Next Article in Journal
Livelihood Vulnerability of Marine Fishermen to Multi-Stresses under the Vessel Buyback and Fishermen Transfer Programs in China: The Case of Zhoushan City, Zhejiang Province
Previous Article in Journal
Prevalence of Suboptimal Health Status and the Relationships between Suboptimal Health Status and Lifestyle Factors among Chinese Adults Using a Multi-Level Generalized Estimating Equation Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph17030764
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Larch-Bark Capacity for Formaldehyde Removal in Wood Adhesives

by
Eugenia Mariana Tudor
1,2,
Marius Catalin Barbu
1,2,
Alexander Petutschnigg
1,
Roman Réh
3 and
Ľuboš Krišťák
3,*
1
Forest Products Technology and Timber Construction Department, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Markt 136a, 5431 Kuchl, Austria
2
Faculty of Wood Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, Bld. Eroilor nr.29, 500036 Brasov, Romania
3
Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24, SK-960 01 Zvolen, Slovak Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(3), 764; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030764
Submission received: 31 December 2019 / Revised: 17 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2020 / Published: 25 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Industrial Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ecofriendly wood-based materials are required by consumers at present. Decorative panels are part of a large group of wood-composite materials, and their environmental properties must not be neglected. More environmentally friendly decorative panels can be achieved by various methods. This paper describes a method of production from larch bark. Tree bark, as a byproduct of the wood industry, is one of the research topics that have gained interest in the last decade, especially for its applications in biobased lignocomposites, with regard to the shrinkage of wood resources. In the present work, the formaldehyde content of decorative boards based on larch bark (0.6 g/cm3) was analyzed when bonded with five different types of adhesive systems: urea-formaldehyde, polyvinyl acetate, the mixture of 70% urea-formaldehyde + 30% polyvinyl acetate, polyurethane, and tannin-based adhesive. A self-agglomerated board was also analyzed. The formaldehyde content of the larch-bark samples was determined with the perforator method (EN 120:2011), and findings showed that all tested samples reached the E1 classification (≤8 mg/100 oven dry). Moreover, 75% of the values of the corrected formaldehyde content were included in the super-E0 class (≤1.5 mg/100 oven dry). In the case of boards bonded with tannin-based adhesive, this natural polymer acted as a formaldehyde scavenger.

1. Introduction

In the last decade, approaches regarding healthy environments and welfare have had increasing attention from both society and the authorities, pointing out that quality of life is also reflected in the building sector [1]. Recent urban development entails safeguarding ecological integrity with the low carbon footprints of construction materials [2]. Nowadays, both employed and unemployed persons spend about 75% of their existence indoors, e.g., at home, in workplaces, schools, and other institutions [3], and sick building syndrome (SBS) has become a severe global problem [1,4,5]. Regarding the main causes of SBS, one can include volatile organic compounds (e.g., formaldehyde) discharged from the adhesives, finishing materials, paint used for furniture and buildings, and building materials (e.g., insulation) [5]. Many materials can absorb formaldehyde released into the atmosphere, e.g., wool [6], ornamental plants [7,8], building materials with adsorption potentials [9], or tree bark [5,10].
On a global scale, over 50% of the bark amount resulting from industrially processed logs serves for energy generation [11]. The bark percentage varies depending on tree species, age, and diameter [12]. Analysis by Mikolajczak [13] revealed that, from each 100 m3 of harvested tree parts (including twigs, branches, and fresh stumps), 10 m3 represents the bark: 50% of the bark is generated from the production of wood fibers (especially for the pulp and paper industry), 23% results after debarking in sawmills, and the same amount is reached after round wood debarking for the production of wood-based composites.
Various studies were carried out to analyze formaldehyde absorption by bark in the cases of particleboard (PB) [14,15,16], plywood [17,18,19], medium-density fiberboard (MDF) [20], and insulation panels using bark and bark extractives [21]. In this study, the bark of the European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) was used to produce decorative panels with reduced levels of formaldehyde emissions and content. This larch species was chosen due to general high-scale production in the Alps area, especially in the Federal State of Salzburg, and in order to pay more attention to an underutilized material [11] with thermal-insulation properties [21,22]. Larch is well-represented in other Central European countries. Other reasons for choosing larch bark for research were that larch has a faster growth rate than other conifer species [23], and it produces more wood and bark in less time than other softwoods (which grow faster than hardwoods). The chemical composition of larch bark as compared to that of other softwoods provided the prerequisites for its successful application; the first tests confirmed this assumption. Larch bark contains various extractives. The following hot-water-soluble extracts were obtained: 35% sugar, especially glucose [24]; 30% lignin; 10% to 12% tannic acids and about 4% methoxyl [25]; 3% resin; and 13% arabino-galactan, lignans, resins, and volatile oil (mainly alpha- and betapinene and limonene) [26]. Tannins from the larch bark can be used as a cost-effective substitute for phenol in particleboard adhesives [27]. Such tannin glue that has successfully passed outdoor aging tests may also be suitable for industrial use [28]. Compared to wood, bark is rather more heterogeneous in terms of the proportion and composition of the main components.
Buyuksari [26] studied the influence of particleboard (PB) bonded with urea-formaldehyde (UF) on formaldehyde content when pine-cone flour was added, with values of formaldehyde content (FC) that ranged from 1.99 to 2.48 mg/100 g (lowest value recorded for a mixture of 50:50 wood particles and pine-cone flour). Buyuksari [29] studied the addition of pine-cone flour into particleboard that significantly decreased formaldehyde emissions. This ranged from 1.99 to 2.48 mg/100 g for various panel types (lowest value was recorded for a mixture of 50:50 wood particles and pine-cone flour).
Ayrilmis [30] analyzed the influence of pine-cone flour on the formaldehyde emissions of MDF and showed that the level of formaldehyde was 2.6% to 55.3% lower when the wood fibers were mixed with pine-cone flour. The decrease in the formaldehyde emission of panels containing the pine-cone particles was attributed to a high amount of phenolic extractives of the stone pine cones. These phenolic extractives are also components of the larch bark, so the same trend of reducing the formaldehyde content of the boards was observed.
Salem [31] published an evaluation of formaldehyde content (FC) from different types of wood-based materials according to the perforator method (EN 120:2011). The highest FC amount was observed for the PB with a thickness of 25 mm, and reached 11.57 mg/100g oven dry (o.d.), which was above the E1 classification. MDF values ranged from 6.78 to 7.05 mg/100 g o.d. for the corrected perforator values, for a wide spectrum of thicknesses (3–22 mm).
Pásztory [32] studied the formaldehyde absorption–desorption of poplar bark (Populus × euramericana cv. Pannónia) and found that, in a formaldehyde-polluted environment, bark samples could adsorb detectable formaldehyde amounts from contaminated air.
Weigl [33] reported about woodborne formaldehyde and the influence of species, wood grade, and cambial age on the amount of formaldehyde content. The lowest FC value was recorded for juvenile beech (0.15 mg/100 g), and the highest value was documented for mature pine wood (0.70 mg/100 g).
The aim of this study was to find to what extent larch bark acts as a formaldehyde scavenger in the case of 10 mm decorative larch-bark panels bonded with UF, polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), a mixture of 70% UF + 30% PVAc, polyurethane (PUR), tannin-based adhesive, and self-agglomeration. This study follows our previous research [34,35,36], where decorative larch-bark panels with different resins were tested for mechanical and physical properties. On the basis of this research, larch-bark panels that were bonded with different resins met the EN standards for elasticity modulus, bending strength, thickness swelling, and water uptake after 24 h.

2. Materials and Methods

The analyzed tree bark for the manufacture of decorative boards in the present study was collected in a sawmill in Unternberg, Federal State of Salzburg, Austria, specialized in larch processing. For this reason, the raw material was not contaminated with other species. The bark was dried by means of a vacuum kiln dryer (Brunner–Hildebrand High VAC-S, HV-S1) from 100% to 9% moisture content. Drying temperature was 60 °C at a pressure of 200 to 250 mbar. The bark was subsequently crushed in a 4-spindle shredder (RS40) at the Untha Co. in Kuchl, Austria, and repeatedly screened in order to obtain 1.5 to 10 mm particles. For the manufacturing of the larch-bark-based panels, UF resin (10F102 MetaDynea Austria GmbH, Krems, Austria), with 66% solid content, pH 8.3–9 and viscosity 60–90 mPa.s, and tannin-based adhesive were used. Additionally, PVAc Kleiberit 303.3 (Klebchemie M.G. Becker GmbH and Co., Weingarten, Germany), with pH level and viscosity 3, and 12,000 ± 2000 mPa.s and PUR Kleiberit 501, 1.13 g/cm3 density and 8000 mPa.s viscosity were also chosen for the production of decorative panels.
The tannin-based adhesive was prepared with an extract powder from mimosa tannin (Acacia mearnsii) from Phenotan, Tanac SA, Brazil; hexa-methylenetetramine (hexamine) from Merck Schuchardt OHG, Germany (C99%); and sodium hydroxide solution (C32%) from Carl Roth GmbH and Co., Austria. We then stirred 50% tannin extract powder and 50% water with a mechanical mixer at a speed between 700 and 1500 rpm, and added 10% of hexamine to adjust the pH value of the mixed solution to 9 with a sodium hydroxide solution [11].
Boards of 10 mm thickness and with 0.6 g/cm3 density were produced with 10% resin content of 6 different adhesive systems, using 2.5–4 mm (fine) and 4–11 mm (coarse) larch-bark particle sizes (Table 1). Press temperature was 180 °C for the UF and tannin-based bonded boards, and 80 °C for the boards with other adhesive formulations. Moisture content (m.c.) was measured for each type of board (Table 1).
Each board was cut into 2.5 × 2.5 mm samples after cooling. Samples were placed in airtight bags and delivered to the Kaindl Company, Wals, Salzburg, Austria, where formaldehyde content was measured.
EN 120:2011 [37] was used to determine the formaldehyde content of the larch-bark panels. This method is suitable for nonlaminated and uncoated wood-based panels [38].
Small specimens (110 g of 25 × 25 mm) were extracted by means of boiling toluene, and then transferred into distilled or demineralized water. In the case of boards with low formaldehyde content, the mass of test samples could be extended up to 200 g, according to EN ISO 12460:5:2015 [39]. Formaldehyde emission was sampled through perforation in water and photometrically determined with the acethylacetone method. The perforator value depends on the moisture content of the specimens [32], which was determined according to ISO16999 (2003). The perforator values were corrected for boards conditioned to a moisture content of 6.5%. When the PB moisture content ranged between 3% and 10%, the EN 120 test value, if multiplied by a factor F, was calculated according to Equation (1) [31]:
F = −0.133 mc + 1.86.
This method requires simple equipment and has a running time of 3 h, so is used on a large scale for production control in wood-based panels industry in Europe and China [32].

3. Results and Discussion

The corrected values of free formaldehyde content varied depending on the type of adhesive formulation for the board (Figure 1). The lowest amounts were measured for the board with a fine fraction of larch bark bonded with PUR and tannin-based adhesive (0.07 and 0.09, respectively). Five types of panels registered values under super-E0 (≤1.5 mg/100 g): PUR_f, Tannin_f, PUR_c, Self_agglom_f and Self_agglom_c. At the boundary between super-E0 ((≤1.5 mg/100 g) and E0 (≤2.5 mg/100 g) was the board based on larch-bark particles (4–11 mm) glued with UF. The E0 class was reached by the PVAc (fine and coarse fraction) and UF (fine fraction) panels. When the larch-bark particles (both fractions) were glued with the mixture of UF (70%) and PVAc (30%), UF_PVAc_f and UF_PVAc_c, formaldehyde content had unexpectedly higher values (<4 mg/100 g) than all other tested samples, but was still about half the value of the standard wood-based panels that should have the E1 emission class (≤8 mg/100 g; Figure 2).
A multiple regression model (Figure 3) was calculated for all boards to observe the effect of board-moisture content and larch-bark particle fraction on formaldehyde content as measured by EN 120:2011. Moisture content was significantly correlated to the free formaldehyde content, with adjusted coefficient of determination R2 = 0.812 (Y = 0.5X − 2.99). Board-moisture content had a highly significant effect (p = 0.000), while the effect of particle fraction on formaldehyde content (p = 0.806) had no statistical impact. The influence of moisture content on FC was predominant for boards bonded with formaldehyde-based resin (UF and UF + PVAc).
The boards that reached super-E0 emission class were bonded with tannin and PUR. Self_agglom_f and Self_agglom_c (boards produced without adhesives) were included in the same classification, but in this case, a small amount of water (difference to 100% from the solid content of the UF adhesive) was added. The lignin from bark acted as natural glue due to its phenolic nature [40,41] and due to the self-bonding mechanisms of bark [42]. Tannin had the formaldehyde-scavenger effect for boards bonded with UF (e.g., MDF) [20]. In the case of the fine fraction of larch bark, tannin-bonded panels had a lower formaldehyde content compared with boards bound with other types of glue, and its natural lignin was “activated” with water.
The nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for FC values (measured and calculated) revealed that both test distributions were normal (p = 0.000).
In order to compare the achieved values with nonbark-wood-based panels, we selected from the literature objective values of free formaldehyde content in decorative boards that were not distorted by local laboratory conditions, varying technical parameters of the used materials, or other factors. There are many studies [43,44,45,46,47,48,49] that showed that free-formaldehyde-content values in nonbark-wood-based panels were far higher than those in the larch-bark panels in this research.
Many countries established formaldehyde-emission requirements and testing methods of formaldehyde emission from wood-based panels. A very successful comparison of the relationship between different methods and standard limits was made by Carvalho et al. [50], who obtained values by correlation of many observations and adapted certain values from Harmon [51]. In Europe, harmonized European standard EN 13986 classifies formaldehyde emission into E1 and E2, but it was recently agreed to only produce the E1 class, abandoning the production of E2 class panels. That corresponds to a perforator value below 8 mg/100 g oven-dry wood for PB (thickness > 8 mm). Driven by IKEA, an equivalent class with half E1 formaldehyde-emission limits was introduced: the so-called E0.5 that corresponds to a perforator value below 4 mg/100 g [52,53]. In a study conducted by Salem et al. [49], the authors recalculated the corresponding values from Japanese standards, which should be below 4.5 mg/100 g (and for special boards, a stricter limit of 2.7 mg/100 g), and U.S. standards, whose values would be at the level below 11.3 mg/100 g (and for special boards, a stricter limit of 5.6 mg/100 g). The summary results in Figure 1 show the significant benefit of raw larch-bark material used to reduce free formaldehyde in decorative panels in our research compared with standard global limits. Fortunately, larch bark performed excellently in the perforator test, the most efficient method used in the industry for PB and MDF to give rapid feedback about the formaldehyde content of the composite. It would be interesting to study to what extent other types of tree bark are suitable for the manufacture of boards with similar lower formaldehyde content.

