European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 211–218 | Cite as

Particle size analysis of airborne wood dust produced from sawing thermally modified wood

  • Matthew D. AroEmail author
  • Stephen Monson Geerts
  • Suzanne French
  • Meijun Cai


Thermal modification imparts desirable properties in wood, including increased dimensional stability and greater resistance to fungal decay. While there is a substantial amount of performance data for thermally modified wood, there is little data available regarding the airborne particle size distribution of dust produced when processing thermally modified wood using standard machining equipment. Therefore, utilizing a Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor, this research analyzed the size distribution of airborne particles produced when processing 170 °C thermally modified yellow poplar, red maple, white ash, aspen, and balsam fir on an industrial table saw. Ultimately, the aim of this research was to provide preliminary data that may assist wood products industry manufacturers and environmental health and safety officials in identifying potential hazards of airborne thermally modified wood dust. The study revealed slight differences in airborne particulate matter (PM) by wood species. The unmodified yellow poplar, red maple, and white ash all had relatively similar amounts of PM10 (~ 29%), while balsam fir (~ 10%) had the least amount. The unmodified yellow poplar also had the highest amount of PM2.5 and PM1, 14% and 10%, respectively, while the balsam fir had the least amount of PM2.5 and PM1, 2.00% and 1.45%, respectively. Thermally modified yellow poplar had the highest PM10, PM2.5, and PM1. Statistical analysis revealed that none of the five wood species had a significant difference (p < 0.05) in particle size distribution between unmodified and thermally modified forms.



This work was financially supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Wood Education and Resource Center under Grant no. 15-DG-11420004-082. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Department of Agriculture.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Aro M, Brashaw B, Donahue P (2014) Mechanical and physical properties of thermally modified plywood and oriented strand board panels. Forest Prod J 64(7/8):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM (2007) ASTM D4442. Standard test methods for direct moisture content measurement of wood and wood-base material, Method B. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ates S, Akyildiz MH, Özdemir H (2009) Effects of heat treatment on Calabrian pine (Pinus Brutia Ten.) wood. BioResources 4(3):1032–1043Google Scholar
  4. Campopiano A, Olori A, Basili F, Ramires D, Zakrzewska AM (2008) Differences in particle size distributions collected by two wood dust samplers: preliminary findings. Prev Today 4(3):43–58Google Scholar
  5. Chung KYK, Cuthbert RJ, Revell GS, Wassel SG, Summer N (2000) A study on dust emission, particle size distribution and formaldehyde concentration during machining of medium density fiberboard. Ann Occup Hyg 44(6):455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dzurenda L, Orlowski K, Grzeskiewicz M (2010) Effect of thermal modification of oak wood on sawdust granularity. Drvna Ind 61(2):89–94Google Scholar
  7. EPA (2017) Particle pollution designations process. US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 24 May 2017
  8. Esteves B, Domingos I, Pereira H (2006) Variation of dimensional stability and durability of eucalypt wood by heat treatment. In: ECOWOOD 2006, 2nd international conference on environmentally compatible forest products proceedings, 20–22 September 2006, Oporto, Portugal, pp 185–194Google Scholar
  9. Fengel D, Wegener G (1984) Wood—chemistry, ultrastructure, reactions. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Hakkou M, Pètrissens M, Zoulalian A, Gèrardin P (2005) Investigation of wood wettability changes during heat treatment on the basis of chemical analysis. Polym Degrad Stab 89(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hlásková L, Rogozinski T, Dolny S, Kopeckỳ Z, Jedinák M (2015) Content of respirable and inhalable fractions in dust created while sawing beech wood and its modifications. Drewno 58(194):135–146Google Scholar
  12. Hubbard R, Lewis S, Richards K, Johnston I, Britton J (1996) Occupational exposure to metal or wood dust and aetiology of cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis. Lancet 347(8997):284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kocaefe D, Poncsak S, Boluk Y (2008) Effect of thermal treatment on the chemical composition and mechanical properties of birch and aspen. BioResources 3(2):517–537Google Scholar
  14. Marple VA, Rubow KL, Behm SM (1991) A microorifice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI): description, calibration, and use. Aerosol Sci Technol 14:434–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKeever D, Spelter H, Toth D (2009) Profile 2009: softwood sawmills in the United States and Canada. Forest Service Research Paper FPL-RP-659. US Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  16. Očkajová A, Kučerka M, Banski A, Rogoziński T (2016) Factors affecting the granularity of wood dust particles. Chip Chipless Woodwork Process 10(1):137–144Google Scholar
  17. OSHA (2017) Wood dust, hazard recognition. US Department of Labor, Occupational and Safety and Health Administration Accessed 4 Apr 2017
  18. Poncsak S, Kocaefe D, Bouazara M, Pichette A (2006) Effect of high temperature treatment on the mechanical properties of birch (Betula papyrifera). Wood Sci Technol 40(8):647–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9):1132–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratnasingam J, Scholz F, Natthondan V (2010) Particle size distribution of wood dust in rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) furniture manufacturing. Eur J Wood Prod 68:241–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Repellin V, Guyonnet R (2005) Evaluation of heat-treated wood swelling by differential scanning calorimetry in relation to chemical composition. Holzforschung 59(1):28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santos JA (2000) Mechanical behavior of Eucalyptus wood modified by heat. Wood Sci Technol 34(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheiding W (2016) TMT im Jahr 2016—ein update. (TMT in the year 2016—an update) (in German). In: 9th European thermally modified timber (TMT) workshop, 26–27 May 2016, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi JL, Kocaefe D, Zhang J (2007) Mechanical behavior of Quebec wood species heat-treated using ThermoWood process. Eur J Wood Prod 65(4):255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tjeerdsma BF, Stevens M, Militz H, Van Acker J (2002) Effect of process conditions on moisture content and decay-resistance of hydro-thermally treated wood. Holzforschung Verwertung 54(5):94–99Google Scholar
  26. UNECE/FAO (2013) UNECE/FAO forest products annual market review. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Weiland JJ, Guyonnet R (2003) Study of chemical modifications and fungi degradation of thermally modified wood using DRIFT spectroscopy. Eur J Wood Prod 61(3):216–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Research InstituteUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations