4.7 Article

Properties of particleboards made of agricultural by-products with a classical binder or self-bound

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 371-379

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.12.094

关键词

Flax shives; Sunflower bark; Particleboards; Agricultural coproduct valorization; Internal bond; Thermal insulation

资金

  1. French Agency for Environment and energy Management (ADEME) through the project PANOVEGE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to replace wood in particleboard manufacturing, two agricultural by-products were studied: the flax shives and the sunflower bark, which are abundant, renewable and little valorized raw materials. Sunflower bark in particular is very few studied. This study will demonstrate the possibility of using sunflower bark in particleboards and how to modulate the manufacturing process to take the benefits of both studied agroresources. These plant based particles present interesting porous structures for using as materials for building insulation or as furniture. To obtain totally biosourced materials, the plant based particles were self-bound by a thermo-compression process with water. The properties of these materials were compared with particleboards made of the same plant based particles with a classical urea-formaldehyde binder. Particleboards of two target densities are compared: 350 and 500 kg m(-3). Both agroresource materials do not present the same behavior to self-binding or classical binding. Flax shives are more adapted to self-binding process thanks to their biochemical composition and their morphological structure. These different boards were characterized according to mechanical and thermal properties, resistance to water and to fire. The type of agroresource or of binder does not influence the thermal conductivity. The denser binderless boards show better resistance to fire. The main defect of binderless boards is their too low resistance to water compared to boards made with a synthetic binder.

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