PEER-REVIEW ARTICLE
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8776
Techno-Economic Analysis of Lignin-Containing Micro-
and Nano-Fibrillated Cellulose for Lightweight
Linerboard Packaging
Heather Starkey ,a,b Maria Gonzalez ,a Hasan Jameel ,a and Lokendra Pal ,a,*
* Corresponding author: lpal@ncsu.edu
DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.8777-8790
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
mailto:lpal@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7055-1292
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9568-748X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9947-7313
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5236-9983
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8777
Techno-Economic Analysis of Lignin-Containing Micro-
and Nano-Fibrillated Cellulose for Lightweight
Linerboard Packaging
Heather Starkey ,a,b Maria Gonzalez ,a Hasan Jameel ,a and Lokendra Pal ,a,*
A key challenge for the paper industry in adopting nanocellulose materials
is finding the right balance between production costs and the performance
benefits for specific paper grades, given the industry’s variety of products
and processes. This study developed the first model to evaluate changes
in steam consumption and other process parameters on a paper machine
when incorporating lignin-containing micro- and nano-fibrillated cellulose
(LMNFC) as a dry-strength additive, as well as its economic implications.
Significant operational differences were observed in steam consumption,
dissolved solids in the sewer stream, and production rates when
implementing LMNFC in different scenarios. Using the assumption that
reductions in basis weight frees up enough drying capacity to offset the
additional drying requirements of LMNFC, this led to a 15% reduction in
manufacturing costs while maintaining paper strength. A capital payback
period of five years was estimated for LMNFC production, with a minimum
selling price of $243 per ton of linerboard. It is important to evaluate both
process dynamics and dual cost metrics (cost per ton and cost per area),
when analyzing the impact of LMNFC on paper and board production.
While LMNFC increases the cost per ton, the lower cost per square feet
underscores its material efficiency and economic benefits, particularly for
lightweight grades.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.8777-8790
Keywords: Techno-economics; Nanocellulose; Refining; Cationic starch; Drainage; Lightweight
packaging
Contact information: a: Department of Forest Biomaterials, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
27695-8005, USA; b: Primient, 2200 East Eldorado St, Decatur, IL 6252;
* Corresponding author: lpal@ncsu.edu
INTRODUCTION
Among the different emerging papermaking additives with better efficiency and
more sustainability, micro-/nano-fibrillated cellulose (MNFC) is highlighted as a novel,
effective dry-strength agent for various paper grades, particularly in linerboard packaging
paper (Bharimalla et al. 2017; Rice et al. 2018; Starkey et al. 2021; Taipale et al. 2010;
Zambrano et al. 2020; Arafat et al. 2025). The addition of lignin-containing micro-/nano-
fibrillated cellulose (LMNFC) can be a cost effective strategy to improve strength
properties or reduce the fiber consumption in paper applications (Starkey et al. 2021). The
strength gains achievable with either MNFC or LMNFC addition depends on its degree of
fibrillation, the amount added, and the level of refining on the base stock (Zambrano et al.
2020), but as fibrillation, addition rates, and refining increase, the draining ability of the
free-water decreases (Hubbe and Heitmann 2007; Starkey et al. 2021). Lower rates of
drainage negatively affect paper machine performance and operating efficiency by
reducing the solids content entering the press. Traditionally, paper machines are slowed
mailto:lpal@ncsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7055-1292
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9568-748X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9947-7313
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5236-9983
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8778
down to allow for more drainage on the forming wire and to keep a higher level of solids
entering the press and subsequently the dryer sections (McDonald and Kerekes 2017).
Since LMNFC has a higher water retention value than traditional papermaking
fibers, its effect on furnish dewatering is one of the main barriers to wide-scale industrial
adoption (Hubbe et al. 2017; Lindstrom 2019; Lindström et al. 2015). A study by Starkey
et al. (2021) shows that the negative effects on drainage can be minimized by reducing
basis weight or eliminating refining in the absence of any retention and drainage aids
without sacrificing burst and compression strength. It was found that forming a 150 gsm
handsheet with no LMNFC had a drainage time of 9.5 seconds. Reducing the basis weight
to 125 gsm and adding 2% LMNFC resulted in a drainage time of 10.4 seconds. Numerous
studies have discussed how wet-end chemistry programs can be adjusted to offset the
adverse effects of LMNFC on dewatering (Taipale et al. 2010). Between minimizing the
impact on drainage by lightweighting the sheet and then optimizing the wet end chemical
program, it is possible to offset the higher drainage times typically associated with
nanocellulose. Yet, the concerns about whether this is an economically practical solution
remain.
There have been several efforts to model the paper machine drying process using
MATLAB (Kong et al. 2016; Kong and Liu 2012; Zhang et al. 2018). Some of the key
findings were that the basis weight of the sheet has a more significant impact on how much
drying energy is required than the energy associated with increasing machine speed, e.g.,
the energy consumption of drives, auxiliary fans, and pumps (Kong and Liu 2012). Since
these models were static mass and energy balances of the process, they were unable to
account for the interdependence of the papermaking process. Paper mills are highly
interconnected; therefore, minor changes in one process stream can significantly affect the
rest of the process (Barrios et al. 2023; González et al. 2025). Thus, software that is
capable of processing dynamic information is required to build a model that is more
representative of a continuous process.
WinGEMS is a software developed specifically for the paper industry to overcome
the limitations of static process modeling (Valmet 2015). In addition to the capability to
model dynamic processes, it has built-in calculations specific to papermaking operations.
WinGEMS allows users to evaluate process changes and potential capital investments by
understanding how all parts of the process will respond. For example, the dryer section is
one of the key operation areas that influence the energy balance in the process. The dryer
consumes energy in the form of medium-to-low-pressure steam, e.g., 60 to 160 psi, to dry
paper from approximately 40 to 45% solids to at least 90% solids. This level of energy
consumption has a significant impact on a mill’s cost position (Bajpai 2018). Steam
pressure used in the dryer section is just one of hundreds of process variables that affect a
machine’s operating performance. Other variables include, but are not limited to, the type
of chemical additives and their addition rates, vacuum box pressure, machine speed, press
nip type and dwell time, solids content in the headbox, the degree of fiber fibrillation, and
first pass retention.
This study developed a WinGEMS model of a paper machine to evaluate the
incorporation of LMNFC to produce linerboard for packaging applications. The model was
built using lab-scale data reported by Starkey et al. (2021). Mass and energy balances were
calculated using the outputs of the WinGEMS model to determine the effects of LMNFC
addition on manufacturing costs, payback period, and the minimum selling price of
linerboard. This study elucidates the production impacts of integrating LMNFC into the
furnish, and the results support the economic viability of converting linerboard production
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8779
lines from producing heavyweight grades to prioritizing lightweight grades offering paper
mills a practical pathway to implement a sustainable cellulose-based papermaking additive.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Process Description
WinGEMS simulation software was used to develop a comprehensive mass and
energy balance of a paper production line, primarily consisting of the paper machine and
its associated operational units, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The model was based on an
integrated mill producing linerboard for packaging applications; however, the pulp mill
was outside the scope of this analysis and not included in the model. Key machine
parameters were determined from metrics reported in the FisherSolve™ database. Paper
Machine Performance Guidelines for linerboard paper grade and confirmed through
informal conversations with industry partners (TAPPI 2022; ResourceWise 2023).
The modeled paper machine consists of a singly-ply fourdrinier former with short
and long white water circulation systems (Smook 2016). It is assumed that the operation
of the machine is limited by steam availability in the dryer section, and the machine drives
have the capacity for increased production speeds. These constraints were incorporated to
represent a realistic operational scenario for evaluating the impact of LMNFC. If adapting
the model to a specific machine, these assumptions should be adjusted to reflect that
specific machine’s limitations. Additionally, to simplify the analysis, the only chemical
additive in the model was cationic starch, which functions as a retention aid for fibers and
LMNFC (Garland et al. 2022). Details of the parameters for each operational unit are listed
in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the papermaking process with the proposed addition of LMNFC
production. to keep the diagram simple, the full white water recirculation loop is not illustrated and
specified in Table 2.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8780
Table 1. Model Input and Process Parameters for Pulp Fiber and Starch
Pulp Fiber Stream Inputs
Parameter Description Value
Softwood flow 90.7 t/h
Consistency 12%
Suspended solids component 100% pulp
Temperature 100 °F
Solids Content of Fiber Streams
Process Stream Description Solids Content (%)
Machine chest feed (all fiber input streams) 3.50
Refiner feed 3.50
Secondary cleaner feed 0.33
Sheet after foils 3.00
Sheet after suction boxes 12.00
Sheet after couch roll 20.00
Sheet after first press 35.00
Sheet after second press 45.00
Sheet after dryers 94.00
Save all fiber mat 11.00
Starch Addition
Parameter Description
Addition Rate (%, relative to oven dried
pulp)
With no LMNFC 1.5
With LMNFC 0.8
Other Model Parameters
Parameter Description Value
Seal pit and silo temperature 122 °F
Refiner pulp loss to dissolved wood solids 0.20%
Pulp loss to dissolved wood solids during LMNFC
production
0.20%
Table 2. Process Water Flow Rates
Process Stream
Source
Process Stream Flow Rate (t/hr)
Cloudy white-water
chest
Refiner dilution 380
Silo white water to fan pump
(excess to save all)
11,700
Clear white-water
chest
Secondary cleaner dilution 1,300
Thick stock dilution
742
(dilution control to 3.5% solids)
Broke dilution
200
(dilution control to 3.5% solids)
Freshwater addition at
80 °F
Headbox showers 72
Breast roll shower 58
Wire showers 225
Trim showers 4.5
Total freshwater (excess to
Sewer)
700
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8781
Table 3. Operational Parameters of the Paper Machine Dryer Section
Parameter Description Values
Outlet Sheet Temperature 176 °F
Outlet Sheet Solids 99%
Heat Loss 5%
Pressure Drop 5 psia
Exhaust Air Temperature 190 °F
Blow Through Steam 5%
Steam Vent to Atmosphere 5%
Dryer Steam 60 psig, 307 °F
Air Ventilation Properties
flow rate: 50% of exhaust air
0 psig, 170 °F
1.0% mass water vapor
99.0% mass air
0.01 H2O/dry abs. humidity
Dew point temperature 76.9 °F
Wet bulb temperature 82.2 °F
Tramp Air Properties
flow rate: back calculated
0 psig, 90 °F
1.0% mass water vapor
99.0% mass air
0.01 H2O/dry abs. humidity
Dew point temperature 53.6 °F
Wet bulb temperature 67.2 °F
Model Parameters
Paper machine
The fiber input in the model is a high-lignin-content, virgin softwood kraft pulp. In
the U.S., 53 out of 87 linerboard machines used at least 65% virgin fiber in their product
(from ResourceWise as reported in Starkey 2022). To simplify the analysis and minimize
the assumptions, the model assumes 100% virgin softwood kraft pulp. The input stream is
the pulp coming out of the mill’s high-density chest at 12% solids. In the base case
(Scenario 0), all the fiber entering the process is used to produce linerboard minus the fiber
yield loss. In the alternate cases, a part of the incoming fiber stream is split off the incoming
feedstock and processed into LMNFC prior to mixing back into the furnish.
LMNFC production
The LMNFC production line is based on the “co-located on-demand” refiner
process reported by Abbati de Assis et al. (2018). The mechanical energy required to
produce LMNFC is based on the values reported by Starkey et al. (2021), who achieved
low levels of fibrillation using 3,000 KWh/t. While Starkey et al. (2021) used a Masuko
grinder for lab-scale LMNFC production, Valmet has developed an industrial-scale process
based using a traditional pulp refiner equipped with specialized refiner plates to promote
fibrillation (Cowles et al. 2023). It is assumed that the two processes have comparable net
energy requirements for LMNFC production.
The capacity of the co-located LMNFC production process is 50 t/day, providing
an excess of LMNFC beyond the needs of a single paper machine. This excess capacity
can supply LMNFC to additional production lines within the mill. Figure 2 depicts the
WinGEMS model of the LMNFC production. A control function, used in conjunction with
a SPLIT block (see Block 22 in Fig. 2), calculates the amount of pulp required to produce
LMNFC at a 2% addition rate. The control function also accounts for fiber losses during
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8782
the fibrillation process as dissolved wood solids. LMNFC production exceeding the
demand for the paper machine was not included in the simulation.
Cloudy white water was diverted from the refiner dilution block and used to dilute
the thick stock from 12% to 1.5% solids prior to LMNFC production. Mechanical
fibrillation of the softwood fibers into LMNFC was simulated using the REACTION block.
WinGEMS does not provide information about the degree of fibrillation of fiber refining.
To track the LMNFC as a separate component from the fiber through the rest of the process,
the REACTION block was set up to move the incoming pulp stream component into a
LMNFC stream component. The use of a separate component stream for LMNFC followed
the same convention of using dedicated component streams for other process additives such
as calcium carbonate, starch, wet-strength additives, and retention aids. The reaction block
was set up to move 99.8% of the incoming pulp component in stream 61 to the LMNFC
stream component (in stream 91), and the remaining 0.2% of the incoming pulp was moved
to the dissolved organics stream component (in stream 91). The amount of energy used per
ton of fiber for fibrillation is manually entered into the REACTION block, and the total
energy used for fibrillation is calculated and reported in the model output.
Fig. 2. WinGEMS model of LMNFC production. LMNFC is produced via mechanical fibrillation
and is modeled like a refiner
Techno-Economic Analysis
Scenarios descriptions
In addition to the base case (Scenario 0), the developed model was used to
investigate three alternative cases (Scenarios 1 to 3). The differences between each scenario
are reported in Table 4. In Scenario 0, a 150 GSM linerboard product is simulated with
1.5% cationic starch addition and no LMNFC addition.
Numerous studies have discussed how wet-end chemistry programs can be adjusted
to offset the negative effects of LMNFC on dewatering (Taipale et al. 2010). Additionally,
a study by Starkey et al. (2021) shows the negative effects on drainage can be offset
through the reduction of basis weight or refining without reductions in burst strength and
short span compression. This study was conducted without the use of retention or drainage
aids, and it is assumed that addition would further minimize the effects LMNFC has on
drainage. So the scenarios evaluate the effects of eliminating refining (Scenario 1) and the
combination of offsetting a lower basis weight and starch addition with the use of LMNFC
(Scenario 3). Scenario 2 uses a lower basis weight than Scenario 0 to establish a benchmark
for the lower basis weight used for Scenario 3.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8783
The techno-economic model applied here relies on several conservative
assumptions to translate laboratory-scale findings to scaled process conditions. Retention
assumptions are derived from experimental data, early-stage pilot trials, and existing
literature. Specifically, the model assumes that LMNFC retention resembles pulp fiber
retention during stock preparation and starch retention on the paper machine, consistent
with the combined LMNFC–starch retention effects reported by Hubbe (2019). Table 5
outlines the retention rates for fiber, LMNFC, and starch.
The production rate remains constant across scenarios by leveraging lighter-weight
sheets achieved by adding LMNFC, which helps mitigate potential dewatering issues, as
lower grammages generally improve dewatering (Hubbe and Heitmann 2007; Hubbe et al.
2020; Paulapuro 2001; Rantanen and Maloney 2013; Barrios et al. 2023). The basis weight
reduction is supported by findings from Starkey et al. (2021) and other literature that report
strength enhancements from MNFC additions in virgin fibers (Bharimalla et al. 2017;
Ghasemian et al. 2012; Rice et al. 2018). Reducing basis weight in linerboard products is
feasible if fiber bonding properties are enhanced. Starch-derived products, in addition to
MNFC, are known to improve bonding properties (Hubbe 2014, 2019). Additionally,
studies have shown improved performance of MNFC addition to starch, suggesting that
even lower amounts of starch can increase or maintain strength properties (Ghasemian et
al. 2012; Rice et al. 2018), supporting the assumptions in the model.
Table 4. Process Scenarios Simulated in WinGEMS to Evaluate the Impact of
LMNFC on Linerboard Production for Packaging Applications
Variable Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Basis weight (GSM) 150 150 125 125
LMNFC Addition (wt. %) 0 2 0 2
Refining Energy (hp-day) 5 0 5 5
LMNFC Fibrillation Energy
(MWh/t)
-- 3.2 -- 3.2
Starch Addition (%) 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8
Starch Addition (lb/t) 30 16 30 16
Table 5. Mass Split Inputs and Retention Rates for Pulp, LMNFC, and Starch in
the Papermaking Process for Scenarios 0 to 3 in Linerboard Production
Process Location Pulp (%) LMNFC (%) Starch (%)
Primary cleaner accepts 90 90 90
Secondary cleaner accepts 99 99 99
Screen rejects 0.14 0.42 0.42
Trim at couch roll 5 5 5
Wet end broke after couch roll 5 5 5
Dry end broke and winder losses
after dryers
5 5 5
Foils 74 50 50
Suction Boxes 97 80 80
Couch Roll 99.5 94 94
First Press 100 99 99
Second Press 100 99 99
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8784
Sensitivity analysis – Impact of drainage
For scenario 3, a sensitivity analysis on manufacturing cost was carried out by
varying the solids content entering the dryer section by ± 2%. The solids content was
adjusted in the WinGEMS model, and the results of the converged model were exported to
Excel for analysis. The detailed parameters for the sensitivity analysis are listed in Table
6. The goal of this analysis was to account for uncertainties on how LMNFC impacts
dewatering. While the lab results presented in Starkey et al. (2021) show that the decrease
in basis weight offsets the increase in drainage time from LMNFC addition, it should be
noted when scaling to larger scale production, that the general trends seen in the lab work
will still apply, but the magnitude of change will differ. In the absence of corresponding
pilot scale data on drainage, the sensitivity analysis is used to determine significance of the
impact.
Table 6. Progression of Water Removal on the Paper Machine for Conducting
Sensitivity Analysis to Evaluate the Effect of Solids Entering the Dryer in
Scenario 3
Inputs
Low Water
Removal
Scenario 3
High Water
Removal
Headbox solids content, % 0.5 0.5 0.5
Table solids content, % 12 12 12
Couch solids content, % 18 19 22
Solids after 1st press, % 33 35 37
Solids after 2nd press, % 43 45 47
Solids after dryers, % 99 99 99
Financial Assumptions for Estimating the Minimum Selling Price (MSP)
The capital investment for installing LMNFC production line to a pre-existing
linerboard machine was determined in a techno-economic analysis framework published
by Abbati de Assis et al. (2018). Using this framework as a starting point, Starkey et al.
(2021) calculated the manufacturing cost of LMNFC with a relatively low fibrillation level
to be $752/t, excluding post-manufacturing treatment and processing. Taking into account
the capital expenses, the minimum selling price of the LMNFC is $916/t to overcome a
16% hurdle rate (Starkey et al. 2021). This minimum selling price is based on a production
facility selling the LMNFC rather than using it as a process additive. Other raw materials
and utility costs for the economic analysis are listed in Table 7.
Incremental costs in energy, freshwater, starch, pulp, and LMNFC to produce the
linerboard in each scenario were determined. The square footage production rates were
also calculated using the equations provided by Starkey et al. (2021). Manufacturing costs
were assessed relative to Scenario 0, and the cost comparison was simplified by only
incorporating the changing material and utility flows.
The model results from Scenario 3 were used to update the original techno-
economic analysis completed by Abbati de Assis et al. (2018). A revised payback period
for the LMNFC production line was calculated based on a 16% internal rate of return to
determine the minimum product selling price for the lightweighted linerboard.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8785
Table 7. Raw Materials and Utility Costs for Estimating the Minimum Selling
Price of Linerboard Paper Grade with LMNFC as a Dry-End Additive
Item Unit Value References
Pulp USD/t 199 (ResourceWise 2023)
LMNFC USD/t 752 (Starkey et al. 2021)
Starch USD/t 134 (Abbati de Assis et al. 2018)
Energy USD/MWh 72 (Abbati de Assis et al. 2018)
Steam USD/t 10 (Abbati de Assis et al. 2018)
Paper Product USD/MSF 150 (Fastmarkets 2024)
Fresh Water USD/t 0.66 (Abbati de Assis et al. 2018)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 8 presents the model results for the significant process streams. All values
were reported with either 2 or 3 significant figures. Steam consumption varied slightly
between scenarios, staying within 5% of the base case (Scenario 0), and was considered an
insignificant difference. In Scenario 1 there was a significant decrease in the dissolved
wood solids found in the wastewater stream going to the sewer. This reduction comes from
eliminating refining of the main paper furnish with the addition of LMNFC. Reduced
dissolved wood solids going to the sewer reduces the amount of downstream processing
required in the wastewater treatment plant before discharging it into a river. As
environmental regulations become stricter on emission targets, mills could leverage the use
of LMNFC to maintain compliance. Despite Scenario 1 increasing production costs per
MSF by ~3%, further studies can be done to determine the optimal amount of refining and
LMNFC addition, i.e., the furnish could be partially refined with less LMNFC addition to
minimize dissolved wood generation without increasing costs.
Another significant difference is that even though all scenarios produce the same
tonnage of paper, the lighter grade (125 GSM) generates 78 MSF/ton compared to 65
MSF/ton for the heavier grade (150 GSM). The variation of metric square footage becomes
important since market dynamics significantly influence cost variations, as some paper
grades are priced more competitively per ton, and others align better with a per-area metric
(Fastmarkets 2024). Linerboard, for example, can be priced and sold by the thousand
square feet (MSF) rather than by weight (Fox et al. 2023). In this sense, using LMNFC to
lightweight the sheet allows for significantly more square footage per ton of material,
leading to a lower cost per MSF and a ~15% reduction of manufacturing costs compared
to the base case.
In contrast, manufacturing cost on a tonnage basis increases from 218 to 229 USD/t
(Table 9). Customer preferences and industry standards for specific grades often favor one
pricing method, which can vary based on the manufacturing facility and the cost position
they prioritize. Therefore, presenting both cost per ton and cost per MSF provides a holistic
view of the operational and economic impacts of LMNFC addition.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8786
Table 8. Key Output Parameters from the Mass and Energy Balance of the
Papermaking Process for Baseline (Scenario 0) and Alternative Scenarios (1 to
3) in Linerboard Production for Packaging Applications
Output Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Paper Production (O.D. t/hr) 84.8 84.4 84.8 84.2
Pulp Yield (%) 99.6 98.8 98.8 98.8
LMNFC Yield (%) -- 96.0 -- 96.0
Paper Composition
(Fiber/LMNFC/Starch %)
97.6/--/1.4 96.4/1.9/0.7 97.6/--/1.4 96.4/1.9/0.7
Steam Use, Dryers (lb/hr) 299,710 298,3001 299,7101 297,5401
Steam Use, Silos (lb/hr) 75,381 75,3681 75,3811 75,3601
Sewer Flow (t/hr) 1,393 1,4111 1,3931 1,310
Dissolved Solids, Sewer Flow
(t/hr)
22.3 0.3 -- 22.61
1less than 0.5% difference so it was not a significant change
Table 9. Calculated Manufacturing Costs (USD) for Each Scenario Assuming a
Basis of 1 hour, and the Change in Total Cost / MSF Compared to the Base
Case (Scenario 0).
Output Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Paper Production (MSF) 5,512 5,486 6,614 6,568
Fiber Cost 16,476 16,197 16,476 16,156
LMNFC Cost (includes the
energy to produce)
- 1,206 - 1,203
Steam Cost, Dryers 1,499 1,492 1,499 1,488
Steam Cost, Silos 377 377 377 377
Starch 159 79 159 79
Total cost/hr 18,511 19,351 18,511 19,303
Total cost / t 218 229 218 229
Total cost / MSF 3.4 3.5 2.8 2.9
Change in Total cost/ MSF
(compared to Scenario 0)
-- 2.9% -17.6% -14.7%
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis for Scenario 3 with varied basis weights to show how the obtained
basis weight reduction changes the total production cost/msf for Scenario 0.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8787
The payback period for Scenario 3 was calculated by inputting the cost data into
the TEA/capital investment model with a 16% hurdle rate. The analysis estimated a 5-year
payback period for the LMNFC production line, which is often considered a desirable
timeframe for most investments (Kagan et al. 2024). Moreover, the minimum selling price
required for the lightweight sheet, which maintains the same strength properties as the
heavier sheet, was determined to be $243/ton linerboard. This selling price reflects the
balance between material savings achieved through basis weight reduction, the additional
costs associated with LMNFC production, and incorporation of LMNFC into the
linerboard.
The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 3 shows that changes in basis weight impact the total
cost per MSF. For example, a moderate reduction in basis weight from 150 gsm to 135 gsm
results in a 6% decrease in production costs per MSF (approximately $3.2/MSF), which
corresponds to a $230 per ton and a slightly increased MSP of $244/ton. Therefore, the
implementation of LMNFC in linerboard production can be economically attractive, even
with a 10% reduction in basis weight.
In summary, adding 2% LMNFC to the fiber furnish reduces the total amount of
fiber per square unit area while maintaining strength properties, leading to a manufacturing
cost reduction of ~15%. This demonstrates the economic advantage of incorporating
LMNFC into linerboard to produce lightweight grades. This approach lowers fiber costs,
increases production efficiency, and potentially generates revenue by delivering more
square footage per ton of raw materials. In future work, a more detailed analysis should
include operational and financial risk analysis, such as the sensitivity to major assumptions,
currency fluctuations, or changes in interest rates.
CONCLUSIONS
This study elucidated the production impacts of integrating lignin-containing
LMNFC into the papermaking furnish. The results support the economic viability of
converting linerboard production lines from heavyweight to lightweight grades, offering
paper mills a practical pathway to implement a sustainable, cellulose-based papermaking
additive. A WinGEMS process model was developed to evaluate changes in paper machine
economics when LMNFC was utilized as a dry-strength additive. The model is based on a
state-of-the-art linerboard papermaking process capable of producing 85 oven-dry tons per
hour. In the base case, a 150 grams per square meter (GSM) linerboard is produced using
1.5% cationic starch as a retention aid without LMNFC. In the alternative case, 2%
LMNFC is added, and the cationic starch addition is reduced to 0.8%, resulting in the
production of a 125 GSM linerboard with the same strength profile as the 150 GSM
linerboard. The 17% reduction in basis weight corresponds to a 15% cost reduction when
accounting for incremental fiber and manufacturing costs per MSF. In another scenario,
LMNFC is used to eliminate refining instead of reducing the basis weight. While
eliminating refining increases manufacturing costs by 3%, it significantly reduces the
amount of dissolved wood solids discharged to the sewer from 22 to 0.3 tons per hour. This
reduction in dissolved wood solids could have a positive impact on the mill’s
environmental footprint while also lowering water treatment processing requirements. The
payback analysis reinforces the scalability of LMNFC adoption and helps manufacturers
to justify capital investment by improving production efficiency, reducing fiber usage, and
the potential revenue gains from a higher square footage output.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8788
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content
of this article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Valmet for providing access to the WinGEMS software.
Funding
This research received no funding. The contributions of Prof. Lokendra Pal are in
part supported by the E. J. “Woody” Rice Professorship Endowment.
REFERENCES CITED
Abbati de Assis, C., Iglesias, M. C., Bilodeau, M., Johnson, D., Phillips, R., Peresin, M.
S., Bilek, E. M. (Ted), Rojas, O. J., Venditti, R., and Gonzalez, R. (2018). “Cellulose
micro‐ and nanofibrils (CMNF) manufacturing ‐ financial and risk assessment,”
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 12(2), 251-264. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1835
Arafat, K. M. Y., Salem, K. S., Bera, S., Jameel, H., Lucia, L., and Pal, L. (2025).
“Surfactant-modified microfibrillated cellulose reinforcement of high-barrier
sustainable packaging films,” Carbohydrate Polymers 357, article 123471. DOI:
10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2025.123471
Bajpai, P. (2018). Handbook of Pulp and Paper, Elsevier.
Barrios, N., Marquez, R., McDonald, J.D., Hubbe, M.A., Venditti, R.A., and Pal, L.
(2023). “Innovation in lignocellulosics dewatering and drying for energy
sustainability and enhanced utilization of forestry, agriculture, and marine resources -
A review,” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 102936. DOI:
10.1016/j.cis.2023.102936
Bharimalla, A. K., Deshmukh, S. P., Patil, P. G., and Vigneshwaran, N. (2017).
“Micro/nano-fibrillated cellulose from cotton linters as strength additive in
unbleached kraft paper: experimental, semi-empirical, and mechanistic studies,”
BioResources 12(3), 5682-5696.
Cowles, D., Priya Malladi, R., and Aho, T. (2023). “Path forward-MFC technology
development at Valmet, Heli Kangas.
Fastmarkets. (2024). “RISI Mill asset database,” (Dec. 27, 2024).
Fox, R., Houder, D., and Robel, L. (2023). Special Report: Corrugated Buyer 2023
Strategies The Pretext: Recent Corrugated Price Increases.
Garland, L. J., Leib, B. D., Barrios, N. A., and Hubbe, M. A. (2022). “Nanocellulose–
cationic starch– colloidal silica systems for papermaking: Effects on process and
paper properties,” TAPPI Journal 21, 563-570.
Ghasemian, A., Ghaffari, M., and Ashori, A. (2012). “Strength-enhancing effect of
cationic starch on mixed recycled and virgin pulps,” Carbohydrate Polymers 87(2),
1269-1274. DOI: 10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2011.09.010
González, M.E., Barrios, N., Venditti, R.A., and Pal, L. (2025). “Advancing
sustainability in the U.S. pulp and paper industry: Decarbonization through energy
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2023.102936
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2023.102936
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8789
efficiency, electrification, low-carbon fuels, and the social cost of emissions,” Journal
of Cleaner Production 522, 146196. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146196
Hubbe, M. A. (2014). “Prospects for maintaining strength of paper and paperboard
products while using less forest resources: A Review,” BioResources 9(1), 1634-
1763. DOI: 10.15376/biores.9.1.1634-1763
Hubbe, M. A. (2019). “Nanocellulose, cationic starch and paper strength,” Appita J.
72(2), 80-90. DOI: 10.3316/informit.591826137919535
Hubbe, M. A., Ferrer, A., Tyagi, P., Yin, Y., Salas, C., Pal, L., and Rojas, O. J. (2017).
“Nanocellulose in thin films, coatings, and plies for packaging applications: A
review,” BioResources 12(1), 2143-2233. DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.1.2143-2233
Hubbe, M. A. , and Heitmann, J. A. (2007). “Review of factors affecting the release of
water from cellulosic fibers during paper manufacture,” BioResources 2(3), 500–533.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.2.3.500-533
Hubbe, M. A., Sjöstrand, B., Nilsson, L., Koponen, A., and McDonald, J. D. (2020).
“Rate limiting mechanisms water removal paper webs,” BioResources 15(4), 9672-
9755.
Kagan, J., Kindness, D., and Perez, Y. (2024). “Payback period: Definition, formula, and
calculation,” (Jan. 5,
2025).
Kong, L., and Liu, H. (2012). “A static energy model of conventional paper drying for
multicylinder paper machines,” Drying Technology 30(3), 276-296. DOI:
10.1080/07373937.2011.635253
Kong, L., Tao, Z., Liu, H., and Zhang, D. (2016). “Effect of operating parameters on the
drying performance of multicylinder paper machine dryer section,” Drying
Technology, 34(13), 1641–1650. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2016.1139588
Lindstrom, T. (2019). “Research needs for nanocellulose commercialization and
applications,” TAPPI Journal, 18(5), 308-311. DOI: 10.32964/TJ18.5.308
Lindström, T., Naderi, A., and Wiberg, A. (2015). “Large scale applications of
nanocellulosic materials: A comprehensive review,” Journal of Korea Technical
Association of The Pulp and Paper Industry, 47(6), 5–21. DOI:
10.7584/ktappi.2015.47.6.005
McDonald, J. D., and Kerekes, R. J. (2017). “Estimating limits of wet pressing on paper
machines,” TAPPI J. 16(2), 81-87.
Paulapuro, H. (2001). “Wet Pressing – Present Understanding and Future Challenges,”
in: Trans. of the XIIth Fund. Res. Symp. Oxford, 2001, C. F. Baker, ed., Fundamental
Research Committee (FRC), Manchester, 639–678. DOI: 10.15376/frc.2001.1.639
Rantanen, J., and Maloney, T. C. (2013). “Press dewatering and nip rewetting of paper
containing nano- and microfibril cellulose,” Nordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal,
28(4), 582–587. DOI: 10.3183/npprj-2013-28-04-p582-587
ResourceWise. (2023). “FisherSolve Database,”
(Jan. 18, 2024).
Rice, M. C., Pal, L., Gonzalez, R., and Hubbe, M. A. (2018). “Wet-end addition of
nanofibrillated cellulose pretreated with cationic starch to achieve paper strength with
less refining and higher bulk,” TAPPI Journal 17(07), 395-403. DOI:
10.32964/TJ17.07.395
Smook, G. A. (2016). Handbook for Pulp & Paper Technologists , Technical Association
of the Pulp & Paper Industry (TAPPI).
Starkey, H., Chenoweth, A., Johnson, C., Salem, K. S., Jameel, H., and Pal, L. (2021).
“Lignin-containing micro/nanofibrillated cellulose to strengthen recycled fibers for
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu
Starkey et al. (2025). “Nanocellulose in linerboard,” BioResources 20(4), 8777-8790. 8790
lightweight sustainable packaging solutions,” Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies
and Applications, 2, 100135. DOI: 10.1016/j.carpta.2021.100135
Starkey, H. R. (2022). Development and Application of Lignin Containing Micro- and
Nano-Fibrillated Cellulose for Sustainable Packaging Solutions, Ph.D. Dissertation,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Taipale, T., Nykänen, A., Ruokolainen, J., and Laine, J. (2010). “Effect of
microfibrillated cellulose and fines on the drainage of kraft pulp suspension and paper
strength,” Cellulose, 17, 1005–1020. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-010-9431-9
TAPPI. (2022). TIP 0404-47 Paper Machine Performance Guidelines.
Valmet. (2015). “WinGEMS®-General energy and material balance system for
Windows, Version 5.4,” https://www.valmet.com/automation/applications/process-
optimization/pulp/wingems/.
Zambrano, F., Starkey, H., Wang, Y., Abbati de Assis, C., Venditti, R., Pal, L., Jameel,
H., Hubbe, M. A., Rojas, O. J., Gonzalez, R., (2020). “Using micro- and
nanofibrillated cellulose (MNFC) as a means to reduce product weight: a review,”
Bioresources 15(2), 4553-4590. DOI: 10.15376/biores.15.2.Zambrano
Zhang, Y., Hong, M., Li, J., and Liu, H. (2018). “Data-based analysis of energy system in
papermaking process,” Drying Technology, 36(7), 879–890. DOI:
10.1080/07373937.2017.1365081
Article submitted: January 19, 2025; Peer review completed: March 22, 2025; Revised
article received: June 22, 2025; Accepted: August 9, 2025; Published: August 15, 2025.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.8777-8790