The Penetration Profile of Water-based Inks into Laboratory Sheets made from Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To make paper products water repelling, a hydrophobic chemical, known as size, is added to the pulp slurry in the wet end of the paper machine. It can be shown that size prevents water from penetrating the fiber structure, by measuring the contact angle between a droplet of water and a sized paper surface. More sizing will result in higher contact angle and thus less penetration. The traditional view on the penetration of water based inks, is that the ink behaves as water in terms of penetration. Thus, it is considered that sizing has the effect of preventing water based inks from penetrating paper. However, studies made by Viet Hoang and Huy Ly at the Australian Pulp and Paper Institute, APPI, revealed that normal sizing had no effect on the penetration of water based inks. The present work was an extended study of the effect of sizing on the ink penetration profile of water based inks. It was decided to study the effect of four levels of sizing on the penetration depth of two water-based inks. As the effect of refining and pressing was also believed to have an effect on the penetration depth, three levels of each were included in the study. Pulp provided by the Australian Paper’s Maryvale mill was beaten in the Valley Beater to three different Canadian standard freeness values. Unsized and sized hand sheets were made in the Moving Belt Drainage Former and were wet pressed to three different levels. The measured paper properties were contact angle, grammage and thickness. Sheets from different refining and pressing groups were then printed in full tone with yellow Hewlett-Packard and magenta Epson inks. The ink penetration profile was then analyzed using the confocal microscope. The results show that when printing with water-based yellow and magenta inks the effect of sizing on the penetration depth was generally insignificant. This shows that water-based inks do not behave as water when penetrating the paper sheet. Thus, sizing can not be applied to prevent ink from penetrating paper. The only cases where a clear decrease in penetration, due to sizing, could be seen, was for sheets made from pulp with a low level of refining and for highly wet pressed sheets.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".