This non-provisional application is based upon U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/881,310, of the same title, filed Jan. 19, 2007; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/881,393, entitled “Absorbent Cellulosic Products With Regenerated Cellulose Formed In-Situ”, filed Jan. 19, 2007; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/994,344, entitled “Absorbent Sheet Incorporating Regenerated Cellulose Microfiber”, filed Sep. 19, 2007; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/994,483, entitled “High Efficiency Disposable Cellulosic Wiper”, filed Sep. 19, 2007. The priorities of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. Nos. 60/881,310; 60/881,393; 60/994,344 and 60/994,483 are hereby claimed and the disclosures thereof are incorporated into this application by reference.
The present invention relates generally to making microfibers of regenerated cellulose and products incorporating such fibers. Microfibers of the invention are made by splitting larger fibers of regenerated cellulose in high yield to make microfibers suitable for incorporating into absorbent products, such as tissue. One preferred process utilizes ionic liquid/cellulose dopes. Products incorporating conventional papermaking fibers and microfibers of the invention exhibit high wet/dry CD tensile ratios.
Cellulose microfibers are described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,511,746 to Collier et al. In the '746 patent there is described a process for manufacturing cellulose microfibers from dissolved cellulose by extruding the dissolved cellulose (lyocell-type) through a converging die. The fibers are reported to have a diameter on the order of 10 μm with constituent structures of smaller diameters. See Col. 15-16. Note also, U.S. Pat. No. 6,235,392 to Luo et al. which describes melt blown Lyocell microfiber.
Lyocell is made by dissolving nearly pure cellulose in N-methyl-morpholine oxide (NMMO) and reforming fibers by injecting a concentrated cellulose/NMMO solution into a water bath through spinnerets. The water dilutes the NMMO as the nascent fiber is drawn through the bath, and the cellulose crystallizes into fibers. The fiber formation process first produces extremely fine fibrils which then align themselves along the axis of the fiber as the NMMO is removed. The strength of the bonds between fibrils has some distribution around a mean such that mechanical action may completely disintegrate some fibers while leaving others mostly intact. In most textile applications, fibrillation is not desired, and there are patents on ways to minimize fibrillation. In other applications such as filter media, it is desired to retain large fibers with fibrils still attached. In co-pending application U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 60/850,467 (Case 20134), the lyocell is fibrillated to the point where fibrils are separated into distinct microfibers.
In the process of generating microfibers via fibrillated lyocell, a number of inefficiencies arise. First, lyocell has a tendency to fibrillate, but the manufacturer employs all means possible to minimize this tendency. Thus, an extended period of low intensity refining is necessary to gently tease the fibers apart. Too much mechanical action will grind and shorten the fibers rather than fibrillate them. Too little mechanical action will reduce the yield of microfibers. Current practice yields about half microfiber and half fibrillated fibers. It may be possible to separate the fractions with screening, but this adds cost. The larger fractions may or may not be readily splittable in any event.
A second inefficiency results from the morphology of the microfiber. Microfibers have extremely low coarseness and are very short. The benefits of microfiber such as bulk, softness, absorbency, wet strength, opacity, and the ability to reduce basis weight are documented in U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 60/850,467, referred to above. Despite the many benefits of microfibers, it is believed that the tactile benefit and other properties could be improved by increasing the exceptionally low coarseness somewhat and increasing the average length of microfibers in accordance with the present invention.
A third inefficiency arising from conventional lyocell fiber manufacture relates to cost. Wood pulp is purified to alpha cellulose for current practice in order to produce high quality textile fibers. High purity cellulose adds cost. It may be possible and even desirable to use ordinary bleached Kraft pulp for some portion of the raw material. A 6 mm length can be cut on the production line, but shorter lengths require an offline process that adds still more cost. Fibrillation then produces microfibers while leaving some relatively unimpacted fibers. The microfibers so-produced have very low coarseness, but shorter than desired. The lightly impacted fibers are reasonably long, but coarseness is too high. The microfiber is the main desired product of fibrillation, yet the yield of microfiber from fibrillation is perhaps 50%, at best, using conventional techniques.
The invention relates, in part, to a modified method of producing underivatized cellulose fiber that provides a specific, “ideal” fiber length and coarseness for producing soft, yet strong, tissue and towel products. The method uses spinnerets capable of generating segmented fibers and cellulose dopes of slightly different composition to introduce fiber defects between segments of splittable fibers. Upon fibrillation, the fibers will preferentially break where the defects are introduced, resulting in the microfibers of the invention. The advantages of the invention over prior art relate, in part, to better yield of microfibers, up to 100% yield of microfiber based on the larger fiber split into microfiber. It is also possible to use lower cost raw materials, such as unpurified Kraft pulp or even recycle pulp, since impurities may enhance the ability of the splittable fibers to split into microfibers.
In one embodiment, there are formed lyocell fibers with dissimilar cellulose/NMMO solutions in a way that introduces designed defects into the fibers. The lyocell solutions can be made dissimilar in a number of ways, including but not limited to concentration, cellulose purity, or added chemicals.
In another embodiment, cellulose/ionic liquid solutions are similarly employed.
There is provided in one aspect of the invention a method of making microfibers of regenerated cellulose. The method involves: (a) preparing a first cellulosic dope having a first composition; (b) preparing a second cellulosic dope having a second composition which differs from the first composition of the first cellulosic dope; followed by (c) spinning, that is, extruding the first and second cellulosic dopes through suitable spinnerets into composite fibers each having a length and a segmented cross-section comprising a plurality of segments across the cross-section of the nascent fiber, the segments also extending along the length of the fiber and the nascent fibers include at least one longitudinally-extending segment formed from the first cellulosic dope juxtaposed with at least one longitudinally-extending segment formed from the second cellulosic dope. The nascent fibers are regenerated into splittable composite regenerated cellulose fibers each having a plurality of regenerated cellulose segments across the cross-section of the regenerated fiber. The segments also extend along the length of the fiber and include at least a first longitudinally-extending regenerated cellulose segment formed from the first cellulosic dope juxtaposed with at least a second longitudinally-extending regenerated cellulose segment formed from the second cellulosic dope, wherein the first longitudinally-extending regenerated cellulose segment is joined to the second longitudinally-extending regenerated cellulose segment along a splittable interface. Hollow segmented fibers are believed particularly suitable. The composite regenerated cellulose fibers are split into microfibers of smaller cross-section along the splittable interface between segments. The geometry of the nascent fibers is regulated, the first and second cellulosic dope compositions are selected and the steps of regenerating and splitting the fibers are controlled, such that the composite regenerated cellulose fibers are split into microfibers with a coarseness between 0.05 mg/100 m and 10 mg/100 m with a microfiber yield of more than 50% based on larger splittable regenerated cellulose composite fibers subjected to splitting. Preferably, the composite regenerated cellulose fibers are split into microfibers with a coarseness between 0.1 mg/100 m and 6 mg/100 m with a microfiber yield of more than 50% based on the larger splittable regenerated cellulose microfibers subjected to splitting. In some cases, the microfibers have a coarseness of less than 1 mg/100 m, less than 0.5 mg/100 m or less than 0.25 mg/100 m based on the product attribute desired.
So also, the composite regenerated cellulose fibers are split into microfibers with a length weighted average length between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, such as between 0.2 mm and 6 mm. Microfiber yields of more than 60%, more than 70% or more than 80% are readily achieved.
The first cellulosic dope may include dissolved cellulose at a first concentration when the second cellulosic dope comprises dissolved cellulose at a second concentration different from the first concentration of cellulose in the first cellulosic dope. In still other cases, the first cellulosic dope comprises dissolved cellulose of a first purity and the second cellulosic dope comprises dissolved cellulose of a second purity different from the first purity of the cellulose dissolved in the first dope. For example, one of the cellulosic dopes may include purified alpha cellulose and the second cellulosic dope may include dissolved Kraft pulp. In still other embodiments, one of the cellulosic dopes may include dissolved high yield pulp. In still yet other cases the first cellulosic dope has a constituent not present in the second cellulosic dope, such as a filler or lubricant. Alternatively, the first cellulosic dope has cellulose with a degree of polymerization which is different from that of cellulose in the cellulosic dope of the second composition.
Any suitable number of segments may be formed in the regenerated splittable composite regenerated cellulose fibers. For example, there may be two segments formed from the first cellulosic dope juxtaposed with two segments formed from the second cellulosic dope. Four, eight, or sixteen segments of each cellulosic dope may likewise be selected in the various embodiments of the present invention.
In one preferred embodiment at least one of the first and second cellulosic dopes includes cellulose dissolved in a solvent comprising N-methyl morpholine-N oxide (NMMO). In some cases both cellulosic dopes include cellulose dissolved in N-methyl morpholine-N oxide (NMMO).
In still other embodiments, at least one of the first and second cellulosic dopes includes cellulose dissolved in a solvent composition including an ionic liquid. In still other embodiments the first and second cellulosic dopes include cellulose dissolved in a solvent composition including an ionic liquid. A preferred ionic liquid is an imidazolium salt, such as 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride or other dialkylimidazolium salt. In some preferred embodiments, the first and second cellulosic dopes include the same ionic liquid.
Microfibers prepared in accordance with the present invention may be used to form absorbent sheet, such as tissue or towel products when mixed with other pulp-derived papermaking fibers. The pulp-derived papermaking fiber may be selected from Kraft hardwood fiber, Kraft softwood fiber, high yield fiber, recycled fibers and mixtures thereof.
Typical products have a basis weight of from about 5 lbs/3000 ft2 ream to about 50 lbs/3000 ft2 ream. In many cases the product will have a basis weight of from about 7.5 lbs/3000 ft2 ream to about 35 lbs/3000 ft2 ream. In some embodiments, sheet products may include from about 1 weight percent to about 30 weight percent of regenerated cellulose microfibers prepared in accordance with the invention. In other embodiments, high efficiency disposable cellulosic wipers include: (a) from about 90% by weight to about 25% by weight pulp-derived papermaking fiber having a characteristic scattering coefficient of less than 50 m2/kg; and (b) from about 10% to about 75% by weight fibrillated regenerated cellulosic microfiber having a characteristic CSF value of less than 175 ml, the microfiber being selected and present in amounts such that the wiper exhibits a scattering coefficient of greater than 50 m2/kg. Various ratios of pulp derived papermaking fiber to cellulose microfiber may be employed. For example the wiper may include from about 80 weight percent to a 30 weight percent pulp derived papermaking fiber and from about 20 weight percent to about 70 weight percent cellulose microfiber. Suitable ratios also include from about 70 percent by weight papermaking fiber to about 35 percent by weight pulp derived papermaking fiber and from about 30 percent by weight to about 65 percent by weight cellulose microfiber. Likewise, 60 percent to 40 percent by weight pulp derived papermaking fiber may be used with 40 percent by weight to about 60 percent by weight cellulose microfiber. The microfiber is further characterized in some cases in that the fiber is 40 percent by weight finer than 14 mesh. In other cases the microfiber may be characterized in that at least 50, 60, 70 or 80 percent by weight of the fibrillated regenerated cellulose microfiber is finer than 14 mesh. So also, the microfiber may have a number average diameter of less than about 2 microns, suitably between about 0.1 and about 2 microns. Thus the regenerated cellulose microfiber may have a fiber count of greater than 50 million fibers/gram or greater than 400 million fibers/gram. A suitable regenerated cellulose microfiber has a weight average diameter of less than 2 microns, a weight average length of less than 500 microns, and a fiber count of greater than 400 million fibers/gram such as a weight average diameter of less than 1 micron, a weight average length of less than 400 microns and a fiber count of greater than 2 billion fibers/gram. In still other cases the regenerated cellulose microfiber has a weight average diameter of less than 0.5 microns, a weight average length of less than 300 microns and a fiber count of greater than 10 billion fibers/gram. In another embodiment, the fibrillated regenerated cellulose microfiber has a weight average diameter of less than 0.25 microns, a weight average length of less than 200 microns and a fiber count of greater than 50 billion fibers/gram. Alternatively the fibrillated regenerated cellulose microfiber may have a fiber count of greater than 200 billion fibers/gram and/or a coarseness value of less than about 0.5 mg/100 m. A coarseness value for the regenerated cellulose microfiber may be from about 0.001 mg/100 m to about 0.2 mg/100 m. Preferably the sheet exhibits a wet/dry tensile ratio of greater than 30%, such as a wet/dry CD tensile ratio of between about 35% and about 60%. A wet/dry CD tensile ratio of at least about 40% or at least about 45% is preferred in many cases.
Further details and aspects of the present invention are described in more detail below.
The invention is described with reference to the drawings, wherein:
The invention is described in detail below with reference to several embodiments. Such discussion is for purposes of illustration only.
Terminology used herein is given its ordinary meaning consistent with the exemplary definitions set forth immediately below; mg refers to milligrams and m2 refers to square meters, mBar means milliBar ( 1/1000 Bar) and so forth. Unless otherwise specified, % means weight percent.
Unless otherwise specified, “basis weight”, BWT, bwt and so forth refers to the weight of a 3000 square foot ream of product.
The term “cellulosic”, “cellulosic sheet” and the like is meant to include any product incorporating papermaking fiber having cellulose as a major constituent. “Papermaking fibers” include virgin pulps or recycle (secondary) cellulosic fibers or fiber mixes comprising cellulosic fibers. Fibers suitable for making the webs when mixed with microfibers of this invention include: nonwood fibers, such as cotton fibers or cotton derivatives, abaca, kenaf, sabai grass, flax, esparto grass, straw, jute hemp, bagasse, milkweed floss fibers, and pineapple leaf fibers; and wood fibers such as those obtained from deciduous and coniferous trees, including softwood fibers, such as northern and southern softwood Kraft fibers; hardwood fibers, such as eucalyptus, maple, birch, aspen, or the like. Papermaking fibers used in connection with the furnish blends of this invention are typically naturally occurring pulp-derived fibers (as opposed to reconstituted fibers such as lyocell or rayon) which are liberated from their source material by any one of a number of pulping processes familiar to one experienced in the art including sulfate, sulfite, polysulfide, soda pulping, etc. The pulp can be bleached if desired by chemical means including the use of chlorine, chlorine dioxide, oxygen, alkaline peroxide and so forth. Naturally occurring pulp-derived fibers are referred to herein simply as “pulp-derived” papermaking fibers. The products of the present invention may comprise a blend of conventional fibers (whether derived from virgin pulp or recycle sources) and high coarseness lignin-rich tubular fibers, such as bleached chemical thermomechanical pulp (BCTMP). Pulp-derived fibers thus also include high yield fibers such as BCTMP as well as thermomechanical pulp (TMP), chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP) and alkaline peroxide mechanical pulp (APMP). “Furnishes” and like terminology refers to aqueous compositions including microfibers of this invention, papermaking fibers, optionally wet strength resins, debonders and the like for making paper products. The papermaking fibers are in many embodiments Kraft fibers, described below.
Kraft softwood fiber is low yield fiber made by the well known Kraft (sulfate) pulping process from coniferous material and includes northern and southern softwood Kraft fiber, Douglas fir Kraft fiber and so forth. Kraft softwood fibers generally have a lignin content of less than 5 percent by weight, a length weighted average fiber length of greater than 2 mm, as well as an arithmetic average fiber length of greater than 0.6 mm.
Kraft hardwood fiber is made by the Kraft process from hardwood sources, i.e., eucalyptus, and also has generally a lignin content of less than 5 percent by weight. Kraft hardwood fibers are shorter than softwood fibers, typically having a length weighted average fiber length of less than 1 mm and an arithmetic average length of less than 0.5 mm or less than 0.4 mm.
“Cellulosic dope” means a viscous solution of dissolved cellulose. Preferably, the cellulose is underivatized to ease processing. “Underivatized” cellulose refers to cellulose which has not been substantially derivatized, for example, esterified or xanthated as occurs in a cellulose acetate process or a viscose process. “Connatural” saccharide content refers to the content of saccharide units in the cellulosic dope other than D-glucose saccharide building blocks, based on the total saccharide content of the dope. For example, a cellulosic dope having 99.5% alpha-cellulose and 0.5% hemicellulose made up of xylose units and other non-glucose units on a dry basis, has a connatural saccharide content of 0.5%.
Fiber length and coarseness can be measured using a fiber-measuring instrument such as the Kajaani FS-200 analyzer available from Valmet Automation of Norcross, Ga. or an OPTEST FQA. For fiber length measurements, a dilute suspension of the fibers (approximately 0.5 to 0.6 percent) whose length is to be measured may be prepared in a sample beaker and the instrument operated according to the procedures recommended by the manufacturer. The report range for fiber lengths is set at an instrument's minimum value of, for example, 0.07 mm and a maximum value of, for example, 7.2 mm; fibers having lengths outside of the selected range are excluded. Three calculated average fiber lengths may be reported. The arithmetic average length is the sum of the product of the number of fibers measured and the length of the fiber divided by the sum of the number of fibers measured. The length-weighted average fiber length is defined as the sum of the product of the number of fibers measured and the length of each fiber squared divided by the sum of the product of the number of fibers measured and the length the fiber. The weight-weighted average fiber length is defined as the sum of the product of the number of fibers measured and the length of the fiber cubed divided by the sum of the product of the number of fibers and the length of the fiber squared. For microfibers, it is sometimes necessary to use other optical techniques or simply calculate fiber parameters based on geometry and starting material configuration. For example, if a sample of larger fibers having 16 segments was uniformly split in 100% yield by visual observation, the microfiber diameter and coarseness is approximately 1/16 that of the starting material.
Fiber coarseness is the weight of fibers in a sample per a given length and is usually reported as mg/100 meters. Coarseness, C, is expressed in mg/100 m as follows:
“Denier” is a measure of fiber or filament coarseness and is in units of g/9000 m unless otherwise indicated.
Freezing point depressions of compositions are determined by calculating the melting point by rule of mixtures and subtracting the observed melting point of the composition.
“Fiber” means an elongated fibrous structure, typically having an aspect (length/diameter) ratio of 3 or more.
“Microfiber” means fibers having a coarseness of 10 mg/100 m or less.
“Microfiber yield” is expressed in percent based on material subjected to splitting. For example, a 100 gram sample of splittable fibers having a coarseness of 200 yielding 85 grams of microfiber having a coarseness of 5 has a microfiber yield of 85%. Microfiber yield may refer to a specific product coarseness or length as well. For example, a microfiber yield of 85% based on coarseness where only 75% of the microfibers were of the desired length would be a yield of (85%) (0.75) or 63.75% of microfibers of the desired coarseness and length.
Dry tensile strengths (MD and CD), stretch, ratios thereof, modulus, break modulus, stress and strain are measured with a standard Instron test device or other suitable elongation tensile tester which may be configured in various ways, typically using 3 or 1 inch wide strips of tissue or towel, conditioned in an atmosphere of 23°±1° C. (73.4°±1° F.) at 50% relative humidity for 2 hours. The tensile test is run at a crosshead speed of 2 in/min. Tensile strength is sometimes referred to simply as “tensile” and is reported in breaking length (km), g/3″ or g/in.
The wet tensile of the tissue of the present invention is measured using a three-inch wide strip of tissue that is folded into a loop, clamped in a special fixture termed a Finch Cup, then immersed in water. The Finch Cup, which is available from the Thwing-Albert Instrument Company of Philadelphia, Pa., is mounted onto a tensile tester equipped with a 2.0 pound load cell with the flange of the Finch Cup clamped by the tester's lower jaw and the ends of tissue loop clamped into the upper jaw of the tensile tester. The sample is immersed in water that has been adjusted to a pH of 7.0±0.1 and the tensile is tested after a 5 second immersion time. Values are divided by two, as appropriate, to account for the loop.
Wet/dry tensile ratios are expressed in percent by multiplying the ratio by 100. For towel products, the wet/dry CD tensile ratio is the most relevant. Throughout this specification and claims which follow “wet/dry ratio” or like terminology refers to the wet/dry CD tensile ratio unless clearly specified otherwise. For handsheets, MD and CD values are approximately equivalent.
Regenerated cellulose fiber-forming techniques are well known in the art. Composite filaments of cellulose are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 2,428,046 to Sisson et al. In this patent, there is described a method of spinning a fiber from two different cellulosic dopes through a spinneret in order to provide composite fibers of regenerated cellulose. See FIGS. 8 and 9 of the '046 patent. Note also, U.S. Pat. No. 2,440,761 also to Sisson et al. Further details with respect to co-extrusion of cellulosic dopes to form structures are found in the following United States patents: U.S. Pat. No. 3,175,339 to McDowell; U.S. Pat. No. 4,267,047 to Henne et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,802,942 to Takemura et al. The disclosures of U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,428,046; 2,440,761; 3,175,339; 4,267,047; and 4,802,942 are incorporated herein by reference.
Segmented fiber preparation for making splittable fibers is known in connection with thermoplastic fibers, where fibers having segments formed of different polymers. See, for example U.S. Pat. No. 5,759,926 to Pike et al., as well as U.S. Pat. No. 5,895,710 to Sasse et al. and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0203695 (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/135,650) of Polanco et al., the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The splittable fibers produced and utilized in accordance with this invention may have a segmented pie shape, an island in the sea configuration, a side-by-side configuration and so forth. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,735,849 to Murakami et al., FIGS. 6A-6D, as well as United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0168912 (Ser. No. 09/852,888), FIGS. 2-9. The disclosures of U.S. Pat. No. 4,735,849 and Publication No. US 2002/0168912 are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
In connection with the present invention, the regenerated cellulose splittable fibers may have a denier of around 2, which equates to a coarseness of 22 mg/100 m, similar to southern softwood Kraft fibers. Each wedge of a 16-segment fiber would have a coarseness of 1.4 mg/100 m, and a 32-segment fiber would have wedges with a coarseness of 0.7 mg/100 m. For comparison, eucalyptus fibers employed for the softest tissue grades have a coarseness around 6 mg/100 m.
The solvent composition for dissolving cellulose and preparing underivatized cellulose dopes suitably includes tertiary amine oxides such as N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) and similar compounds enumerated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,246,221 to McCorsley, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Cellulose dopes may contain non-solvents for cellulose such as water, alkanols or other solvents as will be appreciated from the discussion which follows.
Suitable cellulosic dopes are enumerated in Table 1, below.
See, also, U.S. Pat. No. 3,508,945 to Johnson, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Throughout the specification and claims, where referring to one composition as differing from another, it is meant that the two compositions differ in concentration, or differ in chemical composition, or differ in connatural saccharide content, or differ in degree of polymerization, or differ in two or more of these features. It is not necessary that the cellulosic dopes have a different chemical make-up because a difference in molecular weights (i.e., average degree of polymerization) of the dissolved cellulose of the two dopes may suffice to facilitate formation of a splittable interface between fiber segments. Likewise, complex saccharides other than alpha-cellulose present in different amounts can provide the necessary differences between cellulosic dopes.
Cellulose is a naturally-occurring polymer of D-glucose with a 1,4β linkage with a typical degree of polymerization of anywhere from about 2,000-15,000; most commonly from about 10,000-14,000 according to many reported values; however, the degree of polymerization of cellulose may be reduced when extracted from its source. The change in degree of polymerization may be different depending upon the severity of the extraction procedure.
Purified cellulose (β-linked poly(glucopyranose)) compositions are referred to as alpha cellulose. Wood pulp generally contains higher levels of hemicellulose than alpha cellulose preparations as noted above. Hemicelluloses extracted from different plants are rarely identical and include different molecular types with different degrees of polymerization. In many cases, hemicellulose includes predominantly D-xylose building blocks, and may include arabinose units, galactose units and so forth. Optionally present in the cellulose preparation are complex polysaccharides such as arabinoxylan and/or arabinogalactan at significant levels. Thus, one way of preparing cellulose dopes with different compositions is to employ cellulose sources having different levels of particular saccharides other than D-glucose repeat units; for example, by using natural cellulose from different sources.
Details with respect to preparation of cellulosic dopes including cellulose dissolved in suitable ionic liquids and cellulose regeneration therefrom are found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/256,521; Publication No. US 2003/0157351 of Swatloski et al. entitled “Dissolution and Processing of Cellulose Using Ionic Liquids”, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Here again, suitable levels of non-solvents for cellulose may be included. There is described generally in this patent application a process for dissolving cellulose in an ionic liquid without derivatization and regenerating the cellulose in a range of structural forms. It is reported that the cellulose solubility and the solution properties can be controlled by the selection of ionic liquid constituents with small cations and halide or pseudohalide anions favoring solution. Preferred ionic liquids for dissolving cellulose include those with cyclic cations such as the following cations: imidazolium; pyridinum; pyridazinium; pyrimidinium; pyrazinium; pyrazolium; oxazolium; 1,2,3-triazolium; 1,2,4-triazolium; thiazolium; piperidinium; pyrrolidinium; quinolinium; and isoquinolinium.
Processing techniques for ionic liquids/cellulose dopes are also discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,808,557 to Holbrey et al., entitled “Cellulose Matrix Encapsulation and Method”, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Note also, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/087,496; Publication No. 2005/0288484 of Holbrey et al., entitled “Polymer Dissolution and Blend Formation in Ionic Liquids”, as well as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/394,989; Publication No. 2004/0038031 of Holbrey et al., entitled “Cellulose Matrix Encapsulation and Method”, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to ionic fluids in general the following documents provide further detail: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/406,620, Publication No. 2006/0241287 of Hecht et al., entitled “Extracting Biopolymers From a Biomass Using Ionic Liquids”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,724, Publication No. 2006/0240727 of Price et al., entitled “Ionic Liquid Based Products and Method of Using The Same”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,729; Publication No. 2006/0240728 of Price et al., entitled “Ionic Liquid Based Products and Method of Using the Same”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/263,391, Publication No. 2006/0090271 of Price et al., entitled “Processes For Modifying Textiles Using Ionic Liquids”; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/375,963 of Amano et al. (Publication No. 2006/0207722), the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. Some ionic liquids and quasi-ionic liquids which may be suitable are disclosed by Konig et al., Chem. Commun. 2005, 1170-1172, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
“Ionic liquid”, refers to a molten composition including an ionic compound that is preferably a stable liquid at temperatures of less than 100° C. at ambient pressure. Typically, such liquids have very low vapor pressure at 100° C., less than 75 mbar or so and preferably less than 50 mBar or 25 in Bar at 100° C. Most suitable liquids will have a vapor pressure of less than 10 mBar at 100° C. and often the vapor pressure is so low it is negligible and is not easily measurable since it is less than 1 mBar at 100° C.
Suitable commercially available ionic liquids are Basionic™ ionic liquid products available from BASF (Florham Park, N.J.) and are listed in Table 2 below.
Cellulose dopes including ionic liquids having dissolved therein about 5% by weight underivatized cellulose are commercially available from Aldrich. These compositions utilize alkyl-methylimidazolium acetate as the solvent. It has been found that choline-based ionic liquids are not particularly suitable for dissolving cellulose.
In accordance with the invention, ionic liquids are used to dissolve cellulose. 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride for example, may be employed. The cellulose in an ionic liquid solution is precipitated by diluting the solution with water. It is this characteristic that is used to create novel fiber structures of the present invention.
There is shown in
Following formation, fibers or regenerated cellulose such as fiber 10 are split at interfaces 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 43 by refining or any other suitable technique into microfibers such as microfibers 70, 72, 74 and 76 and so forth as shown schematically in
Length 80 of the microfibers may be substantially smaller, on average, than the length of the larger fibers from which they are made, if so desired. A length weighted average length of from about 20% to about 50% of the larger fibers may be achieved. Generally, the microfibers are split from larger fibers into microfibers having a length distribution and a coarseness distribution influenced by segment geometry and composition of the larger splittable fibers from which they are made.
There is shown in
Microfibers shown schematically in
Throughdried, creped products and processes (TAD) are disclosed in the following patents: U.S. Pat. No. 3,994,771 to Morgan, Jr. et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,102,737 to Morton; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,529,480 to Trokhan. The processes described in these patents comprise, very generally, forming a web on a foraminous support, thermally pre-drying the web, applying the web to a Yankee dryer with a nip defined, in part, by an impression fabric, and creping the product from the Yankee dryer. A relatively permeable web is typically required, making it difficult to employ recycle furnish at levels which may be desired. Transfer to the Yankee typically takes place at web consistencies of from about 60% to about 70%. See also, U.S. Pat. No. 6,187,137 to Druecke et al. which includes disclosure of peeling a web from a Yankee dryer. Uncreped, throughdried products are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,607,551 to Farrington, Jr. et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Some newer processes including fabric-creping and the use of creping adhesives are described in the following co-pending applications: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/804,246, filed May 16, 2007, entitled “Fabric Creped Absorbent Sheet with Variable Local Basis Weight”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/678,669, entitled “Method of Controlling Adhesive Build-Up on a Yankee Dryer”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/451,112 (Publication No. 2006/0289133), filed Jun. 12, 2006, entitled “Fabric-Creped Sheet for Dispensers”; U.S. Ser. No. 11/451,111, filed Jun. 12, 2006 (Publication No. 2006/0289134), entitled “Method of Making Fabric-creped Sheet for Dispensers”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/402,609 (Publication No. 2006/0237154), filed Apr. 12, 2006, entitled “Multi-Ply Paper Towel With Absorbent Core”; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/151,761, filed Jun. 14, 2005 (Publication No. 2005/0279471), entitled “High Solids Fabric-crepe Process for Producing Absorbent Sheet with In-Fabric Drying”; U.S. application Ser. No. 11/108,458, filed Apr. 18, 2005 (Publication No. 2005/0241787), entitled “Fabric-Crepe and In Fabric Drying Process for Producing Absorbent Sheet”; U.S. application Ser. No. 11/108,375, filed Apr. 18, 2005 (Publication No. 2005/0217814), entitled “Fabric-crepe/Draw Process for Producing Absorbent Sheet”; U.S. application Ser. No. 11/104,014, filed Apr. 12, 2005 (Publication No. 2005/0241786), entitled “Wet-Pressed Tissue and Towel Products With Elevated CD Stretch and Low Tensile Ratios Made With a High Solids Fabric-Crepe Process”; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/679,862 (Publication No. 2004/0238135), filed Oct. 6, 2003, entitled “Fabric-crepe Process for Making Absorbent Sheet”; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/903,789, filed Feb. 27, 2007, entitled “Fabric Crepe Process With Prolonged Production Cycle”. The applications referred to immediately above are particularly relevant to the selection of machinery, materials, processing conditions and so forth as to fabric creped products of the present invention and the disclosures of these applications are incorporated herein by reference.
While the invention has been described in detail, modifications within the spirit and scope of the invention will be readily apparent to those of skill in the art. In view of the foregoing discussion, relevant knowledge in the art and references including co-pending applications discussed above in connection with the Background and Detailed Description, the disclosures of which are all incorporated herein by reference, further description is deemed unnecessary.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2428046 | Sisson et al. | Sep 1947 | A |
2440761 | Sisson et al. | May 1948 | A |
3009822 | Drelich et al. | Nov 1961 | A |
3175339 | McDowell | Mar 1965 | A |
3209402 | Riley et al. | Oct 1965 | A |
3337671 | Drisch et al. | Aug 1967 | A |
3382140 | Henderson et al. | May 1968 | A |
3508941 | Johnson | Apr 1970 | A |
3508945 | Haemer et al. | Apr 1970 | A |
3785918 | Kawai et al. | Jan 1974 | A |
3994771 | Morgan, Jr. et al. | Nov 1976 | A |
4036679 | Back et al. | Jul 1977 | A |
4100324 | Anderson et al. | Jul 1978 | A |
4102737 | Morton | Jul 1978 | A |
4145532 | Franks et al. | Mar 1979 | A |
4246221 | McCorsley, III | Jan 1981 | A |
4267047 | Henne et al. | May 1981 | A |
4374702 | Turbak et al. | Feb 1983 | A |
4426228 | Brandner et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4481076 | Herrick | Nov 1984 | A |
4481077 | Herrick | Nov 1984 | A |
4483743 | Turbak et al. | Nov 1984 | A |
4529480 | Trokhan | Jul 1985 | A |
4735849 | Murakami et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
4802942 | Takemura et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4908097 | Box | Mar 1990 | A |
4931201 | Julemont | Jun 1990 | A |
4987632 | Rowe et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5039431 | Johnson et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5124197 | Bernardin et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5227024 | Gomez | Jul 1993 | A |
5269470 | Ishikawa et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5320710 | Reeves et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5354524 | Sellars et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5385640 | Weibel et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5562739 | Urben | Oct 1996 | A |
5580356 | Taylor | Dec 1996 | A |
5582681 | Back et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5607551 | Farrington, Jr. et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
H1672 | Hermans et al. | Aug 1997 | H |
5688468 | Lu | Nov 1997 | A |
5725821 | Gannon et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5759210 | Potter et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5759926 | Pike et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5779737 | Potter et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5858021 | Sun et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5863652 | Matsumura et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5895710 | Sasse et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5935880 | Wang et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5964983 | Dinand et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6042769 | Gannon et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6117545 | Cavaille et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6153136 | Collier et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6183596 | Matsuda et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6187137 | Druecke et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6214163 | Matsuda et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6221487 | Luo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6235392 | Luo et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6258210 | Takeuchi et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6258304 | Bahia | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6267898 | Fukuda et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6287419 | Takeuchi et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6344109 | Gross | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6471727 | Luo et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6491788 | Sealey et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6511746 | Collier et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6544912 | Tanio et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6573204 | Philipp et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6596033 | Luo et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6602386 | Takeuchi et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6624100 | Pike | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645618 | Hobbs et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6692827 | Luo et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6706237 | Luo et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6706876 | Luo et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6746976 | Urankar et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6749718 | Takai et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6767634 | Krishnaswamy | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6773648 | Luo et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6808557 | Holbrey et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6824599 | Swatloski et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6833187 | Luo et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6835311 | Koslow | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6814038 | Horenziak et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6849329 | Perez et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6861023 | Sealey et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6872311 | Koslow | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6890649 | Hobbs et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6899790 | Lee | May 2005 | B2 |
6951895 | Qin et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
7037405 | Hguyen et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7067444 | Luo et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7083704 | Sealey, II et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7094317 | Lundberg et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7097737 | Luo et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7195694 | Von Drach et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7241711 | Takai et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7250382 | Takai et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7258764 | Mauler | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7276166 | Koslow | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7296691 | Koslow | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7381294 | Suzuki et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7399378 | Edwards et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7442278 | Murray et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7494563 | Edwards et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7503998 | Murray et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7566014 | Koslow | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7585388 | Yeh et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7585389 | Yeh et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7588660 | Edwards et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7588831 | Akiyama et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7605096 | Tomarchio et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7608164 | Chou et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7655112 | Koslow | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7662257 | Edwards et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7700764 | Heijnesson-Hulten | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7718036 | Sumnicht et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7789995 | Super et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7820008 | Edwards et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7850823 | Chou et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7951264 | Sumnicht | May 2011 | B2 |
7951266 | Kokko et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7985321 | Sumnicht et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
20010028955 | Luo et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020031966 | Tomarchio et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020036070 | Luo et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020037407 | Luo et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020041961 | Sealey et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020060382 | Luo et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020064654 | Luo et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020074009 | Zhao et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020074097 | Gross et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020076556 | Luo et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020081428 | Luo et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020088572 | Sealey et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020088575 | Lonsy et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020096294 | Nicholass et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020160186 | Luo et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020168912 | Bond et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030024669 | Kokko | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030025252 | Sealey et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030056916 | Horenziak et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065059 | Krishnaswamy | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030099821 | Takai et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030100240 | Takai et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030135181 | Chen et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030144640 | Nguyen | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030157351 | Swatloski et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159786 | Runge et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030168401 | Koslow | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177909 | Koslow | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030178166 | Takeuchi et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030203695 | Polanco et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040038031 | Holbrey et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040045687 | Shannon et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040123962 | Shannon et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040144510 | Mauler | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040178142 | Koslow | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040203306 | Grafe et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040206463 | Luo et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040207110 | Luo et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040209078 | Luo et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040226671 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040238135 | Edwards et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050011827 | Koslow | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050051487 | Koslow | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050074542 | Lundberg et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050148264 | Varona et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050176326 | Bond et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050217814 | Super et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050241786 | Edwards et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050241787 | Murray et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050274469 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050279471 | Murray et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288484 | Holbrey et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060019571 | Lange et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060090271 | Price et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060141881 | Bergsten et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060207722 | Amano et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060237154 | Edwards et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060240727 | Price et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060240728 | Price et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241287 | Hecht et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060289132 | Heijnesson-Hulten | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060289133 | Yeh et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060289134 | Yeh et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070131366 | Underhill et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070224419 | Sumnicht et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080054107 | Koslow et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080057307 | Koslow et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080083519 | Kokko et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080105394 | Kokko | May 2008 | A1 |
20080135193 | Kokko | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080173418 | Sumnicht et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080173419 | Sumnicht et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090020139 | Sumnicht et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090020248 | Sumnicht et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090065164 | Goto et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090120598 | Edwards et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090120599 | Nguyen | May 2009 | A1 |
20090151881 | Nguyen | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090308551 | Kokko et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100065235 | Fike et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100212850 | Sumnicht et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100272938 | Mitchell et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100282423 | Super et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100288456 | Westland et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110011545 | Edwards et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2004904 | Dec 2008 | EP |
978953 | Jan 1965 | GB |
2412083 | Sep 2005 | GB |
2127343 | Mar 1999 | RU |
2144101 | Jan 2000 | RU |
2183648 | Jun 2002 | RU |
2328255 | Jul 2008 | RU |
9535399 | Dec 1995 | WO |
WO 9803710 | Jan 1998 | WO |
9807914 | Feb 1998 | WO |
20051010273 | Feb 2005 | WO |
2007109259 | Sep 2007 | WO |
2009038730 | Mar 2009 | WO |
2009038735 | Mar 2009 | WO |
2010033536 | Mar 2010 | WO |
2010065367 | Jun 2010 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080173419 A1 | Jul 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60881310 | Jan 2007 | US | |
60881393 | Jan 2007 | US | |
60994344 | Sep 2007 | US | |
60994483 | Sep 2007 | US |