Martin A.
Hubbe
Associate Professor, North
Carolina State University
This paper compares labo-
ratory test procedures which
predict the performance of
chemicals used to enhance
retention or dewatering dur-
ing the manufacture of
paper. Key points of differ-
ence among the various
laboratory methods include:
• the presence or absence
of fibre mat formation
during the test
• the optional application
of vacuum
• the presence or absence
of pressure or velocity
pulsations during dewa-
tering
• the use of automation in
some test procedures.
A well-chosen laboratory
test can provide useful infor-
mation without incurring the
high cost and risks associ-
ated with full-scale
evaluations of many differ-
ent retention and drainage
programmes and dosage lev-
els. However, it is important
to understand the compro-
mises inherent in different
lab-scale tests to guard
against premature rejection
of specific chemical pro-
gramme options.
Fillers & Pigments for
Papermakers,
Pira Conference, Barcelona,
2003
20
Selecting Laboratory Tests to
Predict Effectiveness of Retention
and Drainage Aid Programmes
“You have to run it on the machine to
really find out whether it works.” Those are
words you are likely to hear if you are respon-
sible for the operation of a paper machine and
somebody is suggesting a change in the reten-
tion and drainage aid system. But you know,
deep down, that if you always followed the
train of logic suggested by the speaker, then
you would be overwhelmed by trials of new
chemical conditions on the paper machine.
The purpose of this article is to consider
how paper technologists can use lab tests to
increase their options. There has to be a mid-
dle ground between “no, we aren’t interested
in considering your chemical” and “sure, go
ahead, run your chemical on my paper
machine at different dosages and addition
points until we’re convinced it won’t work or
it’s absolutely not cost effective.”
Know Your Goals: Be realistic when
selecting lab tests to predict the on-machine
performance of retention aids and other
chemicals that affect fine-particle retention or
the rate of dewatering as paper is being
formed. There are some simplifying assump-
tions that you can make, and these
assumptions may allow you to use a relatively
simple and quick test. There are some more
sophisticated tests that you can run if you are
concerned about making increasingly accu-
rate predictions about how different chemical
strategies will perform on you paper machine.
The “best” lab-based retention and drainage
assay may depend on which of the following
questions comes closest to your situation:
• Is it even worth considering this particular
chemical additive? Is there even a reason-
able chance that you will see some
benefits – in retention or dewatering – if
this additive is used?
• What are the two or three top candidate
chemical programmes that would be most
likely to achieve our retention and dewa-
tering targets without wrecking formation
uniformity?
• Will this suggested additive programme
stand up to the high levels of shear in
your paper machine system?
• Is this a test procedure that a new produc-
tion team member or summer employee
without previous experience could run
over a couple of days?
• Is there any way that someone could auto-
mate the test procedures to get beyond the
“subjectivity factor,” especially when the
same test needs to be run by different
people on different shifts?
A brief history of lab-scale testing
In principle, a conventional handsheet appara-
tus(1) ought to be sufficient to study effects of
retention and dewatering additives. In practice,
however, the flows to which the fibres are sub-
jected during the formation of a handsheet are
much gentler than those found on production-
scale paper machines(2). Previous work has
shown that hydrodynamic forces during paper-
making can be strong enough to tear mineral
particles from fibre surfaces, depending on the
types and levels of retention aid treatments(3-6).
As a consequence, handsheet tests can
grossly overestimate the first-pass retention
that can be achieved with a certain treatment.
Also, the stock used to form a standard hand-
sheet is so highly diluted as to raise doubts
about the validity of using retention and
drainage results from those tests to make pre-
dictions about commercial paper machines.
Many of the test procedures to be described in
this review can be understood as different
attempts to overcome such limitations of hand-
sheet testing.
A key milestone in the history of lab-scale
retention aid testing occurred in 1973, the year
that Britt unveiled his Dynamic
Drainage/Retention Jar(7). The “Britt jar”
achieved two important goals in retention aid
evaluation.
i) First, it broke ground in providing an
adjustable and reproducible agitation, some-
thing that might represent the net effect of unit
operations in the approach flow to a paper
machine. Pre-agitation tends to make test
results more credible, since hydrodynamic
forces can separate cellulosic fines or fillers
from fibre surfaces or from other fine particles
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
that have become attached by the action of a
retention aid treatment(8). Ideally, one would
like to use a range agitation level that would
effectively break chemical-induced attach-
ments among the fibres in the slurry, leading to
a suitably low level of fibre flocculation during
the jar-type test. The minimum intensity of
hydrodynamic shear stress needed to detach
fibres from each other tends to be much less
than that needed to detach fine particles either
from each other or from fibre surfaces(5,8-10).
ii) The second area where the Britt jar broke
new ground was in evaluating colloidal reten-
tion, i.e. retention of fine particles onto fibres,
without allowing a fibre mat to form during the
test. History has been friendly to the Britt jar,
and it remains one of the most widely used
tests for screening of retention aids.
Several researchers have championed the
idea of testing retention and drainage aids
under conditions rather similar to the Britt jar
test, but with formation of a fibre mat(11-17). A
key benefit of forming a mat is the ability to
evaluate rates of dewatering, and differences in
these rates resulting from changes in the
dosages of chemical additives. Gess(15-17) and
others(14,18-28) advocated the use of vacuum dur-
ing such tests. In some cases it was found that
one could draw conclusions about the effec-
tiveness of different retention aid programmes
just by looking at how the measured vacuum
varied over time(14-17,26).
Unfortunately, procedures that merely form
a fibre mat on a screen, either by gravity or by
steady application of vacuum, can give mis-
leading information. The magnitudes and
trends of retention and dewatering perfor-
mance predicted by the lab tests often do not
match the results of trials carried out at indus-
trial scale(21,24,29). For example, simple filtration
tests tend to exaggerate the importance of
chemicals on drainage rates and retention,
especially in cases where the furnish has a high
fines content(30).
Deviations of this type are sometimes
explained by considering what happens during
industrial-scale forming of a paper sheet. Paper
machines use such devices as hydrofoils(2,31),
table rolls(2), forming blades(32), and vacuum
boxes(29). These devices create pulsations of
flow or pressure perpendicular to the wet mat
as paper is being formed. The “action”(31) cre-
ated by such pulsations tends to increase both
the dewatering rate and mat uniformity, often
at the expense of lower first-pass retention(33-35).
Many of the unattached fines, instead of
blocking drainage channels in the wet web,
are merely washed out of the sheet as it is
being formed. In an effort to achieve more
realistic predictions, several innovative lab
test designs incorporate pulsations of repro-
ducible frequency and amplitude(30,36-42).
Aside from issues of retention and forma-
tion, sometimes it is useful also to know how
much water is being tightly held inside the cell
walls of fibres. The easiest way to obtain such
information involves centrifugation of plugs of
damp fibres, the so-called Water Retention
Value (WRV) test(43-45). In the past it has been
assumed that results of WRV tests were unre-
lated to chemical flocculation effects occurring
between the fibres and at their surfaces; how-
ever, recent results showed a high correlation
between changes in WRV measurements and
freeness measurements, in response to treat-
ment with dewatering aids(46).
Recently it has been shown that the effec-
tiveness of different retention aid programmes
can be compared by measuring the size or
strength of fibre-to-fibre flocs in a treated
slurry of fibres(47-58). The measurement princi-
ples include light transmission(56-58) and
viscometry(47-51,53-56). In interpreting the results of
such tests it is important to bear in mind that
fibre flocculation, per se, usually is undesir-
able. Ideally one would prefer to achieve high
retention efficiency and increase dewatering
rates without harming the uniformity of sheet
formation. However, the fibre floc tests often
can be carried out more quickly than a typical
retention test.
Decisions in Selecting a Lab Test: Let’s
say that you are among the people responsible
for the performance of “Paper Machine 1” at a
certain mill, and it has been suggested that the
performance would be better with a different
programme of chemical additives for retention
and drainage promotion. Let’s assume that
there is a certain reluctance to go ahead with
full-scale trials of new chemistry – unless there
is a pretty good chance of substantial cost
and/or performance benefits. Your customers
are happy with the performance of your paper
product, and your management team is reluc-
tant to make changes.
How, then, do you choose the most appro-
priate lab-scale test? As shown in the sections
that follow, the overall decision can be broken
down into a series of questions.
Question 1: Mat or no mat?
As illustrated in figure 1, one of the first con-
siderations ought to be whether or not to allow
mat formation to occur during the lab proce-
dure. The reasons can be subtle. If you are
concerned only about the effects of additives
on retention efficiency – not drainage rates or
any sheet properties – then there is potential to
save time and achieve good statistical results
with a method that avoids formation of a mat.
Tests with No Mat Formation: As shown
in figure 1, formation of a fibre mat, during a
retention aid evaluation, can be prevented by
continuous agitation. In practice no mat will
form as long as the stirring speed is above
some minimum value and the flow rate of fil-
trate through the screen is kept low. The
principle behind such a test is that the full-
21
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
length fibres in the slurry are too long to pass
through the openings in the screen.
By definition, the fine particles are small
enough to pass through those holes, but not all
of them do so. The fraction of the fines passing
into the filtrate depends on “colloidal reten-
tion”, i.e. the proportion of the fine particles
that remain attached to fibres. That fraction is
expected to depend on the previous chemical
treatments, in addition to any hydrodynamic
shear. By far the best-known test of this type is
the Dynamic Drainage/Retention Jar(7), or Britt
jar.
Essential features of the Britt jar are illus-
trated in figure 2. A sample of papermaking
furnish, usually having a consistency similar to
that of a headbox sample from a paper
Mat No
Formation Mat
Figure 1 Illustration of the first question, whether or not to form a fibre mat as part
of a test protocol to evaluate retention aid performance.
Impeller Stand
“Jar” with
fibre slurry
Screen
Pinch
clamp
Beaker
Figure 2 Classic design of Britt’s “Dynamic Drainage/Retention Jar”
22
machine, is placed in a cylindrical plastic jar.
In the classic Britt jar test the screen consists of
a thin, machine stainless steel sheet, having
conical-section holes with a minimum diame-
ter (at the top surface) of 76 µm. Subsequent
users sometimes have substituted a forming
fabric from a paper machine, or a woven stain-
less steel screen of a desired mesh size.
Agitation is supplied by an impeller, the
position of which needs to be kept constant
from test to test in order to achieve repro-
ducible results.
The agitation speed is adjustable to what-
ever rpm level is selected by the user. The most
popular model of the Britt jar, in current use, is
fitted with small “baffles” at three locations on
the inner wall of the jar(59-60). These baffles
partly break up the vortex that forms within the
jar, and they also make it possible to use some-
what higher agitation speeds.
To carry out a test, the user closes a stop-
cock or pinch clamp below the jar, fills the jar
with slurry, starts the agitator, adds a selected
type and amount of chemical additive(s), waits
a chosen period of time, then briefly withdraws
a small sample of filtrate. An eyedropper tip,
below the stopcock or pinch clamp, restricts
the flow of filtrate, minimising the tendency of
mat formation. The mass of filterable solids in
the filtrate, per unit volume, is taken as an indi-
cation of the proportion of the fine particles in
the furnish that are not attached to the fibres
under the conditions of testing.
There have been many reported studies that
follow the essentials of the Britt jar proce-
dure(21,24,59,61-64), though not all of them have used
the same equipment. For instance, the basic
Britt jar procedure even has been carried out
using a modified freeness test apparatus(14).
Some key assumptions inherent in the use
of the Britt jar test include (a) that it is possible
to represent the overall effect of hydrodynamic
shear in a real paper machine system by select-
ing a suitable agitator speed, (b) that
fine-to-fibre attachment is a dominant, or at
least very important contributing mechanism
responsible for the effect of the retention aid
under consideration, and (c) that retention
effects in the absence of mat formation will
follow the same trends as retention effects in
the presence of mat formation.
One recommended approach has been to
adjust the agitator speed such that the Britt jar
test results yield the same first-pass retention
as observed on the paper machine under con-
sideration, when the same retention aid system
and dosage are applied in each case(65). Another
approach has been to adjust the agitator speed
to whatever level provides a strong differentia-
tion among the different chemical conditions
being compared.
In addition to demonstrating different reten-
tion capabilities of treatment schemes based on
charge neutralisation, charge patches, and
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
polymer bridging(66-68), the Britt jar also has
been used to demonstrate the relative
reversibility of different treatments(56,61,69-70). In
other words, some flocculant systems seem to
“recover” after the speed of agitation is
increased, and then decreased. In contrast,
other retention aid treatments sometimes are
broken down irreversibly after exposure to suf-
ficiently high rates of agitation. It has been
proposed that the chemical programmes lead-
ing to higher reversibility tend to be those that
also give better overall dewatering rates and
good formation uniformity(67).
Build a better mousetrap and the world will
attempt to improve upon it. Though most pub-
lished work following the essential features of
Britt’s procedure(7,59,62-63,65) has been based on the
weighing of tared filter paper samples, to
determine the consistency of the filtrate (or
“white water”), it is possible to save time by
measuring the turbidity(19,56,71-73).
Despite the practical advantages of such
approaches, the results of optical tests have to
be regarded with caution. Though it is possible
to establish a calibration curve of turbidity (or
other optical measurement) versus consistency,
flocculants can be expected to agglomerate the
suspended particles, rendering the base-line
calibration curve inaccurate. Depending on the
purpose of the tests, sometimes such inaccura-
cies are ignored.
To provide a more convincing demonstra-
tion, it is possible to substitute a forming fabric
piece from the paper machine or interest in
place of the standard drilled screen(74). Another
trick has been to apply a small pressure below
the screen, before the start of an experiment, to
prevent any premature passage of liquid
through the screen(59).
Question 2: Mat formation with or without
vacuum?
Tests that involve the formation of a paper
sheet make sense in those cases where one
wants information about how chemicals affect
either dewatering rates or the resulting paper
properties. In principle, such tests also have the
potential to give realistic information about
retention, since a fibre mat has to play a role in
filtering some of the fine materials from the
process water during formation of a typical
paper sheet. We will return later to this issue,
since the relative importance of filtration by
the fibre mat will depend a lot on both the
paper machine situation, and also the selection
of a lab method.
Though there is potential to be more realis-
tic, one has to be careful when making
assumptions about whether sheet-forming con-
ditions prevailing during a particular
laboratory test adequately represent what is
happening on a larger scale.
To address Question No 2, above, let us
start out by considering laboratory test proce-
24
dures that use gravity alone to measure either
drainage rates or fines retention through a
forming mat of fibres.
Simple Filtration Without Vacuum: Sim-
ple is often better. This is especially true when
comparing test protocols intended for routine
use in the field. The Canadian Standard Free-
ness test(75-77) is among the most widely used
means of comparing dewatering tendencies of
different pulp samples. Though the dilute
slurry is agitated before the start of a freeness
test, the test itself is carried out in the absence
of stirring. The fibre mat that forms during a
freeness test tends to filter out cellulosic fines
and other fine particles very effectively, yield-
ing filtrate that is much clearer than what
would be observed on a paper machine running
with the same furnish. Also, the mat tends to
have high resistance to flow, compared to what
might be assumed based on dewatering rates
observed on paper machines.
Nevertheless, in the hands of a careful
tester, freeness tests can provide quite good
reproducibility, with respect to dewatering
analysis. Reproducibility of test results is usu-
ally considered to be a priority, compared to
haw closely a test procedure mimics the condi-
tions of hydrodynamic shear found on a paper
machine.
Certain modifications of freeness test pro-
cedures are especially worth noting by those
who may be interested in evaluating retention
and drainage chemical programmes. The basic
freeness test procedures involve passage of
some of the filtrate through a narrow orifice at
the base of the apparatus(75). The validity of the
results rests upon the assumption that the vis-
cosity of the liquid phase does not change,
except for a small effect of temperature, which
can be corrected. However, it is well known
that addition of high-mass polyelectrolytes to
aqueous solution will tend to increase the
effect of temperature, which can be corrected.
However, it is well known that addition of
high-mass polyelectrolytes to aqueous solution
will tend to increase the effect of viscosity,
especially in cases where the fluid must con-
verge and pass through a narrow hole(78-91).
Therefore, for evaluation of retention and
drainage chemical treatments it is recommended
to use a modified design of freeness apparatus
that has only one, relatively large outlet for the
flow of filtrate. Rather than measuring the final
volume of liquid collected from a side-port(75),
results are expressed as either the volume of fil-
trate in a pre-selected time or the time required
to collect a pre-selected volume. Some excellent
mechanistic studies have been carried out by
means of such modified freeness tests with auto-
matic logging of filtrate mass versus time(80-81).
Figure 3, for instance, illustrates the system
used by Sampson, which incorporates a flow
spreader to separate air and water, giving a more
consistent flow to an electronic balance.
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
Once one has modified the standard free-
ness device with a single, large outlet port, as
noted above, then, with a further modification
it is possible to evaluate effects of increasing
levels of hydrodynamic sheet(82-83). This is done
by adding a stopcock at the base of the appara-
tus and using a speed-controlled agitator, a
setup that resembles the Britt jar setup shown
in figure 2.
Most often, the point of running the experi-
ment in a modified freeness apparatus, rather
than with a Britt jar, is to be able to compare
the results with routine freeness test results(75-77).
The same kind of experiment can also be
achieved by agitating the furnish samples in a
separate container, then quickly transferring
the material to a freeness test device immedi-
ately before drainage evaluation.
Speaking of simple, one of the most elegant
ways to evaluate dewatering effects of chemi-
cal additives is to use a “drainage tube”(84-86).
The tube consists of a clear PMMA cylinder,
one end of which is bonded to a piece of form-
ing fabric or a standard screen. The user covers
one end and inverts the tube a specific number
of times – two or more – before allowing the
furnish to drain. Usually one measures the time
required for the level of stock in the tube to
reach a pre-selected mark.
The drainage tube can be an excellent
choice if either (a) you don’t have access to a
suitable freeness test device, or (b) you want to
carry something that is extremely portable and
durable. In one case it was reported that a
drainage tube was more sensitive to the addi-
tion of a drainage aid, compared to a freeness
test(85).
Laboratory handsheet procedures also have
been used to compare dewatering rates(84,87-88).
The advantage of this kind of approach is that
drainage times often can be recorded as a
Sealing cone
Slurry
sample
Screen
Spreader
cone
Balance
Figure 3 Modified Schopper-Riegler freeness tester with single, large outlet and
continuous recording of filtrate mass
byproduct of procedures that also result in
testable sheets of paper. For the tests to be use-
ful it is important that the forming screen be in
excellent, clean condition. The gasket of the
handsheet device needs to be properly aligned,
avoiding leakage of air, which might vary from
test to test.
Also, especially when testing low basis
weight sheets, the results can be expected to be
dominated by the way that the initial fibre align
themselves on the screen(89), an effect that can
depend on just how the stock was agitated and
whether there is any residual swirling motion
of the stock when the drain valve is opened.
Some drainage tests have been automated
with level sensors(22,28,90-92), and similar methods
can be used with handsheet tests. Tanaka et
al.(93) carried out an elegant set of experiments,
using a handsheet procedure and sheet-split-
ting, to show the retention aids tend to make
paper more uniform in composition as a func-
tion of distance perpendicular to the plane of
the sheet.
Those with an eye for detail may have won-
dered why Britt called his now-famous device
the “Dynamic Drainage/Retention Jar.” Most
of the work done by others with that apparatus
has been in the presence of agitation. Usually
only a relatively small amount of filtrate is col-
lected, and the filtrate flow is kept slow. All of
these factors tend to prevent the formation of a
fibre mat. One has to go back to Britt’s very
first report in the series(11) to appreciate that the
Britt jar originally was intended to be used in
two different ways:
i) Tests with the agitator turned on were
intended to emphasise retention effects.
ii) Tests with the agitator turned off before
dewatering, allowing all of the water to
drain under laminar conditions, were
intended to emphasise drainage effects.
One of the earliest experiments of this type
showed a strong effect of salt concentration on
retention of TiO2 particles(11). Subsequent
workers have used similar methods(13,59), often
substituting a coarser screen to make sure that
most of the flow resistance was due to the fibre
mat and not the screen.
Disputes about the meaning or validity of
the original Britt jar procedure(7) have
prompted further useful work. Davison(13)
found evidence that a retention aid can produce
agglomorates of filler particles that are too
large to fit through the holes in the screen of a
standard Britt jar. Li and Scott(94) showed that
the distribution of clay filler between the fibre
surfaces, agglomerates, and as dispersed parti-
cles during a Britt jar test was affected by both
the conditions of chemical treatment and by
hydrodynamic shear.
Finally it is worth mentioning that some
automatic pulp quality test devices provide
information that is closely analogous to
drainage rates, though the results may be
25
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
expressed as “permeability”(95). The advantage
of using such equipment is that the results can
be automatically interpreted in terms of an
equivalent hydrodynamic specific surface area,
based on a simplifying model of resistance to
flow through a uniform packed bed(96).
Simple Filtration with Vacuum Applied:
Anyone who has watched the change in
appearance of a paper web on a Fourdrinier
paper machine as it passes over vacuum boxes
will appreciate the importance of vacuum to
promote the release of water. There is a whole
list of test procedures that basically do the
same thing – dewater a sample of pre-agitated
papermaking furnish over a forming screen,
using vacuum to pull filtrate through the
screen(14-28,91).
Names of apparatus that have been coined
to describe such experiments and equipment
include the Water Release Analyser(1,23-24), the
Sample
Screen
Vacuum
pump
Vacuum
transducer
Valve and drain
Figure 4 Apparatus to evaluate dewatering rates and retention in the presence of
vacuum
Screen Dry line (air breaks through)
is just
covered by
Vacuum
fibres
Final vacuum
value related
to porosity
Mat is
forming
A B C covered with a layer of fibres. The rise in vac-
0 appears to coincide with build-up of the fibre
0 Time
Figure 5 Interpretation of vacuum-time output from a DDA test(25-26)
26
Retention and Drainage Tester(20), the Dynamic
Drainage Analyser(14,25-26), the dynamic Filtra-
tion System(14), the Retention Process
Analyser(72,97), and the Gess/Weyerhauser
(G/W) system(15-17). Figure 4 shows the essen-
tial features of the G/W device.
Few investigators have considered the ques-
tion about whether the presence or absence of
vacuum assistance affects the main conclu-
sions and trends observed with simple
filtration tests(90). Ideally, the application of
vacuum ought merely to speed up the test. In
practice, however, one needs to be aware that
the stronger hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces in a vacuum-assisted test are likely to do
such things as compress the fibres, wash fine
particles out of the sheet in some locations, and
possibly cause premature “sealing” of the
forming fabric with an initial layer of fibres
draped over and into its openings(90-91). High
correlations have been reported between some
vacuum-assisted test results and results of free-
ness tests(15).
Most(14-18,20-22,24-26,28,91), but not all(27), vacuum-
assisted dewatering tests end up with air being
drawn through the sheet. As shown by Britt
and Unbehend(21), a flocculated sheet tends to
allow relatively easy passage for air to pass
through, resulting in less effective dewatering.
It is important to apply a sufficient amount of
agitation to break up such flocs, and ideally
one would want to break up the flocs to the
same degree as would happen on the full-scale
paper machine under consideration.
Most of the reported work with this kind of
method involves a variable or standardised agi-
tation, either as part of the device
itself(21-23,25-26,28,98) or done separately in a beaker
just before the dewatering test(18,19).
Vacuum-Time Curves: As noted by Gess,
one can learn a lot about a given papermaking
furnish sample just by observing how the mea-
sured vacuum changes with time during a
vacuum-assisted dewatering test(15). Results of
such measurements depend on the pumping
capacities and recovery rates of the vacuum
systems employed(14). For instance, a constant
volumetric rate of pumping has been used in
the G/W procedure(17). Figure 5 illustrates the
kind of data that has been obtained with the
Dynamic Drainage Analyser(25-26).
Referring to figure 5, the sharp drop in vac-
uum, starting at time equal to zero, is
associated with the initial rapid flow of white
water through the forming fabric, i.e. free
drainage through the screen. It seems likely
that point “A” on the curve is related to the
point where the fabric effectively has become
uum, going from point “A” to point “B”
mat. Point “B” appears to be associated with
the “dry line”, just before breakthrough of air.
The vacuum at the right-hand limit of the curve
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
(point “C”) can be used as a measure of the air-
permeability of the damp sheet.
These principles have been used to predict
how various additives affect such things as the
position of the dry line on a paper machine(14,26).
At the other extreme, relative to the tests
just mentioned, is the concept of keeping the
applied vacuum nearly constant throughout the
dewatering experiment(90-91). Wildfong et al.
continuously monitored the level of stock, at
its upper surface, by means of a triangulation
method with a laser beam(91).
Stirring or Flow During Mat Formation:
During industrial-scale formation of paper it is
most common for there to be at least a slight
difference in speed between the jet of fibre
slurry and that of the moving fabric or fabrics
on which the paper is formed. The terms “rush-
ing” and “dragging” have been used to
describe the situations where the jet is either
Stock inlet
Baffle
Stock
Forming
screen
Overflow Drain
valve
Figure 6 Essential parts of an M/K sheet former, achieving some fibre orientation,
and using higher consistency than conventional handsheets.
Motor
Fibre
slurry
Truncated
10º cone
Forming
screen
Filtrate receptacle
and vacuum
Figure 7 Use of rotating cone to provide near-uniform average shear stress at
forming fabric surface during sheet formation(92)
faster or slower than the fabric speed at the
point of impact.
One of the effects of such speed differences
is to cause a preferred orientation of fibres in
the sheet, usually aligned preferentially with
the direction of manufacture. Though such
effects usually are associated with efforts to
improve the uniformity of paper, it is also
worth considering some lab-scale tests that
involve oriented flow.
Figure 6 illustrates a design concept of a
handsheet device that has been called the
“Minidrinier”, to emphasise the fact that the
sheets have characteristics related to those
from a Fourdrinier paper machine(85,100). The
version shown in figure 5 is the M/K Sheet
Former. From the standpoint of evaluation of
additives, the Minidrinier concept has the
advantage that the stock consistency tends to
be much closer to industrial practice, compared
to a conventional handsheet forming proce-
dure. First-pass retention data obtained with
this device was lower, and closer to industrial
practice, compared to straightforward filtration
tests(85,100).
Despite these potential advantages, rela-
tively little has been published with respect to
this method. Those who are interested in high-
quality paper samples with a controllable (by
trial and error) degree of fibre orientation
should also consider the use of a dynamic sheet
former that uses a centrifugal forming princi-
ple(101).
One of the most intriguing recent studies of
retention and dewatering involves the use of a
truncated cone to apply a nearly uniform aver-
age shear stress over the surface of a forming
fabric during formation of a sheet(92,102). The key
parts of this apparatus are shown schematically
in figure 7. Remarkably, a certain moderate
stirring action was found to increase, rather
than decrease the resistance to flow through the
mat of fibres that formed on the screen – even
in the presence of flow. Similar observations
were reported by Forsberg and Bengtsson(25).
A likely explanation for these effects is that
the flow tends to align the fibres so that they
can form a dense mat, not unlike well-combed,
wet hair. By contrast, non-aligned fibres are
expected to form a more bulky, porous mat.
One complication that resulted from continued
stirring during mat formation was the tendency
for non-uniform mat thickness as a function of
distance from the axis of the stirring
device(92,102).
Question 3: Whether to apply pulsations
During the industrial-scale production of paper
the continuous mat of fibres (or “wet web”)
passes over a series of dewatering devices,
which may include hydrofoils, blades, and
brief applications of vacuum. Such devices
give rise to pulsations of both vacuum and
pressure(2,29,31-32).
27
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS

The pulsations also result in rippling

Filtration Pulsation (thickening) motions at the surface of a Fourdrinier sheet, a
Mode Mode phenomenon that has become known as
Velocity
vs. time
“action on the table”(31,34). Though it is usually
much easier to form a sheet of paper in the lab-
oratory without attempting to reproduce such
effects, it might be argued that generation of
“action” has the potential to make a lab test
more realistic.
In principle, pressure or velocity pulsations
perpendicular to the plane of the wet web of
paper are expected to decrease retention by
“washing” fine particles out of the sheet. Pul-
sations also are expected to make the paper
slightly more uniform in the plane of the sheet
by loosening up some of the fibre flocs. Figure
8 illustrates the principle of using pulsating
flow during a suitable laboratory test.
Figure 9 shows one of the best-known
Figure 8 The absence or presence of velocity or pressure pulsations during form-
ing is expected to affect the way the fibre mat is formed.
portable systems for evaluation of retention
and dewatering in the presence of pressure pul-
sations(30). This “Turbulent Pulse Former”
Motor employs vacuum regulators, valves, and timing
Motor adjustments to superimpose a series of pulses
Control
during drainage of the sheet. The design also
Unit
allows for the jar to be quickly dissembled,
making it possible to weigh the damp sheet.
The moisture content after vacuum application
sometimes is used to predict trends of moisture
after the couch on a paper machine.
The type of device shown in figure 9 can
produce a well-defined frequency of pulsation.
Main Control Unit Because the turbulent pulse sheet former
design can yield a high quality sheet of paper
House air the method has been used for the evaluation of
starch products for dry-strength, as well as for
House vac. retention effects(103), and also for evaluation of
sizing agent systems(104).
One might argue that, if you want to mimic
the effects of a hydrofoil, then you ought to go
Drain ahead and use one. The apparatus illustrated in
Figure 9 The “Turbulent Pulse Sheet Former”(30) figure 10 does just that(38-40). The “Pulsed
Drainage Device”, a patented design, has been
used within Betz-Dearborn and now Hercules
for evaluation of their products in the field.
Impeller
A suspension of stock is treated under con-
tinuous agitation in an upper chamber. At a
Mixing signal from a computer, a pneumatically acti-
chamber Stock vated stock valve – an inverted stopper with a
valve conical top – is opened, allowing the sample to
fill a lower chamber. Though rotation of the
Test foil device under the forming fabric at the base
Screen
chamber of the lower chamber is continuous, the vac-
uum can “kick in” after an adjustable delay,
Rotating allowing the user to draw conclusions about
hydrofoil the gravity drainage rate vs. the vacuum
Vacuum response.
Vacuum transducer Various adjustments in design have made it
possible to increase the accuracy with which
the test results match what is seen later when
the same chemical programmes and dosages
are tried out at a commercial scale(40). These
Drain Motor improvements included an increase in the con-
(38-40)
Figure 10 Pulsed Drainage Device sistency (and reduced volume) of the slurry

28
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
samples, use of a coarser forming fabric, and
application of a moderate vacuum as soon as
the sample dropped down into the lower com-
partment.
The “peak to equilibrium vacuum level”
ratio was found to be a useful parameter when
comparing the relative effectiveness of differ-
ent treatments. Useful results were obtained at
basis weight values of about 45 g/m2 or higher,
and much of the work with the device has been
in the development of paperboard grades.
The device illustrated in figure 11, the
“Moving Belt Drainage Tester”, was designed
especially to mimic some of the effects of vac-
uum boxes on a paper machine(41-42). The
moving belt, running continuously under a sta-
tionary forming fabric, is covered with holes
that momentarily allow vacuum to reach dif-
ferent areas under the forming fabric. The
duration of pulses can be approximately 2 mS
or longer.
By means of this test the inventors showed
that there can be an optimum condition of both
frequency and amplitude of vacuum pulses to
achieve the most effective dewatering, depend-
Fibre slurry
Forming
screen
Belt with
holes
Vacuum
Figure 11 Moving Best Drainage Tester(41-42) schematic diagram
Movement
Fibre slurry
of piston
Forming
screen
Water
Hydraulic piston
Figure 12 Pulsating flow drainage test device with hydraulic piston
ing on the basis weight and other properties of
the wet paper mat(41).
The results also were consistent with a
model in which the fibres nearest to the form-
ing fabric can act as a kind of “pump”, helping
to dewater the rest of the paper as it goes
through cycles of compression and release(29,41).
This “pumping” action also helps to explain
the absence of filler particles in the part of the
sheet adjacent to the fabric, as shown by sheet-
splitting experiments.
The “High Speed Retention Tester”,
unveiled in 2000(105-106), combines some of the
essential features of the moving belt tester, but
the belt is replaced by a series of parallel
hydrofoils.
A key deficiency of the “pulsation” devices
described up to this point in this review is that
one does not know the average velocity of flow
through the forming screen as a function of
time. In the case of valve-actuated puffs of vac-
uum it takes an undefined length of time for
pressure beneath the forming fabric to come to
equilibrium. Nobody has attempted to make a
detailed prediction of pressure or velocity fluc-
tuations resulting from the hydrofoils or
moving belt motions.
The most elegant effort to overcome the
challenge of precisely defining the average
velocities associated with pulsating flow in a
lab-scale retention test was reported by Pers-
son and Osterberg(36), whose publication
actually predates other developments men-
tioned in this review, with the exception of
handsheet and freeness tests. Essential features
of their apparatus are shown in figure 12. A
pneumatic control system was used to drive a
hydraulic piston, controlling the flow through a
screen. The resulting pressure pulses were
evaluated with a transducer. Pulse frequencies
could be adjusted up to 100 Hz. It is worth not-
ing that this is one of only a very few
publications in which retention or drainage
were tested with a continuous water column
(no air) below the forming screen(36,107).
Question 4: What can one learn from water
retention?
There is a long history behind the use of cen-
trifugal dewatering tests to determine the
relative amounts of water held within swollen
pulp fibres(43-45). As shown in figure 13, the test
is carried out by placing a sample of wet pulp
in a centrifuge tube insert that has a fitted glass
filter at its base. The tubes are accelerated at
900 g’s(43-44) or 3000 g’s(108) for 30 minutes. The
wet mass of the fibre plug is determined after
centrifugation and again after oven-drying.
The Water Retention Value (WRV) is usually
expressed as the mass of water, divided by the
mass of solids.
Usually it has been assumed that WRV tests
mainly show effects due to water held in tiny
slit-like pores within the cell walls. In particu-
29
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
lar, it has been assumed that “external water” is
mostly removed by centrifugation(45). Recent
results reported by Ström and Kunnas(46) make
it necessary to question that assumption, espe-
cially if the WRV test is used to assess affects of
drainage-aid chemicals(27). Contrary to some
theories, these researchers found that the abil-
ity of a highly charged cationic polymer to
decrease the WRV increased with increasing
molecular mass.
To explain these results it was proposed that
the drainage aid mainly acts by precipitating
microfibrils flat onto the fibre surface, and that
the WRV contribution due to water within fine
pores probably is less affected by the polymer
treatment. The possibility of water being held
Centrifuge
tube
Filter insert
Damp plug
of fibres
Sintered glass
Absorbent felt
Figure 13 Centrifuge tube insert, as used in Water Retention Value (WRV) tests(43)
Motor &
load cell
Jar Rotor,
top view
Slurry
sample
Figure 14 Floccky Tester to evaluate effects of additives on strength and persis-
tence of fibre flocs(54).
30
in the regions between fibres during WRV tests
was proposed earlier by Abson and Gilbert and
by Maloney et al.(109-110).
In summary, one can view the WRV test as a
way to estimate the maximum amount of water
that can be removed from a certain furnish
before the wet web leaves the press section of
a paper machine.
There has been a debate, over the years, on
whether it is better to use the centrifugal test
just described, or rather to carry out “fibre sat-
uration point” measurements based on the
inability of very high mass sugar molecules to
enter small pores within the cell walls of
fibres(111). Points raised in the previous para-
graph help add ammunition to the argument
that WRV is not always a true or accurate mea-
sure of cell wall water.
However, other questions have been raised
regarding the meaning of solute exclusions
tests(112), since the main work in this area did
not take into account osmotic pressure effects
and excluded volumes of solution very close to
surfaces, regions having a low probability of
being occupied by polymer segments in the
absence of molecular attractions(113). Further
work is needed in this area.
Question 5: Can fibre-flocculation tests be
used to evaluate retention aid programmes?
In addition to promoting retention of fine par-
ticles(68), and speeding up dewatering(114-116),
addition of chemical flocculants to papermak-
ing furnish usually makes the resulting paper
less uniform due to increased fibre floccula-
tion(33,117). Though fibre flocculation, per se, is
not usually considered to be a desirable effect,
it sometimes can be used as an indicator of the
relative effectiveness of retention aid treat-
ments.
Figure 14 illustrates an innovative test pro-
cedure developed in Japan and recently
introduced into the US for lab-scale testing(53-54).
The “Flocky Tester” senses the resistance to
rotation of a specially shaped rotor in the pres-
ence of a fibre slurry. The signal becomes
higher after the stock is treated with a floccu-
lating agent. The effect appears to be due to
friction caused by fibre flocs being pressed
between the rotor and the walls of the cylindri-
cal beaker. The maximum torque can be
compared to either the control – untreated fibre
slurry – or to the final torque after a specified
duration of shearing. The rate of decay of the
resistance can be interpreted as an indication of
the durability of the extra degree of floccula-
tion induced by the chemical treatment.
Because the tests are quick, this test has been
proposed for field evaluations of flocculating
chemicals(54).
One of the potential drawbacks of the pre-
viously described test is that it gradually
destroys the fibre flocs as it senses their pres-
ence. Recently Hubbe(56) demonstrated a
related test procedure that was designed to
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
minimise disruption of the flocs. As shown in
figure 15, pencil-like probes were slowly
rotated through the fibre slurry samples. Resis-
tance to the motion of the probes was detected
with a digital viscometer. Treatment of the
slurry with flocculating agents appeared to
increase the size of fibre floc able to remain on
the front surface of a probe element without
coming apart.
The viscometric test made it possible to dis-
tinguish the separate contributions of time and
hydrodynamic shear in breaking down fibre
flocs(56,118). Such results find use in helping to
justify decisions about whether to add reten-
tion aids before or after pressure screens(118).
Rotation
Spindle No. 1
Probe
Baffle
Sample
Figure 15 Viscometric test of effects of chemicals on fibre flocculation in a pulp
slurry(56).
Light
Photodetector
Flow
direction
Pump
Stirrer
Figure 16 Fibre floc evaluation by means of a low-gain Photometric Dispersion
Analyser(56).
Another approach to quantifying fibre floc-
culation involves monitoring light
transmission or reflection as dilute stock flows
through a transparent tube or past a window in
a channel. One of the easiest ways to achieve
such measurements is to use a flow scheme as
illustrated in figure 16, which is based on the
use of a Photometric Dispersion Analyser
(PDA)(56). To study papermaking fibres it is nec-
essary to use a “low-gain” version of the PDA,
with a fitting to accommodate a larger-than-
usual tubing size, having an internal diameter
of about 6 mm(56-58).
The addition of a chemical flocculant to a
dilute fibre slurry – paper machine headbox
solids level or lower – has been found to
greatly increase the root-mean-squared varia-
tion in intensity of the transmitted light through
the clear tubing. Though such results clearly
indicate changes in the degree of fibre floccu-
lation, more work is needed to understand how
the signals depend on either the size or the den-
sity of fibre flocs(57-58).
More sophisticated studies, using the scat-
tering of laser light, have achieved more
success in separately determining the effects of
various treatments on floc size and on different
degrees of flocculation, in cases where the floc
sizes were similar(119).
Some of the most sophisticated evaluations
of retention aids recently have been carried out
by means of a “Focused Beam Laser Reflec-
tant Measurement” (FBLRM or SLM)
method(47-52). This method works by estimating
the “cord lengths” of objects that pass in front
of a sapphire window.
The device rotates a focused beam of laser
light in a circular pattern and detects the
lengths of time over which some of the
reflected light either does or does not return to
the window after being reflected from objects
in the path of the light. Because the light fol-
lows a circular path at a known rate of speed, it
is straightforward to convert time periods of
continuous reflected signal to equivalent linear
lengths, i.e. cords of the circular path. FBLRM
measurements have been used, for instance, to
compare the effectiveness of different
microparticle retention aid programmes(48).
Question 6: Can automation help eliminate
operator bias and achieve more reliable
retention and drainage test results?
Though automation certainly will affect the
amount of effort required to run a lab evalua-
tion of retention and drainage chemicals, the
important goal should be reproducibility, i.e.
the precision of the results. This is especially
important if one needs to rely on results
obtained by different staff members. Experi-
ence has shown that results of jar-type
retention and drainage tests can be sensitive to
subtle differences in mixing practices, the time
intervals between chemical injections, and
31
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
anything that one does at the moment when
water starts to flow through the forming fabric
or screen(89).
Issues related to portability and cost are
expected to become less important with the
passage of time, especially in systems that can
be run with a laptop computer.
Though automation could, in principle, be
applied to just about any of the tests described
in this review, and some have been(90), let us
focus on one example. As shown in figure 17
the Dynamic Drainage Analyser(14,25-26), which
was discussed earlier, incorporates automatic
control of such things as chemical additions,
stock agitation, opening of the value to start
drainage, and acquisition of dewatering rate
data. As had been pointed out(25), it is often dif-
ficult to add chemicals quickly enough in
manual tests to fairly mimic what happens on a
real paper machine. Highly precise repetition
of experimental conditions is also essential
when one wants to distinguish subtle differ-
ences between paper sheets that result from
different levels of chemical treatment.
Conclusions and recommendations:
1) Though only a few of the test devices
described in this review are currently avail-
able for sale(7,25,120-121), many of them are
simple enough to be reproduced in a
machine shop or the essential features can
be assembled from conventional laboratory
equipment, such as a Büchner funnel.
Since different kinds of tests have different
strengths and weaknesses, it is best to start
out by deciding which type of test is most
suitable for obtaining the information that
you need.
2) For quick, relatively reproducible compar-
isons of retention effects, not considering
Additives
Impeller
Slurry sample
Screen
Valve
Vacuum
Transducer
Figure 17 Automatic features of the Dynamic Drainage Analyser (DDA)(14,25-26).
32
dewatering effects, it is recommended to
first consider the classic Britt jar test(7). The
equipment can be ordered from Paper
Research Materials(60). Alternatively, simi-
lar tests can be carried out with fairly
straightforward modifications of freeness
tests or with a homemade drainage jar.
3) In cases where one is most interested in
obtaining highly reproducible dewatering
rate evaluations, following treatment with
different chemical recipes, it is recom-
mended to consider the Dynamic Drainage
Analyser (DDA), which also is currently
available(122). The DDA offers advantages of
automation. However, for short-term, low-
budget needs, one should be aware that
similar information could be achieved with
various related devices, some of them
essentially homemade, as described earlier.
If you facility has either freeness testing
equipment or handsheet forming equip-
ment available for your use, such devices
can be used possibly with some modifica-
tions, for evaluation of dewatering rates
under simple filtration conditions.
4) None of the pulsation type of test appara-
tus described in this review is currently
available for sale as a portable test. It is
recommended that only serious
researchers, willing to devote considerable
development time, attempt to go down this
road. Although pulsations can, in principle,
make tests more representative of what
happens during industrial-scale formation
of paper, there is also a danger of increas-
ing the noise-to-signal ratio.
5) Water retention value (WRV) tests offer a
way to obtain supplemental information,
requiring very little sample and fairly con-
ventional centrifugation equipment.
Assuming, as noted earlier, that the WRV
results predict the maximum solids that
can be achieved by mechanical means,
there may be situations where such infor-
mation could help in deciding between
which of two alternative chemical pro-
grammes to evaluate first.
6) Depending on what kind of information
you are looking for, it is recommended to
view fibre-flocculation-sensing tests with
caution. It is important to bear in mind that
a chemical programme that produces a
high degree of fibre flocculation is not nec-
essarily the most desirable programme for
increasing retention efficiency or dewater-
ing rates in a given paper machine
situation. But as long as those cautions are
well understood, then either the Floccky
Tester(54) or the FBRLM(47-52) test equipment
can be obtained. Also, the non-destructive
floc test described earlier can be carried
out with a conventional Brookfield vis-
cometer and a simple modification of one
of the standard probes(56).

Literature Cited
1. Anon., “Forming Handsheets for Physical
Tests of Pulp,” Tappi Test Methods T 205,
Tappi Press, Atlanta.
2. Tam Doo, P.A., Kerekes, R.J., and Pelton,
R.H., “Estimates of Maximum Hydrody-
namic Shear Stresses on Fibre Surfaces in
Papermaking,” J. Pulp Paper Sci. 10(7):J80-
J88 (1984).
3. Pelton, R.H. and Allen, L.H., “Factors Influ-
encing the Adhesion of Polystyrene Spheres
Attached to Pyrex by Polyethyleneimine in
Aqueous Solution,” J. Colloid Interface Sci.
99(2): 387-398 (1984).
4. Hubbe, M.A., “Detachment of Colloidal
Hydrous Oxide Spheres from Flat Solids
Exposed to Flow. 4 Effect of Polyelec-
trolytes,” Colloids Surf. 25 (2-4): 325-339
(1987).
5. Hubbe, M.A., “Retention and Hydrodynamic
Shear,” Tappi J. 69 (8): 116-117 (1986).
6. Goto, S. and Pelton, R., “The Link between
Strength and Shear Sensitivity for Filler
Flocs Formed with Retention Aids,” Tappi J.
83 (4): 82 (2000). [One page only in print
version.]
7. Britt, K.W., “Mechanisms of Retention Dur-
ing Paper Formation,” Tappi 56 (10): 46-50
(1973).
8. King, C.A. and Williams, D.G., “Cellulose
Fibre-to-Fibre and Fines-to-Fibre floccula-
tion: A Dynamic Comparison,” Tappi 58
(9):138-141 (1975).
9. McKenzie, A.W., “Structure and Properties
of Paper. XVIII. The Retention of Wet-End
Additives,” Appita 1 (4): 104-116 (1968).
10. Hubbe, M.A., “Detachment of Colloidal
Hydrous Oxide Spheres from Flat Solids
Exposed to Flow. 2. Mechanism of Release,”
Colloids Surf. 16(3-4):249-270 (1985).
11. Britt, K.W., “Retention of Additives During
Sheet Formation,” Tappi 56 (3):83-86 (1973).
12. Nelson, J.A. and Simons, P.B., “Retention
and Drainage Studies Usig the ESPRI
Dynamic Jar,” ESPRA Invited Papers Sprint
1978 Mtg. (Mobile, AL):51-56 (April 3-5,
1978).
13. Davison, R.W., “Mechanism of Fine-Particle
Retention in Paper,” Tappi J. 66 (11): 69-72
(1983).
14. Roschy, A., Fisher, K. and Kleeman, S.,
“Comparison of Modern Wet-End Methods
of Determination of Drainage and Retention
at a Laboratory Scale,” Wochenbl. Papierfabr.
130 (18):1187-1196 (2002).
15. Gess, J.M., “A New Drainage Analysis Sys-
tem,” Tappi J. 67 (3):70-72 (1984).
16. Gess, J.M., “Method of Measuring Drainage
Rate,” U.S. Pat. 4,613,406, Sept. 23, 1986;
priority April 4, 1983.
17. Trepanier, R., “The B/W Drainage – Reten-
tion Tester,” Tappi J. 75 (5):139-142 (1992).
18. Arno, J.N., Frankle, W.E. and Sheridan, J.L.,
“Zeta Potential and its Application to Filler
Retention,” Tappi 57 (12):97-100 (1974).
19. Moore, E.E., “Charge Relationship of Dual
Polymer Retention Aids,” Tappi 59 (6):120-
122 (1976).
20. Abson, D., Bailey, R.M., Lenderman, C.D.,
Nelson, J.A. and Simons, P.B., “Predicting
the Performance of Shear-Sensitive Addi-
tives,” Tappi 63 (6):55-58 (1980).
21. Britt, K.W. and Unbehend, J.E., “Water
Removal During Sheet Formation,” Tappi 63
(4):67-70 (1980).
22. Wegner, T.H., Springer, A.M. and Chan-
drasekaran, S., “Single Procedure for
Measuring Drainage, Retention, and
Response to Vacuum of Pulp Slurries,” Tappi
PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
J. 67 (4):124-126 (1984).
23. Scalfarotto, R.E. and Tarvin, R.F., “Effi-
ciency of Polymeric Additives in Drainage
and Dewatering,” Tappi J. 67 (4):80-84
(1984).
24. Britt, K.W. and Unbehend, J.E., “Water
Removal During Formation,” Tappi 68
(4):104-107 (1985).
25. Forsberg, S. and Bengtsson, M., “The
Dynamic Drainage Analyser (DDA),” Proc.
Tappi 1990 Papermakers Conf., 239-245
(1990).
26. Forsberg, S. and Ström, G., “The Effect of
Contact Time between Cationic Polymers
and Furnish on Retention and Drainage,” J.
Pulp Paper Sci. 20 (3):J71-J76 (1994).
27. Liu, J., “Cationic Polyacrylamide as a
Drainage Aid in Mechanical Pulp,” Tappi J.
78 (4):149-154 (1995).
28. Mantar, E., Co, A. and Genco, J.M.,
“Drainage Characteristics of Pulp Slurries
under Dynamic Conditions,” J. Pulp Paper
Sci 21 (2):J44-J50 (1995).
29. Räisänen, K., “High-Vacuum Dewatering on
a Paper Machine Wire Section – A Literature
Review,” Paperi Puu 78 (3):113-120 (1996).
30. Britt, K.W., Unbehend, J.E. and Shridharan,
R., “Observations on Water Removal in
Papermaking,” Tappi J. 69 (7):76-79 (1986).
31. Kiviranta, A. and Paulapuro, H., “The Role
of Fourdrinier Table Activity in the Manufac-
ture of Various Paper and Board Grades,”
Tappi J. 75 (4):172-185 (1992).
32. Green, S.I. and Kerekes, R.J., “Numerical
Analysis of Pressure Pulses Induced by
Blades in Gap Formers,” Tappi J. 81 (4):180-
187 (1998).
33. Jokinen, O., and Palonen, H., “Interdepen-
dence of Retention and Formation in the
Manufacture of SC Paper,” Paperi Puu 68
(11):801-808 (1986).
34. Manson, D.W., “The Practical Aspects of
Formation,” Wet End Operations Short
Course Notes, Tappi, Atlanta, 1996.
35. Sodergren, O.F. and Neun, J.A., “Develop-
ments in Activity Generation on
Fourdriniers,” Tappi J. 83 (10):62 (2000).
36. Persson, T. and Osterberg, L., “A Laboratory
Apparatus for Pulsed Drainage,” Svensk Pap-
perstidning 72 (8):446-452 (1969).
37. Davison, R.W., “A New Vacuum Pulsation
Drainage Procedure for Determining Fine
Particle Retention,” Tappi J. 7 (8):121-127
(1989).
38. Lin, J.T. and Schuster, M.A., “Predicting
Drainage, Retention and Formation Develop-
ment on High Ash Alkaline Paper
Machines,” Proc. Tappi 1992 Papermakers
Conf., 253 (1992).
39. Lin, J.T., Schuster, M.A. and Schellhamer,
A.J., “Apparatus for Simulating Processing
Parameters and Predicting Variables in a
Papermaking Operation Including Sequential
Pulsation, Gravity and Vacuum Drainage,
Fines Retention and Paper Formation,” U.S.
Pat. 5,314,581, May 24, 1994.
40. Suttman, F.J., “Development and Validation
of an Improved Drainage Testing Methodol-
ogy,” Tappi J. 83 (4): 69-70 [digital version]
(2000).
41. Räisänen, K., Paulapuro, H. and Karrila, S.J.,
“The Effects of Retention Aids, Drainage
Conditions, and Pretreatment of Slurry on
High-Vacuum Dewatering: A Laboratory
Study,” Tappi J. 78 (4):140-147 (1995).
42. Räisänen, K, Karrila, S. and Maijala, A.,
“Vacuum Dewatering Optimisation with Dif-
ferent Furnishes,” Paperi Puu 78 (8):461-467
(1996).
43. Anon., “Water Retention Value (WRV),”
Tappi Useful Method UM 256, 1981.
44. Thode, E.F., Bergomi, J.G. and Unson, R.E.,
“The Application of a Centrifugal Water-
Retention Test to Pulp Evaluation,” Tappi 43
(5):505-512 (1960).
45. Jayme, G. and Büttel, H., “Regarding the
Determination and Meaning of Water Reten-
tion Value (WRV) of Various bleached and
Unbleached Cellulosic Pulps,” Wochenbl.
Papierfabr. 96 (6):180-187 (1968).
46. Ström, G. and Kunnas, A., “The Effect of
Cationic Polymers on the Water Retention
Value of Various Pulps,” Nordic Pulp Paper
Res. J. 6 (1):12-19 (1991).
47. Alfano, J.C., Carter, P.W. and Gerli, A.,
“Characterisation of the Flocculation Dynam-
ics in a Papermaking System by
Non-Imaging Reflectance Scanning Laser
Microscopy (SLM),” Nordic Pulp Paper Res.
J. 13 (2):159-165 (1998).
48. Alfano, J.C., Carter, P.W. and Whitten, J.E.,
“Use of Scanning Laser Microscopy to
Investigate Microparticle Flocculation Perfor-
mance,” J. Pulp Paper Sci. 25 (6):189-200
(1999).
49. Clémonçon, I. and Geri, A., “The Effect of
Flocculant/Microparticle Retention Pro-
grammes on Floc Properties,” Nordic Pulp
Paper Res. J. 14 (1):23-29 (1999).
50. Gerli, A., Keiser, B. and Strand, M., “Use of
a Flocculation Sensor as a Predictive Tool for
Paper Machine Retention Programme Perfor-
mance,” Tappi J. 83 (10:59 (2000).
51. Gerli, A., Keiser, B. and Surya, P.I., “Use of
Focused Beam Reflectance Measurement in
the Development of a New Nanosize Parti-
cle,” Appita J. 54 (1):36-40 (2001).
52. Blanco, A., Fuente, E., Negro, C., Mente,
M.C. and Tijero, J., “Focused Beam Reflec-
tant Measurement as a Tool to Measure
Flocculation,” Tappi J. 1 (10):14-20 (2002).
53. Laleg, M. and Collins, R., “A Novel Method
of Monitoring the Flocculation Caused by
chemical Additives,” Preprints of PAPTAC
Annual Meeting, Montreal, Jan. 2001, p.
C169.
54. Anker, L., “Practical Experiences in Additive
Screening using a Torque-Based Flocculation
Analyser,” Tappi J. 1 (6):3-8 (2002).
55. Swerin, A., “Rheological Properties of Cellu-
losic Fibre Suspensions Flocculated by
Cationic Polyacrylamides,” Colloids Surf.
133 (3):279-294 (1998).
56. Hubbe, M.A., “Reversibility of Polymer-
Induced Fibre Flocculation by Shear. 1.
Experimental Methods,” Nordic Pulp Paper
Res. J. 15 (5):545-553 (2000).
57. Burgess, M.S., Curley, J.E., Wiseman, N. and
Xiao, H., “On-line Optical Determination of
Floc Size. Part I: Principles and Techniques,”
J. Pulp Paper Sci. 28 (2):63-65 (2002).
58. Burgess, M.S., Curley, J.E., Wiseman, N. and
Xiao, H., “On-line Optical Determination of
Floc Size. Part II: The Effect of Shear on
Floc Size,” J. Pulp Paper Sci. 28 (10):323-
326 (2002).
59. Nelson, J.A., “Retention Aid Performance.
Effects of Process Variables,” Tappi 61 (11):
108-110 (1978).
60. For information about obtaining Britt jar
equipment, see the website of Paper Research
Materials at http://www.brittjar.com
61. Unbehend, J.E., “Mechanisms of ‘Soft’ and
‘Hard’ Floc Formation in Dynamic Retention
Measurement,” Tappi 59 (10):74-77 (1976).
62. Unbehend, J.E., “The ‘Dynamic Retention/
Drainage Jar’, Increasing the Credibility of
Retention Measurements,” Tappi 60 (7):110-
112 (1977).
33
 PAPER TECHNOLOGY OCTOBER 2003 LABORATORY TESTS
63. Avery, L.P., “Evaluation of Retention Aids.
The Quantitative Alum Analysis of a Paper-
making Furnish and the Effect of Alum on
Retention,” Tappi 62 (2):43-46 (1979).
64. Pelton, RlH., Allen, L.H. and Nugent, H.M.,
“Survey or Potential Retention Aids for
Newsprint Manufacture,” Pulp Paper Can. 81
(1):T9-T15 (1980).
65. Britt, K.W. and Unbehend, J.E., “New Meth-
ods for Monitoring Retention,” Tappi 59
(2):67-70 (1976).
66. Hubbe, M.A., “How do Retention Aids
Work?” Proc. Tappi 1988 Papermakers
Conf., 389-398 (1988).
67. Lindström, T., “Some Fundamental Chemical
Aspects on Paper forming,” in Fundamentals
of Papermaking, Vol. 1, Barker C.F. and Pun-
ton, V.W., eds., Mechanical Eng. Pub. Ltd.,
London, 311-412 (1989).
68. Horn, D. and Linhart, F., “Retention Aids,” in
Paper Chemistry, J.C. Roberts, ed., blackie,
Glasgow, UK, Ch. 4, 44-62 (1991).
69. Hedborg, F. and Lindström, T., “Some
Aspects on the Reversibility of Flocculation
of Paper Stocks,” Nordic Pulp Paper Res. J.
11 (4):254-259 (1996).
70. Hubbe, M.A., “Reversibility of Polymer-
Induced Fibre Flocculation by Shear. 2.
Multi-Component Chemical Treatments,”
Nordic Pulp Paper Res. J. 16 (4):369-375
(2000).
71. Milliken, J.O., Spectrophotometric Determi-
nation of Fines Retention Using the Dynamic
Retention/Drainage Jar,” Seattle Retention
and Drainage Short Course, 1977, pp. 55-57.
72. Saharinen, E., Cheng, Z. and Paulapuro, H.,
“Laboratory Device For the Characterisation
of the Influence of Shear Forces on Reten-
tion,” Wochenbl. Papierfabr. 122
(16):638-643 (1994).
73. Ovenden, C., Xiao, H. and Wiseman, N.,
“Retention Aid Systems of Cationic
Microparticles and Anionic Polymer: Experi-
ments and Pilot Machine Trials,” Tappi 83
(3):80-85 (2000).
74. Pelton, R.H., Allen, L.H. and Nugent, H.M.,
“Novel Dual-Polymer Retention Aids for
Newsprint and Groundwood Specialties,”
Tappi 64 (11):89-92 (1981).
75. Anon., “Freeness of Pulp (Canadian Standard
Method),” Tappi Method T227-om-94.
76. Kerekes, R.J. and Harvey, D.M., “Tappi
Fluid Mechanics Committee Drainage Tester
Survey,” Tappi 63 (5):89-91 (1980).
77. Tanaka, H., “Effect of Polymerisation Degree
and Charge Density of Cationic Polyacry-
lamide on Drainage and Retention,” Japan
tappi 62 (7):614-624 (1992).
78. Binding, D.M. and Walters, K., “On the Use
of Flow through a Contraction in Extimating
the Extensional Viscosity of Mobile Polymer
Solutions,” J. Non-Newtonian Fluid 30 (2-
3):233-250 (1988).
79. Ferguson, J., Walters, K. and Wolff, C.,
“Shear and Extensional Flow of Polyacry-
lamide Solutions,” Rheol. Acta 29 (6):
571-579 (1990).
80. Sampson, W.W. and Kropholler, H.W.,
“Batch-drainage Curves for Pulp Characteri-
sation Part 1: Experimental,” Tappi J. 78
(12):145-151 (1995).
81. Sampson, W.W., “The Independence of Sheet
Structure and Drainage,” Paper Technol. 38
(8):45-50 (1997).
82. Müller, F. and Beck, U., “Dual Product Sys-
tems for Retention and Dewatering in the
Paper Industry,” Papier 32 (10A):V25-V31
(1978).
34
83. Beck, U. and Müller, F., “Optimisation of
Drainage and Sheet Formation – Laboratory
Tests and Practical Results,” Wochbl. Papier-
fabr. 107 (11/12): 411-418 (1979).
84. Ulrick, J.M. and Fisher, B.D., “Factors
Affecting the Use of Chemical Drainage
Aids,” Tappi 59 (10):78-81 (1976).
85. Gunder, W. and Melzer, J., “The Evaluation
of Retention Aids in Laboratory and Prac-
tice,” Papier 33 (10A): V95-V100 (1979).
86. Wei, H. and Ramarao, B.V., “Characterisa-
tion of Pulp Slurries Using a Novel Drainage
Tester,” Proc. Tappi 1996 Engineering Conf.,
517-524 (1996).
87. Brill, H.C. and Hecklau, F.L., “Titanium
Dioxide Retention,” Tappi 43 (4): 229A-
237A (1960).
88. Heath, H.D. and Hofreiter, B.T., “Filler-
Retention and Dry-Strength Additives,”
Tappi 61 (12): 21-23 (1978).
89. Kufferath, W., “Dewatering Process on the
Paper Machine. Part 4,” Deut. Papierwirt.
1983 (1):63-64, 66, 68-70, 73-76 (1983).
90. Pires, E.C., Springer, A.M. and Kumar, V.,
“A New Technique for Specific Filtration
Resistance Measurement,” Tappi J. 72 (7):
149-154 (1989).
91. Wildfong, V.J., Genco, J.M., Shands, J.A.
and Bousfield, D.W., “Filtration Mechanics
of Sheet Forming. Part 1. Apparatus for
Determination of Constant-Pressure Filtration
Resistance,” J. Pulp Paper Sci. 26 (7):250-
254 (2000).
92. Paradis, M.A., Genco, J.M., Bousfield,
D.W.., Hassler, J.C. and Wildfong, V.,
“Determination of Drainage Resistance Coef-
ficients under Known Shear Rate,” Tappi J. 1
(6):12-18 (2002).
93. Tanaka, H., Luner, P., and Côté, W., “How
Retention Aids Change the Distribution of
Filler in Paper,” Tappi 65 (4): 95-99 (1982).
94. Li, H.M. and Scott, W.E., “The use of Britt
Jar Retention-RPM Curves and Microscopic
Analysis to Determine the Aggregation State
of a Papermaking Furnish,” Proc. Tappi 2000
Papermakers Conf., 733 (2000).
95. Anon., “Pulp Quality System,” brochure
from Pulmac, Box 50, HCR 34, Montpelier,
VT 05602, (800) 829-9280; 802-223-3480
(rec’d. 1994).
96. Ingmanson, W.L., “An Investigation of the
Mechanism of Water Removal from Pulp
Slurries,” Tappi 35 (10):439-448 (1952).
97. Cheng, Z., Saharinen, E. and Paulapuro, H.,
“Laboratory Device (RPA) for Characterising
the Influence of Shear Forces on Retention,
Part Two: Influence of High Shear Pulse,”
Proc. Tappi 1993 Papermakers Conf., 15
(1993).
98. Krogerus, B., “Impact of Retention Polymers
on Flocculation, Retention, Drainage and
Sheet Formation. A Laboratory Study,” Proc.
Tappi 1994 Papermakers Conf., 445-452
(1994).
99. Wildfong, V.J., Genco, J.M., Shands, J.A.
and Bousfield, D.W., “Filtration Mechanics
of Sheet Forming. Part II: Influence of Fine
Material and Compression,” J. Pulp Paper
Sci. 26 (8):280-283 (2000).
100.Werdouschegg, F., M.K., “Interrelating a
Practical Retention Testing Procedure with
Wet End Retention Results – Theory and
Practice,” Tappi 60 (7):105-109 (1977).
101.Website information for dynamic sheet form-
ers: http://www.canpa.ca/ADS_page.html;
http://cybermetrics.com/dsf_dynamic_sheet_f
ormer.htm;
http://www.labtech.ca/eng/pulp.htm
102.Arslan, K., Bousfield, D.W. and Genco, J.M.,
“Effect of Shear Forces on Fine Particle
Retention,” Tappi J. 80 (1):254-261 (1997).
103.Sweger, R.W., “Novel Drainage Analysis of
Chemical Additives in Systems with Increas-
ing Mill Closure,” Proc. Tappi 1996
Papermakers Conf., 59 (1996).
104.Staib, R.R., “Evaluation of Paper Sizes using
a Turbulent-Pulse Sheet Former,” Tappi J. 74
(10):102-105 (1991).
105.Sivén, S. and Manner, H., “Influence of
Drainage Pressure Variation on Retention,”
Paper Coating Chem. Symp. [digital ver-
sions] 2000.
106.Sivén, S. and Manner, H., “Multicomponent
Retention Systems in Twin Wire Forming,”
Appita J. 54 (6):523-535 (2001).
107.Jaycock, M.J. and Pearson, J.L., “Effect of
pH on the Retention of Inorganic Fillers,” J.
Appl. Chem. Biotechnol. 25 (7):815-826
(1975).
108.SCAN Test Method, SCAN-C 10 XE.
109.Abson, D. and Gilbert, R.D., “Observations
on Water Retention Values,” Tappi 63
(9):146-147 (1980).
110. Maloney, T.C., Laine, J.E. and Paulapuro, H.,
“Comments on the Measurement of Cell
Wall Water,” Tappi J. 82 (9): 125-127 (1999).
111. Scallan, A.M. and Carles, J.E., “The Correla-
tion of the Water Retention Value with the
Fibre Saturation Point,” Svensk Papperstidn.
75 (7):699-703 (1972).
112. Alince, B., Van de Ven, T.G.M., “Porosity of
Swollen Pulp Fibers Evaluated by Polymer
Adsorption,” in Barker, C.F., Ed., The Funda-
mentals of Papermaking Materials, Vol. 2,
Pira, Leatherhead, UK, 1997, p. 771.
113. Flory, P.J., “Principles of Polymer Chem-
istry,” Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1953.
114. Allen, L.H. and Yaraskavitch, I.M., “Effects
of Retention and Drainage Aids on Paper
Machine Drainage: A Review,” Tappi J. 74
(7): 79-84 (1991).
115. McGregor, C. and Knight, P., “Utilising
Process Chemicals to Improve Water
Removal,” Paper Technol. 37 (8):31-37
(1996).
116. Farinato, R.S., Huang, S.-Y. and Hawkins, P.,
“Polyelectrolyte-Assisted Dewatering,” in
Colloid-Polymer Interactions: from Funda-
mentals to Practice, Farinato, R.W. and
Dubin, P.L., Eds., Ch. 1, 3-51, Wiley-Inter-
science, New York, 1999.
117. Linhart, F., Horn, D., Eisenlauer, J. and
Hemel, R., “Monitoring and Control of For-
mation by Means of a Fibre Optic
Flocculation Senor,” Wochenbl. Papierfabr.
115 (8):331-338 (1987).
118. Hubbe, M.A. and Wang, F., “Where to Add
Retention Aid: Issues of Time and Shear,”
Tappi J. 1 (1):28-33 (2002).
119. Wågberg, L., “A Device for Measuring the
Kinetics of Flocculation following Polymer
Addition in Turbulent Fibre Suspensions,”
Svensk Papperstidn. 88 (6):R48-R56 (1985).
120.Distributed by Koei,
http://www.uskoei.com/othrprod2.htm; and
Cybermetrics, httpaaaa;//cyber-
metrics.com/floccky_flocculation_tester.htm
121.Distributed by Lasentech, http://www.lasen-
tech.com
122.Distributed by Kalamazoo Paper Chemicals,
http://www.kalpapechem.com; manufactured
by Akribi Kemikonsulter AB, Sweden.