4.4 Article

Multilayer Particleboard Produced with Agroindustrial Waste and Amazonia Vegetable Fibres

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 1151-1161

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-017-9889-x

关键词

Curaua fibre; Jute fibre; Sugarcane bagasse; Castor oil polyurethane adhesive; Durability

资金

  1. FAPESP [2012/13881-2, 2012/51467-3, 2012/10833-7]
  2. CNPq [471818/2012-7]
  3. Embrapa-Cnpdia
  4. BioSMat
  5. USP
  6. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [12/10833-7, 12/51467-3] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assesses different thermal-physical-mechanical properties and micro structural characteristics of multilayer particleboards (outer layers made of sugarcane bagasse and inner layer made of sugarcane bagasse and Amazonia vegetable fibres-curaua and jute). Initially, anatomical and physical-chemical properties from these natural fibres were characterized individually in order to evaluate their potential for use in the production of particleboard. The bulk density of the panels was designed to be 550 kg m(-3), and was checked by X-ray. Physical and mechanical properties were evaluated following the ABNT NBR 14810:2013 (2013) Brazilian Standards recommendations. The thermal conductivity was determined by adapting the methodology established by ISO 8301:1999. Results indicate that the multilayer boards present higher superficial density, compared to the inner layers. Mechanical property values of the particleboards with vegetable fibres were higher than the panels using only sugarcane bagasse for the corresponding densities. Moreover, the thermal conductivity of the multilayer boards was similar, indicating that the inclusion of vegetable fibres did not affect this property. The X-ray micro-tomography analyses (microCT) indicated higher porosity in the internal layer. Considering durability tests, the particleboards with vegetable fibres presented lower mechanical properties after aging test.

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

4.4
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