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

net/publication/342079866

Influence of Adding Offcuts and Trims with a Recycling Approach on the

Properties of High-Density Fibrous Composites

Article in Polymers · June 2020

DOI: 10.3390/polym12061327

CITATIONS READS

14 651

3 authors:

Conrad M. Sala Eduardo Robles

Ikea Industry Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour
9 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 1,013 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Grzegorz Kowaluk
Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW
94 PUBLICATIONS 418 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Biomass Panels and Products View project

Influence of the lignocellulose raw material type of the agricultural origin on the properties of the achieved fibrous chips and the composite furniture panels produced
with the use of them View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Robles on 10 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 polymers
Article
Influence of Adding Offcuts and Trims with a
Recycling Approach on the Properties of High-Density
Fibrous Composites
Conrad M. Sala 1,2 , Eduardo Robles 3 and Grzegorz Kowaluk 1, *
1 Department of Technology and Entrepreneurship in Wood Industry, Warsaw University of Life
Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska St. 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland; conrad_sala@sggw.edu.pl
2 Chief Technologist, IKEA Industry Poland sp. z o. o. brand Orla, Koszki 90, 17-106 Orla, Poland
3 Institute of Analytical and Physicochemical Sciences for the Environment and Materials (IPREM-UMR 5254),
CNRS/Univ Pau & Pays Adour/E2S UPPA, IUT of the Pays de l’Adour, 371 Rue du Ruisseau,
40004 Mont de Marsan, France; eduardo.robles@univ-pau.fr
* Correspondence: grzegorz_kowaluk@sggw.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-22-59-38-546




Received: 27 May 2020; Accepted: 5 June 2020; Published: 10 June 2020


Abstract: The sizeable global production of wood-based products requires new sources of raw material,
but also creates large quantities of wastes or composites that do not comply with requirements.
In this study, the influence of different shares of recovered high-density fiberboards (HDF-r), reversed
into the production, on industrial HDF properties, has been examined. HDF-r may be a suitable
partial substitute for raw pinewood for industrial HDF production. Although most of the mechanical
properties, as well as thickness swelling and water absorption, had a linear decrease with the increase
in the share of HDF-r share, the elaborated boards met most of the commercial requirements (EN
622-5). The property that did not meet the requirements was the internal bond strength for panels
with 10% of HDF-r. The presented results show that, after some adjustments, it should be possible to
produce HDF boards with up to 10% of recycled HDF being able to meet all commercial requirements.

Keywords: fibers; recycling; wood; mechanical properties; physical properties; strength

1. Introduction
Global development and population growth [1] result in a more significant demand for new
space for accommodation. Due to that fact, there is also a growing need for building materials,
not only bricks or plasterboards, but also wood-based panels, for example, oriented strand boards
(OSB), plywood, or insulation boards, including soft boards (SB) or low-density fiberboards (LDF).
Together with the operation new residential buildings, the demand for new furniture made of, for example,
particleboards (PB) or fiberboards, among which the most common are hardboard (HB), medium-density
fiberboards (MDF), and high-density fiberboards (HDF), is growing as well. For this reason, there has been
a considerable growth in the world production of wood-based panels. Figure 1 presents how the world
production of wood-based panels has increased from 124 million m3 in 1990 to over 405 million m3 2018 [2].
The primary material for the production of wood-based panels is wood itself. Based on the data
shown in Figure 1, it can be seen that the world production of coniferous pulpwood, round wood,
and split wood has grown from 266 million m3 in 2000 to over 351 million m3 in 2018 [2]. The price
increase of the raw materials has supposed a struggle for the furniture industry [3]. In Poland, in 2018,
a significant jump (39.2%) in the price of building materials was observed, in particular for wood and
wood-based panels [4], on which wood price had an influence as well. Different wood species are used
for the production of wood-based panels, depending on their availability. The species of Polish forest
consists of ≈70% of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and ≈6% of oak (Quercus robur L.), spruce (Picea abies (L.)

Polymers 2020, 12, 1327; doi:10.3390/polym12061327 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 2 of 14

H. Karst.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth) each [5]. For this reason, pine and spruce wood are the most
used materials for the production of MDF, while alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.), birch, and beech
(Fagus sylvatica L.) wood are used rarely [6]. The average price of pinewood, reported by Polish State
Forests, has increased by about 15% from $53 m−3 in the period 2013–2017 [7]. This situation requires
academia and industry within the wood-based products to investigate and develop new sources of
raw material or its substitutes. Not only sawdust, but yearly-available straws or plastics (for wood
plastic composites–WPC) may be used for board production. Also, recovered wood and recovered
PB and MDF boards may be treated and used as a substitute for raw wooden material for the boards
production
Polymers 2020, [8].
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 14

Figure 1.
1. World wood-based panels production
production 1990-2018
1990-2018 and
and World pulpwood, round and split,
production 2000–2018
coniferous production 2000–2018 (own
(own elaboration
elaboration according
according to
to [2]).
[2]).

Particleboards
The primary materialare the formostthecommon
production wood-based
of wood-based products currently
panels is wood used in Based
itself. recycled on wooden
the data
materials
shown in for their1,production
Figure it can be seen(WRAP,thatwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk)
the world production of coniferous [9]. Previous
pulpwood, work roundhas explored
wood,
the production of medium density particleboards (MDP) with wood
and split wood has grown from 266 million m in 2000 to over 351 million m in 2018 [2]. The price
3 waste from
3 construction and
demolition
increase of [10]. As an
the raw example,has
materials Yang (2007) [11]
supposed studied for
a struggle the the
use furniture
of recycledindustry
wood-waste [3]. In chips for the
Poland, in
production of particleboards
2018, a significant jump (39.2%) for use in kitchens,
in the bathrooms,
price of building as a flooring
materials material,in
was observed, and in outdoor
particular for
equipment. Moreover, Laskowska
wood and wood-based panels [4],&on Mami ńskiwood
which in 2018priceshowedhad that it is possible
an influence to substitute
as well. Different 20–100%
wood
of virginare
species material
used for withthepost-industrial
production ofplywood wood-based [12]. panels,
In another work, the
depending on addition of 30–50%The
their availability. of
recovered
species of MDF
Polishinto PB consists
forest production was proven
of ≈70% of pinepossible but withL.),
(Pinus sylvestris adverse
and ≈6% influences on the mechanical
of oak (Quercus robur L.),
and physical
spruce (Picea properties
abies (L.) H. of Karst.)
the finalandproducts [13]. pendula Roth) each [5]. For this reason, pine and
birch (Betula
spruceSimilarly
wood are to the
particleboards,
most used materialsit is possible
for theto reintroduce
production woodwhile
of MDF, wastealder
fibrous
(Alnusmaterial
glutinosa when
(L.)
producing fiberboards. Previous works have explored the elaboration of insulation
Gaertn.), birch, and beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) wood are used rarely [6]. The average price of pinewood, fiberboards, as soft
boards
reported (SB)
by[14] using
Polish recovered
State Forests,fibers. Another work
has increased by abouthas elaborated
15% from hardboard
$53 m−3 in (HB) made of
the period recycled
2013–2017
corrugate cardboard
[7]. This situation [15], academia
requires reintroducing 20% of recovered
and industry within the MDF for dry-process
wood-based products MDF production,
to investigate and
where
develop panels meet theofrequirements
new sources raw material of or relevant standard
its substitutes. Notrequirements
only sawdust,[16]. but Furthermore,
yearly-available to reduce
straws
wood wastes
or plastics disposed
(for of in landfills,
wood plastic MDF can bemay
composites–WPC) produced
be used fromforup to 100%
board recovered
production. fibers,
Also, or even
recovered
of old newsprint
wood and recovered fibersPB[17,18].
and MDF Also,boards
there are suggestions
may be treatedtoand re-use
usedthe aspost-used
a substitute MDF forfibers in MDF
raw wooden
production
material forafter their steam
the boards refining
production [8].conversion [19]. This approach sounds to be more reasonable
than Particleboards
the deeper processing
are the of the MDF
most common recovered fibers to
wood-based bioethanol
products production
currently used [20]. However,
in recycled these
wooden
MDF end-of-life scenarios also should be applied instead of landfills.
materials for their production (WRAP, www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk) [9]. Previous work has
Although
explored the recyclingofofmedium
the production wooden densitymaterialsparticleboards
is environmentally (MDP)friendly
with wood [8], thewasterecovered
from
fiber pulp has
construction different
and demolitionchemical andanphysical
[10]. As example, characteristics
Yang (2007) [11] when compared
studied the use toof virgin
recycled fibers [21].
wood-
These
waste differences
chips for the affect the finalofmechanical
production particleboards and physical
for use inproperties of the fiberboards
kitchens, bathrooms, negatively
as a flooring [20].
material,
Due
and into outdoor
that fact,equipment.
the process Moreover,
requires anLaskowska
optimization & of the production
Mamiński in 2018parameters
showed that to itobtain the best
is possible to
features
substitute of 20–100%
fiberboards of produced with waste
virgin material with panels returned into
post-industrial the production
plywood as a rawwork,
[12]. In another material.the
Moreover,
addition ofto30–50%
achieveofthis, the physical
recovered MDF into and PB
mechanical
production properties
was proven of reversed
possiblematerials
but with must adverse be
known
influences[22].
on Fibers producedand
the mechanical from waste properties
physical wood material, such products
of the final as particleboards,
[13]. OSB, and MDF,
are suitable
Similarlyandtomay be used as secondary
particleboards, raw material
it is possible for the production
to reintroduce wood waste of fiberboards
fibrous material [23]. In this
when
producing fiberboards. Previous works have explored the elaboration of insulation fiberboards, as
soft boards (SB) [14] using recovered fibers. Another work has elaborated hardboard (HB) made of
recycled corrugate cardboard [15], reintroducing 20% of recovered MDF for dry-process MDF
production, where panels meet the requirements of relevant standard requirements [16].
Furthermore, to reduce wood wastes disposed of in landfills, MDF can be produced from up to 100%
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 3 of 14

sense, the examination of fibers recovered from fiberboards can be a useful tool for assessing the
potential properties of recycled fiberboards [24].
According to data provided by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) [2], the production of
fiberboards (MDF and HDF) in Poland increased nearly five times over the last 20 years from 768,000 m3
in 2000 to over 3,600,000 m3 in 2018. One of the most significant impacts on this growth was the
opening of ultrathin HDF production lines, such as Kronospan in 2003 [25], Homanit Karlino in 2005,
Homanit Krosno Odrzańskie in 2015 [26], Pfleiderer Grajewo in 2007 [27], and Ikea Industry Orla in
2011 [28]. This increase was a response of wood-based panels producers to increasing demand for HDF
boards used in honeycomb construction doors as skins or for furniture production in board-on-frame
construction (BOF) [29]. As a conclusion drawn from the information above, the HDF production
market in Poland is developing very fast. An increasing wood price caused by an increasing need
for wooden material from new wood-based panel factories, as well as the availability [30] of suitable
recovered material for fiberboard production, results in the need to evaluate the influence of the share
of HDF-r on the final properties of industrial HDF.
The goal of this investigation was to determine the influence of the different amount of recovered
HDF on the mechanical properties of industrial high-density fiberboard, such as modulus of rupture,
modulus of elasticity, internal bond, and surface soundness, but also on physical properties such as
thickness swelling, surface water absorption, surface roughness, and formaldehyde content, as well as
on surface color.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
Virgin pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) debarked round wood from Polish State Forests (Podlaskie
voivodeship, Poland) was used to produce the fiberboards. Virgin fibers were produced on industrial
Metso Defibrator EVO56 (Metso, Helsinki, Finland) with a 2.5 m diameter disc with ten knives.
Recovered HDF (HDF-r) came from internal HDF production reject, such as offcuts from side trimming
saws and leftovers from the process board breaker, these shredded HDF were mixed with virgin
chips in the feeding conveyor of the defibrillator. Raw boards used for this investigation as a target
were 2.5 mm HDF with an aimed density of 860 kg m−3 , and compelled with CARB 2 standard of
formaldehyde content.

2.2. Elaboration of HDF

Four different mass shares of recovered HDF were examined: 2%, 5%, 10%, and 20%. Wood chips
or a mix of shredded HDF-r and wood chips were treated under constant hydrothermal parameters.
Briefly, a preheating pressure of 0.94 MPa at 180 ◦ C for 3.2 min with average defibrating energy
consumption of 145 kWh t−1 , giving an average bulk density of ≈22.15 kg m−3 . A paraffin emulsion was
added to the defibrillator containing 0.5% of dry paraffin calculated on the weight of the oven-dried
fibers. Fibers were glued on a blow-line system with high-steam pressure using a commercial
melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) resin with a melamine content of 5.2%, molar ratio of 0.89,
and solid content of 66.5%. The resination was set at 11% of dry resin calculated on dry fibers with 21%
of urea addition and 3.0% of ammonium nitrate hardener, both calculated regarding dry resin content.
The final moisture content of the fibrous mat after drying and before the pressing was ≈10.5% +/−
0.3%. All boards were pressed with constant parameters on an industrial Dieffenbacher continuous
press system with a 5.3 s mm−1 press factor.

2.3. Adjustment of HDF-r Dosage

To control the proper amount of HDF-r being added into the production of HDF production,
the screw feeder was loaded with HDF offcuts and leftovers. Different settings of maximum rotation
per minute were put into the controller: 0%, 0.3%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, and 8%. The amount of fed HDF-r
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 4 of 14

particles was weighted each hour, and based on the moisture content, dry tons per hour were calculated
for each setting. Based on those measurements, an average feeding capacity was determined and
referred to a constant defibrillator capacity of 30 t at h−1 (dry-tons per hour). For further analysis,
setting on the screw feeding controller for dosing HDF-r. The elaborated HDF had a content of 0%
(V0), 2% (V2), 5% (V5), 10% (V10), and 20% (V20) of HDF-r.

2.4. Raw Material Fraction

The fraction of pine chips and HDF-r particles was examined with an IMAL vibrating laboratory
sorter with nine sieves. The selected sieve sizes were 40, 20, 10, 8, 5, 3.15, 1, 0.315, and <0.315 mm.
The amount of material for each fraction was ≈100 g, and the set time of continuous vibrating was
5 min. Gathered results were shown as an average of three examinations.

2.5. Fibers Fraction

A fraction of fibers produced with different HDF-r share was examined with an ALPINE Air Jet
Sieve e200LS (Hosokawa Alpine AG, Augsburg, Germany), according to DIN 66165. Six sieves in the
sizes of 125, 315, 630, 1000, 1600, and 2500 µm were used. Five grams of each fiber fraction was analyzed;
the sieving time was set at 2 min. Gathered results are shown as an average of three examinations.

2.6. HDF Examination

All the elaborated HDF were conditioned at 20 ◦ C, an test specimens were cut accordingly to
EN-326-2 [31] and EN-326-1 [32]. The moduli of rupture (MOR) and elasticity (MOE) were determined
according to EN 310 [33], internal bond (IB) was determined according to EN 319 [34], and surface
soundness (SS) was determined according to EN 311 [35]. All the mechanical properties were examined
with an IB700 (IMAL) laboratory-testing machine (Imal s.r.l., San Damaso, Italy). Board density was
determined according to EN 323 on the IB700 testing machine (Imal s.r.l., San Damaso, Italy), moisture
content according to EN 322, and thickness swelling (TS) due to EN 317 [36] while surface water
absorption due to EN 382-1 [37]. The test of surface roughness was performed with a Surtronic 25
equipment (Taylor Hobson, Leicester, England) and results are an average from 10 measurements.
The density profiles of the HDF were measured on a GreCon DAX 5000 device (Fagus-GreCon Greten
GmbH & Co. KG, Alfeld/Hannover, Germany) [38]. Board formaldehyde content was examined
according to EN 12460-5 [39] with a Hach-Lange (HACH LANGE GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany)
spectrophotometer. A Konica Minolta (Konica Minolta Co., Ltd, Tokio, Japan) CM-700d/600d unit was
used to define HDF surface color according to the CIELab color system. For each board type, as many
as ten samples were analyzed.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests calculations were used to test (α = 0.05) for significant
differences between factors and levels, where appropriate, using IBM SPSS statistic base (IBM, SPSS
20, Armonk, NY, USA). A comparison of the means was performed when the ANOVA indicated a
significant difference by employing the Duncan test.

