Evaluation of Dynamic Microchamber as a Quick Factory Formaldehyde Emission Control Method for Industrial Particleboards

Abstract

e most common formaldehyde control method for wood panels in Europe, the perforator method, measures formaldehyde content, while most of the legal requirements in the world are based on emissions. Chamber methods typically used for emission measurements require too much time to reach steady state for factory quality control. e aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether emission values of particleboards measured one day after production would be usable for quality control purposes. e correlation between 1-day and 7-day emission values was determined using a dynamic microchamber (DMC).ree industrial board types that differed in density and emission levels were used for the evaluation. e online emission measuring equipment Aero-laser AL4021 connected to the 1 m 3 chamber was used to gain further information on the emission reduction behaviour of the different board types. Only the two particleboard types with higher densities showed good correlation between the 1-day and 7-day emissions. e overall results suggested that 1-day emission values can be used for factory quality control purposes; however, if the initial 1-day values are above the permitted level, extensive evaluation for each individual board type needs to be performed.

Ammonium Lignosulfonate Adhesives for Particleboards with pMDI and Furfuryl Alcohol as Crosslinkers

“…In this work, the previously evaluated method based on a dynamic microchamber (DMC), according to ASTM D 6007 [44], after 1-day conditioning [45] was used to determine the extreme formaldehyde emission values of the particleboard samples (Figure 9).…”

“…Formaldehyde emission measurements with 0.044 m 3 Dynamic Micro Chamber (DMC) were performed according to ASTM D 6007–14 [44] standard method (10.39 m 2 /m 3 of particleboard at 25 °C, 50% relative humidity, and an air exchange rate of 12.19 h −1 ), as described previously [45]. The ASTM D 6007–14 method was chosen for being fast and for having a good correlation to EN 717–1 chamber method [46].…”

The Effects of Different Technological Treatments on Ficus retusa Branchwood Particleboard: Physical Properties and Formaldehyde Emission Evaluations

“…These formaldehyde emission classes in the European standards denoted as E0, E1, E2, and E3. It is worth mentioning that there are conversion factors can be used to compare among the common methods used for formaldehyde emission (Hemmilä et al, 2018). Accordingly, all the determined formaldehyde emission values including the post-thermal treatments and the treatment with wax additive were in the F ★★ emission class.…”

“…The most common of such adhesives are urea formaldehyde and phenol formaldehyde; both adhesives are widely used due to its low cost and good performance (Pizzi, 1994). For example, in the urea formaldehyde adhesives, the degradation of methylol groups and the unreacted formaldehyde cause formaldehyde liberation from in-service wood products (Marutzky, 1994;Dunky, 1998;Hemmilä et al, 2018). It is worth noting that the wood itself can emit formaldehyde (Birkeland et al, 2010).…”

“…The desiccator test methods are extensively used by several standards and adopted to be used as a quality control method in Japan, Europe, and the USA. The desiccator (JIS A 1460(JIS A , 2001) standard is a widely utilized test in Asia and internationally Risholm-Sundman et al, 2007;Hemmilä et al, 2018). Of course, there are various technologies are now used to reduce the formaldehyde release from wood products.…”