, 18:1349 | Cite as

Following cellulose depolymerization in paper: comparison of size exclusion chromatography techniques

  • Tomasz ŁojewskiEmail author
  • Katarzyna Zięba
  • Andrzej Kołodziej
  • Joanna Łojewska


The study focuses on the comparison of the results obtained by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) detection systems using multiangle laser light scattering (MALLS) and/or ultraviolet–visible (UV/VIS) detectors in analyses of cellulose in paper-based heritage objects. The commonly applied parameter for the evaluation of paper degradation stage and kinetics is weight (M w ) average molar mass measured by SEC. The main problems addressed here are whether the parameters obtained by various techniques and calibration strategies and in various laboratories can be treated universally and what the sources of the discrepancies can be. The SEC-UV/VIS technique proved to give reproducible results as demonstrated by the interlaboratory correlations. Using various data processing methods and SEC techniques it was also shown that molar masses should only be treated relatively. The differences between the kinetic curves based on the M w values obtained from various techniques and processed with various calibration procedures question the reliability of kinetic equations derived using the SEC results to describe the paper degradation.


Size exclusion chromatography Molecular mass determination Universal calibration Paper degradation 

List of symbols


Second virial coefficient in Rayleigh equation—solvent–solute interactions


Scattering angle


Concentration of a polymer, mg cm−3


Degree of polymerization


Intrinsic viscosity, cm3 g−1


Rate constant in Ekestam equation, s−1


Optical constant in Rayleigh equation

K, a

Mark–Houwink-Sekurada (MHS) coefficients in Eq. 1 describing the relation between intrinsic viscosity of a polymer solution (η) and its molar mass M


Vacuum wavelength of incident beam, nm


Molar mass of anhydrous glucopyranose triscarbanilate unit, 519 g mol−1


Molar mass of a polymer, g mol−1


Number average molar mass, g mol−1


Viscosity average molar mass, g mol−1


Weight average molar mass, g mol−1


Refractive index of a solvent


Avogadro’s number


Refractive index increment


Mean square radius of the molecule


Form factor in Rayleigh equation—scattered light dependence on angle


Excess Rayleigh ratio—the difference between Rayleigh ratio for a solution and a pure solvent


Degradation time, days


Time of elution, min


Elution volume, cm3


Fraction of molar mass M of a polymer



The funds from the Project SPB 811/N-COST/2010/0 of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education is kindly acknowledged. The interlaboratory comparison was based on the results obtained during PaperTreat project (No. SSPI-006584) supported by the European Commission under the 6th FP. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Jana Kolar for kind permission for use in this work the results obtained in National and University Library in Ljubljana.


