4.7 Article

The reinforcement mechanism of bacterial cellulose on paper made from woody and non-woody fiber sources

Journal

CELLULOSE
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 5147-5156

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-017-1468-6

Keywords

Bacterial cellulose; Reinforcement mechanism; Non-woody fiber; Recycled fiber; Tensile strength; Dispersant

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M590783]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper Engineering, China [201628]
  3. Guangzhou Science and Technology Program [201707020011]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31600470]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To protect forest resources and increase the value of agro-industrial residues, it would be helpful to produce paper-based materials from non-woody or recycled fiber resources. This study investigated the reinforcement mechanism of bacterial cellulose (BC) on paper sheets made from different sources including softwood, hardwood, sugarcane bagasse, bamboo, wheat straw, and recycled fiber, which represent a selection of high quality, medium quality, and low quality fibers. The results showed that by maintaining BC addition at a low level of 0.5-1.5% (total paper dry weight), the paper sheets made from high and medium quality fibers have the maximum tensile index improvement, with 5-25%. The tensile index of low quality fiber including wheat straw pulp and recycled fiber pulp increased slightly and gradually with the level of BC addition; at 5% BC addition, the tensile indexes increased by 9 and 40%, respectively. To investigate the BC reinforcement mechanism, different fiber characteristics, SEM images of BC reinforced paper, BC retention rate on paper, and the effects of dispersant addition were evaluated. It was found that high BC addition or retention rate in paper sheets do not necessarily result in good BC reinforcement effects but that proper dispersion of BC is important.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available