Recycling performance of softwood and hardwood unbleached kraft pulps for packaging papers
Source abstract
Abstract
The scope of this work is to evaluate the recyclability potential of hardwood and softwood unbleached kraft pulps, leading to a sound basis for comparison and even to support a decision about fibers according to the performance achieved. The influence of successive recycling cycles (up to 10 cycles) on the fiber morphology, pulp suspension drainability, water retention capacity, and handsheet mechanical properties were studied for Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus sylvestris unbleached kraft pulps. The performance of these pulps as linerboard and corrugating medium for packaging was also evaluated. The requirements for brown kraftliner and for high performance recycled fluting grades is preserved for E. globulus pulp during all 10 recycling cycles, evidenced by the moderate decrease of burst index and crush resistance index and by the short-span compression index, whereas the P. sylvestris pulp loses this rating after the second cycle. These results strongly support the higher performance of E. globulus pulp for recycling as compared with softwood kraft pulp from the perspective of packaging papers.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Lignin and Wood Chemistry · Material Properties and Processing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. EPRC, “Monitoring Report 2020 European Declaration on Paper Recycling 2016-2020,” European Paper Recycling Council, Brussels, 2020, pp. 3-5.
2. van Wyk, W. and Gerischer, G., Pap. Puu 64(9): 5(1982). https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v5i1.382.10.4102/curationis.v5i1.382 ↗
3. Howard, R.C. and Bichard, W., J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 18(4): J151(1992).
4. Geffertova, J. and Geffert, A., “Recycling of the hardwood kraft pulp,” in Material Recycling, Trends and Perspectives, InTech, Rijeka, 2012, pp. 265-298. https://doi.org/10.5772/33080.10.5772/33080 ↗
5. Hubbe, M.A., Venditti, R.A., Barbour, R.L., et al., Prog. Pap. Recycl. 12(3): 11(2003).
6. Retulainen, E., Niskanen, K., and Nilsen, K., “Paper physics,” in Papermaking Science and Technology, 2nd edn., Fapet Oy, Helsinki, 1998.
7. Kohnke, T., Lund, K., Brelid, H., et al., Carbohydr. Polym. 81(2):226(2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.02.023.10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.02.023 ↗
8. Hubbe, M.A, Venditti, R.A, and Rojas, O.J., BioResources 2(4): 739(2007).10.15376/biores.2.1.1-2 ↗
9. Jayme, G. and Büttel, H., Wochenbl. Papierfabr. 96(6): 180(1968).
10. Paavilainen, L., Pap. Puu 75(9-10): 896(1993). https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.1993.11437298.10.1080/02564602.1993.11437298 ↗
11. Zhang, M., Hubbe, M.A., Venditti, R.A., et al., J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 30(1): 29(2004).
12. Okayama, T., Kawana, J.-S., Ishikura, Y., et al., Appita Ann. Gen. Conf., Appita, Bundoora, Australia, 2001, p. 481.
13. Tiseo, I., “Global paper industry — statistics & facts”, in Statistica, New York, 2022. Available [Online] https://www.statista.com/top-ics/1701/paper-industry/#dossierKeyfigures.
14. CEPI ContainerBoard, “European list of corrugated base papers,” 5th edn., 2017. Available [Online] https://www.cepi-container-board.org/display_doc.php?id=2497.
15. Kreplin, F., Putz, H., and Schabel, S., TAPPI J. 18(11): 631(2019). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ18.11.631.10.32964/TJ18.11.631 ↗
16. Eckhart, R., “Über die Rezyklierbarkeit von Faltschachtelkarton,” Wochenbl. Papierfabr. 11: 608(2021). https://doi.org/10.51202/0043-7131-2021-11-608.10.51202/0043-7131-2021-11-608 ↗
17. Sousa, A.P.M., Almeida, C.A.A, Pedrosa, J.F.S., et al., “The poten-tial of short fibers recycling,” XXIV Tecnicelpa – Int. For., Pulp Pap. Conf., Tecnicelpa, Tomar, Portugal, 2018, p. 131.
18. Iakovlev, M. and van Heiningen, A., J. Wood Chem. Technol. 31(3): 233(2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/02773813.2010.523161.10.1080/02773813.2010.523161 ↗
19. Selvendran, R.R., March, J.F., and Ring, S.G., Anal. Biochem. 96(2): 282(1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(79)90583-9.10.1016/0003-2697(79)90583-9 ↗
20. Blakeney, A.B., Harris, P.J., Robert, J.H., et al., Carbohydr. Res. 113(2): 291(1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-6215(83)88244-5.10.1016/0008-6215(83)88244-5 ↗
21. Oliveira, R.J., Santos, B., Mota, M.J., et al., Holzforschung 75(10): 957(2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2020-0250.10.1515/hf-2020-0250 ↗
22. Maloney, T.C., J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 121: 7(2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-015-4592-2.10.1007/s10973-015-4592-2 ↗
23. Fellers, C., “Edgewise compression strength of paper,” in Handbook of Physical and Mechanical Testing of Paper and Paperboard (R.E. Mark, Ed.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 1983.
24. Whitsitt, J.W. and Sprague, H.C., in Optimization of Machine Properties for Compressive Strength, Project 2695-22, Report One: A Progress Report to the Fourdrinier Kraft Board Group of the American Paper Institute, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 1982. Available [Online] https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/702/2695-22_001_03151982.pdf.