An assessment of side-stream generation from Finnish forest industry

  • Md. Kamrul HassanEmail author
  • Aki Villa
  • Suvi Kuittinen
  • Janne Jänis
  • Ari Pappinen


This study examined side-stream generation from Finnish forest industry comprising data from 19 sawmills, 1 plywood mill, 1 particleboard mill, 10 paper and board mills, 1 semi-mechanical mill, and 15 chemical pulp mills. A structured questionnaire survey was carried out for this study. The results revealed that the generation of side stream in sawmills, plywood mills, paper and board mills, mechanical pulp mills, and chemical pulp mills accounted for 42.2%, 56.1%, 23.8%, 30.7%, and 56% of round wood log input, respectively, and 91.2%, 135.5%, 42.2%, 44.7%, and 238.5% of the finished product, respectively. Woodchips, sawdust, and bark were recognized as the significant side streams in sawmills and plywood mills, whereas fiber sludge was found the main side stream in paper, board and mechanical pulp mills. In chemical pulp mills, black liquor was found the greatest side stream, which comprises 43% of the wood input and 183.3% of the finished product. The study estimated that in 2016, Finnish forest industry generated a total 27.7 million tons of side streams, consisting of 49.2% black liquor, 28.5% solid wood-based waste, 14.1% sludge, 4.4% ashes, and 3.8% others. A current use of these side streams and their future utilization potential is also discussed.


Side-stream generation Finnish forest industry Sawmill Plywood mill Paper and board mill Pulp mill 



This work was supported by the projects FORBIO, funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (Grant no. 293380), and SusBioRef and CONVER-B funded by the Academy of Finland (Grant no. 285930 and 311972, respectively). The authors thank all respondents who participated in the survey and shared their expertise for this research. Olli Lehtovaara from Metsä Group and Katja Viitikko from UPM are thanked for their expert comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

10163_2018_787_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 KB)


