Effects of Paper Properties On Xerographic Print Quality

EFFECTS OF PAPER PROPERTIES ON
XEROGRAPHIC PRINT QUALITY
by
Siying (Sherlyn) Chen
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry

University of Toronto
Copyright by Siying (Sherlyn) Chen (2009)
EFFECTS OF PAPER PROPERTIES ON XEROGRAPHIC

PRINT QUALITY
Siying (Sherlyn) Chen
Degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto (2009)
ABSTRACT
The objective of this thesis is to better understand the impact of paper and printer types
on xerographic print quality. To achieve this objective, commercially printed samples
comprising of ten different paper substrates printed using three different xerographic
printers were examined. The print quality of these samples was assessed in terms of
print microgloss and its nonuniformity, print density, print and gloss mottle, print
roughness, and visual ranking. This study showed that print mottle conducted by Fast
Fourier Transform produced the best correlation with visual ranking at the size range of
0.1 - 1mm, while print gloss mottle was found to affect print quality regardless of the
mottle size. Brightness, opacity, basis weight, gloss 75o, and roughness of these paper
substrates were found to have the most significant effect on print quality. All of the
optical properties of paper included in this analysis showed a strong correlation to print
quality.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my co-supervisors, Professor Ramin Farnood
and Professor Ning Yan, for their continuous support, valuable advices and excellent
guidance. I would like to acknowledge members of the Surface Science III Consortium
and U of T pulp and paper center and forestry group for their funding and contributions
to the visual ranking analysis respectively.
Thanks to Carlos Quijano for his excellent and selfless guidance in PLS analysis, Neetu
Chhabra for writing the print mottle MATLABTM algorithm, and Sabina Di Risio for her
help with the X-rite densinometer and countless advice in the writing and presentation of
this thesis. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends from the Pulp and Paper
Centre: Stacy, Yaldah, Kieron, Pooya, Chong, Turn, Peter, and Pawel for making my 2year program an enjoyable experience.
Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family back in
Singapore for their emotional and financial support. I would also like to thank myself for
not giving up when I am faced with a harsh situation and motivating myself to continue
with this project. Finally, special thanks to my good friends: Stacy, Song, Emily, Ken, and
Jennifer for their continuous support and words of encouragements throughout these
years and for bringing me food during the busiest period of this study (i.e. writing of this
thesis).
THANK YOU ALL!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1
Research Approach and Structure of the Thesis...............................................2
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND ..............................................................................4
2.1
Introduction..........................................................................................................4
2.2
Paper.....................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Composition, Formation, Coating, & Finishing.......................................4
2.2.2 Paper Parameters......................................................................................6
2.2.2.1 Structure & Composition .....................................................................6
2.2.2.2 Optical & Appearance of Paper...........................................................8
2.2.2.3 Electrical & Thermal Properties of Paper...........................................11
2.2.3 Impact of Paper Property on Print Quality ............................................13
2.3
Xerographic Printing..........................................................................................15
2.3.1 A Brief Overview .....................................................................................16
2.3.2 Impact of Xerographic Print Parameters on Print Quality....................19
2.4
Print Quality .......................................................................................................19

2.4.1 Objective Computation ...........................................................................20
2.4.1.1 Print Gloss, Print Microgloss & its Nonuniformity...............................20
2.4.1.2 Print Density, Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle..........................................22
2.4.1.3 Surface Topography & Roughness ...................................................23
2.4.2 Subjective Quantification .......................................................................26
2.4.2.1 Visual Ranking ..................................................................................26
iv
2.4.2.2
2.5
Other Attributes.................................................................................27
Conclusions and Problem Statement ...............................................................29
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ................................................31
3.1
Overview.............................................................................................................31
3.2
Paper Samples ...................................................................................................31
3.3
Xerographic Printing..........................................................................................32
3.3.1 Printers & Printing Conditions ...............................................................32
3.3.2 Sample Preparation ................................................................................33
3.4
Print Quality .......................................................................................................33

3.4.1 Objective Measurements ........................................................................34
3.4.1.1 Print Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity Evaluation .........................34
3.4.1.2 Print Density Measurements .............................................................37
3.4.1.3 Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle Evaluation ..............................................38
3.3.1.4 Surface Topography & Roughness Assessment ...............................40
3.3.1.5 Surface Characterization: Optical Microscopy...................................46
3.4.2 Subjective Measurements: Visual Ranking Analysis ...........................48
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................50
4.1
Introduction........................................................................................................50
4.2
Paper and Print Quality Review ........................................................................50
4.3
Correlation between Objective & Subjective Print Quality..............................54

4.3.1 Print Microgloss & Microgloss Nonuniformity Assessment ................54
4.3.2 Print Density Determination ...................................................................56
4.3.3 Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle Evaluation..................................................56
4.3.4 Effects of Roughness .............................................................................62
4.3.4.1 Print Roughness Parameters: RMS, Skewness, & Kurtosis ..............62
4.3.4.1 Print Mottle and Microgloss Nonuniformity Comparison ....................63
4.3.4.2 Visual Ranking Evaluation ................................................................67
4.3.5 Independence of Print Quality Measurements......................................70
4.4
Impact of Paper Properties on Print Quality ....................................................70
4.4.1 PLS Analysis on Visual Ranking............................................................71

4.4.2 PLS Analysis on Print Mottle..................................................................76
4.5
Printers and their Print Effects .........................................................................79

4.5.1 Comparison of Optical Images...............................................................80
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUDING REMARKS ...........................................................85
5.1
Conclusions .......................................................................................................85
5.2
Recommendations for Future Work .................................................................86
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................87
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................93
Appendix A Microgloss OPTIMASTM 6.0 Program ..................................................93
Appendix B Print Mottle and Gloss Mottle MATLABTM Program...........................94
Appendix C SEM Detailed Procedure ...................................................................100
Appendix D Raw Data ............................................................................................102
Appendix E Additional Plots..................................................................................108
Appendix F 3D Topographic Maps........................................................................112
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. List of Paper Property & their Impact............................................................14
Table 2-2. List of Print Parameters and their Impact .....................................................19
Table 2-3. List of Paper Parameters to be Correlated ...................................................30
Table 3-1. Paper Sample Description............................................................................31
Table 3-2. Print Parameters ..........................................................................................32
Table 3-3. Resolution and Scanning Area of WYKOTM NT-2000 [22] ............................43
Table 4-1. List of Paper Properties................................................................................51
Table 4-2. Print Quality of 100% Black Print Samples...................................................52
Table 4-3. Print Roughness Data: RMS, Skewness, & Kurtosis ....................................63
Table 4-4. Correlation as Measured by R2 between Print Mottle and Paper Roughness
Measured using Different Methods on Samples Printed with Different Laser Printers
...............................................................................................................................64
Table 4-5. PLS Raw Data for Paper versus Print Quality ..............................................71
Table D-1. Paper Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity for Different Paper Samples ....102
Table D-2. Print Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity for HP2600 Print Samples .........102
Table D-5. Paper & Print Roughness (Rq) for Different Paper & Print Samples ...........104
Table D-6. Print Density for Different Print Samples....................................................104
Table D-7. Power Spectrum for HP2600 Print Samples (Grayscale) ...........................105
Table D-10. Power Spectrum for HP2600 Gloss Samples (Grayscale) .......................106
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Summary of Thesis Approach ......................................................................1
Figure 2-1. Illustration of Different Levels of Surface Roughness Measurement .............7
Figure 2-2. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Specular and Diffuse Gloss .......................11
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Thermal Printing ........................................13
Figure 2-4: Cyclic Color Xerography.............................................................................16
Figure 2-5. Image Developer: Carrier Beads & Toner Particles ....................................17
Figure 2-6. Schematic Diagram of a Brush Cleaning Subsystem..................................18
Figure 2-7. Gloss Measurement Geometry...................................................................20
Figure 2-8. Visual Evaluation: (a) perpendicular and (b) hand-held ..............................27
Figure 2-9. Image Resolution: (a) desired line representing the devices native
resolution, (b) line rendering of each pixel on the line, and (c) line rendering with
some pixels rendered gray .....................................................................................28
Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of a Printed Paper Sample..........................................32
Figure 3-2. Sample Preparation....................................................................................33
Figure 3-3. (a) NOVO-GLOSSTM glossmeter and (b) calibration tile..............................34
Figure 3-4. Microgloss Setup [18, 29] ...........................................................................35
Figure 3-5. Schematic Diagram of a Microgloss Image Captured ................................35
Figure 3-6. Autocorrelation Plot of Grey Level ..............................................................37
Figure 3-7. X-Rite 500 Series Spectrodensitometer......................................................38
Figure 3-8. Print Mottle Analysis ...................................................................................39
Figure 3-9. WYKOTM NT-2000 Surface Scanner [22] ..................................................41
Figure 3-10. Interference Microscope (WYKOTM NT-2000) [22] ....................................42
Figure 3-11. KLA Tencor P-16+ Stylus Profiler..............................................................44
Figure 3-12. KLA Tencor P-16+ Stylus Tip ....................................................................45
Figure 3-13. SEM Image of Print Sample Showing White Spots ...................................46
Figure 3-14. EDX Plot Showing Elements Present in Print Image.................................47
Figure 3-15. General View of an Optical Microscope ....................................................47
Figure 3-16. Printed Sample Image at Different Focal Planes ......................................48
Figure 3-17. Pairwise Ranking Procedure ....................................................................49
Figure 4-1. Impact of Paper Microgloss on Print Microgloss .........................................54
viii
Figure 4-2. Impact of Paper Microgloss Nonuniformity on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity

...............................................................................................................................54
Figure 4-3. Impact of Print Microgloss on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity.....................55
Figure 4-4. Impact of Print Microgloss Nonuniformity on Print Density..........................56
Figure 4-5. Impact of Print Mottle on Visual Ranking for HP 2600 Print Samples .........57
Figure 4-8. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Visual Ranking for all 3 Printers ......58
Figure 4-9. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity........59
Figure 4-10. Impact of Gloss Mottle on Visual Ranking for HP 2600 Print Samples......60
Figure 4-13. 3D Topographic Map for a Sample Printed using HP 9500.......................62
Figure 4-14. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Paper Roughness (Stylus).............65
Figure 4-15. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Print Roughness (Stylus)...............65
Figure 4-16: (a) SEM Image of Paper Sample #9, (b) SEM Image of 100% Black
Coverage on Paper Sample #9 using HP 9500 Printer...........................................66
Figure 4-17. Impact of Print Roughness (Stylus) on Microgloss Nonuniformity .............66
Figure 4-18. Impact of Paper Roughness (Stylus) on Visual Ranking ...........................67
Figure 4-19. Uncoated Paper corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample and (b) Worse
Rated Sample in HP 9500 Series...........................................................................68
Figure 4-20. Impact of Print Roughness (Stylus) on Visual Ranking .............................68
Figure 4-21. 100% Black Coverage corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample at 100X
Magnification, (b) Best Rated Sample at 500X Magnification, (c) Worst Rated
Sample at 100X Magnification and (d) Worst Rated Sample at 500X Magnification in
HP 9500 Series......................................................................................................69
Figure 4-22. Principal Component Analysis for Paper versus Visual Ranking...............72
Figure 4-23. Score Scatter Plot for Paper versus Visual Ranking .................................73
Figure 4-24. Scatter Loading Plot for Paper versus Visual Ranking..............................73
Figure 4-25. Coefficient Plot of Y-Variable HP 2600 for Paper versus Visual Ranking..74
Figure 4-26. Variable Importance Plot of PC[1] for Paper versus Visual Ranking .........75
Figure 4-27. Variable Importance Plot of PC[2] for Paper versus Visual Ranking .........75
Figure 4-28. Principal Component Analysis for Paper versus Print Mottle ....................77
Figure 4-29. Scatter Loading Plot for Paper versus Print Mottle....................................77
ix
Figure 4-30. Variable Importance Plot of PC[1] for Paper versus Print Mottle ...............78
Figure 4-31. Impact of Different Paper Samples Printed using Three Different Printers
on Visual Ranking ..................................................................................................79
Figure 4-32. Plot of HP 4700 and HP 9500 Ranking vs. HP 2600 Ranking...................80
Figure 4-33. Optical Microscopic Images of the Worse Rated 100% Black Samples
Corresponding to (a) HP 2600, (b) HP 4700, and (c) HP 9500 series and the Best
Rated Samples for (d) HP2600, (e) HP 4700, and (f) HP 9500 at 10X Magnification
...............................................................................................................................81
...............................................................................................................................82
...............................................................................................................................82
Figure 4-36. Microgloss Images of Paper Corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample and
(b) Worst Rated Sample in HP 9500 series and 100% Black Coverage of (c) Best
Rated Sample and (d) Worst Rated Sample in HP 9500 series..............................83
Figure 4-37. EDX Analysis on White Spots Present in Print Sample.............................84
Figure 4-38. EDX Plot Showing Presence of Calcium in White Spot Tested .................84
Figure A-1. Microgloss Data Analysis ...........................................................................93
Figure A-2. Microgloss Histogram Saturated data that requires autocorrelation ........93
Figure B-1. Print Mottle Program: Power Spectrum Output ..........................................98
Figure C-1. Schematic Diagram of a Detailed SEM Scanning Process.......................100
Figure E-1. Coefficient Plot of PC[1] and Y-Variable HP 4700 and HP 9500...............108
Figure E-2. Coefficient Plot of PC[2] and Y-Variable HP 2600, 4700 and 9500...........109
Figure E-3. Print Mottle versus Paper Roughness (PPS)............................................110
Figure E-4. Print Mottle versus Paper Roughness (WYKO) ........................................110
Figure E-5. WYKO Images of Paper Corresponding to (a) Worst Rated Sample and (b)
Best Rated Sample in HP 9500 series and 100% Black Coverage of (c) Worst
Rated Sample and (d) Best Rated Sample in HP 9500 series..............................111
Figure F-1. 3D Topographic Maps Illustrating the Print Surface of the 10 Different Paper
Samples Printed Using 3 Different Printers ..........................................................113
x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFM
Atomic Force Microscopy
CD
Cross Direction
CLJ
Color LaserJet
dpi
Dot Per Inch
EDX
Energy-Dispersive X-ray
IP
International Paper
MD
Machine Direction
MLR
Multiple Linear Regression
ms
Milliseconds
PC
Principal Component
PCA
Principal Component Analysis
PLS
Partial Least Squares
PLSR
Partial Least Squares Regression
ppm
Pages Per Minute
PPS
Parker Print Surf
PSI
Phase Shifting Interferometry
RGB
Red Green Blue
SEM
Scanning Electron Microscopy
SS
Seam-side
VIP
Variable Importance Plot
VSI
Vertical Scanning Interferometry
Microns or Micrometer (10-6 m)
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, there has been an extensive transformation in the performance of
xerographic printers. Dramatic gains have been made in four key areas: cost,
throughput, reliability and most significantly, print quality [1]. As the printing industry
continues to reduce cost and improve the quality of xerographic printers, the effective
measurement of print quality becomes increasingly important [2]. However, it is difficult
to define print quality objectively because the concept of print quality is subjective and
depends highly on the perception of potential observers [1, 3].
Since the ultimate goal for any printed product is to satisfy the customers requirements,
print quality should be assessed and defined by paper end-users. Some common
attributes of print quality include edge sharpness, contrast in lightness and color,
roughness, background noise, resolution, gloss mottle, and optical density or
homogeneity [1, 4, 5]. Visual ranking analysis is one of the methods used to quantify
consumers perception. However, to help with producing higher print quality products at
minimum cost, visual rankings need to be correlated with other measurable objective
print qualities. In addition, factors that affect print quality have to be determined. These
factors can be grouped into either paper properties or printing parameters [6, 7].
Previous researches have shown that main paper factors affecting print quality included
paper surface and structural properties, such as surface roughness, electrical resistivity,
moisture content, thickness, thermal conductivity, and optical properties such as
brightness and opacity [8-10]. The web formation of paper, types of fibers used
(hardwood or softwood), coat weight and formulations, amount of fillers/additives, and
calendering conditions during papermaking are parameters that control paper properties.
These parameters alter the surface morphological properties such as roughness and
optical properties such as paper reflectance.
Printer parameters that may contribute to the difference in print qualities include toner
particle characteristics, such as toner size, toner adhesion, melting temperature, heat
capacity, and printer settings, such as fusing temperature fuser dwell time and fuser roll
speed [11-16]. In xerographic printing, fusing is the stage where the toner spreads,
1
sinters, and penetrates into paper [6]. Since it is the last stage in the xerographic
process, it dominates the final physical and optical print quality.
Many previous studies have focused on issues related to printing factors that can affect
print quality (mainly on print gloss or print respectively) and paper properties that affect
other print qualities such as runnability, adhesion, and fusing effect. Even though it is
well known that different papers and printers have a significant effect on print quality, the
relationship between paper properties and xerographic print quality is still not well
understood. In addition, past researches primarily studied the effects of paper on offset
and ink-jet print qualities rather than on xerographic print qualities. However, it is equally
important to look into paper properties that can affect xerographic print qualities such as
print gloss nonuniformity, print density, print mottle, and surface topography - roughness.
Due to the long list of paper properties that can affect the print quality, there is a need to
identify the critical paper properties of importance. Moreover, it is highly beneficial for
papermaker to understand how different paper grades contribute to both objective and
subjective print qualities under different printing conditions.
1.1
Research Approach and Structure of the Thesis
Figure 1-1 summarizes the general research approach untaken in this thesis. The
background and previous work related to paper properties and print quality evaluation
are covered in Chapter 2 while Chapter 3 provides detailed experimental and
instrumentation methods. In Chapter 4, the experimental results relating to key paper
properties and selected print qualities are analyzed and discussed. Significant findings of
this study are summarized and concluded in Chapter 5 together with recommendations
for future work.
Pilot Paper Samples
Printer Type
Paper Parameters
Structure &
Composition
HP 2600
Optical
Properties
HP 4700
HP 9500
Print
Quality
1. Basis Weight
1. Brightness
2. Bulk & Density
2. Fluorescence
3. Caliper
3. Gloss
4. Hardwood %
4. Microgloss
5. Sizing
5. Microgloss
Nonuniformity
6. Porosity
6. Opacity
7. Roughness
8. Youngs Modulus
Objective
Subjective
1. Microgloss &
Microgloss
Nonuniformity
Visual
Ranking
2. Print & Gloss

Mottle
3. Print Density
4. Surface Analysis
- Roughness
- Microscopic
Images
Relationship between
Paper Properties &
Print Quality
Figure 1-1. Summary of Thesis Approach
CHAPTER 2
2.1
BACKGROUND
Introduction
Most images printed using digital printing technologies are on paper [17]. Hence,
knowledge on paper substrates is needed to understand and improve the digital printing
performance. Section 2.2 examines the structure & composition, optical & appearance,
and electrical & thermal properties of paper that are relevant to digital printing. Section
2.3 briefly introduces the xerographic printing process and highlights key factors that can
affect print performance.
Section 2.4 defines print quality in subjective and objective terms. Previous literature
dealing with the objective assessment of print quality using microgloss, microgloss
nonuniformity, print density, print mottle, surface topography and roughness is critically
reviewed. Research related to the subjective evaluation of print quality using the visual
ranking method is examined as well. Finally, the last section of this chapter emphasizes
the importance of connecting end-user perception (i.e. subjective print quality) with paper
properties and printing process factors that can be objectively measured (i.e. objective
print quality). Based on the literature review, unexplored areas of investigation are
identified.
2.2
Paper
2.2.1
Composition, Formation, Coating, & Finishing
Paper is made from an assembly of cellulosic fibers that are attached to each other by
hydrogen bonds [18-22]. Therefore, the characteristics of individual fibers play an
important role in papermaking and paper end-use.
Fibers consist of three main components: cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and lignin, which are
extracted from wood using chemical and/or mechanical process to form pulp.
Mechanical fibers are composed of all the above-mentioned components, whereas
chemical fibers are treated to eliminate lignin. Depending on the wood source, fibers can
be divided into softwood and hardwood pulps. Softwood fibers are obtained from
4
coniferous trees, hardwood fibers come from angiosperm trees. Softwood fibers tend to
be longer and have better bonding ability than hardwood fibers, resulting in papers with
superior strength compared to papers made of hardwood fibers [21]. However, papers
containing hardwood fibers tend to have better surface smoothness because the fibers
are shorter and have a narrower fiber length distribution [23].
In addition to fibers, paper consists of fiber fragments, mineral fillers, and chemical
additives. During papermaking, a highly diluted suspension of fibrous and inorganic
components is deposited on a moving web. Throughout the process known as web
formation, different dewatering strategies are applied to transform the fiber suspension
into a fibrous network [20]. As a consequence, the distribution of fibers and fillers in the
sheet is nonuniform and the orientation of the fibers in the network is anisotropic
producing local variability in the paper basis weight [20]. In addition, formation affects
the roughness and the optical properties of the final product [18].
Paper parameters can be grouped into three main categories: structure & composition,
optical & appearance, and electrical & thermal. Physical and mechanical properties of
paper play an important role in its runnability and printability, while optical properties play
a factor in determining the image quality of a print [17]. Hardwood and mechanical
pulping process are more suitable than their counterparts in making paper with better
optical properties, because shorter fibers from hardwood pulp give higher opacity by
increasing the bulk scattering [18]. In the following section, each category of properties
will be discussed.
One can easily see the uneven structure of paper (i.e. base paper) with the naked eye at
length scales ranging from fractions of a millimeter to a few centimeters [20]. Hence,
paper is often coated to enhance its physical appearance and surface quality. The
quality improvement can be aimed at optical properties such as brightness, gloss or
opacity, at surface properties such as smoothness, but most importantly at printability
and print image quality [24]. Calendering is generally the last step in paper manufacture
and is often designated as finishing [18]. Calendering tends to create a uniform paper
sheet without large voids on its surface and within its structure.
2.2.2
Paper Parameters
2.2.2.1 Structure & Composition

