4.7 Article

Cationic cellulosic derivatives as flocculants in papermaking

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 3015-3027

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-017-1313-y

关键词

Cationization; Cellulose; Fillers for papermaking; Flocculation; Laser diffraction spectrometry

资金

  1. Asociacion Universitaria Iberoamericana de Posgrado
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BDE/108095/2015]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BDE/108095/2015] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water-soluble cationic cellulose derivatives were synthesized by three different procedures, cationizing bleached hardwood kraft pulp with (3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl) trimethylammonium chloride. The first procedure involved a previous depolymerization step with orthophosphoric acid. The second one consisted on dissolving cellulose in NaOH/urea before cationization. For the third procedure, the reaction medium was heterogeneous since it was carried out with a part of cellulose with high degree of polymerization. Oppositely to the common methods, cationization occurred under mild conditions. Differences among the three derivatives are illustrated by X-ray diffraction patterns of pretreated samples, infrared spectra, and determinations of the degree of substitution, the zeta potential, the charge density and the molecular weight. The performance of these polyelectrolytes for the flocculation of mineral fillers used in papermaking was tested by laser diffraction spectrometry. The flocculant with the highest degree of polymerization and charge originated the best results, particularly when the filler used was kaolin, proving that water-soluble cationic cellulose derivatives can aid in the flocculation of fillers used in papermaking. On the contrary, the shortest-chained derivative was not effective. The results were interpreted in terms of the characteristics of the cellulose derivatives flocculants and of the fillers, and neutralization and patching were proposed as the dominant mechanisms.

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

4.7
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