Skip to Main Content
Due to a lapse in federal funding, this USDA website will not be actively updated. Once funding has been reestablished, online operations will continue.
Comparison of macrostickies measurement methodsAuthor(s): Mahendra R. Doshi; William J. Moore; R.A. Venditti; K. Copeland; H.-M. Chang; Hans-Joachim Putz; Thierry Delagoutte; Carl Houtman; Freya Tan; Lisa Davie; Gregg Sauve; Tim Dahl; Dave Robinson
Source: Progress in paper recycling. Vol. 12, no. 3 (May 2003): pages 34-43.
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: View PDF (139 KB)
DescriptionPulp containing PSA was prepared in the laboratory and blended with sticky-free pulp in four different proportions. The four pulps were then dewatered and shipped to four laboratories for the evaluation of macro stickies in terms of mm2/kg. Also, five pulp samples from specific locations in a deinking mill were dewatered and shipped to the same four laboratories. Methods used by these laboratories include: 1. Black ink method 2. INGEDE method 3. Enzyme digestion method 4. Blue dye method Details of these methods are presented in Appendices 1 to 4. All laboratories used slotted screens to separate macrostickies and other contaminants from the pulp. Screen slot size varied from 80 mm to 150 mm. In addition, researchers at FPL made handsheets directly from pulp samples without a screening step. Hydrophilic black ink, hydrophobic blue dye, or carbon black was used to improve contrast between contaminants and fibers. INGEDE method used alumina powder to distinguish between tacky and non- tacky contaminants. Interfering fiber bundles were removed by enzyme digestion by researchers at the CTP. All methods employed image analysis to determine the average number and size of contaminants. The details of the image analysis methods were not standardized. In view of the significant differences in the methods used to measure the concentration of macrostickies, it is not surprising to see considerable variations in actual values of stickies area reported by the participating groups. However, we were surprised to see excellent linear correlation among all methods for both laboratory as well as mill samples. As a result, we can conclude that any one of the methods seems to be suitable for monitoring stickies content but one cannot compare actual values from different methods as they may vary significantly.
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationDoshi, Mahendra R.; Moore, William J.; Venditti, R.A.; Copeland, K.; Chang, H.-M.; Putz, Hans-Joachim; Delagoutte, Thierry; Houtman, Carl; Tan, Freya; Davie, Lisa; Sauve, Gregg; Dahl, Tim; Robinson, Dave. 2003. Comparison of macrostickies measurement methods. Progress in paper recycling. Vol. 12, no. 3 (May 2003): pages 34-43.
KeywordsAdhesives, contaminants, enzymes, INGEDE, macrostickies, measurement methods, microstickies, recovered papers, stickies, pulping, pressure-sensitive adhesives, waste paper
- The effect of release liner materials on adhesive contaminants, paper recycling and recycled paper properties
- Comparison of microstickies measurement methods. Part I, sample preparation and measurement methods
- Environmentally benign USPS stamps : baseline pilot recycling results
XML: View XML