4.5 Review

A review of the traditional pulping methods and the recent improvements in the pulping processes

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-020-01243-6

关键词

Lignin; Mechanical pulping; Chemical pulping; Semi-chemical pulping; Nanocellulose

资金

  1. Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper provides a critical overview of traditional pulping methods and recent improvements, comparing different techniques and emphasizing the effectiveness of semi-chemical pulping. It also discusses recent modifications in pulping processes with a focus on energy savings and quality enhancement. Moreover, it highlights the challenges and prospects in the field of pulping processes.
The demand for paper and pulp-derived products to fulfill consumer needs is increasing considerably globally. This work provides a critical overview of the various traditional pulping methods and describes the recent improvements in pulping processes. A comparison of different pulping techniques has shown that the mechanical pulping process produces high pulp yields per unit volume of wood of poor quality (low strength, bonding, fiber morphology, etc.) as compared to chemical pulping methods. The use of semi-chemical pulping is reported as an effective way of overcoming the disadvantages of the mechanical pulping process. Recent modifications of the pulping processes that have happened in the last decade have been discussed and shown to be driven by the desire to save energy and reduce chemical requirements while maximizing pulp yields and quality. With the emergence of bio-based nanotechnology, post-pretreatment of Kraft and sulfite pulps for making nanocellulose and lignin-containing nanocellulose with improved fiber characteristics of fiber size, crystallinity, chemical composition, and fiber surface functionality has been discussed. Furthermore, challenges and prospects of the improvements in pulping processes are highlighted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据