Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42717230›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

The effect of different liquids on paper strength demonstrates the central role of hydrogen bonding.

Niklas Kvarnlöf, Gunnar Henriksson, Björn Sjöstrand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Niklas KvarnlöfDepartment of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.
Gunnar HenrikssonDepartment of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden. ghenrik@kth.se.
Björn SjöstrandDepartment of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paper derives its mechanical integrity from a complex network of interactions between cellulose fibres, yet the relative importance of hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions and electrostatic forces remains debated. Here, the wet tensile strength of paper sheets are investigated when exposed to water, a series of organic solvents with differing hydrogen-bonding characteristics, and aqueous salt and urea solutions designed to modify electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions. By systematically varying the liquid environment surrounding the fibre network, we directly probe the mechanisms governing inter-fibre adhesion. The results show that solvents capable of disrupting hydrogen bonding produce a pronounced loss of strength, whereas changes in ionic strength and electrostatic screening have only minor effects. These findings provide strong experimental evidence that hydrogen bonds constitute the dominant contribution to paper strength, in agreement with the classical model proposed by Campbell in 1933, but in contrast to more recent interpretations that downplay their significance. Hydrophobic interactions and van der Waals interactions appear to contribute secondarily to fibre bonding, although to a smaller extent than hydrogen bonding. The observed trends further reveal striking parallels between the loss of strength in different liquid environments and the hornification phenomenon occurring during drying of wet pulp fibres. Together, the results establish hydrogen bonding as the central mechanism underlying paper strength and suggest a broader conceptual link between fibre bonding and irreversible structural changes in cellulose networks.

Indexed as

Hofmeister seriesHornificationHydrogen bondingHydrophobic interactionPaper strengthWet strength

Identifiers

PMID42717230
PMCPMC13558700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.