Advertisement

European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

, Volume 77, Issue 4, pp 581–591 | Cite as

Pretreated unbleached cellulose screen reject for cement-bonded fiberboards

  • Antônia Amanda da Silva César
  • Lina BufalinoEmail author
  • Arthur Setsuo Tahara
  • Ricardo Gabriel de Almeida Mesquita
  • Tiago Marcolino de Souza
  • Láysa Maria Ferreira Andrade
  • Fábio Akira Mori
  • Lourival Marin Mendes
Original
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Unbleached screen reject (USR) is a byproduct widely available from the kraft pulping that is rich in cellulose and requires a sustainable destination. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to determine the best condition to apply USR as reinforcement of cement-bonded fiber boards (CBFBs); using raw or pretreated USRs through water or sodium hydroxide immersion followed or not by refining. The size distribution, fiber morphology and chemical composition of the USR were investigated. The CBFBs were produced using the following parameters: wood:cement ratio of 1:2.75; water:cement ratio of 1:2.5; hydration rate of 25%; 4 wt% of the CaCl2 additive (based on cement mass); target density of 1.4 g/cm3; and thickness of 15 mm. Physical and mechanical properties of the USR-containing CBFBs were evaluated. Obtained results indicated that USR consists of preserved fiber bundles weakly attached to each other. Their main proportion (> 95 wt%) is composed of particles greater than 20 mesh. The refining process slightly affects morphology and size distribution whereas immersion treatments partially removed lignin precipitates. The alkaline pretreatment of the waste followed by refining proved to be the best condition to improve the composites’ physical and mechanical properties. Overall, the mechanical and physical strength of the boards was higher or close to that of commercial products, except for MOR and PC. Nonetheless, such challenges could be overcome by improvements in the composite’s composition and the USR pretreatments. Thus, USR waste from cellulose industry showed great potential to be applied as reinforcement of CBFBs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES), the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (Fapemig) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

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

References

  1. ABNT NBR 14810-3 (2006) Medium density particleboards—testing. Brazilian Technical Standards Association, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. ABNT NBR 14852 (2010) Determination of soluble matter in ethanol-toluene and in dichloromethane and in acetone. Brazilian Technical Standards Association, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  3. ABNT NBR 5733 (1999) High early strength Portland cement—specifications. Brazilian Technical Standards Association, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  4. ABNT NBR 7989 (2010) Pulp and wood—determination of acid-insoluble lignin. Brazilian Technical Standards Association, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  5. Aggarwal LK, Singh J (1990) Effect of plant fiber extractives on properties of cement. Cement Concrete Compos 12:103–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(90)90047-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amroc (2018) Amroc—panel: Technical data. https://www.amroc.de/en/cement-bonded-particle-boards-amroc-panel/product-description.html. Accessed 07 Jan 2019
  7. ASTM D1037-06a (2002) Standard test methods for evaluating properties of wood-base fiber and panel materials. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM D1921 (2001) Standards test methods for particle size (sieve analysis) of plastic materials. American Society for Testing and Material Standards, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilba K, Arsene M-A, Ouensanga A (2003) Sugar cane bagasse fiber reinforced cement composites. Part I—influence of the botanical components of bagasse on the setting of bagasse/cement composite. Cement Concr Compos 25:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bison® (2018) NCL Industries Limited. Bison panel. Bison panel—characteristics and properties. https://www.nclind.com/characteristics-of-bison. Accessed 07 Jan 2019
  11. Browning BL (1963) The chemistry of wood. Interscience, WarrenvileGoogle Scholar
  12. Coutts RSP (2005) A review of Australian research into natural fiber cement composites. Cement Concr Compos 27:518–526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Sá VA, Bufalino L, Albino VCS, Corrêa AA, Mendes LM, Almeida NA (2012) Mixture of three reforestation species on the cement-wood panels production Rev. Árvore 36:549–557.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622012000300017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Menezzi CHS, Castro VG, de Souza MR (2007) Production and properties of a medium density wood-cement boards produced with oriented strands and silica fume. Maderas Cienc Tecnol 9:105–155.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-221X2007000200001 Google Scholar
  15. DIN 52362 (1982) Testing of wood chipboards, bending test, determination of bending strength. DIN German Institute for Standardization, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández-Rodríguez J, Erdocia X, de Hoyosa PL, Alriolsa MG, Labidia J (2017) Small phenolic compounds production from kraft black liquor by lignin depolymerization with different catalytic agents. Chem Eng Trans 57:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1757023 Google Scholar
  17. Ferraz JM, Del Menezzi CH, Teixeira DE, Martins AS (2011) Effects of treatment of coir fiber and cement/fiber ratio on properties of cement-bonded composites. BioResources 6:3481–3492Google Scholar
  18. Frybort S, Mauritiz R, Teischinger A, Müller U (2008) Cement bonded composites—a mechanical review. BioResources 3:602–626Google Scholar
  19. Gama RO, Dias FM, Nascimento MF, Lahr FAR (2010) Particleboards of UKP/BKP from the cellulose industry and Pinus elliottii wastes: screw withdraw strength and perpendicular tension strength. Construindo 2:35–39Google Scholar
  20. Garcez MR, Garcez EO, Machado AO, Gatto DA (2016) Cement-wood composites: effects of wood species, particle treatments and mix proportion. Int J Compos Mater 6:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.5923/j.cmaterials.20160601.01 Google Scholar
  21. Gartner EM, Young JF, Damidot DA, Jawed I (2002) Hydration of Portland cement. In: Barnes P, Bensted J (eds) Structure and performance of cements. Spon Press, London, pp 57–113Google Scholar
  22. Gharehkhani S, Sadeghinezhad E, Kazi SN, Yarmand H, Badarudin A, Safaei MR, Zubir MNM (2015) Basic effects of pulp refining on fiber properties—a review. Carbohydr Polym 115:785–803.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.08.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golschimid O (1971) Ultraviolet spectra. In: Sarkanen KV, Ludwig CH (eds) Lignins: occurrence, formation, structure and reactions. Wiley, New York, pp 241–266Google Scholar
  24. Gominho J, Lourenço A, Neiva D, Fernandes L, Amaral M, Duarte AP, Simões R, Pereira H (2016) The effect of eucalypt tree overaging on pulping and paper properties. Eur J Wood Prod 74:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-015-0965-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guntekin E, Sahin HT (2009) Accelerated weathering performance of cement bonded fiberboard. Sci Res Essay 4:484–492Google Scholar
  26. IBA (2017) Indústria Brasileira de Árvores (The Brazilian tree industry) http://iba.org/images/shared/Biblioteca/IBA_RelatorioAnual2017.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2018
  27. Jonoobi M, Ghorbani M, Azarhazin A, Hosseinabadi HZ (2018) Effect of surface modification of fibers on the medium density fiberboard properties. Eur J Wood Prod 76:517–524.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1207-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorge FC, Pereira C, Ferreira JMF (2004) Wood-cement composites: a review. Eur J Wood Prod 62:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Juenger MCG, Jennings HM (2002) New insights on the effects of sugar on the hydration and microstructure of cement pastes. Cement Concr Res 3:393–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00689-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy F, Phillips GO, Williams EPA (1987) Wood and cellulosic: industrial utilization, biotechnology, structure and properties. Halsted, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim JS, Lee Y, Kim TH (2016) A review on alkaline pretreatment technology for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 199:42–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koljonen K, Osterberg M, Kleen M, Fuhrmann A, Stenius P (2004) Precipitation of lignin and extractives on kraft pulp: effect on surface chemistry, surface morphology and paper strength. Cellulose 11:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindström N, Fardim P (2012) Chemistry and surface chemistry of vessels in eucalyptus kraft pulps. Papel 73:65–72Google Scholar
  34. Matoski A, Iwakiri S (2007) Evaluation of the physical-mechanical properties of cement-wood panels using wood floor with controlled wood size. Rev Floresta 37:149–158Google Scholar
  35. Mohamed TE, Abdelgadir AY, Megahed MM, Nasser R (2011) Effect of mixing three lignocellulosic materials with different cement ratios on the properties of cement bonded particleboard. J Sci Technol 12:44–55Google Scholar
  36. Mohr BJ, Nanko H, Kurtis KE (2005) Durability of kraft pulp fiber–cement composites to wet/dry cycling. Cement Concr Res 27:435–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Na B, Wang Z, Wang H, Lu X (2014) Wood-cement compatibility review. Wood Res 59:813–826Google Scholar
  38. Pan Z, Zheng Y, Zhang R, Jenkins BM (2007) Physical properties of thin particleboard made from saline eucalyptus. Ind Crops Prod 26:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Panshin AJ, de Zeeuw C (1970) Textbook of wood technology: structure, identification, properties, and uses of the commercial woods of the United States and Canada. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Papadopoulos AN (2008) Natural durability and performance of hornbeam cement bonded particleboard. Maderas Cienc Tecnol 10:93–98.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-221X2008000200002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos SF, Tonoli GHD, Mejia JEB, Fiorelli J, Savastano H (2015) Non-conventional cement-based composites reinforced with vegetable fibers: a review of strategies to improve durability. Mater Construcción 65:041.  https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2015.05514 Google Scholar
  42. Savastano JRH, Warden PG, Coutts RSP (2000) Brazilian waste fibers as reinforcement for cement-based composites. Cement Concr Compos 22:379–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00034-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silva GC, de Latorraca JV, Teixeira DET, Bortoletto G (2005) Wood and bark composite production of Eucalyptus urophylla and cement Portland. Sci Forestalis 68:59–67Google Scholar
  44. Silva MC, Lopes OR, Colodette JL, Porto AO, Rieumont J, Chaussy D, Belgacemd MN, Silva GG (2008) Characterization of three non-product materials from a bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp mill, in view of valorising them as a source of cellulose fibers. Ind Crops Prod 27:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silva MC, Takahashi JA, Chaussy D, Belgacem MN, Silva GG (2010) Composites of rigid polyurethane foam and cellulose fiber residue. J Appl Polym Sci 117:3665–3672Google Scholar
  46. Silva DW, Mendes RF, Freire C, Vilela BL, Tonoli GHD, Teixeira RS, dos Santos SF, Savastano H Jr (2016) Cementitious composites reinforced with kraft pulping waste. Key Eng Mater 668:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Souza MR (1994) Durability of cement bonded particleboard made conventionally and carbon dioxide injection. Ph.D. Thesis, University of IdahoGoogle Scholar
  48. Tonoli GHD, Joaquim AP, Arsène M, Bilba K, Savastano H Jr (2007) Performance and durability of cement based composites reinforced with refined sisal pulp. Mater Manuf Process 22:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tonoli GHD, Santos SF, Joaquim AP, Savastano H Jr (2010) Effect of accelerated carbonation on cementitious roofing tiles reinforced with lignocellulosic fiber. Constr Build Mater 24:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tonoli GHD, Belgacem MN, Bras J, Pereira-da-Silva MA, Lahr FAR, Savastano H Jr (2012) Impact of bleaching pine fiber on the fiber/cement interface. J Mater Sci 47:4167–4177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tonoli GHD, Santos SF, Teixeira RS, Pereira-da-Silva MA, Lahr FA, Silva FHP, Savastano H Jr (2013) Effects of eucalyptus pulp refining on the performance and durability of fiber-cement composites. J Tropical For Sci 25:400–409Google Scholar
  52. Vaickelionis G, Vaickelioniene R (2006) Cement hydration in the presence of wood extractives and pozzolan mineral additives. Ceramics 50:115–122Google Scholar
  53. Vidaurre GB, Lombardi LR, Nutto L, França FJN, da Oliveira JT, Arantes S (2013) Properties of reaction wood. Floresta e Ambiente 20:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Viroc by Investwood (2018) Technical data. http://www.viroc.pt/documentos.aspx?menuid=21. Accessed 07 Jan 2019
  55. Visakh PM, Thomas S (2010) Preparation of bionanomaterials and their polymer nanocomposites from waste and biomass. Waste Biomass Valoriz 1:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vivian MA, Silva Júnior FG, da Fardim P, Simkunas TES (2017) Evaluation of yield and lignin extraction from Eucalyptus grandis × Eucalyptus urophylla wood chips with the hydrotropic compound sodium xylenesulphonate. BioResources 12:6723–6735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang W, Huang GU (2009) Characterization and utilization of natural coconut fibers composites. Mater Des 30:2741–2744.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler EA, Baas P, Gasson PE (1989) Iawa list of microscopic features for hardwood identification. International Association of Wood Anatomists, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  59. Zheng Y, Pan Z, Zhang R, Jenkins BM, Blunk S (2006) Properties of medium-density particleboard from saline Athel wood. Ind Crops Prod 23:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antônia Amanda da Silva César
    • 1
  • Lina Bufalino
    • 2
    Email author
  • Arthur Setsuo Tahara
    • 1
  • Ricardo Gabriel de Almeida Mesquita
    • 2
  • Tiago Marcolino de Souza
    • 3
  • Láysa Maria Ferreira Andrade
    • 1
  • Fábio Akira Mori
    • 1
  • Lourival Marin Mendes
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Lavras/UFLALavrasBrazil
  2. 2.Rural Federal University of Amazonia/UFRABelémBrazil
  3. 3.University of Amapá State/UEAPMacapáBrazil

Personalised recommendations