It is but it completely defeats the claimed purpose of bein adhesive free.
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.