4.7 Article

Cornstarch and tannin in phenol-formaldehyde resins for plywood production

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 188-193

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.03.005

关键词

Cornstarch; Quebracho tannin; Phenol formaldehyde; Plywood; Wood adhesive

资金

  1. Conseil General des Landes (Aquitaine, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work is to demonstrate the performances of cornstarch-quebracho tannin-based resins designed as adhesive in the plywood production. In this way, the cornstarch and quebracho tannin was introduced in the classic adhesive formulation in order to supply a part of phenol-formaldehyde (PF). The physical properties (rheological characterization, thermogravimetric analysis and solid phase C-13 NMR analysis) of the formulated resins were measured. In order to evaluate the mechanical performances of optimal cornstarch-quebracho tannin-based resins. plywood panels were produced and mechanical properties were investigated. These mechanical properties included tensile strength, wood failure and 3-point bending strength. The performance of these panels is comparable to those of plywood panels commercial PF made. The results showed that plywood panels bonded with cornstarch-quebracho tannin-PF resins (15:5:80, w/w/w) exhibited better mechanical properties than plywood panels commercial PF made. The introduction of small proportions of cornstarch and quebracho tannin in PF resins contributes to the improvement of the boiling water performance of these adhesives. The formaldehyde emission levels obtained from panels bonded with cornstarch-duebracho tannin-PF were lower to those obtained from panels bonded with control PF. Solid state CPMAS NMR spectra indicates that no reaction at all between PF resins and cornstarch and quebracho tannin. Even when reaction does evidently not occur, the addition of cornstarch and quebracho tannin improves markedly the water resistance of PF resins. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据