Proper Mesh Size Determination of Melamine Impregnated Paper (MIP) in Particleboard Manufacturing as an Adhesive Replacement Ibrahim Halil Basboga1, Fatih Mengeloglu 2, Kadir Karakus 3, Ilkay Atar 4
Abstract This study investigated the proper mesh size and rate of waste melamine impregnated paper (MIP) in particleboard manufacturing. First, waste melamine impregnated paper (MIP) granulated in Pulverizator with cooling capabilities into the flour form. Three different sizes (small (passed from 0,1mm sieve), medium (between passed from 0,6mm and stayed on 0,1mm sieve) and large (between passed from 4mm and stayed on 0,6mm sieve)) and four different rates (%10, 15, 20, 25) of MIP were used in this study. Mechanical and physical properties including bending strength, modulus of elasticity, internal bond strength, surface stability, thickness swelling and water absorption of the samples were determined according to TS EN 310, TS EN 319, TS EN 311 and TS EN 317 standards, respectively. Based on the results, mesh size and rate of MIP had significant effect on all mechanical and physical properties investigated. The best result was obtained when 25% small size MIP was used. As a result, small size MIP might be utilized as an adhesive replacement in particleboard manufacturing providing economic and environmental benefits. Keywords: Melamine impregnated paper waste, mechanical and physical properties, mesh size
1. INTRODUCTION Melamine impregnated paper (MIP) is decorative paper for wood based boards. Those papers are used for surface coating on boards. The main aim of the coating is to have a better visual for wood based board products. In addition, it helps to keep humidity at the best levels for products. The coating also approves the mechanical properties and bans the nocuous gases releasing such as formaldehyde, pesticides, etc. [1]. Two and half million of MIP wastes occur for a year during the coating in a middle density board plant which uses 420 million m2/year MIP, approximately. Wood based panels generates wastes such as chips with resin, melamine impregnated paper (MIP), non-standard board, etc. Portion of them were reused in manufacturing panels while some other were utilized for generating energy [2]. MIP contains chemicals (adhesives, curing agents, crosslinking agents, etc.) and it is not suitable for generating energy through burning them. It is required special running boilers at higher temperatures [3]. Researches have looked for alternatives to utilize these wastes. Ayrılmış [4] grinded MIP with hammer-mill the size of 2-3mm and utilized them with glued fibers in fiberboard manufacturing. It was reported that mechanical properties approved with the adding of MIP. In another study, Alpar and Winkler [5] have used MIP powder in the manufacture of particleboard as a both filler and adhesives. As a result, no significant differences were found between particleboard manufactured with UF adhesives and the one with MIP powder. In this study, single-layer particleboards were manufactured and there is no information about MIP size. Commercial particleboards have three layers. In this study, proper mesh size and rate of waste melamine impregnated paper (MIP) to be used in particleboard manufacturing was investigated. On this purpose, three-layers particleboards were manufactured with three different sizes (small, medium and large) and four different rates (%10, 15, 20, 25) of MIP for this study. Mechanical and physical properties of the samples were determined according to TS EN 310, TS EN 319, TS EN 311 and TS EN 317 standards.
1
Corresponding author: Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Department of Forest Product Engineering, 46100, Onikişubat/Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.
[email protected]
2
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Department of Forest Product Engineering, 46100, Onikişubat/Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.
[email protected]
3
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Department of Forest Product Engineering, 46100, Onikişubat/Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.
[email protected]
4
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Department of Forest Product Engineering, 46100, Onikişubat/Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.
[email protected]
1665
2. EXPERIMENTAL 2.1. Materials Particleboards were manufactured utilizing waste melamine impregnated paper (MIP) and 2 different types of chip (fine and coarse). MIP waste, which obtained when the neat décor papers were impregnated (in the impregnation line) with melamine urea formaldehyde and other chemicals, was got from Kastamonu Integrated Adana MDF Facility. Chips were obtained from Kastamonu Integrated Tarsus Particleboards Facility.
2.2. Particleboard Manufacturing Waste melamine impregnated paper (MIP) granulated in Pulverizator with cooling capabilities into the flour form. Three different sizes (small (passed from 0,1mm sieve), medium (between passed from 0,6mm and stayed on 0,1mm sieve) and large (between passed from 4mm and stayed on 0,6mm sieve)) and four different rates (%10, 15, 20, 25) of MIP were used for this study. Twelve different particleboards with three layers (two surface layers and one core layer) were manufactured. Fine chips were utilized in surface layers while coarse ones in core layer. Same rate and size of MIP was used for all layers for each board. The core layer was accounted for 67% of the total board weight. Surface layers were contained 33% of the total board weight. The experimental design of the study was presented Table 1.
Table 6. Manufacturing schedule of Particleboards Board-ID
MIP Size
MIP (%)
Chip (%)
1
Small
10
90
2
Small
15
85
3
Small
20
80
4
Small
25
75
5
Medium
10
90
6
Medium
15
85
7
Medium
20
80
8
Medium
25
75
9
Large
10
90
10
Large
15
85
11
Large
20
80
12
Large
25
75
Depending on the formulation chips and MIP were dry-mixed in a high-intensity mixer to produce a homogeneous blend. The blends were laid into frame of 500mm x 500mm. A hot press was used for forming of particleboards (0,54,8 MPa). The target thickness was 19mm. Pressing time and temperature were 240s and 200 °C, respectively. After pressing, particleboards were conditioned at a temperature of 20 °C and 65% relative humidity. The conditioned boards were cut from four edges and grinded until their thickness was 18mm. Then test samples were cut according to TS EN standards.
2.3. Particleboard testing Testing of the samples was conducted in a climate-controlled testing laboratory. Densities were measured by air-dried density method according to the TS EN 323 standard. Bending strength, modulus of elasticity, internal bond strength, surface stability, thickness swelling and water absorption of the samples were determined according to TS EN 310, TS EN 319, TS EN 311 and TS EN 317 standards, respectively. Five samples for each group were tested. Mechanical properties testing were performed on Zwick Z010 (10KN).
2.4. Data analysis Design-Expert® Version 7,0,3 statistical software program was used for statistical analysis.
1666
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Particleboards were produced in the density range of 565-672 kg/m3. In this study, mechanical (bending strength, modulus of elasticity, internal bond strength and surface stability) and physical (thickness swelling and water absorption) properties of all samples were determined. All values of the particlesboards produced with MIP were summarized in Table 2. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation values were given for each group in the table. ANOVA (analysis of variance) were performed and Interaction graphs (Figure 1-3) were presented. Table 2. Mechanical properties of Particleboards Group
Bending strength (MPa)
Modulus of elasticity (MPa)
Internal bond strength (MPa)
Surface stability (MPa)
Thickness swelling (%)
Water absorption (%)
1
13.67 (1.51)*
2312,24 (139,97)
0,418 (0,06)
1,02 (0,04)
17,74 (3,10)
94,01 (7,15)
2
15,7 (2,47)
2646,76 (359,12)
0,483 (0,078)
1,31 (0,14)
12,52 (1,24)
80,92 (6,64)
3
17,63 (5,34)
2664,39 (487,88)
0,518 (0,172)
1,19 (0,24)
10,32 (2,16)
90,29 (15,09)
4
18,22 (5,79)
2801,54 (593,49)
0,652 (0,199)
1,31 (0,35)
8,51 (1,10)
67,82 (6,45)
5
7,16 (0,71)
1687,39 (94,04)
0,046 (0,009)
0,39 (0,03)
32,89 (1,62)
107,73 (5,97)
6
8,59 (1,78)
1664,08 (207,26)
0,082 (0,029)
0,56 (0,08)
32,50 (4,34)
101,81 (6,28)
7
9,73 (1,76)
1889,16 (256,09)
0,167 (0,033)
0,53 (0,05)
17,89 (2,12)
72,63 (0,66)
8
10,02 (1,39)
1982,99 (438,84)
0,238 (0,046)
0,98 (0,12)
13,68 (0,52)
99,34 (6,22)
9
5,02 (1,78)
718,98 (457,70)
0,028 (0,004)
0,27 (0,15)
62,80 (3,49)
100,84 (2,08)
10
8,76 (2,27)
1854,80 (300,44)
0,128 (0,034)
0,53 (0,07)
30,57 (3,10)
102,92 (11,43)
11
9,80 (3,71)
1945,76 (498,16)
0,117 (0,028)
0,55 (0,03)
22,58 (2,51)
82,97 (2,00)
12
10,25 (1,29)
1986,02 (166,67)
0,192 (0,017)
0,68 (0,23)
16,75 (0,72)
71,93 (2,58)
Standard
≥ 13
Min. 1600
≥ 0,35
≥ 0,8
Max. 15
Max. 80
ID
* Values in parenthesis are standard deviations.
The graph of internal bond strength was given in Figure 1. Based on results, MIP size and rate has significant effect on internal bond strength (P
