A laser-based process that enables adhesive-free paper packaging
fraunhofer.de
fraunhofer.de
It's a bit hard to search for, because they make one that punches a hole too (shows up in the video).
You can repeat the process as many times as you want and there won't be any new damage to the paper. With a paperless stapler you would have to do new damage to the paper each time. Also, a regular staple is pretty much forever while these crimped folds can eventually come loose again.
In US, you can find it on Amazon for 15-20 bucks.
“By irradiating the paper with a CO laser, we create refusible, sugar-like
reaction products that we use instead of the synthetic materials or adhesives
that would otherwise be required to seal the paper by the heat sealing
process. In this way, we are essentially producing our own adhesive"Turning the paper molecules into simple sugars and using thosr as an adhesive is presumably beneficial because the sugars would easily dissolve in the water when the paper is recycled. Most other industrial adhesives as I understand it are hydrophobic, so aren't as easily removed.
I really hate the people who have thought that it is a good idea to replace the water-soluble starch-based adhesives that were used for labels on bottles when I was a child with modern adhesives that are insoluble in water and which are a huge PITA if you want to reuse a bottle and you want to remove the labels from it.
Also in an industrial setting I can see an advantage of eliminating an ingredient.
As for removing labels off bottles, I seem to recall my grandpa putting the bottles in a bucket of water and washing soda (sodium carbonate), and just letting them marinate for a good while. Wasn't super hard but a bit of a chore like you say.
But might it just be easier to develop and apply similar sugar adhesives, or other compatible or soluble adhesives (in quantities that will not affect the recycling process)?
OFC, if you never introduce anything new, it is easier to feel like it is a "pure" process. Yet, what says the heat treatment isn't actually creating new molecules that could be recycling-incompatible, even though they never "add" any new material?
The article doesn't tell, unfortunately. Worst case, a cool technical article is the only thing the technology is good for...
It seems like you are engaging in rather emotional response when you admit you’re just hoping and making things up.
That is not a very scientific basis. Are you biased towards this project or Fraunhofer by any chance, maybe just Germany in general?
I agree with all the legitimate criticisms, especially considering that it is very possible that what they’re actually doing is using the laser to essentially create a hydrocarbon based glue in situ from the primary material itself.
It is an interesting discovery and process in and of itself. I’m not sure why there seems to be this obsessive defensiveness of Fraunhofer in the comments here.
There could be several reasons, but the PRopaganda people on this are going about things rather ham-fisted. My guess is that there are specific “eco” type grant or funding requirements that need to push the idea that it’s reducing “carbon” or oil dependence and can do away with mean old, no good, totally awful plastics; and cannot just be honest because of that, because all of the environmental stuff is so frequently inherently dishonest and rather delusional even, because ironically, the money of funding and profit and going to market cause their own greed, just from a different angle.
A hidden little dirty secret in Germany in particular is that all these boutique niche solutions are really just greenwashed, statist “capitalism” rather than greenbackwashed, de facto statist “capitalism”.
They’re both just theft from the multitude to enrich the minority, just by different means.
They can be and they are interconverted, both in living beings and in the industry.
In paper, most of the wood components except cellulose have been removed, so paper usually consists mostly of carbohydrates.
In general any adhesive is neither a hydrocarbon nor a carbohydrate, but a derivative of them. Natural adhesives are usually derived either from proteins, e.g. various kinds of animal glues, or from starch or from various kinds of gums or of resins or of latex.
Bitumen has been used as an adhesive that consists mostly of hydrocarbons, but it also includes some oxidized components that provide most of the adhesion, as pure hydrocarbons have lubricating properties, not adhesive properties.
What could one improve how the operate?
A critic ones put this: Fraunhofer has the same of employees as Eth Zurich but just 20% of the start ups.
There are better institutions for deep tech like Sprind and even max Planck institutes.
The monkey's paw curls. Now they were all invented by Oracle...
And they're pretty much worst in class, there's no practical way they're better than other algorithm patent extortionists.
By the way, algorithms should not be patentable, and legally aren't patentable, but some presumably corrupt bureaucrats decided they for all practical purposes are patentable anyway.
The welding utilizes the existing ligand glue that holds the wood fibers together, as it's essentially a natural composite.
I feel like its pretty obvious they mean an adhesive in the sense of an additional substance or agent. Just because they use a laser to modify the paper structure to effectively become sticky, doesnt detract at all from the goal and point of the title. that no additional products/agent/glues were needed.
absolutely missing the point of it all just to jerk your ego off.
this is so prevalent on HH that it’s normalized and most the cerebral bozos cant read between lines beyond their self righteous vantage.
If it IS compatible with the later recycling steps, then what prevents us from simply applying a similar or simplified mix of chemicals generated by the CO2 laser treatment?
Suppose some adhesives already use the same or similar chemicals, the question would arise if you really discovered a compatible glue, or if you just discovered a proper dosage in your application? We can keep coming up with elegant research showing this or that is compatible with a certain recycling step, in the case that some players in industry use inappropriate amounts of glue, the problem would not be a lack of compatible glues but proper dosing, or tracing the manufacturer / end-users of the glue/paper combination that gunked up some recycling process.
It seems you didn't read the featured article:
web host topic section:
> Circular economy – better recycling of paper packaging
article summary:
> Paper packaging offers a number of advantages over its plastic counterparts: It has a high recycling rate, lower CO₂ emissions, and lower disposal costs. However, it cannot yet be sealed without adhesives or layers of plastic—a disadvantage for manufacturing and RECYCLING processes. In the PAPURE project, four Fraunhofer institutes are developing a laser-based process that enables completely adhesive-free paper packaging.
> These additives contaminate the paper, complicate the RECYCLING process, and reduce the quality of the RECYCLED material. This poses a significant challenge to the otherwise established and efficient paper RECYCLING process. In the PAPURE project, the Fraunhofer institutes for Applied Polymer Research IAP, for Material and Beam Technology IWS, for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV and for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU are looking to improve RECYCLABILITY by sealing paper packaging without any additives.
The overall structure of the article is that they first explain how the sealant adhesives cause problems for recyclability, and even when recycled, a degradation in material quality.
They then describe an admittedly neat and fancy trick to produce adhesive in-situ by laser treatment, but then don't mention anything about actual implications for recycling THIS (NEW?) ADHESIVE.
I don't mind that you don't read an article, or have no recollection of what you have read, but please don't downvote people with valid remarks or questions, or just point out that their phrasing is rude, because to many of us the content is more important than the etiquette, we weren't all raised in some crystal palace.
> the question I have is in the change in material surface that becomes sticky. How does that become incompatible with current recycling processes if the base material was compatible? I dont know enough chemistry but it seems to me the post-co2-treatment material should break down the same way in an industrial recycling process.
so you admit lack of sufficient chemical knowledge, and then assume the it's fine without evidence stance, while acknowledging its raising questions in your mind? that it raises questions is a GOOD thing, because that's exactly what you would expect the research or its summary to describe: if you set out to address a certain problem, then find an alternative adhesive, one would expect the researchers to verify that this novel adhesive qualifies on the same yard sticks used to assess the old adhesives.
it's not the same as base material if chemical species change. Thats like saying "oh like the original paper the new in-situ adhesive is all hydrocarbons", but so were most of the prior adhesives as well...