Application of enzymes and flocculants for enhancing the freeness of paper making pulp

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
A combination of cellulolytic enzymes in combination with cationic flocculants enhance the freeness of paper pulp.
INTRODUCTION
More and more the papermaking industry uses recycled papers. For example, for the manufacture of corrugated cardboard, more often raw materials are used which are based on recycled fibers and, at the same time, the number of recyclings is increased. With each recycling, the quality of the raw materials is lessened. To obtain a satisfactory level of mechanical characteristics, refining of the pulps in aqueous suspension is generally carried out, which leads to difficulties in runnability because of high concentrations of fines.
The pulps in aqueous suspension which are ready to be worked on a paper machine can be characterized by various parameters, one of which is particularly significant for predicting the draining capability of the pulp. A measure of the drainability of the pulp is frequently expressed in the term "freeness". Specifically, freeness is measured and is specifically designated Canadian standard freeness, CSF. CSF measures the drainage of 3 grams (oven dried weight) of pulp suspended in 1 liter of water. Since pulp slurry is not homogeneous, it is difficult to take an exact required weight of pulp equivalent to 3 grams. Therefore, at the time of freeness testing, with respect to the data hereafter presented, the consistency of pulp stock was determined by stirring well and then drained in a Buchner funnel. The pulp pad was dried at 105.degree. C. to determine the exact weight of the pad. The CSF data hereafter, reported was corrected to a 0.3% consistency using the table of freeness corrections prepared by the pulp and paper Research Institute of Canada and has been described in TAPPI manual (T227). The CSF values were measured at 20.degree. C.
While the invention produces particularly good results when used to treat pulps which contain substantial quantities of recycled fibers, also it has applicability in treating pulps which contain little or no recycled fibers.

THE DRAWINGS
The drawings illustrate the effect on Canadian Standard Freeness of enzyme and polymer dosage at various pHs and times of pulp contact with the enzymes.
Specifically:
FIG. 1 shows the effect on CSF at pH 4.6 with an enzyme contact time of 10 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 2 shows the effect on CSF at pH 4.6 with an enzyme contact time of 60 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 3 shows the effect on CSF at pH 6 with an enzyme contact time of 10 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 4 shows the effect on CSF at pH 6 with an enzyme contact time of 60 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 5 shows the effect on CSF at pH 7.07 with an enzyme contact time of 10 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 6 shows the effect on CSF at pH 7.07 with an enzyme contact time of 60 minutes and at a temperature of 40.degree. C.
FIG. 7 shows the effect on CSF at pH 4.765 with an enzyme contact time of 30 minutes at a temperature of 30.degree. C.
FIG. 8 shows the effect on CSF at pH 4.768 with an enzyme contact time of 45 minutes at a temperature of 45.degree. C.
FIG. 9 shows the effect on CSF at pH 4.768 with an enzyme contact time of 60 minutes at a temperature of 60.degree. C.
FIGS. 10-15 show the effects on CSF of various polymer enzyme combinations.

THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a process for improving the freeness of paper pulp, which comprises the following sequential steps:
a) Adding to the pulp at least 0.05% based on the dry weight of the pulp, of a cellulolytic enzyme;
b) Allowing the pulp to contact the cellulolytic enzyme for at least 20 minutes at a temperature of at least 20.degree. C.;
c) Adding at least 0.0007% based on the dry weight of the pulp of a water soluble cationic polymer, and then,
d) Forming the thus treated pulp into paper.
THE CELLULOLYTIC ENZYMES
Use of cellulolytic enzymes, e.g. the cellulases and/or the hemicellulases for treating recycled paper pulps to improve freeness for drainage characteristics is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 4,923,565. The cellulase enzyme described in this patent may be used in the practice of the presentinvention.
Specific commercial cellulolytic enzymes are available and may be used in the practice of the invention.
THE CATIONIC WATER SOLUBLE POLYMERS
A variety of water soluble cationic flocculants may be used in the practiceof the invention. Both condensation and vinyl addition polymers may be employed. For a relatively extensive list of water soluble cationic polymers, reference may be had to disclosure of Canadian patent 731,212, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein.
A preferred group of cationic polymers are the cationic polymers of acrylamide which in a more preferred embodiment of the invention, contain from 40-60% by weight of acrylamide. Larger or smaller amounts of acrylamide in the polymers may be used, e.g., between 30-80%. Typical of the cationic monomers, polymerized with acrylamide are the monomers diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride, (DADMAC), dimethylaminoethyl/acrylate methyl chloride quaternary ammonium salt, (DMAEA.MCQ). When these cationicacrylamide polymers are used they should have a RSV (reduced specific viscosity) of at least 3 and preferably the RSV should be within the rangeof 5-20 or more. RSV was determined using a one molar sodium nitrate solution at 30.degree. C. The concentration of the acrylamide polymer in this solution is 0.045%.
THE PAPER PULPS BEING TREATED
As indicated, the invention has utility in improving the drainage or the freeness of a wide variety of paper pulps, including both Kraft and other types of pulp. The invention, is particularly useful in treating pulps that contain recycled fibers. The effectiveness of the invention in improving drainage is most notable when the pulps contain at least 10% by weight of recycled fiber, with great improvements being evidenced when therecycled fiber content or the pulp being treated is at least 50% or more.
TREATMENT OF THE PULPS WITH THE ENZYMES AND CATIONIC POLYMERS
As indicated, the invention requires that the pulp first be treated with the enzyme and then with the cationic polymer. It is also important to thesuccessful practice of the invention, that the conditions under which the treatment with the enzyme occurs is such to provide optimum reaction time of the enzyme with the pulp.
The treatment of the pulp with the enzyme is preferably conducted for a period of time not greater than 60 minutes. The minimum treating time is about 20 minutes. A typical treating time would be about 40 minutes. The pH of the pulp to achieve optimum results should be between the ranges of 4 and 8. The temperature of the treatment should not be below 20.degree. C., and usually should not exceed 60.degree. C. A typical average reactiontemperature is favorably conducted is 40.degree. C.
The preferred dosage of the polymer, as actives, is from 0.0026% to 0.0196%polymer based on the dry weight of the pulp. A general dosage which may be used to treat the pulp with the polymer is from 0.0007% to 0.0653% by weight.
The enzyme dosage based on the dry weight of the pulp in a preferred embodiment ranges from about 0.1 to about 10% by weight. A general treatment range of the enzyme that may be used is from 0.01 to 10% by weight.
It is obvious that in order for the enzyme to have sufficient reaction timeand mixing described above, it is necessary that they be added to the pulp at the point in the paper making system to allow sufficient time for the above conditions to occur. Thus, a typical addition point in paper making system would be the machine chest. Other places where suitable contact time would occur may also be used as additional points.
The polymers, in our examples contain the following components:
Polymer 1: An acrylamide polymer containing 10 mole percent of DMAEA.MCQ. This polymer has an RSV of 17. It is in the form of an emulsion which contained approximately 26% by weight of polymeric ingredient.
Polymer 2: This polymer is a 34.8 percent by weight of active polymer ingredients in the form of a water-in-oil emulsion. It contains 50 weight per cent of DADMAC; copolymerized with acrylamide. The polymer has an RSV of 5.
Polymer 3: Polymer 3 is an acrylamide polymer containing 30 mole percent byweight, DMAEA-MCQ. It has an RSV of 19, the polymer is in the form of a water-in-oil emulsion being 29.6 percent by weight.
EXAMPLE 1
A. Response Surface Factorial Design I
A 30 run response surface factorial design Table 1 was setup, in which the effects of enzyme, polymer dosages, pH, time and temperature were simultaneously investigated on the freeness of pulp prepared using a mixture of old corrugated containers and newsprints (OCC and NP 75:25, polymer 1). The pulp slurry (3 g. dry weight) under these specified conditions was first treated under continuous agitation (250 rpm) with an enzyme solution of Celluclast 1:5 L (NOVO 0 to 20% based on dry weight of pulp), and then treated at 20.degree. C. with Polymer 1 at a dosage of 0.0131 to 0.0392% on dry weight of pulp.
TABLE 1______________________________________ Run CSFPolymer* Enzyme pH Time Temperature Order Valves______________________________________1 0 4.60 10 55.degree. C. 27 393.03 0 4.60 10 25.degree. C. 7 528.571 .2 4.60 10 25.degree. C. 1 448.783 .2 4.60 10 55.degree. C. 26 645.951 0 7.07 10 25.degree. C. 9 344.633 0 7.07 10 55.degree. C. 29 457.01 .2 7.07 10 55.degree. C. 28 397.153 .2 7.07 10 25.degree. C. 6 508.821 0 4.6 60 25.degree. C. 5 345.03 0 4.6 60 55.degree. C. 23 526.461 .2 4.6 60 55.degree. C. 22 483.693 .2 4.6 60 25.degree. C. 4 622.531 0 7.07 60 55.degree. C. 25 331.463 0 7.07 60 25.degree. C. 8 490.311 .2 7.07 60 25.degree. C. 3 439.753 .2 7.07 60 55.degree. C. 24 522.100 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 10 456.884 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 12 690.812 0 6 35 40.degree. C. 16 421.882 .3 6 35 40.degree. C. 14 708.443 .1 4.07 35 40.degree. C. 13 674.502 .1 8.1 35 40.degree. C. 11 398.222 .1 6 10 40.degree. C. 21 506.632 .1 6 85 40.degree. C. 15 622.602 .1 6 35 25.degree. C. 2 541.02 .1 6 35 70.degree. C. 30 558.842 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 20 601.02 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 18 578.852 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 19 578.642 .1 6 35 40.degree. C. 17 590.88______________________________________*Footnote:To convert polymer lbs/ton to percent active, use the following equation (based on an active polymer ingredient of 26%): ##STR1##- A predictive equation was developed using all the experimental data. Statistical analysis of the data Table 2 and 3, resulted in a model with aR-Square value of 0.9662 and R-Square Adj. value of 0.9510. These values demonstrated the accuracy of the model used in this investigation. Data given in Tables 4, 5 and 6 are the initial setting of the experiments, andthe theoretical optimal values obtained. The CSF values increased using separately Celluclast 1.5L (10% w/w) or polymer 0.0392% on dry weight of pulp). Using both cellulase and polymer increased the CSF from 240 to 717 ml. In contrast enzyme and polymer alone increased CSF from 240 to 462 and550 ml respectively. FIGS. 1 to 6 showed steep curvatures with the increaseof enzyme and polymer dosages, and the higher increase in freeness values was achieved at pH 4.6 compared to pH 6 and pH 7.
B. Response Surface Factorial Design 2
A 36 run response surface factorial design, Table 7 was setup where the effects of Celluclast 1.5L (0 to 0.4% based on dry weight of pulp) were determined. Polymer No. 1, (0 to 0.0392% on dry weight of pulp), and the enzyme reaction time (30, 45 and 60 min.) were simultaneously investigatedon the freeness of the same pulp as mentioned in A. In this series of experiments, no buffer of any specific pH was used, as was used in all earlier series of experiments. The pH of the pulp suspension was found to be about 7, and was adjusted nearly to pH 4.8 by adding to pulp about 0.3 mL 6N sulfuric acid. Statistical analysis of the data, Table 8, 9 and 10 resulted in a model with R-Square value of 0.9928, without having revealedany direct positive interaction between enzyme and polymer.
TABLE 2______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response C______________________________________0 Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________ 1 1 568.618689 6.728681 84.51 0.0001 2 .about.P 65.004913 4.772179 13.62 0.0001 3 .about.E -46.609390 10.126620 -4.60 0.0002 4 .about.M 9.873872 5.081876 1.94 0.0662 5 .about.P*PH -14.785273 7.036308 -2.10 0.0485 6 .about.E*PH -12.466267 7.053722 -1.77 0.0924 7 .about.PH*T -13.709016 6.995056 -1.96 0.0641 8 .about.E**2 -113.082895 8.900433 -12.71 0.0001 9 .about.E**3 85.671459 6.769722 12.66 0.000110 -PH**3 -56.112785 5.538101 -10.13 0.0001______________________________________ Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P (P-2) 3 .about.E ((E-1e - 01)/1e - 01) 4 .about.M ((M-3.5e + 01)/2.5e + 01) 5 .about.P*PH (P-2)*((PH-6)/1.5) 6 .about.E*PH ((E-1e - 01)/1e - 01)*((PH-6 7 .about.PH*T ((PH-6)/1.5)*((T-4e + 01)/ 8 .about.E**2 ((E-1e - 01)/1e - 01)**2 9 .about.E**3 ((E-1e - 01)/1e - 01)**3 10 .about.PH**3 ((PH-6)/1.5)**3______________________________________No. cases = 30R-sq. = 0.9662RMS Error = 23.24Resid. df = 20R-sq-adj. = 0.9510Cond. No. = 5.72 .about.indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 3______________________________________Least Squares Summary ANOVA, Response C 5Source 1 df 2 Sum Sq. 3 Mean Sq. 4 F-Ratio Signif.______________________________________Total (Corr.) 29 319441.1Regression 9 308637.5 34293.1 63.48 0.0000Linear 3 113923.0 37974.3 70.30 0.0000Non-linear 6 139205.5 23200.9 42.95 0.0000Residual 20 10803.6 540.2Lack of fit 17 10456.7 615.1 5.32 0.0969Pure error 3 346.9 115.6______________________________________R-sq. = 0.9662R-sq-adj. = 0.95107, 3) as large as 5.319 is a moderately rare event => some evidence of lacof fit.
TABLE 4______________________________________Factor, Response 2 Initial 3 Optimalor Formula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________FactorsPOLYMER 0 0ENZYME 0 to .20 0.1 0.082558PH 4.5 to 7.5 6 6.6764MINUTES 10 to 60 35 59.962TEMPERATURE 40 40ResponsesCSF MAX 461.87______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.0377 after 32 steps.
TABLE 5______________________________________Factor, Response 2 Initial 3 OptimalFormula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________FactorsPOLYMER 1 to 3 2 2.9998ENZYME 0 0PH 4.5 to 7.5 6 4.5011MINUTES 10 to 60 35 59.998TEMPERATURE 40 40ResponsesCSF MAX 549.64______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.0377 after 138 steps.
TABLE 6______________________________________Factor, Response 2 Initial 3 Optimalor Formula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________1 Factors2 POLYMER 1 to 3 2 2.9993 ENZYME 0 to .20 0.1 0.087074 PH 4.5 to 7.5 6 4.50135 MINUTES 10 to 60 35 59.9896 TEMPERATURE 40 408 Responses9 CSF MAX 716.5______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.0377 after 110 steps.
TABLE 7______________________________________ 1 POLYMER 2 ENZYME 3 TIME 4 pH 5 CSF______________________________________ 1 0.0 0.000 30 4.76 242.00 2 0.0 0.002 30 4.80 263.80 3 0.0 0.004 30 4.64 306.00 4 1.5 0.000 30 4.91 407.00 5 1.5 0.004 30 4.86 478.16 6 3.0 0.000 30 4.67 524.75 7 3.0 0.002 30 4.68 550.60 8 3.0 0.004 30 4.73 545.00 9 1.5 0.002 30 4.76 438.5810 1.5 0.002 30 4.86 434.6011 1.5 0.002 30 4.60 428.6112 1.5 0.002 30 4.95 442.8713 0.0 0.000 45 4.76 252.0014 0.0 0.002 45 4.76 266.7015 0.0 0.004 45 4.72 315.7016 1.5 0.000 45 4.75 410.0017 1.5 0.004 45 4.67 482.5218 3.0 0.000 45 4.72 516.7519 3.0 0.002 45 4.81 555.2820 3.0 0.004 45 4.70 565.4121 1.5 0.002 45 4.59 450.3122 1.5 0.002 45 4.74 449.0023 1.5 0.002 45 4.63 450.1224 1.5 0.002 45 4.81 450.5025 0.0 0.000 60 4.91 245.0026 0.0 0.002 60 4.78 290.5027 0.0 0.004 60 4.60 324.8028 1.5 0.000 60 4.58 413.7029 1.5 0.004 60 4.74 493.6030 3.0 0.000 60 4.67 526.8031 3.0 0.002 60 4.81 563.9032 3.0 0.004 60 4.76 571.1033 1.5 0.002 60 4.84 450.2034 1.5 0.002 60 4.81 449.7035 1.5 0.002 60 4.90 448.6036 1.5 0.002 60 4.90 452.40______________________________________
TABLE 8______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response C, Model JAW.sub.-- REG1______________________________________Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 1 447.393686 3.427031 130.55 0.00012 .about.P 133.857931 2.395596 55.88 0.00013 .about.E 30.714437 2.679827 11.46 0.00014 .about.T 6.878700 1.759408 3.91 0.00085 .about.PH 2.173969 3.570057 0.61 0.54916 .about.P*E -7.869880 2.797020 -2.81 0.01047 .about.P*T -1.231124 2.719064 -0.45 0.65548 .about.P*PH 2.349784 7.511788 0.31 0.75759 .about.E*T 4.340487 2.786138 1.56 0.13420 .about.E*PH 3.716614 5.719449 0.65 0.52291 .about.T*PH 0.439370 3.617493 0.12 0.90452 .about.P**2 -32.617088 3.531662 -9.24 0.00013 .about.E**2 -0.037503 3.396388 -0.01 0.99134 .about.T**2 -2.162876 3.474620 -0.62 0.54035 .about.PH**2 0.261631 6.253606 0.04 0.9670______________________________________ Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) 3 .about.E ((E-2e - 03)/2e - 03) 4 .about.T ((T-4.5e + 01)/1.5e + 01) 5 .about.PH ((PH-4.765)/1.85e - 01) 6 .about. P*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2e - 03) 7 .about.P*T ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((T-4.5e + 0 8 .about.P*PH ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((PH-4.765 9 .about.E*T ((E-2e - 03)/2e - 03)*((T-4. 0 .about.E*PH ((E-2e - 03)/2e - 03)*((PH-4 1 .about.T*PH ((T-4.5e + 01)/1.5e + 01)*(( 2 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2 3 .about.E**2 ((E-2e - 03)/2e - 03)**2 4 .about.T**2 ((T-4.5e + 01)/1.5e + 01)**2 5 .about.PH**2 ((PH-4.765)/1.85e - 01)**2______________________________________o. cases = 36R-sq. = 0.9957RMS Error = 8.522esid. df = 21R-sq-adj. = 0.9928Cond. No. = 5.784indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 9______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response $log.sub.-- C,______________________________________Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 6.099356 0.003720 1639.80 0.0001.about.P 0.343841 0.004153 82.79 0.0001.about.E 0.075537 0.004354 17.35 0.0001.about.T 0.016980 0.003227 5.26 0.0001.about.P*E -0.040127 0.004945 -8.12 0.0001.about.P*T -0.010994 0.004770 -2.30 0.0288.about.P*PH 0.028204 0.012556 2.25 0.0328.about.P**2 -0.134348 0.005304 -25.33 0.0001______________________________________ Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) .about.E ((E-2e - 03)/2e - 03) .about.T ((T-4.5e + 01)/1.5e + 01) .about.P*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2e - 03) .about.P*T ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((T-4.5e + 0 .about.P*PH ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((PH-4.765 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2______________________________________o. cases = 36R-sq. = 0.9971RMS Error = 0.01578esid. df = 28R-sq-adj. = 0.9964Cond. No. = 2.544indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 10______________________________________Least Squares Summary ANOVA, Response 5Source 1 df 2 Sum Sq. 3 Mean Sq. 4 F-Ratio Signif.______________________________________Total (Corr.) 35 2.400112Regression 7 2.393139 0.341877 1373.00 0.0000Linear 3 2.067889 0.689296 2768.00 0.0000Non-linear 4 0.191848 0.047962 192.60 0.0000Residual 28 0.006973 0.000249Lack of fit 27 0.006937 0.000257 7.22 0.2873Pure error 1 0.000036 0.000036______________________________________R-sq. = 0.9971R-sq-adj. = 0.9964(27, 1) as large as 7.222 is not a rare event => no evidence of lack of fit.
Table 11 contains the data of initial setting of experiment and the theoretical values obtained. The pretreatment of the pulp suspension with Celluclast 1.5L (0.4% based on dry weight of pulp), followed by the treatment with polymer (0.0392% on dry weight of pulp), resulted in the increase of freeness from 242 mL to 570 mL, while when the pulp suspensionwas pretreated with reduced dosages of Celluclast 1.5L and polymer (0.2% and 0.0196% on dry weight of pulp, respectively, the freeness increased from 242 to 450 mL. In contract, the freeness increased to 407 and 550 mL by only treatment with polymer dosages of 0.0196% and 0.0392% respective, (FIGS. 7, 8 and 9).
TABLE 11______________________________________0 Factor, Response 2 Initial 3 Optimalor Formula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________1 Factors2 POLYMER 0 to 3 1.5 2.99923 ENZYME 0 to 0.004 0.002 0.0039974 T 30 to 60 45 42.4955 PH 4.765 4.7657 Responses8 CSF MAX 568.6______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.0329 after 48 steps.
EXAMPLE 2
Enzyme Polymer Application In Pulp And Paper Industry
A. Source of Recycled Fiber
The pulp slurry consisting mainly of old corrugated containers (OCC) was obtained from a midwestern recycle mill. The pulp stock was diluted with tap water and the freeness (Canadian Standard Freeness) measured. The freeness of this pulp was 350 mL. In order to examine the effect of enzymes and polymers on the freeness of pulp, the freeness of pulp was decreased from 350 mL to 250 mL by beating it using a Valley Beater.
