pp 1–20 | Cite as

Effect of refining and homogenization on nanocellulose fiber development, sheet strength and energy consumption

  • Shaun Ang
  • Victoria Haritos
  • Warren BatchelorEmail author
Original Research


Nanocellulose has great potential for end use in the pulp and paper industry, but its mechanical production process is often extremely energy intensive. Although various pre-treatment methods have been introduced to significantly lower the energy consumption of nanocellulose production, there still remains a great challenge to match the cost to mechanical strength performance of nanocellulose. This research investigates the relationship between energy consumption with numerous refining and homogenization cycles towards the production of high aspect ratio and low diameter nanocellulose, and whether this is necessary to achieve high strength sheets. Never-dried Bleached Eucalyptus Kraft pulp was mechanically treated with a PFI mill refiner and homogenizer. The actual homogenization energy measured on a lab scale was significantly higher than that predicted only from the simplified pressure drop equation which is inaccurately independent of homogenizer design and size. We measured two aspects of fiber quality believed to be related to sheet mechanical strength: the fiber diameter, which is inversely proportional to the surface area available for bonding, and the fiber aspect ratio, which is believed to control the efficiency of stress transfer within a network. Both refining and homogenization reduced the fiber diameter and increased the aspect ratio, but homogenization was more effective at both. There was surprisingly little correlation between the measures of fiber quality and mechanical sheet strength. All PFI mill refined samples had a tensile index of around 100 Nm/g, while additional treatment with homogenization increased this only by approximately 20%. This was despite the most heavily treated fibers (50,000 PFI revolutions and 3 homogenization passes at 1000 bar) having a median diameter of 12 nm and aspect ratio of 229 compared to the least treated fibers (10,000 PFI revolutions) with a median diameter of 31 nm and aspect ratio of 102. The most heavily treated fibers required 39,000 kWh/t of energy, a tenfold increase over the least heavily treated fibers. The results confirmed that there was small benefit, in terms of mechanical strength, of using very large amounts of energy to produce very low diameter, high aspect ratio nanocellulose fibers.

Graphical abstract


Nanocellulose Energy consumption Strength Aspect ratio SEM 



The authors wish to thank Australian Paper Maryvale for their support and funding for the research project. The authors also wish to acknowledge the Monash Centre of Electron Microscopy (MCEM) for use of their SEM facilities. Shaun Ang would like to thank the Australian Government for a Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship.

Supplementary material

10570_2019_2400_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26,783 kb)


