10th fundamental research symposium September 1993. Pira Int, Oxford, pp 727–769Google Scholar
  53. Retulainen E, Nieminen K (1996) Fibre properties as control variables in papermaking? Part 2. Strengthening interfibre bonds and reducing grammage. Paperi Puu 78:305–312Google Scholar
  54. Retulainen E, Nieminen K, Nurminen I (1993b) Enhancing strength properties of kraft and CTMP fibre networks. Appita 46:33–38Google Scholar
  55. Retulainen E, Niskanen K, Nilsen N (1998) Fibers and bonds. In: Niskanen K (ed) Papermaking science and technology, book 16 paper physics. Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 55–87Google Scholar
  56. Reynolds WF (1980) Dry strength additives. Tappi press, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Salmi J (2009) Surface interactions in polyelectrolyte-cellulose systems and their implications for flocculation mechanisms. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, TKK, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  58. Salmi J, Nypelö T, Österberg M, Laine J (2009) Layer structures formed by silica nanoparticles and cellulose nanofibrils with cationic polyacrylamide (C-PAM) on cellulose surface and their influence on interactions. Bioresourses 4:602–625Google Scholar
  59. Scallan AM, Grignon J (1979) The effect of cations on pulp and paper properties. Sven Papperstidn 82:40–47Google Scholar
  60. Shirazi M, Van de Ven TGM, Garnier G (2003) Adsorption of modified starches on pulp fibers. Langmuir 19:10835–10842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sjöström E (1989) The origin of charge on cellulosic fibers. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 4:90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Somerville C, Bauer S, Brininstool G, Facette M, Hamann T, Milne J, Osborne E, Paredez A, Persson S, Raab T, Vorwerk S, Youngs H (2004) Toward a systems approach to understanding plant cell walls. Science 306:2206–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swerin A, Ödberg L, Lindström T (1990) Deswelling of hardwood kraft pulp fibres by cationic polymers. The effect of wet pressing and sheet properties. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 5:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taniguchi T, Okamura K (1998) New films produced from microfibrillated natural fibers. Polym Int 47:291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tatsumi D, Ishioka S, Matsumoto T (2002) Effect of fiber concentration and axial ratio on the rheological properties of cellulose fiber suspensions. J Soc Rheol Japan 30:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Towers M, Scallan AM (1996) Predicting the ion-exchange of kraft pulps using Donnan theory. J Pulp Pap Sci 22:J332–J339Google Scholar
  67. Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose, a new cellulose product: properties, uses, and commercial potential. J Appl Polym Sci 37:815–827Google Scholar
  68. Unbehend JE, Britt KW (1982) Retention, drainage, and sheet consolidation. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 21:150–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van de Steeg HGM (1992) Cationic starches on cellulose surfaces: a study of polyelectrolyte adsorption. Ph.D. thesis. University of Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  70. Van de Ven T (2000) A model for the adsorption of polyelectrolytes on pulp fibers: relation between fiber structure and polyelectrolyte properties. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 15:494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wågberg L, Decher G, Norgren M, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Axnäs K (2008) The build-up of polyelectrolyte multilayers of microfibrillated cellulose and cationic polyelectrolytes. Langmuir 24:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wågberg L, Winter L, Ödberg L, Lindström T (1987) On the charge stoichiometry upon adsorption of a cationic polyelectrolyte on cellulosic materials. Colloids Surf 27:163–173Google Scholar
  73. Walecka JA (1956) An investigartion of low degree of substitution carboxymethylcelluloses. Tappi 39:458–463Google Scholar
  74. Xu Y, Pelton R (2005) A new look at how fines influence the strength of filled papers. J Pulp Pap Sci 31:147–152Google Scholar
  75. Yano H, Nakahara S (2004) Bio-composites produced from plant microfiber bundles with a nanometer unit web-like network. J Mater Sci 39:1635–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zimmermann T, Bordeanu N, Strub E (2010) Properties of nanofibrillated cellulose from different raw materials and its reinforcement potential. Carbohydr Polym 79:1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tero Taipale
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monika Österberg
    • 1
  • Antti Nykänen
    • 2
  • Janne Ruokolainen
    • 2
  • Janne Laine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Products TechnologyAalto University School of Science and TechnologyAaltoFinland
  2. 2.Department of Applied PhysicsAalto University School of Science and TechnologyAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations