See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337029705

European Pallets Fabricated with Composite Wood Blocks from Tropical Species
Reinforced with Nanocrystalline Cellulose: Effects on the Properties of Blocks
and Static Flexure of th...

Article  in  Bioresources · November 2019

DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.2.3651-3667

CITATION READS

1 730

5 authors, including:

Roger Moya Roque José Roberto Vega-Baudrit

Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR) National University of Costa Rica
247 PUBLICATIONS   2,698 CITATIONS    329 PUBLICATIONS   2,280 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Angel Navarro-Mora Johanna Gaitán-Alvarez

Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR) Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR)
9 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reveal the fraudulent products with claims to prevent, treat, and/or mitigate Covid-19 in many societies View project

Bioprospecting of biodiversity for new biological resources of social and economic significance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roger Moya Roque on 06 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com

European Pallets Fabricated with Composite Wood

Blocks from Tropical Species Reinforced with
Nanocrystalline Cellulose: Effects on the Properties of
Blocks and Static Flexure of the Pallet
Priscilla Rigg-Aguilar,a Róger Moya,a,* José Vega-Baudrit,b Angel Navarro-Mora,c and
Johana Gaitan-Alvarez a

The objective of this study was to characterize the performance of

composite wood blocks (CWB) by testing internal bonding, nail extraction
resistance, and water absorption. The CWB were glued with two wood
adhesives, polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), and urea formaldehyde (UF),
modified with 1% nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC). Three tropical species
were employed: Vochysia ferruginea, Cordia alliodora, and Gmelina
arborea. In addition, the original European pallet in the static flexure test
was evaluated. The results showed that the internal bonding relative to
solid wood blocks (SWB) increased with both adhesives. Meanwhile, the
CWB of V. ferruginea with UF and C. alliodora with PVAc showed the
greatest resistance to nail extraction, while in G. arborea, the NCC
increased the resistance to nail extraction. The CWB with modified
adhesives absorbed more moisture, particularly with PVAc, compared with
the SWB. In static flexure tests of the pallets fabricated with CWB, the load
at the limit of proportionality and the maximum load increased, while
deflections were lower, compared with SWB. The results showed the
potential of utilizing NCC in CWB fabricated with tropical species.

Keywords: Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC); Adhesives; Wood; Composite blocks; Pallets

Contact information: a: Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica [Costa Rica
Tech], Cartago, Costa Rica, P.O. Box 159-7050; b: Laboratorio Nacional Nanotecnología (LANOTEC)
[National Laboratory of Nanotechnology], Centro Nacional de Alta Tecnología (CeNAT), San José, Costa
Rica; c: Escuela de Ingeniería en Construcción [Costa Rica Tech], Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica,
Cartago, Costa Rica; *Corresponding author: rmoya@itcr.ac.cr

INTRODUCTION

Cellulose is the most abundant organic compound on the planet (Thakur et al.
2013). It is a naturally formed polymer in all plants, together with other important
components such as lignin, hemicelluloses, and waxes (Li et al. 2009). Cellulose can be
found all over a plant, although it is mostly concentrated in the stem (Lavoine et al. 2012)
to support the plant (Morán et al. 2008).
As a renewable material, and because of its physical and chemical characteristics,
cellulose has been of great interest for manufacturing over the last decade (Poletto et al.
2014). With dimensions of 20 nm in diameter and 100 nm to 400 nm in length,
nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) can be obtained from cellulose (Morán et al. 2008).
Alternatively, microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) can be prepared by mechanical treatment,
often supplemented by chemical or enzymatic treatments. Both MFC and NCC have been
studied and used as reinforcements and filling in various polymers (Poletto et al. 2014;

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3651

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Khanjanzadeh et al. 2018; 2019) due to the strength properties conferred by NCCs
crystalline nature (Atta-Obeng et al. 2013) and their biodegradability (Liew et al. 2015).
Wood is a renewable material with good structural resistance that competes with
other non-renewable materials (Tsoumis 1968). However, wood has the inconvenience that
over 40% of the raw material becomes waste during the industrialization process
(Espinoza-Durán and Moya 2013; Jadin et al. 2017), which can become a problem unless
adequate management measures are taken, particularly in underdeveloped countries like
Costa Rica (Gaitán-Álvarez et al. 2017). Some industries in more industrialized countries
employ wood wastes as a raw material to develop other products, such as wood composites
or to use for energy production (Thakur et al. 2014).
In addition to the problem of wood waste in Costa Rica, stubble from pineapple
plantations is another source of waste. The annual pineapple (Ananas comosus) world crop,
approximately 24.8 million tons produced (Darnaudery et al. 2018), produces large
amounts of residues in the forms of unused leaves, stems, crowns, and fruit peels
(Rattanapoltee and Kaewkannetra 2014). Nearly 300 tons of stubble per pineapple-sown
hectare are produced in Costa Rica (Moya et al. 2016), where these wastes, as in other
countries, have not yet received adequate management (Moya and Camacho 2014).
Because this is a slow-decaying material, toxic herbicides, such as N,N’-dimethyl-4,4’-
bipyridinium dichloride (paraquat), are commonly used; paraquat is a soil contaminating
herbicide with accumulative toxicity (Moya et al. 2016).
One possible application for the pineapple wastes is the extraction of natural fibers
for manufacturing ropes and textiles, among other products (Moya and Camacho 2014), or
for pulp production (Moya et al. 2016). However, recent research presents the possibility
of extracting NCC from the pineapple fibers and use of the NCC for reinforcing wood
composites (Pirayesh et al. 2013; Balakrishnan et al. 2018; Rigg-Aguilar et al. 2019).
Wood and pineapple residues can be converted into lignocellulosic composites,
generally achieving better properties than solid wood. These composites are the result of
particle bonding (Rowell 2012), which increases their mechanical properties (Moya et al.
2015a, 2015b; Chaabouni and Boufi 2017). The final densities of the wood composites
range between 0.6 g·cm-3 and 0.7 g·cm-3 (Rangel et al. 2017). The particles are moistened
with fillings or adhesives that increase their internal bond resistance and are bonded by
thermal pressure (Salari et al. 2013).
Several studies have shown that the addition of cellulose, either as NCC or MFC,
to urea formaldehyde and polyvinyl acetate (two of the most important adhesives)
improves their performances in lignocellulosic composites (e.g., wood composites)
(Thakur and Singha 2010; Aydemir 2014; Kwon et al. 2015; Ayrilmis et al. 2016; Mahrdt
et al. 2016; Chaabouni and Boufi 2017; Khanjanzadeh et al. 2018, 2012).
Despite advances in the production of wood composites in Costa Rica, the
development of composite-based products is limited. Consequently, the use of wastes is
scarce (Serrano and Moya 2012). Therefore, an important market for composites can be
visualized in this country. For example, 50% of timber consumption in Costa Rica is
destined for pallet fabrication (Barrantas and Ugalde 2017), utilizing woody species such
as Gmelina arborea, Cordia alliodora, and Vochysia ferruginea (Rigg-Aguilar et al. 2019).
As for pallet production, a high percentage are of European type, fabricated with
blocks 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm obtained from logs with diameters greater than 20 cm (Rigg-
Aguilar et al. 2019), which can have high commercial value in the fabrication of other
products (Serrano and Moya 2012; Jadin et al. 2017). This log dimension is large for the
diameters produced in fast-growth forest plantations in Costa Rica (Serrano and Moya

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3652

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
2012). Therefore, producers are seeking alternatives for producing blocks from wood
composites or other lignocellulosic materials (Zivic et al. 2017), as there is experience in
other countries manufacturing pallets using blocks produced with wood wastes (Kain et al.
2013; Zivic et al. 2017).
Consequently, there is interest in the Costa Rican industry to fabricate composite
wood blocks (CWB) to produce European-type pallets from timber and pineapple residues
via extracting the NCC and applying it to the adhesives. Therefore, the objective of this
study was to characterize CWB and their use for European-type pallet fabrication. Three
tropical forest species (Cordia alliodora, Gmelina arborea, and Vochysia ferruginea)
glued with two adhesives, polyvinyl acetate and urea formaldehyde, modified with 1%
NCC, were studied. The tests evaluated the internal bond resistance, nail extraction, water
absorption, and the static flexure of European pallets fabricated with CWB.

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials
The NCC was provided by the Laboratorio Nacional de Nanotecnología
(LANOTEC, San José, Costa Rica). It was extracted from pineapple (Ananas comosus)
peel through a two-stage acid hydrolysis process. The NCC sizes were between 20 nm and
40 nm in diameter, and its concentration was 0.066 g·mL-1. The details of the extraction
and characterization can be found in Camacho et al. (2017) and Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019).
Two adhesive types were employed: polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and urea
formaldehyde (UF). The PVAc (Resistol™ MR 850; Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany)
technical product description indicates that the resin is water-based PVAc, with 54.5% to
55% solid contents and a viscosity between 1.6 Pa.s and 2.0 Pa.s. The UF (Resina CR-560
U-F; Química Centroamericana, Quibor, S.A., Managua, Nicaragua) is also water-based,
with four components: resin (51%), water (26%), wheat flour as agglutinant (20%), and
ammonium sulfate as catalyzer (3%). The technical description indicates that the pure resin
contains 64% to 65% solid contents and has a viscosity of 650 cP to 900 cP. The total solid
content of the complete adhesive with the four components is 48%.
The wood used to evaluate the effects of nanocellulose in the two adhesives came
from three tropical plantation species in Costa Rica: Gmelina arborea Roxb. (melina),
Vochysia ferruginea Mart. (botarrama), and Cordia alliodora Ruiz & Pav. (laurel). These
three are commonly used for pallet fabrication (Barrantas and Ugalde 2017) and are
commercially prevalent in Costa Rica (Tenorio et al. 2016).
The wood utilized came from plantations with ages ranging between 7 y and 9 y.
The C. alliodora came from CATIE-Turrialba (09° 53’ 00” N, 83° 38’ 01” W, 602 m a.s.l.,
9-years-old), the G. arborea came from Bonifacio, Limón (09° 46’ 43” N, 82° 54’ 59” W,
42 m a.s.l., 8-years-old), and the V. ferruginea came from Búfalo, Limón (10° 00’ 21” N,
83° 10’ 23” W, 25 m a.s.l., 7-years-old). Approximately 7 to 8 trees per species were felled.
For the pallets fabricated with solid wood, the G. arborea was utilized.

NCC in wood adhesives

The effects of 1% concentration NCC in the two wood adhesives (PVAc and UF)
were evaluated according to the results obtained by Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). The 1%
concentration (w/w) was added according to the percentage of solids in each adhesive (55%
for PVAc and 48% for UF).

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3653

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
The mixture of NCC with adhesives was prepared as follows: First, 150 g of PVAc
was placed into a receptacle and stirred with an inclined-blade agitator (45°) at 1600 rpm.
Then, the NCC gel (approximately 12.5 mL for 1% concentration) was slowly added into
the adhesive. Stirring of the NCC-adhesive mixture was continued for 10 min. For the UF,
which has 4 components (resin, water, wheat flour, and ammonium sulfate as catalyzer),
76.5 g of the resin was initially mixed with 10.9 mL of NCC and stirred for 5 min at 1600
rpm with an inclined-blade agitator (45°). Then, the rest of the components were added
(28.10 to 33.55 mL of water, 30 g flour, and 4.5 mL catalyzer), while stirring was continued
for an additional 5 min.

CWB manufacturing
The CWB were 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm, and were composed of wood particles
from V. ferruginea, C. alliodora, and G. arborea, employing the NCC-modified adhesive.
First, chips were obtained from 60 logs (1-m-long and of varying diameter) of the three
species. The chips were ground, and the material was sieved to obtain sizes between 3 mm
and 10 mm, with moisture contents between 2% and 4%.
Next, 550 g of dry particles were mixed with 100 g of NCC-modified adhesive
(18% of total chip weight) for UF and 66 g (12% of total chip weight) for PVAc. The
adhesive was slowly added to the particles while stirring over 4 min. The glued particles
were placed into a mold and pressed for 5 min with a 60 ton capacity universal testing
machine (model: Super L60; Tinius Olsen, Horsham, PA, USA). The mold was then heated
to 180 °C, while the pressure was applied for 60 min to 75 min to obtain the CWB. Lastly,
the CWB were conditioned to a 12% moisture content for two weeks.
A total of 72 CWB (2 adhesives × 2 concentrations (1% and 0%) × 9 blocks per
pallet × 2 samples) were fabricated to manufacture the pallets for each species, with the
same number of blocks (2 adhesives × 2 concentrations (1% and 0%) × 9 blocks per pallet
× 2 samples) to perform the tests with the composite wood with the modified adhesive.

Effect of the NCC in CWB for making European pallets

In the first stage, flexure in European pallets was tested using CWB with 1% NCC
concentration and fabricated with particles from G. arborea, V. ferruginea, and C.
alliodora. In the second stage, CWB fabricated with particles of the three species using
both adhesives and 1% NCC concentration were evaluated in the following tests: internal
bond, resistance to extraction of pallet nails, and percentage of water absorption.
Additionally, the CWB fabricated with 1% NCC concentration were compared in the same
tests with the blocks fabricated with adhesive without NCC and with solid wood blocks
(SWB) of the same species.

Methods
Internal bond and perpendicular tension resistance in CWB
A total of five different CWB fabricated with the two adhesives and modified with
1% NCC were cut according to Fig. 2c, obtaining four samples of 5 cm × 5 cm × 10 cm
per block. Thus, 20 samples per treatment were obtained (two adhesives: NCC-modified
and NCC-unmodified). The internal bond test was performed in accordance with the
ASTM D1037-12 (2018) standard. The bonding strength of the CWB was compared with
the grain-perpendicular tension strength of the SWB (Fig. 1d). For this purpose, SWB in
green condition for European pallets were obtained from Maderas Bosque Verde S.A.
(Cartago, Costa Rica). The SWB were cut according to Fig. 1b, and eight samples of 5 cm

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3654

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
× 5 cm × 6.3 cm were obtained (Fig. 1d). Therefore, 24 samples per treatment were tested,
following the ASTM D143-14 (2018) standard.

Resistance to nail extraction in CWB

Five CWB (10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm) with both adhesives (PVAc and UF), 1%
NCC-modified and unmodified (0% NCC), and five SWB from each species were utilized
to measure the resistance to nail extraction. In both cases, the ASTM D1761-12 (2018)
standard was followed, inserting pallet nails 5-cm-long (12.5 caliber with a 32º angle
spiral) to a depth of 32 mm at each side of the block, with a minimum distance between
the nails and the edge of the block of 2.54 cm. The nails were inserted on all sides of the
blocks to determine the lateral and transverse resistance. For the composite wood blocks,
the transverse directions were defined as the sections where compression was exerted,
while the lateral directions were the sections perpendicular to the direction of the
compression force at the time of block fabrication. There were 30 tests per treatment.

Water absorption
Samples sized 5 cm × 5 cm × 2.54 cm were obtained from the five conditioned
CWB per treatment (Fig. 1e). The samples were vertically placed into trays with water
covering the bottom up to 2.54 cm for 24 h, in accordance with the ASTM D1037-12 (2018)
standard. The weight was recorded before placement into water and after 24 h. Water
absorption was calculated for each of the samples according to the ratio of the weight of
the water absorbed to the weight of the sample before the absorption test, and expressed as
a percentage.

Pallet fabrication
The pallets were fabricated at Maderas Bosque Verde S.A. (Cartago, Costa Rica).
The European pallets were 1.10-m-long, 0.98-m-wide, and 0.15-m-high (Fig. 1a). The
upper boards were 10.1-cm-wide and 1.8-cm-thick; seven boards were placed. In both
cases, G. arborea was utilized. The pallets were nailed employing a 6 bar pressure
pneumatic pistol (Unicorn Fasteners Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China), 2 nails per board (5-cm-
long, 12.5 caliber, and 32º angle spiral). The lower side of the pallet featured three G.
arborea boards supporting the blocks and three boards perpendicular to the first three,
measuring 8.3-cm-wide and 1.8-cm-thick. Each block was nailed with two nails to the
lower boards.

Static flexure of the complete pallet

The pallets fabricated with CWB, as well as with SWB, were tested for their
flexural strength according to the ISO 8611-1 (2013) standard, in which the pallet is placed
on its sides while a double load is applied on the sections between the blocks (Fig. 1b) at
60 N/min. A crackmeter sensor was placed at each side of the pallet to measure the vertical
deflection at the central section of the pallet. During the test, the load and the deflection
were recorded in periods of 4 s until the pallet failed. These data were utilized to calculate
the load and deflection at the limit of proportionality (LLP and DLP) and the maximum load
and deflection (Lmax and Dmax) of the pallet based on the calculations of ISO 8611-1 (2013).
At the end of the test, the different failure types that occurred to the pallet were recorded.

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3655

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com

Fig. 1. (a) Dimensions and aspect of the pallet fabricated with composite wood; (b) pallet flexural
test; cutting patterns to obtain the samples for tests: (c) internal bond, (d) perpendicular tension in
SWB, and (e) water absorption

Statistical analysis
Assumptions of normal data distribution were evaluated by the Shapiro–Wilk test,
with the variance homogeneity evaluated by Levene’s test and the InfoStat software
(InfoStat Company, version 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina). Then, to determine
differences among the means of the tests, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was
applied, where the tests performed were the response variables, and the NCC concentration
was the independent variable. Then, this analysis was accompanied by the Tukey test at
99% reliability to determine the differences between both NCC concentrations within the
species per adhesive. As the internal bond and water absorption tests did not meet the
assumptions, non-parametric tests were used: the Kruskal–Wallis test to determine
differences between NCC concentrations and Steel’s test to compare the CWB with the
control (SWB).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Internal Bond Resistance and Resistance to Nail Extraction of CWB

Table 1 shows the internal bond resistance of the blocks used for pallets. Compared
with tension parallel to the grain, the SWB showed statistically greater internal bond
resistance values than those of the CWB with the unmodified adhesive and with NCC-
modified adhesive in the three species. Modifying the adhesive with NCC did not affect
the internal bond resistance of CWB fabricated with PVAc, as no significant differences
were observed in the three species between the adhesives with or without NCC.

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667 3656

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Table 1. Internal Bond / Perpendicular Tension, Water Absorption, Pallet Nail Resistance, Moisture Content, and Density
in Blocks Used in European Pallets Fabricated with V. ferruginea, C. alliodora, and G. arborea Particles Glued with PVAc
and UF Adhesives With and Without NCC
Internal Bond Water Pallet Nail Resistance Moisture
Type of Block Density
Species Resistance Absorption Lateral Transverse Content
(Adhesive, % NCC) (g/cm3)
(MPa) (%) (N) (N) (%)
SWB 2.09A (0.771) A
39.0 (5.38) A
398.4 (92.0) 241.9A (59.4) 18.38 0.30
CWB with PVAc 0.0 0.14B (0.041) 196.5B (27.72) 370.2AB (90.7) 252.5A (47.0) 9.07 0.57
V. ferruginea adhesive 1.0 0.16B (0.049) 179.3B (14.93) 285.3A (73.9) 224.3A (28.3) 8.28 0.58
CWB with UF 0.0 0.07A (0.033) 94.5A (4.96) 532.5B (60.9) 419.2B (104.5) 10.03 0.62
adhesive 1.0 0.59B (0.123) 131.2B (11.47) 337.7A (66.6) 176.1A (35.8) 8.18 0.61
SWB 1.89A (0.622) 48.8A (7.85) 391.3A (119.2) 200.8A (36.9) 17.05 0.31

CWB with PVAc 0.0 0.06B (0.028) 251.5B (27.25) 246.9B (71.0) 82.7B (25.6) 9.28 0.55
C. alliodora adhesive 1.0 0.06B (0.013) 240.8B (17.99) 393.5A (96.5) 131.1B (21.0) 8.19 0.57
CWB with UF 0.0 0.05A (0.030) 120.0A (9.43) 464.1A (114.3) 285.6B (63.7) 10.20 0.60
adhesive 1.0 0.22B (0.058) 164.1B (17.96) 308.0AB (57.0) 192.3AB (49.4) 7.47 0.61
SWB 2.00A (0.654) 64.9A (14.07) 437.3A (125.4) 222.5A (72.3) 40.87 0.39
CWB with PVAc 0.0 0.01B (0.003) 151.6B (31.88) 107.3B (36.6) 40.2B (12.4) 11.00 0.56
G. arborea adhesive 1.0 0.03B (0.009) 176.7B (27.26) 154.5B (38.2) 65.7B (20.4) 7.88 0.58
CWB with UF 0.0 0.10B (0.032) 67.5AB (3.81) 251.0B (48.7) 186.7A (47.4) 10.83 0.62
adhesive 1.0 0.45A
(0.064) 100.6B
(8.70) 223.6B
(56.3) 173.5A
(43.5) 8.24 0.63
Values in parentheses represent standard deviations; average values identified with different letters are statistically different at α = 0.01%

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Composite blocks and nanocellulose,” BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3657
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
In contrast, in the CWB fabricated with UF adhesive and modified with 1% NCC,
the internal bond resistance increased significantly in relation to the CWB fabricated with
unmodified adhesive (Table 1).
Meanwhile, the analysis between NCC concentrations of the CWB for each species
per adhesive showed that, for C. alliodora and G. arborea with PVAc adhesive, nail
extraction resistance increased in both sections with 1% NCC, which was statistically
different only for the lateral section in C. alliodora (Table 1). In the rest of the cases, neither
reinforcement from NCC nor statistical differences were observed in most of the
comparisons.
The CWB of V. ferruginea and C. alliodora glued with 1% NCC presented
resistances to nail extraction that were statistically equivalent to SWB of V. ferruginea and
C. alliodora, both laterally and transversely, with the exception CWB with 1% NCC of C.
alliodora, which had a lower transverse resistance than the SWB (Table 1). However, there
was a slight increase in the resistance to nail extraction in the CWB without NCC with both
types of adhesives, but this increasing was not statistically significant. There were
exceptions, where CWB with PVAc adhesive without NCC had statistically lower lateral
and transverse resistances than the SWB for C. alliodora, as well as lower lateral and
transversal resistance than the SWB for V. ferruginea. In G. arborea, the SWB showed the
greatest values of resistance to nail extraction compared to the CWB bonded with both
adhesives, while the CWB with PVAc were statistically different from the control
treatment.
Strength in the CWB is affected by varying aspects (Hoadley 2000; Carvalho et al.
2003), one of which is the size of the product. In this case, the blocks were 10 cm × 10 cm
× 10 cm, which is rather large to be densified by compression. Vital et al. (1974) and Leng
et al. (2017) mention that the strength of the products increases if the material is adequately
densified, especially if performed by compression, as were the blocks in this project.
Furthermore, densification by compression at temperatures above 100 °C facilitates
plasticization of the wood particles (Hunt et al. 2017), thus increasing the internal bond
strength. However, the CWB cannot achieve the values observed for SWB (Rangel et al.
2017).
The increases in the internal bond resistances of the CWB with NCC-modified UF
adhesive in the three species (Table 1) is supported by the works of Veigel et al. (2011)
and Zhang et al. (2011), who found increases in the internal bond strength of UF adhesive
with added NCC. Kwon et al. (2015) mentions that the increase in the strength of NCC-
modified adhesives is due to the fact that the cellulose fibers in the glue line merge with
the adhesive inside the wood cavities, allowing better penetration; consequently, greater
strength is needed to separate two wood pieces. Likewise, the reinforcement effect of the
wood-adhesive interface is the result of the formation of a network between the NCC and
the polymer chains of the adhesives (Grishkewich et al. 2017). Ramires and Dufresne
(2012) and de Almeida Mesquita et al. (2018) explain that NCC’s high contact area, high
resistance to traction, and rigidity allow the formation of a crystal network that interacts
with the adhesive, increasing its mechanical resistance.
Meanwhile, in thermoplastic adhesives such as PVAc, the addition of NCC can
improve the low rigidity of the polymers, as well as adhesion in the glue line (Gindl-
Altmutter and Veigel 2014). Different adhesion mechanisms occur within the interface of
wood particles and adhesives, as the adhesive can penetrate the wood, allowing interlinking
and greater internal adhesion. Moreover, internal strength within the adhesive allows the
adhesive layer in the interface to remain bonded, improving the interactions and increasing

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3658

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
the bonding strength (Gindl-Altmutter and Veigel 2014).
Modifying the PVAc adhesive with NCC did not improve the properties of the
CWB in relation to CWB without NCC (Table 1). This result can be due to NCC producing
a cracking effect inside the adhesive, decreasing the strength of the glue line (Gindl-
Altmutter and Veigel 2014), which was reflected in the diminution of the resistance to nail
extraction and of the internal bond strength of the blocks. Therefore, PVAc application to
CWB had no beneficial effect on the bond resistance.

Water Absorption
The CWB compared to SWB presented greater water absorption, being statistically
equivalent in the CWB with UF without NCC in the three species (Table 1). No statistical
differences were observed in water absorption among the CWB with the PVAc adhesive.
Contrastingly, the CWB with UF adhesive in V. ferruginea and C. alliodora presented
statistical differences between NCC concentrations, as water absorption was greater with
1% NCC concentration.
The hydrophobic nature and porous structure of the wood favor water absorption,
as wood particles have a greater contact area (Salari et al. 2013). Moreover, neither of the
two adhesives present good performance against water (Yang et al. 2006), so greater water
absorption in the CWB compared to SWB was expected (Table 1).
However, the addition of NCC to the PVAc adhesive did not improve block
performance against water absorption. These results disagreed with Chaabouni and Boufi
(2017) and Jani and Izran (2013), who report that the decrease in water absorption in
products using PVAc is explained by the interlinking between the OH groups and the
adhesive matrix, preventing water intrusion inside the polymer matrix. In contrast, the same
result cannot be obtained with the UF adhesive due to the reduced interaction between the
NCC-modified adhesive and the wood particles, which deteriorates the adhesion forces and
prevents the formation of an adhesive barrier against water absorption, resulting in an
increased amount of absorbed water (De Almeida Mesquita et al. 2018).
Notably, CWB are affected by moisture absorbed from the environment, which
impairs the performance of the composite, as moisture penetration can weaken the internal
bonds of the wood particles (Rofii et al. 2016). The CWB, once compressed, are extracted
from the mold completely dry. During their conditioning, the CWB absorb humidity from
the environment, especially in a tropical region such as Costa Rica. Due to water
absorption, the CWB expand slightly, weakening the internal bonds of the adhesive or the
wood-adhesive interface, or the resistance to nail extraction (Gerhards 1982).

Evaluation of the Pallets

The flexural test showed that LLP and Lmax increased for the pallets fabricated with
CWB of the three species and with the two adhesives (PVAc and UF) modified with NCC
at 1% (Table 2). The increases in LLP varied from 8% to 37%, while the increases in Lmax
ranged from 42% to 59%, with the lowest increase observed in C. alliodora and the greatest
increase in blocks fabricated with V. ferruginea (Table 2).
For deflection, DLP was lower for pallets fabricated with CWB of C. alliodora and
G. arborea and the two nanocellulose modified adhesives. The decrease in DLP ranged
from 1.0 mm to 3.1 mm, and the lowest deflection values were observed in the CWB of C.
alliodora. In contrast, the pallets built with CWB of V. ferruginea presented higher DLP
than the pallets built with SWB. Meanwhile, the Dmax in pallets fabricated with the three
species increased between 14.5 mm and 23.3 mm, while the greatest deflection was

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3659

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
observed in pallets of C. alliodora and G. arborea, with the lowest deflection in pallets
fabricated with V. ferruginea (Table 2).

Table 2. Failure Types in V. ferruginea, C. alliodora, and G. arborea Bonded with

PVAc and UF Adhesives Under Two NCC Concentrations
Value for
Cordia Gmelina Vochysia
Parameter Adhesive Pallets Built
alliodora arborea ferruginea
of SWB
SWB 1465 - - -
LLP (kg) PVAc - 1645 (12%) 1708 (17%) 2007 (37%)
UF - 1580 (8%) 1635 (12%) 1702 (16%)
SWB 28.5 - - -
DLP (mm) PVAc - 25.9 (-2.6) 27.1 (-1.4) 29.8 (+1.3)
UF - 25.4 (-3.1) 27.5 (-1.0) 28.7 (+0.2)
SWB 1556 - - -
Lmax (kg) PVAc - 2377 (53%) 2392 (54%) 2483 (59%)
UF - 2202 (42%) 2428 (56%) 2258 (45%)
SWB 31.24 - - -
Dmax (mm) PVAc - 52.6 (+21.4) 48.7 (+17.5) 46.3 (+15.0)
UF - 49.4 (+18.2) 54.5 (+23.3) 45.7 (+14.5)
Values in parentheses correspond to the percentage of load increase for LLP and Lmax. For DLP
and Dmax, the values in parentheses represent the deflection change of the pallet: less deflection
(-) or greater deflection (+).

Figure 2 shows the behavior of the load applied to the pallets fabricated with the
different types of blocks (SWB or CWB) relative to deflection. In most of cases, the load-
deflection curves of the SWB pallets were below the load-deflection curves of the pallets
constructed with CWB glued with the two adhesives (PVAc and UF) modified with
nanocellulose. This result means that the pallets fabricated with these blocks manufactured
with PVAc or UF modified with nanocellulose will present less deflection compared to the
pallets built of SWB, for the same load magnitude. Furthermore, these load-deflection
curves also showed that there was less deflection when using the UF adhesive in CWB than
in CWB glued with PVAc in G. arborea (Fig. 2b). However, the CWB with UF showed
greater deflection than the CWB with PVAc in the same species (Fig. 2b). For V. ferruginea
wood (Fig. 2c), the CWB with UF showed greater deflection than the CWB with PVAc
and the load-deflection curves showed that there was less deflection when using the UF
adhesive in the CWB. Meanwhile, the deflection for the same load in the wooden blocks
of C. alliodora was similar for the two adhesives tested (Fig. 2a).
The pallets constructed with CWB of the three species presented the same failures
shown by SWB pallets. There were four failure types. In type I, upper boards detached at
the corners of the pallets, both from the lower boards and from the blocks themselves (Figs.
4a and 4b). In type II, the upper boards were broken (Fig. 3c). In type III, failure was caused
by tension in the lower boards of the central block of the pallet (Fig. 3d). In type IV, internal
block bonding failed (Fig. 3e).

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3660

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com

Fig. 2. Load curves vs. deflection in the flexural test for pallets fabricated with CWB of Cordia
alliodora (a), Gmelina arborea (b), and Vochysia ferruginea (c) with two different wood adhesives

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3661

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Most pallets presented failure type I (Fig. 3a). Only one pallet fabricated with
composite V. ferruginea blocks and another pallet built with composite C. alliodora blocks
presented failure types II and IV (Figs. 3c and 3d), respectively. In the two pallets
fabricated with CWB of G. arborea with the NCC-modified PVAc adhesive, the blocks
failed due to internal bond failure (Fig. 3e).

Fig. 3. Failure types in pallet flexural tests: Type I, upper boards detached (a and b); Type II,
upper board broken (c); Type III, failure due to tension (c); Type IV, upper boards were broken
(d); and failure in internal block bonding (e)

Although it was observed that CWB has much lower internal bonding resistance,
the pallets fabricated with CWB, the load at the limit of proportionality and the maximum
load increased, while deflections were lower, compared with SWB. NCC-modified
adhesives indicate that the increase in the resistance of is because the cellulose fibers in the
glue line merge with the adhesive inside the wood cavities, allowing better penetration;
consequently, greater strength is needed to separate two wood pieces (Kwon et al. 2015;
Grishkewich et al. 2017). Then pallets fabricated with CWB jointed with nails showed the
improvement of the proprieties of wood composites.
Finally, the pineapple wastes present the possibility of extracting NCC from the
pineapple fibers for reinforcing wood composites and joint with wood residues produced
in a sawmill can be converted into lignocellulosic composites, generally achieving better
properties than solid wood. Then such composites can substitute for solid blocks from
sawlogs, and they can be used in high-value products. Composite blocks for pallets are
commonly used in pallet fabrication, and its equipment and technology are widely
development. Thus, it is possible to fabricate pallets with wood composites having a high
beneficial effect of NCC.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The addition of 1% NCC to PVAc and UF adhesives for fabrication of CWB with
Vochysia ferruginea, Cordia alliodora, and Gmelina arborea wood produced an
increase in the internal bonding and in the nail extraction test of the blocks. Therefore,

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3662

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
the NCC improved the resistance properties of the wood adhesives. However, although
the level of water absorption increased with added NCC, it remained higher than in
SWB.
2. The CWB fabricated using NCC-modified PVAc and UF adhesives and wood from the
tropical species commonly used for pallet fabrication in Costa Rica showed improved
performance in static flexure tests of the European pallets, specifically in maximum
load and deflection. This result, together with the tests conducted on CWB, indicates
that substituting SWB with CWB and adding 1% NCC to the adhesives is a viable
option that improves the structural performance of the European pallet.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Extensión at the

Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica for their assistance in conducting this study.

REFERENCES CITED

ASTM D143-14 (2018). “Standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D1037-12 (2018). “Standard test methods for evaluating properties of wood-base
fiber and particle panel materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D1761-12 (2018). “Standard test methods for mechanical fasteners in wood,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Atta-Obeng, E., Via, B. K., Fasina, O., Auad, M. L., and Jiang, W. (2013). “Cellulose
reinforcement of phenol formaldehyde: Characterization and chemometric
elucidation,” International Journal of Composite Materials 3(3), 61-68.
Aydemir, D. (2014). “The lap joint shear strength of wood materials bonded by cellulose
fiber-reinforced polyvinyl acetate,” BioResources 9(1), 1179-1188. DOI:
10.15376/biores.9.1.1179-1188
Ayrilmis, N., Kwon, J.-H., Lee, S.-H., Han, T.-H., and Park, C.-W. (2016).
“Microfibrillated-cellulose-modified urea-formaldehyde adhesives with different F/U
molar ratios for wood-based composites,” Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology 30(18), 2032-2043. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1175246
Balakrishnan, P., Gopi, S., Geethamma, V. G., Kalarikkal, N., and Thomas, S. (2018).
“Cellulose nanofiber vs nanocrystals from pineapple leaf fiber: A comparative studies
on reinforcing efficiency on starch nanocomposites,” Macromolecular Symposia
380(1), Article ID 1800102. DOI: 10.1002/masy.201800102
Barrantas, A., and Ugalde, S. (2017). Estadísticas 2016: Usos y Aportes de la Madera en
Costa Rica [Uses and Contributions of Lumber in Costa Rica], Oficina Nacional
Forestal [National Office of Forestry], Belén, Costa Rica.
Camacho, M., Ureña, Y. R. C., Lopretti, M., Carballo, L. B., Moreno, G., Alfaro, B., and
Baudrit, J. R. V. (2017). “Synthesis and characterization of nanocrystalline cellulose
derived from pineapple peel residues,” Journal of Renewable Materials 5(3-4), 271-
279. DOI: 10.7569/JRM.2017.634117

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3663

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Carvalho, L. M. H., Costa, M. R. N., and Costa, C. A. V. (2003). “A global model for the
hot-pressing of MDF,” Wood Science and Technology 37(3-4), 241-258. DOI:
10.1007/s00226-003-0170-z
Chaabouni, O., and Boufi, S. (2017). “Cellulose nanofibrils/polyvinyl acetate
nanocomposite adhesives with improved mechanical properties,” Carbohydrate
Polymers 156, 64-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.09.016
Darnaudery, M., Fournier, P., and Léchaudel, M. (2018). “Low-input pineapple crops
with high quality fruit: Promising impacts of locally integrated and organic
fertilisation compared to chemical fertilisers,” Experimental Agriculture 54(2), 286-
302. DOI: 10.1017/S0014479716000284
De Almeida Mesquita, R. G., Mendes, L. M., Sanadi, A. R., De Sena Neto, A. R., Claro,
P. I. C., Corrêa, A. C., and Marconcini, J. M. (2018). “Urea formaldehyde and
cellulose nanocrystals adhesive: Studies applied to sugarcane bagasse
particleboards,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 26(7), 3040-3050. DOI:
10.1007/s10924-018-1189-4
Espinoza-Durán, J., and Moya, R. (2013). “Aprovechamiento e industrialización de dos
plantaciones de Gmelina arborea de 15 años de edad en diferentes condiciones de
pendiente,” Rev. Chapingo. Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 19 (2), 237-248.
DOI: 10.5154/r.rchscfa.2011.09.067
Gaitán-Alvarez, J., Moya, R., Rodríguez-Zúñiga, A., and Puente-Urbina, A. (2017).
“Characterization of torrefied biomass of five reforestation species (Cupressus
lusitanica, Dipteryx panamensis, Gmelina arborea, Tectona grandis, and Vochysia
ferruginea) in Costa Rica,” BioResources 12(4), 7566-7589. DOI:
10.15376/biores.12.4.7566-7589
Gerhards, C. C. (1982). “Effect of moisture content and temperature on the mechanical
properties of wood: An analysis of immediate effects,” Wood and Fiber
Science 14(1), 4-36.
Gindl-Altmutter, W., and Veigel, S. (2014). “Nanocellulose-modified wood adhesives,”
in: Handbook of Green Materials, Vol. 2. Bionanocomposites: Processing,
Characterization and Properties, K. Oksman, A. P. Mathew, A. Bismarck, O. Rojas,
and M. Sain (eds.), World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, USA, pp. 253-264.
DOI: 10.1142/9789814566469_0031
Grishkewich, N., Mohammed, N., Tang, J., and Tam, K. C. (2017). “Recent advances in
the application of cellulose nanocrystals,” Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface
Science 29, 32-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2017.01.005
Hoadley, R. B. (2000). Understanding Wood: A Craftsman’s Guide to Wood Technology,
The Taunton Press, Newtown, CT, USA.
Hunt, J. F., Leng, W., and Tajvidi, M. (2017). “Vertical density profile and internal bond
strength of wet-formed particleboard bonded with cellulose nanofibrils,” Wood and
Fiber Science 49(4), 1-11.
ISO 8611-1 (2013). “Pallets for materials handling— Flat pallets— Part 1: Test
methods,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jani, S. M., and Izran, K. (2013). “Mechanical and physical properties of urea-
formaldehyde bonded kenaf core particle boards,” Journal of Tropical Agriculture
and Food Science 41(2), 341-347.
Jadin, I., Meyfroidt, P., Zamora Pereira, J., and Lambin, E. (2017). “Unexpected
interactions between agricultural and forest sectors through international trade: Wood

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3664

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
pallets and agricultural exports in Costa Rica,” Land 6(1), 1-16.
DOI:10.3390/land6010001
Khanjanzadeh, H., Bahmani, A. A., Rafighi, A., and Tabarsa, T. (2012). “Utilization of
bio-waste cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) stalks and underutilized paulownia
(Paulownia fortunie) in wood-based composite particleboard,” African Journal of
Biotechnology 11(31), 8045-8050. DOI: 10.5897/AJB12.288
Khanjanzadeh, H., Behrooz, R., Bahramifar, N., Gindl-Altmutter, W., Bacher, M., Edler,
M., and Griesser, T. (2018). “Surface chemical functionalization of cellulose
nanocrystals by 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane. International Journal of Biological
Macromolecules,” 106, 1288-1296. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.136.
Khanjanzadeh, H., Behrooz, R., Bahramifar, N., Pinkl, S., and Gindl-Altmutter, W.
(2019). “Application of surface chemical functionalized cellulose nanocrystals to
improve the performance of UF adhesives used in wood based composites-MDF type.
Carbohydrate Polymers,” 206, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.10.115
Kain, G., Heinzmann, B., Barbu, M. C., and Petutschnigg, A. (2013). “Softwood bark for
modern composites,” Pro Ligno 9(4), 460-468.
Kwon, J. H., Lee, S.-H., Ayrilmis, N., and Han, T. H. (2015). “Tensile shear strength of
wood bonded with urea–formaldehyde with different amounts of microfibrillated
cellulose,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 60, 88-91. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.04.002
Lavoine, N., Desloges, I., Dufresne, A., and Bras, J. (2012). “Microfibrillated cellulose –
Its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: A review,”
Carbohydrate Polymers 90(2), 735-764. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.05.026
Leng, W., Hunt, J. F., and Tajvidi, M. (2017). “Effects of density, cellulose nanofibrils
addition ratio, pressing method, and particle size on the bending properties of wet-
formed particleboard,” BioResources 12(3), 4986-5000. DOI:
10.15376/biores.12.3.4986-5000
Li, R., Fei, J., Cai, Y., Li, Y., Feng, J., and Yao, J. (2009). “Cellulose whiskers extracted
from mulberry: A novel biomass production,” Carbohydrate Polymers 76(1), 94-99.
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.09.034
Liew, F. K., Hamdan, S., Rahman, M. R., Rusop, M., Lai, J. C. H., Hossen, M. F., and
Rahman, M. M. (2015). “Synthesis and characterization of cellulose from green
bamboo by chemical treatment with mechanical process,” Journal of Chemistry 2015,
Article ID 212158. DOI: 10.1155/2015/212158
Mahrdt, E., Pinkl, S., Schmidberger, C., Van Herwijnen, H. W. G., Veigel, S., and Gindl-
Altmutter, W. (2016). “Effect of addition of microfibrillated cellulose to urea-
formaldehyde on selected adhesive characteristics and distribution in particleboard,”
Cellulose 23(1), 571-580. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-015-0818-5
Morán, J. I., Alvarez, V. A., Cyras, V. P., and Vázquez, A. (2008). “Extraction of
cellulose and preparation of nanocellulose from sisal fibers,” Cellulose 15(1), 149-
159. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-007-9145-9
Moya, R., Berrocal, A., Rodríguez-Zúñiga, A., Rodriguez-Solis, M., Villalobos-
Barquero, V., Starbird, R., and Vega-Baudrit, J. (2016). “Biopulp from pineapple leaf
fiber produced by colonization with two white-rot fungi: Trametes versicolor and
Pleurotus ostreatus,” BioResources 11(4), 8756-8776. DOI:
10.15376/biores.11.4.8756-8776
Moya, R., and Camacho, D. (2014). “Production of natural fiber obtained from the leaves
of pineapple plants (Ananas comosus) cultivated in Costa Rica,” in: Biomass