  1. Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Isolation and characterization of nanofibers from agricultural residues—wheat straw and soy hulls. Biores Technol 99:1664–1671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen M, Stenius P (2007) Water-in-oil emulsions stabilized by hydrophobized microfibrillated cellulose. J Dispers Sci Technol 28:837–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ankerfors M (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose energy-efficient preparation techniques and key properties. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. Aulin C, Gällstedt M, Lindström T (2010) Oxygen and oil barrier properties of microfibrillated cellulose films and coatings. Cellulose 17:559–574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campano C et al (2018) Mechanical and chemical dispersion of nanocelluloses to improve their reinforcing effect on recycled paper. Cellulose 25:269–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Celzard A, Fierro V, Kerekes R (2009) Flocculation of cellulose fibres: new comparison of crowding factor with percolation and effective-medium theories. Cellulose 16:983–987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang CP, Wang IC, Perng YS (2013) Enhanced thermal behavior, mechanical properties and UV shielding of polylactic acid (PLA) Composites reinforced with nanocrystalline cellulose and filled with nanosericite. Cellul Chem Technol 47:111–123Google Scholar
  8. Dimic-Misic K, Gane PAC, Paltakari J (2013) Micro and nanofibrillated cellulose as a rheology modifier additive in CMC-containing pigment-coating formulations. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:16066–16083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimic-Misic K, Ridgway C, Maloney T, Paltakari J, Gane P (2014) Influence on pore structure of micro/nanofibrillar cellulose in pigmented coating formulations. Transp Porous Media 103:155–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimic-Misic K, Rantanen J, Maloney TC, Gane PAC (2016) Gel structure phase behavior in micro nanofibrillated cellulose containing in situ precipitated calcium carbonate. J Appl Polym Sci. Google Scholar
  11. Dimic-Misic K, Maloney T, Gane P (2018a) Effect of fibril length, aspect ratio and surface charge on ultralow shear-induced structuring in micro and nanofibrillated cellulose aqueous suspensions. Cellulose 25:117–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimic-Misic K, Vanhatalo K, Dahl O, Gane P (2018b) Rheological properties comparison of aqueous dispersed nanocellulose derived from a novel pathway-produced microcrystalline cellulose or by conventional methods. Appl Rheol. Google Scholar
  13. Eichhorn SJ et al (2001) Current international research into cellulosic fibres and composites. J Mater Sci 36:2107–2131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eichhorn SJ et al (2010) Review: Current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El Baradai O, Beneventi D, Alloin F, Bongiovanni R, Bruas-Reverdy N, Bultel Y, Chaussy D (2016) Microfibrillated cellulose based ink for eco-sustainable screen printed flexible electrodes in lithium ion batteries. J Mater Sci Technol 32:566–572. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Ferrer A, Filpponen I, Rodríguez A, Laine J, Rojas OJ (2012) Valorization of residual empty palm fruit bunch fibers (EPFBF) by microfluidization: production of nanofibrillated cellulose and EPFBF nanopaper. Bioresour Technol 125:249–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund LA, Lindström T (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43:3434–3441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henriksson M, Berglund LA, Isaksson P, Lindström T, Nishino T (2008) Cellulose nanopaper structures of high toughness. Biomacromolecules 9:1579–1585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubbe MA, Tayeb P, Joyce M, Tyagi P, Kehoe M, Dimic-Misic K, Pal L (2017) Rheology of nanocellulose-rich aqueous suspensions: a review. BioResources 12:9556–9661. Google Scholar
  21. Isogai A, Saito T, Fukuzumi H (2011a) TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers. Nanoscale 3:71–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isogai T, Saito T, Isogai A (2011b) Wood cellulose nanofibrils prepared by TEMPO electro-mediated oxidation. Cellulose 18:421–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H, Nogi M (2005) Optically transparent composites reinforced with plant fiber-based nanofibers. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 81:1109–1112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2007) Nano-fibrillation of pulp fibers for the processing of transparent nanocomposites. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 89:461–466. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iwamoto S, Abe K, Yano H (2008) The effect of hemicelluloses on wood pulp nanofibrillation and nanofiber network characteristics. Biomacromol 9:1022–1026. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karande VS, Bharimalla AK, Hadge GB, Mhaske ST, Vigneshwaran N (2011) Nanofibrillation of cotton fibers by disc refiner and its characterization. Fibers Polym 12:399–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karande VS, Mhaske ST, Bharimalla AK, Hadge GB, Vigneshwaran N (2013) Evaluation of two-stage process (refining and homogenization) for nanofibrillation of cotton fibers. Polym Eng Sci 53:1590–1597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerekes RJ (2005) Characterizing refining action in PFI mills. Tappi J 4:9–14Google Scholar
  29. Kerekes RJ (2015) Perspectives on high and low consistency refining in mechanical pulping. BioResources. Google Scholar
  30. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Gray D, Dorris A (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:5438–5466. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar V et al (2014) Comparison of nano- and microfibrillated cellulose films. Cellulose 21:3443–3456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose—its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohyd Polym 90:735–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee SY, Chun SJ, Kang IA, Park JY (2009) Preparation of cellulose nanofibrils by high-pressure homogenizer and cellulose-based composite films. J Ind Eng Chem 15:50–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis L, Derakhshandeh M, Hatzikiriakos SG, Hamad WY, MacLachlan MJ (2016) Hydrothermal gelation of aqueous cellulose nanocrystal suspensions. Biomacromolecules 17:2747–2754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindström T (2017) Aspects on nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) processing, rheology and NFC-film properties. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 29:68–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinez D et al (2001) Characterizing the mobility of papermaking fibres during sedimentation. In: The science of papermaking: transactions of the 12th fundamental research symposium, Oxford. The Pulp and Paper Fundamental Research Society, Bury, UK, pp 225–254Google Scholar
  37. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2005) Novel high-strength biocomposites based on microfibrillated cellulose having nano-order-unit web-like network structure. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process 80:155–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson K, Retsina T, Iakovlev M, van Heiningen A, Deng Y, Shatkin JA, Mulyadi A (2016) American process: production of low cost nanocellulose for renewable, advanced materials applications. In: Madsen L, Svedberg E (eds) Materials research for manufacturing. Springer series in materials science, vol 224. Springer, Cham. Google Scholar
  39. Niskanen K (1998) Papermaking science and technology, paper physics vol 16. Forest Products Engineers Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  40. Nogi M, Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2009) Optically transparent nanofiber paper. Adv Mater 21:1595–1598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osong SH, Norgren S, Engstrand P (2016) Processing of wood-based microfibrillated cellulose and nanofibrillated cellulose, and applications relating to papermaking: a review. Cellulose 23:93–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pääkko M et al (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis combined with mechanical shearing and high-pressure homogenization for nanoscale cellulose fibrils and strong gels. Biomacromolecules 8:1934–1941. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Page DH (1969) A theory for the tensile strength of paper. Tappi J 52:674–681Google Scholar
  44. Raj P, Varanasi S, Batchelor W, Garnier G (2015) Effect of cationic polyacrylamide on the processing and properties of nanocellulose films. J Colloid Interface Sci 447:113–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raj P, Mayahi A, Lahtinen P, Varanasi S, Garnier G, Martin D, Batchelor W (2016) Gel point as a measure of cellulose nanofibre quality and feedstock development with mechanical energy. Cellulose 23:3051–3064. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramires EC, Dufresne A (2011) A review of cellulose nanocrystals and nanocomposites. Tappi J 10:9–16Google Scholar
  47. Rantanen J, Maloney TC (2013) Press dewatering and nip rewetting of paper containing nano- and microfibril cellulose. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 28:582–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rantanen J, Dimic-Misic K, Pirttiniemi J, Kuosmanen P, Maloney TC (2015) Forming and dewatering of a microfibrillated cellulose composite paper. BioResources 10:3492–3506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shanmugam K, Doosthosseini H, Varanasi S, Garnier G, Batchelor W (2018) Flexible spray coating process for smooth nanocellulose film production. Cellulose 25:1725–1741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2009) Cellulose whiskers versus microfibrils: influence of the nature of the nanoparticle and its surface functionalization on the thermal and mechanical properties of nanocomposites. Biomacromolecules 10:425–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siró I, Plackett D, Hedenqvist M, Ankerfors M, Lindström T (2011) Highly transparent films from carboxymethylated microfibrillated cellulose: the effect of multiple homogenization steps on key properties. J Appl Polym Sci 119:2652–2660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spence KL, Venditti RA, Habibi Y, Rojas OJ, Pawlak JJ (2010) The effect of chemical composition on microfibrillar cellulose films from wood pulps: mechanical processing and physical properties. Biores Technol 101:5961–5968. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spence KL, Venditti RA, Rojas OJ, Habibi Y, Pawlak JJ (2011) A comparative study of energy consumption and physical properties of microfibrillated cellulose produced by different processing methods. Cellulose 18:1097–1111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stelte W, Sanadi AR (2009) Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanofibers from two commercial hardwood and softwood pulps. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:11211–11219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Su J, Mosse WKJ, Sharman S, Batchelor WJ, Garnier G (2013) Effect of tethered and free microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) on the properties of paper composites. Cellulose 20:1925–1935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Syverud K, Stenius P (2009) Strength and barrier properties of MFC films. Cellulose 16:75–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Syverud K, Chinga-Carrasco G, Toledo J, Toledo PG (2011) A comparative study of Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata pulp fibres as raw materials for production of cellulose nanofibrils. Carbohyd Polym 84:1033–1038. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taipale T, Österberg M, Nykänen A, Ruokolainen J, Laine J (2010) Effect of microfibrillated cellulose and fines on the drainage of kraft pulp suspension and paper strength. Cellulose 17:1005–1020. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. TAPPI (2001a) T 248 sp-00 Laboratory Beating of Pulp (PFI Mill Method). Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) Press, Technology Park, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. TAPPI (2001b) T 402 sp-98 Standard conditioning and testing atmospheres for paper, board, pulp handsheets, and related products. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) Press, Technology Park, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  62. TAPPI (2001c) T 494 om-96 Tensile Breaking Properties of Paper and Paperboard (Using Constant Rate of Elongation Apparatus). Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) Press, Technology Park, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. Varanasi S, He R, Batchelor W (2013) Estimation of cellulose nanofibre aspect ratio from measurements of fibre suspension gel point. Cellulose 20:1885–1896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Varanasi S, Henzel L, Sharman S, Batchelor W, Garnier G (2018) Producing nanofibres from carrots with a chemical-free process. Carbohyd Polym 184:307–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vartiainen J, Lahtinen P, Kaljunen T, Kunnari V, Peresin MS, Tammelin T (2015) Comparison of properties between cellulose nanofibrils made from banana, sugar beet, hemp, softwood and hardwood pulps. O Pap 76:57–60Google Scholar
  66. Vigneshwaran N, Satyamurthy P, Jain P (2015) Biological synthesis of nanocrystalline cellulose by controlled hydrolysis of cotton fibers and linters. In: Handbook of polymer nanocomposites. Processing, performance and application: volume C: polymer nanocomposites of cellulose nanoparticles, pp 27–36.
  67. Walker C (2012) Thinking small is leading to big changes. Paper 360(7):8–13Google Scholar
  68. Zhang L, Batchelor W, Varanasi S, Tsuzuki T, Wang X (2012) Effect of cellulose nanofiber dimensions on sheet forming through filtration. Cellulose 19:561–574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioresource Processing Research Institute of Australia, Department of Chemical EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations