Evaluation of formaldehyde emission from particleboard using the large chamber and desiccator method at various loading ratios

An Investigation on Formaldehyde Emission Characteristics of Wood Building Materials in Chinese Standard Tests: Product Emission Levels, Measurement Uncertainties, and Data Correlations between Various Tests

“…Similar to the 40 L desiccator method (as illustrated in Fig 4 , and the corresponding discussion), products of the E1 grade (in the 5 materials in this research) identified by the environmental chamber method (the E1 grade products = the flooring and the parquet) were slightly different from those identified by the perforator extraction method and the 9–11 L desiccator method (the E1 grade products = the blockboard and the parquet, as illustrated in Figs 2 and 3 , and the corresponding discussion), and this fact ( i . e ., the difference between the perforator, desiccator, and chamber test values) coincided with some published results too [ 54 , 63 , 65 , 70 ]. Like previous reports using the environmental chamber method of the European EN 717–1, and the American ASTM D 6007–02 and ASTM E 1333, this research applying the environmental chamber method of the Chinese GB 18580 also found that the formaldehyde emission value would generally give a tendency of the fiberboard > the particleboard, the particleboard > the flooring, and the blockboard > the parquet, which further reflected the reliability and the accuracy of the Chinese standard test methods [ 53 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 69 ].…”

“…Clearly, products of the E1 grade (in the 5 materials in this research) identified by the 9–11 L desiccator method (the E1 grade products = the blockboard and the parquet) were the same as those identified by the perforator extraction method (as illustrated in Fig 2 , and the corresponding discussion), thus implying their higher similarity [ 49 ]. Like previous reports using the 9–11 L desiccator method of the Japanese JIS A 1460 and the American ASTM D 5582, this research adopting the 9–11 L desiccator method of the Chinese GB 18580 also found that the formaldehyde emission value of the fiberboard would be generally higher than that of the particleboard, which further reflected the reliability and the accuracy of Chinese standard test methods [ 37 , 50 , 63 , 64 , 69 , 70 ].…”

“…In this sense, although the desiccator method avoids a high-temperature extraction step like the perforator extraction method, the increasing humidity in the airtight desiccator during tests caused by the distilled water for sampling would be significantly different from the indoor application, which may affect material physicochemical properties (especially the emittable content of the formaldehyde), possibly leading to a misjudgment on the product quality [ 64 ]. For instance, the particleboard and the parquet with the 9–11 L desiccator test value of the E1 grade can still result in the chamber test value of the E2 grade, while the environmental chamber method has been universally considered the most reliable and accurate method [ 63 , 65 , 70 ].…”

“…the chamber method always give slopes > 1 [ 50 , 54 , 63 , 65 ], which indicates that the formaldehyde emission value characterized by the y method (the dependent variable) would usually be numerically larger than that characterized by the x method (the independent variable), and may be attributed to inherent differences in the physical meaning of formaldehyde emission values between various standard test methods [ 38 ]. Accordingly, once the y method (the dependent variable) and the x method (the independent variable) are exchanged in the relationships, these correlations would yield slopes < 1 [ 50 , 54 , 69 , 70 ].…”

“…Similarly, there would be many factors in details and procedures of formaldehyde emission tests ( e . g ., the product type, the exposed edge of the specimen, and the conditioning period) that affect the data correlations, which should be taken seriously if necessary [ 59 , 70 ].…”