Particle size analysis of airborne wood dust produced from sawing thermally modified wood
- 30 Downloads
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.
- 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
- Ates S, Akyildiz MH, Özdemir H (2009) Effects of heat treatment on Calabrian pine (Pinus Brutia Ten.) wood. BioResources 4(3):1032–1043Google Scholar
- 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
- Dzurenda L, Orlowski K, Grzeskiewicz M (2010) Effect of thermal modification of oak wood on sawdust granularity. Drvna Ind 61(2):89–94Google Scholar
- EPA (2017) Particle pollution designations process. US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/particle-pollution-designations/learn-about-particle-pollution-designations#process. Accessed 24 May 2017
- 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
- Fengel D, Wegener G (1984) Wood—chemistry, ultrastructure, reactions. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- OSHA (2017) Wood dust, hazard recognition. US Department of Labor, Occupational and Safety and Health Administration https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/wooddust/recognition.html. Accessed 4 Apr 2017
- 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
- 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
- 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