Journal of the Indian Academy of Wood Science

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 140–148 | Cite as

Solvent extraction of inhibitory substances from three hardwoods of different densities and their compatibility with cement in composite production

  • Kwadwo Boakye BoaduEmail author
  • Charles Antwi-Boasiako
  • Linda Ofosuhene
Original Article


Chemical pre-treatment of wood to remove extractives improves timber’s compatibility with cement and produces strong composites. The chemicals often used are expensive and environmentally-destructive. Data on eco-friendly solvents for such extraction are deficient, which makes it difficult to recommend the most effective solvent for wood pre-treatment. This study compared the extracting potentials of three readily available and environmentally friendly solvents (i.e. ethanol, hot and cold water) and their influence on the thickness swelling, modulus of rupture and shear strength of composites produced from three hardwoods of different densities [Klainedoxa gabonensis (high), Entandrophragma cylindricum (medium) and Triplochiton scleroxylon (low)]. Hot water removed more extractives (e.g. 2.21 ± 0.07% from T. scleroxylon) than ethanol (0.925 ± 0.02% from T. scleroxylon) and cold water (0.865 ± 0.02% from T. scleroxylon). Composites from hot water-extracted sawdust least swelled and were stronger than those produced from the ethanol-, cold water- and non-extracted sawdust. T. scleroxylon boards from both extracted and non-extracted sawdust had the lowest thickness swelling and greatest strength. Hot water was found to be more effective than cold water and ethanol for pre-treating the sawdust, especially those from the light timbers (e.g. T. scleroxylon) before mixing with cement in producing strong and dimensionally stable composites. Utilization of sawdust, especially from these timbers, would contribute to increasing the raw material base for the wood–cement board manufacturing or the composite industry.


Dimensional stability Extractive Pre-treatment Thickness swelling Wood–cement compatibility 



We thank the Staff at the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Department of Wood Science and Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana, for the milling and extraction of the sawdust as well as the production of the wood–cement composite boards. We are grateful to the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (UK) and the School of Environment and Natural Resources of Bangor University (Wales, UK) for supporting the study.


  1. Aggarwal LK, Agrawal SP, Thapliyal PC, Karade SR (2008) Cement-bonded composite boards with arhar stalks. Cement Concr Compos 30:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM D-1105-56) (1994) Preparation of extractive free wood. ASTM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Ancheyta J (2017) Chemical reaction kinetics: concepts, methods and case studies. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antwi-Boasiako C, Ofosuhene L, Boadu KB (2018) Suitability of sawdust from three tropical timbers for wood-cement composites. J Sustain For 37(4):414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashton S, Cassidy P (2007) Wood Processing Residues. In: Hubbard W, Biles L, Mayfield C, Ashton S (eds) Sustainable forestry for bioenergy and bio-based products: trainers curriculum notebook. Southern Forest Research Partnership, Inc., Athens, pp 165–168Google Scholar
  6. Badejo SO, Omole AO (2013) Sorption and bending properties of wood cement panels produced from mixed Nigerian hardwoods at varying water/cement ratios. J Environ Ext 11:96–106Google Scholar
  7. Badejo SO, Omole AO, Fuwape JA, Oyeleye BO (2011) Static bending and moisture response of cement-bonded particleboard produced at different levels of percent chemical additive content in board. Niger J Agric Food Environ 7(4):111–120Google Scholar
  8. Baron P (2017) Reaction rate theory and rare events. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Boadu KB, Antwi-Boasiako C (2017) Assessment of the bending strength of mortise-tenon and dovetail joints in leg-and-rail construction using Klainedoxa gabonensis Pierre ex Engl. and Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague) Sprague. Wood Mater Sci Eng 12(4):242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosu PP, Krampah E (2005) Triplochiton scleroxylon K.Schum. [Internet] Record from PROTA4U. Louppe D, Oteng-Amoako AA Brink M (Eds). Accessed 19 October 2017
  11. BS EN 317 (1993-08) Particleboards and Fiberboards; determination of swelling in thickness after immersion in water. British Standard Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. BS EN 310 (1993) Wood-based panels: determination of modulus of elasticity in bending and of bending strength. British Standard Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. BS EN 323 (1993) Wood-based panels—determination of density. British Standard Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Menezzi CHS, de Castro VG, de Souza MR (2007) Production and properties of a medium density wood-cement boards produced with oriented strands and silica fume. Maderas Ciencia y tecnología 9(2):105–115Google Scholar
  15. Demirbas A (2011) Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Convers Manag 52(2):1280–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demirbas A, Aslan A (1998) Effects of ground hazelnut shell, wood and tea waste on the mechanical properties of cement. Cement Concrete Res 28(8):1101–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dong Z, Yu Y, Song P, Ma L, Lu F (2016) Effects of two types of waste wood species on the hydration characteristic of Portland cement. J Adv Concrete Technol 14(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eusebio DA, Cabangon RJ, Warden PG, Coutts RSP (1998) The manufacture of wood fibre reinforced cement composites from Eucalyptus pellita and Acacia mangium chemi-thermomechanical pulp. In: Proceedings of the fourth pacific rim bio-based composites symposium, Bogor, Indonesia, pp 428–436Google Scholar
  19. Eusebio DA, Soriano FP, Cabangon RJ, Evans PD (2000) Manufacture of low-cost wood-cement composites in the Philippines using plantation-grown Australian species: I. Eucalyptus. In: ACIAR proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp 105–114Google Scholar
  20. Fan M, Ndikontar KM, Zhou X, Ngamveng NJ (2012) Cement-bonded composites made from tropical woods: compatibility of wood and cement. Constr Build Mater 36:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernandez CE, Taja-on PV (2000) The use and processing of rice straw in the manufacture of cement-bonded fibreboard. In: ACIAR proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp 49–54Google Scholar
  22. Forest Products Laboratory (1999) Wood handbook—wood as engineering material. USDA, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frybort S, Mauritz R, Teischinger A, Muller U (2008) Cement bonded composite review. BioResources 3(2):602–626Google Scholar
  24. Fuwape JA, Oyagade AO (1993) Bending strength and dimensional stability of tropical wood-cement particleboard. Biores Technol 44(1):77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghana News Agency (2014) KMA to recycle sawdust into fertilizer. Accessed 30 October 2014
  26. ISO 8335 (1987) Cement-bonded particleboards—Boards of Portland or equivalent cement reinforced with fibrous wood particles. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO 3310-2 (2013) Test sieves—Technical requirements and testing—part 2: test sieves of perforated metal plate. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorge FC, Pereira C, Ferreira JMF (2004) Wood-cement composites: a review. Holzals Rohund Werkstoff 62:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karade SR (2005) Optimisation of water-cement ratio for determination of wood-cement compatibility. In: Proceedings of 9th NCB international seminar on cement and building materials, New Delhi, 2005, Vol. 2, Issue VI, pp 353–360Google Scholar
  30. Kémeuzé VA (2008) Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague) Sprague. [Internet] Record from PROTA4U. In: Louppe D, Oteng-Amoako AA, Brink M (Eds). Accessed 19 October 2017
  31. Lee YL, Huang GW, Liang ZC, Mau JL (2007) Antioxidant properties of three extracts from Pleurotus citrinopileatus. LWT-Food Sci Technol 40:823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lube VM (2016) Effects of moisture-induced thickness swelling on the microstructure of oriented strand board. MSc Thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma XX, Wang CG (2012) Hydration characteristics of mixture of grapevine and cement. J Nanjing Forestry Univ 36(3):157–159Google Scholar
  34. Ma FL, Yamauchi H, Pulido RO, Tamura Y, Sasaki H, Kawai S (2000) Manufacture of cement-bonded boards from wood and other lignocellulosic materials: relationships between cement hydration and mechanical properties of cement-bonded boards. In: ACIAR proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp. 13–23Google Scholar
  35. Na B, Zhiqiang W, Haiqin W, Xiaoning L (2014) Wood-cement compatibility review. Wood Res 59(5):813–826Google Scholar
  36. Sadiku N, Sanusi A (2014) Wood pre-treatment influence on the hydration of portland cement in combination with some tropical wood species. Pro Ligno 10(2):3–10Google Scholar
  37. Semple EK, Cunningham BR, Evans DP (2000) Compatibility of eight temperate Australian Eucalyptus species with Portland cement. In: ACIAR proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp. 40–46Google Scholar
  38. Sutigno P (2000) Effect of Aqueous Extraction of Wood-wool on the properties of wood-wool cement board manufactured from teak (Tectona grandis). In: ACIAR proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp 24–28Google Scholar
  39. Tabarsa T, Ashori A (2011) Dimensional stability and water uptake properties of cement-bonded wood composites. J Polym Environ 19(3):518–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tagelsir EM (2004) Effects of mixing some wood and non-wood lignocellulosic materials on the properties of cement and resin- bonded particleboard. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KhartoumGoogle Scholar
  41. Tandjo D (1996) Influence of extractives on the chemical analysis of switchgrass. MSc thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  42. Tay CC, Hamdan S, Osman MSB (2016) Properties of Sago particleboards resinated with UF and PF Resin. Adv Mater Sci Eng 11:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tchéhouali DA, Aïna MP, Houanou KA, Foudjet A, Thimus JF (2013) The most suitable species of six West African hardwood species for wood–cement composites. Res J Recent Sci 2(2):59–65Google Scholar
  44. Visa I (2014) Sustainable energy in the built environment—steps Towards nZEB. In: Proceedings of the conference for sustainable energy (CSE) 2014. Springer. 613 pagesGoogle Scholar
  45. Warden PEG, Savastano Jr. H, Coutts RSP (2000) Fibre-cement composites from Brazilian agricultural and industrial waste materials. In: ACIAR Proceedings, Canberra, Australia, No. 107, pp 55–61Google Scholar
  46. Wolfe WR, Gjinolli A (1999) Durability and Strength of cement-bonded wood particle composites made from construction waste. Forest Products Journal 49(2):24–31Google Scholar
  47. Wolff GE (2000) Introduction to the dimensional stability of composite materials. DEStech Publications Inc., PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  48. Yemelea CNM, Koubaab A, Cloutierc A, Souloungangac P, Stevanovicc T, Wolcottd PM (2013) Effects of hot water treatment of raw bark, coupling agent, and lubricants on properties of bark/HDPE composites. Ind Crops Prod 42:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zakaria NZ, Sulieman MZ, Talib R (2016) Innovative application of sawdust wastage used as alternative sustainable construction material. Int J Eng Res Manag Stud 3(8):12–18Google Scholar
  50. Zziwa A, Kizito S, Banana A, Sseremba O (2006) Production of composite bricks from sawdust using Portland cement as a binder. Uganda J Agric Sci 12(1):38–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Wood Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwadwo Boakye Boadu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles Antwi-Boasiako
    • 1
  • Linda Ofosuhene
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wood Science and Technology, Faculty of Renewable Natural ResourcesKwame Nkrumah University of Science and TechnologyKumasiGhana

Personalised recommendations