Advertisement

Journal of Wood Science

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 652–657 | Cite as

Potential utilization of sodium fluoride (NaF) as a biocide in particleboard production

  • Cihat Tascioglu
  • Kenji Umemura
  • Sukma S. Kusuma
  • Tsuyoshi Yoshimura
Original article

Abstract

The feasibility of sodium fluoride (NaF) incorporation as a biocide in the manufacture of particleboard was examined. Laboratory-scale particleboards prepared from untreated wood particles were incorporated with NaF powder at target retentions of 1, 1.5 and 3% of the total particle weight. An in-line treatment method was used to introduce the biocide during the blending stage just before adhesive application. Standard static bending and water resistance (water absorption and thickness swelling) tests indicated that embedding of the powder biocide up to the 3% level did not cause any detrimental effects on mechanical and physical properties. The laboratory decay and termite resistance tests showed that even the lower retention levels of 1 and 1.5% NaF were enough to suppress fungal and termite activity and significantly reduce the mass loss and consumption rate values of the specimens when compared to the untreated controls. Spectrophotometric analysis of leachate waters and the mass losses of the leached specimens revealed the tendency of the NaF to be depleted from the composite specimens. Therefore, the tested biocide was found to be appropriate for interior or protected above-ground outdoor exposure conditions.

Keywords

Wood-based composites Biodegradation In-process treatments Termite resistance Sodium fluoride 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author extends his appreciation to RISH, Kyoto University, for support under the Visiting Professor program between April 1 and September 29, 2016, and to Mr. Akio Adachi for specimen preparations and Ms. Nuriye Peaci for English proofreading of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Chung WY, Wi SG, Bae HJ, Park BD (1999) Microscopic observation of wood-based composites exposed to fungal deterioration. J Wood Sci 45(1):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laks PE (2002) Biodegradation susceptibility of untreated engineered wood products. In: Enhancing the durability of lumber and engineered wood products, FPJ symposium Proceedings no. 7249. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI, USA, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larkin GM, Laks PE (2008) Evaluating the durability of wood-based composites. In: Shultz TP, Militz H, Freeman MH, Goodell B, Nicholas DD (eds) Development of commercial wood preservatives: efficacy, environmental and health issues. American Chemical Society symposium series, pp 152–167Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tascioglu C, Yoshimura T, Tsunoda K (2013) Biological decay and termite resistance of post-treated wood-based composites under protected above ground conditions: a preliminary study after 26 months of exposure. BioResources 8(1):833–843Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larkin GM, Merrick P, Gnatowski MJ, Laks PE (2008) In-process protection of wood composites: an industry perspective. In: Shultz TP, Militz H, Freeman MH, Goodell B, Nicholas DD (eds) Development of commercial wood preservatives: efficacy, environmental and health issues. American Chemical Society symposium series, pp 458–469Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spear MJ (2015) Preservation, protection and modification of wood composites. In: Ansell MP (ed) wood composites, 1st edn. Elsevier and Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 253–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsunoda K, Watanabe H, Fukuda K, Hagio K (2002) Effect of zinc borate on the properties of medium density fiberboard. For Prod J 52(11/12):62–65Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gardner DJ, Tascioglu C, Wålinder ME (2003) Wood composite protection. In: Goodell B, Nicholas DD, Schultz TP (eds) Wood deterioration and preservation: advances in our changing world. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirkpatrick JW, Barnes HM (2006) Biocide treatment for wood composites: a review. The International Research Group on Wood Protection Doc No. IRG/WP 06-40323, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tascioglu C, Umemura K, Yoshimura T, Tsunoda K (2014) Biological performance of zinc borate-incorporated particleboard: effects of leaching on efficacy. Compos Part B 57:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pan C, Wang C (2015) Sodium fluoride for protection of wood against field populations of subterranean termites. J Econ Entomol 108(4):2121–2124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan C, Ruan G, Chen H, Zhang D (2015) Toxicity of sodium fluoride to subterranean termites and leachability as a wood preservative. Eur J Wood Prod 73:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson R (ed) (2005) The chemistry of wood preservation. Woodhead Publishing Limited, CambrideGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen H, Rhatigan R, Morrell JJ (2003) A rapid method for fluoride analysis of treated wood. For Prod J 53(5):43–45Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Unger A, Schniewin AP, Unger W (2001) Conservation of wood artifacts; a handbook. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Neil MJ (ed) (2013) The Merck Index: an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals, 15th edn. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    JIS K 1571 (2010) Quantitative standards and testing methods of wood preservatives. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    JIS A 5908 (2007) Particleboards. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17 (2008) SPSS Inc., Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    JIS K 0102 (2013) Testing methods for industrial wastewaters. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morrell JJ, Freitag CM, Chen H (2005) Sequential treatments with fluoride and copper: effects of solution concentration and dipping time on treatment. For Prod J 55(7–8):57–62Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vick CB, De Groot RC, Youngquist J (1990) Compatibility of non-acidic waterborne preservatives with phenol–formaldehyde adhesives. For Prod J 40(2):16–22Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laks PE, Manning MJ (1995) Preservation of wood composites with zinc borate. The International Research Group on Wood Protection Doc No IRG/WP 95-30074, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    EWPAA (2017) Facts about particleboard and MDF. Engineered Wood Products Association of Australasia, Australia, p 41. http://www.ewp.asn.au/library. Accessed 13 Feb 2017
  25. 25.
    Freitag CM, Morrell JJ (2005) Development of threshold values for boron and fluoride in non-soil contact applications. For Prod J 55(4):97–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Wood Research Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cihat Tascioglu
    • 1
  • Kenji Umemura
    • 2
  • Sukma S. Kusuma
    • 2
  • Tsuyoshi Yoshimura
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest Products Engineering, Faculty of ForestryDuzce UniversityDuzceTurkey
  2. 2.Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere (RISH)Kyoto UniversityUjiJapan

Personalised recommendations