4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Biobased polymers and cationic micro-fibrillated cellulose as retention and drainage aids in papermaking: Comparison between softwood and bagasse pulps

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 34-45

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.01.072

关键词

Flocculation; Retention; Chitosan; MFC; Microparticles; Bentonite; Paper

资金

  1. Institut Francais d'Egypte
  2. LabEx Tec 21 (Investissements d'Avenir) [ANR-11-LABX-0030]
  3. Energies du Futur and PolyNat Carnot Institutes (Investissements d'Avenir) [ANR-11-CARN-007-01, ANR-11-CARN-030-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water soluble cationic chitosan (C-Ch) and surface-modified microfibrillated cellulose (C-MFC) were prepared and characterized. C-MFC was prepared by reaction of MFC (microfibrillated cellulose) with beta-chloroethyldiethylamine followed by quatemization using methyl iodide while C-Ch was prepared by reaction of a commercial chitosan (Ch) with 2,3-epoxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride. C-Ch and C-MFC were characterized by elemental analysis (nitrogen content), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and surface charge determination. The prepared C-Ch and C-MFC were used with bentonite in order to improve drainage and filler retention in paper handsheets made from softwood and bagasse pulps. Dosage rates were 0.05-0.2% (w/w, weight of additive by weight of fibres) and 0.05-1% (w/w) for C-Ch and C-MFC, respectively. When used alone, these polymers did not induce any noticeable effect on drainage but they improved the retention of ground calcium carbonate (GCC). The effect of C-MFC/bentonite and C-Ch/bentonite systems on filler retention was more pronounced in case of bagasse pulp than for softwood pulp. The use of C-Ch improved filler retention more than C-MFC did. Comparisons with a commercially available cationic polyacrylamide (CPAM) showed that CPAM was the most efficient additive regarding both drainage and GCC retention, followed by Ch, C-Ch, and finally C-MFC. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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