  1. Andersson M, Wittgren B, Wahlund KG (2003) Accuracy in multiangle light scattering measurements for molar mass and radius estimations model calculations and experiments. Anal Chem 75:4279–4291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barański A, Łagan JM, Łojewski T (2005) Acid-catalysed degradation. In: Strlič M, Kolar J (eds) Aging and stabilisation of paper, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, pp 93–110Google Scholar
  3. Barański A, Begin P, Łagan JM, Łojewski T, Sawoszczuk T (2006) Application of the Zou Uesaka and Gurnagul model to the degradation of papers of various origins. J Pulp Paper Sci 32:238–244Google Scholar
  4. Barkalow DG, Rowell RM, Young RA (1989) A New approach for the production of cellulose acetate: acetylation of mechanical pulp with subsequent isolation of cellulose acetate by differential solubility. J Appl Polym Sci 37:1009–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berek D, Kubin M, Morcinka K, Dressler M (1989) Chromatografia żelowa. PWN, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  6. Beuermann S, Buback M, Davis TP, Gilbert RG, Hutchinson RA, Kajiwara A, Klumperman B, Russell GT (2000) Critically evaluated rate coefficients for free-radical polymerization. Macromol Chem Phys 201:1355–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daňhelka J, Kössler I (1976) Determination of molecular weight distribution of cellulose by conversion into tricarbanilate and fractionation. J Polym Sci 14:287–298Google Scholar
  8. Demeter J, Mormann W, Schmidt J, Burchard W (2003) Solution behaviour of trimethylsilyl cellulose of different degrees of substitution studied by static and dynamic light scattering. Macromolecules 36:5297–5303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dupont AL (2003a) Cellulose in lithium chloride/NN–dimethylacetamide optimization of a dissolution method using paper substrates and stability of solutions. Polymer 44:4117–4126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dupont AL (2003b) Gelatine sizing of paper and its impact on the degradation of cellulose during aging—a study using SEC, dissertation, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupont AL, Mortha G (2004) Comparative evaluation of size exclusion chromatography and viscometry for the characterization of cellulose. J Chromat A 1026:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emsley AM, Stevens GC (1994) Kinetics and mechanism of the low-temperature degradation of cellulose. Cellulose 1:26–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans R, Wearne R, Wallis AFA (1989) Molecular weight distribution of cellulose as its tricarbanilate by high performance size exclusion chromatography. J Appl Polym Sci 37:821–827Google Scholar
  14. Evans R, Wearne R, Wallis AFA (1991) Pyridine catalyzed depolymerization of cellulose during carbanilation with phenylisocyanate in dimethylsulfoxide. J Appl Polym Sci 42:3291–3303Google Scholar
  15. Fellers C, Iversen T. et al (1989) Ageing/degradation of paper, a literature survey, FoU-projectet for Papperkonservering Report 1E. ISSN 0284-5636Google Scholar
  16. Girod S, Baldet-Dupy P, Maillols H, Devoisselle JM (2001) On-line direct determination of the second virial coefficient of a natural polysaccharide using size-exclusion chromatography and multi-angle laser light scattering. J Chromat A 943:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grubisic Z, Rempp P, Benoit H (1996) A universal calibration for gel permeation chromatography (Reprinted from Polymer Letters vol 5 pg 753–759 1967). J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 34:1707–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guillaneuf Y, Castignolles P (2008) Using apparent molecular weight from SEC in controlled/living polimerization and kinetics of polymerization. J Polym Sci A 46:897–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Havermans JBGA (1995) Environmental influences on the deterioration of paper. Meeuwes & Co, Delft, Rotterdam, BarjestehGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill DJT, Le TT, Darveniza M, Saha T (1995) A study of degradation of cellulosic insulation materials in power transformer part 1 molecular weight study of cellulose insulation paper. Polym Degrad Stab 48:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hon DN, Shiraishi N (2000) Wood and cellulosic chemistry. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Jerosch H, Lavédrine B, Cherton C (2001) Study of the stability of cellulose–holocellulose solutions in NN-dimethylacetamide–lithium chloride by size exclusion chromatography. J Chromatogr A 927:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karlsson O, Westermark U (1996) Evidence for chemical bonds between lignin and cellulose in kraft pulps. J Pulp Paper Sci 22:J397–J401Google Scholar
  24. Kato KL, Cameron RE (1999) Structure-property relationships in thermally aged cellulose fibers and paper. Appl Polym Sci 74:1465–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy JF, Rivera ZS, White CA, Lloyd LL, Warner FP (1990) Molecular-weight characterization of underivatized cellulose by GPC using lithium chloride-dimethylacethamide solvent system. Cellulose Chem Technol 24:319–325Google Scholar
  26. Kolar J, Balažic A, Strlič M, Kočar D (2006) Micro-destructive evaluation of paper degradation. Extended abstracts: Belonging to the oral and poster presentations of the final MIP conference [and] 2nd International iron gall ink meeting, 24–27 Jan 2006, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 87–89Google Scholar
  27. Kostanski LK, Keller DM, Hamielec AE (2004) Size-exclusion chromatography—a review of calibration methodologies. J Biochem Biophys Meth 58:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lauriol JM, Comtat J, Froment P, Pla F, Robert A (1987a) Molecular weight distribution of cellulose by on-line size exclusion chromatography—low angle laser light scattering; Part II: acid and enzymatic hydrolysis. Holzforschung 41:165–169Google Scholar
  29. Lauriol JM, Froment P, Pla F, Robert A (1987b) Molecular weight distribution of cellulose by on-line size exclusion chromatography—low angle laser light scattering; Part I: basic experiments and treatment of data. Holzforschung 41:109–113Google Scholar
  30. Łojewska J, Lubańska A, Łojewski T, Miśkowiec P, Proniewicz LM (2005) Kinetic approach to degradation of paper in situ ftir transmission studies on hydrolysis and oxidation. e-Preservation Sci 2:1–12Google Scholar
  31. Łojewski T, Miśkowiec T, Missori M, Lubańska A, Proniewicz LM, Łojewska J (2010a) FTIR and UV/vis as methods for evaluation of oxidative degradation of model paper: DFT approach for carbonyl vibrations. Carb Polym 82:370–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Łojewski T, Zięba K, Knapik A, Bagniuk J, Lubańska A, Łojewska J (2010b) Evaluating paper degradation progress cross-linking between chromatographic spectroscopic and chemical results. Appl Physics A 100:809–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Łojewski T, Zięba K, Łojewska J (2010c) SEC-MALLS in paper degradation studies. New Mark-Houwink coefficients for cellulose in CED. J Chromat A 1217:6462–6468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malešič J, Kolar J, Strlič M, Kocar D, Fromageot D, Lemaire J, Haillant O (2005) Photo–induced degradation of cellulose. Polym Degrad Stab 89:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marcelo G, Saiz E, Tarazona MP (2007) Determination of molecular parameters of hydroxyethyl and hydroxypropyl celluloses by chromatography with dual detection. J Chromat A 1165:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mori S, Barth HG (1999) Size exclusion chromatography. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  37. Pffeferkorn P, Beister J, Hild A, Thielking H, Kulicke WM (2003) Determination of the molar mass and the radius of gyration together with their distributions for methylhydroxyethylcelluloses. Cellulose 10:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porsch B, Anderson M, Wittgren B, Wahlund KG (2002) Molecular mass distribution analysis of ethyl(hydroxyethyl) cellulose by size–exclusion chromatography with dual light–scattering and refractometric detection. J Chromat A 964:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritter A, Schmid M, Affolter S (2010) Determination of molecular weights by size exclusion chromatography (SEC)–Results of round robin tests. Polym Test 29:945–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SCAN-CM 15:88 (1988) Viscosity in cupri-ethylenediamine solution, standard scandinavian Pulp Paper and Board Testing CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  41. STEP project CT 90-0100 (1994) The effects of air pollutants on the accelerated ageing of cellulose containing materials—paper. Final project report, TNO DelftGoogle Scholar
  42. Stol R, Pedersoli JL Jr, Poppe H, Kok WT (2002) Application of SEC to the microanalitycal determination of the molecular mass distribution of celluloses from the objects of cultural and historical value. Anal Chem 74:2314–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strlič M, Kolar J (2003) Size exclusion chromatography of cellulose in LiCl/NN–dimethylacetamide–Review. J Biochem Biophys Methods 56:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strlič M, Kolar J, Zigon M, Pihlar B (1998) Evaluation of size exclusion chromatography and viscometry for the determination of molar masses of oxidized cellulose. J Chromat A 805:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strlič M, Kolar J, Kolenc J, Pihlar B (2002) Enthalpic interactions in size exclusion chromatography of pullulan and cellulose in LiCl–N N–dimethylacetamide. J Chromat A 964:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strlič M, Kolar J, Kočar D, Rychlý J (2005a) Thermo-oxidative degradation. In: Strlič M, Kolar J (eds) Aging and stabilisation of paper, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, pp 111–132Google Scholar
  47. Strlič M, Kolar J, Pihlar B (2005b) Methodology and analytical techniques in paper stability studies. In: Strlič M, Kolar J (eds) Aging and stabilisation of paper, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  48. Strlič M, Kolar J, Scholten S (2005c) Paper and durability. In: Strlič M, Kolar J (eds) Aging and stabilisation of paper, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  49. Sundholm F, Tahvanainen M (2003) Preparation of cellulose samples for size-exclusion chromatography analyses in studies of paper degradation. J Chromat A 108:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zięba K (2009) Size exclusion chromatography as a tool to study paper and cellulose degradation in conservation chemistry, dissertation. Jagiellonian UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomasz Łojewski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katarzyna Zięba
    • 1
  • Andrzej Kołodziej
    • 2
  • Joanna Łojewska
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ChemistryJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Chemical Engineering, Polish Academy of SciencesGliwicePoland

Personalised recommendations