Recycling+Paper


 * //Sinan's Lab Project: Recycling Common Materials to Make Recycled Paper - Saving the Environment and Creating More Jobs//**

HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Charles Herty first devised the innovation of recreating paper in 1932. At the time, the greatest demand was that for white paper, not durable paper. With chemical processes, he was able to recycle materials such as newspapers, paper towels, and miscellaneous scraps of plastic and paper to recycle paper. As a result, not only were environmental concerns addressed, but also new paper saving industries emerged, allowing for thousands of new job opportunities nation wide. Over 4,400 new jobs were created in the state of Georgia alone (EPA 1-2). Herty’s success proved to the world that recycling was a reality, and that it directly led to the welfare of both the planet and its people.

Current statistics prove that paper is being wasted at exponential rates. According to Lexmark’s 2009 Government Printing Report, the United States Federal government spends on average $1.3 billion on printing, and $440.0 million of this amount is completely unnecessary (4). Lexmark has backed this claim with several facts obtained from interviews and surveys given to Federal employees. Federal employees report that over 89% of agencies do not have recycling programs, and that on average, each Federal employee prints 30 pages per day. 35% of these pages, however, are immediately discarded the same day (5). Thus at least this 35% of this daily printed-paper can be replaced with lower quality paper, for it will be wasted the same day. The document also reveals the top four reasons why Federal agencies argue for the need of white paper. They claim that they need to have signatures on documents, review/share documents with others, edit documents, and file/save documents (7). The fact of the matter is that homemade paper achieves all of the criteria, so it is evident that money is being wasted on printing useless paper.

ABSTRACT:

THE RECYCLING OF PAPER. SINAN. The purpose of this experiment was to prove that homemade paper constructed from recycled materials not only saves the environment, but also is just as durable and conventional as normal paper. Three separate tests were designed to find the best recyclable substances to create paper. Calculated amounts of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide were each combined with paper, sawdust, and newspaper to obtain slushy pulps. These pulps were later filtered, bleached, spread over a screen, and dried in an oven. The first and third tests (constructed from paper and newspaper respectively) resulted in brittle and unbendable solid substances. For this reason, printing tests had to be omitted. The second test (constructed from sawdust) resulted in such little substance before filtering that all of its tests post filtering were cancelled. This cancelling of the second substance’s test restricted the design of the experiment down to only two tests. Because the several sets of tests had to be omitted from the design, no major conclusions could be drawn. However, stress tests revealed that paper made from sawdust was stronger than paper made from paper, but when compared to the stress tests of normal paper, neither could compare. While ample evidence proved that homemade paper saves the environment, the lack of concluding data in the experiment due to the omitting of several tests neither proved nor denied the idea that the new paper is just as durable and conventional as normal paper.

LAB RESULTS:
 * || TEST 1: PAPER || TEST 2: SAWDUST || TEST 3: NEWSPAPER || CONVENTIONAL PAPER ||
 * Observations without chemicals || The beaker is tightly packed with recycled shreds of paper. The size of each piece is no larger than a pill || The beaker is tightly packed with sawdust. The sawdust is brown/red and is very fine. || The beaker is tightly packed with newspaper. The size of each piece is no larger than a pill || The paper is yellow and lined. It is perfectly rectangular. It is standard notepad paper. ||
 * Observations with chemicals || The substance has a pungent, sulfur-like odor. It is puke green in color with several pieces of paper visible. It looks sort of like paper mache. || The substance has a pungent, sulfur-like odor. It is red/brown in color and looks like wet sand. Although the sawdust is very fine, when wet, it appears to be mushy. || The substance has a pungent, sulfur-like odor. It is green/blue in color, with several pieces of newspaper visible. It looks sort of like paper mache. || Because this substance was not tested with chemicals, there are no observations. ||
 * Observe with bleach || The substance is a lighter shade of green but it certainly is not even close to becoming white. || This substance appears to have seen no change at all. There is only a thin layer of light red on top, but it is not white. || The substance turned into an aqua blue color. It however is certainly not white. || Because this substance was not tested with bleach, there are no observations ||
 * Observe final paper product after drying || The substance has a very brittle texture. If anything, it is like tough cardboard, and cannot possibly be bent like paper can. It is white/green in color, and has textural bumps from where it made contact with the filter screen. || The substance has a very brittle texture. If anything, it is like tough cardboard, and cannot possibly be bent like paper can. It is dark brown/red in color, and has textural bumps from where it made contact with the filter screen. || Because there was so little substance when filtering through the screen, the drying process was not enacted and all future tests were dropped. || Because chemicals were not applied to normal paper, the normal paper did not need to be dried. ||
 * Printing tests || Because the final product was so brittle and unbendable, it was evident that conventional printing of the product was not possible. || Because the final product was so brittle and unbendable, it was evident that conventional printing of the product was not possible. || Because the final product was so brittle and unbendable, it was evident that conventional printing of the product was not possible. || The paper was successful in printing a standard test page, because it was not brittle and could easily pass through the printing machine. Some of the ink leaked a little, but this may be due to the paper’s thinness. ||
 * Stress Tests || 1,005 grams || 1,290 grams || Because the amount of final product was so small, stress tests on newspaper were not conducted. || 2,000 + grams ||
 * Dimensions || Roughly 11.7 X 18.2 cm || Roughly 12.2 X 18.2 cm || Roughly 3.1 X 2.9 cm || 18.50 X 12.75 cm ||

THINGS THAT WENT WRONG:

1. When adding 200mL of paper, sawdust, and newspaper, I was inconsistent. I jammed paper into the beaker of TEST 1: PAPER but I lightly added newspaper to the beaker of TEST 3: NEWSPAPER

2. Because my ratios of substance to chemicals was off, I needed more bleach to obtain some more whiteness.

3. I shouldn't have used an oven for drying. Since I wanted the paper not to be brittle but rather bendable (to commence my printing tests), I should have let it dry by itself, naturally. This way, it wouldn't harden; literally.

4. Stress tests could have been more accurate. By holding the paper in one place, I am in a sense strengthening that point on the paper, thus strengthening the paper itself. Therefore, the stress tests are almost worthless, because they do not measure stress, but rather stress points. Each clamp is technically reinforcing the paper.