4. Conclusions

Free formaldehyde content (according to EN 120:2011) was determined for larch-bark panels with the same thickness (10 mm) and density (0.6 g/cm3) for a fine and coarse grain and different adhesives. Following the results, the following findings can be stated:
-
Larch bark had significant influence on the characteristics of free formaldehyde content in decorative panels. It was found that the majority of the panel samples were included in the E0 category (≤2.5 mg/100 g o.d.). The values of free formaldehyde content varied depending on the type of adhesive formulation for the board. It can be considered a significant contribution in terms of the environment.
-
In addition, the research identified that 75% of the test specimens bonded with tannin and PUR adhesives reached super-E0 classification (≤1.5 mg/100 g o.d.). These new classes (E0 and super-E0) of low formaldehyde emitting panels were initiated by the Japanese standards (JIS), and established by the European Panel Federation (EPF).
-
The multiple-regression model, calculated for all boards to observe the effect of board-moisture content and larch-bark particle fraction on formaldehyde content, indicated that moisture content is significantly correlated with free formaldehyde content, with adjusted coefficient of determination R2 = 0.812 (Y = 0.5X − 2.99). Board-moisture content had a highly significant effect (p = 0.000), while the effect of particle fraction on formaldehyde content (p = 0.806) had no statistical impact.
-
The bark of the selected wood species had a positive impact on free formaldehyde reduction, providing grounds for further research.

Author Contributions

Funding acquisition and data analysis, A.P. and E.M.T.; experiment design, M.C.B. and E.M.T.; investigation, E.M.T.; resources: M.C.B.; supervision, R.R.; writing and proofreading, E.M.T., M.C.B., and Ľ.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under contracts no. APVV-17-0583 and APVV-18-0378, and VEGA 1/0717/19.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kaindl Co. in Salzburg for supporting this research with the determination of formaldehyde content of the bark specimens; to Graggaber Co. in Unternberg for providing the larch bark; and to MetaDynea, Austria GmbH, Krems, Austria, and Klebchemie M.G. Becker GmbH and Co, Weingarten, Germany for providing the adhesives. Many thanks to Gianluca Tondi for the help with preparing the tannin-based adhesive.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; AlWaer, H.; Omrany, H.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Alalouch, C.; Clements-Croome, C.; Tookey, J. Sick building syndrome: Are we doing enough? Archit. Sci. Rev. 2018, 61, 99–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. AlWaer, H.; Illsley, B. Rethinking Masterplanning: Creating Quality; Institute of Civil Engineerings, ICE Publishing: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gül, H. Sick Building Syndrome from the Perspective of Occupational and Public Health. Sick Building Syndrome; Abdul-Wahab, S.A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; p. 646. [Google Scholar]
  4. Belachew, H.; Assefa, Y.; Guyasa, G.; Azanaw, J.; Adane, T.; Dagne, H.; Gizaw, Z. Sick building syndrome and associated risk factors among the population of Gondar town, northwest Ethiopia. Environ. Health Prev. 2018, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Funaki, K.; Fukuta, H.; Nishizawa, M.; Yamagishi, T. Adsorption of formaldehyde on the bark of Larix kaempferi. J. Nat. Med. 2004, 58, 104–108. Available online: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110008732307 (accessed on 25 November 2019).
  6. Curling, S.; Loxton, C.; Ormondroyd, G. A rapid method for investigating the absorption of formaldehyde from air by wool. J. Mater. Sci. 2012, 47, 3248–3251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Teiri, H.; Pourzamzni, H.; Hajizadeh, Y. Phytoremediation of Formaldehyde from Indoor Environment by Ornamental Plants: An Approach to Promote Occupants Health. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 9, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, K.J.; Mi, J.K.; Jeong, S.S.; Eun, H.Y.; Son, K.C.; Kays, S. Efficiency of Volatile Formaldehyde Removal by Indoor Plants: Contribution of Aerial Plant Parts versus the Root Zone. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2008, 133, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Huang, K.C.; Tsay, Y.S.; Lin, F.M.; Lee, C.C.; Chang, Y.W. Efficiency and performance tests of the sorptive building materials that reduce indoor formaldehyde concentrations. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Takano, T.; Murakami, T.; Kamitakahara, H.; Nakatsubo, F. Formaldehyde absorption by karamatsu (Larix leptolepsis) bark. J. Wood Sci. 2008, 54, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tudor, E.M.; Barbu, M.C.; Petutschnigg, A.; Réh, R. Added-Value for wood bark as a coating layer for flooring tiles. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1354–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pasztory, Z.; Ronyecz-Mohacsine, I.; Gorbacheva, G.; Börcsök, Z. The Utilization of Tree Bark. Bioresources 2016, 11, 7859–7888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mikołajczak, E. Possibilities of utilizing wood biomass. Transf. Inovácií 2011, 19, 26–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sari, B.; Ayrilmis, N.; Nemli, G.; Baharoğlu, M.; Gümüşkaya, E.; Bardak, S. Effects of chemical composition of wood and resin type on properties of particleboard. Lignocellulose 2012, 1, 174–184. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nemli, G.; Colakoğlu, G. Effects of Mimosa Bark Usage on Some Properties of Particleboard. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2005, 29, 227–230. [Google Scholar]
  16. Salca, E.-A.; Hiziroglu, S. Hardness and Roughness of Overlaid Wood Composites Exposed to a High-Humidity Environment. Coatings 2019, 9, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Aydin, I.; Demirkir, C.; Colak, S.; Colakoğlu, S. Utilization of bark flours as additive in plywood manufacturing. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2017, 75, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ružiak, I.; Igaz, R.; Krišťák, L.; Réh, R.; Mitterpach, J.; Očkajová, A.; Kučerka, M. Influence of Urea-Formaldehyde Adhesive Modification with Beech Bark on Chosen Properties of Plywood. Bioresources 2017, 12, 3250–3264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Réh, R.; Igaz, R.; Krišťák, Ľ.; Ružiak, I.; Gajtanska, M.; Božíková, M.; Kučerka, M. Functionality of Beech Bark in Adhesive Mixtures Used in Plywood and Its Effect on the Stability Associated with Material Systems. Materials 2019, 12, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Boran, S.; Usta, M.; Ondaral, S.; Gümüskaya, E. The efficiency of tannin as a formaldehyde scavenger chemical in medium density fiberboard. Composites Part B 2012, 43, 2487–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pásztory, Z.; Ronyecz Mohácsiné, I.; Börcsök, Z. Investigation of thermal insulation panels made of black locust tree bark. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 147, 733–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kain, G.; Lienbacher, B.; Barbu, M.C.; Senck, S.; Petutschnigg, A. Water vapour diffusion resistance of larch (Larix decidua) bark insulation panels and application considerations based on numeric modelling. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 164, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chubinski, A.N.; Sosna, L.M.; Tsoy, J.I. Siberian larch a good material for laminated veneer lumber production. In Proceedings of the International Timber Engineer Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 23–25 October 1990; pp. 227–230. [Google Scholar]
  24. Weissmann, G. Untersuchungen der Rindenextrakte von Lärchen. Holzforsch. und Holzverwert. 1985, 37, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wagenführ, R.; Scheiber, C. Holzatlas; Fachbuchverlag: Leipzig, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pelz, S. Eigenschaften und Verwendung des Holzes der Europäischen Lärche (Larix decidua MILL.) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Reaktionsholzes. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  27. Polzin, W.-P. Nordische Baumtage. Tagungsband; Rostock, Germany, 2012; p. 8. Available online: http://www.wolfslight.de/wolf/texte/baum_des_jahres/polzin_larix_decidua.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2019).
  28. Lu, Y.; Shi, Q. Larch tannin adhesive for particleboard. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 1995, 1, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Buyuksari, U.; Ayrilmis, N.; Avci, E.; Koc, E. Evaluation of the physical, mechanical properties and formaldehyde emission of particleboard manufactured from waste stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) cones. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 101, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ayrilmis, N.; Buyuksari, U.; Avci, E.; Koc, E. Utilization of pine (Pinus pinacea L.) cone in manufacture of wood based composite. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 259, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salem, M.; Böhm, M.; Srbac, J.; Beránkovác, J. Evaluation of formaldehyde emission from different types of wood-based panels and flooring materials using different standard test methods. Build. Environ. 2012, 49, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pásztory, Z.; Halász, K.; Börcsök, Z. Formaldehyde Adsorption–Desorption of Poplar Bark. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 103, 745–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Weigl, M.; Wimmer, R.; Sykacek, E.; Steinwender, M. Wood-Borne formaldehyde varying with species, wood grade, and cambial age. For. Prod. J. 2009, 59, 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tudor, E.M. Decorative Panels Based on Larch Bark. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University in Zvolen, Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Zvolen, Slovakia, 21 August 2018; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tudor, E.; Barbu, M.; Petutschnigg, A.; Reh, R. Thin wear layers of tree bark as a substitute for cork in flooring tiles. In Proceedings of the World Congres on Timber Enginnering, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016; pp. 434–439. [Google Scholar]
  36. Medved, S.; Tudor, E.M.; Barbu, M.C.; Jambrekovič, V.; Španič, N. Effect of Pine (Pinus Sylvestris) Bark Dust on Particleboard Thickness Swelling and Internal Bond. Drv. Ind. 2019, 70, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. EN 120 Wood-Based Panels-Determination of Formaldehyde Release-Extraction Method (Called Perforator Method); CEN, European Committee for Standardization: Brusseles, Belgium, 2011.
  38. Salthammer, T.; Mentese, S.; Marutzky, R. Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 2536–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. EN ISO 12460:5 Wood-Based Panels-Determination of Formaldehyde Release-Part 5: Extraction Method (Called the Perforator Method); CEN, European Committee for Standardization: Brusseles, Belgium, 2015.
  40. Hemmilä, V.; Trischler, J.; Sandberg, D. Lignin-An Adhesive Raw Material of the Future or Waste of Research energy? In Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the Northern European Network for Wood (WSE), Hannover, Germany, 11–12 September 2013; Brischke, C., Meyer, L., Eds.; pp. 98–103. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dababi, I.; Gimello, O.; Elaloui, E.; Quignard, F. Organosolv Lignin-BasedWood Adhesive. Influence of the Lignin Extraction Conditions on the Adhesive Performance. Polymers 2016, 8, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gupta, G.; Yan, N.; Feng, M. Effects of pressing temperature and particle size on bark board properties made from beetle-Infested lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) barks. For. Prod. J. 2011, 61, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, H.; Sun, G.; Zhang, S. Harmful effects of formaldehyde and measures for reducing formaldehyde emission from wood-Based panels. China Wood Ind. 2006, 20, 32–33. [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. Xing, F.Z.; Lu, Z.S.; Zhang, S. Study on the characteristics of formaldehyde emission from MDF. J. Build. Mater. 2015, 4, 688–691. [Google Scholar]
  45. Meng, M.; Hong, W. Mathematical model for the formaldehyde emission from wood composites. For. Prod. J. 2017, 67, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, S.; Wang, B. Application of linear regression in formaldehyde emission determination in wood-Based panels. China Wood-Based Panel 2011, 5, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  47. Frihart, C.R.; Wescott, J.M.; Chaffee, T.L.; Gonner, K.M. Formaldehyde emissions from urea-Formaldehyde- and no-Added-Formaldehyde-Bonded particleboard as influenced by temperature and relative humidity. For. Prod. J. 2012, 62, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Park, B.D.; Kang, E.C.; Lee, S.M.; Park, J.Y. Formaldehyde emission of wood-Based composite panels with different surface lamination materials using desiccator method. J. Korean Wood Sci. Technol. 2016, 44, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Salem, M.Z.M.; Bohm, M.; Nasser, R.A. Measuring the Formaldehyde Content from Different Types of Oriented Strand Board Manufactured with Different Thicknesses and Glued with Different Resins. Drv. Ind. 2017, 68, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Carvalho, L.H.; Magalhaes, F.D.; Ferra, J.M. Formaldehyde Emissions from Wood-Based Panels-Testing Methods and Industrial Perspectives. In Formaldehyde: Chemistry, Applications and Role in Polymerization; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  51. Harmon, D.M. Change-Its Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the Technical Formaldehyde Conference, Hannover, Germany, 28 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang, J.; Song, F.; Tao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, S.Q. Research Progress on Formaldehyde Emission of Wood-Based Panel. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2018, 9349721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, Z.; Duan, X.; Guo, L.; Han, J. Comparison on formaldehyde standards between China, the EU, the United States, and Japan for wood-Based panels. World For. Res. 2015, 28, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 17 00764 g001 550
Figure 1. Free formaldehyde content for both measured and corrected perforator values (EN120:2011) of samples of larch-bark bonded decorative boards with six types of adhesives.
Figure 1. Free formaldehyde content for both measured and corrected perforator values (EN120:2011) of samples of larch-bark bonded decorative boards with six types of adhesives.
Ijerph 17 00764 g001
Ijerph 17 00764 g002 550
Figure 2. Free formaldehyde content measured according to EN 120:2011 of 10 mm larch-bark boards bonded with six types of adhesives.
Figure 2. Free formaldehyde content measured according to EN 120:2011 of 10 mm larch-bark boards bonded with six types of adhesives.
Ijerph 17 00764 g002
Ijerph 17 00764 g003 550
Figure 3. Normal P-P plot of regression-standardized residual for corrected formaldehyde content of larch-bark samples bonded with six types of adhesives.
Figure 3. Normal P-P plot of regression-standardized residual for corrected formaldehyde content of larch-bark samples bonded with six types of adhesives.
Ijerph 17 00764 g003
Table
Table 1. Experiment design with factor larch-bark particle size (two replications for each decorative board). Note: PUR, polyurethane; PVAc, polyvinyl acetate; UF, urea-formaldehyde.
Table 1. Experiment design with factor larch-bark particle size (two replications for each decorative board). Note: PUR, polyurethane; PVAc, polyvinyl acetate; UF, urea-formaldehyde.
BoardGlueMoisture Content (M. C.)
%		Particle Size
mm
UF_PVAc_f70% UF + 30% PVAc7.652.5–4
UF_PVAc_ce70% UF + 30% PVAc8.424–11
PUR_fPUR5.972.5–4
PUR_cPUR4.214–11
PVAc_fPVAc4.432.5–4
PVAc_cPVAc4.834–11
Self_agglom_fWater9.172.5–4
Self_agglom_cWater7.734–11
Tannin_fTannin8.452.5–4
Tannin_cTannin8.454–11
UF_fUF8.452.5–4
UF_cUF8.454–11

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tudor, E.M.; Barbu, M.C.; Petutschnigg, A.; Réh, R.; Krišťák, Ľ. Analysis of Larch-Bark Capacity for Formaldehyde Removal in Wood Adhesives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030764

AMA Style

Tudor EM, Barbu MC, Petutschnigg A, Réh R, Krišťák Ľ. Analysis of Larch-Bark Capacity for Formaldehyde Removal in Wood Adhesives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3):764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tudor, Eugenia Mariana, Marius Catalin Barbu, Alexander Petutschnigg, Roman Réh, and Ľuboš Krišťák. 2020. "Analysis of Larch-Bark Capacity for Formaldehyde Removal in Wood Adhesives" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 3: 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030764

APA Style

Tudor, E. M., Barbu, M. C., Petutschnigg, A., Réh, R., & Krišťák, Ľ. (2020). Analysis of Larch-Bark Capacity for Formaldehyde Removal in Wood Adhesives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030764

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop