Advertisement

Nanocellulose-Reinforced Adhesives for Wood-Based Panels

  • Elaine Cristina Lengowski
  • Eraldo Antonio Bonfatti Júnior
  • Marina Mieko Nishidate Kumode
  • Mayara Elita Carneiro
  • Kestur Gundappa SatyanarayanaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Considering that the solid wood, being a heterogeneous and anisotropic product, presents several disadvantages such as unsatisfactory mechanical properties for certain uses and limitations of wood due to dimensions of wood pieces, reconstituted wood products have been developed by gluing of veener, boards, lignocellulosic fibers, etc., which are joined using adhesives. It should be noted that changes in adhesion to wood are desirable in terms of performance improvement and adhesive economy. Within the constant search for better performance of adhesives, the use of nanocelluloses appears as a viable option. Further, identification of reinforcement of adhesives with nanocellulose is being considered as an opportunity among the several opportunities offered by nanotechnology for the forest products industry. Use of nanocelluloses as reinforcements in adhesives for the production of reconstituted wood panels has several benefits such as possibility of altering the properties of adhesives, gain in mechanical and physical properties of panels and reduction in formaldehyde emissions by panels using synthetic adhesives. Accordingly, this chapter discusses the main types of reconstituted wood panels, types and characteristics of the adhesives employed, aspects that influence the bonding and use of additives in the glue mixture. Besides, it also addresses the use of nanocellulose and its effects on the properties of reconstituted wood panels. Despite all the advantages emntioned above, the Chapter ends with the conclusion that there are still some problems to be looked into suggesting need for more research either in the application of nanocellulose and its modification in different types of resin, as well as application technologies appropriate to the new conditions of the adhesives.

Keywords

Adheisves Forest products Wood panels Nanocellulose Physico-Chemical properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

At the outset, the authors express their sincere thanks to the Editors of the book (Inamuddin, Sabu Thomas, Raguvendra Mishra and Abdullah M. Asiri), particularly Prof. Inamuddin for inviting us to contribute this Chapter. The authors place on record and appreciate the kind permission given by some of the authors (who have given permission to use their figures), M/s. Elsevier Inc Publishers, IN TECH d.o.o., Rijeka (Croatia), Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute with the scientific cooperation of Iran Polymer Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, Chemical Retrieval on the Web (CROW), Springer and Wiley Publishers to reproduce some of the figures from their publications free of charges. One of the authors (KGS) would like to thank the PPISR, Bangalore-India with whom he is associated with presently for their encouragement and interest in this collaboration.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdul KHPS, Tye YY, Leh CP et al (2018) Cellulose reinforced biodegradable polymer composite film for packaging applications. In: Jawaid M, Swain S (eds) Bionanocomposites for packaging applications. Springer, Cham, pp 49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albino VCS, Mori FA, Mendes LM (2012) Influence of anatomical features and extractives content wood of Eucalyptus grandis w. hill ex maiden in quality bonding. Cienc Florest 22(4):803–811Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albuquerque CEC, Latorraca JV (2000) Anatomic features, influence in penetration and adhesion of adhesives. Floresta Ambient 7(1):158–166Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almeida VC (2009) Assessment of the potential for the use of tropical wood waste for the production of laterally glued panels—EGP. Federal University of Parana, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Society for Testing and Materials (2006) ASTM D 5456: standard specification for evaluation of structural composite lumber products. ASTM, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atta-Obeng E (2011) Characterization of phenol formaldehyde adhesive and adhesive-wood particle composites reinforced with microcrystalline cellulose. Dissertation, Auburn UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayrilmis N (2007) Effect of panel density on dimensional stability of medium and high density fiberboards. J Mater Sci 42:8551–8557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayrilmis N, Lee Y-K, Kwon JH et al (2016) Formaldehyde Emission and VOCs from LVLs Produced with Three Grades of Urea-Formaldehyde Resin Modified with Nanocellulose. Build Environ 97:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baghersad S (2016) Coating os silk fabrics by PVA/Ciprofloxain HCl nanofibers for biomedical applications. Iran J Polym Sci Tech 29(2):171–184Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baldwin RF, Kurpiel FT, Baldwin RW (2017) Growth and reinvention 2017: a north american perspective on the global wood-based panel industry. Forest Prod J 67(3–4):144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bianche JJ (2014) Wood-adhesive interface and joints’ resistance bonded with different adhesives and weight. Federal University of Viçosa, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilodeau MA, Bousfield DW (2015) Composite building products bound with cellulose nanofibers. Patent US 20,150,033,983 A1, 05 Feb 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buligon EA (2015) Physical and mechanical properties of laminated veneer lumber reinforced gfrp. C Fl 25(3):731–741Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campos CI (2005) Physical-mechanical properties of MDF produced with wood fibers from reforestation and alternative adhesives at different levels. University of São Paulo, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Candan Z, Akbulut T (2015) Physical and mechanical properties of nanoreinforced particleboard composites. Maderas Cienc Tecnol 17(2):319–334Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cardoso GV, Pereira FT, Ferreira ES et al (2016) Nanocelulose occmo urea-formaldehyde catalyst for the production of agglomerated panels of Pinus sp. In: Paper presented at the XV EBRAMEM—Brazilian meeting on timber and timber structures, Brazilian Institute of Wood and Wood, Curitiba, Structures, Curitiba, 9–11 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carlquist S (2001) Comparative wood anatomy. Springer, BerlimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carvalho MZ (2016) Multivariate approach to the behavior of physical-chemical properties and characterization of natural adhesives based on tannins. Federal University of Lavras, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carvalho L, Martins J, Costa C (2010) Transport phenomena. In: Thoemen H, Irle M, Sernek M (eds) Wood-based panels: an introduction for specialists. Brunel University Press, London, pp 123–295Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costa TG (2016) Characterization of synthetic adhesives with addition of silica nanoparticles as reinforcing filler. Federal University of Lavras, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cui J, Lu X, Zhou X et al (2014). Enhancement of mechanical strength of particleboard using environmentally friendly pine (Pinus pinaster L.) tannin adhesives with cellulose nanofibers. Ann For Sci 72(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cunha RCB (2016) Implementation of a method for measuring Gel Time of formaldehyde-based resins. Dissertation, Higher Institute of Engineering of PortoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damásio RAP, Carvalho FJB, Carneiro ACO et al (2017) Effect of CNC interaction with urea-formaldehyde adhesive in bonded joints of Eucalyptus sp. Sci For 45(113):169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diem H, Mathias G, Wagner RA (2012) Amino resins. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Din Z-U, Xiong H, Wang Z et al (2018) Effects of different emulsifiers on the bonding performance, freeze-thaw stability and retrogradation behavior of the resulting high amylose starch-based wood adhesive. Colloids Surf A 538(5):192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ding X, Richter DL, Matuana LM et al (2011) Efficient one-pot synthesis and loading of self-assembled amphiphilic chitosan nanoparticles for low-leaching wood preservation. Carbohydr Polym 86:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ebnesajjad S, Landrock AH (2014) Adhesives technology handbook, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdãGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eckelman CA (1999) Brief survey of wood adhesives. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M et al (2010) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Esteban L, Casasús AG, Oramas CP et al (2003) Wood and its anatomy. Fundación Conde de Valle de Salazar, MadridGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferreira JC (2017) Synthesis of urea-formaldehyde adhesives with the addition of kraft lignin and nanocrystalline cellulose. Federal University of Viçosa, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fink J (2013) Reactive polymers Fundamentals and applications—a concise guide to industrial applications, 2nd edn. William Andrew, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Finnish Forest Industries Federation (2002) Handbook of finnish plywood. Kirjapaino Markprint Oy, LahtiGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fiorelli J (2002) Use of carbon fibers and glass fibers to reinforce wooden beams. Dissertation, São Paulo UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) Global production and trade of forest products in 2016. http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938/en/ Accessed 12 Mar 2018
  36. 36.
    Forestry Products Laboratory (1999) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Reports FPL-GTR-113. USDA, Forest Service, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Forestry Products Laboratory (2010) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Reports FPL-GTR-190. USDA, Forest Service, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Forestry Products Laboratory (2012) Nanocelluloses: potential materials for advanced forest products. In: Proceedings of nanotechnology in wood composites symposium. General Technical Reports FPL-GTR-218. USDA, Forest Service, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fratzl P, Weinkamer R (2007) Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci 52(8):1263–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fujisawa S, Okita Y, Fukuzumi H et al (2011) Preparation and characterization of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibrils films with free carboxyl groups. Carbohydr Polym 84(1):579–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gardziella A, Pilato LA, Knop A (2000) Phenolic resins: chemistry, applications, standardization, safety and ecology, 2nd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gavrilovic GI, Neskovic O, Diporovic MM et al (2010) Molar-mass distribution of urea-formaldehyde resins of different degrees of polymerisation by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. J Serb Chem Soc 75(5):689–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gindl-Altmutter W, Veigel S (2015) Nanocellulose-modified wood adhesives. In: Oksman K, Mathew AP, Bismarck A et al (eds) Handbook of green materials. World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, pp 253–264Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gonçalvez FG (2012) Agglomerated panels of Acacia mangium wood with urea-formaldehyde adhesives and powdered tannin of Acacia mearnsii bark. Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gonçalvez FG, Lelis RCC (2009) Properties of two synthetic resins after addition of Modified tannin. Floresta Ambient 12(2):01–07Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grigsby WJ, Thumm A (2012) The interactions between wax and UF resin in medium density fiberboard. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 70(4):507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gupta R, Kandasubramanian B (2015) Hybrid caged nanostructure ablative composites of octaphenyl-POSS/RF as heat Shields. RSC Adv 5:8757–8769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Haubrich JL, Gonçalves C, Tonet A (2007) Vinyl adhesives present solutions for wood. Rev Mad 103:66–70Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hellmeister V (2017) OSB panel of raft wood residue (Ochroma pyramidale). University of São Paulo, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hu K, Kulkarni DD, Choi I et al (2014) Graphene-polymer nanocomposites for structural and functional applications. Prog Polym Sci 39(11):1934–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2006) Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tertbutoxypropan-2-ol. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 88:1–478Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2012) Chemical agents and related occupations: a review of human carcinogens. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 100:1–628Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Irle M, Barbu C (2010) Wood-based panel technology. In: Thoemen H, Irle M, Sernek (eds) Wood-based panels: an introduction for specialists. Brunel University Press, London, pp 1–94Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Iwakiri S (2005) Painéis de madeira reconstituída. FUPEF, CuritibaGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Iwamoto S (2009) Elastic modulus of single cellulose microfibrils from tunicate measured by atomic force microscopy. Biomacromol 10(9):2571–2576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jonoobi M, Mathew AP, Oksman K (2012) Producing low-cost cellulose nanofiber from sludge as new source of raw materials. Ind Crops Prod 40:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kaboorani A, Riedl B, Blanchet P et al (2012) Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC): a renewable nano-material for polyvinyl acetate (PVA) adhesive. Eur Polym J 48(11):1829–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Khalili SMR, Jafarkarimi MH, Abdollahi MA (2009) Creep analysis of fibre reinforced adhesives in single lap joints-experimental study. Int J Adhes Adhes 29(6):656–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Khalili SMR, Shokuhfar A, Hoseini SD et al (2008) Experimental study of the influence of adhesive reinforcement in lap joints for composite structures subjected to mechanical loads. Int J Adhes Adhes 28(8):436–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Khedari J, Nankongnab N, Hirunlabh J et al (2004) New low-cost insulation particleboards from mixture of durian peel and coconut coir. Build Environ 39(1):59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kim MG (2000) Examination of selected synthesis parameters for typical wood adhesive-type urea-formaldehyde resins by 13C NMR spectroscopy. I. J Appl Polym Sci 75(10):1243–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kinloch AJ (1987) Adhesion and adhesives: science and technology. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kolakovic R, Peltonel L, Laaksonen T et al (2011) Spray-dried cellulose nanofibers as novel tablet excipient. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech 12(4):1366–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lahiji RR, Xu X, Reifenberger R, Raman A, Rudie A, Moon RJ (2010) Atomic Force Microscopy Characterization of Cellulose Nanocrystals. Langmuir 26(6):4480–4488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lam F (2001) Modern structural wood products. Prog Struct Eng Mat 3(4):238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lengowski EC (2016) Formation and characterization of films with nanocellulose. Federal University of Paraná, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lima CKP, Mori FA, Mendes LM et al (2007) Anatomic and chemical characteristics of eucalyptus clones wood and its influence upon bonding. Cerne 13(2):123–129Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Liu Z, Zhang Y, Wang X et al (2015) Reinforcement of lignin-based phenol-formaldehyde adhesive with nano-crystalline cellulose (NCC): curing behavior and bonding property of plywood. Mater Sci Appl 6:567–575Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Liu Y, Laks P, Heiden P (2002) Controlled release of biocides in solid wood. II. Efficacy against Trametes versicolor and Gloeophyllum trabeum wood decay fungi. J Appl Polym Sci 86(3):608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lubis MAR, Hong MK, Park BD (2017) Hydrolytic removal of cured urea–formaldehyde resins in medium-density fiberboard for recycling. J Wood Chem Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02773813.2017.1316741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    López-Suevos F, Eyholzer C, Bordeanu N et al (2010) DMA analysis and wood bonding of PVAc latex reinforced with cellulose nanofibrils. Cellulose 17(2):387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mahrdt E, Pinkl S, Schmidberger C et al (2016) Effect of addition of microfibrillated cellulose to Ureaformaldehyde on selected adhesive characteristics and distribution in particle board. Cellulose 23(1):571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Meng Q-X, Zhu G-Q, Yu M-M et al (2018) The effect of thickness on plywood vertical fire spread. Procedia Eng 211:555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Messmer A (2015) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of adhesives used in wood consructions. Master thesis (Ecological System Design), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Swiss, Zurich p 82Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Molina JC, Calil Neto C, Calil Junior C et al (2013) Evaluation of the behavior of rectangular beams (LVL) with horizontal and vertical lamination. Mad Arq Eng 14(35):1–13Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mondragon G, Peña-Rodriguez C, Gonzáles A et al (2015) Bionanocomposites based on gelatin matrix and nanocellulose. Eur Polym J 62:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Motta JP, Oliveira JTS, Alves RC (2012) Influence of moisture content on the adhesion properties of eucalyptus wood. Construindo 4(2):96–103Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    National Institute of Industrial Research (2017) The complete technology book on wood and its derivatives. NIIR, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nelson K, Restina T, Iakovlev M et al (2016) American process: production of low cost nanocellulose for renewable, advanced materials applications. In: Madsen L, Svedberg E (eds) Materials research for manufacturing. Springer Series in Materials Science, vol 224. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nguyen DM, Grillet A-C, Diep TMH et al (2018) Influence of thermo-pressing conditions on insulation materials from bamboo fibers and proteins based bone glue. Ind Crops Prod 111:834–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nitthiyah A (2013) Optimization and characterization of melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) based adhesive with waste rubber powder (WRP) as filler. University Malaysia Pahang, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Olorunnisola AO (2018) Design of wood connections. In: Olorunnisola AO (ed) Design os structural elements with tropical hardwoods. Springer, Berlim, pp 209–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ozarska B (1999) A review of the utilization of hardwoods for LVL. Woood Sci Technol 33(4):341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Park B-D, Kang E-C, Park S-B et al (2011) Empirical correlations between test methods of measuring formaldehyde emission of plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 69(2):311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Périchaud AA, Isakakov RM, Kurbatov A et al (2012) Auto-reparation of polyimide film coatings for aerospace applications challenges and perspectives. In: Abadie MJM (ed) High performance polymers—polyimides based—from chemistry to applications. InTech, London, pp 215–244Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pervan D (2018) Mechanical locking system for panels and method of installing same. US Patent 2018/0,030,738 A1, 1 Feb 2018Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Peschel P, Hornhardy E, Nennewitz I et al (2016) Tabellenbuch Holztechnik. Europa-Lehrmittel Nourney, Vollmer GmbH & Co. KG, HaanGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Petrie EW (2000) Handbook of adhesives andokl sealents, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pizzi A (2015) Synthetic adhesives for wood panels: chemistry and technology. In: Mittal KL (ed) Progress in adhesion and adhesives. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 85–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Polymer Properties Database (2015) Melamine-formaldehyde resins. http://polymerdatabase.com/polymer%20classes/MelamineFormaldehyde%20type.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2018
  91. 91.
    Prolongo SG, Gude MR, Ureña A (2009) Synthesis and characterisation of epoxy resins reinforced with carbon nanotubes and nanofibers. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 9(10):6181–6187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Prolongo SG, Gude MR, Ureña A (2010) Rheological behaviour of nanoreinforced epoxy adhesives of low electrical resistivity for joining carbon fiber/epoxy laminates. J Adhes Sci Technol 24(6):1097–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ramage MH, Burridge H, Busse-Wicher M et al (2017) The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:333–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Richter K, Bordeanu N, Lópes-Suevos F et al (2009) Performance of cellulose nanofibrils in wood adhesives. In: Schindel-Bidinelli E (ed) Proceedings of the swiss bonding. Rapperswil-Jona, Switzerland, pp 239–246Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Risholm-Sundman M, Larsen A, Vestin E et al (2007) Formaldehyde emission—comparison of different standard methods. Atmospheric Environ 41(15):3193–3202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rojas J, Bedoya M, Ciro Y (2015) Current trends in the production of cellulose nanoparticles and nanocomposites for biomedical applications. In: Polleto M (ed) Cellulose—fundamental aspects and current trends. InTech, Rijeka, pp 193–228Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rumble JR (2018) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 98th edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Salajková M, Berglund LA, Zhou Q (2012) Hydrophobic cellulose nanocrystals modified with quaternary ammonium salts. J Mater Chem 22(37):19798–19805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Samyn P, Barhoum A, Öhlund T et al (2018) Review: nanoparticles and nanostructured materials in papermaking. J Mater Sci 53(1):146–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Schultz J, Nardin M (2003) Theories and mechanisms of adhesion. In: Pizzi A, Mittal KL (eds) Handbook of adhesive technology. Marcel Decker, New York, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sehaqui H, Allais M, Zhou Q et al (2011) Wood cellulose biocomposites with fibrous structures at micro-and nanoscale. Compos Sci Technol 71(3):382–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sheykhi ZH, Tabarsa T, Mashkour M (2016) Effects of nano-cellulose and resine on MDF properties produced from recycled mdf using electrolise method. J Wood Forest Sci Technol 23(3):271–288Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Singh A, Dawson B, Rickard C et al (2008) Light, confocal and scanning electron microscopy of wood-adhesive interface. Microsc Analy 22(3):5–8Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Song J, Chen C, Zhu S et al (2018) Processing bulk natural wood into a high-performance structural material. Nature 554:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Syverud K, Chinga-Carrasco G, Toledo J et al (2011) A comparative study of Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata pulp fibres as raw materials for production of cellulose nanofibrils. Carbohydr Polym 84(3):1033–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Tanpichai S, Quero F, Nogi M et al (2012) Effective young’s modulus of bacterial and microfibrillated cellulose fibrils in fibrous networks. Biomacromol 13(5):1340–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Thoemen H, Irle M, Sernek M (eds) (2010) Wood-based panels: an introduction for specialists. Brunel University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Toquarto S (2002) Random heterogeneous materials. Springer, BerlimGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose, a new cellulose product: Properties, uses and commercial potential. J Appl Polym Sci: Appl Polym Symp 37:815–827Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Urbinati CV (2013) Influence of anatomical characteristics on cast joints of Schizolobium parayba var. Amazonicum (hyber ex. Ducke) barneby (Paricá). Thesis, Federal University of LavrasGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Veigel S, Rathke J, Weigl M et al (2012) Particle board and oriented strand board prepared with nanocellulose-reinforced adhesive. J Nanomater.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/158503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Veronez D, Farias ELP, Fraga R et al (2010) Potential for occupacional health rish for those teachers, researchers and technical workers of anatomy who are exposed to formaldehyde. InterfacEHS 5(2):63–76Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wang XM, Casilla R, Zhang Y et al (2016) Effect of extreme ph on bond durability of selected structural wood adhesives. Wood Fiber Sci 48(4):1–15Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wang X, Huang Z, Cooper P et al (2010) The ability of wood to buffer highly acidic and alkaline adhesives. Wood Fiber Sci 42(3):398–405Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Wang X, Huang Z, Cooper P et al (2013) Effects of pH on lap-shear strength for aspen veneer. Wood Fiber Sci 45(3):294–302Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Wegner T, Skog KE, Ince PJ et al (2010) Uses and desirable properties of wood in the 21st century. J Forest 108(4):165–173Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Xu X, Yao F, Wu Q et al (2009) The influence of wax-sizing on dimension stability and mechanical properties of bagasse particleboard. Industrial Crops Produ 29(1):80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yoon SH, Kim BC, Lee KH et al (2010) Improvement of the adhesive fracture toughness of bonded aluminum joints using e-glass fibers at cryogenic temperature. J Adhes Sci Technol 24(2):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Yuce B, Mastrocinque E, Packianather MS et al (2014) Neural network design and feature selection using principal component analysis and Taguchi method for identifying wood veneer defects. Produm Manufac Res 2(1):291–308Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Zeni M, Favero D, Pacheci K et al (2015) Preparation of microcellulose (Mcc) and nanocellulose (Ncc) from eucalyptus kraft ssp pulp. Polym Sci 1:1–5Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zeppenfeld G, Grunwald D (2005) Klebstoffe in der Holz-und Möbelindustrie. DRW-Verlag, WeinbrennerGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Zhang Y, You B, Huang H et al (2008) Preparation of nanosilica reinforced waterborne silylated polyether adhesive with high shear strength. J Appl Polym Sci 109(4):2434–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Zhang H, Zhang J, Song S et al (2011) Modified nanocrystalline cellulose from two kinds of modifiers used for improving formaldehyde emission and bonding strength of urea-formaldehyde resin adhesive. BioResources 6:4430–4438Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Zhong Y, Jing X, Wang S et al (2016) Behavior investigation of phenolic hydroxyl groups during the pyrolysis of cured phenolic resin via molecular dynamics simulation. Polym Degrad Stab 125:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Zhou J, Chen J, He M et al (2016) Cellulose acetate ultrafiltration membranes reinforced by cellulose nanocrystals: preparation and characterization. J Appl Polym Sci 133(39):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43946CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Cristina Lengowski
    • 1
  • Eraldo Antonio Bonfatti Júnior
    • 2
  • Marina Mieko Nishidate Kumode
    • 3
  • Mayara Elita Carneiro
    • 2
  • Kestur Gundappa Satyanarayana
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry EngineeringFederal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT)CuiabáBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Forest Engineering and Technology (DETF)Federal University of Paraná (UFPR)CuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Laboratory of WoodPontifical Catholic UniversityCuritibaBrazil
  4. 4.PIPE & Department of ChemistryFederal University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil
  5. 5.Poornaprajna Scientific Research Institute (PPISR)Devanahalli, BangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations