[DoctorOetker]

I think the remark -while rude- brings up an important point: is the in-situ generated adhesive compatible with the paper recycling processes? if so, it seems that simply applying the discovered in-situ chemicals artificially would be faster and not rely on CO2 laser tube set-up (they don't last forever).

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.

[pseudosaid]

no one mentioned recycling. you introduced that. the above poster is simply conflating altering a materials surface to be sticky, with applying a 3rd party compound to achieve tack. its intellectually tacky, and i dont even know what youre doing. youre just leveraging this to bring about a point of your own, which is deserving of being its own parent comment. but in earnest reply, 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.

[DoctorOetker]

> no one mentioned recycling. you introduced that.

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...