Assessing bleached bamboo fibers as a hardwood replacement via kraft co-cooking for paperboard applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for sustainable packaging worldwide, coupled with rising hardwood costs in the southern United States, has driven interest in alternative raw materials for the pulp and paper industry. Bamboo ( Phyllostachys nigra “Henon” ) presents a promising substitute due to its rapid growth, fiber characteristics, and suitability for kraft pulping. This study investigates the kraft co-cooking of bamboo and hardwood as a strategy to optimize fiber sourcing for Solid Bleached Sulfate (SBS) applications. Pulping, bleaching, and refining experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of bamboo-hardwood blends compared to single-species pulps. Results indicate that bamboo delignification is faster than hardwood but exhibits lower pulping yield (45.8 % vs. 50.5 %). Co-cooked pulps retained favorable fiber morphology and mechanical properties, enhancing the tensile and tear strength of bamboo and hardwood-bamboo mixtures when refined at similar Canadian Standard Freeness values. The D₀EopD₁ bleaching sequence achieved comparable brightness (approx. 90 % ISO) for all pulps, while bamboo and co-cooked hardwood-bamboo pulps exhibited higher viscosity than hardwood pulp. Calendering produced similar smoothness across all pulps. These findings suggest that kraft co-cooking offers a viable approach to integrating bamboo into SBS paperboard production, mitigating hardwood supply constraints while maintaining high-quality pulp characteristics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".