Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes High Density Stickies

Robert de Jong President 2 Fiber Consulting Marco Pescantin Sales Director Comer S.p.A.

ABSTRACT
The build-up of ink and stickies in forward cleaner systems can be avoided by installing a flotation cell on the first or second stage of the forward cleaner rejects. Installing such a hybrid system in a deinking plant improved the dirt removal efficiency from 96% to 98%; removed stickies in the forward cleaner rejects; and removed small stickies in the dilution water. As a result paper machine downtime was reduced. These high density, hydrophobic stickies were removed by operating an efficient flotation cell at a very low consistency with a high amount of air bubbles. Hairy stickies are more difficult to remove. Some operating results from a deinking plant before and after installation of the hybrid cleaner flotation cell are reported. Keywords: Flotation, Stickies, High Density Stickies, Cleaner Rejects

INTRODUCTION
Problems with stickies are usually blamed on the waste paper supply and solved by removing the source of stickies from the waste paper furnish. This approach worked in the past, but large amounts of new pressure sensitive adhesives in the waste paper supply are making it almost impossible to isolate the source. Heise1 reported that these new pressure sensitive adhesives can become more flexible at higher temperatures and than pass through slotted screens. Stickies, which pass through the slotted screens, can subsequently be removed by process equipment, which has been primarily designed to remove low density stickies (e.g. reverse cleaners, Gyrocleaners, or flotation cells). By using a combination of screens, low density cleaning equipment, dispergers and flotation, it is possible to remove 60 99% of the incoming stickies area depending upon the choice of equipment, operating conditions and the type of stickies in the waste paper furnish. A classification of uncompressed stickies based on removal process2 is shown in Table I: Table I: Classification of Uncompressed Stickies Based on Removal Process Stickies Description Type Area (mm2) Diameter (microns) Removal Process X-L > 1.47 >1370 Hole screens Large 0.28 1.47 600 1370 0.006 inch (150 micron) slotted screens Small <0.28 <600 Flotation Low Density Reverse or Gyro-cleaners High Density Flotation of forward cleaner rejects Hairy* Difficult to remove Microstickies Go through lab screen** Cleaning or sewering process water * = Hairy stickies have one or more fibers protruding from the adhesive surface. ** = Stickies, which pass through a lab screen equipped with 100-150 micron slots, are defined as microstickies. When microstickies are subsequently agglomerated3 by refrigeration of process water samples and retained on a laboratory flat screen, they can again be classified according to the above scale.

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

The above classification is not suitable for stickies determined by the TAPPI or INGEDE method, since the stickies are compressed and flattened during those tests, which results in a much bigger equivalent diameter. In fact Putz4 reported recently that the limit of complete screenability of INGEDE stickies was 2000 microns equivalent diameter. The appearance of high density stickies has been observed by others. Venditti5 reported that the release liner from psa caused a decrease in the size and an increase in the number of adhesive particles after pulping: perhaps because they coat the adhesive making it less tacky and more extended. The extended state eventually leads to more breakage. The release particles had a high density (1.13 g/cm3) and could be removed by centrifugal cleaning, but were difficult to remove by flotation. It was also observed that the release liner particles contained fibers. Shripal6 describes a method to control stickies formation in waste paper furnishes by adding treated talc and Lasmarias7 describes how the coated stickies can be removed by size and density separation processes such as screens and centrifugal cleaners. US Patent 64166228 describes a method to increase the overall efficiency of a deinking plant by installing a flotation cell on cleaner rejects. After the flotation cell was installed, it was noticed that there were fewer stickies problems and it was decided to file a patent application9 for a method of removing high density stickies from secondary papermaking fibers. The data upon which the patent application was based are described in this report. A recent study of recycled paperboard systems by Cao et al.10 made the following observations regarding total stickies removal efficiency (SRE): As slot width increases from 0.008 to 0.018, total SRE decreases from 52% to 28%. Forward cleaners did not impact total SRE. Light weight cleaners improved total SRE from 23 to 52%. Thickeners improved total SRE from 11% to 45%. Management of water systems is very important in achieving high total SRE. The poor impact of present forward cleaner systems on total SRE is due to the stage 2 5 accepts being returned to the previous stage, so that the stickies accumulate in the system. The installation of a hybrid cleaner flotation system improved the SRE of the forward cleaner system since a flotation cell has a better SRE than a forward cleaner as discussed below.

EXPERIMENTAL
Stickies Measurement Operators counted stickies 3 times per shift after screening a 150 gram sample of deinked pulp on a flat screen with 0.006 inch slots. The number of stickies counted is reported with an upper control limit of 20. Additional samples were screened on a Pulmac screen with 0.004 inch slots using 20 50 gram samples (depending on the level of stickies in the sample). The uncompressed samples were counted using a microscope equipped with a grid to estimate their area. The stickies were classified according to Table I. The average of three samples is reported for each sample location. The samples in each set were taken from a batch of pulper stock as it progressed through the deinking process over a period of 5 hours. The low consistency samples (<12% consistency) were dewatered in fine mesh bags. Complete sets of samples were taken at three different dates as follows: Set 1: 6 months prior to installation of the hybrid flotation cell, 3 samples were taken at 4 locations (high density cleaner, washer, disperger inlet, and deinked pulp). Set 2: 2 months prior to installation of the hybrid flotation cell, 3 samples were taken at 7 locations (washer, fine slotted screens, flotation feed + accepts, disperger inlet and outlet, and deinked pulp) Set 3: 4 months after installation of the hybrid flotation cell, 3 samples were taken at 8 locations (high density cleaner, washer, fine slotted screens, flotation feed + accepts, disperger inlet and outlet, and deinked pulp).

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

Dirt Measurement on 1.2 gram Hand Sheets A CoCap dirt counter was used during the pilot plant experiments. Small dirt was <150 microns in diameter and large dirt was >150 microns in diameter. (A diameter of 160 microns corresponds to an area of 0.02 mm2). An Apogee SpecScan was used during the start up of the hybrid flotation cell. Small dirt had an area of <0.02 mm2 and large dirt had an area of 0.02 0.05 mm2. The Apogee threshold settings resulted in higher dirt area readings than the CoCap measured. Process Simulations The process simulations were based on measurements of consistency, ash and dirt of each cleaner stage (feed, accepts and rejects). The flow was based on supplier data (pressure drop, type of reject tip, and number of cleaners in operation). The final reject flow was measured using a V-notch weir. By using the dirt removal efficiency (DRE) and thickening factor of each cleaner stage it was possible to balance the system for different configurations. It was assumed that the DRE would improve from 30-40% to 50% by running the stage 1 cleaners at a lower consistency with smooth reject tips. The higher volume through the cleaner was realized by adding three flights to the disc thickener. Since the filtrate from the screw press contained a large amount of ink, it was also decided to add the press filtrate to the flotation cell in the calculations. This resulted in much cleaner dilution water. Large dirt area (in mm2 per m2 of 1.2 gram hand sheets) was used for the large dirt balances by converting the mass flow (in bone dry short tons per day) into hand sheets per day. It was then possible to calculate the square meters area of large dirt per day for each cleaner stage (feed, accepts and rejects).

DESCRIPTION OF DEINKING PROCESS

The deinking process is shown in diagram 1. It consists of pulping and coarse cleaning (loop 1); fine screening and cleaning (loop 2): and dispersion, bleaching, flotation and final washing (loop 3). A schematic of the hybrid flotation cell is shown in diagram 2.

HD pulper/detrasher

Screens (fine slots)

Disperger

HD cleaners

Gyrocleaners

Bleaching

Screens (holes)

Forward cleaners Flotation cell

Flotation

Screens (slots) Forward cleaners Washers Thickener + press

Washers

Deinked pulp

First Loop

Second Loop

Third Loop

Diagram 1: Description of deinking process with hybrid cleaner flotation cell

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

The hybrid flotation cell was installed in the second loop on the stage 1 forward cleaner rejects. The quality of the stage 1 cleaner rejects was so good after flotation and stage 2 forward cleaning, that the stage 2 cleaner accepts could be fed forward directly to the disc thickener. This lowered the consistency of the stage 1 forward cleaners. As a result the DRE of the stage 1 forward cleaners improved too.

Diagram 2: Schematic of flotation cell The five independent levels of air injection in the flotation cell resulted in repeated aeration of the stickies at low consistency, which helps bring these hydrophobic particles to the surface, where they can be removed by the paddles.

PILOT TRIALS WITH FLOTATION CELL

Stage 2 forward cleaner rejects from a deinking plant using office waste were diluted and deinked in a pilot flotation cell. The cleaners were located after the fine slotted screens and Gyrocleans as shown in diagram 1. The pilot flotation cell was evaluated for DRE and brightness gain on two different grades as shown in Table II: Grade A: 42% Office Waste at 0.69% consistency and 18.5% ash content. Grade B: 100% Office Waste at 0.90% consistency and 4.5% ash content. Table II: Test Results from Pilot Flotation Cell on Stage 2 Cleaner Rejects Grade Run Flot. Cell Feed Dirt Removal Efficiency (DRE) Cons. % Ash % Small* Large* A 11 0.53 15.9 - , 92% - , 78% (42% 12 0.83 17.8 88, 87% 70, 70% office 13 0.70 16.5 89, 89% 88, 80% waste) 14 23.8 91, 89% 85, 85% Ave. 0.69 18.5 89% 79% B 7 0.86 4.4 88, 87% 71, 74% (100% 8 0.88 3.9 87, 86% 74, 69% office 9 0.88 5.9 88, 87% 78, 73% Waste) 10 0.98 3.8 89, 86% 74, 69% Ave. 0.90 4.5 87% 73% *Small dirt is <150 microns; large dirt is >150 microns diameter on CoCap dirt counter.

Brightness Gain (% pts) 7.3, 9.4 4.2, 8.2 8.6, 8.0 8.7, 10.4 8.1 3.3, 5.8 5.4, 4.6 6.3, 5.0 5.9, 5.7 5.3

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

When the pilot flotation cell was operated at 0.69% consistency on grade A (42% office waste), brightness gain was 8.1% points with 79% DRE. These results dropped to 5.3% points brightness gain and 73% large DRE on grade B (100% office waste), when the cell was operated at 0.90% consistency. Ash removal was 63% during the trials on grade A and 64% during the trials on grade B.

COMPUTER SIMULATION OF PROCESS

Since the cost of a flotation stage for 350 short tons per day of secondary fiber can be reduced by 85%, if the flotation cell is installed in the cleaner reject system, several computer simulations were made to calculate the impact on large DRE. The model was based on running a hybrid cleaner flotation cell on grade B (100% office waste) at 0.62% consistency with 80% large DRE and 64% ash removal. Screw press filtrate was added to the dilution water. The flows in short tons per day (stpd), gallons per minute (gpm) and % consistency are shown for the washer output, the Gyroclean output, stage 1 cleaner input, stage 1 cleaner accepts, stage 2 cleaner accepts, stage 3 cleaner accepts, and the press output. The results of three simulations X, Y and Z are shown in table III: X = conventional 5 stage cleaner system, with accepts fed back. Y = hybrid cell on stage 2 cleaner rejects + pressate, with accepts fed forward after stage 3. Z = hybrid cell on stage 1 cleaner rejects + pressate, with accepts fed forward after stage 2. Table III: Process Simulations of Hybrid Flotation Cell Effect on DRE and Large Dirt (ppm) Sim. DRE Washer Gyro Rejects Press Forward Cleaners Stage % Attribute out out out 1-in 1-acc. 2-acc. 3-acc. X 96.1 L.Dirt 720 738 596 417 stpd 336 343 352 343 326 9 gpm 540 4812 9553 9492 60 159 % cons. 10.37 1.19 0.60 35.1 Y 97.0 L.Dirt 720 708 461 373 318 stpd 336 343 354 327 24 332 3 gpm 540 4812 10478 9492 927 58 159 % cons. 10.37 1.19 0.57 0.43 35.1 Z 97.7 L.Dirt 1489* 1476* 816* 729* 511* stpd 340 343 350 279 63 331 8 gpm 546 4812 12355 10100 2104 151 159 % cons. 10.37 1.19 0.46 0.50 35.1 * = A different dirt scanner and higher dirt levels in the waste paper contributed to the higher dirt levels Process simulation X showed that the conventional 5 stage cleaner system operated with: A process DRE of 96.1% (from 720 ppm at the washer to 28 ppm in the deinked pulp (DIP). 9 stpd cleaner rejects Process simulation Y (hybrid flotation cell on stage 2 cleaner rejects) operated with: A process DRE of 97.0% (from 720 ppm at the washer to 21 ppm in DIP. Stage 3 accepts (373 ppm) were cleaner than stage 1 accepts (461 ppm). 3 stpd cleaner + flotation cell rejects Process simulation Z (hybrid flotation cell on stage 2 cleaner rejects) was calculated later with data from a new dirt scanner. As a result dirt levels are roughly doubled: A process DRE of 97.7% (from 1489 ppm at the washer to 34 ppm in the DIP. Stage 2 accepts (729 ppm) were cleaner than stage 1 accepts (816 ppm). 8 stpd cleaner + flotation cell rejects

DIP 28

21

34*

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

The mill needed 98% large DRE to meet the specifications for deinked pulp used in printing and writing paper. Installing a complete flotation line before the cleaners would have cost approximately 7 times as much as simulation Z. As a result it was decided to install the hybrid cleaner flotation cell on stage 1 cleaner rejects with the accepts from the hybrid flotation cell fed forward to an enlarged disc thickener after cleaning in the stage 2 cleaners.

OPERATING RESULTS WITH HYBRID CELL ON CLEANER REJECTS

The hybrid cleaner flotation cell on stage 1 cleaner rejects was started up in December 2000 after the disc thickener had been enlarged a few months earlier. The location of the hybrid cleaner flotation cell after fine slotted screening, Gyrocleaning, and stage 1 forward cleaning is shown in diagram 1. The following improvements in plant performance, dirt removal efficiency (DRE), stickies removal efficiency (SRE), and deinked pulp (DIP) quality were noticed: 1. Process DRE improved (Process DRE increased from 96.4% to 97.7%) 2. Cleaners performed better (Cleaner DRE increased from 45% to 53%) 3. Process SRE improved (Process SRE increased from 95.0% to 98.5%) 4. The hybrid flotation cell operated at 0.65% feed consistency and the stage 2 cleaners were operated at 0.58% consistency with the following performance: A brightness gain of 2.4% points (from 70.9 to 73.3%) 82% total DRE (71.0% across cell and 49.7% across stage 2 cleaners) 62% total SRE (from 488 to 187 mm2/kg across cell) 53% ash removal efficiency (50% across cell and 10% across stage 2 cleaners) 5. 6. 7. 60% fewer stickies in DIP (From 3.3 to 1.3 stickies per 150 grams on average) 72% lower ERIC in DIP (From 76 to 21 ppm) The paper machine ran without stickies problems for 8 months after the hybrid flotation cell came on line (downtime for stickies dropped from 10 to 0 hours/ month). The removal of microstickies in the dilution water of the second loop probably contributed to the good results.

The original intention of the hybrid cleaner flotation cell was to improve large dirt removal efficiency without having to install a complete flotation system at 7 times the cost. The improved removal efficiency of small high density stickies came as a secondary benefit. Before installing a flotation cell on cleaner rejects it is advisable to run laboratory tests and pilot trials to determine the level of stickies in the cleaner rejects and to determine whether they can be removed by flotation. The stickies can be difficult to float for several reasons: They are no longer hydrophobic (e.g. due to the addition of excessive defoamer). They contain protruding fibers (hairy stickies), which interact with other fibers. The consistency in the flotation cell is too high. Poor flotation cell operation (e.g. insufficient air, wrong bubble size, lack of rejects etc.) The Pulmac stickies data in Table IV shows the impact of the hybrid cleaner flotation cell on stickies levels at several locations from the high density cleaner to the deinked pulp. Sets 1 and 2 were taken before and set 3 after the flotation cell was installed. Table IV shows that: Coarse screening in the first loop eliminated most of the XL stickies. Fine screening reduced total stickies to 539 and 531 mm2/kg in set 2 and 3. The cleaner SRE was only 8.5% in set 2 (from 434 to 397 mm2/kg), which shows the cleaners were not effective in removing stickies in the conventional configuration. The flotation cell SRE was 61.7% (from 488 to 187 mm2/kg), which shows that it was much more effective at removing hydrophobic stickies. Total stickies at the disperger inlet dropped from 491-516 mm2/kg in sets 1-2 to 359 mm2/kg in set 3 due to the installation of the hybrid cleaner flotation cell. After dispersion and final flotation the DIP stickies level dropped from 203 and 68 mm2/kg in sets 1 and 2 to 46 mm2/kg in set 3.

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

Table IV: Stickies before and after Installation of a Flotation Cell on Stage 1Cleaner Rejects (Uncompressed Pulmac stickies in mm2/kg, where small = <0.28 mm2, large = 0.28-1.47 mm2, XL = >1.47 mm2) Sample Set 1 (before flot. cell) Set 2 (before flot. cell) Set 3 (after flot. cell) Location small large XL total small large XL total small large XL total HD cleaner 1st washer out Fine screens out St. 1 cleaner in St. 1 cleaner out Flot. cell in Flot. cell out Disperger in Disperger out DIP 720 769 2190 523 1190 100 4100 1392 1020 547 531 1680 109 0 370 0 0 3070 656 531

640 508 429 369

133 31 5 28

0 0 0 0

773 539 434 397

491 203

0 0

0 0

491 203

489 319 68

27 0 0

0 0 0

516 319 68

488 181 359 216 46

0 6 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

488 187 359 216 46

The stickies data for set 1, taken 6 months before the flotation cell was installed, are shown in diagram 3.

5000
4100

Stickies (mm2/kg)

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 HD clnr wash out .

1392

XL large small

SRE (HD clnr to DIP)= 95% SRE (washer to DIP)= 85%

491

203

disp . in

. .

DIP .

Diagram 3: Pulmac stickies levels during set 1 (6 months before flotation cell was installed) The total stickies removal efficiency (SRE) of the process, cleaners and flotation cell is shown in Table V using the stickies data in Table IV. The flotation cell had an SRE of 61.7% compared to 8.5% SRE for the cleaner system. The 3 extra discs were installed on the thickener before set 2: as a result the second loop was operating at a lower consistency and with improved thickening in the disc thickener during set 2. The disperger in and out samples of set 2 still had considerably higher stickies levels than set 3 after the flotation cell was installed. Table V: Total SRE before and after Installation of a Flotation Cell on Stage 1 Cleaner Rejects Total SRE of Set 1 (before flot. cell) Set 2 (before flot. cell) Set 3 (after flot. cell) Process (1st washer to DIP) Stage 1 cleaners Flotation Process (HD cleaner to DIP) 85.3% 91.0% 8.5% 93.0% 61.7% 98.5%

95.0%

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

The stickies data for set 2, taken 2 months before the flotation cell was installed, are shown in diagram 4 and the stickies data for set 3, taken after the flotation cell was installed are shown in diagram 5.

4000 Stickies (mm2/kg) 3000 2000 1000 0 wash out FScr out clnr in clnr out . disp in disp out DIP .
773

XL large small

SRE (washer to DIP)= 91% SRE (cleaners)= 8.5%

539

434

397

516

319

68

Diagram 4: Pulmac stickies levels during set 2 (2 months before flotation cell was installed)

4000
3070

Stickies (mm2/kg)

3000 2000 1000 0 HD clnr wash out FScr out

656

XL large small

SRE (HD clnr to DIP)= 98.5% SRE (washer to DIP)= 93% SRE (flotation)= 62%

531

488 187

359

216

46

Flot . in

Flot out

disp in

disp out

DIP .

Diagram 5: Pulmac stickies levels during set 3 (4 months after flotation cell was installed)

DISCUSSION
Set 2 confirms that a conventional system of forward cleaners is not very good at removing macrostickies; however, there is still some evidence that conventional forward cleaner systems can remove microstickies: A tissue mill bypassed the forward cleaners in the approach flow system to the tissue machine to save energy, but experienced more stickies problems. It was possible to show that the stage 4 cleaners were still rejecting a large quantity of microstickies. A board machine with forward cleaners in the approach flow also had a large quantity of microstickies in the final stage of the cleaner rejects. Unfortunately no microstickies were measured before or after this hybrid cleaner flotation cell installation

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

If the hybrid flotation cell on cleaner rejects did a very good job of removing microstickies in the cleaner dilution water, this could help explain why there were no problems with stickies on the tissue machines after the hybrid cleaner flotation cell started up. An attempt to repeat the results in a pilot flotation cell at another location failed because the macrostickies contained too many hairy stickies or stickies with protruding fibers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Flotation of forward cleaner rejects can remove small high density stickies, which have passed through fine slotted screens and Gyrocleans and improve the performance of conventional forward cleaner systems. The quality of flotation cell accepts after an additional stage of forward cleaning is better than the stage 1 cleaner accepts. Feeding the hybrid cleaner flotation cell accepts forward increases the capacity of the cleaner system and/or lowers the consistency, which also results in improved cleaning. By using the maximum possible amount of dilution water with the highest level of microstickies, it is possible to reduce stickies problems on the paper machine caused by the agglomeration of microstickies. Installation of a hybrid cleaner flotation system is recommended, if the stage 1 or 2 cleaner rejects contain high density, hydrophobic stickies without protruding fibers. The installation of such a system in the approach flow to a paper machine with stickies problems should be studied.

ACKNOWELEDGMENT
The operators, staff and management of the Halsey mill of Georgia Pacific are thanked for their help in materializing this project and the Neenah Technical Center for their help in processing the samples. The data in this article was based on material in the patent application.

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

REFERENCES
1

= Heise, O., Cao, B., Schabel, S.: A Novel Application of TAPPI T277 to Determine Macro Stickies Disintegration and Agglomeration in the Recycle Process, Proceedings from the 2000 TAPPI Recycling Symposium, pp 631-644, Washington DC. = de Jong, R.L.: Stickies Classification, Progress in Paper Recycling, Vol. 13, No. 3, May 2004. = de Jong, R.L.: Agglomeration of Microstickies, Progress in Paper Recycling, Vol. 14, No. 3, May 2005.

= Putz, H., Schabel, S.: Is the INGEDE Strategy for Recycling Benign Adhesive Applications Transferable to Packaging Material, Proceedings of the 3rd CTP/PTS Packaging Paper and Board Recycling International Symposium, Part II, Paper 18, Grenoble, France (March 16-18, 2004).
5

= Venditti, R., Gilbert, R., Zhang, A., Abubakr, S.: The Effect of Release Liner Materials on Adhesive Contaminants, Paper Recycling, and Recycled Paper Properties, Proceedings from the 2000 TAPPI Recycling Symposium, pp.579-591, Washington DC. = Shripal, S., Yordan, J., Lasmarias, V., Kortmeyer, J., Layne, A., Reynolds, J.: Additive and Process for Sticky Control in Recycled Pulp. US Patent Application 20030143144, July 31, 2003. = Lasmarias, V., Sharma, S., Kortmeyer, J., Biza, P., Gaksch, E.: Removal of Contaminants from Recycled paper. US Patent Application 20040065419, April 8, 2004. = de Jong, R., Hybrid Multistage Forward Cleaner System with Flotation System, US Patent 6416622, July 9, 2002.

= de Jong, R.L., Sleeter R.L., Kellogg, R.J., Method of Removing High Density Stickies from Secondary Papermaking Fibers, US Patent Application 20020129909, September 19, 2002. = Cao, B.; Labatore, F., and Laska, C.: Recycled Paperboard Mill Macrostickie Study, Proceedings of the 7th Recycling Research Forum in Montreal, Canada, p 149-158, September, 2004.
10

Flotation of Cleaner Rejects Removes HD Stickies

Robert de Jong 2 Fiber Consulting Marco Pescantin Comer S.p.A

Background
Deink plant using 100% office waste experienced problems with:
Toner ink build-up in cleaner system buildDirt Removal Efficiency too low (DRE=96%) Stickies causing lost opportunity tons 10 hours / month pm downtime for stickies

98% DRE desired

2

Possible solutions
Additional flotation stage for 500 stpd = too expensive. New cleaners would not improve DRE enough. Do trials with a pilot flotation cell on forward cleaner rejects.

Deinking process
HD pulper/detrasher Screens (fine slots) Disperger

HD cleaners

Gyrocleaners

Bleaching

Screens (holes)

Forward cleaners Flotation cell

Flotation

Screens (slots) Forward cleaners Washers Thickener + press

Washers

Deinked pulp

First Loop

Second Loop

Third Loop
4

Deinking process detail

(A = Accepts, R = Rejects)
Stage 1 forward cleaners

R
Hybrid flotation cell

Pressate

A
Stage 2 forward cleaners

R A
Stage 3 forward cleaners

A R
5

Stage 4 + 5 forward cleaners Thickener + press

Pilot results with flotation cell on stage 2 cleaner rejects

Furnish % office waste Consistency Ash content Results Small DRE <150 mi. Large DRE >150 mi. Brightness gain Ash removal Grade A 42% 0.69% 18.5% 89% 79% 8.1% pts 63% Grade B 100% 0.90% 4.5% 87% 73% 5.3% pts 64%
6

Computer simulation of flotation cell on cleaner rejects

Option Flotation cell X Y Z None On stage 2 rejects On stage 1 rejects DRE 96.1% 97.0% 97.7%

The flotation cell was installed on stage 1 cleaner rejects to obtain max. benefit at justifiable cost.
7

Schematic of flotation cell installed

Stickies classification
Type Area in mm2 Removed by:
Hole Screens 0.006 Slot Screens Flotation Reverse or Gyrocleans Flot. of cleaner rejects Flot. Difficult to remove Clean or sewer water
9

XL >1.47 Large 0.28 1.47 Small <0.28 Low density High density Hairy Microstickies
(go through lab screen)

TAPPI + hairy stickies

(with colors reversed)

10

Stickies audit 6 months before flotation cell was installed

5000
4100

Stickies (mm2/kg)

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 HD clnr wash out .

1392

XL large small

SRE (HD clnr to DIP)= 95% SRE (washer to DIP)= 85%

491

203

disp . in

. .

DIP .

SRE = Stickies Removal Efficiency

11

Stickies audit 2 months before flotation cell was installed

4000 Stickies (mm2/kg) 3000 2000 1000 0 wash out fscr out clnr in clnr out . disp in disp out DIP . 773

XL large small

SRE (washer to DIP)= 91% SRE (cleaners)= 8.5%

539

434

397

516

319

68

12

Stickies audit 4 months after flotation cell was installed

4000 3070 Stickies (mm2/kg) 3000 2000 1000 0 HD clnr wash out fscr out . flot in flot out disp in disp out DIP . 656

XL large small

SRE (HD clnr to DIP)= 98.5% SRE (washer to DIP)= 93% SRE (flotation)= 62%

531

488 187

359

216

46

13

Benefits of flotation of stage 1 cleaner rejects*

Process DRE improved (from 96.4 to 97.7%) Cleaners performed better (DRE from 45% to 53%) Hybrid cleaner flotation cell removed: removed:
82% dirt, 62% stickies, stickies, 53% ash in flotation cell feed 2.4% brightness gain
* = as described in US pat. appl. 20020129909
14

Benefits of flotation of stage 1 cleaner rejects*

DIP stickies count dropped 60% (from 3.3 to 1.3 stickies per 150 grams on average) ERIC in DIP dropped 72% Process SRE improved (from 95.0% to 98.5%) PM ran for 8 months w/o stickies problems after the flotation cell came on line
* = as described in US pat. appl. 20020129909
15

Conclusions
Flotation of cleaner rejects can remove small high density stickies. stickies. Hybrid flotation cell accepts (after stage 2 cleaning) were better than stage 1 accepts. Paper machine downtime for stickies dropped after installing hybrid flotation cell

16

Recommendations
Do a process stickies survey asap
Especially if everything is running well!

17