Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(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
    Date: 2003
    Source: Progress in paper recycling. Vol. 12, no. 3 (May 2003): pages 34-43.
    Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
    PDF: Download Publication  (139 KB)


    Pulp 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.

    Publication Notes

    • 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.


    Doshi, 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.


    Adhesives, contaminants, enzymes, INGEDE, macrostickies, measurement methods, microstickies, recovered papers, stickies, pulping, pressure-sensitive adhesives, waste paper

    Related Search

    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page