  1. 1.
    Asveld L, van Est R, Stemerding D (2011) Getting to the core of the bio-economy. A perspective on the sustainable promise of biomass. Rathenau Instituut, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission (2011) Bio-based economy for Europe: state of play and future potential—Part 1. Biotechnology. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. Accessed 21 Feb 2017
  4. 4.
    Staffas L, Gustavsson M, McCormick K (2013) Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: an analysis of official national approaches. Sustain 5:2751–2769. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biotalous (2014) The Finnish bioeconomy strategy: sustainable growth from bioeconomy. Accessed 22 Sep 2015
  6. 6.
    Bosman R, Rotmans J (2016) Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: a comparison of Finland and The Netherlands. Sustain. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Energy D (2009) Finland’s national action plan for promoting energy from renewable sources pursuant to Directive 2009/28/EC. Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Government of Finland. Accessed 21 Feb 2017
  8. 8.
    Kilpeläinen A, Kellomäki S, Strandman H (2012) Net atmospheric impacts of forest bioenergy production and utilization in Finnish boreal conditions. GCB Bioenergy 4:811–817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peltola A (2016) Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Nature Resources Institute Finland (Luke), HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kröger M, Raitio K (2017) Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: a pathway to sustainability? For Policy Econ 77:6–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Packalen T, Kärkkäinen L, Toppinen A (2016) The future operating environment of the Finnish sawmill industry in an era of climate change mitigation policies. For Policy Econ. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alakangas E, Virkkunen M (2007) Biomass fuel supply chains for solid biofuels. From small to large scale. EubioNet 2:32Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hassan MK, Pelkonen P, Pappinen A (2011) Assessment of bioenergy potential from major crop residues and wood fuels in Bangladesh. J Basic Appl Sci Res 1(9):1039–1051Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alakangas E, Impola R (2015) Quality guidelines for wood fuels in Finland. Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT Ltd, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eurostat (2009) Forestry statistics. Off Eur Union. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R et al (2003) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenerg 25:119–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parikka M (2004) Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass Bioenerg 27:613–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simon D, Tyner WE, Jacquet F (2010) Economic analysis of the potential of cellulosic biomass available in France from agricultural residue and energy crops. Bioenergy Res 3:183–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finnish Forest Industries Federation (2017) Statistics. Accessed 10 Feb 2017
  20. 20.
    Voivontas D, Assimacopoulos D, Mourelatos A, Corominas J (1998) Evaluation of renewable energy potential using a GIS decision support system. Renew Energ 13:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smeets EMW, Faaij APC (2007) Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: an assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Clim Change 81:353–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hassan MK (2015) Supply and demand of biomass based energy: rural people’s perspectives in Bangladesh. Academic dissertation, University of Eastern Finland.
  23. 23.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1990) Energy conservation in the mechanical forest industries. Forestry Paper, vol 93. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1992) Timber bulletin, special issue: survey of the structure of the sawmilling industry, vol. XLIV, no. 2. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ogunwusi AA (2014) Wood waste generation in the forest industry in Nigeria and prospects for its industrial utilization. Civ Environ Res 6:62–69Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hyytiäinen A, Viitanen J, Mutanen A (2011) Production efficiency of independent Finnish sawmills in the 2000s. 280–287Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y (2004) Data book: material and carbon flow of harvested wood in Japan (CGER-REPORT D034). National Institute for Environmental Studies, TsukubaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pelkonen H (1986) Sahan sivutuottet (By-products at a sawmill). In: Juvonen R, Johanson PE (eds) Sahateollisus, Mekaaninen metsäteollisuus (Saw milling industry, mechanical forest industry), vol 2. Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki, pp 178–190 (in Finnish) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heikkilä T (1985) Sivutuotteiden käsittely (Handling of byproducts). In: Juvonen R, Kariniemi J (eds) Vaneriteollisuus. Mekaaninen metsäteollisuus (Plywood industry, mechanical forest industry), vol 1. Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki, pp 153–158 (in Finnish) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verkasalo E (1992) Forest industry as a producer and consumer of wood-based energy in Finland. Silva Fenn 26(2):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hetemäki L, Hänninen R (2009) Arvio suomen puunjalostuksen tuotannosta ja puunkaytosta vuosina 2015 ja 2020 (An estimation on the production and the wood consumption of the Finnish wood processing industry in years 2015 and 2020) (in Finnish) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koopmans A, Koppejan J (1997) Agricultural and forest residues—generation, utilization and availability. Reg Consult Mod Appl Biomass Energy. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suhr M, Klein G, Kourti I et al (2015) Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of pulp, paper and board. Eur Comm. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (2001) Reference document on best available techniques in the pulp and paper industry. European Commission, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    CANMET Energy Technology Centre (2005) Pulp and paper sludge to energy—preliminary assessment of technologies. CANMET Energy Technology Centre, DevonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bird M, Talbert J (2008) Waste stream reduction and re-use in the pulp and paper sector. Washington State Department of Ecology, Industrial Footprint Project, Task 5.1. Accessed 8 May 2017
  37. 37.
    Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, Negro C (2009) Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union. Waste Manag 29:293–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krigstin S, Sain M (2006) Characterization and potential utilization of recycled paper mill sludge. Pulp Pap Canada 107:29–32Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Balwaik SA, Raut SP (2011) Utilization of waste paper pulp by partial replacement of cement in concrete. Int J Eng Res Appl 1(2):300–309Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bajpai P (2015) Management of pulp and paper mill waste. Manag Pulp Pap Mill Waste. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nurmesniemi H, Pöykiö R, Keiski RL (2007) A case study of waste management at the Northern Finnish pulp and paper mill complex of Stora Enso Veitsiluoto Mills. Waste Manag 27:1939–1948. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Elliott A, Mahmood T (2005) Survey benchmarks generation, management of solid residues. Pulp Pap 79(12):49–55Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gavrilescu D (2004) Solid waste generation in kraft pulp mills. Environ Eng Manag J 3:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carpentier A (2002) European legislative framework for the management of pulp and paper residues. In: COST Workshop Managing Pulp and Paper Residues, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    The Finnish Environment (1997) The Finnish background report for the EC documentation of best available techniques for pulp and paper industry. Ministry of Environment, Government of Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Saijonkari-Pahkala K (2008) Non-wood plants as raw material for pulp and paper. Agric Food Sci 10:101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y, Saito A, Ono T (2004) Six indicators of material cycles for describing society’s metabolism: application to wood resources in Japan. Resour Conserv Recycl 40(3):201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Natural Resources Institute (Luke) (2017) Forest industries’ wood consumption. 2016. Accessed 8 May 2017
  49. 49.
    Finnish Forest Industries (2010) The forest industry and energy. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  50. 50.
    Fischer C, Reichel A (2013) Municipal waste management in Finland. European Environment Agency. Accessed 12 July 2017
  51. 51.
    Gontia P, Janssen M (2016) Life cycle assessment of bio-based sodium polyacrylate production from pulp mill side streams: case study of thermo-mechanical and sulfite pulp mills. J Clean Prod 131:475–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Finnish Forest Industries (2010) The forest industry and innovation. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md. Kamrul Hassan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aki Villa
    • 1
  • Suvi Kuittinen
    • 1
  • Janne Jänis
    • 2
  • Ari Pappinen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations