| Literature DB >> 23531016 |
Ashley R Flory1, Deborah Vicuna Requesens, Shivakumar P Devaiah, Keat Thomas Teoh, Shawn D Mansfield, Elizabeth E Hood.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important for industries to find green chemistries for manufacturing their products that have utility, are cost-effective and that protect the environment. The paper industry is no exception. Renewable resources derived from plant components could be an excellent substitute for the chemicals that are currently used as paper binders. Air laid pressed paper products that are typically used in wet wipes must be bound together so they can resist mechanical tearing during storage and use. The binders must be strong but cost-effective. Although chemical binders are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, the public is demanding products with lower carbon footprints and that are derived from renewable sources.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23531016 PMCID: PMC3644241 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6750-13-28
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biotechnol ISSN: 1472-6750 Impact factor: 2.563
Summary of all substrates tested as binder
| Protein | Soy Protein | Defatted soybean meal (Arkansas State University) |
| | HRGP | Corn silk (Arkansas State University) |
| | Gelatin | Knox Gelatin (Kraft Foods, Glenview, IL) |
| | | JELL-O (Kraft Foods, Glenview, IL) |
| | | Bovine & Porcine (Great Lakes Gelatin, Grayslake, IL) |
| | Zein | Acros Organics, Geel, Belgium |
| Carbohydrates | Agar | Seng Huad Limited Partnership (Bangkok, Thailand) |
| | Agarose | Genetic Analysis (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburg, PA) |
| | | Analytical Grade (Promega, Madison, WI) |
| | Pectin | Sure-Jell (Kraft Foods, Glenview, IL) |
| | | Ball (Jarden Home Brands, Daleville, IN) |
| | | Apple (Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO) |
| | | Grapefruit (Source Naturals, Inc., Scotts Valley, CA) |
| | Gum Arabic | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
| | Xanthan Gum | Kountry Kupboard, Jonesboro, AR |
| | Locust Bean Gum | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
| | Carrageen | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
| | Kelp Powder | Now Foods, Bloomingdale, IL |
| | Flaxseed | Now Foods, Bloomingdale, IL |
| Lignin/ | Black Liquor | Buckeye Technologies Inc., Memphis, TN |
| Phenolic Compounds | | |
| | Lignin Low Sulfonate | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
| | Sodium Lignin Sulfonate | MP Biomedicals, LLC, Solon, OH |
| | Salix | Vertichem, Toronto, Canada |
| | Marasperse | Lignotech, Rothschild, WI |
| | Ferulic Acid | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
| Coniferyl Alcohol | Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO |
Binder differences from the commercial binder
| | | |
| HRGP + 300 ug HRP | No | |
| 3% Zein | | |
| 5% Zein | | |
| TSP (Pellet Resuspended) | | |
| TSP/ 250 μg HRP (10 min) | No | |
| 9% Knox Gelatin | | |
| 9% Knox Gelatin + 200 ug HRP | No | |
| 9% JELL-O | | |
| Porcine 300 Bloom | | |
| Bovine 250 Bloom | | |
| | | |
| 0.8% Agar | No | |
| 3% Agar (Analytical) | No | |
| 1% Agar (Genetic Analysis) | No | |
| 11% Sure-Jell (low sugar) | No | |
| 9% Sure- Jell | No | |
| 1% Gum Arabic | No | |
| 5% GA + 250 ug HRP | No | |
| Kelp | No | |
| Flax Seed | No | |
| Xanthan Gum | No | |
| Locust Bean Gum | No | |
| 1% Carrageen | No | |
| | | |
| 5% Ball Pectin | | |
| 7% Ball Pectin | | |
| 9% Ball Pectin | | |
| 5% Apple | No | |
| 5% Apple + 1N HCl | No | |
| 5% Apple+CA (0.50 g) | | |
| 3% Grapefruit | No | |
| 3% Grapefruit + CA (0.23 g) | | |
| | | |
| Black Liquor (Heat) | No | |
| Black Liquor + HCl | No | |
| Lignin Low Sulfonate (Heat) | No | |
| Lignin Low Sulfonate + HCl | No | |
| 5% Salix (Heat) | | |
| Lignin Sulfonate (Heat) | No | |
| Lignin Sulfonate + HCl | No | |
| Marasperse (Heat) | No | |
| Marasperse + HCl | No | |
| Ferulic Acid (2 mg/ml) | No | |
| Coniferyl Alcohol (2 mg/ml) | No |
The goal of these experiments was to find a green binder that was not significantly lower than the currently used commercial binder. All binders that were not significantly different at the 95% confidence level are marked “Yes”. Only the Knox gelatin binders were significantly higher than the commercial binder.
1Samples that are not significantly different are those that perform as well as the commercial binder. All samples that are significantly different have lower values except for the gelatin, which was significantly higher. See Materials and Methods for statistical treatments.
Figure 1SDS-PAGE of HRGP and HRP reactions, A. RT to 37°C; B. 37°C to 50°C.
Figure 2Gel permeation chromatography of various substrates with HRP.
Figure 3Gel permeation chromatography of various substrates with laccase.
Figure 4Summary of average tensile strength of protein binders. Tear weight is the average of the weight required to tear three strips of paper individually. Error bars represent standard deviation. HRP: Horseradish peroxidase. HRGP: Hydroxyproline-rich glycoprotein. TSP: Textured soy protein.
Figure 5Summary of average tensile strength of carbohydrate binders. Tear weight is the average of the weight required to tear three strips of paper individually. Error bars represent standard deviation. GA: Gum arabic. HRP: Horseradish peroxidase.
Figure 6Average tensile strength of pectin binders. Tear weight is the average of the weight required to tear three strips of paper individually. Error bars represent standard deviation. CA: Citric Acid.
Figure 7Average tensile strength of lignin/phenolic compound binders. Error bars represent standard deviation. HCl: Hydrochloric acid HRP: Horseradish peroxidase.