Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Salem M.Z.M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Salem M.Z.M.,Alexandria University | Bohm M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Barcik S.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Berankova J.,Timber Research and Development Institute
Drvna Industrija | Year: 2011

In this study, the formaldehyde emission (FE) from different types of particleboard, medium density fiberboard (MDF), and plywood products supplied from a commercial plant in the Czech Republic were evaluated by gas analysis (EN 717-2) and European small chamber (EN 717-1) methods. The significant effects of manufacturing variables (board type and thickness) as well as different types of formaldehyde-based resins on FE measured by gas analysis were obtained. When the E1 type adhesives were employed, a wide variation in the quantity of free formaldehyde was observed among the three product types. The FE values of plywood samples measured by gas analysis were lower than those of the particleboard and MDF samples. The correlation between the two methods for the particleboard and MDF were good (R 2 = 0.82 and 0.76, respectively) and however for plywood (R 2 = 0.52) it was not convincing. FE specified in EN 717-2 was comparable with the EN 717-1 values for the same board type and thickness as well as the resin type and below the E1-emission class. Source


Salem M.Z.M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Salem M.Z.M.,Alexandria University | Bohm M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Barcik S.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Srba J.,Timber Research and Development Institute
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products | Year: 2012

An inter-laboratory comparison of formaldehyde emission (FE) from laminated (PL) and uncoated (P2) particleboard (PB) with 16 mm thick-E1, used for non-structural and interior applications such as furniture materials and supplied from a commercial plant in the Czech Republic, was performed in two laboratories using the American small test chamber (ASTM D 6007-02). The results showed highly significant differences between the laboratories for PL (P < 0.001), and not significant for P2 (P = 0.33), and the differences between samples were significant for P2 and PL (P < 0.05). The FE values ranged between 0.056 and 0.090 and from 0.088 to 0.099 ppm for PL and from 0.129 to 0.223 and from 0.175 to 0.182 ppm for P2 as measured in laboratories 1 and 2, respectively. There was a good correlation (R 2 = 0.84) between the formaldehyde values measured for both types of particleboards in the two laboratories. Most of the formaldehyde values were in agreement with the requirements of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation. Furthermore, the results suggested that there was a higher homogeneity between the samples in laboratory 2 than in laboratory 1. The variation was related to the chamber conditions and sampling as well as inter-panel variations. © Springer-Verlag 2012. Source


Bohm M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Salem M.Z.M.,Alexandria University | Srba J.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Srba J.,Timber Research and Development Institute
Journal of Hazardous Materials | Year: 2012

The measurements of formaldehyde emission (FE) from solid wood, plywood, flooring and blockboard used for building and furnishing materials were obtained using the European small-scale chamber (EN 717-1) and gas analysis (EN 717-2) methods to identify the major sources of formaldehyde among construction and wood products in the Czech Republic. The differences in the FE values reported for various wood products were a function of their structural differences. These results showed that the wood species, plywood type and thickness significantly affected the FE measured by EN 717-2 (P<0.001). The FE values from solid wood ranged between 0.0068 and 0.0036ppm and 0.084-0.014mg/m 2h. The initial FE ranged from 0.006mg/m 3 for engineered flooring with polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) to 0.048mg/m 3 for painted birch blockboard. Furthermore, the FE dropped noticeably by the end of the measuring period, ranging between 0.006mg/m 3 for engineered flooring with PVAc and 0.037mg/m 3 for painted beech blockboard. Additionally, the initial FE was higher for the painted blockboard (0.035-0.048mg/m 3) than for the uncoated boards (0.022-0.032mg/m 3). In the first week after manufacturing, the FE was high, but the decrease in FE was noticeable at the two-week measurement for all of the materials, especially for the painted blockboards. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. Source


Salem M.Z.M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Salem M.Z.M.,Alexandria University | Bohm M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Srba J.,Timber Research and Development Institute | Berankova J.,Timber Research and Development Institute
Building and Environment | Year: 2012

In this study, formaldehyde emission (FE) and content (FC) from different types of wood-based panels mainly; particleboard (PB), medium and high density fiberboard (MDF and HDF) and plywood (PLW) and flooring materials [HDF laminate, solid wood, solid bamboo and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)] were measured using different test methods namely; European small-scale chamber (EN 717-1), gas analysis (EN 717-2), the American small-scale chamber (ASTM D 6007-02), and the perforator (EN 120) methods. FE was affected with high significance by board type and thickness of PB (P < 0.0001), but there was no significant effect from the moisture content (MC %) of PB (P = 0.94) and PLW (P = 0.195). The corrected FC values measured EN 120 were declined when the MC % decreased. Furthermore, the liberation of formaldehyde was enhanced by the process of painting when 200 g/m2 oil-based paint was applied for MDF and HDF. There was a strong positive correlation among the four test methods (R2 values ranged between 0.88 and 0.94) concerning the formaldehyde values from PB-16 mm, and approximately the same indication of formaldehyde values, as well as similar behavior, were seen for each method. Moreover, the results indicate surprisingly that there was a good correlation between EN 120 and ASTM D 6007-02, with R2 values of 0.93. The measurements of FE from flooring panels were ranged between 0.003 and 0.125 mg/m3 and the PVC flooring with UV-curable layer only had emissions ranged between 0.003 and 0.008 mg/m3 as measured by EN 717-1. Values of the emittable formaldehyde concentrations from most of the products investigated in the present study were below the limits that are mandatory in the Czech Republic. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Salem M.Z.M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Salem M.Z.M.,Alexandria University | Bohm M.,Czech University of Life Sciences | Berankova J.,Timber Research and Development Institute | Srba J.,Timber Research and Development Institute
Building and Environment | Year: 2011

Different standard methods were used to determine the formaldehyde emission (FE) from particleboard; some of them were defined as European, Japanese and American standards. This study aimed to determine the effect of some manufacturing variables on FE of particleboards produced using melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) adhesive with low content of free formaldehyde. The FE from the two types of particleboard (uncoated and laminated of 16-19 mm thickness) was measured with gas analysis method (EN 717-2) as well as the formaldehyde content (FC) with perforator method (EN 120). The European chamber (EN 717-1), Japanese desiccator method (JIS A 1460) and American large chamber (ASTM E 1333-96) values were measured by the conversion factor. The two types of particleboard studies showed differences in their formaldehyde parameters. It was concluded that the amount of formaldehyde emitted from the most of the manufactured boards resulted in the emission class El. In addition, laminating and decreasing the board thickness had a highly significant effect (p<0.001) on decreasing the formaldehyde parameters. The particleboard E1-emission class had approximately the same value according to the test methods and similar behavior was observed in the relationship between the EN 120 values and EN 717-1, JIS A 1460, the proposed California Air Resource Board (CARB) Phase 1 and 2. This article considers how to estimate the FE values of the international test methods using the conversion factor to eliminate the need for time consuming and expensive equipment. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Source

Discover hidden collaborations