, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 2901–2911 | Cite as

Paper engineered with cellulosic additives: effect of length scale

  • Jielong Su
  • Liyuan Zhang
  • Warren Batchelor
  • Gil Garnier
Original Paper


Composites of cellulose fibers were made with paper-making technology. Two types of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC), obtained by with either homogenization or ball milling, were blended with hardwood fibers to give composites having high strength and low air permeability. The strengthening effects of the MFCs were compared with strengthening by cellulose microparticles (CMPs) made by cryogenic milling, with and without polyamideamine-epichlorohydrin addition. The MFC from homogenization was fully retained on the fiber web due to a broad size distribution; in contrast, the retention ratio for MFC produced by ball milling was lower than 50 % because of its smaller particle size. The small size caused the resulting paper to display a more compact and denser structure. The main distinction between the papers made with the two types of MFC was the elongation at break under wet conditions, suggesting that they reinforce the paper in different ways. On the other hand, CMPs act as mechanical debonders and could find application in tissue paper, increasing paper bulk and decreasing the density and thus improve tissue softness.


MFC Polymer Paper Composite Permeability Strength 



The financial contribution of Australian Research Council (LP0990526), Visy and Nopco paper technology is acknowledged. Thank to Dr. W.K.J. Mosse, P. Chandran and I. Stopka for the cellulose micro-particles, Professor X. Wang and Associate Professor T. Tsuzuki from Deakin University for providing cellulose nanofibrils, and S. Sharman, S. Varanasi, S. Narayanan and H. Chiam for technical help.


  1. Ahola S, Osterberg M, Laine J (2008) Cellulose nanofibrils-adsorption with poly(amideamine) epichlorohydrin studied by QCM-D and application as a paper strength additive. Cellulose 15(2):303–314. doi: 10.1007/s10570-007-9167-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aulin C, Gallstedt M, Lindstrom T (2010) Oxygen and oil barrier properties of microfibrillated cellulose films and coatings. Cellulose 17(3):559–574. doi: 10.1007/s10570-009-9393-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Espy HH (1995) The mechanism of wet-strength development in paper—a review. Tappi J 78(4):90–99Google Scholar
  4. Gardner DJ, Oporto GS, Mills R, Samir MASA (2008) Adhesion and surface issues in cellulose and nanocellulose. J Adhes Sci Technol 22(5–6):545–567. doi: 10.1163/156856108x295509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson GW, James DF (1986) The permeability of fibrous porous-media. Can J Chem Eng 64(3):364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindstrom T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, Dorris A (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50(24):5438–5466. doi: 10.1002/anie.201001273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koga H, Saito T, Kitaoka T, Nogi M, Suganuma K, Isogai A (2013) Transparent, conductive, and printable composites consisting of TEMPO-oxidized nanocellulose and carbon nanotube. Biomacromolecules 14(4):1160–1165. doi: 10.1021/Bm400075f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Manninen M, Kajanto I, Happonen J, Paltakari J (2011) The effect of microfibrillated cellulose addition on drying shrinkage and dimensional stability of wood-free paper. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 26(3):297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mosse WKJ, Boger DV, Simon GP, Garnier G (2012) Effect of cationic polyacrylamides on the interactions between cellulose fibers. Langmuir 28(7):3641–3649. doi: 10.1021/La2049579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myllytie P, Salmen L, Haimi E, Laine J (2010) Viscoelasticity and water plasticization of polymer–cellulose composite films and paper sheets. Cellulose 17(2):375–385. doi: 10.1007/s10570-009-9376-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Niskanen K (1998) Papermaking science and technology: paper physics, Book 16. Fapet Oy, Helsinki Google Scholar
  12. Obokata T, Isogai A (2007) The mechanism of wet-strength development of cellulose sheets prepared with polyamideamine-epichlorohydrin (PAE) resin. Colloid Surf A 302(1–3):525–531. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2007.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Obokata T, Isogai A (2009) Wet-strength development of cellulose sheets prepared with polyamideamine-epichlorohydrin (PAE) resin by physical interactions. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 24(2):135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Saarikoski E, Saarinen T, Salmela J, Seppala J (2012) Flocculated flow of microfibrillated cellulose water suspensions: an imaging approach for characterisation of rheological behaviour. Cellulose 19(3):647–659. doi: 10.1007/s10570-012-9661-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seth RS (1995) The effect of fiber length and coarseness on the tensile-strength of wet webs—a statistical geometry explanation. Tappi J 78(3):99–102Google Scholar
  16. Siro I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17(3):459–494. doi: 10.1007/s10570-010-9405-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Su JL, Mosse WKJ, Sharman S, Batchelor W, Garnier G (2012) Paper strength development and recyclability with polyamideamine-epichlorohydrin (PAE). Bioresources 7(1):913–924Google Scholar
  18. Su JL, Mosse WKJ, Sharman S, Batchelor WJ, Garnier G (2013) Effect of tethered and free microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) on the properties of paper composites. Cellulose 20(4):1925–1935. doi: 10.1007/s10570-013-9955-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taipale T, Osterberg M, Nykanen A, Ruokolainen J, Laine J (2010) Effect of microfibrillated cellulose and fines on the drainage of kraft pulp suspension and paper strength. Cellulose 17(5):1005–1020. doi: 10.1007/s10570-010-9431-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tejado A, van de Ven TGM (2010) Why does paper get stronger as it dries? Mater Today 13(9):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Varanasi S, Batchelor WJ (2013) Rapid preparation of cellulose nanofibre sheet. Cellulose 20(1):211–215. doi: 10.1007/s10570-012-9794-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Varanasi S, Chiam HH, Batchelor W (2012) Application and interpretation of zero and short-span testing on nanofibre sheet materials. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 27(2):343–351. doi: 10.3183/Npprj-2012-27-02-P343-351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Varanasi S, He RL, Batchelor W (2013) Estimation of cellulose nanofibre aspect ratio from measurements of fibre suspension gel point. Cellulose 20(4):1885–1896. doi: 10.1007/s10570-013-9972-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yoon SH (2006) Adsorption kinetics of polyamide-epichlorohydrin on cellulosic fibres suspended in aqueous solution. J Ind Eng Chem 12(6):877–881Google Scholar
  25. Zhang LY, Tsuzuki T, Wang XG (2010) Preparation and characterization on cellulose nanofiber film. Mater Sci Forum 654–656:1760–1763. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.654-656.1760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang LY, Batchelor W, Varanasi S, Tsuzuki T, Wang XG (2012) Effect of cellulose nanofiber dimensions on sheet forming through filtration. Cellulose 19(2):561–574. doi: 10.1007/s10570-011-9641-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia as represented by the Monash University  2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jielong Su
    • 1
  • Liyuan Zhang
    • 1
  • Warren Batchelor
    • 1
  • Gil Garnier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, Bioprocessing Research Institute of Australia (BioPRIA)Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations