Is all MFC the Same?

Why Specification and Production Route Matter More Than the Name.

Microfibrillated cellulose has a branding problem. The term ‘MFC’ is used as if it describes a single, uniform material – but it doesn’t. The word covers a spectrum of materials with meaningfully different physical properties, production economics, and performance characteristics. The differences begin with how MFC is produced.

How can MFC be produced?

There are broadly two main production routes in commercial use: grinding-based methods, using vertical wet stirred media mills; and alternative mechanical or enzymatic approaches. These routes produce materials with different fiber morphologies. 

Grinder-produced MFC – the type that FiberLean technology creates – can maintain a coarser macrostructure that retains significant fiber length, while also generating high levels of surface micro and nano fibrillation. This structure gives it specific and valuable properties in paper and board applications: strong bonding capability, good retention in wet-end processes, and consistent performance across different mill environments. 

MFC produced by alternative methods tends to lead to more fiber breakage and size reduction, resulting in finer particle size distributions. That can be advantageous in certain applications, but represents a different material with different behaviour – not a better or worse version of the same thing. 

Does the MFC production route matter?

The implications for mills are significant. A trial that underperforms may not be evidence that MFC doesn’t work – it may be evidence that the wrong type of MFC was used for that application. Performance data from one installation cannot be assumed to transfer to another if the MFC specifications differ. 

Regulatory considerations add another dimension. Grinder-produced MFC has broad food-contact clearance, is not classified as a nano-material under US EPA or EU definitions, and has no observed negative health effects. These clearances are specific to the production method and particle characteristics – they do not apply uniformly to all MFC. 

There are also energy implications. The production route that creates the right fiber morphology for an application should also be evaluated on its energy efficiency at scale. Grinder-based production is designed for high throughput and process stability – characteristics that matter for commercial-scale operations. 

When evaluating MFC for any application, the conversation should start with specification, not just the three-letter acronym. What desired outcome? What fiber length? What degree of fibrillation? What regulatory status? What production route? These questions determine whether the material will perform as expected. 

MFC is not a commodity. Treating it as one is a shortcut that tends to produce disappointing results. 

To find out the right approach to MFC for your mill, or get in touch with us today to discuss your project.