1 Introduction
References | Origin | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WW type | Original use | Contaminant analysis | |||||||||
PB | FB | OSB | Plywood | Solid wood | C & D | Municipal | Furniture | Packaging | Physical | Chemical | |
Schild et al. (2019) | |||||||||||
Faraca et al. (2019) | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
Azambuja et al. (2018a) | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Azambuja et al. (2018b) | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Hameed et al. (2018a) | x | x | |||||||||
Laskowska and Maminski (2018) | x | ||||||||||
Hong et al. (2018) | x | ||||||||||
Lesar et al. (2018) | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Robey et al. (2018) | x | x | |||||||||
Hameed et al. (2018b) | x | x | |||||||||
Zamarian et al. (2017) | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Edo et al. (2016) | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Roffael et al. (2016) | x | ||||||||||
Andrade et al. (2015) | x | x | x | ||||||||
Costa et al. (2014) | |||||||||||
Martins et al. (2007) | x | x | |||||||||
Nagalli et al. (2013) | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2011) | x | ||||||||||
Mirski and Dorota (2011a) | x | x | |||||||||
Mirski and Dorota (2011b) | x | ||||||||||
Suffian et al. (2010) | x | ||||||||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2008) | x | ||||||||||
Yang et al. (2007) | x | ||||||||||
Wang et al. (2007) | x | ||||||||||
Mantanis et al. (2004) | x | ||||||||||
Jermer et al. (2001) | x | x | |||||||||
Tolaymat et al. (2000) | x | x | |||||||||
Krzysik et al. (1997) | x |
References | Origin | Target composite type and research topic | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | Wood based panel | Composition | Strength properties | FE | ||||
PB | FB | OSB | Pure WW | Mix | ||||
Schild et al. (2019) | Canada | x | x | x | ||||
Faraca et al. (2019) | Denmark | |||||||
Azambuja et al. (2018a) | Brazil | x | x | x | ||||
Azambuja et al. (2018b) | Brazil | x | x | x | ||||
Hameed et al. (2018a) | Sweden | x | x | x | ||||
Laskowska and Maminski (2018) | Poland | x | x | x | ||||
Hong et al. (2018) | Korea | x | x | x | x | |||
Lesar et al. (2018) | Germany, UK, Finland, Slovenia | |||||||
Robey et al. (2018) | USA | |||||||
Hameed et al. (2018b) | Sweden | x | x | x | ||||
Zamarian et al. (2017) | Brazil | x | x | x | ||||
Edo et al. (2016) | Sweden | |||||||
Roffael et al. (2016) | Germany | x | x | x | x | |||
Andrade et al. (2015) | Portugal | x | x | x | ||||
Costa et al. (2014) | Portugal | x | x | x | x | |||
Martins et al. (2007) | Portugal | x | x | x | x | |||
Nagalli et al. (2013) | Brazil | |||||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2011) | Greece | x | x | x | x | |||
Mirski and Dorota (2011a) | Poland | x | x | x | x | |||
Mirski and Dorota (2011b) | Poland | x | x | x | ||||
Suffian et al. (2010) | UK | x | x | x | ||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2008) | Greece | x | x | x | x | |||
Yang et al. (2007) | Taiwan | x | x | x | ||||
Wang et al. (2007) | Taiwan | x | x | x | x | |||
Mantanis et al. (2004) | Portugal | x | x | x | ||||
Jermer et al. (2001) | Sweden, German, Netherlands | |||||||
Tolaymat et al. (2000) | USA | |||||||
Krzysik et al. (1997) | Poland | x | x | x |
References | Country | Source | Contaminants analysis | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical/material contaminants | ||||||||
%wt. dry basic of total material content (1) | Variation in (1) | |||||||
Stone (%) | Plastic (%) | Metal (%) | Textile (%) | Other (%) | ||||
Faraca et al. (2019) | Denmark | Recycling center | 1–2 | 1–8 | 92–99 | 0–1 | ||
Lesar et al. (2018) | Germany, Slovenian, Finish, UK | Recycling companies | 1–2.96 | |||||
Robey et al. (2018) | USA | Recycling Facilities | ||||||
Edo et al. (2016) | Sweden | Combustion power plant | 1.1 | 19–44 | 14–25 | 14–22 | ||
Nagalli et al. (2013) | Brazil | Construction site | 28.8–75.7 | 48.3–69.2 | 2.9–11.1 | |||
Jermer et al. (2001) | Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands | Combustion plant | < 1 | |||||
Tolaymat et al. (2000) | USA | Recycling facilities |
References | Contaminants analysis | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chemicals/trace element | ||||||||||
mg/kg dry wood (ppm) | ||||||||||
Cr | Cu | As | Pb | Hg | Cd | Cl | PCP | PCB | PAH | |
Faraca et al. (2019) | 0.5–150 | 1–500 | 0.03–7.0 | 0.1–120 | 0.01–0.5 | 10–5–1.0 | 10–3–10–1 | 10–5–10 | ||
Lesar et al. (2018) | 3–59 | 1–25 | 1–116 | 97–802 | ||||||
Robey et al. (2018) | 7.0–94.6 | 3.7–348 | 2.0–150 | |||||||
Edo et al. (2016) | 1.5–313 | 3.6–3200 | 0.10–270 | 1.80–2900 | 0.5–1 | 0.5–1 | 0.07–0.13 | |||
Nagalli et al. (2013) | ||||||||||
Jermer et al. (2001) | 9–73 | 0–64 | 1–41 | 0–153 | 0.06–0.52 | 0.12–1.22 | 91–1191 | |||
Tolaymat et al. (2000) | 10–29,000 | 39–1600 |
Target composite | References | WW type | Adhesives | WW ratio (%) | Density (kg/m3) | Physical and mechanical properties | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WBP | Solid wood | Unknown | Static bending | IB (MPa) | TS (%) | WA (%) | ||||||
MOE (GPa) | MOR (MPa) | 24 h | 24 h | |||||||||
Particleboard | Azambuja et al. (2018a) | x | x | UF | 25; 100 | 750 | 0.49–1.30 | 4.6–7.2 | 0.18–0.76 | 15.2–26.7 | 44.4–79.4 | |
Azambuja et al. (2018b) | x | x | UF | 25; 50 | 750 | 0.70–1.49 | 3.7–8.4 | 0.48–0.92 | 14.2–27.9 | 43.2–81.3 | ||
Hameed et al. (2018a) | x | UF, TF, PMDI | 100 | 640 | 2.10–2.12 | 10.1–11.0 | 0.40–0.42 | 8.9–16.2 | 26.9–51.5 | |||
Laskowska and Mamiński (2018) | x | UF, PF | 20; 40; 60; 80; 100 | 650 | 0.10–2.0 | 1.5–17.0 | 0.01–0.55 | 2.0–13.0 | ||||
Zamarian et al. (2017) | x | x | UF | 10; 25; 50; 75; 100 | 700 | 1.45–1.96 | 10.2–13.1 | 0.60–0.96 | 11.6–16.0 | 34.8–42.7 | ||
Andrade et al. (2015) | x | x | UF | 0; 25; 50; 75; 100 | 600 | 0.61–0.84 | 4.4–9.0 | 0.37–0.89 | 30.5 | 92.5 | ||
Martins et al. (2007) | x | UF | 50; 70; 100 | 612 | 0.52–1.00 | 3.4–8.9 | 0.16–0.42 | |||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2011) | x | UF | 100 | 680 | 1.78–2.69 | 9.2–14.2 | 0.38–0.54 | 19.4–24.0 | 79.8–86.3 | |||
Suffian et al. (2010) | x | UF | 100 | 650 | 2.56 | 13.8 | 0.61 | 35.7 | 63.6 | |||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2008) | x | UF | 100 | 650 | 2.14–2.58 | 9.5–17.2 | 0.18–0.94 | 26.2–59.1 | 79.0–119.6 | |||
Yang et al. (2007) | x | PF | 100 | 700; 800 | 1.73–5.33 | 11.1–29.0 | 0.12–0.42 | 2.0–11.0 | ||||
Wang et al. (2007) | x | PF, PMDI | 100 | 800 | 2.08–3.45 | 11.4–27.9 | 0.56–0.73 | 7.0–18.1 | ||||
Fiberboard | Hong et al. (2018) | x | UF | 10; 20; 30 | 700 | 1.60–2.30 | 10.0–18.0 | 0.08–0.22 | 18.2–53.0 | 23.2–92.8 | ||
Roffael et al. (2016) | x | UF, PMDI | 0; 33; 67; 100 | 730 | 0.40–0.54 | 14.7–19.6 | 49.7–75.3 | |||||
Mantanis et al. (2004) | x | UF | 25 | 750 | 32.4–37.8 | 0.60–1.02 | 7.0–8.2 | |||||
Krzysik et al. (1997) | x | PF | 70 | 1000 | 3.38–4.18 | 11.7–37.7 | 0.41–0.59 | 7.1–12.5 | 13.2–25.5 | |||
OSB | Schild et al. (2019) | x | PF | 0; 25; 50; 100 | 600 | 8.10–12.65 | 28.0–33.5 | 0.38–0.59 | 28.5–39.0 | 70.0–77.0 | ||
Mirski and Dorota (2011a) | x | MUPF | 0; 25; 50; 75; 100 | 600 | 1.55–6.75 | 9.9–36.9 | 0.32–0.64 | 26.9–33.6 | ||||
Mirski and Dorota (2011b) | x | PMDI | 0; 25; 50; 75; 100 | 600 | 1.40–7.15 | 10.2–44.1 | 0.49–0.88 | 21.6–32.9 |
Target composite | References | WW type | Adhesives (%) | WW ratio (%) | Density (kg/m3) | Formaldehyde emission | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PB | FB | Unknown | Type | % | Chamber (ppm or mg/m3 air) (EN 717–1) | Perforator (mg/1000 g o.d) (EN 120) | Flask (mg/1000 g o.d) (EN 717–3) | Desiccator (mg/L) | ||||
Particleboard | Hameed et al. (2018b) | x | UF, TF, PMDI | 100 | 640 | 0.06–0.59 | 3.10–13.30 | 5.30–145.4 | ||||
Costa et al. (2014) | x | UF | 7 | 100 | 650 | 2.90–8.50 | ||||||
Martins et al. (2007) | x | UF | 7 | 50; 70; 100 | 612 | 2.20–6.96 | ||||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2011) | x | UF | 8;12 | 100 | 680 | 3.68–14.40 | ||||||
Lykidis and Grigoriou (2008) | x | UF | 7 | 100 | 650 | 1.61–10.26 | ||||||
Wang et al. (2007) | x | PF PMDI | 6 4 | 100 | 800 | 0.03–0.89 | ||||||
OSB | Mirski and Dorota (2011a) | x | MUPF | 5 | 0; 25; 50; 75; 100 | 600 | 4.87–6.21 | |||||
Fiberboard | Hong et al. (2018) | x | UF | 12 | 10; 20; 30 | 700 | 0.80–1.50 | |||||
Roffael et al. (2016) | x | UF PMDI | 10 0.5;1.0 | 0; 33; 67; 100 | 730 | 1.90–11.80 | 2.70–122.0 |
2 Methods
-
ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/)
-
Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/)
-
WorldCat (https://www.worldcat.org/)
-
SpringerLink (https://link.springer.com/)
-
Taylor&Francis Online (https://www.tandfonline.com/)
-
ACS Publications (https://pubs.acs.org/)
-
Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com)
-
Waste wood contaminants
-
Waste wood composites
-
Recycled wood, formaldehyde emission
-
Secondary wood resources
-
Wood residues utilization
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Waste wood origin and target composite type
3.1.1 Waste wood origin
3.1.2 Target composite type
3.2 Challenges in waste wood conversion and recycled composites products
3.2.1 Contaminants in waste wood and sorting technologies
3.2.1.1 Contaminants in waste wood
3.2.1.2 Sorting technologies
3.2.2 Properties of wood-based panel produced from waste wood
3.2.2.1 Particleboard
3.2.2.2 Fiberboard
3.2.2.3 OSB
3.2.3 Formaldehyde emission
4 Conclusion
-
It is not surprising that most of previous investigations focused on recycled wood of construction and demolition, furniture and packaging since they are the most popular waste wood stream resources. The potential municipal waste resource was missing in the research.
-
There are not enough published data and results available based on research with material derived from plywood and OSB as compared to particleboard and fiberboard even though most of the wood-based panel products in the world are plywood. It is controversial between production volume, usage and recycling.
-
Due to the rather strict national and/or Europe-wide regulations controlling recycling topics, European institutions and European research institutes are currently the forerunners in waste wood studies. However, the European member states are lacking a common legislation scheme about the recycling of wood regarding classification and thresholds. Waste wood resources in other continents such as Asia, Africa and Australia would be of high research interest in the future. In addition, more studies about waste wood ordinances should be conducted especially for countries outside Europe.
-
The advantages in technical and mechanical treatment process of waste wood into particles indicated that particleboard was the primary option for the production of wood-based panel compared to fiberboard and OSB. The present literature analysis has confirmed that currently, there appears to be hardly any research on the use of waste wood materials in the production of plywood.
-
Physical and mechanical contaminants of waste wood resources would not be a problem for wood composites recycling if they were well managed. This management can be done beforehand at recycling companies or facilities via steps of collection, separation and sorting into certain grades. In general, every contaminant could be detected and eliminated by appropriate sorting techniques. On the other hand, the focus on improvement of sorting methods will bring the future perspective values for cleaning waste wood mix. Moreover, changing ingredients of coating pigments, paints, preservatives etc., which contain less harmful substances contributing to reduce contaminants in recycled wood, would be an option as well.
-
Particleboard and the core layer of OSB panel products could be substituted up to 100% by waste wood particles. However, the contaminants and the low slenderness ratio of recycled wood particles will result in the reduction of physical and mechanical properties of the panel products. Those disadvantages could be overcome by applying modern sorting techniques to eliminate contaminants and appropriate chipping techniques in order to increase the slenderness ratio of recycled wood particles. Further investigations are needed at the moment for the improvement of fiberboard properties made from 100% recycled fibers since only up to 25% of waste wood fiber can be utilized in the fiberboard wood mixture achieving comparable physical and mechanical properties with fiberboard from virgin wood.
-
Using waste wood for the production of wood-based panel increases the risk of formaldehyde emission in products of particleboard and OSB, except for fiberboard. However, this risk can be addressed by applying pre-treatment steps to reduce formaldehyde emission (e.g., hydrothermal process) or using formaldehyde-free adhesives (e.g., PMDI)