ASSESSMENT OF DEINKING CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE:

FROM LABORATORY FLOTATION TESTS TO THE SIMULATION OF AN

INDUSTRIAL PRE-FLOTATION LINE

Davide Beneventia, Bruno Carréb, Tea Hannukselac and Scott Rosencranced

a
LGP2-UMR5518, Ecole Française de Papeterie et des Industries Graphiques (INPG), 461 rue de la Papeterie,
DU, BP. 65, 38402 St. Martin d’Hères, France.
b
Centre Technique du Papier, Domaine Universitaire, B.P. 251, 38044 Grenoble CEDEX 9, France.
c
Kemira Oyj, P.O. Box 500, 65101 Vaasa, Finland.
d
Kemira Chemicals Inc, 1525 Church Street Extension, Marietta, Georgia 30060-1023, USA.

ABSTRACT

The influence of different de-inking chemistries on ink removal selectivity was investigated by using a
continuous laboratory flotation column. A surfactant-fatty acid blend was compared to conventional fatty acid
soap under alkaline conditions with two silicate dosages, namely 2 and 1%. As expected, the decrease in silicate
dosage induced a general decrease in ink removal selectivity. However, the surfactant/fatty acid blend gave ink
removal selectivity higher than that obtained with fatty acid soap for both silicate dosages.
In order to better understand the influence of the pulping chemistry on particle and water removal
during pulp flotation, experimental data were interpolated with model equations recently developed to describe
water, ink, fillers, fines and fibres transport in a flotation cell. Transport coefficients showed that, under the
tested conditions, the increase in ink removal selectivity obtained when using the surfactant/fatty acid blend and
when increasing silicate dosage were due to the depression of fibre, fines and fillers transport from the aerated
pulp to the froth.
Particle and water transport coefficients obtained for the different chemistries were used with model
equations to simulate the impact of the pulping chemistry on the ink removal selectivity of an industrial pre-
flotation line composed by six primary flotation and two secondary flotation cells.
Simulation results reproduced the selectivity trends obtained during laboratory tests. Namely, the
highest ink removal selectivity was obtained with the surfactant-fatty acid blend and 2% silicate, followed by the
sodium soap and 2% silicate and the blend/soap with 1% silicate, respectively. The simulation of a pre-flotation
line also pointed out that laboratory flotation tests combined with process simulation can provide information on
the effect of process chemicals on the operating conditions of industrial deinking lines.

Keywords: flotation deinking; silicate; process simulation; selectivity.

INTRODUCTION

Froth flotation is a separation technology which allows selective ink removal relative to other furnish
components such as cellulose fibres/fines and fillers. Froth flotation can be considered as the reference process
for the production of deinked pulp. As a result of the widespread use of this technology in deinking mills there
has been much research activity aimed at understanding the selectivity and process yield. This collection of work
has included study of many areas including i) pulping/flotation chemistries [1]-[7], ii) raw materials composition
and age [8]-[12], process parameters and deinking line design [13]-[17]. However, the study of the mechanisms
governing flotation deinking remains poorly understood.

In some cases the process yield can demonstrate significant fluctuations without any significant variation in
monitored process variables. One key reason associated with this shortcoming can be ascribed to the excessive
complexity of aerated pulp and froth dynamics and to their high sensitivity to the composition of both dispersed
and dissolved substances.

The separation of ink particles from the other solid particles including cellulose fibres by froth flotation is the
result of a sequence of transport micro processes acting in the aerated pulp slurry and in the froth. Leaving aside
fibre transport, whose complex flocculation dynamics in a three-phase system can affect the bubble flow regime
[18], [19], the ink removal process can be summarized by two main stages. Initially, the interaction of ink
particles with air bubbles occurs. This event is generally believed to be governed by the size and the
hydrophobicity of both ink and bubbles [20], [21]. Secondly, the bubble/ink heterostructures flow in the froth,
where the efficient upward flow of ink particles is closely correlated to the stability of the froth phase and the
adhesion energy of ink particles to air bubbles [22].
Deinking agents often include fatty acids, non-ionic surfactants, or mixtures of both species. These materials can
modify the size of air bubbles [23], ink/fillers agglomerates [24], and stabilize/destabilize the froth [25], [26].
Thereafter, a single chemical agent can affect ink removal by acting at the same time on different transport
processes hindering the identification of unambiguous structure-performance correlations.

Many deinking studies quantify ink removal performance by directly correlating chemicals dosage to brightness
gain and/or ERIC reduction. Some studies [27] use the ink removal selectivity to evaluate chemicals
performance (i.e. maximum ink removal with minimum stock loss), while others focus on
chemicals/ink/fibre/bubble basic interactions using simplified model systems [18]-[24]. All these approaches
provide exhaustive information on the behaviour of the studied system, however, the extrapolation of
experimental results to the mill scale is rather difficult and the combination of chemical and physical variables
(i.e. flotation cell size, shape, pulp and gas flows, deinking line layout) in the scale-up process can be insufficient
since key data on solids/water transport in the aerated pulp and in the froth as well as adequate mathematical
models are not available.

A recent work [28] combines the use of a continuous laboratory cell, a specific test procedure, and a newly
developed mathematical model describing mass transfer during flotation. Using this approach it becomes
possible to better understand the contribution of deinking chemicals to the deinking selectivity. The approach
uses three main transport parameters for each class of particle dispersed in the pulp stock (ink, fibres, fines and
fillers). These transport parameters are:
- The flotation rate coefficient (rate of particle removal by true flotation).
- The entrainment coefficient (intensity of particle entrainment).
- The drainage coefficient (particle drainage character from the froth to the pulp).
Two additional coefficients are used to describe the pulp frothing behaviour. These are the water volume fraction
coefficient in the froth at the froth/pulp interface and the water drainage coefficient. Particle transport
coefficients obtained in the presence of alkaline soap chemistry and model equations were also used to simulate
industrial pre-flotation lines giving results in line with data collected during mill trials [29].

The aim of this work was to use this laboratory test procedure and process simulation to investigate the deinking
performance of four alkaline chemistries and to predict their impact on the ink removal selectivity in industrial
pre-flotation lines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laboratory Flotation Tests

The furnish composition consisted of 50 % old magazines (OMG) and 50 % old newsprints (ONP). These
recovered papers were pulped in a 20 L capacity pulper (Lam-Deinkit) for 15 min at 13 % consistency and 45°C.
Fatty acid soap and a fatty acid-surfactant blend were used as main deinking agents under alkaline conditions
and at two concentrations of sodium silicate (Table 1). The calcium ion concentration of tap water used during
pulping and the subsequent dilution from 13 to 0.8% was adjusted to 150 mg/L by adding CaCl2.

Continuous flotation experiments were performed using the 14.5 L capacity flotation column shown in Figure 1
[28]. In order to characterize the ink removal kinetics and water/particle drainage in the froth, a specific
procedure was used to run flotation trials. Specifically, after filling the flotation cell with the pulp suspension
with a constant pulp flow of 2.5 L/min, a gas flow of 5 L/min was injected in the cell via Venturi aerators and the
froth removal thickness was adjusted to 2 cm. Floated pulp samples were collected every 2 min during 16 min
and a froth sample was collected after the equilibration of the system, namely 12 min flotation. The froth
removal thickness was then adjusted to 1 cm and floated pulp and froth samples were collected after 16 min
flotation. This procedure was repeated for froth removal thicknesses of 3 and 5 cm, respectively. Experimental
conditions used to run flotation trials are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1. Re-pulping chemistries tested in this study. Dosages are given with respect to dry paper.
Re-pulping chemistry NaOH (%) Silicate (%) Peroxide (%) Collector (%)
Soap, 2% silicate 0.7 2 0.7 0.45
Soap, 1% silicate 0.7 1 0.7 0.45
Blend, 2% silicate 0.7 2 0.7 0.15
Blend, 1% silicate 0.7 1 0.7 0.15
Table 2. Conditions used during laboratory flotation experiments.
Pulp flow Gas Flow Cell volume Froth removal Temperature Consistency
(L/min) (L/min) (L) thickness (cm) (°C) (%)
5 2.5 14.5 2-1-3-5 40 0.8

Adjustable froth removal

Pulp chest

Froth
collection

Air
To vacuum Floated
pump pulp

Pulp aeration line

Figure 1. Scheme of the laboratory flotation cell used in this study.

Residual ink (ERIC) [30] and ash content (475°C) were measured on ~400 g/m2 pads prepared using pulp and
froth samples preconditioned with aluminium sulphate and cationic polyacrylamide [31]. The fibre content in the
flotation reject was determined by weighing the coarse fibre fraction remaining on a 200 mesh screen after hyper
washing with a pressurized water jet. Pulp and froth consistencies were also measured and used with the
corresponding mass flow to establish a complete mass balance.

Experimental Data Fitting and Simulation of an Industrial Line

Experimental results were interpreted using a set of equations modelling particle transport in a flotation cell in
terms of true flotation, entrainment, and particle/water drainage in the froth [28], [29]. In model equations used
to rationalize experimental results, particle flotation is described by the typical first order equation

dcn K n Qgα
=− cn (1)
dt S

where cn is the concentration of the particle in class n, Qg is the gas flow, S is the cross sectional area of the
flotation cell and α an empirical correction factor ranging between 0.7 and 0.8 [28]. K is a parameter including
hydrodynamic and physicochemical factors affecting bubble/particle interactions. The flotation rate constant for
particles in class n is

K n ⋅ Qgα
kn = (2).
S

Hydrophilic cellulose fibres are not subjected to flotation [32], [33] and their flotation rate constant is forced to
zero when fitting experimental data. Particle entrainment is correlated to particle concentration and water upward
flow in the froth,

dcn φ ⋅Qf 0

=− cn (3)
dt V

where φ = c0f /cn is the particle entrainment coefficient, Q f is the water upward flow in the froth in the absence
0

of drainage, c0f is particle concentration at the pulp/froth interface and V is the pulp volume in the flotation cell.
Entrainment coefficients of ink, fines, and fillers were forced to 0.2, 0.4, and 0.2, respectively [28] to limit the
number of free variables in the equation system.
Water drainage through the froth is described using the water hold-up in the froth, ε, and its retention time (FRT)
in the flotation cell,
 Qf
ε= (4),
Q f + Qg

h (5)
FRT =
Jg + J f

where Qg and Qf are the gas and the froth reject flows, h is the froth thickness and Jg, Jf are the gas and water
superficial velocities in the froth. The decrease of the water hold-up in the froth versus the FRT was described by
the usual exponential decay [28], [34]

ε = ε 0 ⋅ e − L ⋅FRT
d
(6)

where ε0 is the water volume fraction at the froth/pulp interface and Ld is the water drainage rate constant.
The drainage of particles dispersed in the froth is modelled by the equation

dM f
= −δ ⋅ cnf ⋅ Qd (7)
dt

where dMf / dt is the particle downward flow from the froth to the pulp due to drainage, Qd is the water drainage
flow, δ = cd /cnf is the particle drainage coefficient, cnf is the particle concentration in the froth and cd is particle
concentration in the water drainage stream.

Particle and water transport coefficients obtained by fitting experimental results with model equations were used
to interpret the contribution of pulping chemistries on transport phenomena and to simulate their effect on the ink
removal selectivity of the conventional multistage pre-flotation line shown in Figure 2. Main physical parameters
of each flotation unit and the pulp composition used to run simulations are given in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Boundary conditions and the complete set of equations used to simulate multistage flotation systems have been
presented in a previous work [29].

In order to obtain comparable simulation results some process variables were kept constant. The pulp
recirculation rate on secondary cells (i.e. the fraction of floated pulp cascaded back at the inlet of the secondary
line) was fixed to 71% and the average froth retention time in secondary cells was 20 s to have a total water loss
of ~5%. The froth retention time in primary cells ranged between 0 and 5 s to equilibrate pulp flows.

2ry stage
Froth 2ry stage

Air Air

Cell Cell
2 1

1ry stage

Froth 1ry stage

Air Air Air Air Air Air

Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell

1 2 3 4 5 6

Floated pulp

Pulp feed

Figure 2. Layout of the pre-flotation line simulated to quantify the impact of different re-pulping chemistries on the process
efficiency.
Table 3. Main parameters used to simulate an industrial pre-flotation unit.
Cell Cell cross Pre-flotation Cell nominal Gas Number Number Recirculation
volume section feed flow flow flow of 1ry of 2ry rate on 2ry
(L) area (m2) (L/min) (L/min) (L/min) cells cells cells (%)
24000 12 30000 40000 20000 6 2 71

Table 4. Consistency and composition of the pulp slurry used to run simulations.
Consistency Fibre fraction Ash fraction Fines fraction ERIC
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm)
1.2 60.1 19.8 20.1 1093

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Laboratory Flotation Tests

Flotation kinetics
The ink content of the floated pulp in the presence of 1% silicate and of both soap and fatty acid-surfactant blend
sharply decreased from 960 to ~300 ppm showing that less than 6 min flotation were required to reach a steady
state for ink removal (Figure 3a). Furthermore, the increase in the froth removal thickness was accompanied by a
corresponding weak increase in ERIC, which was interpreted as reflecting the limited drainage of hydrophobic
ink particles through the froth. For all tested froth thicknesses and 1% silicate, lowest ERIC values were obtained
with the fatty acid-surfactant blend (Figure 3a). Figure 3b shows that, for froth removal thicknesses higher than 2
cm, the fibre concentration in the froth decreases when the fatty acid-surfactant blend is used instead of fatty acid
soap. This trend can be associated with higher fibre drainage in the presence of the blend. The ash content in the
froth showed minimal change with the various pulping chemistries (Figure 4a).

The ash consistency in the froth rose with the froth removal thickness. I.e. the increase in the froth thickness
from 1 to 5 cm gave an ash consistency increase from 3.3 to 7.4 g/L. According with a previous study [35], this
behaviour was associated to the drainage flow of high density mineral particles through the froth. The fines
consistency in the froth (Figure 4b) was higher in the presence of fatty acid soap than in the presence of the
blend showing that the blend favours fines drainage.

The reduced drainage of cellulose material can be ascribed to the coagulation of calcium soaps at the surface of
both fibres and fines [36] and to the formation of hydrophobic spots which slow down particle drainage by
adhering to the surface of froth bubbles [37].

Concentration plots obtained with 2% silicate chemistries displayed profiles similar to those shown in Figures 3
and 4 confirming the effect of the froth removal thickness on ink, fibres, ash and fines concentration.

1000 5.0
Soap, 1% silicate
900 Soap, 1% silicate 4.5

4.0 Blend, 1% silicate

800 Blend, 1% silicate
Fibre consistency (g/L)

3.5
700
ERIC (ppm)

3.0
600
2.5
500
2 cm 1cm 3 cm 5 cm 2.0
400
2 cm 1cm 3 cm 5 cm
1.5
300 1.0
200 0.5

100 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min) Time (min)
a) b)
Figure 3. Fitting of experimental results with model equations (dotted lines). a) Residual ink content in the floated pulp
plotted as a function of the flotation time and of the froth removal thickness. b) Fibre consistency in the froth plotted as a
function of the flotation time and of the froth thickness.
 9 6.0
Soap, 1% silicate 5.5 Soap, 1% silicate
8
5.0
7 Blend, 1% silicate Blend, 1% silicate
4.5

Fines consistency (g/L)

Ash consistency (g/L) 6 4.0
3.5
5
3.0
4 2.5

3 2.0
2 cm 1cm 3 cm 5 cm
2 cm 1cm 3 cm 5 cm 1.5
2
1.0
1 0.5

0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min) Time (min)
a) b)
Figure 4. Fitting of experimental results with model equations (dotted lines). Ash, a), and fines, b), consistency in the froth
plotted as a function of the flotation time and of the froth removal thickness.

Pulp frothing and water loss

Steady state data were used to evaluate the effect of the pulping chemistry and the froth removal thickness on the
flotation yield. Figure 5a shows that the pulping chemistry type clearly effects the observed water loss. Despite
the typical defoaming effect of calcium soaps [38], for a constant silicate dosage, fatty acid soap gave water
losses higher than those obtained with the blend. The increase of silicate dosage, from 1 to 2%, gave a general
decrease in the water loss. This behaviour can be ascribed to the liquid film stabilization by solid particles
dispersed in the froth and not to a direct interaction between soap/silicate colloids and froth bubbles. It is
normally accepted that a high concentration of hydrophilic particles can stabilize the froth by slowing down
water drainage through plateau borders [39].Water hold-up in the froth obtained with tested chemistries (Figure
5b) can be therefore correlated with the concentration of cellulose fibres/fines in the froth (Figure 3b, 4b).
Compared to the blend, fatty acid soap boosts pulp frothing by favouring fibre/fines entrainment and
concentration in the froth, whereas silicate counteracts this effect by promoting pulp dispersion and reducing
fibre/fines transfer to the froth [35].

35 0.16
Soap, 2% silicate
Soap, 2% silicate
30 0.14
Soap, 1% silicate
Soap, 1% silicate
Blend, 2% silicate 0.12
25
Blend, 2% silicate
Water loss (%)

Water holdup (%)

Blend, 1% silicate
0.1
20
Blend, 1% silicate
0.08
15
0.06
10
0.04
5
0.02
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Froth thickness (cm) Retention time (s)
a) b)
Figure 5. Influence of the re-pulping chemistry on water removal during pulp flotation. a) Effect of froth thickness on the
water loss. b) Water hold-up in the froth as a function of the froth retention time calculated using Eqs. 4-6.

Flotation yield and ink removal

As already shown by fibre concentration plots (Figure 3b), the fatty acid-surfactant blend gave a fibre loss lower
than that obtained with the fatty acid soap with both 1 and 2% silicate (Figure 6a), whereas, fines and ash loss
had similar values (Figures 6b, 6c) and the yield gain obtained with the blend (Figure 6d) was mainly due to a
decrease in the fibre loss. Flotation losses were also strongly affected by silicate dosage. Indeed, when using
fatty acid soap or the blend, it was observed that the fibre, fines, ash and total losses decreased ~7, ~10, ~12 and
~10%, respectively, when doubling silicate dosage (Figure 6).

The decrease in stock loss can be correlated with the well known dispersing action of sodium silicate, however
ink removal efficiencies (Figure 7) show that this dispersing action was not limited to fibres, fines and fillers. A
decrease in ink removal ranging between 1 and 4% was obtained when increasing silicate dosage. Silicate also
affected the sensitivity of ink removal to the froth removal thickness and the drop of ink removal for increasing
froth thickness was more pronounced when using 2% than 1% silicate (viz. the slope of interpolating lines in
Figure 7). For a fixed silicate dosage, the fatty acid-surfactant blend gave a better ink removal than the fatty acid
soap.

As general rule, when comparing to the fatty acid soap as a reference: i) the surfactant-fatty acid blend allowed
increasing ink removal with a decrease in fibre and total losses, ii) silicate strongly decreased flotation losses, iii)
both silicate and surfactant-fatty acid blend reduced pulp frothing and water loss.

25 40
Soap, 2% silicate
35
Soap, 1% silicate
20
Blend, 2% silicate 30

Blend, 1% silicate
Fibre loss (% )

Fines loss (% )
25
15

20

10
15
Soap, 2% silicate
10 Soap, 1% silicate
5
5 Blend, 2% silicate
Blend, 1% silicate
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Froth thickness (cm) Froth thickness (cm)
a) b)

40
70
Soap, 2% Silicate
35
Soap, 1% silicate
60
Blend, 2% silicate
30
50 Blend, 1% silicate
25
Total loss (%)
Ash loss (%)

40
20

30
Soap, 2% silicate 15

20 Soap, 1% silicate
10
Blend, 2% silicate
10 5
Blend, 1% silicate

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Froth thickness (cm) Froth thickness (cm)
c) d)
Figure 6. Influence of the re-pulping chemistry and of the froth removal thickness on the flotation losses. a) Fibre loss, b)
fines loss, c) ash loss, d) total solids loss. Dotted lines represent experimental data fitting with model equations.

78
Soap, 2% silicate
76
Soap, 1% silicate
74 Blend, 2% silicate
Ink removal (%)

72 Blend, 1% silicate

70

68

66

64

62
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Froth thickness (cm)

Figure 7. Ink removal efficiency (calculated using ERIC values) versus froth removal thickness obtained in the presence of
different re-pulping chemistries.
Experimental Data Fitting and Simulation of an Industrial Line

Experimental data interpretation with model equations

Figures 3-7 demonstrate that the model equations (Eqs. 1-7) reasonably fit the experimental data. Particle and
water transport coefficients obtained for each test condition are given in Table 5. These results suggest that:

- The flotation rate constant of ink particles had a nearly constant value, namely ~0.64 1/min, for all
chemistries evaluated.
- Ink removal was mostly affected by ink particle drainage through the froth.
- Increased silicate dosage induced an increase in the ink drainage coefficient when using fatty acid soap.
- Silicate and the surfactant-fatty acid blend slightly reduced the flotation rate constant of fillers and fines
and the entrainment of cellulose fibres by air bubbles.
- Silicate improved fibre drainage through the froth.

Most of transport coefficients are in line with the dispersing action of silicate. In general, the gain in ink removal
selectivity obtained with silicate and with the surfactant-fatty acid blend was mainly due to a decrease in fibre,
fines and fillers losses relative to the ink elimination.

Table 5. Water and particle transport coefficients obtained from the fitting of experimental data with model equations. *
Parameters forced to a constant value to limit the number of free variables [28].
Pulping Soap Soap Blend Blend
chemistry 2% silicate 1% silicate 2% silicate 1% silicate
ε0 0.15 0.19 0.09 0.13
1/Ld (s) 14.9 12.6 13.9 19.6
Kink (1/min) 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.60
φink* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
δink 0.62 0.39 0.76 0.70
Kash (1/min) 0.14 0.23 0.12 0.18
φash* 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
δash 0.82 0.60 0.51 0.45
Kfines (1/min) 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05
φfines* 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
δfines 0.60 0.49 0.48 0.69
Kfibres* (1/min) 0 0 0 0
φfibres 0.54 0.59 0.50 0.55
δfibres 0.85 0.81 0.83 0.76

Simulation of an industrial line

In process simulation, many process variables can be used to relate the characteristics of the flotation line to the
stock composition and the deinking chemistry. Since the aim of this work was to better understand the effect of
the pulping chemistry on the efficiency of a deinking line, our process simulations were run using constant
process parameters (i.e. number of aeration steps, froth retention time, recirculation rate, consistency) to
approximate the overall process and to compare pulping chemistries.

The ERIC variation along a conventional pre-flotation line (Figure 2) is shown in Figure 8. At the inlet of the
first flotation cell of the primary stage (Figure 8a) the pulp has an ERIC value higher than that of the pulp stream
feeding the whole line (i.e. 1060 ppm). This is due to the high ink content in the pulp at the outlet of the
secondary stage (Figure 8b) which is cascaded back at the inlet of the primary stage. ERIC progressively
decreases along primary and secondary stages with the exponential profile typical for a first order kinetics and in
agreement with trends obtained during mill trials [27].

All simulated chemistries displayed similar ink distributions along the line except when using the blend and 2%
silicate. Indeed, unexpectedly high ERIC values were obtained in the secondary stage. This tendency was
interpreted as reflecting the high ink removal selectivity attained with this chemistry (Figures 6, 7). The selective
removal of ink particles (i.e. high ink removal with a minimum of fibres, filler and fines loss) leads to an
increase in the ink content in the froth and therefore in the corresponding ERIC value. Likewise, the ERIC drop
in the primary line was associated with the efficient ink removal (the blend, 2% silicate chemistry gave the
highest ink flotation rate constant) and to a limited fibre/fillers loss which led to a sharp decrease in the ink
weight fraction of pulp pads and therefore in their ERIC.
 1600
1478
Inlet
1400 1302
1287
Outlet 1
1165
1200
1037 Outlet 2
992 1011
1000

ERIC (ppm)
899
Outlet 3
779 799
800 704
741
Outlet 4
604 623
600 544 520
460 478 Outlet 5
414
358 360
400 345
309 Outlet 6
254 265
226 241
159
200

0
Soap, 2% silicate Soap, 1% silicate Blend, 2% silicate Blend, 1% silicate
a)

4000 3770
Inlet
3500
3040 Outlet 1
3000
2684
2624 2554 Outlet 2
2500
ERIC (ppm)

2096 2101
1953
2000 1780 1832

1531
1500 1253

1000

500

0
Soap, 2% silicate Soap, 1% silicate Blend, 2% silicate Blend, 1% silicate
b)
Figure 8. Variation of the residual ink content along the flotation line as obtained from process simulation using the line
layout shown in Figure 2, and parameters given in Tables 3, 4. a) Primary flotation line. b) Secondary flotation line.

A high ERIC in the secondary stage accompanied to a low ERIC at the outlet of the whole line is an indication of
good ink separation selectivity. Based on the resulting ERIC values, the best deinking performance was given by
the blend-2% silicate chemistry (159 ppm), followed by the soap-1% silicate (226 ppm).

Stock losses in both primary and secondary stages were calculated with respect to the pulp flow feeding the
whole deinking line (Tables 3 and 4). In the primary stage the froth was removed with nearly no retention time.
In this condition drainage phenomena don’t have time to take place and the total loss calculated for this stage
(Figure 9) ranges between 33 and 45%. This low yield can be considered quite normal since the main role of the
primary stage is to insure a maximum ink removal and to generate a froth flow sufficient to feed the secondary
stage. The froth of the primary stage has a composition considerably different from the original pulp stock. The
selective removal of floatable particles by air bubbles favours the concentration of ink, fillers and fines in the
froth and, when comparing the composition of pulps in primary and secondary stage, the fibre fraction decreases
from 60 to 9%, and the fines and fillers fractions increase from 20 to 40% and from 20 to 51%, respectively [29].
Therefore, in the secondary stage, the removal of ink, fillers and fines is favoured with respect to cellulose fibres
and both total and fibre loss drop to ~10 and ~3% (Figure 9), respectively. The selective removal of ink particles
occurs mostly in the secondary stage and, contrary to the primary stage, the adjustment of the froth retention
time has a key role in promoting hydrophilic particles drainage and improving process yield.

Under the simulated conditions, the highest yield (92.4%) was obtained with the blend-2% silicate chemistry
with a minimum of fibre loss of 1% (Figure 9). The process yield progressively decreased to 92.2, 87.7 and
86.9% with the soap-2% silicate, blend-1% silicate and soap-1% silicate chemistry. Figure 10 shows that the
typical tendency that a yield increase corresponds to an ink removal decrease is not respected for the blend-2%
silicate chemistry which gave the highest yield and ink removal efficiency and therefore a sound increase in ink
removal selectivity.
 50 Total loss 1ry
44.3
45 Total loss 2ry
41.4

40 Fibre loss
36.4 35.6 36.3
33.8 Ash loss
35
Fines loss
30
Loss (%)

Water loss
25
20.3
20
15.2
15 13.1
12.2

10 7.8 7.5 7.6

5.9 5.5 6.6
5.4 5.8
4.2 3.1 2.9 3.2
5 2.6
1.1
0
Soap, 2% silicate Soap, 1% silicate Blend, 2% silicate Blend, 1% silicate

Figure 9. Influence of the re-pulping chemistry on flotation losses as obtained from process simulation. Fibre, ash, fines and
water losses refer to the entire flotation line.

Evaluation of the ink removal versus flotation loss data obtained from both laboratory tests and simulation
(Figure 11) suggests that the ink removal and yield are more favourable in the simulated two stage flotation line
relative to the single stage laboratory flotation. This observed increase in ink removal (~10% in average) can be
correlated with a higher aeration rate in the simulated line (500% versus 200% in the laboratory column). The
increase in yield (~11% in average) can be due to the highly selective separation of ink particles in the secondary
stage.

Both simulation and experimental data show that the highest deinking selectivity (maximum ink removal with
minimum stock loss) was obtained with the blend-2% silicate chemistry. The soap-2% silicate chemistry gave a
similar yield, however the decrease in ink removal from 85 from 76% shows a drop in ink removal selectivity
(Figure 11). A further drop in selectivity was observed with formulations using 1% silicate. Indeed, despite an
ink removal similar to that obtained with the soap-2% silicate chemistry (~76%), the flotation loss increased
from 8 to 12%.

This work showed that the simulation of flotation banks using transport coefficients extracted from laboratory
data can be a useful tool to better understand the relationship existing between the formulation of the deinking
chemistry and the performance/regulation of industrial deinking lines.

88
86.6
Mass balance
86 85.5

ERIC
84
82.0
82
Ink removal (%)

80 79.3
78.6 78.7

78
76.8
75.8
76

74

72

70
Soap, 2% silicate Soap, 1% silicate Blend, 2% silicate Blend, 1% silicate

Figure 10. Ink removal efficiency obtained for the simulated pre-flotation unit when using different deinking chemicals.
 87
Soap, 2% silicate
Blend,
84 Soap, 1% silicate
2% silicate

81 Blend, 2% silicate
Blend, 1% silicate
Soap, Soap,
78
2% silicate 1% silicate

Ink removal (%)

Blend,
75
1% silicate

72

69

66

63

60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Total loss (% )

Figure 11. Comparison between ink removal selectivity towards suspended solids obtained from laboratory trials and from
process simulation. Black disks represent simulation results for the pre-flotation line. Total loss and ink removal increase
obtained at the laboratory scale are due to a decrease in the froth removal thickness.

Simulation results presented in this study appear quite realistic, however, some aspects, such as deinking
chemicals removal and accumulation in the process waters, were neglected. Work is in progress to develop a
simulation system which, accounting for these phenomena, can be used to provide an accurate prediction of the
performance of deinking lines.

CONCLUSIONS

The test of four alkaline deinking chemistries using a recently developed flotation column showed that:

- Silicate decreases fibre loss by depressing fibre entrainment and promoting fibre drainage in the froth.
- A decrease in ink removal due to more intense ink drainage in the froth was also observed when
increasing silicate dosage from 1 to 2%.
- For the two tested silicate dosages, the fatty acid-surfactant blend gave a higher ink removal selectivity
than that obtained with sodium soap.

The effect of the pulping chemistry on the efficiency of an industrial flotation bank was simulated using
transport coefficients extracted from laboratory flotation trials. Simulations gave realistic results showing that:

- The performance scale determined during laboratory trials was respected and further emphasized by the
layout of the simulated line (two stage line).
- The presence of a secondary stage in modern deinking lines boosts the ink removal selectivity.
- The fatty acid-surfactant blend used with 2% silicate demonstrated the most favourable deinking
performance.

Since the simulation of the deinking line was limited to the flotation bank, fluctuations in the flotation efficiency
due to the accumulation of colloidal and surface active contaminants in process waters were as well as other
inherent process complexity were not evaluated in this initial study. Prudence should be used when extrapolating
simulation results to specific mill cases. Work continues to incorporate additional complexity into this approach
to unify and understand laboratory evaluations in relation to actual mill processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Authors wish to thank Xavier Rousset for his skill in performing laboratory flotation trials.

REFERENCES
[1] Bajpai, P., Bajpai, P.K., “Deinking with enzymes: a review”, Tappi Journal, 81(12), 111-117 (1998).
[2] Fabry, B., Carre, B., “Comparison between different types of pulpers devoted to deinking processes”,
Tappi Fall Technical Conference and Trade Fair, San Diego, CA, United States, Sept. 8-11, 2002, 390-
405, (2002).
[3] Theander, K., Pugh, R.J., “Surface chemicals concepts of flotation de-inking”, Colloids and Surfaces A,
240(1-3), 111-130 (2004).
[4] Pelach, M.A., Puig, J., Vilaseca, F., Mutje, P., “Influence of chemicals on deinkability of wood-free
fully coated fine paper”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science, 27(10), 353-358 (2001).
[5] Behin, J., Vahed, Sh., “Effect of alkyl chain in alcohol deinking of recycled fibres by flotation process”,
Colloids and surfaces A, 297, 131-141 (2007).
[6] Kanhekar, S.K., Agnihotri, P. Kr., Sharma, C., Bansal, M.C., “Effects of surfactants in flotation deinking
of old newsprint”, Ippta Journal, 17(3), 63-67 (2005).
[7] Azevedo, M.A.D., Drelich, J., Miller, J. D., “The effect of pH on pulping and flotation of mixed office
wastepaper”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science, 25(9), 317-320 (1999).
[8] Josephson, W.E., Krishnagopalan, G.A., “Deinking of furnishes containing flexographically printed old
newsprint”, Appita Journal, 58(6), 470-474 2005.
[9] Saari, J., “New process engineering for deinking. Part 1: The effects of inks on deinking”, Paper
Technology, 46(1), 30-31,33 (2005).
[10] Mahagaonkar, M., Stack, K., Banham, P., “Effects of coated magazines on deinking of newsprint after
pulping and flotation”, Recycling Symposium, Chicago, Apr. 14-16, 1997, 193-215 (1997).
[11] Haynes, R.D., “The impact of the summer effect on ink detachment and removal”, Proceedings - Tappi
99, Preparing for the Next Millennium, Atlanta, Mar. 1-4, 1999, 2 505-517 (1999).
[12] Ben, Y., Dorris, G., “Deinkability of fresh and aged uncoated groundwood papers. Part II: Accelerated
aging of SCC papers”, Progress in Paper Recycling, 16(1), 24-30 (2006).
[13] Carrasco, F., Pelach, M.A., Mutje, P., “Deinking of high-quality offset papers: influence of consistency,
agitation speed, and air flow rate in the flotation stage”, Tappi Journal, 82(3), 125-129 (1999).
[14] Hunold, M., Krauthauf, T., Muller, J., Putz, H.-J., “Effect of air volume and air bubble size distribution on
flotation in injector-aerated deinking cells”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science, 23(12), 555-560 (1997).
[15] Williams, J.A., Springer, A.M., “Effect of process water system closure on the flotation deinking
efficiency of newsprint”, Progress in Paper Recycling, 7(1), 19-31 (1997).
[16] Ben, Y., Dorris, G., Page, N., ”Application of column flotation in paper recycling”, Progress in Paper
Recycling, 15(2), 25-35 (2006).
[17] Kemper, M., “State-of-the-art and new technologies in flotation deinking”, International Journal of
Mineral Processing, 56(1-4), 317-333 (1999).
[18] Reese, J., Jiang, P., Fan, L.-S., “Bubble characteristics in three-phase systems used for pulp and paper
processing”, Chemical Engineering Science, 51(10), 2501-2510 (1996).
[19] Huefeng, S., Heindel, T., “Modelling gas holdup in gas-liquid-fiber semibatch bubble columns”,
Industrial Engineering & Cemistry Research, 44, 9355-9363 (2005).
[20] Johansson, B., Pugh, R.J., Alexandrova, L., “Flotation de-inking studies using model hydrophobic
particles and non-ionic dispersants”, Colloids and Surfaces A, 170, 217-229 (2000).
[21] Bloom, F., Heindel, T.J., “A theoretical model of flotation deinking efficiency”, Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science, 190, 182-197 (1997).
[22] Schwarz, S., Grano, S., “Effect of particle hydrophobicity on particle and water transport across a
flotation froth”, Colloids and Surfaces A, 256, 157-164 (2005).
[23] Rao, R., Stenius, P., “The effect of flotation deinking chemicals on bubble formation”, Journal of Pulp
and Paper Science, 24(5), 156-160 (1998).
[24] Johansson, B., Strom, G., “Surface chemistry of flotation deinking: effect of various chemical conditions
on ink agglomerate character and floatability”, Nordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal, 13(1), 37-49
(1998).
[25] Epple, M., Schmidt, D.C., Berg, J.C., “The effect of froth stability and wettability on the flotation of a
xerographic toner”, Colloid and Polymer Science, 272, 1264-1272 (1994).
[26] Beneventi, D., DeLuca, P., Carré, B., “Dynamic-surface tension and –contact angle as basic parameters
for modelling toner flotation. II. De-inking of mixed office wastepaper”, Progress in Paper Recycling, 14
(1) 23-31 (2004).
[27] Zhu, J.Y., Tan, F., Scallon, K.L., Zhao, Y.L., Deng, Y., “Deinking selectivity (Z-factor): a new parameter
to evaluate the performance of flotation deinking process”, Separation and Purification Technology, 43,
33-41 (2005).
[28] Beneventi, D., Rousset, X., Zeno, E., “Modelling transport phenomena in a flotation de-inking column:
focus on gas flow, pulp and froth retention time“, International Journal of Mineral Processing, 80 (1), 43-
57 (2006).
[29] Beneventi, D., Benesse, M., Carré, B., Julien Saint Amand, F., Salgueiro, L., “Modelling deinking
selectivity in multistage flotation systems”, Separation and Purification Technology, 54(1), 57-67 (2007).
[30] Jordan, B.D., Popson, S.J., “Measuring the concentration of residual ink in recycled newsprint”, Journal
of Pulp and Paper Science 20, 161-167 (1994).
[31] Carré, B., Galland, G., Julien Saint Amand, F., “Estimation of ink detachment and removal”, Progress in
Paper Recycling, 4 (1), 80 (1994).
[32] Ajersch, M., Pelton, R., “Mechanisms of stock loss in flotation de-inking”, Journal of Pulp and Paper
Science 22, 338-345 (1996).
[33] Dorris, G.M., Page, N., “Deinking of toner-printed papers. Part I: flotation kinetics, froth stability and
fibre entrainment”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 23, 206-215 (1997).
[34] Zheng, X., Franzidis, J.-P., Johnson, N. W., “An evaluation of different models of water recovery in
flotation”, Minerals Engineering 19, 871-882 (2006).
[35] Beneventi, D., Cid Carbó, A., Fabry, B., Pelach, M. A., Mutjé Pujol, P., “Modelling of flotation de-
inking: contribution of froth removal height and silicate on ink removal and yield”, Journal of Pulp and
Paper Science, 32 (2), 73-79 (2006).
[36] Fernandez, C., Garnier, G., “Retention of fatty acid soaps during recycling. Part I. A study using packed
beds of pulp fibers”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 23(4), 144-152 (1997).
[37] Drabek, O., Sterne, J., Van De Ven, T. G. M., “Effect of deinking chemicals on the deposition of fines and
fillers on an air-water interface”, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 24(4), 116-120 (1998).
[38] Zhang, H., Miller, C. A., Garrett, P.R., Raney, K.H., “Defoaming effect of calcium soap”, Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science 279(2), 539-547 (2004).
[39] Pugh, R.J., “Foams and foaming”, Handbook of Applied Surface and Colloid Chemistry, Ed. Holmberg,
Krister., 2 23-43. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (2002).