Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T23:23:16.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strength Loss in Recycled Fibers and Methods of Restoration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

James L. Minor  and
Rajai H. Atalla
James L. Minor
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53705-2398
Rajai H. Atalla
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53705-2398
Get access

Abstract

The reduced interfiber bonding capability and reduced conformability of recycled fibers compared to virgin wood pulp fibers is caused by the drying phase of the first papermaking cycle. Changes in the fiber result in stiffness. This effect is more pronounced in chemical pulps than in high lignin content mechanical pulps. This chapter describes methods for restoring some or all the interfiber bonding. In an attempt to develop a “dry” newspaper recycling process, the water-intensive repulping and paper-forming steps were replaced with dry-fiberizing, air-forming, gas-phase ozone and ammonia treatments, and pressdrying. The tensile strength of the dry-recycled paper approached that of the original newsprint.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 266: Symposium LA – Materials Interactions Relevant to Recycling of Wood-Based Materials , 1992 , 215
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Atalla, R.H., Woitkovich, C.P., and Setterholm, V.C., Tappi J. 68(11), 116–119 (1985).Google Scholar
2. Clark, J. d'A., Pulp Technology and Treatment for Paper, 2nd ed. (Miller Freeman Publications, Inc., San Francisco, 1985), pp. 458–461.Google Scholar
3. Doshi, M., Prog. Paper Recyl. 1(2), 2 (1992).Google Scholar
4. McKee, R.C., Paper Trade J. 155(21), 34–40 (1971).Google Scholar
5. Dry Strength Additives, edited by Reynolds, W.F., (TAPPI PRESS, Atlanta, 1980).Google Scholar
6. Skaar, T.F., TAPPI 1984 Pulping Conference Proceedings, Book 2, pp. 211–216 (1984).Google Scholar
7. Bliss, T., TAPPI 1984 Pulping Conference Proceedings, Book 2, pp. 217–225 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Abadie-Maumert, F.A. and Soteland, N., Ozone Sci. and Eng. 7(3), 229–239 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Shackford, L.,.Pulp and Paper, February, 7 (1992).Google Scholar
10. de Ruvo, A., Farnstrand, P.-A., Hagen, N., and Haglund, N., Tappi J., 69(6), 100–103 (1986).Google Scholar
11. Wicks, L., Tappi J. 66(4), 61–64 (1983).Google Scholar
12. Wicks, L., TAPPI 1986 Pulping Conference, Reprinted in “Recycling Paper from Fiber to Finished Product.” Coleman, M.J., Ed., Vol.2, 741–745, 1991.Google Scholar
13. Goulet, Christine L. and Thompson, Roger B., U.S. Patent No. 5 059 280 (22 October 1991).Google Scholar
14. Scott, C. Tim, Gunderson, D.E., Davila, A., and Laufenberg, T., AICHE Ann. Meeting Proc., Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 17–21, 1991.Google Scholar
15. Abrahamsson, K., Lowendahl, L., and Samuelson, O., Svensk Papperstidn. (Research supplement) 84(18), R153–8 (1981).Google Scholar
16. Setterholm, V.C., Tappi 62(3), 45–46 (1979).Google Scholar
17. Gunderson, D.E., Paperi Ja Puu 74(5), 412–418 (1992).Google Scholar