Physical and mechanical properties of paper can be classified into two main areas:
structure and composition. Among all the paper parameters that characterize structure
and composition, this section will focus only on internal and surface sizing, filler
distribution, caliper, smoothness, density, strength (tear, burst, fold, and tensile),
dimensional stability, moisture, and curl. These properties were selected because in the
past, they were found to be of importance to the runnability and printability of paper in
xerographic printers.
Internal & Surface Sizing

Paper sizing additives are added before (internal sizing) or after the web formation
(surface sizing) of paper. The role of sizing is to make paper more hydrophobic and
provide surface strength and smoothness to the sheet [17]. Surface sizing increases the
printability by giving the paper sheet a more uniform surface structure by filling voids and
spaces between fibers. Internal sizing gives the paper sheet moisture-resistance and
stability [17]. Natural and synthetic sizing agents can be alkaline or acidic. The most
common types of internal sizing agents are alkyl ketene dimmer, alkenyl succinic
anhydride, and acid based rosin-alum size [21]. However, papers made under acidic
conditions may become yellow, embrittled, cause machine corrosion, and lose their
strength [25].
Smoothness, Mass Density, & Caliper Variation

Paper smoothness is the evenness and uniform flatness of the surface and plays an
important role in digital print image quality due to the irregular toner particle sizes used
by most digital printing systems [17]. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, rougher surfaces have
larger peaks and valleys as compared to smoother surfaces. The absence of these
surface irregularities allows toner particles to adhere to the surface more uniformly,
creating a better image [17]. In addition, an increase in smoothness results in an
increase in print density with little or no mottle. It should be noted that in general, a print
density loss is observed with rougher papers.
Figure 2-1. Illustration of Different Levels of Surface Roughness Measurement

As mentioned above, print density nonuniformity or print mottle of solid black images
strongly depends on the paper structure, which is influenced by filler distribution. Fillers
such as precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC), ground calcium carbonate (GCC), and
kaolin are commonly used at the wet-end of paper machines for making paper opaque,
brighter and smoother at a minimum cost. However, due to the dewatering processes
involved in the paper formation, an anisotropic distribution of fillers within the cross
section of paper can result. Besides nonuniformity in the filler distribution, print mottle
and image transfer are also highly dependent on thickness variation (i.e. caliper) and
mass density of paper. Research has shown that the spatial variation among fillers and
coatings and spatial caliper variations can cause non-uniform transfer of the toner to the
substrate and have an effect on the toner densities of the transferred image [17].
Strength & Dimensional Stability

Strength is a paper property that allows paper to withstand stresses placed on it during
any imaging, finishing or printing processes. Strength can be classified under four
different metrics: tear, fold, tensile, and burst. These metrics are influenced by the paper
fibers in the sheet and are equally important when determining paper strength [17]. PCC
filler is increasingly applied to paper due to its optical properties (i.e. high brightness and
light scattering characteristics), ability to improve impact strength, and low cost [26].
Despite the advantages of incorporating fillers in paper, papermakers control the filler
content of paper with tight limits because the filler content may weaken the paper and
make the paper prone to break or too weak to meet all of its specified strength
parameters.
Strength (particularly stiffness) and dimensional stability of paper are affected by paper
formation due to the degree of fiber-fiber contact and bonding [31]. In general, a sheet
with uneven formation (i.e. contains large voids and fiber flocks) will have an uneven
appearance and exhibit low paper strength [31]. Other print machine factors that affect
dimensional stability include wet pressing, wet straining, and sheet shrinkage.
Moisture & Curl

Moisture content also affects the runnability and printability of the paper sheet, which in
turn influences print quality. Regions with higher filler concentration generally produce
paper with higher local dielectric constant and can affect the local moisture content [26].
Nonuniformities in moisture level were found to affect surface resistivity, resulting in
variations or discontinuities of the dielectric force in toner transfer, leading to print mottle
and low image quality [10, 31].
Due to the use of high heat levels in the fusing stage, high moisture levels (~ 6 6.5%)
can cause paper curl, which is an effect of differential dimensional changes between
layers in a sheet. Paper curl subsequently leads to jams, print quality (image resolution)
degradation, and downstream finishing complications [17]. On the other hand, low
moisture levels may lead to image migration and can cause a build-up of static electricity
which can result in paper jamming in the digital printing system and in downstream
finishing processes [10, 17]. Therefore, it is important to ensure an ideal and uniform
moisture level of typically 4.3 5.1%.
2.2.2.2 Optical & Appearance of Paper

Optical properties of paper dictate its visual appearance. In general, color, opacity,
brightness, gloss, and whiteness are used as indicators for optical properties [17, 35].
These properties are controlled in the papermaking process by the formulation of the
paper and pulp slurry and are strongly dependent on the structure and surface treatment
of the paper.
Brightness & Whiteness

Optical properties of paper such as brightness and whiteness do not play an important
role in the runnability of the printing processes; however, they do play a role in the
subjective judgment of the printed image quality [17]. The goal in papermaking is to have
a sheet of paper with uniform and high whiteness, brightness and opacity.
Brightness measures the percentage reflectance of blue light by the paper and plays a
role in the papers print contrast and image legibility [17]. According to TAPPI T452
standard, brightness is measured at a wavelength of 457 nanometers and the required
minimum paper brightness depends on the type of print [17]. Different paper grades
have been specified depending on the printing method for which they will be used as
substrates. For instance, for black and white printing, paper with a brightness range of
84 to 90 is used, whereas paper brightness typically falls in the 94 to 98 range for color
digital printing [17]. Whiteness measures the amount of light diffusely reflected by sheet
of paper at all visible wavelengths [17]. It is affected by the residual lignin found in the
paper after it has been pulped and high whiteness can be achieved by having a high and
uniform light reflectance [17].
Opacity
Opacity is the amount of light that is allowed to pass through paper [17]. Given two
sheets of paper with identical structure, the darker paper will appear more opaque than
the lighter one [35]. Paper opacity is higher with the larger amount of fillers used in
production and the larger basis weight of the finished sheet; it also depends on the fiber
type [17]. On the other hand, printing opacity is the ratio of the reflectance of a solid
black printed area viewed through one thickness of the paper under test to the
reflectance of a pile of the unprinted paper [35]. For an entirely transparent paper, the
opacity ratio is 0% while the ratio for a completely opaque paper is 100%.
In order to keep the opacity of paper high, it is essential to make the scattering
coefficient as high as possible by encouraging the inter-reflection of light between the
fibers in paper [35]. With the use of filler, the higher refractive index of the filler results in
an increase in the scattering coefficient of paper. Under acid papermaking conditions,
kaolin-based clay fillers are often added to improve paper opacity and whiteness [36].
9
On the contrary, excessive heating and wet calendering will increase the transparency of
paper.
Specular Gloss
Gloss is the lustre of the paper surface and is closely connected with the reflection of a
collimated beam of light that falls upon a paper surface [17, 35]. Due to the method of
formation of the sheet and particularly if it is supercalendered, there is some
arrangement of fibers oriented near the plane of the sheet, so that some degree of
specular reflection takes place [35]. The rest of the light penetrates more deeply into the
paper and is reflected and refracted from the fibers [35].
The total light reflected from the surface is thus made up of specularly reflected and
diffusely reflected components [35]. When light strikes a surface, some of the light
penetrates where it can then be absorbed, scattered, or even transmitted if the layer is
sufficiently thin [37]. Nevertheless, because of the change in refractive index between air
and most substances, a certain proportion of the incident light is reflected directly from
the surface [37].
Specular reflection is a sharply defined light beam resulting from the reflection of a
smooth, uniform surface [37]. This reflection makes an object look glossy or shiny.
However, as shown in Figure 2-2, when light shines on a rough surface, the reflective
angle is different for each ray and hence, the object tends to look less glossy. Since
some of this light is reflected from the fibers in the surface of the paper, the formation of
paper plays an important role in influencing paper gloss.
Gloss variation is an indication of print surface unevenness; hence, the rougher the print
surface, the higher is the gloss variation [6]. Very smooth surfaces can produce high
levels of light reflection or gloss from the paper surface. Hence, the smoothness of the
paper surface is indirectly related to the visual appearance of paper (but is not identical
with gloss) and is closely connected with the scattering of light from the paper surface
[35].
10
Figure 2-2. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Specular and Diffuse Gloss

Gloss, in general, strongly affects print density and the perception of print depth [38].
Designers who select a high gloss paper finish may be disappointed that the level of
gloss in printed areas is determined by the toner and not by the substrate [31]. However,
there is a general tendency for consumers to opt towards brighter paper shades since a
high brightness paper offers several print quality advantages such as adding apparent
snap (boosting the color and contrast) to color digital images [31].
Other factors that affect brightness and gloss include toner transfer efficiency and
moisture nonuniformity. These factors on a much localized level can affect the dielectric
force strength sufficiently to produce a visible optical density fluctuation [31]. Where
toner transfer is inefficient, residual toner remains on the photoreceptor and may be
transferred to the next image, increasing background speckle or producing ghosting
[31]. Background speckle can reduce the apparent brightness of papers and can lead to
lower relative contrast thus reducing image quality [31].
2.2.2.3 Electrical & Thermal Properties of Paper

Electrical Properties
Electrical resistivity is one of the major paper parameters in xerographic printing that
have an effect on printing quality and runnability. Electrical properties of paper include
structural resistance, surface resistance, and dielectric constant [17]. Structural
resistance is a property of the material measured in the z-direction, which is along the
thickness of the material and should not depend on the thickness of the printing
substrate [32]. Surface resistance is measured on the surface and is defined by the
11
current running along the surface, while the dielectric constant of a material is the ratio
between the materials conductivity and the conductivity of vacuum [32]. The dielectric
constant of paper usually ranges from 2 to 6 and is highly dependent on density, thermal
conductivity, moisture content and paper composition [32].
Another parameter closely related to electrical resistivity are the static properties of
paper. Static properties of papers are generally expressed by the parameter resistivity,
which expresses the time it takes for a static charge to decay [31]. Resistivity may not
correlate fully with print quality performance; however, other parameters such as
electrostatic charge decay may be more significant. Therefore, the electrical properties
of paper, the maximum charge the paper can hold, and the rate of decay of that charge
all play an important role in quality image production for xerographic printing and will be
related to toner transfer efficiency and runnability on printing press [31, 32].
Paper with a high resistance to electrical charge or entering a system with a high charge
or the characteristic to hold a charge will cause a build-up of static electricity and hamper
the toner transfer process, which will eventually result in poor image quality [17]. This
build-up may lead to handling problems such as jamming in the digital printing system or
in downstream finishing processes [10, 17]. On the other hand, if the paper is too
conductive or enters the process with low charge properties, toner adhesion problems
may result and loss of image density can occur due to charge leakage to the ground [10,
17]. A decrease in paper bulk was thus found to cause a reduction in electrical surface
resistance, which in turn reduces the possibility of undesirable image quality or poor
toner transfer.
Since the amount of toner transferred is related to the resistivity of paper and the
magnitude of the transfer current, it is necessary to control the surface resistivity of
paper [33]. Paper resistivity can be modified by adding sodium chloride (NaCl) or
polydiallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (PDADMAC) as a form of electroconductive
additive. In order to prevent the paper from having undesirable resistance, it is also
important to control its moisture. Ensuring uniform surface resistivity requires moisture
content of the paper to be spatially uniform [17]. The range of surface resistivity of
significance in xerography is 0.01 to 10 terraohms and any value below 0.01 will produce
a significant loss in image density [10].
12
Thermal Conductivity & Porosity

Paper is composed of a randomly compact layer of fibers with connecting air voids
(porosity). A paper sheet can contain up to 70% of air by volume and; therefore, is
considered a highly porous material. Porosity is related to absorptivity or the degree in
which the paper allows gas or liquid to pass through it. Previous studies showed that
porosity decreases as paper density increases.
Besides electrical resistivity, another major factor influencing toner transfer to the surface
of a printing substrate are the air pockets found in between both materials. The
connecting surface between paper and toner ensures good toner transfer and print
quality [32]. Since air is a good electrical insulator, air pockets found between paper and
toner will affect the electrification level and performance of the toner transfer process
[32]. In addition, low density microporous paper sheets exhibit low thermal conductivity
and a heat-insulating layer that tends to improve the thermal printing [34]. As shown in
Figure 2-3, as heat transfers from the fuser roll to the printing medium, a paper with a
heat insulating layer (i.e. low thermal conductivity) will allow heat to be trapped between
the fuser roll and paper itself. This increases the temperature of the printing medium and
the toner particles will be able to fuse more uniformly, which in turn enhances print
quality.
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Thermal Printing
2.2.3
Impact of Paper Property on Print Quality
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, paper, which is the receiving substrate, is an important

component in determining the final print quality, especially for color printing. In laser
xerography, plain papers are usually used; however, smoother and brighter papers are
13
becoming a more popular option due to its ability to produce greater document quality in
high volume centralized printing systems [42]. Table 2-1 summarizes the paper
parameters mentioned above and their impact on xerographic printing.
Table 2-1. List of Paper Property & their Impact
Paper Property
Control Parameter
Impact (Affects)
Internal & Surface

Sizing
- Sizing agents
Smoothness &
Caliper Variation
- Filler distribution
- Fiber type
- Calendering
Strength &
Dimensional Stability
- Filler content & distribution

- Fiber-fiber contact & bonding
- Moisture Content
Moisture & Curl
- Filler concentration &

distribution
- Drying Process
- Web formation
Brightness &
Whiteness
- Moisture nonuniformity
- Lignin content
- Fiber distribution & type
Print/Image Quality
Opacity
Filler content
Fiber type
Heat & wet calendering
Additives & fillers
Print/Image Quality
Specular Gloss
Electrical Resistivity
& Static Properties
Thermal Conductivity
& Porosity
Printability
- Calendering
- Fiber orientation &
distribution
- Moisture nonuniformity
- Toner transfer efficiency
- Moisture content
- Mass density
- Paper composition
- Fiber distribution
- Porosity
- Pore size distribution
Print/Image Quality
(mottle, density loss, &
image transfer)
Runnability & Image
Resolution
Runnability & Electrostatic
Transfer Efficiency
(mottle & toner density)
Print/Image Quality
Runnability, Printability, &

Print/Image Quality
Print/Image Quality
Paper substrate in the xerographic printing system must have specific properties to
provide the appropriate functional performance to ensure that image resolution and print
14
sheet integrity are preserved and to enable efficient toner transfer from the
photoreceptor to the paper and from the fuser roll to the paper [42].
2.3
Xerographic Printing
In the commercial printing industry, a great number of printing machines that follow
different printing techniques have been invented. The printing industry can be classified
into six main types of printing techniques, namely: offset, screen, letterpress,
flexography, gravure, and digital printing [39]. Other less significant yet popular types of
printing techniques include electrostatic, embossing, engraving, and thermography
printing.
Besides offset printing, digital printing is one of the most popular and effective forms of
printing since its introduction. As opposed to offset printing, digital printing does not
require a minimum number of prints to be cost effective [41]. This printing technique
eliminates the use of film and plates by transferring the digital file directly from a
computer to the printing press, thus making the process cost effective [40]. The different
types of digital printing methods include laser (i.e. electrographic or xerographic), inkjet,
thermal transfer, dye sublimation, etc. Among the different existing types of digital
printing techniques, laser and inkjet printing are the most common and typically used
methods.
A laser printer tends to cost more than an inkjet printer; however, an ink jet printer will
eventually cost more overtime due to the frequent need to purchase ink cartridge refills
and printer head replacements [39]. Laser printers on the other hand, can deliver more
copies per cartridge. Other advantages of laser printers include maximum printing
efficiency (i.e. able to handle large volumes of printing at a fast rate), excellent image
quality, and the printed image is dry to touch after immediate emergence from the
printer. Due to the numerous advantages of laser printing and the limited understanding
of factors affecting xerographic print qualities, this print method is chosen and further
analyzed in this study.
15
2.3.1
A Brief Overview
Xerographic printing is a printing technique in which an electrostatic image is created

with the use of dry toner powder together with heat and pressure application. The
xerographic printing system comprises seven subsystems: charging, exposure,
development, transfer, fusing, cleaning and erasing [42, 43].
The xerographic process utilizes four main materials: photoreceptor, developer, fuser roll
4
materials, and the substrate (i.e. paper). More than 10 high quality prints are often
produced before some of the main materials components require to be replaced. The
performance of the printing system is almost exclusively dependent on the quality and
reliability of the xerographic materials utilized [42].
The xerographic printing process consists of seven key steps as illustrated in Figure 2-4:
Figure 2-4: Cyclic Color Xerography
Step 1: Charging of the photoreceptor

Xerography begins by imparting a positive uniform charge to a photoconducting belt or
drum with a corona or fine tungsten wire operated at a few hundred volts DC and a few
thousand volts AC [43, 44]. In general, the AC bias dislodges the toner particles that
were adhering electrostatically to the photoreceptor, while the DC bias causes the
16
particles to be attracted to the print sheet, thus transferring the image from the
photoreceptor to the print sheet [41]. This current produces an ionization of the air in its
vicinity and the ions act as a source of corona wind that charges the photoreceptor
[43]. The surface of the belt or drum is usually covered by amorphous selenium or
ceramic [41]. Photoreceptor serves as the image-generating surface and also transfers
the image through each stage of the printing process [41].
Step 2: Exposure to light

Photoconducting materials behave like insulators when kept in the dark and become
electrically conductive when exposed to light [44]. Using this property the image that is to
be copied is exposed onto the belt such that light dissipates the charge on the belt in the
non-image areas [44]. On the other hand, light does not penetrate into the belt in the
image areas; hence, these areas remain charged.
Step 3: Image development

With a dormant electrostatic image on the belt, the real image is formed on the belt when
the belt passes through a series of black and colored toner cartridges. The image is
formed by introducing the negatively charged toner to the positively charged image on
the belt [44]. In order to attach the toner particles onto the drum surface, toners are first
mixed with a component called carrier beads [41]. As shown in Figure 2-5, the carrier
beads are approximately 100m, while toner particles are approximately 10m. The
uneven surface of the carrier beads allows toner particles to adhere to them. Due to the
opposite charges, the toner adheres to the image and leaves a toner image of the
original on the belt [44].
Figure 2-5. Image Developer: Carrier Beads & Toner Particles
17
Step 4: Transfer of toner to paper

In this stage, paper is charged with the corona wire and introduced to the belt. Corotrons
or biased rolls are used to transfer the toner image on the belt to the paper
electrostatically, using the charge differences as the driving force [44]. The toner is
transferred from the photoreceptor to the media with a minimum of residual mass
remaining on the photoreceptor. This process uses electrostatic forces on the toner
charge to encourage it to move to the paper [43].
Step 5: Fusing
The paper together with the toner image then proceeds through the fuser rolls that melts
and permanently fixes the toner onto the paper with the use of heat and pressure.
Step 6 + 7: Cleaning & Erasing

The last stage of this process involves cleaning of the photoreceptor belt as illustrated in
Figure 2-6. Any remaining toner on the photoconducting belt is removed with a brush or
wiper blade under suction and transferred to a waste bin in the xerographic machine [41,
44]. Successful performance of this step plays a significant role in producing highresolution images [41].
Figure 2-6. Schematic Diagram of a Brush Cleaning Subsystem

An erasing lamp is then used to clean the photoreceptor drum by discharging the
photoreceptor and residual toner as completely as possible so that the toner may be
removed more easily from the photoreceptor. The latent image is removed from the
drum with an erase corona and a consistent initial state is prepared for the next cycle
[43].
18
For colored printing, each color is imaged, developed, and transferred in each pass of
the photoreceptor belt and the four-color image is built up on the paper as each of the
developed powder images in transferred sequentially (i.e. the paper goes through the
printing process four times) [43]. The final four-color image is then fused as it exits the
transfer zone.
2.3.2
Impact of Xerographic Print Parameters on Print Quality
Print factors that affect print quality include fusing parameters such as fuser dwell time,
fusing pressure, and fusing temperature; and toner properties such as adhesive
behavior, particle-particle interactions, thermal melting behavior, toner charging, toner
fluidity, toner mass transfer, and toner particle size and uniformity [68-73]. In addition,
some researches have started applying a uniform layer of clear toner to full color
xerographic images to improve the print quality [48]. Based on past studies, a list of print
parameters that have an impact on print quality are as summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. List of Print Parameters and their Impact
Print Parameters
2.4
Impact on Print Quality
Incomplete toner coverage

Nonuniform fusing
Differential gloss across solid tones

Mottling of the print image
Nonuniform toner particle size

Inconsistency in individual toner
shape
Grain
Mottle due to uneven toner layer
resting on the paper surface
Toner charging
Toner mass transfer
Tone reproduction
Gray balance
Print Quality
Print quality can be quantified objectively through print quality analysis and subjectively
using panel or visual ranking of print attributes [74]. Objective print quality analysis uses
instruments to assess print characteristics and attributes, which have an impact on
perception of print quality. These objective analyses as mentioned in Section 2.4.1 can
be compared to numerical measurements to ensure solid and accurate results. On the
19
other hand, subjective visual assessment as discussed in Section 2.4.2 allows print
quality to be ranked based on human perception of print quality.
2.4.1
Objective Computation
2.4.1.1 Print Gloss, Print Microgloss & its Nonuniformity

The perception of print gloss quality is strongly affected by the average specular
reflection intensity from the printed surface (the mean), the local variation around that
average (the amplitude), and the way the reflection from the surface is spatially
distributed (the spatial frequency distribution) [38]. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.2, the
gloss appearance of an object is a result of the interaction between the light source and
the surface structure of the object. Gloss, or specular gloss, may be defined as the
degree to which a surface simulates a perfect mirror in its capacity to reflect incident light
[45]. Therefore, gloss is defined as a simple quantitative measure of the specular
reflectivity of a surface, which is measured using the amount of light received by a
detector in the direction of the specular reflection.
Figure 2-7. Gloss Measurement Geometry

As shown in Figure 2-7, the incident plane is defined by the illumination light AO and the
normal ON of the sample surface [45]. For isotropic surfaces, only one angle, the
incident angle , is sufficient to define the measurement whereas for an anisotropic
surface, a second angle, as shown by the angle in Figure 2-7, is required to specify the
orientation of the surface [45]. Xerographic prints usually demonstrate a strong angle
dependence of gloss with respect to both the incident angle and the azimuth angle
20
as shown [45]. When a xerographic print sample is viewed at different angles, a gloss
difference, or differential gloss, can be observed. During the quantification of gloss on a
reflective print, 20, 60, and 75 degree TAPPI gloss measurements are commonly chosen
as standards within the printing industry.
Many factors, such as substrate porosity, toner/ink blistering, process heat/pressure
inconsistencies, etc., may contribute to the existence of microgloss variations in a
printing system [11]. However, gloss does not depend on the surface roughness alone
and it is also sensitive to other surface properties [46]. The major contributor to gloss is
the light reflection of the outermost surface and its roughness. In this study, the
outermost surface is the toner layer. Hence, xerographic printing produces prints in
which the surface roughness of the toner layer dominates the gloss appearance.
Past studies have shown that dry toner is typically not completely fused and can be
described as a surface composed of two distinct regions [47]. These two regions differ in
the extent of fusing that has occurred, as manifested by their differences in specular
reflectance characteristics [47]. Since the amount of toner put on the paper depends on
the image content, the gloss of a xerographic print is also strongly image-dependent
[45]. Print gloss is also strongly dependent on the image density. This is because in
xerographic printing, the ink (toner) is deposited onto the paper substrate in much higher
mass densities than in other printing techniques such as lithographic printing [48].
This image dependence may result in a phenomenon known as differential gloss, which
can be very objectionable to the observers [45]. The term of differential gloss typically
implies a quantitative difference between gloss measurements of two different surfaces,
such as the differential gloss produced between the toner and the paper surface. In
addition, there may be a differential gloss between two printed areas covered with
different toner amounts [45]. This kind of differential gloss is usually associated with a
color or density difference between the two surfaces [45]. The perception of color images
is directly connected to gloss through the light reflected from fused toner surfaces [49]. It
is well recognized that glossiness accentuates color appearance because both color and
gloss are determined by the intensity of the reflected light which is composed of two
parts: specular reflection and diffuse scattering [49].
21
In order to reduce the color or density difference, researchers have tried covering the
image with a uniform layer of the clear toner to provide better print appearance. In this
method, the specular gloss became much more uniform and the grainy noise was
remarkably reduced [48]. Noise reduction was attributed to the decrease of gloss
fluctuation with image surface flattening and prevention of image disturbance during
transfer and fusing, which in turn improved the subjective impression of a pictorial image
[48].
Delta gloss (i.e. the gloss difference between print and paper gloss) and print gloss
variation also play an important role in the resulting image quality. It is believed that print
gloss variation is strongly affected by variations in the base paper surface texture,
surface roughness, and drying conditions [50]. In general, the differential gloss and print
gloss variation are considered as an image defect; hence, a significant effort within the
xerographic printing industry has been made to suppress the differential gloss for
reaching a uniform image gloss [45]. On the other hand, differential gloss itself is not
inherently undesirable under all circumstances and some consumers prefer strong gloss
contrast for certain images and certain applications [45].
2.4.1.2 Print Density, Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle

Print density or optical density is defined as the color depth of a printed image and can
be calculated from the reflectance values of solid printed and unprinted areas as follows
[51]:
(Equation 2-1)
pd: print density
R: reflectance of unprinted area
Ri: reflectance of printed area
Print mottle, on the other hand, accounts for the unwanted variation in print densities or
print density nonuniformity. It accounts for the perceived inhomogeneities in a print due
to spatial variations (noise) in the amount of reflected light from a homogenous light
source when the goal was to print a homogenous area [5]. There are several
22
categorizations of print mottle. For random mottle, large-scaled mottle is known as

cloudiness, whereas small-scaled mottle is known as graininess. In order to evaluate
print mottle, Fourier analysis is used to break down complex signals in the time domain
into components at various frequencies [5].
Fourier analysis begins with the observation that any regular waveform can be
decomposed into selected harmonics with correct phasing [52]. Information extracted
from the magnitude, phase and frequency of those harmonics can be post-processed to
suit various applications, e.g., disturbance source characterization or system
identification [52]. Since human eyes are less sensitive to extreme low and extreme high
frequency variation, human visual system is often needed to model the actual banding
perceived by humans. Visual perception of print mottle is often caused by variations of
print density and print gloss mottle [53]. Past studies found that human perception is
sensitive to both density mottle and print gloss mottle, in the 4 8 mm scale range of
mottle [53].
As mentioned earlier, print mottle of solid black images is related to paper structure and
is influenced by spatial variations in dielectric permittivity (influenced by filler distribution)
of paper and paper thickness variations [27]. For coated papers, the application of the
coating layer improves print quality; therefore, mottling is often more noticeable in papers
with single or no coating layer. In xerographic printing, single coated or uncoated papers
tend to have a higher uneven surface, which lead to an uneven toner layer being fused
onto the paper. In addition, nonuniform spreading of toner produces uneven settling. If
the toner droplets do not adhere similarly over the surface they cause uneven toner
distribution; thus, resulting in print mottling [50, 54, 55].
2.4.1.3 Surface Topography & Roughness

As mentioned earlier, the diffuse scattering of visible light from rough image surfaces
plays
a dominant
role in glossiness
and in turn affects
print
quality.
In
electrophotography, the surface topography of a printed area is formed through a series

of complicated processes. Even though the overall surface roughness of prints is known
to be slightly lower on coated than uncoated paper, it is still mainly dictated by the
amount of toner transferred and the fusing conditions [56].
23
Before fusing, the topography of the surface is characteristically similar to that of the
paper surface [12]. Upon fusing, the pressure and heat applied causes the toner to
spread sideward, thus yielding a printed surface that is different from the original paper
surface topography [12]. This new printed surface is generally smoother than the original
paper surface.
Surface topography can be optimized by a suitable combination of surface treatments
and finishing to give a surface texture with good toner-recipient properties [30]. With
sufficient fusing power applied, an increased toner coverage degree, or a thicker toner
layer help in reducing the surface roughness [56]. Increases in the radiant fusing
temperature also yield a decrease in overall print roughness; however, this decrease is
more pronounced on coated paper and with higher toner amounts [56].
One important factor in surface engineering is the evaluation of the surface topography
(i.e. measurement and analysis) [57]. The surface profile measurements that are most
commonly performed by the industry include optical profilers (such as WYKOTM white
light interferometer and confocal microscopy) and pseudo- contact methods (such as
stylus profilometry and atomic force microscopy, AFM)). Other roughness measurements
or surface analysis methods include scanning electron microscopy (SEM), optical
microscopy, and Parker Print-Surf (PPS) method.
Measurements of surface roughness are normally performed using 2D or 3D profiles. 2D
profiles provide line measurements of the surface roughness, whereas 3D profiles
provide evaluation of the surface topography. The stylus profiler in general gives lower
roughness values than WYKO or PPS measurements for the same samples. This
difference may be explained in part by the stylus tip geometry and the relatively high
contact pressure during the test (the tip could damage softer surfaces and cause
difficulties in measuring small features) [57]. Other factors contributing to the difference
in value include the measurement area size and number of sampling points. WYKO on
the other hand specializes in phase-measuring interferometry systems for a wide variety
of applications from measuring microsurface roughness to contouring large surfaces
[58].
24
The statistical roughness parameters obtained can be used to describe variability in

surface heights. It is quantified by the vertical deviations of a real surface from its ideal
form and each of the roughness parameters is calculated using a formula for describing
the surface [59]. There are several different roughness parameters in use; however, the
arithmetic average, Ra, root mean square, Rq, skewness, Rsk, and kurtosis, Rku, are by
far the most commonly used in the paper industry. Other common statistical parameters
include maximum valley and peak depth (Rv and Rp, respectively) and maximum height
of the profile, Rt. Ra, Rq, Rsk, and Rku can be calculated as follows:
(a) Arithmetic roughness average, Ra
(Equation 2-2)
zj - distance signifying surface height

N - discrete and equally separated points along a line
(b) Root mean squared roughness, Rq
(Equation 2-3)
When a surface profile is measured at N discrete and equally separated points along a
line, Rq is the square root of the mean value of squares of the distances, zj, of the points
from the mean level [53]. The distances zj of the points are surface heights; therefore
RMS roughness is also interpreted as the standard deviation of the distribution of
heights [29].
(c) Skewness, Rsk
(Equation 2-4)
zj - distance signifying local surface height

zo - distance signifying height of the mean line or mean surface
25
Skewness is a measure of the asymmetry of the profile about the mean line. The sign of
the skewness will tell whether the farther points are proportionately above (positive
skewness) or below (negative skewness) the mean surface level [19]. Thus the
predominance of bumps or peaks on a surface will have a positive skewness, and the
predominance of holes or valleys in a surface will have a negative skewness [19].
d) Kurtosis, Rku
(Equation 2-5)
Kurtosis is a measure of the peaked-ness of the surface profile about the mean line or
a measure of the randomness of profile heights. Kurtosis values can range from 0 to 8,
with a perfectly Gaussian or random surface having a kurtosis value of 3 [19]. Hence, the
further the value is from 3, the less random and more repetitive the surface is. Profiles
with fewer low and high extreme points have a kurtosis value less than 3 while those
with a significant number of low and high extreme points have a kurtosis value greater
than 3 [19]. When the kurtosis is high, a high proportion of the profile heights fall within a
narrow range of heights and more of the variance is due to infrequent extreme
deviations. On the other hand, a low kurtosis value represents a surface that is relatively
more randomly distributed in different surface heights.
2.4.2
Subjective Quantification
2.4.2.1 Visual Ranking

To date, subjective visual evaluation is the only recognized method used to determine
the perceived quality in images [5]. Visual ranking can be useful; however, it is a very
sensitive form of assessment due to the different opinions gathered from different
observers and should be performed with care to avoid inconsistency in the results.
Visual analysis is traditionally performed in laboratories under controlled viewing
conditions, resulting in the execution being very costly due to the time and effort involved
by all participants [75]. The most intuitive and frequently used form of print judgment is
called pairwise ranking, which compares two printing samples side by side [76]. This
26
method involves preferential judgment of the image in terms of printing quality. Although
paper and print experts have a better knowledge on print quality standards than
participants with no prior knowledge, research has shown that there is a good
agreement between experts and naive observers [76].
Visual examination is often carried out at arms length distance and as shown in Figure 28, print images can be visually analyzed using two methods. In Figure 2-8 (a), the image
is placed on a support under a diffuse, uniform light and the observer examines the
image at a perpendicular (90 degrees) direction from the sample [53]. The second
method as shown in Figure 2-8 (b), the observer holds the sample and examines it at
different angles under a direct light. This form of evaluation allows gloss nonuniformity
and print mottle to be detected [53].
Figure 2-8. Visual Evaluation: (a) perpendicular and (b) hand-held
2.4.2.2 Other Attributes

Other attributes that define print quality include edge and line sharpness, resolution,
toner adhesion, and fusing quality [1, 5, 60-62]. Edge raggedness is often effectively
used as a quantitative measure of line sharpness. Edge raggedness can be measured
using the average magnitude of the gradient of light intensity at the edges in an image
and is proportional to the calculated visual acuity of an image [61]. Line sharpness is
strongly influenced by paper and toner properties. Past studies found that finer toners
tend to exhibit a better edge definition compared to coarser toners [9].
27
Another major characteristic of print quality is resolution. According to industrial

standards, resolution is most often quoted when discussing image quality of digital
imaging devices [4]. Resolution is normally coupled with the dimension of the smallest
picture element (i.e. pixel) or the addressability; the minimal distance an object may be
shifted on the image [4]. In general, when a black object is to be rendered on a white
background as shown in Figure 2-9 (a), a pattern of black pixels is created on a
background of white pixels such that it best resembles the object [4].
However, domestic printing device and large-scale commercial printed images often do
not meet a sufficient resolution standard (600 dpi is generally considered insufficient);
hence, a resolution enhancement algorithm is often added to the device. This algorithm
is applied to render the data by blackening each pixel whose center is on the line of
interest as shown in Figure 2-9 (b) [4]. Last but not least, due to the physics of the
printing process, toner tends to develop on pixels with partial exposure located next to
neighbouring fully exposed pixels [4]. Hence, as shown in Figure 2-9 (c), a line rendering
technique is used to smoothen the output image with a continuous tone. This is
performed by partially covering the line of interest with a gray level proportional to their
coverage [4].
Figure 2-9. Image Resolution: (a) desired line representing the devices native
resolution, (b) line rendering of each pixel on the line, and (c) line rendering with some
pixels rendered gray
Toner adhesion also affects print quality. In the electrographic process, charged toner
particles are transferred from the bulk to the photoreceptor drum and from there to the
paper. [63]. Since commercial xerographic printing requires the print device to run at
high speed while maintaining good performance, toner loss often become the main
concern in this printing system. The extent of toner loss is a function of several factors
28
including instrument parameters (smaller gaps and more cycles increase toner loss),
copier parameters (lightest and darkest settings are least durable), and paper properties
(toner is more durable on 20% recycled content copier paper than on virgin copier paper)
[64].
Adhesion force consists of electrostatic and non-electrostatic (e.g. van der Waals force)
components. Measurements of toner adhesion are usually at least one order of
magnitude larger than the toner adhesion predicted by image force calculations that
model the toner charge located in the center of the toner particle [65, 66]. Past
researches showed that adhesion force between toner particles tend to increase with an
increase in either particle size or charge [67]. In addition, adhesion force of an irregularly
shaped toner particle is generally larger than that of a spherical toner particle of similar
size and charge because an irregular shaped toner has more contact points than a
spherical one.
On the other hand, an increase in surface roughness of the paper substrate was found
to cause a decrease in mean adhesion forces [67]. Since toner particles are less than 10
m in diameter, it is difficult to measure the adhesion force of the fine particles.
Therefore, colloid probe AFM is often used to evaluate the particle-particle interactions
and adhesion force between a toner particle glued to the AFM cantilever tip and a toner
particle in a compressed layer of toner powder [68].
2.5
Conclusions and Problem Statement
As evident in past studies summarized in Table 2-1 and 2-2, both print conditions and
paper substrate are known to play an important role in determining print quality.
However, when dealing with uncoated papers, the receiving substrate becomes
significantly more important in the determination of the final print quality than the print
properties. Unlike coated papers, uncoated papers possess more voids and have a
rougher surface; hence, the requirements of the substrate to produce quality print
become more stringent.
Since the xerographic printer has a rapidly growing market that continues to reduce cost
while improving the quality of print images, better understanding of the interactions
29
between printer and paper in the printing process is highly beneficial. Hence the aim of
this study is to investigate the effect of key surface, structural, optical, electrical, and
thermal properties of the underlying base sheet on print quality. Based on past literature,
the paper parameters mentioned in Section 2 have an impact on offset and digital print
quality (including inkjet printing). However, it is still unclear whether similar paper
properties will have identical effect on xerographic printing. In addition, it is essential to
identify and rank the key paper properties based on their significance in affecting
xerographic print quality so that papermakers can focus and improve on those areas.
The paper properties of interest in this project are listed in Table 2-3:
Table 2-3. List of Paper Parameters to be Correlated
Structure & Composition
Optical Properties
- Basis weight
- Caliper
- Brightness
- Density
- Gloss
- Hardwood percentage
- Microgloss Nonuniformity
- Porosity
- Opacity
- Roughness
- Tensile modulus
In this study, print quality is characterized objectively through print gloss and its
nonuniformity, print mottle, print density, and roughness of the printed surface and
subjectively by visual ranking analysis. It is crucial to correlate both the objective and
subjective print qualities because the concept of print quality is intangible and it is hard
to grade print quality in terms of good or poor quality. Hence, by correlating against
subjective print quality (i.e. visual ranking), it allows one to classify the objective print
quality based on the perspective of potential observers. Although there are many ways
to improve print quality, the different strategies chosen have to be economical in order
for the changes to be feasible.
30
CHAPTER 3
3.1
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Overview
This chapter gives a detailed description of the experimental approach shown in Figure
1-1. The source and properties for the different paper and printed samples tested are
listed in section 3.2. Instrumental specifications for the equipments used are also
included in this chapter. In addition, this chapter summarizes the experimental details on
the objective and subjective methods used to characterize print quality.
3.2
Paper Samples
In this study, ten different uncoated commercial papers as listed in Table 3-1 were
printed using three different color LaserJet (CLJ) printers (i.e. 30 different printed
samples in total).
Table 3-1. Paper Sample Description
Sample
Number
1
Paper Description
HM Copy Plus
HP Office Riverdale
HP Office C35
HM Laser Print
Premium Multipurpose
HP Multipurpose
HM Color Copy
HP Color Laser
HP Premium Choice
10
LaserJet Saillat
The paper samples were obtained from International Paper (IP) and a schematic
diagram illustrating a generic uncoated print sample is shown in Figure 3-1. Each paper
sample contained three different color prints with two different coverages (i.e. 40% black,
100% black, 40% blue, 100% blue, 40% purple, and 100% purple) and a print area of 5
by 5mm.
31
Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of a Printed Paper Sample

The paper samples were extensively analyzed by International Paper (IP), the company
that provided the samples, and a list of paper properties provided by IP is listed in
Section 4.2. In addition to the given list of properties, paper microgloss, paper microgloss
nonuniformity, and paper roughness were measured. These paper measurements are
described in Section 3.3.2.
3.3
Xerographic Printing
3.3.1
Printers & Printing Conditions
Three xerographic printers, namely HP CLJ 2600, HP CLJ 4700, and HP CLJ 9500 were
used to print the paper samples using the print parameters shown in Table 3-2. Five
replicates of each uncoated paper samples with 100% black prints from the three
different printers were analyzed in this study. In addition, paper samples with 40% black
prints were also used to illustrate the different toner patterns obtained from the 3
different toner cartridges.
Table 3-2. Print Parameters
Printer Type
Printer Speed
(ppm)
Maximum Resolution
(dpi)
HP 2600
600
HP 4700
30
600
HP 9500
24
600
32
3.3.2
Sample Preparation
As shown in Figure 3-2, five specimens of each paper sample with a size of 1.5 by
1.5cm were cut out in the machine direction. Each specimen was then adhered
delicately on microscopic slides using tweezers and double-sided tapes. It was important
not to scratch or contaminate the surface of the print sample because any disturbance
would have caused a significant change in the values of print microgloss and print
microgloss nonuniformity. After placing the samples on the microscopic slides, the slides
were then transferred to a slide box and kept under 50% relative humidity condition,
ready to be analyzed.
Figure 3-2. Sample Preparation
3.4
Print Quality
As mentioned in Section 2.4, print quality can be assessed with either objective or
subjective tests. Most of the objective methods used to characterize the printed samples
can be applied to the paper. These methods include paper microgloss, paper microgloss
nonuniformity, and paper roughness. On the other hand, visual ranking is the sole
subjective test conducted on the printed samples.
33
3.4.1
Objective Measurements
3.4.1.1 Print Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity Evaluation

As shown in Figure 3-3 (a), a conventional glossmeter (NOVO-GLOSS) was used to
measure the standard gloss of the paper substrate and the printed samples. In order to
obtain standard gloss measurements at 20, 60, and 75, the plane of illumination of the
glossmeter was set parallel to the machine direction of the sample. The average gloss of
five randomly selected points in each specimen was then reported as the average gloss
of the samples. The black glass piece shown in Figure 3-3 (b) acted as the calibration
tile that was used to correct the gloss 20, 60, and 75 measurements according to the
manufacturers pre-defined value, which is 89.9, 93.8, and 99.0 respectively. According
to the standardized tile, gloss values usually ranged from 0 to 100, which corresponds to
samples with the lowest and highest gloss respectively [18].
Figure 3-3. (a) NOVO-GLOSSTM glossmeter and (b) calibration tile

In this study, microgloss was measured as the average gloss of an effective area of 1 by
1cm with a resolution of 16 by 16m, while microgloss nonuniformity was defined as the
measure of gloss intensity spatially scattered over the measurement area. While each
image area (16 by 18 mm2) captured by the microgloss camera consisted of an effective
matrix of 1100 by 1024 pixel, the effective 1cm2 area of study contained only 625 by 625
pixels [29]. The grey level scale of each of these pixels ranged from black to white,
corresponding to the lowest (0 units) and highest (1023 units) microgloss, respectively.
The light incidence measurements were conducted at 23o from the vertical direction with
an exposure time of 1600 ms and the images were captured by a CCD camera, coded in
10 bits and saved as high-bit TIFF files. The custom-made microgloss setup is shown in
Figure 3-4 and more details can be found in [18].
34
Figure 3-4. Microgloss Setup [18, 29]

Figure 3-5 is a schematic representation of an image captured using the microgloss
setup. Quantitatively, microgloss is defined as the arithmetic average of the grey level
values for all pixels in the area captured by the microgloss setup (Equation 3-1),
whereas microgloss nonuniformity is defined as the standard deviation of the grey level
values of all pixels in the area (Equation 3-2).
Figure 3-5. Schematic Diagram of a Microgloss Image Captured
35
(Equation 3-1)
(Equation 3-2)
G - average microgloss
G - average microgloss nonuniformity
G (i, j) - grey level for the element in the ith row and jth column of the array of pixels
representing the captured image [29]
N - total number of pixels (i,j) representing the captured image.
The digitized images captured from the microgloss setup were processed and calculated
using the OPTIMASTM 6.0 software. An illustration of the data analysis performed with
the software is presented in Appendix A.
Some printed samples could have a much lower or higher microgloss value than other
printed samples of the same batch due to the different paper substrates and surface
properties; hence, the image is considered to be over-saturated or over-exposed. To
objectively define these samples the following criteria were followed:
-
if more than 5% of the area under the gray values histogram of the image (see
Appendix A) was within the microgloss range 0-150, the sample was considered
to be in the low range.
if more than 5% of the area under the gray values histogram of the image (see
Appendix A) was within the microgloss range 1000-1023, the sample was
considered to be in the high range.
To correct the low range samples, an additional test was conducted by increasing the
shutter speed of the CCD camera from 1600ms (original exposure time) to a higher
exposure time such that the new image captured was not be over-saturated. In order to
avoid changes in the shutter speed, a MATLAB autocorrelation program was applied to
correct the saturation problems. Therefore, 4 different exposure times (1800, 1900,
2000, and 2100 ms) were needed to create a linear transformation of images as shown
36
in Figure 3-6. Based on the regression line, the measured value is then correlated and a
new microgloss value is obtained based on the corrected value of the image captured at
1600 ms.
Figure 3-6. Autocorrelation Plot of Grey Level
3.4.1.2 Print Density Measurements

Print density measurements were performed using the X-Rite 530 spectrodensitometer
as shown in Figure 3-7. The density function of this instrument has two measurement
modes: straight density mode (absolute data) and density difference mode. In this study,
the straight density mode was used. The ANSI Status T Computerized Color Response
mode, a wideband response most typically used in the North American graphic arts
industry, was first used to calibrate the instrument against a standard white surface. The
target window of the spectrodensitometer, with a spot size of 3.4 mm (0.13 in), was
centered and pressed against the printed area until the reading was displayed on the
instrument screen.
Similar to previous assessments, print density measurements were performed on 5
different specimens of each of the given 100% black samples and an average for each
sample was recorded. These measurements were performed in a controlled environment
with 50% relative humidity. In addition, a stack of white paper was placed under each
sample during measurements so as to avoid any background disturbance.
37
Figure 3-7. X-Rite 500 Series Spectrodensitometer
3.4.1.3 Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle Evaluation

To determine print mottle, a 100% black image of each sample with a printed area of 43
by 43mm was first scanned in RGB mode at 600 dpi (1025 by 1025 pixels) using an
Epson Perfection V7000 scanner as shown in Figure 3-8. The scanned image was
obtained using a built-in SilverfastTM software of the scanner and was then converted
from RGB to grayscale. The variations in gray level of the image for various wavelengths
(i.e. print mottle) were determined through a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm
written in MATLABTM 7.0 (See Appendix B).
Fourier analysis decomposes and transforms the scanned image from the spatial
domain into the frequency domain. The number of frequencies in the frequency domain
corresponds to the number of pixels in the spatial domain [5]. As a result, Fourier
transform produces a complex number valued output image, which can be displayed
with 2 images, either with the real and imaginary parts or with the magnitude and phase
parts [5]. In this study, the magnitude part was used for evaluating print mottle.
38
Figure 3-8. Print Mottle Analysis

As shown in Figure 3-8, the output of the print mottle program is a graph showing a
power spectrum versus frequency. In order to determine the wavelength of these
frequency ranges, the following calculations are performed:
(Equation 3-3)
- Wavelength (mm)
L - Image size (in this study, 43 by 43mm)
- Frequency in cycles
In order to determine print mottle within a certain size range, Equation 3-3 has to be
applied to determine the frequency ranges that have to be input in the MATLAB Fourier
program. For instance, the wavelength associated with mottling in the range 1-10mm
from a 43 x 43mm image will correspond to a frequency range of 5 to 45Hz. In this study,
the following four frequency ranges for print mottle were used:
39
Frequency range: 1 - 5 = Mottle size range: >10mm
Frequency range: 5 - 45 = Mottle size range: 1 to 10mm
Frequency range: 45 - 450 = Mottle size range: 0.1 to 1mm
Frequency range: 450 - 1025 = Mottle size range: <0.1mm
To determine gloss mottle, a 100% black image of each sample with a printed area of 10
by 10mm was first imaged using the microgloss setup (see Section 3.4.1.1). The
grayscale image was then decomposed into various wavelengths (i.e. gloss mottle)
using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm coded in MATLABTM 7.0 (see
Appendix B).
In order to compare the print mottle and gloss mottle results, the frequency ranges used
for gloss mottle have to correspond to the same mottle size range (i.e. wavelength) as
those obtained from the print mottle results mentioned above.
Hence, in this study, the following four frequency ranges for gloss mottle were used:
Frequency range: 1 - 2 = Mottle size range: >10mm
Frequency range: 2 - 11 = Mottle size range: 1 to 10mm
Frequency range: 11 - 106 = Mottle size range: 0.1 to 1mm
Frequency range: 106 - 513 = Mottle size range: <0.1mm
These frequency ranges were approximately selected to closely represent the same
mottle size ranges as the print mottle evaluation.
3.3.1.4 Surface Topography & Roughness Assessment

Surface characterization involved quantitative and qualitative evaluations. This section
focuses on the quantitative measurements of surface topography and surface
roughness. In this study, surface roughness of the paper and the printed samples was
measured using two types of instruments: a non-contact WYKOTM optical interferometric
profiler, and a contact Stylus profiler.
40
A WYKOTM NT-2000 non-contact optical interferometric surface profiler equipment as

shown in Figure 3-9 was used to determine the surface topography and roughness. The
profiler has two operational modes: Phase Shifting Interferometry (PSI) and Vertical
Scanning Interferometry (VSI). PSI is mainly used to measure smooth surfaces with
small steps as low as 0.3nm (i.e. point to point measurement is very small), whereas VSI
is more suitable for rough surfaces with steps as high as a few millimeters. Therefore, in
this study, the VSI mode was used.
Figure 3-9. WYKOTM NT-2000 Surface Scanner [22]

As shown in Figure 3-9, the WYKOTM system is composed of a Mirau-type
interferometric microscope, a vibration dampening table, a video monitor and a PCcompatible computer supplied with the full Vision32TM analytical software package [22].
The main unit of this system is the interferometric microscope and its related hardware,
which allows focusing on the sample [19]. The key components of the related hardware
include an illuminator, a field of view assembly, a magnification head, a beam splitter, a
piezoelectric transducer, and a sample stage as shown in Figure 3-10.
The illuminator contains a white light illumination source and the intensity of this source
can be varied using the Vision32TM software while the field of view assembly allows
selecting various lens tube positions to align the system or to focus the sample [19]. The
41
interferometric microscope is equipped with a turret that houses three objectives and the
sample stage is located beneath the magnification objective. During measurement, the
white light beam passes through the selected microscope objective and illuminates the
sample (see Figure 3-10). A beam splitter reflects half of the incident beam to the
reference surface [19]. The light reflected from the reference surface then recombines
with the beam reflected from the sample to form interference fringes that determine the
best focus point. The reference arm containing the interferometric objective moves
downward vertically to scan the sample surface so that each point on the surface
produces an interference signal [19, 58]. A linearized piezoelectric transducer is used to
ensure precise step motion by controlling the evenly spaced internals during scanning.
Figure 3-10. Interference Microscope (WYKOTM NT-2000) [22]

During roughness measurement, the vibration dampening table shown in Figure 3-9
minimizes any noise vibrations produced during the scanning of the sample. The
presence of vibrational frequencies would negatively affect the reproducibility and
accuracy of the data [22]. While scanning, an interference signal for each point on the
surface detected by the detector array is recorded and transferred to the Vision32TM
software for processing.
For VSI measurements, the measurement range is the largest vertical distance that the
profilometer can scan in a single measurement, whereas the vertical or out-of-plane
resolution is the smallest distance measured in the direction perpendicular to the
42
surface. In-plane resolution is the size of the smallest area over which the local height
can be measured and is a function of the magnification and the array size of the detector
[22, 58]. In this study, the equipment used has a fixed detector array size of 736 by
480m; therefore, the magnification will determine the field of view and in-plane
resolution as listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-3. Resolution and Scanning Area of WYKOTM NT-2000 [22]
In this study, the following settings were utilized for all WYKOTM roughness
measurements:
Magnification = 10.24 X
Scanning Mode = VSI
Spatial Resolution = 820 by 956nm
Field of View (Size of Each Image) = 603 by 460m
Backscan = 10m
Length = 60m
Threshold Limit = 0.5%
In addition to the above settings, a median Gaussian pass filter was also chosen to
smooth the images and reduce noise. WYKO measurements were performed on five
randomly selected points for each sample and the average roughness (Rq) value was
43
recorded. Since the printed samples were too dark, WYKO was only used to measure
the roughness of the unprinted area of the uncoated papers while Stylus was used to
characterize the topography of the printed samples.
A contact surface Stylus profiler (KLA Tencor P-16+) was used to measure the surface
roughness of the printed samples (see Figure 3-11). The instrument enables process
control and analysis of features below 10 nm up to approximately 1 mm in height [77].
Stylus P-16+ delivers automated step height, surface contour, waviness and roughness
measurements with detailed 2D or 3D analysis of topography for a variety of surfaces
and materials.
Stylus profiling uses a finely pointed and balanced diamond tip, drawn across the
surface to measure height or roughness variation with extreme precision. As shown in
Figure 3-12, the sample stage provides full access to a 9.5 by 9.5 inch area and
measurements made by the diamond stylus are transferred to the KLA Tencor P-16+
software using Windows XP operating system.
Figure 3-11. KLA Tencor P-16+ Stylus Profiler

The state-of-the-art Apex 2D and 3D surface analysis software is then used to
calculate the roughness parameters. This software calculates over 40 key surface
parameters among them: depth, step height, roughness, waviness, slope, flatness,
radius of curvature, stress, bearing ratio, distance, volume and peak count distribution
44
[77]. In addition, the software discriminates roughness and waviness components from
the raw data trace using a variety of standard filters including Cubic Spline and Gaussian
[77]. In this study, the following settings were utilized for all stylus roughness
measurements:
Tip Force = 1mg
Scanning Mode = 3D
Frequency = 200Hz
Scan Speed = 50m/s
Area Scan = 600 by 500m
Resolution = 1048m (0.625 )
Spacing = 10m
The stylus tip, as shown in Figure 3-12, has a precise force control that provides
excellent vertical resolution, precision, and reliability in the measurements [77]. Since
paper is considered a soft material (as opposed to harder materials such as aluminum)
measurements were made based on the soft surface category. Therefore, a constant
stylus tip force control of 1mg with a tip size of less than 1m was used to measure the
surface roughness of the substrate.
Figure 3-12. KLA Tencor P-16+ Stylus Tip
45
3.3.1.5 Surface Characterization: Optical Microscopy

In this study, scanning electron microscopy (SEM ) and optical microscopy were used to
provide a qualitative surface assessment. A JEOL, JSM-840 model, SEM microscope
operated at 15 kV was used to visualize white spots on 100% black printed samples,
analyze fiber orientation in the different uncoated papers, and examine toner
distributions of different printers through topographic views. In addition, energy
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) was used to analyze the elements present in the
white spots found in some printed samples (see Figure 3-13 and 3-14).
Surface morphology was imaged using the secondary electron detector of the SEM. In
this study, the following settings were used:
Magnification = 200X, 500X, and 1000X
Resolution = 4nm
Acceleration voltage = 15 and 22kV
A detailed SEM procedure can be found in Appendix C.
Figure 3-13. SEM Image of Print Sample Showing White Spots
46
Figure 3-14. EDX Plot Showing Elements Present in Print Image

The second technique used to obtain surface topography images of printed samples was
optical microscopy. In this study, images of the printed samples were captured with a
Leica DMLA DFC300F optical microscope using magnifications of 10X and 50X (see
Figure 3-15). The images were then transferred to an Improvision OpenlabTM
Macintosh software.
Figure 3-15. General View of an Optical Microscope

47
Due to the high roughness of the surfaces, it was difficult to obtain clear images. Hence,
CombineZTM software was used to combine several shots of images with areas out of
focus into one final image with all areas in focus (see Figure 3-16). When capturing
images at different focal planes, the focal distance increments had to be uniform. This
was achieved by controlling the knob on the optical microscope. The CombineZTM
software was then used to increase the depth of field by stacking the images taken at
different focal planes to form the final in-focus image.
Figure 3-16. Printed Sample Image at Different Focal Planes
3.4.2
Subjective Measurements: Visual Ranking Analysis
Visual evaluation, as mentioned in Section 2.4.2, was performed in an open space in the
laboratory with natural light from the windows and an additional white light source placed
above the participants. The paper samples were split into three separate batches
according to the printer type. Each batch consisted of ten different uncoated papers with
100% black prints and participants were asked to visually rank them based on their
perception of good print quality. In order to test the credibility of each participant, 2
similar print samples were added to each batch. Participants that gave similar print
samples extreme rankings were removed from these experiments. Due to limitations,
only 10 participants, 4 male and 6 female observers, with normal or corrected-to-normal
vision were chosen to participate in this visual exercise. Out of the 10 participants, 8 of
them did not have prior experience in print mottle evaluation.
48
Participants were asked to use the pairwise method (i.e. comparing two print patches
with print area of 45 by 45 mm at a time) to evaluate the print samples. Each sample
was backed with a white sheet and masked at the front with a white sheet so as to reveal
only the area of analysis. This is to avoid other visual disturbance that might affect the
participants vision. The participants were allowed to hold the print sample and examine
it at different angles under a direct light source as illustrated in Figure 2-6 (b). As shown
in Figure 3-17, the sample that has a better print quality will be noted and the sample
with the most count will be ranked as one. Therefore, lower ranking values indicate
better print quality and the lowest count would indicate samples with the lowest print
quality (high mottling).
Although visual ranking is the sole method to quantify visual ranking subjectively, there
are several limitations in the results obtained. Since these samples are ranked from 1 to
10, the results do not reflect on the exact quality of the prints (i.e. samples ranked 1 to 3
might be much better than samples ranked 4 to 10 but ranking does not provide this
information). These ranking results were a mere reflection on the proportion of
customers that prefer a print sample to another.
Figure 3-17. Pairwise Ranking Procedure
49
CHAPTER 4
4.1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Results obtained in this study are presented and discussed in this chapter. Chapter 4 is
separated into two main parts. Section 4.2 summarizes the experimental results
obtained and identifies the main paper parameters that have a strong effect on print
quality. Sections 4.3 to 4.5 explore the relationship between the different objective (print
microgloss, microgloss nonuniformity, print mottle, print density, surface roughness,
surface topography) and subjective (visual ranking) types of print quality evaluation.
Finally, Section 4.6 addresses the different printers and their printing effects. Optical
images of the different print patterns will also be provided and discussed.
4.2
Paper and Print Quality Review
This study focuses only on the structure and composition, and optical properties of paper
as listed in Table 4-1. International Paper (IP) provided all of the paper properties except
paper microgloss and paper microgloss nonuniformity. These properties were known to
play a role in affecting print quality; however, their significance was not known. Hence,
an analysis of their importance was performed in Section 4.4.
Print quality attributes, on the other hand, were measured on 100% black print samples
as listed in Table 4-2. The objective attributes included print microgloss, print microgloss
nonuniformity, print and gloss mottle (>10mm, 1 - 10mm, 0.1 - 1mm, and <0.1mm size
ranges), print density, and print surface roughness; whereas the subjective attribute
measured was visual ranking. The tests were performed on the different paper samples
printed using the 3 different printers. Raw data corresponding to the measured paper
parameters and print quality tests can be found in Appendix D.
50
Table 4-1. List of Paper Properties

Paper Sample
10
Basis Wt (g/m2)
77.1
77.8
77.6
91.4
92.2
93.1
106.9
106.4
120.9
87.5
Brightness (%)
90.6
90.9
91.5
94.6
93.9
91.9
97.2
95.9
95.9
93.6
Bulk (cm /g)
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
Caliper/Thickness
(microns)
104
100
105
103
116
114
120
122
132
113
Density (g/cm3)
0.74
0.77
0.73
0.88
0.79
0.81
0.89
0.87
0.91
0.77
Fiber
(Hardwood %)
53
55
57
87
43
72
89
83
91
100
Fluorescence IP
71.2
72.6
75.2
79.0
95.0
83.6
81.4
93.2
92.8
83.4
Gloss 75 (%)
5.0
5.5
6.2
9.4
7.7
8.6
9.6
9.1
10.8
6.5
46
29
48
36
34
76
309
54
535
Microgloss
861
859
860
973
901
900
978
915
902
846
Microgloss
Nonuniformity
35.8
42.0
39.5
48.9
37.0
35.7
42.9
42.2
40.8
31.5
Opacity (%)
88.6
88.9
90.5
91.8
92.6
94.1
94.1
94.5
96.3
93.9
Porosity Gurley
(s)
19.8
18.9
15.8
40.1
14.1
21.2
35.4
30.4
48.8
24.9
PPS Roughness
(m)
6.98
7.23
5.87
4.34
6.00
4.72
4.17
4.52
4.12
5.72
Sheffield
Roughness (SU)
161
167
197
57
118
116
62
66
57
122
Stiffness Gurley
(mg)
182
159
156
198
274
225
290
282
416
221
Tensile Energy
Absorption
(ft-lb/ft2)
3.97
5.02
3.98
6.60
3.95
3.64
6.70
5.97
9.04
7.04
Tensile Index
(Nm/g)
65.8
68.9
57.8
64.3
57.9
51.6
56.7
56.7
59.6
62.5
Youngs Modulus
(1000 lb/in2)
754
731
619
704
725
660
651
674
663
648
HST Sizing (s)
51
Table 4-2. Print Quality of 100% Black Print Samples

Paper Sample
HP
2600
HP
Print Gloss
4700
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print
HP
Microgloss
4700
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print
HP
Microgloss
4700
Nonuniformity
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print Mottle
HP
[>10mm]
4700
( 10-2)
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print Mottle
HP
[1 to 10mm]
4700
( 10-2)
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print Mottle
HP
[0.1 to 1mm]
4700
-2
( 10 )
HP
9500
HP
2600
Print Mottle
HP
[<0.1mm]
4700
-2
( 10 )
HP
9500
10
24.7
21.7
20.5
27.7
27.3
23.4
21.0
27.7
29.6
23.0
18.1
17.4
14.9
23.0
24.2
20.7
27.0
26.5
25.3
18.8
18.2
15.5
16.2
18.6
17.2
16.4
17.9
19.7
15.5
15.1
335.2
281.4
287.7
316.2
325.2
331.5
238.1
317.3
360.5
281.8
246.1
246.8
227.3
287.5
283.5
261.9
306.3
318.1
309.5
260.5
265.3
240.4
240.4
247.5
232.7
223.7
235.2
259.9
204.6
217.3
101.3
96.9
102.4
74.9
85.2
95.5
52.4
77.7
88.8
92.2
77.9
80.1
84.5
73.0
79.1
79.8
76.2
79.1
80.2
92.2
71.1
71.4
75.2
48.4
51.6
53.6
43.6
50.0
40.2
59.0
3.83
3.58
2.95
3.25
3.87
4.36
5.31
2.67
2.57
3.36
2.45
3.28
2.65
2.82
3.03
3.10
3.13
4.02
4.48
2.39
2.69
2.47
2.54
2.62
3.13
2.22
2.71
2.13
2.94
1.65
7.60
6.22
7.19
3.67
4.76
5.96
2.76
3.38
2.79
6.48
6.73
6.59
5.99
5.45
6.88
6.45
5.16
4.91
5.72
5.58
8.26
6.78
6.88
3.95
4.82
4.90
2.89
2.33
2.69
4.01
43.05
37.87
38.51
30.48
29.13
30.16
16.96
25.19
21.86
45.30
22.84
23.81
22.02
20.01
23.54
22.76
17.56
16.88
19.28
20.73
39.40
34.82
36.89
23.45
24.37
26.55
15.38
12.24
12.50
23.76
11.74
10.10
11.02
10.12
8.89
9.18
5.72
8.61
7.21
11.80
6.85
7.16
7.48
6.23
6.72
7.35
5.33
5.29
5.84
5.70
12.97
11.39
11.96
8.33
8.08
9.50
6.26
5.22
5.25
7.74
52
Gloss Mottle
[>10mm]
( 10-3)
Gloss Mottle
[1 to 10mm]
( 10-3)
Gloss Mottle
[0.1 to 1mm]
( 10-3)
Gloss Mottle
[<0.1mm]
( 10-3)
Print Density
Print Surface
Roughness
(Stylus, Rq)
Visual
Ranking
HP
0.48
2600
HP
0.18
4700
HP
0.40
9500
HP
1.30
2600
HP
1.20
4700
HP
1.50
9500
HP
6.50
2600
HP
4.00
4700
HP
6.54
9500
HP
2.30
2600
HP
1.50
4700
HP
2.20
9500
HP
2600 1.62
HP
4700 1.35
HP
9500 1.38
HP
2600 7.23
HP
4700 11.06
HP
9500 10.43
HP
2600 9.8
HP
4700 9.8
HP
9500 10.0
0.35
0.38
0.26
0.34
0.30
0.14
0.28
0.31
0.26
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.26
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.27
0.54
0.40
0.34
0.28
0.26
0.14
0.32
0.24
0.22
1.10
1.10
0.62
0.88
1.00
0.34
0.66
0.88
0.98
1.10
1.10
0.82
0.82
0.92
0.26
0.66
0.82
0.96
1.30
1.50
0.76
1.10
1.10
0.40
0.80
0.80
1.10
5.80
6.40
3.80
4.80
5.80
1.70
4.00
4.80
5.70
2.90
2.80
2.80
2.40
2.90
1.80
2.40
2.40
3.20
5.46
6.06
6.16
5.08
4.82
2.02
4.30
3.18
4.00
1.70
2.30
1.30
1.50
2.00
0.54
1.30
1.50
1.70
1.10
1.20
0.84
1.10
1.60
0.34
0.94
1.20
1.20
1.70
2.10
1.20
1.30
1.90
0.70
1.10
0.76
1.30
1.59
1.58
1.65
1.62
1.61
1.56
1.63
1.62
1.59
1.34
1.32
1.36
1.34
1.31
1.33
1.32
1.29
1.36
1.34
1.33
1.35
1.34
1.36
1.38
1.37
1.36
1.39
7.39
5.87
1.69
5.55
3.80
2.71
2.45
2.09
5.76
7.99
5.50
3.60
4.87
4.14
2.35
3.23
4.17
6.07
9.06
6.91
3.99
3.70
2.73
2.94
2.76
2.07
4.57
8.8
8.0
4.4
5.8
6.6
1.8
3.2
1.2
5.4
9.2
7.4
5.4
6.0
6.2
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.6
8.8
8.2
5.0
6.6
4.8
2.2
3.6
1.4
4.4
53
4.3
Correlation between Objective & Subjective Print Quality
4.3.1
Print Microgloss & Microgloss Nonuniformity Assessment
The relationship between print and paper microgloss and microgloss nonuniformity is
shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, respectively.
Figure 4-1. Impact of Paper Microgloss on Print Microgloss
Figure 4-2. Impact of Paper Microgloss Nonuniformity on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity
54
Figure 4-1 shows no significant correlation between paper and print microgloss for
uncoated paper samples printed using HP 4700 and HP 9500 series and poor
correlation for samples printed using HP 2600 series. This means that paper microgloss
does not have much effect on the microgloss of the final printed image and print
microgloss may be strongly influenced by other parameters. Similar trends can be seen
for paper and print microgloss nonuniformity as shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3 shows the correlation between print microgloss nonuniformity and print
microgloss. The labeled colored numbers on the plot correspond to the printed samples
of the different uncoated papers (see Table 3-1). If the results obtained from the 3
different printers are analyzed separately, no correlation can be found between print
microgloss and its nonuniformity for the different uncoated papers. Also, microgloss
nonuniformity does not show large changes for individual printers while microgloss does
change significantly (i.e. larger change within the given span). However, when the
results are analyzed from printer to printer, an increasing trend was observed. Generally,
print microgloss nonuniformity increases as print microgloss increases [22]. Printed
samples from HP 9500 were noted to have the lowest microgloss and nonuniformity
values while samples from HP 2600 acquired the highest corresponding values.
Figure 4-3. Impact of Print Microgloss on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity
55
4.3.2
Print Density Determination
When print density was plotted against visual ranking as shown in Figure 4-4, it was
found that none of the print samples have any significant correlation. As shown in Figure
4-4, print samples from similar batches do not have any significant change in print
density and samples from HP 2600 series generally have a higher print density value
than the other 2 printer series. This means that paper type does not affect print density
and print density does not play a role in affecting the visual appearance of print, unlike
print mottle (i.e. the nonuniformity in print density) which will be discussed in the
following section.
Figure 4-4. Impact of Print Microgloss Nonuniformity on Print Density
4.3.3
Print Mottle & Gloss Mottle Evaluation
In agreement with the previous literature, print mottle was found to be one of the
objective print quality tests that have the most effect on the subjective judgment of a
print. In order to determine which mottle range correlates best to the human eye, print
mottle was plotted against visual ranking for the following size ranges: >10mm, 1 10mm, 0.1 - 1mm, and <0.1mm.
56
In Figure 4-5, Figure 4-6, and Figure 4-7, the x-axis shows the visual ranking data
whereby 1 corresponds to the best rated sample with best print quality while 10
corresponds to the worst rated sample with the worst print. All three figures show that
the size range of 0.1 - 1 mm is best correlated to visual ranking for printed samples from
HP 4700 and HP 9500 series.
Figure 4-5. Impact of Print Mottle on Visual Ranking for HP 2600 Print Samples
57
Another size range worth noting was 1 - 10 mm because the correlation between print
mottle and visual ranking is relatively high for all 3 printers. However, in this section, only
the size range of 0.1 - 1mm was analysed for further correlations because the print
samples in this range had the highest mottle value (print mottle is dominated by this
range).
Figure 4-8. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Visual Ranking for all 3 Printers
58
Since the human eye is most sensitive to spatial variations (i.e. print mottle) within the
size range of 0.1 - 1mm, a plot correlating print mottle at this size range versus visual
ranking for all 3 printers was produced as shown in Figure 4-8. From Figure 4-8, it could
be seen that there is a positive correlation between print mottle and visual ranking.
Figure 4-8 shows that samples printed using HP 9500 have the best correlation to print
mottle in the 0.1 - 1mm range whereas samples printed in the HP 4700 series have the
worse correlation.
Print mottle versus print microgloss nonuniformity was then correlated based on the 0.1 1mm size range as shown in Figure 4-9. This figure shows that the different printed
samples of similar base sheets have very similar mottle values but different microgloss
non-uniformity (labeled numbers signify the different paper types). It was also observed
that the print mottle and microgloss nonuniformity varies from paper to paper when the
printed samples of similar printers are compared.
Figure 4-9. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity
There is an increasing trend line for samples printed using the HP 2600 and HP 9500
series (i.e. paper with higher mottle typically has a higher print nonuniformity). This
shows that the uneven print density caused by uneven toner distribution deteriorates the
59
uniformity of microgloss (higher nonuniformity values). However, samples printed using

HP 4700 shows poor correlation and do not possess any trend from the statistical point
of view. This might be due to the fact that the paper properties cover a relatively small
range and; hence, this printer is less sensitive to the paper type (i.e. almost independent
of paper itself) and the printed samples could not pick up good statistical data points.
It should be noted that even though a print sample is found to be most mottled within a
print series, the sample may not necessary be ranked as the worst print. This is because
a darker printed sample will be perceived as more disturbing than a lighter printed
surface even though they have the same magnitude of variation (similar mottle value)
[80]. Therefore, visual ranking has a limitation if the printed samples within the same
series have a great variation in the darkness of the surface.
When gloss mottle was plotted against visual ranking as shown in Figure 4-10, Figure 411, and Figure 4-12, it was found that print gloss mottle in the size range 1 - 10 mm was
best correlated to visual ranking for samples from all 3 printer series. As explained
before, human perception is more sensitive towards gloss mottle in the range of 4 - 8
mm [53].
Figure 4-10. Impact of Gloss Mottle on Visual Ranking for HP 2600 Print Samples
60
In comparison to print mottle, gloss mottle was less correlated to visual ranking and all 3
printers showed similar mottle trends (i.e. gloss mottle is dominant in the 0.1 - 1mm size
range, similar to that of print mottle). When comparing all 4 frequency ranges for the 3
printers, it was noted that all four ranges have almost similar but weak correlation to
visual ranking. Hence, it can be concluded that gloss mottle does play a role in affecting
61
print quality regardless of the mottle size (i.e. macro or microgloss). However, its effect is
not as significant as that of print mottle.
4.3.4
Effects of Roughness
4.3.4.1 Print Roughness Parameters: RMS, Skewness, & Kurtosis

The overall 3D surface topographic maps were obtained as shown in Appendix F. An
example of the peaks and valleys of a printed sample is illustrated in Figure 4-13.
Figure 4-13. 3D Topographic Map for a Sample Printed using HP 9500

In order to characterize the print roughness, roughness parameters such as skewness
and kurtosis of each printed sample were taken into consideration and are as listed in
Table 4-3. Skewness indicates whether the print sample consists mainly of valleys or
peaks, whereas kurtosis measures the randomness in the surface heights distribution.
From Table 4.3 it was noted that print roughness seems to depend on the paper sample
and seems to be independent of the printer. For instance, paper samples 1, 2, and 3
tend to have higher print roughness, whereas paper samples 7, 8, and 9 have lower print
roughness among all 3 different printers. Skewness and Kurtosis, on the other hand, do
not seem to have an obvious trend among the different paper samples and printers. This
might be due to the relatively small sample region tested (600 by 500m). In addition, 5
replicates of each sample were tested; hence, the large variability among similar sample
could lead to a difference in skewness and kurtosis value.
62
Table 4-3. Print Roughness Data: RMS, Skewness, & Kurtosis

Print Roughness Parameters (m)
Paper
Sample
HP 2600
HP 4700
HP 9500
Rq
Rsk
Rku
Rq
Rsk
Rku
Rq
Rsk
Rku
7.23
-0.11
3.74
11.06
-1.69
4.43
10.43
-1.32
1.94
7.39
-1.04
2.64
7.99
-0.16
2.51
9.06
-1.40
4.03
5.87
-1.74
4.19
5.50
-1.57
2.93
6.91
0.37
2.09
1.69
-0.26
2.19
3.60
-1.64
4.84
3.99
-0.30
2.35
5.55
-0.34
3.94
4.87
-0.15
2.49
3.70
1.22
1.77
3.80
-1.74
4.88
4.14
-0.50
3.09
2.73
-1.53
4.00
2.71
-2.02
8.02
2.35
-1.72
4.59
2.94
0.45
2.96
2.45
-0.64
3.19
3.23
-1.56
4.34
2.76
-0.16
2.69
2.09
-0.08
2.29
4.17
-0.76
4.86
2.07
-0.01
1.75
10
5.76
-1.54
3.41
6.07
-1.53
2.79
4.57
-1.61
3.06
In general, a sample with a negative skewness value has fewer bumps or peaks above
the mean surface (i.e. relatively more valleys). Samples with a low kurtosis value are
relatively more randomly distributed in surface heights, whereas samples with high
kurtosis tend to have a significant number of high and low extreme surface heights. From
this observation, it could be noted that even though the paper type influences print
roughness, it does not significantly affects the skewness and kurtosis values. Different
regions of a similar printed sample could provide completely contradictory skewness and
kurtosis values; hence, skewness and kurtosis should be considered as localized
roughness parameters that depend greatly on individual print and not the paper or
printer type.
4.3.4.1 Print Mottle and Microgloss Nonuniformity Comparison

In order to determine whether paper roughness has a strong effect on objective print
quality, the correlation between print mottle and paper roughness was studied. Table 4-4
summarizes the effect of the type of method used to measure paper roughness in the
print mottle values. The specific experimental data corresponding to each type of test
can be found in Appendix E.
63
Table 4-4. Correlation as Measured by R2 between Print Mottle and Paper Roughness
Measured using Different Methods on Samples Printed with Different Laser Printers
Method
Printer
HP 2600
HP 4700
HP 9500
Stylus
0.52
0.52
0.49
PPS
0.6
0.6
0.7
WYKO
0.42
0.82
0.65
From Table 4-4, it could be seen that print mottle has a high correlation with paper
roughness measured using the PPS method as opposed to the Stylus method. However,
print mottle is not affected by the printer type and all three methods produce very similar
trend lines. Although PPS produced better results, the instrument was not available at
the point of analysis. WYKO, on the other hand, does not pick up good print roughness
points due to the strong absorbance of light by the black prints. Hence, Stylus was
chosen for this study. It should be noted that paper roughness measured from WYKO
and Stylus were highly correlated. Both have Print and paper roughness measurements
done by Stylus profilometry were used to perform a correlation analysis against print
mottle (see Figure 4-14 and 4-15).
According to Figure 4-14, print mottle in general increases when paper roughness
increases. When comparing the three series of printed samples, it was found that
samples printed using HP 9500 had the steepest slope while samples printed using HP
4700 had the gentlest slope. This meant that HP 9500 is the most sensitive printer to the
paper type and its roughness among all three printers. Therefore, a significant change in
paper roughness does not cause as large a change in print mottle for samples printed
using HP 4700 as similar paper samples printed using HP 2600 and HP 9500.
The dependence of print mottle on the printed area roughness (100% coverage) and the
unprinted area roughness (paper roughness) of similar paper types was examined (see
Figure 4-14 and 4-15). It was found that print mottle increases with both printed
roughness and paper roughness regardless of the printer. It was hypothesized that some
areas were not fully covered with toner even though the samples printed to have 100%
coverage (see Figure 4-16 (b)).
64
Figure 4-14. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Paper Roughness (Stylus)
Figure 4-15. Impact of Print Mottle (0.1 1mm) on Print Roughness (Stylus)
To validate this hypothesis, Figure 4-16 (a) and (b) show SEM images of an unprinted
and printed area of the same paper, correspondingly. Figure 4-16 (b) shows some areas
that are not covered with toner, thus revealing the underlying fibers of the paper. Since
Stylus is a contact surface profiler, the unfused toner particles will lead to a greater
surface roughness as the stylus tip travels from the highest point of the unfused area to
the bottom gap of the overlapping fibers.
65
Figure 4-16: (a) SEM Image of Paper Sample #9, (b) SEM Image of 100% Black
Coverage on Paper Sample #9 using HP 9500 Printer
Although print roughness of the samples was greater than the unprinted paper
roughness, both Figures 4-14 and 4-15 produce very similar trend line and slopes.
Figure 4-15 shows better correlation to print mottle as compared to the paper roughness
for HP 2600 and HP 9500. On the other hand, the correlation for HP 4700 decreased
from 0.52 to 0.43. Therefore, it can be concluded that both paper and print roughness
play a role in affecting print mottle.
Figure 4-17. Impact of Print Roughness (Stylus) on Microgloss Nonuniformity
66
As evident in Figure 4-17, print microgloss nonuniformity was found to be slightly

correlated to print roughness for samples printed using HP 2600. Samples printed using
HP 4700 showed no correlation while HP9500 had the best correlation and this trend is
similar to Figures 4-9 and 4-15. This reconfirms that HP4700 printer is least sensitive to
paper type and surface roughness does affect microgloss nonuniformity depending on
the types of print.
4.3.4.2 Visual Ranking Evaluation

From the Figure 4-18, it was observed that all three printers show relatively similar
positive yet weak correlation. In general, papers with higher roughness tend to have a
higher ranking indicating that papers with smoother surfaces tend to look better after
printing regardless of the printer type. Hence, paper roughness has a strong impact on
the quality of prints.
When comparing the SEM paper micrographs corresponding to the best and worst rated
samples printed with the HP 9500 series printer (see Figure 4-19), it could be seen that
the best rated sample has slimmer fibers that are more evenly distributed whereas the
worst rated sample has wider fibers and more filler can be detected. As expected, the
paper structure will affect the print quality of the samples.
Figure 4-18. Impact of Paper Roughness (Stylus) on Visual Ranking

67
Figure 4-19. Uncoated Paper corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample and (b) Worse
Rated Sample in HP 9500 Series
Figure 4-20. Impact of Print Roughness (Stylus) on Visual Ranking

To determine the effect of the different printers on print quality, the correlation of visual
ranking with print roughness was obtained (see Figure 4-20). All three printers showed a
positive correlation between visual ranking and printed roughness (i.e. the ranking
increases as the roughness of printed samples increases). Similar as before, samples
printed from HP 4700 tended to have the poorest correlation, whereas samples printed
from HP 9500 tended to have the best correlation. This meant that apart from the
difference in paper properties, the printers do play a part in affecting the print quality
68
(Refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the correlation produced from printed samples
seemed to be stronger than the unprinted samples. Paper samples have a small
roughness range between 4 to 7 microns (See Figure 4-18), whereas the printed
samples have a wider roughness range (2 to 12 microns). Hence, it was hypothesized
that if the paper is rougher, the addition of toner onto the paper will only make it rougher
due to the uneven toner penetration into the pores and uneven toner fusing due to the
nonuniform heat distribution between the fuser roll, toner, and paper itself.
Figure 4-21. 100% Black Coverage corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample at
100X Magnification, (b) Best Rated Sample at 500X Magnification, (c) Worst Rated
Sample at 100X Magnification and (d) Worst Rated Sample at 500X Magnification in
HP 9500 Series
Since the fibers of the paper corresponding to the poorly rated samples are not evenly
spaced as seen in Figure 4-19 (b), more and larger patches could be seen after printing
as shown in Figure 4-21 (c). On the other hand, the 100% black coverage image of the
best rated sample shows smaller patches that are more uniformly distributed across the
print (Refer to Figure 4-21 (a)). Due to the uneven fiber network of the paper
69
corresponding to the poorly rated sample, the toner particles tend to be trapped in
between the larger gaps of the overlapping fibers and heat transfer between the toner
particles trapped in the underlying fibers and the fuser roll tend to be poorer. Hence,
more unfused toner particles can be observed from the SEM image in Figure 4-21 (d).
Conversely, since the fibers of the paper corresponding to the best rated sample tend to
be finer and more evenly distributed, most of the toner particles are not trapped below
the fiber layers. Therefore, there is better contact between the toner particles and the
fuser roll. This in turn decreases the amount of unfused toner particles and thus, the
sample tends to look better and less mottled after printing as illustrated in Figure 4-21
(a).
4.3.5
Independence of Print Quality Measurements
As emphasized throughout this study, visual ranking is an important method used to

quantify the perceived quality of printed papers. Hence, in order to determine the relative
importance of paper properties in determining print quality, it was crucial to correlate
paper properties against visual ranking. Among all the indicators of objective print quality
examined in this thesis, print mottle showed the largest variations and strongest
correlations in relation to visual ranking. Therefore, print mottle was chosen as a suitable
objective indicator of print quality to be correlated against paper properties. Since visual
ranking will also be correlated against paper properties, other objective print qualities will
not be included in the PLS analysis due to their strong dependence on visual ranking.
4.4
Impact of Paper Properties on Print Quality
To determine the critical paper parameters that have an effect on xerographic print
quality, partial least squares (PLS) analysis was performed using the input raw data
shown in Table 4-5.
PLS has the ability to analyze data with strongly correlated and numerous X-variables
while simultaneously model and analyze several Ys (response or output parameters)
together, which has the advantage to give a simpler overall picture than one separate
model for each Y-variable [79]. The 10 different uncoated paper acts as the number of
70
observation points, paper parameters signify the input X-variables, and subjective print
quality; i.e. visual ranking of the 3 different print batches, acts as the output Yi variables.
Table 4-5. PLS Raw Data for Paper versus Print Quality
N (No. of Observations)
Input (Paper Parameters)
Output (Visual
Ranking, Print Mottle)
A - Basis Weight (g/m2)

1. HM Copy Plus
2. HP Office Riverdale
3. HP Office C35
4. HM Laser Print Ti
5. Premium Multipurpose
6. HP Multipurpose C35
7. HM Color Copy Ti
8. HP Color Laser Ti
9. HP Premium Choice Ti
10. LaserJet Saillat
B - Brightness (%)
C - Caliper (mm)
D - Density (g/cm3)
E - Fiber (Hardwood %)
F - Fluorescence IP
G - Gloss 75 (%)
H - Microgloss
I - Microgloss Nonuniformity
J - HST Sizing (s)
Y1 = HP 2600
Y2 = HP 4700
Y3 = HP 9500
K - Opacity (%)
L - Porosity Gurley (s)
M - PPS Roughness (mm)
N - Youngs Modulus (1000 lb/in2)
In PLS modeling, the data is pre-processed by mean-centering and scaling to a unit

variance [21]. This is necessary because some predictor variables such as density and
microgloss nonuniformity have a large range and variance than other variables such as
brightness and caliper. Each variable is centered by subtracting their averages and
scaled to a unit variance by dividing them by their standard deviations to ensure equal
contribution to the model, which in turn improves the interpretability of the model.
4.4.1
PLS Analysis on Visual Ranking
Before analyzing the data, it is important to ensure that the Y-variables are correlated.
Hence, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the Y-matrix. Since the
principal component for the visual ranking matrix is 1, a single PLSR model with all Ys
can be derived as the 3 Y variables are correlated. Therefore, PLS was performed on
71
the X and Y matrixes and as shown in Figure 4-22, two principle components were
obtained from this model.
Figure 4-22. Principal Component Analysis for Paper versus Visual Ranking
In PLS, R2 and Q2 stand for the goodness of fit and predictive ability respectively. The
higher the R2 and Q2 value, the better fitted is the model; however, it should be noted
that R2 will always increase as the number of principal component increases but Q2 will
start to decrease once predictability of the model decreases. Hence, a trade-off between
R2 and Q2 (difference between R2 and Q2 should be less than 0.2 - 0.3) is required to
obtain the optimal number of principal components and in this case, only two principal
components are required to explain the model. This means that the X-variables are
highly correlated and the first and second components can explain 93.2% and 3.4% of
the model respectively.
Due to the numerous X-variables and observations present, it is necessary to ensure
that the data does not contain any outliers that will affect the overall model predictability.
Hence, a score plot was made as shown in Figure 4-23. In this plot, each observation is
given a pair of scores (i.e. t[1] and t[2]) that corresponds to the value of the principal
component for that observation [21, 79]. Figure 4-23 shows that none of the samples fall
outside the Hotellings T2 95% boundary; hence, it is a good data set. It should be noted
that the paper parameters for the different samples cover a relatively tight range.
72
Figure 4-23. Score Scatter Plot for Paper versus Visual Ranking
In order to have a graphical representation of the effect of each paper parameters (each
X-variable is assigned weights: w*c[1], w*c[2]) on the principal component and the visual
ranking of the 3 different printers, a loading plot is produced as shown in Figure 4-24.
The blue scatter points in Figure 4-24 correspond to the 14 different paper parameters
used in this analysis and the description of each variable can be found in Table 4-5.
Since PC[1] explains most of this model (93.2%), the variables are first analyzed along
the x-axis (i.e. w*c[1]).
Figure 4-24. Scatter Loading Plot for Paper versus Visual Ranking
Figure 4-24 shows the 3 Y-variables cluster around the same area. This further proves
that the Y-variables are highly correlated and hence, paper effects on print quality do not
73
depend on the printer types (i.e. given the same paper quality, it will produce similar print
effect using different printers). Since the X-variables: basis weight, brightness, caliper,
density, fiber hardwood %, fluorescence, gloss 75, microgloss, opacity, and porosity are
clustered on the extreme left of the plot while the Y-variables are on the extreme right, it
can be concluded that those X-variables are negatively correlated to the Y-variables.
This means that an increase in the above mentioned X-variables would lead to a
decrease in visual ranking, which increases print quality. On the other hand, X-variable:
PPS roughness is positively correlated to visual ranking of the 3 printers. This means
that an increase in paper roughness will lead to an increase in visual ranking and a
decrease in print quality. Other X-variables: microgloss nonuniformity, HST sizing, and
youngs modulus are less correlated to visual ranking for the first principal component.
In order to obtain quantitative information about the correlation of these paper
parameters to visual ranking, a coefficient plot is needed as shown in Figure 4-25. The
coefficient plot shows the regression model consisting of the PLS regression coefficients
mean-centered and scaled to a unit variance [21, 79]. Other coefficient plots illustrating
the 2 individual principal components with the different Y-variables can be found in
Appendix E. From these plots, the coefficients obtained can be used to explain the
extent of correlation of each X-variable on the Y-variables as shown in the loading plot.
Figure 4-25. Coefficient Plot of Y-Variable HP 2600 for Paper versus Visual Ranking
Due to the large number of coefficient plots obtained, it is hard to determine the overall
influence of each individual paper parameters on all 3 printers. Hence, in order to
74
determine which X-variable has the highest influence on the response Y-variables, a
variable importance plot is needed as shown in Figure 4-26 and 4-27.
Figure 4-26. Variable Importance Plot of PC[1] for Paper versus Visual Ranking
Figure 4-27. Variable Importance Plot of PC[2] for Paper versus Visual Ranking
The VIP score is the weighted sum of squares of the PLS weights (i.e. w*c[1] or w*c[2]),
taking into account the amount of explained Y-variance in each dimension [21]. Any
variables with VIP scores less than 0.7 are considered to have no significance on the
response Y-variables while those with scores greater than 1.0 have strong influence on
visual ranking, which is a subjective form of print quality [21].
75
As shown in Figures 4-26 and 4-27, the five most important paper parameters that have
an effect on visual ranking include brightness, opacity, basis weight, gloss 75, and PPS
roughness, while the paper parameters that do not have a significant influence on visual
ranking include youngs modulus, HST sizing, and microgloss nonuniformity. Since the
error bars for some of the paper parameters are large, the paper parameters of
importance have similar impact on visual ranking and should not be ranked in order of
importance. It should also be noted that these paper parameters are highly correlated
because only 1 principal component was present when the five most important paper
parameters were correlated against visual ranking. It should be noted that all the optical
properties of paper included in this analysis have a strong effect on visual ranking. As
mentioned in Section 2.2.2, optical properties of paper were shown to play a major role
in affecting print quality in inkjet printing [17, 35]. Based on the results of this study, it can
now be concluded that these properties also have an effect on xerographic print quality.
When optimizing the paper parameters, it is important not to exclude any of the
parameters present in this model because the elimination of any parameters will cause a
significant change in the entire model as the paper parameters are highly correlated.
4.4.2
PLS Analysis on Print Mottle
PLS was performed using similar X-variables as mentioned above using print mottle as
the output variable. The Y-variables in this analysis refer to print mottle or power
spectrum of the 3 different printers at different frequency ranges (i.e. 1 - 5, 5 - 45, 45 450, 450 - 1025). Before analyzing the model, PCA was performed on the Y matrix to
ensure that they are correlated. It was found that Q2 for the overall Y matrix is 0.44;
hence, the correlation between the different frequency ranges of print mottle is weak.
When PLS was performed on the X and Y matrixes, the model could not be produced
and exceeds the maximum allowable principal components (max. of 6 components is
generated). Hence, PLS was performed on the individual frequency ranges and it was
found that print mottle corresponding to a frequency range (1 - 5) produces a negative
Q2 value whereas other frequency ranges produced positive Q2 values. Therefore, data
from the frequency range of 1 - 5 (i.e. >10mm) was excluded in this analysis and a Q2
value of 0.89 was obtained for the new overall Y matrix.
76
Figure 4-28. Principal Component Analysis for Paper versus Print Mottle
Six principle components were obtained from the PLS model (see Figure 4-28). This
indicates that the X and Y variables are not highly correlated. It could be seen from
Figure 4-28 that the Q2 value for component 3 is lower than that of component 2;
whereas components 4 - 6 are higher than those of component 3. However, the first and
second components can explain 73.5% and 8.9% of the model respectively; hence, in
this analysis, emphasis will be placed on the first component.
Figure 4-29. Scatter Loading Plot for Paper versus Print Mottle
77
As shown in Figure 4-29, the blue scatter points correspond to the 14 different paper
parameters used in this analysis and the red scatter points correspond to the different
frequency ranges (5 - 45, 45 - 450, 450 - 1025) of the different printers. Since PC[1]
explains most of this model (73.5%), the variables are first analyzed along the x-axis (i.e.
w*c[1]).
Figure 4-29 shows that the Y-variables of all 3 frequency ranges corresponding to HP
4700 and HP 9500 cluster around the same area above the x-axis, whereas the Yvariables corresponding to HP 2600 cluster below the x-axis. Therefore, it can be
concluded that print mottle obtained from HP 2600 have a negative correlation to those
from HP 4700 and HP 9500. The X-variables that are located on the opposite side of the
plot as opposed to the Y-variables are similar to those produced from the visual ranking
plot, which means that those variables are also negatively correlated to print mottle
produced from all 3 printers.
Figure 4-30. Variable Importance Plot of PC[1] for Paper versus Print Mottle
When comparing Figure 4-24 and 4-29, it was found that although microgloss
nonuniformity does not have a good correlation to visual ranking, it is more correlated to
print mottle, whereas fiber (hardwood %) does not have a significant effect on print
mottle. In order to determine the paper parameters that have a high influence on print
mottle, a variable importance plot is produced as shown in Figure 4-30. From this plot, it
is evident that microgloss nonuniformity, youngs modulus, and HST sizing is less
78
significant to print mottle whereas the five most important paper parameters are similar
to those for visual ranking. However, it should be noted that the order of importance is
dissimilar.
4.5
Printers and their Print Effects
As mentioned in Section 4-3, different printers produce different print qualities.

Therefore, it is necessary to determine which quality indicators and print properties (e.g.
toner particle size) are mostly affected by the different printers. Before looking at the
different printers, the paper samples were first analyzed to determine whether there was
a correlation between them (i.e. comparing paper to paper). Figure 4-31 shows the
correlation between visual ranking of the ten different uncoated papers printed using
three different printers.
As seen in Figure 4-31, some of the paper samples (e.g. paper 1 and 2) have almost
similar ranking among the 3 different printers while others (e.g. paper 5 and 10) do not.
Figure 4-31 shows that there is no correlation between the given paper sample and that
the ranking in general does not change from paper to paper. Hence, a comparison
between the rankings of printed samples from the 3 different printers was made as
shown in Figure 4-32.
Figure 4-31. Impact of Different Paper Samples Printed using Three Different
Printers on Visual Ranking
79
Figure 4-32. Plot of HP 4700 and HP 9500 Ranking vs. HP 2600 Ranking
Figure 4-32 shows that there is a strong correlation between the visual ranking results
conducted in HP 4700 and HP 9500 series versus those from the HP 2600 series. This
meant that samples with similar paper properties printed using the different printers
would have almost similar rankings when compared against other samples within each
batch with different paper types. This reconfirms the PLS analysis made in Section 4.4.
In the next section, microscopic images of the best and worse rated samples from the
three batches of print samples were examined and relate to print quality. The different
print patterns and the difference in toner sizes and coverages can be illustrated from
these microscopic images.
4.5.1
Comparison of Optical Images
In order to have a visual comparison between the best and worst rated print samples
from the different printers, optical images of the print samples were captured and are
shown in Figures 4-33, 4-34, and 4-35. From Figure 4-33, it could be seen that the
different printers have different print patterns. Samples printed using HP 9500 seemed to
have the best visual appearance due to the more even toner coverage whereas samples
from HP 4700 series revealed more fibers and do not seem to be properly covered with
toner.
When similar samples with 40% coverage were analyzed at a higher magnification as
shown in Figure 4-34, it was found that the toner particles are not properly fused in
80
samples from the HP 4700 series printer and the toner particles are generally smaller.
Hence, there is a possibility that there is lesser contact between the toner particles and
the fuser roll. In addition, since the toner particles are smaller, the same percentage of
coverage would mean that less toner mass is present and this might lead to the poor
print quality.
Besides the difference in printer type, the difference in paper type also has an effect on
the visual print quality. As shown in Figure 4-33, the worse rated samples from all three
series have larger and more uncovered patches than the corresponding best rated
samples from similar series. Since softwood fibers tend to be wider, more gaps would be
formed after printing; hence, the increase in hardwood % would enhance the
appearance of the printed images.
When comparing the toner patterns between the different printers as shown in Figure 435, it was found that even though the samples were printed with 40% coverage, HP
2600 seemed to have more toner particles on the paper samples than those in HP 9500.
This might be due to the toner transfer problem. Since the toner particles seemed to be
larger for HP 2600 than HP 4700 and HP 9500, as evident in Figure 4-34, there might be
81
greater contact between the toner particles, the fuser roll and paper itself. This in turn
increases the dielectric charges of the toner particles and thus increases the toner
transfer efficiency.
Corresponding to (a) HP 2600, (b) HP 4700, and (c) HP 9500 series and the Best Rated
Samples for (d) HP2600, (e) HP 4700, and (f) HP 9500 at 50X Magnification
82
In addition to the toner charge issue, another factor that might have contributed to the
difference in toner transfer is the uneven grayness. This means that even though the
printers were preset to release toner particles that fill up 40% of the paper, the different
printers might have a different released amount and some toner particles might have a
larger spreading angle or wettability factor which contributes to a higher and faster
penetration to drying rate during fusing [54].
Figure 4-36. Microgloss Images of Paper Corresponding to (a) Best Rated Sample and
(b) Worst Rated Sample in HP 9500 series and 100% Black Coverage of (c) Best Rated
Sample and (d) Worst Rated Sample in HP 9500 series
Another factor that contributes to the poor visual quality of the printed samples is the
presence of white spots as shown in Figure 4-36 and 4-37. During microgloss analysis,
it was found that the print images captured have traces of white spots. In order to ensure
these white spots are not saturated images due to overexposure, EDX was performed
on these samples as shown in Figure 4-37 and 4-38.
83
Figure 4-37. EDX Analysis on White Spots Present in Print Sample
Figure 4-38. EDX Plot Showing Presence of Calcium in White Spot Tested
An energy dispersive X-ray analysis was performed on one of the white spots shown in
Figure 4-37 and the spectrum in Figure 4-38 showed the presence of calcium and
oxygen. Hence, there is likely that the spots were composed of filler particles that stick to
the fuser roll and paper during printing or that the toner layer is insufficient to cover the
underlying particles in the paper. This suggests that besides paper properties, print
properties such as insufficient toner layer and inadequate fuser roll heat and pressure
also can lead to print quality degradation.
84
CHAPTER 5
5.1
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Conclusions
Based on this study, it was confirmed that:
Both paper and printer type have an effect on the quality of xerographic prints.
However, paper plays a major role in affecting xerographic print quality.
An increase in basis weight, brightness, caliper, density, fiber hardwood %,

fluorescence, gloss 75o, microgloss, opacity, and porosity would lead to a
decrease in visual ranking and print mottle, which increases print quality. While
an increase in PPS roughness has the reverse effect.
The six most important paper parameters (of equal importance) that have a
strong effect on print quality (visual ranking and print mottle) are brightness,
opacity, basis weight, gloss 75o, roughness, and density. These parameters are
highly dependent on each other and a change in one of these parameters will
lead to a significant change in the effect of other paper parameters on print
quality. Hence, there is no perfect printing paper that will produce prints with the
best quality because there has to be a compromise between the different paper
parameters.
All of the optical properties of paper included in this analysis showed a strong
correlation to visual ranking and print mottle due to its strong dependence on the
structure and composition of other paper parameters.
For xerographic prints, microgloss increases as microgloss nonuniformity

increases. In addition, print microgloss nonuniformity, print mottle, and roughness
have a positive correlation to visual ranking. This means that the paper properties
that affect visual ranking will also have the same effect on these objective print
qualities.
85
Print mottle conducted by Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) are dominated by

variations in the 0.1 - 1mm range, which is most visible to the human eye, and
samples seemed to be most mottled in this range.
Print gloss mottle was found to affect print quality regardless of the mottle size
(i.e. macro or microgloss). However, its effect is not as significant as that of print
mottle.
Paper samples with higher softwood fiber percentage (i.e. broader and wider
fibers) and uneven toner coverage will result in an increase in surface roughness,
which contributes to a poorer visual appearance. This is because toner particles
tend to be trapped in between the larger gaps of the overlapping fibers and heat
transfer between the toner particles trapped in the underlying fibers and the fuser
roll tend to be poorer.
The difference in printer characteristics such as smaller toner particle size, poor
toner coverage and high print speed also result in the poor visual qualities of
printed samples with similar base sheet properties.
5.2
Recommendations for Future Work
Some recommendations that can be considered for future work are:
Besides optical properties of paper, it would be good to include other paper

properties such as moisture content, thermal conductivity, etc. Since the findings
for PLS analysis are based on a limited range of variables, the effects of
uniformity on the above-mentioned paper properties (within a relevant range) on
print quality could also be studied. In addition, print properties mentioned in
Section 2.3.2 can be tested to determine their influence on xerographic print
quality.
Since the results presented in this study corresponds mainly to the 100% black
prints, similar analysis should also be performed on other color samples to
confirm the effects of paper properties on print quality.
86
REFERENCES
[1]
Meyer, J., Print Quality Challenges for the Next Decade, Hard Copy and Printing
Materials, Media, and Process, SPIE: Vol. 1253, pp. 370 - 375, (1990).
[2]
Eid, A.H.; et al., Characterization of Mottle and Low Frequency Print Defects.
SPIE-IS&T: Vol. 6808(9), pp. 1 - 12, (2008).
[3]
Mangin, P.J. and Dube, M., Fundamental Questions on Print Quality. SPIE-IS&T:
Vol. 6059(1), pp. 1 - 12, (2006).
[4]
Fischer, M.; et al., Laser Print Quality: Practically Continuous Addressability.

SPIE-IS&T: Vol. 6807(13), pp. 1 - 7, (2008).
[5]
Christoffersson, J., Evaluation of Systematic & Colour Print Mottle. Linkopings

Universitet, Department of Science and Technology, Sweden, (2004).
[6]
AL-Rubaiey, H., and Oittinen, P., Controlling Fusing Parameters by Optical Image
Quality in Electrophotographic Printing. Graphic Arts in Finland: Vol. 33(1), pp. 1 5, (2004).
[7]
AL-Rubaiey, H., and Oittinen, P., Thermal Behavior of Paper in Contact Fusing
Technology. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 52(3), pp. 030507-031-10, (2008).
[8]
Engeldrum, P.G., Measuring Customer Perception of Print Quality. Tappi Journal:

Vol. 73, pp. 161 - 164, (1990).
[9]
Schleusener, M. and Apel, R., The Influence of Toner and Paper Properties on
Electrophotographic Print Quality. IS&T-NIP: Vol. 10, pp. 545 - 548, (1994).
[10] Green, Jr. and Charles, J., Functional Paper Properties in Xerography. Tappi
Journal: Vol. 64(5), pp. 79 - 81, (1981).
[11] Ng, Y.; et al., Standardization of Perceptual based Gloss and Gloss Uniformity for
Printing Systems. SPIE: Vol. 5668, pp. 163 - 172, (2005).
[12] Kitano, Y.; et al., Comparative Studies of Gloss Development in
Electrophotography and Offset Printing. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 52(1), pp. 010504011-10, (2008).
[13] Yamaguchi, C. and Takeuchi, M., Influence of Toner Particle Shape and Size on
Electrophotographic Image Quality. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 40(5), pp. 436 - 440,
(1996).
[14] Takagi, K.; et al., The Relationship Between Toner Charging and Properties of the
Development Roller for Minimizing Degradation of Imaging Density. Journal of
IS&T: Vol. 48(4), pp. 312 - 318, (2004).
87
[15] Hakola, E.; et al., Toner Penetration into Porous Substrates. Journal of IS&T: Vol.
52(4), pp. 040501-0401-8, (2008).
[16] Wyhof, J.R., Effect of Electrophotographic Processes on Print Quality in LED
Printers. The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 1254, pp. 178 184, (1990).
[17] Dewitz, A., Paper for Digital Printing. RIT - School of Print Media, (2004).
Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://printmode.net/downloads/paper-fordigital-printing.pdf.
[18] Bernard, G.D., Relationship between Microgloss Nonuniformity and Surface
Texture of Paper. Master of Applied Science Thesis, Department of Chemical
Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, (2005).
[19] Mao, C.Q., Local Rewetting and Distortion of Paper. Master of Applied Science
Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of
Toronto, (2001).
[20] Nazad, M.; et al., The Effect of Refining on Paper Formation. Tappi Papermakers
Conference: Vol. 2, pp. 603 - 610, (2000).
[21] Moore, K., The Effect of Papermaking Conditions on the Bulk and Roughness of
Coated Wood-free Papers Containing Aspen High-yield Pulp. Master of Applied
Science Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry,
University of Toronto, (2008).
[22] Azimi, Y., Investigation of Coat Weight Distribution and its Influence on
Roughness Changes during Printing of Paper. Master of Applied Science Thesis,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto,
(2008).
[23] Hu, K.; et al., Substitution of Hardwood Bleached Kraft Pulp with Aspen High-yield
Pulp in LWC Wood-free Papers, Part 1: Synergy of Basestock Properties. TAPPI
Journal: Vol. 5(3), pp. 21 - 26, (2006).
[24] Auhorn, W.J., Papermaking Chemistry and Technology: Paper Coating. Pulp and
Paper Technology & Paper Manufacturing, (2002). Retrieved February 18, 2009,
from http://chempatec-auhorn.com/images/coatpapersurface_480.jpg.
[25] Ohno, K.; et al., Mechanism of Size Retention on Handsheets Prepared in Rosin
Soap Size-alum Systems. Journal of Wood Science: Vol. 45(6), pp. 481 - 486,
(1999).
[26] Provatas, N.; et al., Effect of Filler Distribution and Caliper Variations on Toner
Transfer in Electrophotographic Printing. International Conference on Digital
Printing Technologies: pp. 958 - 963, (2004).
[27] Provatas, N.; et al., Dielectric Variation in Paper and Its Effects on
Electrophotographic Printing. International Conference on Digital Printing
Technologies: pp. 770 - 773, (2002).
88
[28] Borch, J. and Svendsen, R.G., Paper Material Considerations for System
Printers. IBM Journal of Research and Development: Vol. 28(3), pp. 285 - 291,
(1984).
[29] Caner, J.E., Effect of the Coating Formulation on the Microgloss and the
Microgloss Nonuniformity of Coated Papers. Master of Applied Science Thesis,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto,
(2006).
[30] Sirvio, P. and Backfolk, K., Effect of Roughness of Low-Grammage Coated
Papers on Print Quality in Color Electrophotography. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 52(1),
pp. 010505-0101-9, (2008).
[31] Evans, M.A.; et al., An Investigation into Papers for Digital Printing. TAPPI
Papermakers Conference: Vol. 2006, (2006).
[32] Rutar, V., The Effect of Electrical Properties on Printing Quality and Runnability.
Pulp and Paper Institute, (2005). Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
http://pfi.knowit.se/files/pfi/CharFiles/COSTE32/Presentations/ElectricalPropertiesR
utar.pdf.
[33] Jang, W.; et al., Print Quality Test Page. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 48(5), pp. 432 446, (2004).
[34] Shuichi, M.; et al., Development of Paper having Microporous Layer for Digital
Printing. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 44(5), pp. 410 - 417, (2000).
[35] Harrison, V., Optical Properties of Paper. In Formation and Structure of Paper, F.
Bolam Ed.: vol. 1, pp. 467 - 485, ISBN: 0954112628, (2003).
[36] Sanders, D.J.; et al., Effect of paper properties on fusing fix. Journal of IS&T: Vol.
40(2), pp. 175 - 179, (1996).
[37] Mallik, U., Many Faces of Light: Reflection and Refraction. Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of Iowa. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from
http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~umallik/adventure/geo-optics/lightnw.htm.
[38] MacGregor, M.A.; et al., Measurement of small-scale gloss variation in printed
paper. Proceedings of the International Printing and Graphic Arts Conference: pp.
33 - 43, (1994).
[39] Printing Machine B2B Marketplace, Types of Printing. Retrieved February 19,
2009, from http://www.printing-machine.net/types-of-printing.html.
[40] Brent, D., Types of Printing. EzineArticles.com, (2007). Retrieved February 19,
2009, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Types-of-Printing&id=521393.
89
[41] Azadi, P., Discrete element modeling of the transient heat transfer and toner
fusing process in the Xerographic printing of coated papers. Master of Applied
Science Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry,
University of Toronto, (2007).
[42] Sharp, J., Materials For Laser Printing. SPIE: Vol. 1987, pp. 150 - 160, (1993).
[43] Duke, C.B.; et al., The Surface Science of Xerography. Surface Science: Vol.
500(1 - 3), pp. 1005 - 1023, (2002).
[44] Ahmadi, A.; et al., Life-cycle Inventory of Toner Produced for Xerographic
Processes. Journal of Cleaner Production: Vol. 11(5), pp. 573 - 582, (2003).
[45] Wang, S-G.; et al., Glossmark Technology: Beyond Halftone Frequencies. SPIE:
Vol. 5667, pp. 544 - 553, (2005).
[46] Juuti, M.; et al., Detection of Local Specular Gloss and Surface Roughness from
Black Prints. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects:
Vol. 299(1 - 3), pp. 101 - 108, (2007).
[47] Arney, J.S.; et al., Gloss Granularity of Electrophotographic Prints. Journal of
IS&T, Vol. 51(4), pp. 293 - 298, (2007).
[48] Ide, O.; et al., Image Quality Improvement by Clear Toner in Xerography. Society
for IS&T: Image Processing, Image Quality, Image Capture, Systems Conference:
pp. 114 - 117, (1998).
[49] Chow, T.S., Diffuse scattering from dynamic rough surfaces: gloss of fused
images. Journal of Physics D, Applied Physics: Vol. 38(14), pp. 2400 - 2406,
(2005).
[50] Tag, C-M.; et al., Print Mottling: Solid-Liquid Adhesion Related to Optical
Appearance. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects:
Vol. 317(1-3), pp. 658 - 665, (2008).
[51] Gordon, R.W. and Collins, G.J., Glossary of Printing and Papermaking Terms: For
dialogue between printer and papermaker. Tappi Printing and Imaging Committee
- Coating and graphic Arts Division: Vol. 277, pp. 277 - 305, (1996).
[52] Chen, C-L.; et al, Halftone Banding Reduction for a Class of Electrophotographic
Systems Part 1: Characterization and Modeling. Mechatronics: Vol. 18(4), pp.
400 - 411, (2008).
[53] Berni, J-P.; et al., Human Perception of Print Mottle: What Does the Eye See?
Pulp and Paper Canada: Vol. 108(11), pp. 32 - 34, (2007).
[54] Pettersson, T. and Fogden, A., Spreading of Individual Toner Particles Studied
using in Situ Optical Microscopy. Journal of Colloid And Interface Science: Vol.
287(1), pp. 249 - 260, (2005).
90
[55] Pettersson, T. and Fogden, A., Analysis of Spreading of Individual Toner Particles
and Leveling of Toner Layers. Society for IS&T: Vol. 20, pp. 88 - 93, (2004).
[56] Pettersson, T. and Fogden, A., Leveling During Toner Fusing: Effects on Surface
Roughness and Gloss of Printed Paper. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 50(2), pp. 202 - 215,
(2006).
[57] Ohlsson, R.; et al., The Accuracy of Fast 3D Topography Measurements.
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture: Vol. 41(13 - 14), pp. 1899 1907, (2001).
[58] WYKO Corporation, Profile of WYKO Corporation: Laboratory Profile. Optics and
Lasers in Engineering: Vol. 10, pp. 133 - 143, (1989).
[59] Bennett, J.M. and Mattson, L., Introduction to Surface Roughness and Scattering.
Optical Society of America: Vol. viii, pp. 110, (1999).
[60] Clark, R. and Craig, D., Xerox Nuvera Technology for Image Quality. International
Conference on Digital Printing Technologies: Vol. 2005, pp. 671 - 674, (2005).
[61] Nguyen, N.G.; et al., Print Sharpness Measurement by Image Analysis. Journal
of Pulp and Paper Science: Vol. 22(9), pp. J356 - J364, (1996).
[62] Takiguchi, K., High Quality Digital Color Xerography. SPIE - The International
Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 1912, pp. 38 - 46, (1993).
[63] Zhou, H.; et al., The Influence of Particle Charge and Roughness on ParticleSubstrate Adhesion. Powder Technology: Vol. 135, pp. 82 - 91, (2003).
[64] Scott, C.T.; et al., Method for Evaluating Toner Adhesion on Copier Paper. TAPPI
Recycling Symposium: pp. 241 - 250, (2000).
[65] Schein, L.B. and Czarnecki, W.S., Proximity Theory of Toner Adhesion. Journal
of IS&T: Vol. 48(5), pp. 412 - 416, (2004).
[66] Schein, L.B., Electrostatic Proximity Force, Toner Adhesion, and a New
Electrographic Development System. Journal of Electrostatics: Vol. 65, pp. 613 617, (2007).
[67] Takeuchi, M., Adhesion Forces of Charged Particles. Chemical Engineering
Science: Vol. 61(7), pp. 2279 - 2289, (2006).
[68] Tanaka, M.; et al., Evaluation of the Particle-Particle Interactions in a Toner by
Colloid Probe AFM. Powder Technology: Vol. 183(2), pp. 273 - 281, (2008).
[69] Apel, R.; et al., The Influence of Paper Roughness and Toner Properties on
Fusing Quality. Rheology and Fusing: Vol. IX, pp. 417 - 419, (2005).
[70] Tanaka, M.; et al., Fractal Analysis of the Influence of Surface Roughness of
Toner Particles on their Flow Properties and Adhesion Behavior. Powder
Technology: Vol. 186(1), pp. 1 - 8, (2008).
91
[71] Takagi, K.; et al., Analysis of Imaging Density Degradation by Dynamics of Toner
Charging and Mass Transfer in the Toner Development Process. Journal of IS& T:
Vol. 49(2), pp. 196 - 203, (2005).
[72] Briggs, J.C.; et al., The Effect of Fusing on Gloss in Electrophotography.
International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies: pp. 456 - 461, (1998).
[73] Marcu, G., More about the Factors Determining the Color Print Quality. SPIE The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 3648, pp. 392 - 403, (1999).
[74] Lindstrand, M., Instrumental Gloss Characterization - In the Light of Visual
Evaluation: A Review. Journal of IS&T: Vol. 49(1), pp. 61 - 70, (2005).
[75] Zuffi, S.; et al., Controlled and Uncontrolled Viewing Conditions in the Evaluation
of Prints. SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 6807, pp.
680714 - 6801-7, (2008).
[76] Cui, C., Do Experts and Naive Observers Judge Printing Quality Differently?
SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering: Vol. 5294(1), pp. 132 145, (2003).
[77] KLA Tencor, Surface Profiler: Analysis of Surface Topography. KLA Tencor
Corporation, (2008). Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.klatencor.com/mems/p-16.html.
[78] Orelovitch, O., Scanning Electron Microscopy Methods in Study of Micro Objects.
Center of Applied Physics of Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear reactions of JINR,
(2009). Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://newuc.jinr.ru/section.asp?id=120.
[79] Wold, S.; et al., PLS-regression: a Basic Tool of Chemometrics. Chemometrics
and Intelligent Laboratory Systems: Vol. 58(2), pp. 109 - 130, (2001).
[80] Fahlcrantz, C-M. and Johansson, P.A., Print Mottle Evaluation of Flexographic
Prints - Using a Scanner-based Measurement System. STFI-Packforsk, (2004).
Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.t2f.nu/s2p2/S2P2_IPQ_21.pdf.
[81] Robertson, B.W. and Li, X., Scanning Electron Microscope. Central Facility for
Electron Microscopy, UNL, (2009). Retrieved February 26, 2009, from
http://www.unl.edu/CMRAcfem/semoptic.htm.
92
APPENDICES
Appendix A Microgloss OPTIMASTM 6.0 Program
Figure A-1. Microgloss Data Analysis
Figure A-2. Microgloss Histogram Saturated data that requires autocorrelation
93
Appendix B Print Mottle and Gloss Mottle MATLABTM Program

This print mottle algorithm produces the power spectrum within 4 frequency ranges for a
RGB channel and grayscale image. The frequency ranges can be converted to size
ranges and the power spectrums obtained signify print mottle. This algorithm is written
by Neetu Chhabra, a research assistant from the University of Toronto, Pulp and Paper
Department.
RGB=imread('HMCopyPlus1.tif');
R=RGB(:,:,1);
G=RGB(:,:,2);
B=RGB(:,:,3);
R=im2double(R);
G=im2double(G);
B=im2double(B);
RGB=im2double(RGB);
%Red Channel
R1=ones(1024,1025);
MeanR=mean2(R);
MeanRimage=MeanR*R1;
Mean0imageR=R-MeanRimage;
n=length(Mean0imageR); % 1025
% Use next highest power of 2 greater than or equal to length(x) to calculate fft.
nfft=2^(nextpow2(length(Mean0imageR)));%2048
psR=zeros(1,1025);
ccc=0;
% Calculate the number of unique points
NumUniquePts = ceil((nfft+1)/2);%1025
for i = 1:10:n
% Take fft, padding with zeros so that length(fftx) is equal to nfft
FFTR = fft(Mean0imageR(i,:),nfft);
%FFT is symmetric, throw away second half
FFTR2 = FFTR(1:NumUniquePts);
94
% Take the magnitude of fft of R

mR=abs(FFTR2);
% Scale the fft so that it is not a function of the length of R
mR=mR/length(Mean0imageR);
% Now, take the square of the magnitude of fft of R which has been scaled properly.
% Take the square of the magnitude of fft of R.
mR=mR.^2;
psR=psR+mR;
ccc=ccc+1;
end
psR=psR/ccc; %average power spectrum
fr=[1 5 45 450 1025];
totalR=zeros(1,4);
for i=1:4
totalR(i) = sum(psR(fr(i):fr(i+1)));
end
disp('Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the red color is:')
disp(totalR)
%Green Channel
G1=ones(1024,1025);
MeanG=mean2(G);
MeanGimage=MeanG*G1;
Mean0imageG=G-MeanGimage;
n=length(Mean0imageG); % 1025
nfft=2^(nextpow2(length(Mean0imageG)));%2048
psG=zeros(1,1025);
ccc=0;
for i = 1:10:n
FFTG = fft(Mean0imageG(i,:),nfft);
FFTG2 = FFTG(1:NumUniquePts);
mG=abs(FFTG2);
mG=mG/length(Mean0imageG);
95
mG=mG.^2;
psG=psG+mG;
ccc=ccc+1;
end
psG=psG/ccc; %average power spectrum
fr=[1 5 45 450 1025];
totalG=zeros(1,4);
for i=1:4
totalG(i) = sum(psG(fr(i):fr(i+1)));
end
disp('Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the green color is:')
disp(totalG)
%Blue Channel
B1=ones(1024,1025);
MeanB=mean2(B);
MeanBimage=MeanB*B1;
Mean0imageB=B-MeanBimage;
n=length(Mean0imageB); % 1025
nfft=2^(nextpow2(length(Mean0imageB)));%2048
psB=zeros(1,1025);
ccc=0;
for i = 1:10:n
FFTB = fft(Mean0imageB(i,:),nfft);
FFTB2 = FFTB(1:NumUniquePts);
mB=abs(FFTB2);
mB=mB/length(Mean0imageB);
mB=mB.^2;
psB=psB+mB;
ccc=ccc+1;
end
psB=psB/ccc; %average power spectrum
fr=[1 5 45 450 1025];
96
totalB=zeros(1,4);
for i=1:4
totalB(i) = sum(psB(fr(i):fr(i+1)));
end
disp('Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the blue color is:')
disp(totalB)
%Grayscale image
RGB=imread('HMCopyPlus1.tif');
GL=rgb2gray(RGB);
GL=im2double(GL);
GL1=ones(1024,1025);
MeanGL=mean2(GL);
MeanGLimage=MeanGL*GL1;
Mean0image=GL-MeanGLimage;
n=length(Mean0image); % 1025
nfft=2^(nextpow2(length(Mean0image)));%2048
psGL=zeros(1,1025);
ccc=0;
for i = 1:10:n
FFTGL = fft(Mean0image(i,:),nfft);
FFTGL2 = FFTGL(1:NumUniquePts);
mGL=abs(FFTGL2);
mGL=mGL/length(Mean0image);
mGL=mGL.^2;
psGL=psGL+mGL;
ccc=ccc+1;
end
psGL=psGL/ccc; %average power spectrum
fr=[1 5 45 450 1025];
totalGL=zeros(1,4);
for i=1:4
totalGL(i) = sum(psGL(fr(i):fr(i+1)));
97
end
disp('Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the grayscale image is:')
disp(totalGL)
From the above algorithm, an example of the power spectrum data of the grayscale
image obtained from the MATLABTM program is as follows:
Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the grayscale image is:
1.0e-003 *
0.0389
0.0443
0.5075
0.2065
This data means that at frequency range of 1 to 5 (>10mm), the power spectrum is
0.0389E-3. Other frequency ranges include 5 to 45 (1 to 10mm), 45 to 450 (0.1 to 1mm),
and 450 to 1025 (<0.1mm).
Figure B-1. Print Mottle Program: Power Spectrum Output

The gloss mottle algorithm as shown below produces the power spectrum within 4
frequency ranges for a grayscale image. The frequency ranges can be converted to size
98
ranges as follows: 1 - 2 (>10mm), 2 - 11 (1 to 10mm), 11 - 106 (0.1 to 1mm), and 106 513 (<0.1mm) and the power spectrums obtained signify gloss mottle.
Image=imread('image 1 - 1800.tif');
Image=im2double(Image);
%info=imfinfo('HMCopyPlus_2.tif')
Image1=ones(612,612);
MeanImage=mean2(Image);
MeanImageImage=MeanImage*Image1;
Mean0Image=Image-MeanImageImage;
n=length(Mean0Image) % 1025
nfft=2^(nextpow2(length(Mean0Image)));%2048
psImage=zeros(1,513);
ccc=0;
NumUniquePts = ceil((nfft+1)/2)%1025
for i = 1:10:n
FFTImage = fft(Mean0Image(i,:),nfft);
FFTImage2 = FFTImage(1:NumUniquePts);
mImage=abs(FFTImage2);
mImage=mImage/length(Mean0Image);
mImage=mImage.^2;
psImage=psImage+mImage;
ccc=ccc+1;
end
psImage=psImage/ccc; %average power spectrum
fr=[1 2 11 106 513];
totalImage=zeros(1,4);
for i=1:4
totalImage(i) = sum(psImage(fr(i):fr(i+1)));
end
disp('Average power spectrum for 4 frequency ranges for the grayscale image is:')
disp(totalImage)
99
Appendix C SEM Detailed Procedure

In this section, a detailed procedure of SEM analysis obtained from the Central Facility
for Electron Microscopy - University of Nebraska is as described below:
Figure C-1. Schematic Diagram of a Detailed SEM Scanning Process

1. The "Virtual Source" at the top represents the electron gun, producing a stream of
monochromatic electrons.
2. The stream is condensed by the first condenser lens (usually controlled by the
"coarse probe current knob"). This lens is used to both form the beam and limit the
amount of current in the beam. It works in conjunction with the condenser aperture to
eliminate the high-angle electrons from the beam.
3. The beam is then constricted by the condenser aperture (usually not user
selectable), eliminating some high-angle electrons.
100
4. The second condenser lens forms the electrons into a thin, tight, coherent beam and
is usually controlled by the "fine probe current knob".
5. A user selectable objective aperture further eliminates high-angle electrons from the
beam.
6. A set of coils then "scan" or "sweep" the beam in a grid fashion (like a television),
dwelling on points for a period of time determined by the scan speed (usually in the
microsecond range).
7. The final lens, the Objective, focuses the scanning beam onto the part of the
specimen desired.
8. When the beam strikes the sample (and dwells for a few microseconds) interactions
occur inside the sample and are detected with various instruments.
9. Before the beam moves to its next dwell point these instruments count the number of
interactions and display a pixel on a CRT whose intensity is determined by this
number (the more reactions the brighter the pixel).
10. This process is repeated until the grid scan is finished and then repeated, the entire
pattern can be scanned 30 times per second.
101
Appendix D Raw Data

The following data presented in this section are measurements performed on the
uncoated paper samples and the 100% black print images of the 10 different uncoated
paper samples printed using 3 different xerographic printers.
Table D-1. Paper Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity for Different Paper Samples
Paper Samples
Paper
Gloss 75o
Paper Microgloss
Avg
Std
Paper Microgloss
Nonuniformity
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
6.2
861.1
9.8
35.8
2.4
HP Office Riverdale
7.1
859.2
3.5
42.0
2.9
HP Office C35
5.8
859.5
7.4
39.5
0.7
HM Laser Print Ti
10.5
972.5
13.0
48.9
1.8
7.4
900.7
6.2
37.0
1.8
HP Multipurpose C35
7.1
900.3
7.1
35.7
1.8
HM Color Copy Ti
10.8
978.0
5.5
42.9
1.5
HP Color Laser Ti
10.9
915.3
17.6
42.2
2.0
HP Premium Choice Ti
11.2
902.1
9.2
40.8
1.0
LaserJet Saillat
7.7
846.0
5.5
31.5
0.9
Table D-2. Print Gloss, Microgloss, & Nonuniformity for HP2600 Print Samples
Paper Samples
(HP 2600)
Print
Gloss 75o
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
Nonuniformity
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
HM Copy Plus
24.7
335.2
13.8
101.3
5.4
HP Office Riverdale
21.7
281.4
13.0
96.9
2.5
HP Office C35
20.5
287.7
8.0
102.4
3.3
HM Laser Print Ti
27.7
316.2
9.5
74.9
6.7
27.3
325.2
8.8
85.2
3.9
HP Multipurpose C35
23.4
331.5
28.2
95.5
9.6
HM Color Copy Ti
21.0
238.1
7.5
52.4
2.0
HP Color Laser Ti
27.7
317.3
6.1
77.7
3.8
29.6
360.5
17.8
88.8
5.4
LaserJet Saillat
23.0
281.8
5.2
92.2
1.8
102
Paper Samples
(HP 4700)
Print
Gloss 75o
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
Nonuniformity
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
HM Copy Plus
18.1
246.1
3.7
77.9
4.2
HP Office Riverdale
17.4
246.8
7.7
80.1
7.1
HP Office C35
14.9
227.3
7.8
84.5
3.7
HM Laser Print Ti
23.0
287.5
8.6
73.0
2.4
24.2
283.5
7.7
79.1
4.1
HP Multipurpose C35
20.7
261.9
9.0
79.8
2.7
HM Color Copy Ti
27.0
306.3
10.1
76.2
2.3
HP Color Laser Ti
26.5
318.1
13.1
79.1
3.6
25.3
309.5
9.8
80.2
4.7
LaserJet Saillat
18.8
260.5
4.6
92.2
4.1
Paper Samples
(HP 9500)
Print
Gloss 75o
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
Nonuniformity
Avg
Std
Print Microgloss
HM Copy Plus
18.2
265.3
5.3
71.1
3.4
HP Office Riverdale
15.5
240.4
7.9
71.4
5.7
HP Office C35
16.2
240.4
6.9
75.2
7.1
HM Laser Print Ti
18.6
247.5
7.6
48.4
1.5
17.2
232.7
12.1
51.6
5.5
HP Multipurpose C35
16.4
223.7
12.9
53.6
4.8
HM Color Copy Ti
17.9
235.2
10.4
43.6
2.6
HP Color Laser Ti
19.7
259.9
6.6
50.0
2.2
15.5
204.6
8.8
40.2
4.1
LaserJet Saillat
15.1
217.3
4.7
59.0
1.8
103
Table D-5. Paper & Print Roughness (Rq) for Different Paper & Print Samples
Paper Roughness (
m)
Paper Samples
WYKO
STYLUS
Print Roughness (Stylus, m)

HP 2600
HP 4700
Avg
Std
Avg
Std
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
5.44
0.8
5.54
1.8
7.23
4.3 11.06 4.2 10.43 4.9
HP Office Riverdale
5.69
0.6
6.47
1.8
7.39
5.7
7.99
3.0
9.06
7.1
HP Office C35
5.39
0.5
5.34
1.1
5.87
1.1
5.50
2.9
6.91
2.5
HM Laser Print Ti
4.05
0.4
4.82
2.6
1.69
0.1
3.60
0.3
3.99
1.5
5.68
0.8
5.32
2.7
5.55
0.8
4.87
1.1
3.70
1.2
HP Multipurpose C35
5.03
0.8
4.36
1.6
3.80
0.1
4.14
1.3
2.73
0.1
HM Color Copy Ti
4.05
0.6
4.25
1.1
2.71
0.1
2.35
0.6
2.94
1.7
HP Color Laser Ti
4.21
0.5
4.14
0.9
2.45
0.6
3.23
0.8
2.76
1.2
HP Premium Choice Ti 4.14
0.5
4.87
1.5
2.09
0.1
4.17
0.9
2.07
1.0
LaserJet Saillat
0.5
5.56
1.9
5.76
1.5
6.07
1.5
4.57
1.6
4.83
Avg
Std
HP 9500
Avg
Std
Table D-6. Print Density for Different Print Samples

Paper Samples
HP 2600
HP 4700
HP 9500
Avg
Std
Avg
Std
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
1.62
0.02
1.35
0.01
1.38
0.00
HP Office Riverdale
1.59
0.01
1.34
0.01
1.34
0.01
HP Office C35
1.58
0.02
1.32
0.01
1.33
0.02
HM Laser Print Ti
1.65
0.01
1.36
0.01
1.35
0.01
1.62
0.03
1.34
0.01
1.34
0.01
HP Multipurpose C35
1.61
0.00
1.31
0.02
1.36
0.01
HM Color Copy Ti
1.56
0.01
1.33
0.02
1.38
0.01
HP Color Laser Ti
1.63
0.02
1.32
0.01
1.37
0.00
1.62
0.02
1.29
0.01
1.36
0.01
LaserJet Saillat
1.59
0.00
1.36
0.01
1.39
0.00
104
As mentioned in Section 3.3.2, the power spectrum obtained from each frequency range
corresponds to the print mottle of a particular wavelength or size. Frequency range of 1 5, 5 - 45, 45 - 450, and 450 - 1025 corresponds to wavelength in the range of >10mm, 1
- 10mm, 0.1 - 1mm, and <0.1mm respectively.
Table D-7. Power Spectrum for HP2600 Print Samples (Grayscale)
Paper Samples
(HP 2600)
1-5
Avg
Std
5 - 45
Avg
Std
45 - 450
Avg
Std
450 - 1025
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
3.8E-2 8.2E-3 7.6E-2 5.2E-3 4.3E-1 1.5E-2 1.2E-1 4.0E-3
HP Office Riverdale
3.6E-2 3.9E-3 6.2E-2 5.3E-3 3.8E-1 2.5E-2 1.0E-1 4.1E-3
HP Office C35
3.0E-2 5.4E-3 7.2E-2 7.5E-3 3.9E-1 8.0E-3 1.1E-1 3.1E-3
HM Laser Print Ti
3.2E-2 2.8E-3 3.7E-2 1.6E-3 3.0E-1 1.3E-2 1.0E-1 1.2E-3
3.9E-2 8.1E-3 4.8E-2 5.0E-3 2.9E-1 2.6E-2 8.9E-2 9.8E-3
HP Multipurpose C35
4.4E-2 2.4E-2 6.0E-2 2.9E-3 3.0E-1 2.1E-2 9.2E-2 3.2E-3
HM Color Copy Ti
5.3E-2 1.9E-2 2.8E-2 2.2E-3 1.7E-1 8.2E-3 5.7E-2 3.3E-3
HP Color Laser Ti
2.7E-2 5.4E-3 3.4E-2 1.2E-3 2.5E-1 2.7E-2 8.6E-2 9.8E-3
2.6E-2 6.2E-3 2.8E-2 3.5E-3 2.2E-1 3.7E-2 7.2E-2 1.3E-2
LaserJet Saillat
3.4E-2 3.5E-3 6.5E-2 7.7E-4 4.5E-1 1.8E-2 1.2E-1 3.5E-3

Paper Samples
(HP 4700)
1-5
Avg
Std
5 - 45
Avg
Std
45 - 450
Avg
Std
450 - 1025
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
2.4E-2 7.5E-4 6.7E-2 6.5E-3 2.3E-1 1.5E-2 6.9E-2 1.6E-3
HP Office Riverdale
3.3E-2 6.2E-3 6.6E-2 6.0E-3 2.4E-1 1.2E-2 7.2E-2 2.1E-3
HP Office C35
2.7E-2 4.3E-3 6.0E-2 6.4E-4 2.2E-1 4.1E-3 7.5E-2 2.7E-3
HM Laser Print Ti
2.8E-2 4.8E-3 5.5E-2 1.2E-3 2.0E-1 3.5E-3 6.2E-2 1.6E-3
3.0E-2 2.6E-3 6.9E-2 3.7E-3 2.4E-1 1.6E-2 6.7E-2 5.7E-3
HP Multipurpose C35
3.1E-2 7.5E-3 6.4E-2 4.3E-3 2.3E-1 1.7E-2 7.4E-2 4.4E-3
HM Color Copy Ti
3.1E-2 4.8E-3 5.2E-2 5.0E-4 1.8E-1 2.8E-3 5.3E-2 3.2E-4
HP Color Laser Ti
4.0E-2 1.9E-3 4.9E-2 2.6E-3 1.7E-1 5.6E-3 5.3E-2 8.6E-4
4.5E-2 3.2E-3 5.7E-2 8.8E-3 1.9E-1 2.4E-2 5.8E-2 5.6E-3
LaserJet Saillat
2.4E-2 1.2E-3 5.6E-2 3.7E-3 2.1E-1 2.0E-2 5.7E-2 5.6E-3
105

Paper Samples
(HP 9500)
1-5
Avg
Std
5 - 45
Avg
Std
45 - 450
Avg
Std
450 - 1025
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
2.7E-2 4.6E-3 8.3E-2 8.0E-3 3.9E-1 1.9E-2 1.3E-1 3.6E-3
HP Office Riverdale
2.5E-2 2.6E-3 6.8E-2 4.4E-3 3.5E-1 1.7E-2 1.1E-1 5.4E-3
HP Office C35
2.5E-2 4.0E-3 6.9E-2 4.6E-3 3.7E-1 1.4E-2 1.2E-1 4.7E-3
HM Laser Print Ti
2.6E-2 2.3E-3 3.9E-2 9.8E-4 2.3E-1 4.7E-3 8.3E-2 1.5E-3
3.1E-2 4.6E-3 4.8E-2 2.3E-3 2.4E-1 1.2E-2 8.1E-2 4.7E-3
HP Multipurpose C35
2.2E-2 2.4E-3 4.9E-2 1.5E-3 2.7E-1 9.1E-3 9.5E-2 2.0E-3
HM Color Copy Ti
2.7E-2 3.1E-3 2.9E-2 6.6E-4 1.5E-1 7.7E-3 6.3E-2 3.2E-3
HP Color Laser Ti
2.1E-2 3.8E-3 2.3E-2 2.4E-3 1.2E-1 1.0E-2 5.2E-2 3.6E-3
2.9E-2 5.7E-3 2.7E-2 4.1E-3 1.3E-1 4.5E-3 5.2E-2 1.3E-3
LaserJet Saillat
1.6E-2 1.1E-3 4.0E-2 1.9E-3 2.4E-1 9.0E-3 7.7E-2 1.5E-3
For gloss mottle, the power spectrum obtained from each frequency range corresponds
to the gloss mottle of a particular wavelength or size. Frequency range of 1 - 2, 2 - 11, 11
- 106, and 106 - 612 corresponds to wavelength in the range of >10mm, 1 - 10mm, 0.1 1mm, and <0.1mm respectively.
Table D-10. Power Spectrum for HP2600 Gloss Samples (Grayscale)
Paper Samples
(HP 2600)
1-2
Avg
Std
2 - 11
Avg
Std
11 - 106
Avg
Std
106 - 612
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
4.8E-4 2.2E-4 1.3E-3 2.9E-4 6.5E-3 8.9E-4 2.3E-3 3.2E-4
HP Office Riverdale
3.5E-4 5.8E-5 1.1E-3 1.4E-4 5.8E-3 4.3E-4 1.7E-3 1.4E-4
HP Office C35
3.8E-4 1.3E-4 1.1E-3 8.9E-5 6.4E-3 4.8E-4 2.3E-3 2.5E-4
HM Laser Print Ti
2.6E-4 5.5E-5 6.2E-4 1.3E-4 3.8E-3 6.9E-4 1.3E-3 1.9E-4
3.4E-4 5.5E-5 8.8E-4 8.4E-5 4.8E-3 4.5E-4 1.5E-3 1.5E-4
HP Multipurpose C35
3.0E-4 7.1E-5 1.0E-3 2.4E-4 5.8E-3 1.1E-3 2.0E-3 5.0E-4
HM Color Copy Ti
1.4E-4 5.5E-5 3.4E-4 5.5E-5 1.7E-3 1.1E-4 5.4E-4 5.5E-5
HP Color Laser Ti
2.8E-4 1.5E-4 6.6E-4 1.1E-4 4.0E-3 3.0E-4 1.3E-3 1.3E-4
3.1E-4 1.6E-5 8.8E-4 8.4E-5 4.8E-3 4.5E-4 1.5E-3 1.5E-4
LaserJet Saillat
2.6E-4 5.5E-5 9.8E-4 4.5E-5 5.7E-3 8.9E-5 1.7E-3 8.4E-5
106

Paper Samples
(HP 4700)
1-2
Avg
Std
2 - 11
Avg
Std
11 - 106
Avg
Std
106 - 612
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
1.8E-4 8.4E-5 1.2E-3 2.2E-4 4.0E-3 1.6E-4 1.5E-3 1.5E-4
HP Office Riverdale
1.6E-4 5.5E-5 1.1E-3 7.1E-5 2.9E-3 4.3E-4 1.1E-3 1.3E-4
HP Office C35
1.8E-4 8.4E-5 1.1E-3 1.1E-4 2.8E-3 2.2E-4 1.2E-3 8.9E-5
HM Laser Print Ti
1.6E-4 5.5E-5 8.2E-4 8.4E-5 2.8E-3 3.4E-4 8.4E-4 1.5E-4
1.4E-4 5.5E-5 8.2E-4 1.3E-4 2.4E-3 2.4E-4 1.1E-3 1.1E-4
HP Multipurpose C35
2.6E-4 5.5E-5 9.2E-4 1.6E-4 2.9E-3 4.6E-4 1.6E-3 1.6E-4
HM Color Copy Ti
1.2E-4 4.5E-5 2.6E-4 8.9E-5 1.8E-3 2.3E-4 3.4E-4 5.5E-5
HP Color Laser Ti
1.4E-4 5.5E-5 6.6E-4 1.5E-4 2.4E-3 3.5E-4 9.4E-4 1.1E-4
1.6E-4 8.9E-5 8.2E-4 4.5E-5 2.4E-3 3.8E-4 1.2E-3 7.1E-5
LaserJet Saillat
2.7E-4 3.3E-5 9.6E-4 1.1E-4 3.2E-3 2.6E-4 1.2E-3 1.1E-4

Paper Samples
(HP 9500)
1-2
Avg
Std
2 - 11
Avg
Std
11 - 106
Avg
Std
106 - 612
Avg
Std
HM Copy Plus
4.0E-4 7.1E-5 1.5E-3 1.9E-4 6.5E-3 4.2E-4 2.2E-3 2.7E-4
HP Office Riverdale
5.4E-4 1.7E-4 1.3E-3 1.8E-4 5.5E-3 3.5E-4 1.7E-3 2.6E-4
HP Office C35
4.0E-4 1.0E-4 1.5E-3 1.3E-4 6.1E-3 2.7E-4 2.1E-3 1.6E-4
HM Laser Print Ti
3.4E-4 5.5E-5 7.6E-4 1.1E-4 6.2E-3 2.7E-4 1.2E-3 1.5E-4
2.8E-4 4.5E-5 1.1E-3 7.1E-5 5.1E-3 4.4E-4 1.3E-3 2.9E-4
HP Multipurpose C35
2.6E-4 5.5E-5 1.1E-3 1.1E-4 4.8E-3 2.8E-4 1.9E-3 2.3E-4
HM Color Copy Ti
1.4E-4 5.5E-5 4.0E-4 1.0E-4 2.0E-3 3.4E-4 7.0E-4 1.2E-4
HP Color Laser Ti
3.2E-4 1.3E-4 8.0E-4 1.0E-4 4.3E-3 2.3E-4 1.1E-3 1.1E-4
2.4E-4 8.9E-5 8.0E-4 1.0E-4 3.2E-3 3.6E-4 7.6E-4 1.5E-4
LaserJet Saillat
2.2E-4 4.5E-5 1.1E-3 1.9E-4 4.0E-3 4.5E-4 1.3E-3 2.2E-4
107
Appendix E Additional Plots

Figure D-1 and D-2 corresponds to the coefficient plot of principal component 1 and 2 for
the 3 different Y-variables. It should be noted that the confidence level for these plots
were eliminated because they are often misleading.
Figure E-1. Coefficient Plot of PC[1] and Y-Variable HP 4700 and HP 9500
108
Figure E-2. Coefficient Plot of PC[2] and Y-Variable HP 2600, 4700 and 9500
109
Figure E-3. Print Mottle versus Paper Roughness (PPS)
Figure E-4. Print Mottle versus Paper Roughness (WYKO)
110
Figure E-5. WYKO Images of Paper Corresponding to (a) Worst Rated Sample and (b)
Best Rated Sample in HP 9500 series and 100% Black Coverage of (c) Worst Rated
Sample and (d) Best Rated Sample in HP 9500 series
In Figure E-5, WYKO analysis performed on the uncoated paper also shows that the
paper corresponding to the best rated sample has more uniformly covered fibers, similar
to that obtained from the SEM images. In addition, the best rated sample has a lower
roughness value than the worst rated sample. When the 100% black samples were
analyzed, small patches of toner particles can be seen on the best rated sample while
large patches and fibers can be detected on the worst rated sample. It was also noted
that the roughness value for the printed samples are lower than that of the base paper.
Hence, this reconfirms that besides print roughness, paper roughness also has a strong
effect on xerographic print quality.
111
Appendix F 3D Topographic Maps
112
Figure F-1. 3D Topographic Maps Illustrating the Print Surface of the 10 Different Paper
Samples Printed Using 3 Different Printers
113

Effects of Paper Properties On Xerographic Print Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Paper Properties On Xerographic Print Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECTS OF PAPER PROPERTIES ON

XEROGRAPHIC PRINT QUALITY

Siying (Sherlyn) Chen

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the

Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry

Copyright by Siying (Sherlyn) Chen (2009)

EFFECTS OF PAPER PROPERTIES ON XEROGRAPHIC

THANK YOU ALL!

Research Approach and Structure of the Thesis...............................................2

Print Quality .......................................................................................................19

Conclusions and Problem Statement ...............................................................29

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ................................................31

Paper Samples ...................................................................................................31

Print Quality .......................................................................................................33

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................50

Paper and Print Quality Review ........................................................................50

Correlation between Objective & Subjective Print Quality..............................54

Impact of Paper Properties on Print Quality ....................................................70

4.4.1 PLS Analysis on Visual Ranking............................................................71

Printers and their Print Effects .........................................................................79

CONCLUDING REMARKS ...........................................................85

Recommendations for Future Work .................................................................86

Figure 4-2. Impact of Paper Microgloss Nonuniformity on Print Microgloss Nonuniformity

Atomic Force Microscopy

Dot Per Inch

Multiple Linear Regression

Principal Component Analysis

Partial Least Squares

Partial Least Squares Regression

Pages Per Minute

Parker Print Surf

Phase Shifting Interferometry

Red Green Blue

Scanning Electron Microscopy

Variable Importance Plot

Vertical Scanning Interferometry

Microns or Micrometer (10-6 m)

Research Approach and Structure of the Thesis

Pilot Paper Samples

2. Bulk & Density

2. Print & Gloss

Composition, Formation, Coating, & Finishing

2.2.2.1 Structure & Composition

Internal & Surface Sizing

Smoothness, Mass Density, & Caliper Variation

Figure 2-1. Illustration of Different Levels of Surface Roughness Measurement

Strength & Dimensional Stability

Moisture & Curl

2.2.2.2 Optical & Appearance of Paper

Brightness & Whiteness

Figure 2-2. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Specular and Diffuse Gloss

2.2.2.3 Electrical & Thermal Properties of Paper

Thermal Conductivity & Porosity

Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram Illustrating Thermal Printing

Impact of Paper Property on Print Quality

As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, paper, which is the receiving substrate, is an important

Internal & Surface

- Filler content & distribution

Moisture & Curl

- Filler concentration &

Runnability, Printability, &

Xerographic printing is a printing technique in which an electrostatic image is created

Figure 2-4: Cyclic Color Xerography