B. Treatment of Pulp with Celluclast (NOVO) and Polymer No. 2
A response surface design, Table 12, was setup in which the effects of enzyme and polymer dosages was investigated on the freeness of pulp. The pulp slurry (about 3 g. dry weight) which had a pH of 5.05 was first treated for 60 min. at 45.degree. C. under continuous agitation (250 rpm) with an enzyme solution of Celluclast 1.5 L (0 to 0.5% based on dry weightof pulp) and then treated at 20.degree. C. with polymer No. 2, 0.261% and 0.0522%. The R-Square adjusted value of the fit was 0.9706: Table 13. Thisvalue demonstrated the accuracy of the model used in this investigation. The freeness values, using separately either Celluclast (0.46% wt/wt basis) or Polymer 1 (0.0522%) were increased from 241 to 365 and 350, respectively. But when the enzyme pretreated pulp was further treated withpolymer, the freeness increased from 241 to 497 mL, Table 14.
TABLE 12______________________________________POLYMER = 91PD030ENZYME = CELLUCLAST TIME = 600 1 Poly.sub.-- Dose 2 Enz.sub.-- Dose 3 CSF______________________________________1 0.0 0.000 241.42 0.0 0.234 342.43 0.0 0.528 361.74 1.5 0.000 302.05 1.5 0.454 420.56 3.0 0.000 344.67 3.0 0.225 424.38 3.0 0.447 474.29 1.5 0.218 364.010 1.5 0.231 367.011 1.5 0.201 365.012 1.5 0.245 360.0______________________________________
TABLE 13______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response C.______________________________________0 Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 1 378.519410 4.625556 81.83 0.00012 .about.P 42.201910 7.112547 5.93 0.00193 .about.E 65.965186 5.082299 12.98 0.00014 .about.P*E 7.570605 5.951252 1.27 0.25935 .about.P**2 6.602749 6.374128 1.04 0.34776 .about.E**2 -20.846166 7.985141 -2.61 0.04767 .about.P*E**2 17.220552 10.397590 1.66 0.1586______________________________________ 0 Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) 3 .about.E ((E-2.64e - 01)/2.64e - 01) 4 .about.P*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2.64e - 5 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2 6 .about.E**2 ((E-2.64e - 01)/2.64e - 01)* 7 .about.P*E**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2.64e -______________________________________No. cases = 12R-sq. = 0.9866RMS Error = 10.17Resid. df = 5R-sq-adj. = 0.9706Cond. No. = 3.935 .about.indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 14______________________________________0 Factor,Response 2 Initial 3 Optimalor Formula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________Factors ENZYMEPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 0 ONLYENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 0.528 0.264 0.462ResponsesCSF MAX 365.3Factors POLYMERPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 TO 3 1.5 3 ONLYENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 0ResponsesCSF MAX 350.16Factors POLYMERPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 3 1.5 2.9982 ANDENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 0.528 0.264 0.52788 ENZYMEResponsesCSF MAX 497.11______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.0233 after 5 steps.
C. Treatment of Pulp with Celluclast and Polymer No. 3
A 24 response surface design, Table 15 was setup in which the effects of enzyme, polymer dosages, enzyme reaction time were investigated on the freeness of pulp. The pulp slurry was first treated with enzyme and then with polymer as described above. The R-Square adjusted value was 0.9978 (Table 16). The pretreatment of pulp suspension with Celluclast (0.485% based on dry weight of pulp, reaction time--100 min.) followed by the treatment of polymer No. 3, 0.0444% on dry weight of pulp, resulted in theincrease of freeness from 250 mL to 675 mL. When the pulp suspension was pretreated with reduced dosages of Celluclast and polymer (0.28% and 0.0222%, respectively) the freeness increased from 250 to 528 mL. No difference in freeness values were found when pulp was pretreated with enzyme for 60 or 100 minutes.