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3665

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
and Bioenergy: Processing and Properties, K. R. Hakeem, M. Jawaid, and U. Rashid
(eds.), Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 111-124. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07641-
6_7
Moya, R., Rodríguez-Zúñiga, A., and Vega-Baudrit, J. (2015a). “Effects of adding
multiwall carbon nanotubes on performance of polyvinyl acetate and urea-
formaldehyde adhesives in tropical timber species,” Journal of Nanomaterials 2015,
Article ID 895650. DOI: 10.1155/2015/895650
Moya, R., Rodríguez-Zúñiga, A., Vega-Baudrit, J., and Álvarez, V. (2015b). “Effects of
adding nano-clay (montmorillonite) on performance of polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and
urea-formaldehyde (UF) adhesives in Carapa guianensis, a tropical
species,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 59, 62-70. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.02.004
Pirayesh, H., Khanjanzadeh, H., and Salari, A. (2013). “Effect of using walnut/almond
shells on the physical, mechanical properties and formaldehyde emission of
particleboard,” Composites Part B: Engineering, 45(1), 858-863. DOI:
10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.05.008
Poletto, M., Ornaghi, Jr., H. L., and Zattera, A. J. (2014). “Native cellulose: Structure,
characterization and thermal properties,” Materials 7(9), 6105-6119. DOI:
10.3390/ma7096105
Ramires, E. C., and Dufresne, A. (2012). “Cellulose nanoparticles as reinforcement in
polymer nanocomposites,” in: Advances in Polymer Nanocomposites: Types and
Applications, F. Gao (ed.), Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK, pp. 131-
163. DOI: 10.1533/9780857096241.1.131
Rangel, L., Moreno, P., Trejo, S., and Valero, S. (2017). “Propiedades de tableros
aglomerados de partículas fabricados con madera de Eucalyptus urophylla [Properties
particleboards manufactured with Eucalyptus urophylla wood],” Maderas. Ciencia y
Tecnología 19(3), 373-386 DOI: 10.4067/S0718-221X2017005000032
Rattanapoltee, P., and Kaewkannetra, P. (2014). “Utilization of agricultural residues of
pineapple peels and sugarcane bagasse as cost-saving raw materials in Scenedesmus
acutus for lipid accumulation and biodiesel production,” Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology 173(6), 1495-1510. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-014-0949-4
Rigg-Aguilar, P., Moya, R., Vega-Baudrit, J., Gloria, O., Starbird, R., Puente-Urbina, A.,
Méndez, D., Potosme, L. D., and Esquivel, M. (2019). “Micro- and nanofibrillated
cellulose extracted from pineapple (Ananas comosus) stems and its application in
polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and urea-formaldehyde (UF) wood adhesives,” Working
paper, Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Cartago,
Costa Rica.
Rofii, M. N., Kubota, S., Kobori, H., Kojima, Y., and Suzuki, S. (2016). “Furnish type
and mat density effects on temperature and vapor pressure of wood-based panels
during hot pressing,” Journal of Wood Science 62(2), 168-173. DOI:
10.1007/s10086-015-1531-6
Rowell, R. M. (2012). Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Salari, A., Tabarsa, T., Khazaeian, A., and Saraeian, A. (2013). “Improving some of
applied properties of oriented strand board (OSB) made from underutilized low
quality paulownia (Paulownia fortunie) wood employing nano-SiO2,” Industrial
Crops and Products 42, 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.05.010

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3666

 PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Serrano, J. R., and Moya, R. (2012). “Procesamiento, uso y mercado de la madera en
Costa Rica: Aspectos históricos y análisis crítico [Processing, use and market of
wood in Costa Rica: Historical aspects and critical analysis],” Revista Forestal
Mesoamericana Kurú 8(21), 1-12.
Tenorio, C., Moya, R., Salas, C., and Berrocal, A. (2016). “Evaluation of wood properties
from six native species of forest plantations in Costa Rica,” Bosque (Valdivia) 37(1),
71-84. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-92002016000100008
Thakur, V. K., and Singha, A. S. (2010). “Natural fibres-based polymers: Part I—
Mechanical analysis of pine needles reinforced biocomposites,” Bulletin of Materials
Science 33(3), 257-264. DOI: 10.1007/s12034-010-0040-x
Thakur, V. K., Thakur, M. K., and Gupta R. K. (2013). “Graft copolymers from
cellulose: Synthesis, characterization and evaluation,” Carbohydrate Polymers 97(1),
18-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.04.069
Thakur, V. K., Thakur, M. K., Raghavan, P., and Kessler, M. R. (2014). “Progress in
green polymer composites from lignin for multifunctional applications: A
review,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2(5), 1072-1092. DOI:
10.1021/sc500087z
Tsoumis, G. (1968). Wood as Raw Material: Source, Structure, Chemical Composition,
Growth, Degradation and Identification, Pergamon, New York, USA.
Veigel, S., Müller, U., Keckes, J., Obersriebnig, M., and Gindl-Altmutter, W. (2011).
“Cellulose nanofibrils as filler for adhesives: Effect on specific fracture energy of
solid wood-adhesive bonds,” Cellulose 18(5), 1227-1231. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-
011-9576-1
Vital, B. R., Lehmann, W. F., and Boone, R. S. (1974). “How species and board densities
affect properties of exotic hardwood particleboards,” Forest Products Journal 24(12),
37-45.
Yang, H.-S., Kim, H.-J., Park, H.-J., Lee, B.-J., and Hwang, T.-S. (2006). “Water
absorption behavior and mechanical properties of lignocellulosic filler–polyolefin
bio-composites,” Composite Structures 72(4), 429-437. DOI:
10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.01.013
Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Song, S., Wu, G., and Pu, J. (2011). “Modified nanocrystalline
cellulose from two kinds of modifiers used for improving formaldehyde emission and
bonding strength of urea-formaldehyde resin adhesive,” BioResources 6(4), 4430-
4438. DOI: 10.15376/biores.6.4.4430-4438
Zivic, F., Grujovic, N., Adamovic, D., and Divac, D. (2017). “Development of new
composites made of waste materials for wood pallet element,” in: Advances in
Applications of Industrial Biomaterials, E. Pellicer, D. Nikolic, J. Sort, M. D. Baró, F.
Zivic, N. Grujovic, R. Grujic, and S. Pelemis (eds.), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp.
201-214. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-62767-0_11

Article submitted: December 30, 2018; Peer review completed: March 9, 2019; Revised
version received: March 12, 2019; Accepted: March 14, 2019; Published: March 19,
2019.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.2.3651-3667

Rigg-Aguilar et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose in pallets, BioResources 14(2), 3651-3667. 3667

View publication stats