IMPACTING WOOD EXTRACTIVES CONTENT

THROUGH COOKING ADDITIVE

APPLICATION

Carolina M. Jardim, Flávia A. Silva, Michelle B.

Fernandes, Allana G. Kister, Ronisson A. Lima, Marco A.
A. Silva and Alexandre V. Silva

January/2017  
Background
50% 50%

•  Joint venture of Stora Enso and

Fibria.
•  Located in southern Bahia, Brazil.
•  Annual production: 1.1 million tons
of Eucalyptus bleached pulp.
 Production Rate
Case Study Lost production in 2016 due to
mill balance (liquor)

Wood Quality Theoretical (Digester basis):

Bark, Dryness and 19.8% (~3 day of production)
Extractives
High amount of
extractives
2016 Average: 4.9%
Literature: 2-3%

Causticizing
Operating 16%
above of the
designed capacity.
Availability: 99%
Wood Quality Bark, Dryness and
•  Annual historic
Extractives
5,5
Extratives   c ontent   (% )

5,0 4.9
4.7 4.7
4,5
•  High amount of extractives,
4.3
especially in the West region.
4,0

3,5
2013 2014 2015 2016
Year Total   E xtractives   C ontent   (% )
10
•  Current scenario (2017)
8 6,52
Wood   E xtratives   C ontent   (% )   -­‐   2 017   5,33
80
6 5,36 5,41
70 Averag e   =   5 .6
60 4
50
2
40

30 Central N orth South West

20
Reg ion
10

0
3,6 4,8 6,0 7,2 8,4 9,6
Wood Quality
•  Hypothesis for the high amount of extractives in the Veracel’s wood
1. Soil and climatic 4. Management
conditions (precipitation) plan; restriction
areas; others
Region Forest
Management

Climatic
condition High Extractives
2. El Nino 5. Breeding
phenomenon (clones)
(excessive
dryness) Genetic
material

3. Physiological
disturbance
Disturbance
(stress) occurrence
Extractives impact in the process
•  In the cooking has been noticed an increase in the alkali
charge (EA%)
21,0

20,5

20,0

19,5

19,0

18,5
19,2
19,5
20,3
19,1
19,0
19,2
19,8
19,8
19,3
19,9
19,7
19,2
19,5
20,1
19,3
19,1
19,9
20,4
20,1
20,2
20,2
20,4
20,5
20,6
20,9
20,6
20,2
18,0

Consequences
•  Process control (variability);
•  Mill balance (white liquor);
•  Reduction in the yield;
•  Increase in the solids to recovery boiler;
•  Production losses;
•  Production cost.
 Mill Process Cycle
•  How to minimize the impact of the wood extractives content?

Surfactant
 Cooking additive (surfactant)
Reduces the surface tension
between the liquor and the chip,
and wets the chips surface

•  It is essential used to reduce

rejects ð uniform cooking

Product benefits: Without Surfactant With Surfactant

•  Surfactant-based cooking additives

wet the hydrophobic surface of the
extractives (i.e., resin, estheres).
•  This helps to disperse extractives
from wood vessels and capillaries.
•  As extractives are removed, liquor is
able to penetrate deeper and more
rapidly into the chip.
Aim
Application of cooking additive (surfactants A and B)
in order to reduce the alkali charge and contributes
to the mill balance (production rate).

•  Mill Trial Schedule

Reference A Surfactant A Reference B Surfactant B

Without surfactant With surfactant A Without surfactant With surfactant B
application application application application
Dosage: 0.5 kg/ADt Dosage: 0.5 kg/ADt
(brown pulp) (brown pulp)
 Surfactant Application
Cooking
Lo Solids® with an
impregnation
vessel
Principal
delignification
Surfactant Parameters
application:
Alkali residual (EA
liquor for – g/L) control:
chip tube •  Trasnf.: 5.9 g/L
•  CD1: 5.9 g/L
•  CD3: 5.5 g/L
Kappa: 18.5 ± 0.5
Sulphidity: 33%

Impregnation Residual
delignification
 Results Wood quality

Extractives content
•  Measured at the chips to the digester (once per shift)
 Results Cooking – Process Control

Cooking
•  H factor x Alkali residuals
Following the H
factor strategy
(LSL at CD3), it
was possible to
reduce alkali
residuals.

Alkali residuals
control – g/L

reference trial
Transf 5.9 4.5
CD1 5.9 4.5
CD3 5.5 4.3
 Results Cooking – Pulp Quality
Cooking
•  Qualitative analysis - rejects

Improvement
in the brown
pulp quality
(rejects
reduction due
to a more
uniform
cooking).
 Results Cooking – Pulp Quality

Cooking
Standard   d eviation   -­‐   k appa   #
•  Kappa variability
0,18
0.17 0.17
0,16

0,14

0,12

0,10 0.10
0,08 0.08

0,06
REF   A REF   B SURF   A SURF   B

Improvement in
the process
control
 Results Cooking – Alkali Charge

Cooking
•  Reduction in the cooking alkali charge Alkali   c harg e   total   -­‐   E A   %
21,0 21.0

20,8

20,6

20.5 20.5
20,4

20,2

20.1
20,0

REF   A REF   B SURF   A SURF   B

2,4%  

Alkali charge
reduction
 Results Cooking – Yield

Yield
Liquor   c omposition   -­‐   G lycose   ( %)
Cooking   Y ield   ( %) 0,35

55,3
0.29
55.2 0,30
0.27
55,2 0,25

55,1 0,20

55,0 0,15
reference surfactant
54.9
54,9 Liquor   c omposition   -­‐   X ylose   ( %)

54,8
54.8 2,5

2.2
54.7 2,0 1.9
54,7
REF   A REF   B SURF   A SURF   B 1,5

1,0
reference surfactant
Yield improvement, confirmed by
the reduction of carbohydrates in
the liquor.
 Results Cooking – Production rate

Cooking 3500
  D ig ester   P roduction   ( AD t/d)
Annual Gain
3483
3475

•  Production rate 3450

3433
8 days production
3425
3411
•  White liquor inventory 3400

3375
RB bottleneck  
3349
•  Soda make-up 3 days production
3350

REF   A REF   B SURF   A SURF   B

The surfactant
showed to help
with
debottlenecking
the liquor cycle
(white liquor
inventory).
 Results Liquor – tds/ADt relation

Liquor
•  Solids/ADt

Solids   c ontent   -­‐   ton   d ry   s olids/AD t

1,59
1.59
1.58
1,58
Solids
1,57 reduction

1,56 Potential to
1.56 increase
1.55 production
1,55 rate
REF   A REF   B SURF   A SURF   B
 Results Product quality

Bleached pulp quality

Bulk - IT 55 Nm/g Beating curve

60 54,5

50
53,8

SHOPPER RIEGLER
37,0
40
28,0
30 37,2
20,0
1,60 1,64 20 27,0
20,0
10
REFERENCE TRIAL
0
0 500 1500 3000
Índice de Tração (Nm/g) - 3000 rev REVOLUTIONS NUMBER

Reference Trial

96,50
95,72

It was preserved the final product

quality (Beating curve, Tensile
REFERENCE TRIAL Index, and bulk).
Conclusions

•  With the surfactant application it was observed:

•  Reduction of the cooking alkali charge (0.5 EA% points);
•  Improvement in the brown pulp quality (rejects content);
•  Contribution for the process stabilization (more uniform cooking);
•  Contribution for the production rate (LWH inventory, providing an
increase in the cooking production rate);
•  Contribution for the reduction in the soda make up;
•  Observed a reduction in the solids to Recovery Boiler (ton dry solids/
ADt relation);
•  It was preserved the final product quality (Beating curve, Tensile
Index, and bulk).
Concluding remarks

•  Increase in production rate was also observed as both

additives showed to help with debottlenecking the
liquor cycle (white liquor inventory).
•  Pulping yield improvement and reduction in black
liquor solids content were also noticed and were
attributed to the reduced alkali change and better
wood impregnation and cooking uniformity. 

•  It was decided to perform an extended mill trial (3.5

months, for each surfactant) in order to confirm the
results and to empower the application.
Acknowledgements