Using cationic polyvinyl alcohol (C-PVA) to improve the strength of wood-free papers containing high-yield pulp (HYP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High-yield pulp (HYP) is gaining increasing interest in wood-free papers, because it can improve the bulk, formation, and opacity of papers. However, one of the challenges for the papermakers is the strength of papers when a large amount of HYP is replaced with hardwood kraft pulp. In this work, we explored the potential of using cationic-modified polyvinyl alcohol (C-PVA) in increasing the strength properties of HYP. Also, C-PVA was applied to the paper-sheets made of softwood/hardwood bleached kraft pulps (SBKP/HBKP) and HYP under various conditions, and the corresponding paper properties were evaluated. It was observed that C-PVA increased the strength properties of these paper-sheets, and the results obtained from using C-PVA were only slightly less effective than those obtained from using cationic starch (C-starch). Furthermore, the addition of C-PVA to HYP, and subsequently mixing with the blend of SBKP/HBKP (option no. 1) improved the tensile and burst indices, light scattering coefficient and apparent density of paper-sheets more significantly than did the addition of C-PVA directly to the mixed furnish of SBKP/HBKP/HYP (option no. 2). Additionally, atomic force microscope (AFM) analysis showed that the attraction force, developed between the AFM-tip and the fiber surface, was changed by the C-PVA modification. The tensile and burst indices of paper-sheets were improved by adding 10 mg g -1 C-PVA and substituting 30% of HYP for HBKP, whereas the tear index, apparent density, PPS-roughness, and brightness decreased.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".