D. Treatment of Pulp with Celluclast and Polymer No. 1
(Example 1) shows the effect of Celluclast 1.5L and polymer No. 1 on various laboratory prepared recycled fibers. When these investigations were extended to a mill recycled fiber similar results were obtained. A 12-run response surface design (Table 17) was set up in which the effects of enzyme and polymer dosages were investigated exactly as described above. Statistical analysis of the data, Table 18 and 19 resulted in a model with an R-Square adjusted value of 0.9994. The pretreatment of the pulp suspension with Celluclast (0.3% based on dry weight of pulp, 60 min., reaction time) followed by treatment of the polymer NO. 1 0.0392% resulted in the increase of freeness from 235 mL to 574 mL, while when thepulp suspension was pretreated with reduced dosages of Celluclast and polymer (0.14% and 0.0196 respectively), the freeness increased from 235 mL to 428 mL. (FIG. 11).
TABLE 15______________________________________POLYMER = 3 ENZYME = CELLUCLAST0 1 Poly.sub.-- Dose 2 Enz.sub.-- Dose 3 Minute 4 CSF______________________________________ 1 0.0 0.0000 60 250.00 2 0.0 0.2326 60 337.20 3 0.0 0.4858 60 422.50 4 1.5 0.0000 60 464.00 5 1.5 0.4332 60 558.00 6 3.0 0.0000 60 608.00 7 3.0 0.2198 60 654.00 8 3.0 0.4528 60 664.00 9 1.5 0.2182 60 528.0010 1.5 0.2264 60 526.2511 1.5 0.2469 60 525.0012 1.5 0.2182 60 522.5013 0.0 0.0000 100 251.0014 0.0 0.2449 100 339.0015 0.0 0.4563 100 418.0016 1.5 0.0000 100 458.0017 1.5 0.4688 100 575.0018 3.0 0.0000 100 604.0019 3.0 0.2290 100 653.0020 3.0 0.4494 100 676.0021 1.5 0.2247 100 528.0022 1.5 0.2182 100 529.0023 1.5 0.2344 100 531.0024 1.5 0.2120 100 536.00______________________________________
TABLE 16______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response C,______________________________________0 Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 1 516.739319 9.237230 55.94 0.00012 .about.P 153.135457 1.626186 94.17 0.00013 .about.E 35.134252 13.626143 2.58 0.02024 .about.P*E -27.201967 2.094032 -12.99 0.00015 .about.P**2 -31.786505 2.445110 -13.00 0.00016 .about.E**2 -12.540811 2.731146 -4.59 0.00037 .about.M 1.645517 1.020927 1.61 0.12668 .about.E*M 2.589306 1.522845 1.70 0.1084______________________________________ 0 Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) 3 .about.E ((E-2.428999e - 01)/2.4289 4 .about.P*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2.4289 5 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2 6 .about.E**2 ((E-2.428999e - 01)/2.4289 7 .about.M SQRT(M) 8 .about.E*M ((E-2.428999e - 01)/2.4289______________________________________No. cases = 24R-sq. = 0.9985RMS Error = 5.613Resid. df = 16R-sq-adj. = 0.9978Cond. No. = 21.42 .about.indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 17______________________________________POLYMER = 2 ENZYME = CELLUCLAST TIME = 600 1 Poly.sub.-- Dose 2 Enz.sub.-- Dose 3 CSF______________________________________1 0.0 0.0000 235.02 0.0 0.1412 279.23 0.0 0.3008 321.04 1.5 0.0000 385.05 1.5 0.2597 448.26 3.0 0.0000 509.07 3.0 0.1412 546.08 3.0 0.2778 570.09 1.5 0.1395 419.010 1.5 0.1493 428.011 1.5 0.1432 422.012 1.5 0.1429 420.0______________________________________
TABLE 18______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response______________________________________0 Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 1 424.186960 1.131305 374.95 0.00012 .about.P 132.144409 1.042865 126.71 0.00013 .about.E 37.101858 1.144858 32.41 0.00014 .about.P*E -5.338573 1.331804 -4.01 0.00715 .about.P**2 -10.086667 1.610348 -6.26 0.00086 .about.E**2 -4. 028245 1.822527 -2.21 0.0691______________________________________ 0 Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) 3 .about.E ((E-1.504e - 01)/1.504e - 01 4 .about.P*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-1.504e 5 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2 6 .about.E**2 ((E-1.504e - 01)/1.504e - 01______________________________________No. cases = 12R-sq. = 0.9997RMS Error = 2.537Resid. df = 6R-sq-adj. = 0.9994Cond. No. = 2.937 .about.indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 19______________________________________Least Squares Summary ANOVA, Response 3 50 Source 1 df 2 Sum Sq. Mean Sq. 4 F-Ratio Signif.______________________________________1 Total (Corr.) 11 111960.42 Regression 5 111921.8 22384.4 3478.00 0.00003 Linear 2 107622.3 53811.1 8360.00 0.00004 Non-linear 3 514.8 171.6 26.66 0.00075 Residual 6 38.6 6.4______________________________________R-sq. = 0.9997R-sq-adj. = 0.9994
E. Treatment of Pulp with Multifect CL (GENENCOR) and Polymer No. 1 10 mole% DMAEA-MCQ/AcAMm RSV=17
Although cellulolytic enzymes of Novo and Genecor have comparable International Endoglucanase Units (IEU), their origin and the other components present in them are quite different. A 12 response surface design (Table 20) was set-up similar to Celluclast as mentioned above. Slightly higher freeness values were obtained with Multifect CL compared to Celluclast 1.5L. This is simply due to higher Multifect dosages (0.2185% to 0.46512%), compared to Celluclast (0.1412% to 0.2778%). Statistical analysis of the data (Table 21) resulted in a model with an R-Square adjusted value of 0.9956. The freeness values increased using separately either Multifect (0.46% wt/wt basis) or polymer (0.0392%) were from 245 to 371 and 508 mL, respectively. But when enzyme pretreated pulp was further treated with polymer, the freeness increased from 245 mL to 634 mL. (Table 22)
TABLE 20______________________________________POLYMER = 2 ZYME = MULTIFECT TIME = 600 1 Poly.sub.-- Dose 2 Enz.sub.-- Dose 3 CSF______________________________________1 0.0 0.00000 245.42 0.0 0.22901 319.83 0.0 0.46512 366.24 1.5 0.00000 436.05 1.5 0.43636 521.06 3.0 0.00000 503.07 3.0 0.21818 598.08 3.0 0.46512 635.09 1.5 0.22642 484.410 1.5 0.22305 484.011 1.5 0.25000 501.012 1.5 0.22989 487.0______________________________________
TABLE 21______________________________________Least Squares Coefficients, Response______________________________________0 Term 1 Coeff. 2 Std. Error 3 T-value 4 Signif.______________________________________1 1 491.637655 3.280291 149.88 0.00012 .about.P 140.611206 5.153843 27.28 0.00013 .about.E 43.321860 5.515963 7.85 0.00054 .about.P**2 -34.642576 4.562820 -7.59 0.00065 .about.E**2 -17.400366 4.750113 -3.66 0.01456 .about.P*E**2 -9.007258 6.311847 -1.43 0.21297 .about.P**2*E 19.793444 6.613689 2.99 0.0303______________________________________ 0 Term 5 Transformed Term______________________________________ 1 1 2 .about.P ((P-1.5)/1.5) 3 .about.E ((E-2.3256e - 01)/2.3256e - 4 .about.P**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2 5 .about.E**2 ((E-2.3256e - 01)/2.3256e - 6 .about.P*E**2 ((P-1.5)/1.5)*((E-2.3256 7 .about.P**2*E ((P-1.5)/1.5)**2*((E-2.3______________________________________No. cases = 12R-sq. = 0.9980RMS Error = 7.273Resid. df = 5R-sq-adj. = 0.9956Cond. No. = 3.871 .about.indicates factors are transformed.
TABLE 22______________________________________CSF Optimization for Polymer and Enzyme0 Factor, 3Response 2 Initial Optimalor Formula 1 Range Setting Value______________________________________Factors ENZYMEPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 0 ONLYENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 0.46512 0.2326 0.46512ResponsesCSF MAX 371.11Factors POLYMERPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 TO 3 1.5 3 ONLYENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 0ResponsesCSF MAX 508.08Factors POLYMERPOLY.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 3 1.5 3 ANDENZ.sub.-- DOSE 0 to 0.46512 0.2326 0.4641 ENZYMEResponsesCSF MAX 634.27______________________________________Converged to a tolerance of 0.039 after 11 steps.

Number	Name	Date
3406089	Yerkes	Oct 1968
4894119	Baron et al.	Jan 1990
4923565	Fuentes et al.	May 1990

Application of enzymes and flocculants for enhancing the freeness of paper making pulp

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

US Classifications

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims

US Referenced Citations (3)

Non-Patent Literature Citations (2)

Entry
Abstract EP 351655.
Abstract TAPPI Journal 72 No. 6 pp. 187-191 Jun. 1989 (Eng.).