3. Results
The results of the sieving are shown in Table 1. As it could be noticed, the fraction of pine chips
was according to the requirements. The sieving of HDF-r particles was comparable to virgin pine chips,
but some differences in sieves 2 and 3 could be noticed. There was about 38% less material on sieve 2, which
resulted in not meeting the requirements. On the other hand, there was 24% more material on sieve 3.
Figure 2 presents a visual assessment of virgin pine chips and shredded HDF particles. The first
visible difference is the color, with HDF-r being darker than wood chips. These color differences might
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 5 of 14

Polymers 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

be caused by the hydrothermal treatment during the defibrating process, but also by the caramelization
Table 1. Sieving results for pine and spruce wood chips.
of simple sugars (pentoses and hexoses) during pressing operation [6].
Sieve 1a 2b 3c 4d 5e 6e 7f 8f 9f
Size [mm] 40 20 10 8 5 3.15 1 0.315 <0.315
Table 1. Sieving results for pine and spruce wood chips.
Pine chips [%] 0.74 51.80 39.19 4.64 3.07 0.56
Recycled
Sieve HDF [%] 1 a 0.55 2 b32.48 3 c52.50 4 4.67
d 5 e 4.15 6 e
7 0.50 8 f
f 9f
Requirements: a <1%, b 45%<, c 35%<, d <5%, e <8%, f <1%.
Size [mm] 40 20 10 8 5 3.15 1 0.315 <0.315
Figure
Pine chips2[%]
presents a 0.74
visual assessment
51.80 of virgin pine
39.19 4.64 chips and3.07
shredded HDF particles.
0.56The first
Recycled
visible HDF [%]is the0.55
difference 32.48HDF-r
color, with 52.50 4.67 than wood
being darker 4.15 chips. These color 0.50
differences
might be caused by theRequirements:
hydrothermal treatment
a <1%, b 45%<, during the
c 35%<, d defibrating
<5%, process, but also by the
e <8%, f <1%.

caramelization of simple sugars (pentoses and hexoses) during pressing operation [6].

Figure 2. Pictures of produced chips: virgin pine (a) and HDF-r (b).
Figure 2. Pictures of produced chips: virgin pine (a) and HDF-r (b).
Although the parameters of the defibrator were kept constant, the bulk density of the fibers
Although
differed, the parameters
as shown of the defibrator
in Table 2. Properties wereaskept
of wood fibers constant,
length, the bulk
distribution, density
and bulk ofhave
density the fibers
differed, as shown
an important in Table[40]
influence 2. Properties
and dependofonwood fibers
a proper as length,Results
defibration. distribution,
in Tableand bulkthe
2 show density
bulk have
an important influence [40] and depend on a proper defibration. Results in Table
density measurement of the different fibrous masses with various content of HDF-r. Fibers produced 2 show the bulk
density
frommeasurement
virgin pine chips of had
the different
the lowestfibrous masses
bulk density with various
compared to thosecontent of HDF-r.
with different HDF-rFibers
share.produced
V0
fromhad 18.75pine
virgin kg mchips
−3, while the addition of 2% of HDF-r caused an increase in the bulk density of ≈11%
had the lowest bulk density compared to those with different HDF-r share.
to 21.15
V0 had 18.75kgkgmm −3.−3
An increase
, while theinaddition
the HDF-r
of share
2% ofto 5% caused
HDF-r caused additional growth
an increase in the
in the bulkbulk density
density of ≈11%
of ≈9% (up−3to 23.31 kg m −3). The bulk density then stabilizes, as the difference between 5 and 10% is
to 21.15 kg m . An increase in the HDF-r share to 5% caused additional growth in the bulk density of
minimal. In comparison, the addition of 20% HDF-r slightly increased the bulk density to 24.20 kg
≈9% (up to 23.31 kg m−3 ). The bulk density then stabilizes, as the difference between 5 and 10% is
m−3, which represents an increase of less than 4% when compared with the bulk density of fibers
minimal. In comparison, the addition of 20% HDF-r slightly increased the bulk density to 24.20 kg m−3 ,
having a 10% HDF-r share.
which represents an increase of less than 4% when compared with the bulk density of fibers having a
10% HDF-r share. Table 2. Fibers bulk density for panels.

Sample V0 density V2
Table 2. Fibers bulk for panels. V5 V10 V20
Fiber bulk density [kg m−3] 18.75 21.15 23.31 23.33 24.20
Sample V0 V2 V5 V10 V20
FiberFibers were analyzed with a fiber-sieving device before the elaboration of composite panels; the
bulk density
results −3 ] share [%] of18.75
[kgofmmass
21.15 23.31 23.33
different fractions are shown in Table 3. The sieve retaining the majority
24.20
of the fibers was 125 µm, the percent of fibers retained in this sieve was comparable for V0, V2, and
V5, while the lowest value on this sieve was in V10 (60.3%). The main difference can be appreciated
Fibers
on were sieve
the second analyzed withinawhich
(315 µm) fiber-sieving
the numberdevice before
of fibers the elaboration
on sieve of composite
size was decreasing with thepanels;
the results of mass share [%] of different fractions are shown in Table 3. The sieve retaining
addition of HDF-r. While V0 had a share of 27%, V10 had 17.7%, representing 34 percentage points the majority
of the fibers was 125 µm, the percent of fibers retained in this sieve was comparable for
less. On the other hand, the sum of fibers from sieves 630, 1000, 1600, and 2500 µm was increasing V0, V2,asand V5,
whilethethe lowest
share valueincreased.
of HDF-r on this sieve
The was
totalin V10 (60.3%).
amount of fibersThe
frommain difference
V0 on can sieves
the last four be appreciated
was 9.5%,on the
while
second for V2,
sieve (315V5,
µm)and
inV10,
whichit was
the11.6%,
number 15.82%, and on
of fibers 21.63%,
sieveaccordingly. As can be with
size was decreasing seen, the share
addition of
of fibers
HDF-r. Whilein larger
V0 hadsieves for V10
a share was more
of 27%, V10than
haddouble
17.7%,compared to V0.34
representing This might influence
percentage pointsthe finalOn the
less.
other hand, the sum of fibers from sieves 630, 1000, 1600, and 2500 µm was increasing as the share of
HDF-r increased. The total amount of fibers from V0 on the last four sieves was 9.5%, while for V2, V5,
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 6 of 14

and V10,
Polymers it 12,
2020, was 11.6%,
x FOR 15.82%,
PEER REVIEWand 21.63%, accordingly. As can be seen, the share of fibers in larger
6 of 14
sieves for V10 was more than double compared to V0. This might influence the final properties of the
HDF. SinceofHDF
properties boards
the HDF. produced
Since from fibers
HDF boards withfrom
produced a 20% share
fibers of HDF-r
with had many
a 20% share blisters
of HDF-r had(steam
many
blows in
blisters the middle
(steam blows ofin the
the thickness
middle ofof
thethe panels) of
thickness during production,
the panels) duringthey could not
production, be examined.
they could not
Forexamined.
be this reason,
Forthey
thiswere automatically
reason, diverted into diverted
they were automatically the boardinto
breaker by anbreaker
the board online GreCon UPU
by an online
blister detection
GreCon sensor.
UPU blister detection sensor.

Table 3.
Table Fractions share
3. Fractions share of
of tested
tested fibers
fibers mass.
mass.

Variant Variant
Sieve Sizesize
Sieve [µm][µm]
V0 V0 V2 V2 V5 V5 V10 V10
125 125 63.5 63.5 63.6 63.6 62.2 62.2 60.3 60.3
315 315 27.0 27.0 24.8 24.8 21.8 21.8 17.7 17.7
630 630 7.9 7.9 6.6 6.6 8.6 8.6 9.3 9.3
10001000 1.4 1.4 3.6 3.6 4.8 4.8 9.2 9.2
16001600 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.3 2.4 2.4 3.1 3.1
25002500 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4

The
The HDF surface
surface color
colordifferences
differenceshave havebeen
been determined
determined according
according to the
to the CIELab
CIELab color
color system
system [41].
[41]. The results
The results are shown
are shown in Figure
in Figure 3. For
3. For this
this analysis,
analysis, V0V0waswasused
usedasasthe
thereference.
reference. According
According to to
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIELab), an important
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIELab), an important parameter in comparing and parameter in comparing and
analyzing
analyzing color
color is ∆E, as
is ΔE, as itit tells
tells about
about howhow much
much thethe color
color ofof the
the tested
tested sample
sample differs
differs from
from the
the
standard [42]. In this sense, all tested boards produced with HDF-r addition had noticeable (∆E >5)
standard [42]. In this sense, all tested boards produced with HDF-r addition had noticeable (ΔE > 5)
color
color difference
difference compared
compared to to V0.
V0. The
The main
main aspect
aspect was
was that
that the
the addition
addition of of HDF-r
HDF-r made
made the
the surface
surface
darker.
darker. The
The brightest
brightest surface
surface was was V0,
V0, with
with an
an LL value
value ofof 67.96.
67.96. The
The biggest
biggestdifference
difference could
could be
be seen
seen
for V2 (∆E = 8.56), and this was related to a more reddish (∆a = 1.75) and yellow (∆b = 3.92) color
for V2 (ΔE = 8.56), and this was related to a more reddish (Δa = 1.75) and yellow (Δb = 3.92) color
compared
compared to V0. The
to V0. The lowest
lowest colorcolordifference
differenceisisthat
thatofofV10
V10 (ΔE
(∆E = =5.30),
5.30), although
although thethe difference
difference waswas7%
7% darker.
darker. TheThe surface
surface of V0
of the thehad V0 anhadincrease
an increase red= (Δa
in redin(∆a 1.47)= and
1.47)blue
and(∆bblue= 1.58)
(Δb =spectra.
1.58) spectra. V5
V5 varied
varied
from V0from
(∆EV0= 5.36).
(ΔE = However,
5.36). However, it was comparable
it was comparable to V10.to V10. Moreover,
Moreover, V5 changed
V5 changed minimally
minimally to
to a shade
aofshade
red (∆a = 1.54)
of red (Δa and
= 1.54)
blueand = 1.37).
(∆bblue (Δb = 1.37).

Figure 3.
Figure HDF color
3. HDF coloranalysis:
analysis: L,
L,aaand
andbbparameters
parameters(a)
(a)and
andE,
E,C,
C,h,
h,L,
L,aaand
andbbchanges
changes (Δ)
(∆)(b).
(b).

The density
The densityprofile
profiledistribution
distributionwas
was characterized,
characterized, andandthe the results
results are shown
are shown in Figure
in Figure 4. The4.
The density of the top side of the board is on the left side of the pictures, and the bottom side
density of the top side of the board is on the left side of the pictures, and the bottom side surface surface
density is on the right side. The difference between the top and bottom surface density was relatively
small, and it was for about 2%–3% lower for the bottom side.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 7 of 14

density is on the right side. The difference between the top and bottom surface density was relatively
Polymers 2020, 12,
small, and x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14
Polymers 2020,it12,
was forPEER
x FOR about 2–3%
lower for the bottom side.
REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Vertical density
Vertical density
4. Vertical profiles of tested HDF panels.
density profiles
Figure of tested HDF panels.

All the
All the examined
examined densitydensity profiles were
density profiles were similar
similar and
and characteristic
and characteristic
characteristic forfor
for HDFHDF panels;
HDF panels; moreover,
panels; moreover,
moreover,
from these figures, it can be observed that there was no delamination of the
from these figures, it can be observed that there was no delamination of the HDF. Figure 5 shows the HDF. Figure 5 shows the
average maximum surface density (ASD) and the average minimum core
average maximum surface density (ASD) and the average minimum core density (ACD). The highest density (ACD). The highest
was obtained
ASD was obtainedfor forV2V2(1136
(1136kgkg
kgmm−3−3
m ),while
),), whilethe thelowest
lowestACDACD waswas obtained
obtained forforfor V10
V10V10 and
andand V2,
V2,V2, being
being 840
ASD was obtained for V2 (1136 −3 while the lowest ACD was obtained being
840
and and
841 841
kg mkg−3 m −3 accordingly.
accordingly. The
The biggest
biggest difference
difference between
between ASD
ASD and
and ACD
ACD was
was observed for
for V2.
V2.
840 and 841 kg m−3 accordingly. The biggest difference between ASD and ACD was observed for V2.
Additionally, similar to the lowest ACD, the minimum ASD was obtained for V10 (1091 kg m −3
−3),
Additionally, similar to the the lowest
lowest ACD,
ACD, the the minimum
minimum ASD ASD waswas obtained
obtained for for V10
V10 (1091
(1091 kgkg m m−3), ),
which is 4% less than
than the
the maximum.
maximum. The difference between
between ASD and
and ACD
ACD for
for V0
V0 was
was 262
262 kg
kg m
m −3,
−3,
which is 4% less than the maximum. The difference between ASD and ACD for V0 was 262 kg m −3,

while forV5,
while for
for V5,itit
V5, itwas
was5%
was 5%lower
5% lower
lower andand
and gave
gave
gave the
thethe smallest
smallest
smallest difference
difference in density
density
in density
difference in profileprofile
(249 kg
profile m−3
(249
(249 kg). m
kg m −3). The
The
−3). ASD
The
ASD
of V5 of V5
was was comparable
comparable to to
that that
of V0of V0
and and
was was
on on
the the level
level of of 1114
1114 kg kg
m −3
m −3
. . It
It is
is worth
worth noticing
noticing that
ASD of V5 was comparable to that of V0 and was on the level of 1114 kg m . It is worth noticing that
−3
not only
not only the
the surface
surface and and core
core densities
densities influence
influence the the properties
properties ofof fiberboards
fiberboards properties,
properties, but also the
but also the
difference between those two
difference between those two parameters parameters
parameters [43]. [43].
[43].

Figure 5.
Figure HDF boards
5. HDF boards average
average maximum
maximum surface
surface density
density and
and average
average minimum
minimum core
core density.
density.
Figure 5. HDF boards average maximum surface density and average minimum core density.
Bending strength results are shown in Figure 6. V0 had a modulus of rupture (MOR) of
Bending strength results
results are shown
shown−3inin Figure
Figure 6.6. V0
V0 had
had aa modulus
modulus ofof rupture
rupture (MOR)
(MOR) of 55.8 55.8 N
N
55.8−2N mm−2 with
Bending strength
a density ofare
852 kg m , which is within EN 622-5 requirements (grey lineoflevel on
mm with a density of 852 kg m −3, which is within EN 622-5 requirements (grey line level on Figure
mm
Figure 6) of the average density tolerance of 860-3kg m-3 +/−7%
−2 with a density of 852 kg m−3, which is within EN 622-5 requirements (grey line
[44]. Panel properties level
such as on
MOE Figure
and
6) of the average density tolerance of 860 kg m +/−7% [44]. Panel properties such as
6) of the average density tolerance of 860 kg m +/−7% [44]. Panel properties such as MOE and MOR
-3 MOE and MOR
are positively
are positively affected
affected by
by an
an increase
increase inin density
density [45].
[45]. However,
However, having
having higher
higher moisture
moisture content
content affects
affects
those properties negatively [46]. Although V2 had MOR comparable to V0 (55.8 N mm
those properties negatively [46]. Although V2 had MOR comparable to V0 (55.8 N mm−2), its density
−2), its density

(872 kg
(872 kg m
m−3
−3) was 20 kg m−3 higher, this might have influenced the final MOR result. In particular, the
) was 20 kg m−3 higher, this might have influenced the final MOR result. In particular, the
highest surface density (1136
highest surface density (1136 kg
kg mm−3−3) might have affected. Additionally, the moisture content of V2
) might have affected. Additionally, the moisture content of V2
similar panel moisture content, the decrease of bending strength of V5 for about 10% is related to the
content of HDF-r. However, further increase of HDF-r, as in V10, did not result in further MOR value
decrease. When analyzing MOR results statistically (Table 4), it should be pointed out that there are
no statistically significant differences between the mean values of the MOR results. All of the tested
HDF have met the requirements of EN 622.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 8 of 14
Regarding MOE, the highest was that of V2 (4651.4 N mm−2), and the lowest was that of V10
(4085.0 N mm−2). V2 and V5 had accordingly 12% and 2% (4177.3 N mm−2) higher modulus of
elasticity
MOR arevalues compared
positively affectedtoby
V0an(4097.7 N mm
increase −2). These
in density values
[45]. couldhaving
However, be explained
higherby the density
moisture contentof
those
affectsboards, but on the negatively
those properties other hand,[46].
within the sameV2range
Although had of
MOR densities, there istoaV0
comparable drop of N
(55.8 MOEmmfor−2 ),

V5
its compared
density (872 to V2 of−3
kg m more
) wasthan 10%.
20 kg m−3
Increasing the amount
higher, this might haveof HDF-r reduces
influenced thethe fiber
final MORcoverage
result.
with the resinthe
In particular, and consequently
highest affects the
surface density (1136 kg m−3 ) might
mechanical properties [18]. Another
have affected. factor affecting
Additionally, the
the moisture
mechanical
content of V2 properties
(5.29%) wasis bulk
moredensity [47].
than six According
percentage to statistical
points higher thananalysis, it should
V0 (5.63%), be pointed
which, according outto
that
Ganevthere are[46],
et al. no statistically
might havesignificant differences
also influenced between the mean values of the MOE results.
the result.

Figure
Figure 6. (a)HDF
6. a) HDFModulus
Modulusof
ofrupture
rupture(MOR),
(MOR),and
andb)
(b)Modulus
ModulusofofElasticity
Elasticity(MOE).
(MOE).

On the for
Results other
thehand, considering
internal bond (IB)that V2HDF
of the and V5
are have almost
presented inthe same
Figure 7.density
As it can(870 kg m−3
be seen, not) and
all
similar panel moisture content, the decrease of bending strength of V5 for
the panels met the requirements for HDF stated at EN 622-5 (grey line level on Figure 7a), which about 10% is related to the
content ofIBHDF-r.
demands However,
to be above 0.65 Nfurther
mm−2increase
. While V0 of HDF-r,
had an IB as of
in 1.15
V10,N didmm not
−2,result in further
the mean MOR value
IB of panels with
decrease. When analyzing MOR results statistically (Table 4), it should be pointed
HDF-r was significantly lower. The lowest IB was obtained for V10 (0.61 N mm−2), and it was nearly out that there are no
statistically
50% significanttodifferences
lower compared V0, and ≈25% between
lower the mean
than V5values
(0.80 Nofmm the−2MOR results.
). Based All bulk
on fiber of thedensity
tested HDFand
haveanalysis
fiber met the requirements
(Tables 2 and of 3),EN
such622.
fibers may have a smaller particle size compared to HDF fibers
from V0. The larger amount of fines increases the surface area of the fibers, which results in
Table 4. Statistical analyses results (p-values).
decreasing the resin coverage per unit surface area [48]. Hence, the strength of the final panel is lower.
V2 obtained
MOR 15% lower V2 IB (0.67 V5 N mm−2) compared
V10 to V5,
MOE this mightV2be caused by V5 a differenceV10 in the
density V0distribution 0.287 0.067 In V2,0.078
on the profile. the averageV0difference0.052 between ASD 0.115 and ACD 0.287on the
V2 0.286 0.081 V2 0.064 0.073
density V5profile was about 295 kg m−3, while0.242 in V5, it was: V5
249 kg m−3. 0.279
Moreover, V2 had a 3% lower ACD than V5 (864 kg m−3). According to Wong, the IB of
IB V2 V5 V10 SS V2 V5 V10
fiberboards
V0 is mostly0.004determined
* by the core
0.046 density and
0.003 V0 is not dependent
0.056 on 0.119
processing conditions
0.268
[43]. Additionally,
V2 an increase 0.282
in the share 0.276
of HDF-r may V2decrease mechanical0.054 properties because
0.051 of
the wayV5 they are fibrillated and have a high 0.084 V5
fine fiber content 0.243
[18]. The only statistically significant
difference
TS 2 in
h mean values
V2 of IB has
V5 been found V10 between V0hand theV2
TS 24 remaining panelV5 types V10
(Table 4).
V0 0.254 0.058 0.046 V0 0.057
Surface soundness (SS) was evaluated, for this, EN standards do not present any requirements, 0.061 0.029
V2 0.069 0.064 V2 0.124 0.138
but typical
V5
industry requirement for SS is 0.199 >0.80 N mm−2V5(grey line level on Figure 7b). Based 0.035
on the
results shown in Figure 7, it can be seen that the highest SS was obtained for V2 (1.51 N mm ), and −2
* enhanced values indicate statistically significant differences.
comparing to V0, which had a SS of 1.09 N mm−2, it was more than 27% higher. V5 had a 20% lower
surface soundness (1.20 N mm−2) compared to V2, but nearly 10%−2 higher than V0. The lowest SS was
Regarding MOE, the highest was that of V2 (4651.4 N mm ), and the lowest was that of V10
(4085.0 N mm−2 ). V2 and V5 had accordingly 12% and 2% (4177.3 N mm−2 ) higher modulus of
elasticity values compared to V0 (4097.7 N mm−2 ). These values could be explained by the density of
those boards, but on the other hand, within the same range of densities, there is a drop of MOE for
V5 compared to V2 of more than 10%. Increasing the amount of HDF-r reduces the fiber coverage
with the resin and consequently affects the mechanical properties [18]. Another factor affecting the
mechanical properties is bulk density [47]. According to statistical analysis, it should be pointed out
that there are no statistically significant differences between the mean values of the MOE results.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 9 of 14

Results for the internal bond (IB) of the HDF are presented in Figure 7. As it can be seen, not all
the panels met the requirements for HDF stated at EN 622-5 (grey line level on Figure 7a), which
demands
Polymers IB12,
2020, toxbe above
FOR PEER0.65 N mm−2 . While V0 had an IB of 1.15 N mm−2 , the mean IB of panels9 with
REVIEW of 14
HDF-r was significantly lower. The lowest IB was obtained for V10 (0.61 N mm−2 ), and it was nearly
50%oflower compared ≈25% −2 ). Based on fiber bulk density
that V10 (1.02 N mmto V0,
−2), and was
which lower
≈32%, thanthan
lower V5 (0.80 N mmthere
V2. While is a direct relation between
andbulk
the fiberdensity
analysisof(Tables
fibers 2andandthe
3), mechanical
such fibers may have aof
properties smaller
the MDFparticle
[49],size compared
there to HDF
is an inversely
fibers from V0.
proportional The larger
influence of theamount
HDF-rofshare
fines on
increases
SS. Thatthemight
surface
be area
causedof the
by fibers,
a worse which results
quality of thein
decreasingfibers
recovered the resin
as acoverage
consequence per unit surface
of their area [48].
decrease Hence,
in length the strength
(above 1711 µm)of the
andfinal
alsopanel is lower.
a significant
V2 obtained 15% lower −2 ) compared to V5, this might be caused by a difference in the
increase in smaller fibersIB(with
(0.67length
N mm200–956 µm) compared to virgin pine fibers [24]. There are no
density distribution
statistically confirmed ondifferences
the profile. between
In V2, thethe
average difference
mean values between
of the surfaceASD and ACD
soundness of on the density
tested panels
profile4). −3
was about 295 kg m , while in V5, it was: 249 kg m . −3
(Table

Figure 7. (a)
Figure 7. Internalbond
a) Internal bond(IB)
(IB)and
andb)
(b)surface
surfacesoundness
soundness(SS)
(SS)results.
results.

Moreover, V2 had a 3% lower ACD2than −3 ). According to Wong, the IB of fiberboards is

The thickness swelling (TS) after and V524 h(864 kg mof
values HDF panels are displayed in Figure 8. The
mostly for
results determined
V0, V2, andby the
V5core
showeddensity
thatand
TS2isand
not dependent
TS24 were on processing
dependent onconditions
the share of[43]. Additionally,
HDF-r, having
aan increase
positive in the
linear share of HDF-r
correlation. Wood,may but decrease mechanicalproducts,
also all wood-based properties because
shrink of thedepending
or swell way they are
on
fibrillated and have a high fine fiber content [18]. The only statistically
the moisture content of the material [50]. The relationships between shrinkage, swelling, and significant difference in mean
values of content
moisture IB has been found between
are roughly V0 and
proportional theand
[51], remaining
there have panel types
been (Table
several 4).
reviews in the literature
Surface soundness (SS) was evaluated, for this, EN standards do
confirming that swelling of wood-based panels is decreasing with an increase of the moisture not present any requirements,
content
but typical industry requirement for SS is >0.80 N mm −2 (grey line level on Figure 7b). Based on
[52]. For this reason, the minimum TS2 and TS24 could be noticed for V0, being 9.90% and 31.03%,
the results shown −2
accordingly, while in
theFigure
moisture7, itcontent
can be seen
of V0that
wasthe highest
5.63%, SS was
which obtained
was the highestforobserved.
V2 (1.51 N ThemmTS24),
and −2 , it was more than 27% higher. V5 had a 20%
of V2comparing to V0, which
(32.82%) increased had a SS of
≈5% compared to 1.09 N mmV5
V0, while had an increase of ≈5% to 34.25%. An increase
lower −2
in TS ofsurface
panelssoundness
with HDF-r (1.20
mightN mm ) compared
be caused by theirtorougher
V2, but structure
nearly 10% andhigher
their than V0.dimensions
smaller The lowest
SS was that −2 ≈32%,
compared toof V10 (1.02
virgin fibersN[21,24].
mm ),The which was TS2
highest andlower
TS24 than
wereV2. While there
measured is a direct
for V10, being relation
11.71%
between the bulk density of fibers and the mechanical properties of the MDF
and 34.54%, respectively, which was ≈15% and ≈10% higher than V0. As can be seen, all the panels [49], there is an inversely
proportional
met influence for
the requirements of the
HDF HDF-r
statedshare on SS.
at EN That
622-5 might
(grey linebelevel
causedonby a worse
Figure 8a).quality
The onlyof the recovered
statistically
fibers as a differences
significant consequencebetweenof their the
decrease
achievedin length
mean (above
values 1711 µm) andswelling,
of thickness also a significant
both TS2 increase
and TS24, in
smaller fibers (with length 200–956 µm)
have been confirmed between V0 and V10 (Table 4). compared to virgin pine fibers [24]. There are no statistically
confirmed differences between the mean values of the surface soundness of tested panels (Table 4).
The thickness swelling (TS) after 2 and 24 h values of HDF panels are displayed in Figure 8.
The results for V0, V2, and V5 showed that TS2 and TS24 were dependent on the share of HDF-r, having
a positive linear correlation. Wood, but also all wood-based products, shrink or swell depending on
the moisture content of the material [50]. The relationships between shrinkage, swelling, and moisture
content are roughly proportional [51], and there have been several reviews in the literature confirming
that swelling of wood-based panels is decreasing with an increase of the moisture content [52]. For this
reason, the minimum TS2 and TS24 could be noticed for V0, being 9.90% and 31.03%, accordingly,
while the moisture content of V0 was 5.63%, which was the highest observed. The TS24 of V2 (32.82%)
increased ≈5% compared to V0, while V5 had an increase of ≈5% to 34.25%. An increase in TS of
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 10 of 14

panels with HDF-r might be caused by their rougher structure and their smaller dimensions compared
to virgin fibers [21,24]. The highest TS2 and TS24 were measured for V10, being 11.71% and 34.54%,
respectively, which was ≈15% and ≈10% higher than V0. As can be seen, all the panels met the
requirements for HDF stated at EN 622-5 (grey line level on Figure 8a). The only statistically significant
differences between the achieved mean values of thickness swelling, both TS2 and TS24, have been
confirmed
Polymers 2020, between V0 and
12, x FOR PEER V10 (Table 4).
REVIEW 10 of 14

Figure8.8.a)(a)HDF
Figure HDFThickness
ThicknessSwelling
Swellingafter
after2h
2hand
and24h,
24h,and
andb)
(b)Surface
SurfaceWater
WaterAbsorption
Absorption(WA)
(WA)in
inthe
the
top and bottom sides.
top and bottom sides.

The surface water absorption (WA) was also examined. Although thickness swelling after 24 h
The surface water absorption (WA) was also examined. Although thickness swelling after 24 h
was increasing with HDF-r share, reaching the highest value for V10 and the lowest for V0, the WA
was increasing with HDF-r share, reaching the highest value for V10 and the lowest for V0, the WA
had the opposite trend. As can be seen in Figure 8, the highest WA for top and bottom HDF side was
had the opposite trend. As can be seen−2 in Figure 8, the highest WA for top and bottom HDF side was
obtained for V0, accordingly, 255 g m−2 and 273 g m−2−2 , while the lowest was for V10, with results of
obtained for V0, accordingly, 255 g m and 273 g m , while the lowest was for V10, with results of
top side WA of 175 g m−2 and bottom side WA of 185 g m−2 . All panels with HDF-r had ≈30% lower
top side WA of 175−2 g m−2 and bottom side WA of 185 g m−2. All panels with HDF-r −2 had ≈30% lower
top (V2 = 187 g −2m ; V5 = 186−2g m ) and bottom (V2 = 191
−2 g m−2 V5 −2 = 187 g m ) surface water
top (V2 = 187 g m ; V5 = 186 g m ) and bottom (V2 = 191 g m V5 = 187 g m ) surface water absorption
−2
absorption compared to V0, which is consistent with other works [21]. Moreover, in all panels, higher
compared to V0, which is consistent with other works [21]. Moreover, in all panels, higher WA could
WA could be observed for the bottom side compared to the top side. For V0, it was 7% higher, for V10,
be observed for the bottom side compared to the top side. For V0, it was 7% higher, for V10, 5%
5% higher, and V2 and V5, 1.5% higher as an average.
higher, and V2 and V5, 1.5% higher as an average.
The surface roughness was examined since one of the factors influencing the consumption of
The surface roughness was examined since one of the factors influencing the consumption of
sealing materials during lacquering is the roughness of the HDF surface, increasing together with
sealing materials during lacquering is the roughness of the HDF surface, increasing together with the
the increase of the roughness [53]. Based on the results shown in Figure 8, the higher WA of HDF
increase of the roughness [53]. Based on the results shown in Figure 8, the higher WA of HDF bottom
bottom
side side
might bemight
caused beby
caused
a more byclosed
a moresurface
closed (14%)
surface of(14%)
the top ofside
the top sidethe
for all forpanels,
all the which
panels,hadwhich
an
had an average roughness of 3.09 µm, compared to an average roughness
average roughness of 3.09 µm, compared to an average roughness of the bottom side of 3.69 µm. Thisof the bottom side of 3.69 µm.
Thisbecan
can be connected
connected to a higher
to a higher density
density of the
of the toptopsideside layer,
layer, which
which was
was confirmed
confirmed ininthe
theFigure
Figure4.4.
Moreover, the lower surface roughness of panels produced with HDF-r could be caused by aahigher
Moreover, the lower surface roughness of panels produced with HDF-r could be caused by higher
fiberdensity
fiber densitycompared
comparedto to V0,
V0, which
which isis easier
easier toto compress
compress during
during the the pressing
pressing process.
process.
As it was mentioned, the panels were produced in compliance with CARB 22standard.
As it was mentioned, the panels were produced in compliance with CARB standard.Therefore,
Therefore,
the required formaldehyde content should be below 5.0 mg 100 g −1 (grey line level on Figure 9b). In this
the required formaldehyde content should be below 5.0 mg 100 g−1 (grey line level on Figure 9b). In
sense,
this not all
sense, notthe
all boards met that
the boards met requirement
that requirement beingbeing
V2 and V2V5 andoutV5 ofout
the of
CARB 2 specifications.
the CARB As can
2 specifications.
be seen in Figure 9b, V0 had the lowest formaldehyde content (3.76 mg 100 g−1 ), while the highest was
As can be seen in Figure 9b, V0 had the lowest formaldehyde content (3.76 mg 100 g−1), while the
obtained
highest was forobtained
V2 (5.37 for
mgV2 g−1 ),mg
100(5.37 100 gis−1≈43%
which ), which more. Further
is ≈43% more.addition
Furtherofaddition
HDF-r caused
of HDF-r a decrease
caused
in formaldehyde content in V5 to 5.21 mg 100 g −1 but still out of specification. However, V10 had the
a decrease in formaldehyde content in V5 to 5.21 mg 100 g−1 but still out of specification. However,
lowest −1 ) from all the tested boards produced with
V10 hadresult of formaldehyde
the lowest content (4.98 mg
result of formaldehyde 100 g(4.98
content mg 100 g−1) from all the tested boards
produced with HDF-r, which allowed meeting CARB 2 requirements.ofThis
HDF-r, which allowed meeting CARB 2 requirements. This decrease formaldehyde
decrease ofcontent with an
formaldehyde
increase in the recycled share of fibers was also observed for MDF
content with an increase in the recycled share of fibers was also observed for MDF [21]. [21].
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 11 of 14
Polymers 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Figure
Figure 9. HDF surface
9. HDF surface roughness
roughness of
of top
top and
and bottom
bottom sides
sides (a)
(a) and
and formaldehyde
formaldehyde content
content of
of the
the
elaborated HDF (b).
elaborated HDF (b).
4. Conclusions
Table 4. Statistical analyses results (p-values).
Recovered HDF is a suitable raw material substitute as a complement to virgin pine chips for
MOR V2 V5 V10 MOE V2 V5 V10
industrial HDF production. It may be possible to produce industrial HDF with up to 10% HDF-r
V0 0.287 0.067 0.078 V0 0.052 0.115 0.287
addition and meet EN 622-5 standard selected requirements. The surface of HDF produced with 2%
V2 0.286 0.081 V2 0.064 0.073
HDF-r is significantly darker compared to those made of virgin pine wood. The addition of HDF-r
V5 0.242 V5 0.279
caused an increase in fiber bulk density, which has an impact on the performance of HDF. Increasing
IB from 0%
the HDF-r share V2to 10% caused
V5 V10
a decrease of MORSS for about V29% while V5addingV10
2% of HDF-r
V0 0.004 * 0.046 0.003 V0 0.056
caused an increase of MOE of ≈12%, and further addition of HDF-r caused a slight decline0.119 0.268 of MOE.
V2
Increasing HDF-r share from 0% to0.282
10% caused 0.276
a decreaseV2 0.054 47%,0.051
of internal bond for about though these
boards did V5not meet EN standard requirements. 0.084 Implementation
V5 0.243in higher
of 2% of HDF-r resulted
TS 2 h for about
surface soundness V2 28%, while
V5 a further
V10 increase TS 24of h
HDF-r to V210% caused
V5 a decrease
V10 of MOE
of ≈6%. TheV0 addition of0.254 0.058
HDF-r represented a0.046 V0
30% lower surface 0.057
water 0.061
absorption 0.029
and about 12% lower
V2 0.069 0.064 V2 0.124
surface roughness. An increase in the share of HDF-r represented an increase in the thickness 0.138 swelling
V5 addition of HDF-r represented
after 24 h. The 0.199
an increase V5of formaldehyde content, which 0.035
might imply
* enhanced values indicate statistically significant
a reformulation of the bonding agent to meet with the CARB 2 standard. differences.

4. Conclusions
Author Contributions: C.M.S. took part in designing the experiments and performed the experiments, analyzed
the data, wrote theHDF
Recovered first is
draft of the paper,
a suitable raw E.R. analyzed
material data statistically,
substitute wrote the to
as a complement final version
virgin of the
pine paper,
chips for
and G.K. designed the experiments, analyzed the data. All the authors assisted in writing and improving the
industrial
paper. HDF production.
All authors have read andItagreed
may be possible
to the to produce
published version ofindustrial HDF with up to 10% HDF-r
the manuscript.
addition and meet EN 622-5 standard selected requirements. The surface of HDF produced with 2%
Funding: Some of the mentioned tests have been completed within the activity of Student Furniture Research
HDF-r(Koło
Group is significantly darker compared
Naukowe Meblarstwa), Faculty to those Technology,
of Wood made of virgin
Warsawpine wood. The
University addition
of Life of HDF-r
Sciences—SGGW.
caused
E.R. antoincrease
wants inE2S
thank the fiber bulkResearch
UPPA density,Chair
which has an impact
Partnership (BOIS) on the performance
supported of HDF.
by the Excellence Increasing
Initiative of the
University
the HDF-rofshare
Pau and
fromPays
0%detol’Adour and the
10% caused I-Site E2S. of MOR for about 9% while adding 2% of HDF-r
a decrease
caused an increaseThe
Acknowledgments: authors
of MOE ofwould
≈12%,like
andto further
thank toaddition
IKEA Company,
of HDF-rIKEA Industry
caused Polanddecline
a slight sp. z o.of
o. MOE.
brand
Orla, Koszki 90, 17-106 Orla, for ability to perform the tests in industrial scale.
Increasing HDF-r share from 0% to 10% caused a decrease of internal bond for about 47%, though
Conflicts of Interest:
these boards did notThemeet
authors
ENdeclare no conflict
standard of interest.
requirements. Implementation of 2% of HDF-r resulted in
higher surface soundness for about 28%, while a further increase of HDF-r to 10% caused a decrease
References
of MOE of ≈6%. The addition of HDF-r represented a 30% lower surface water absorption and about
12% Food
1. lowerand
surface roughness.
Agriculture An increase
Organization. Annual in the share
Population. of HDF-r
Available represented
online: an increase in the
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#
thickness swelling
data/OA after
(accessed on24 h. The2020).
1 April addition of HDF-r represented an increase of formaldehyde content,
which
2. might
Food and imply a reformulation
Agriculture Organization.ofForestry
the bonding agent
Production toTrade.
and meet Available
with the online:
CARB http://www.fao.org/fa
2 standard.
ostat/en/#data/FO
Author Contributions: (accessed
C.M.S. tookonpart
1 April 2020). the experiments and performed the experiments, analyzed
in designing
3. Kalinowska, D. Podwy żka Cen Mebli Przez Drogie data
the data, wrote the first draft of the paper, E.R. analyzed Drewno [Furniture
statistically, Pricethe
wrote Increase through
final version of Expensive
the paper,
Wood (In Polish)]. Available online: https://www.rp.pl/artykul/864368-Podwyzka-cen-mebli-przez-drogie-d
and G.K. designed the experiments, analyzed the data. All the authors assisted in writing and improving the
rewno.html
paper. All authors(accessed
have readonand1 April 2020).
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: Some of the mentioned tests have been completed within the activity of Student Furniture Research
Group (Koło Naukowe Meblarstwa), Faculty of Wood Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 12 of 14

4. Jabłoński, D. Ceny Materiałów Drzewnych na Składach Budowlanych Poszybowały w Gór˛e [Prices of Wood
Materials in Building Depots Soared (In Polish)]. Available online: https://www.drewno.pl/artykuly/11132,ceny-
materialow-drzewnych-na-skladach-budowlanych-poszybowaly-w-gore.html (accessed on 1 April 2020).
5. www.nadlesnictwo.pl Struktura polskich lasów [Structure of Polish forests (In Polish)]. Available online:
http://www.nadlesnictwo.pl/str/struktura_lasow (accessed on 1 April 2020).
6. Nicewicz, D.; Sala, C.M. Technologiczne Aspekty Produkcji MDF [Technological Aspects of MDF Production
(In Polish)]; Wydawnictwo SGGW: Warsaw, Poland, 2013; ISBN 9788375835120.
7. Jabłoński, D. Rekordowo Wysokie Ceny za Drewno w I Kwartale 2017 [Record High Prices for Wood in the
First Quarter of 2017 (In Polish)]. Available online: https://www.drewno.pl/artykuly/10837,rekordowo-wys
okie-ceny-za-drewno-w-i-kwartale-2017.html (accessed on 1 April 2020).
8. Oniśko, W. Nowe generacje tworzyw drzewnych i nowoczesne technologie [New generations of wood-based
composites and modern technologies (In Polish)]. In Proceedings of the Drewnowizja, Instytut Technologii
Drewna w Poznaniu, Poznań, Poland, 18 January 2011.
9. Types of Wood for Recycling. Available online: https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sour
ce=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ3oDSjPbpAhXXdd4KHUg-BgoQFjAKegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2
Fwww.nottinghamshire.gov.uk%2Fplanningsearch%2FDisplayImage.aspx%3Fdoc%3DcmVjb3JkX251b
WJlcj01ODE2JmZpbGVuYW1lPVxcbnMwMS0wMDI5XGZpbGVkYXRhMiRcREIwMy0wMDMwXFNoY
XJlZEFwcHNcZGxnc1xwbGFuc1xwbGFubmluZ1xmLTI4NDhcMjU5MS1iIHdyYXAgd29vZCByZWN5Y
2xpbmcgZ3VpZGUucGRmJmltYWdlX251bWJlcj05JmltYWdlX3R5cGU9cGxhbm5pbmcmbGFzdF9tb2RpZ
mllZF9mcm9tX2Rpc2s9MjUvMDYvMjAxMyAxNDoyOTozOQ%3D%3D&usg=AOvVaw0qB87KG5zqub
R0NtLOqnG7 (accessed on 1 April 2020).
10. da Azambuja, R.R.; de Castro, V.G.; Trianoski, R.; Iwakiri, S. Recycling wood waste from construction and
demolition to produce particleboards. Maderas Cienc. Tecnol. 2018, 20, 681–690. [CrossRef]
11. Yang, T.H.; Lin, C.J.; Wang, S.Y.; Tsai, M.J. Characteristics of particleboard made from recycled wood-Waste
chips impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 189–195. [CrossRef]
12. Laskowska, A.; Mamiński, M. Properties of particleboard produced from post-Industrial UF-and PF-bonded
plywood. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 427–435. [CrossRef]
13. Borysiuk, P.; Byczek, M.; Jenczyk-Tołłoczko, I.; Boruszewski, P.; Monder, S. An attempt to use postconsumer
MDF as a raw material for the manufacture of particleboards. Ann. Warsaw Univ. Life Sci. SGGW For. Wood
Technol. 2014, 87, 7–11.
14. Nicewicz, D.; Danecki, L. Recycling of insulation boards by reuse. Ann. Warsaw Univ. Life Sci. SGGW For.
Wood Technol. 2010, 72, 57–61.
15. Hunt, J.F.; Vick, C.B. Strength and processing properties of wet-formed hardboards from recycled corrugated
containers and commercial hardboard fibers. For. Prod. J. 1999, 49, 69–74.
16. Beele, P. Demonstration of End Uses for Recovered MDF Fibre; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2009.
17. Runesson, U.T. Changing Look of Structural Wood. Available online: http://www.borealforest.org/panel/
(accessed on 1 April 2020).
18. Nourbakhsh, A.; Ashori, A.; Jahan-Latibari, A. Evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of
medium density fiberboard made from old newsprint fibers. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2010, 29, 5–11. [CrossRef]
19. Hagel, S.; Saake, B. Fractionation of Waste MDF by Steam Refining. Molecules 2020, 25, 2165. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
20. Zhao, J.; Tian, D.; Shen, F.; Hu, J.; Zeng, Y.; Huang, C. Valorizing waste lignocellulose-Based furniture boards
by phosphoric acid and hydrogen peroxide (Php) pretreatment for bioethanol production and high-Value
lignin recovery. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6175. [CrossRef]
21. Lubis, M.A.R.; Hong, M.K.; Park, B.D.; Lee, S.M. Effects of recycled fiber content on the properties of medium
density fiberboard. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 1515–1526. [CrossRef]
22. Wan, H.; Wang, X.M.; Barry, A.; Shen, J. Recycling wood composite panels: Characterizing recycled materials.
BioResources 2014, 9, 7554–7565. [CrossRef]
23. Ihnát, V.; Lübke, H.; Russ, A.; Pažitný, A.; Borůvka, V. Waste agglomerated wood materials as a secondary
raw material for chipboards and fibreboards part II. Preparation and characterisation of wood fibres in terms
of their reuse. Wood Res. 2018, 63, 431–442.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 13 of 14

24. Klimczewski, M.; Nicewicz, D. Wybrane właściwości mas włóknistych przeznaczonych na płyty HDF
z dodatkiem włókien poużytkowych [Selected properties of pulp for hdf boards with the addition of
post-consumer fibers (In Polish)]. Drewno 2013, 189, 89–100. [CrossRef]
25. Kronospan Kronospan 30 lat w Polsce! [30 years of Kronospan in Poland! (In Polish)]. Available online:
http://biuroprasowe.kronospan.pl/71464-kronospan-30-lat-w-polsce (accessed on 1 April 2020).
26. Homanit Presentation oF Factories. Available online: https://www.homanit.org/en/company/presentation_fa
ctories.php (accessed on 1 April 2020).
27. Fibre Boards. The Pfleiderer Rawboards with Large Design Potential. Available online: https://www.pfleider
er.com/global-en/products/raw-wood-based-panels/fibre-boards (accessed on 1 April 2020).
28. Bakunowicz, J.K. Fabryka IKEA: Premier w Wytwórni Płyt HDF. Zakład, jak Kosmiczne Centrum [Koszki,
IKEA Factory: Prime Ministry in HDF Boards Plan. A Plant Like a Cosmic Center (In Polish)]. Available
online: https://poranny.pl/koszki-fabryka-ikea-premier-w-wytworni-plyt-hdf-zaklad-jak-kosmiczne-cent
rum-zdjecia/ar/c3-5382674 (accessed on 1 April 2020).
29. IKEA. IKEA Industry Zbaszynek.
˛ Available online: https://www.industry.ikea.pl/index/nasze-zaklady/zbas ˛
zynek.html (accessed on 1 April 2020).
30. GR United Kingdom: There Are Plans to Recycle Medium Density Fiberboards. Available online: https:
//global-recycling.info/archives/1323 (accessed on 1 April 2020).
31. EN 326-2 Wood-Based Panels. Sampling, Cutting and Inspection. Initial Type Testing and Factory Production
Control; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
32. EN 326-1 Wood-Based Panels. Sampling, Cutting and Inspection. Sampling and Cutting of Test Pieces and
Expression of Test Results; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
33. EN 310 Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity in Bending and of Bending Strength; European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
34. EN 319 Particleboards and Fibreboards. Determination of Tensile Strength Perpendicular to the Plane of the Board;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
35. EN 311 Wood-Based Panels. Surface Soundness—Test Method; European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
36. EN 317 Particleboards and Fibreboards. Determination of Swelling in Thickness after Immersion in Water;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
37. EN 382-1 Fiberboards. Determination of Surface Absorption. Test Method for Dry Process Fiberboards; European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
38. Gumowska, A.; Wronka, A.; Borysiuk, P.; Robles, E.; Sala, C.M.; Kowaluk, G. Production of layered wood
composites with a time saving layer-by-Layer addition. BioResources 2018, 13, 8089–8099. [CrossRef]
39. EN 12460-5 Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Formaldehyde Release—Extraction Method (Called the Perforator
Method); European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
40. Park, B.-D.; Kim, Y.-S.; Riedl, B. Effect of Wood-Fiber Characteristics on Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF)
Performance. J. Korean Wood Sci. Technol. 2001, 29, 27–35.
41. Computer Desktop Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/CIELAB
(accessed on 1 April 2020).
42. Hoffmann, G. CIELab Color Space. Available online: http://docs-hoffmann.de/cielab03022003.pdf (accessed
on 1 April 2020).
43. Wong, E.D.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Q.; Han, G.; Kawai, S. Formation of the density profile and its effects on the
properties of fiberboard. J. Wood Sci. 2000, 46, 202–209. [CrossRef]
44. EN 622-5 Fibreboards. Specifications. Requirements for Dry Process Boards (MDF); European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
45. Cai, Z.; Muehl, J.H.; Winandy, J.E. Effects of panel density and mat moisture content on processing medium
density fiberboard. For. Prod. J. 2006, 56, 20–25.
46. Ganev, S.; Gendron, G.; Cloutier, A.; Beauregard, R. Mechanical properties of MDF as a function of density
and moisture content. Wood Fiber Sci. 2005, 37, 314–326.
47. Woodson, G.E. Properties of Medium-Density Fiberboard Related to Hardwood Specific Gravity. Tenth Part.
Symp. 1976, 175–192.
48. Hwang, C.Y.; Chung-run Hse, T.F.S. Effects of recycled fiber on the properties of fiberboard panels. For. Prod.
J. 2005, 55, 61–64.
 Polymers 2020, 12, 1327 14 of 14

49. Xing, C.; Zhang, S.Y.; Deng, J.; Riedl, B.; Cloutier, A. Medium-Density fiberboard performance as affected by
wood fiber acidity, bulk density, and size distribution. Wood Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 637–646. [CrossRef]
50. EPF Medium Density Fibreboard. Available online: https://europanels.org/the-wood-based-panel-industry/t
ypes-of-wood-based-panels-economic-impact/medium-density-fibreboard/ (accessed on 1 April 2020).
51. Trechsel, H.R.; Bomberg, M.T.; Carll, C.; Wiedenhoeft, A.C. Moisture-related properties of wood and the
effects of moisture on wood and wood products. In Moisture Control in Buildings: The Key Factor in Mold
Prevention, 2nd ed.; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010; pp. 54–79. [CrossRef]
52. Carll, C.G. Review of Thickness Swell in Hardboard Siding Effect of Processing Variables; Forest Products Laboratory:
USDA, Madison, WI, USA, 1996; p. 12.
53. Białecki, F.; Pohl, P.; Sydor, M. Investigations on sealing material consumption in relation with the roughness
parameters of HDF boards. Electron. J. Polish Agric. Univ. Ser. Wood Technol. 2008, 11, 17.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats