| Literature DB >> 31991802 |
Ana Balea1, Elena Fuente1, M Concepcion Monte1, Noemi Merayo1,2, Cristina Campano1, Carlos Negro1, Angeles Blanco1.
Abstract
Nanocelluloses (NC) increase mechanical and barrier paper properties allowing the use of paper in applications actually covered by other materials. Despite the exponential increase of information, NC have not been fully implemented in papermaking yet, due to the challenges of using NC. This paper provides a review of the main new findings and emerging possibilities in this field by focusing mainly on: (i) Decoupling the effects of NC on wet-end and paper properties by using synergies with retention aids, chemical modification, or filler preflocculation; (ii) challenges and solutions related to the incorporation of NC in the pulp suspension and its effects on barrier properties; and (iii) characterization needs of NC at an industrial scale. The paper also includes the market perspectives. It is concluded that to solve these challenges specific solutions are required for each paper product and process, being the wet-end optimization the key to decouple NC effects on drainage and paper properties. Furthermore, the effect of NC on recyclability must also be taken into account to reach a compromise solution. This review helps readers find upscale options for using NC in papermaking and identify further research needs within this field.Entities:
Keywords: cellulose microfibers; cellulose nanocrystals; cellulose nanofibers; industrial nanocellulose use; paper quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 31991802 PMCID: PMC7037648 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25030526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Synergies between retention systems and NC (effects on retention and drainage with respect to the pulp with RS but without NC).
| NC Type | Pulp | RS | Effect on Retention and Drainage | Increase in TI | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carboxylated CNF from ECF Birch Kraft pulp | ECF pine kraft | CS (1.5%) | Drainage rate increased up to 10% (3% CNF) | 25% (3% CNF) | [ |
| Enzymatic and mechanical CNF from bagasse soda pulp | Bagasse soda pulp | CPAM (0.1%) | Kept drainage rate | 30% (1% CNF) | [ |
| Enzymatic CNF from BEKP | BEKP (34SR) | CPAM (0.02%) | Preflocculation of PCC with CNF. Filler retention increased up to 3% (3% CNF) | 20% (3% CNF) | [ |
| TEMPO CNF from BEKP 0.6 and 1.5 mmol/g COOH | BEKP (34SR) | CPAM (0.02%) | Preflocculation of PCC with CNF. Filler retention increased up to 4% (3% CNF of 0.6 mmol/g COOH) | Wet strength increased up to 100% at 20% moisture | [ |
| Mechanical CNF from semichemical wheat straw pulp | Semichemical wheat straw pulp | CS (0.5%) –colloidal silica (0.8%) | Drainage rate decreases, 105% (3% CNF) | 28% (increase in breaking length no TI data) | [ |
| TEMPO CNF from BEKP | DIP | CS (0.5%) –colloidal silica (0.8%) | Decreased drainage rate, 14% higher ºSR (1.5% CNF), but the beating causing similar ºSR got a lower increase in TI | 41% (1.5% CNF) | [ |
| Chitosan | Increased drainage rate up to 50% | 16% (1%–1.5% CNF) | [ | ||
| CPAM | Increased drainage rate up to 40% (0.5% CNF) | Decreased by 15% | |||
| CPAM | Increased drainage rate 15% (0.5% CNF) | 15% | |||
| TEMPO CNF corn stalk organosolv pulp | DIP | Chitosan | Increased drainage rate up to 50% and retention of fillers up to 5% | 14% (1%–1.5% CNF) | |
| CPAM | Increased drainage rate up to 40% (0.5% CNF) | Decreased by 5% | |||
| CPAM | Increased drainage rate up to 25% (0.5% CNF) | 31% | |||
| Mechanical CNF from bleached organosolv corn stalk pulp | DIP | Polyquaternary ammonium chloride (0.7 mg/g) – CPAM (0.7 mg/g) | Increased drainage rate up to 20% | 10% (0.5% CNF) | [ |
| Chitosan | Kept drainage rate | 10% (0.5% CNF) | |||
| TEMPO CNF from bleached organosolv rape stalk pulp | DIP | Chitosan | Increased drainage rate up to 20% | 5% (0.5% CNF) | |
| TEMPO CNF* from bleached hardwood kraft pulp | TMP + 40% kaolin | PEI (0.2%) – | Increased retention of filler from 40% up to 95% | No data | [ |
| Mechanical CNF from softwood alpha – cellulose | Hardwood pulp + softwood pulp | CS (0.5 and 0.7%) | No data | 15%–20% (increase in breaking length no TI data) | [ |
| CPAM (0.03 and 0.05%) | No data | 45%–48% (increase in breaking length no TI data) | |||
| CS (0.5%) + CPAM (0.03%) | No data | 59% (increase in breaking length no TI data) | |||
| CNC* with different charge densities | DIP | CPAM – CNC (up to 1%) | Increased first pass retention and drainage rate up to 8% | No data | [ |
| CNC* with different lengths | Recycled office white paper | Poly-DADMAC (0.05%) – CPAM (0.05%) – CNC (0.4%) | Increased drainage rate up to 20% | No data | [ |
BEKP: Bleached Eucalyptus Kraft pulp; CS: Cationic starch; CPAM: Cationic polyacrylamide; DIP: Deinked pulp from old newspaper (ONP) and old magazine paper (OMG); DTPA: Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; ECF: Elemental chlorine free bleached; PCC: Precipitated calcium carbonate; PEI: Polyethylenimine; Poly-DADMAC: Poly-(diallyldimethylammonium chloride); TEMPO: (2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidin-1-yl)oxyl; TMP: Thermomechanical pulp. Doses on dry solids.* These NC have been used as anionic microparticles of the retention system.
Effects of modified NC on papermaking (effects with respect to the situation without NC).
| Modification | NC | Agent | Pulp * | Effects on Papermaking | Effects on Paper Properties | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cationization | CNF | GTMAC | BKSP | No data | Dose of 5% CCNF + 5% ACNF | [ |
| Fines retention increased from 87% to 91% (5% CNF) | Dose of 5% (charge density 0.61 mmol/g) | [ | ||||
| Raisacat-reagent | TMP with 40% kaolin | Filler retention of more than 95% (1.5% CNF; charge density 0.41 meq/g) | No data | [ | ||
| No data. Surface charge: 0.69 meq/g | Softwood pulp | No data | Dose of 10% | [ | ||
| β-CEDEA + methyl iodide | Bagasse pulp | GCC retention 15% (1% bentonite) | Dose of 0.1%. | [ | ||
| Etherification | Tobacco pulp | PCC filler retention and pulp retention increased to 32% and 82%, respectively (0.4% CNF) | Dose of 0.4%. | [ | ||
| CNC | DTPA + chitosan | OCC | No data | Dose of 2%. | [ | |
| CNCC | GT | Recycled deinked newspaper pulp | Filler retention increased by 77% and drainage time reduced by 78% | Dose of 2%. | [ | |
| BC (static culture) | CHPTAC (DS = 0.004) | BSBP | Retention of fiber increased from 85% to 95% | Dose of 1%. | [ | |
| Carboxylation | CNC | TEMPO-mediated oxidation | BKSP | No data | Dose of 0.7%. | [ |
| Carboxyme-thylation | CNF | Isopropanol + MCA | BKEP | PCC retention increased up to 90% without retention aids and it keeps constant with retention aids | TI decreased from 8%–24% depending the pretreatment intensity and the use of retention aids | [ |
ACNF: Anionic cellulose nanofibers; BBF: Bleached birch fiber; BSBP: Bleached sugarcane bagasse pulps; β-CEDEA: β-chloroethyldiethylamine; BKSP: Bleached Kraft softwood pulp; CNCC: Cationic hairy nanocellulose; CCNF: Cationic cellulose nanofibers; CHPTAC: (3-Chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)- trimethylammonium chloride; DS: Degree of substitution; DTPA: Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; GCC: Ground calcium carbonate; GT: (2-Hydrazinyl-2-oxoethyl)-trimethylazanium chloride; GTMAC: Glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride; MCA: Monochloroacetic acid; OCC: Old corrugated containerboard; Raisacat-reagent: 73% glycidyl trialkylammonium chloride; poly-DADMAC: Poly-(diallyldimethylammonium chloride); TEA: Tensile energy absorption; TMP: Thermomechanical pulp. * Type of pulp used in the papermaking tests.
Figure 1Alternatives for BC dispersion (BCNF: BC nanofibers; BCNC: BC nanocrystals).
Figure 2Some strategies in NC surface application (CMC: Carboxymethyl cellulose; CS: Cationic starch).