Next Article in Journal
Exhaust Gases from Skidder ECOTRAC 140 V Diesel Engine
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization on the Copolymerization Resin between Bayberry (Myrica rubra) Tannin and Pre-Polymers of Conventional Urea–Formaldehyde Resin
Previous Article in Journal
Diversity Monitoring of Coexisting Birds in Urban Forests by Integrating Spectrograms and Object-Based Image Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Factors Affecting Creep of Wood–Plastic Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/f13020271
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Use of Agave durangensis Bagasse Fibers in the Production of Wood-Based Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF)

by
Oswaldo Moreno-Anguiano
1,
Alain Cloutier
2,
José Guadalupe Rutiaga-Quiñones
3,
Christian Wehenkel
4,
Rigoberto Rosales-Serna
5,
Pamela Rebolledo
6,
Claudia E. Hernández-Pacheco
7 and
Artemio Carrillo-Parra
4,*
1
Programa Institucional de Doctorado en Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales (PIDCAF), Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango (UJED), Río Papaloapan y Boulevard Durango, Col. Valle del Sur, Durango 34120, Dgo, Mexico
2
Centre de Recherche sur les Matériaux Renouvables (CRMR), Département des Sciences du Bois et de la Forêt, Université Laval, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
3
Facultad de Ingeniería en Tecnología de la Madera (FITECMA), Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo (UMSNH), Avenida Gral. Francisco J. Múgica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Morelia, Mich 58040, Mexico
4
Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera (ISIMA), Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango (UJED), Boulevard del Guadiana 501, Ciudad Universitaria, Torre de Investigación, Durango 34120, Dgo, Mexico
5
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Carretera Durango-El Mezquital km 4.5, Durango 34120, Dgo, Mexico
6
Centre d’Innovation des Produits Cellulosiques (INNOFIBRE), Cégep de Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC G9A 5E1, Canada
7
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Durango (CIIDIR), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Sigma 119, Fraccionamiento 20 de Noviembre II, Durango 34120, Dgo, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(2), 271; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020271
Submission received: 12 January 2022 / Revised: 25 January 2022 / Accepted: 28 January 2022 / Published: 8 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wood-Based Products and Renewable Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is an increasing interest in using non-wood lignocellulosic materials for the production of wood-based medium density fiberboard (MDF). Agave durangensis Gentry bagasse is a waste product produced in large quantities in the mezcal industry. This study evaluated the incorporation of A. durangensis bagasse fibers (ADBF) to elaborate MDF wood-based panels. Three types of panels with different ratios (wood fibers: bagasse fibers) were investigated. The ratios evaluated were 100:0, 90:10, and 70:30. The density profiles, water absorption, and thickness swell of the panels were determined, as well as the modulus of elasticity (MOE), modulus of rupture (MOR), and internal bond (IB), according to the ASTM D1037-06a standard. The results were compared to the ANSI A208.2-2016 standard. The effect of the addition of ADBF on the properties of the panels was analyzed. Density profiles were comparable among the three types of panels, while water absorption, thickness swelling, MOE, MOR, and IB were similar between panels with ratios of 100:0 and 90:10. Panels with 10% and 30% of ADBF meet the minimum ANSI requirements for quality grade 115. It is feasible to use up to 30% of ADBF in the manufacture of wood-based MDF panels.

1. Introduction

The demand for wood-based panels is increasing rapidly year after year. Fiberboards are among the panels that are increasingly in demand. According to ANSI A208.2-2016, medium density fiberboard (MDF) is recognized as a fiberboard panel of density between 500 and 1000 kg·m–3 [1]. Medium density fiberboard is a panel composed of cellulosic fibers bonded with resin under heat and pressure. Medium density fiberboards have a wide application for non-structural uses [2], such as in the home and office furniture markets [3]. There are many advantages that distinguish MDF from other panels including edge screwing, painting properties, and good machining [4].
Wood is commonly used as raw material for the manufacture of MDF [5]. However, the increasing demand for forest resources for different uses has led to the shortage of wood supply. Therefore, the supply of raw material cannot meet the demand of the wood industry in many regions of the world [6,7]. This is why it is necessary to search for new lignocellulosic materials that may help to fulfill the requirements of the forest products industry [8,9,10]. These alternative lignocellulosic materials comprise forest harvesting residues such as bark, annual plants, residues from wood products and furniture industries, residues from pulp mills, and recycled paper [6]. However, non-wood fiber has acquired great relevance as a sustainable natural fiber resource for composite products. The use of agricultural fibers as composite panel material is common in many parts of the planet [2]. There is interest in agricultural residues, which are generated on a large scale worldwide [9].
In recent years, the use of various non-woody fibers in the production of MDF panels have been studied. Rhododendron [6], canola [11] and wheat straw [5], kenaf [12], oil palm stem [13], coffee bean residues [14], banana leaf stem and lamina [15], okra [8], sugarcane bagasse [4], sunflower and corn stalk [16], and hemp [17] were considered, among others. However, there are still several fibers that have not been used in the production of wood-based MDF, including bagasse from Agave durangensis Gentry.
Agave bagasse is the waste that remains after the boiled agave heads are shredded and ground and the sugars are removed with water. Bagasse fibers could be used to elaborate a broad variety of products such as filters, absorbents, geotextiles, fiberboard, packaging, and molded products [18]. When one liter of mezcal is produced, it generates 15 to 20 kg of bagasse [19]. In 2019, 178,625 L of mezcal were produced in the state of Durango, Mexico [20]. That year, it is estimated that 2679 to 3572 tons of wet base agave bagasse were produced [21]. The objective of this work was to determine the effect of A. durangensis bagasse fibers on the physical and mechanical properties of wood-based MDF panels.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

For this work, A. durangensis bagasse fibers (ADBF) and wood fibers (WF) were used to manufacture the panels. The ADBF was donated by Productora de mezcal Hacienda Dolores located in Durango, Dgo, Mexico. The WF were a mixture of spruce, fir, and pine and were donated by the Uniboard plant company located in Mont-Laurier, Quebec, Canada. The adhesive used was urea formaldehyde (UF) (Table 1) donated by Hexion located in St. Romuald, Quebec, Canada.

2.2. Manufacture of MDF Panels

The panels were produced at the Composite Panel Laboratory of the Department of Wood and Forest Sciences at Université Laval in Québec, QC, Canada. Three replicates of each panel type were produced for this study (Table 2).
The adhesive and wax were applied to the fiber in a rotary drum blender, using 14% resin and 1% wax (by weight of the dry fiber), and NH4Cl at 25% catalyst was added to the resin to lower its pH. Once the furnish was formed, it was taken through a ring refiner (Pallman PSKM8-450) to separate the fiber aggregates formed during blending in the drum. The fiber mat was formed using the refined furnish. It was carried out manually using a wooden mold with the dimensions established for the board. The formed mat was pre-pressed before hot pressing. The hot pressing was performed in a Dieffenbacher hot press. The panels had dimensions of 760 by 760 mm, a target thickness of 12 mm, and a target density of 700 kg·m–3.

2.3. Physical and Mechanical Properties of MDF Panels

The vertical density profile of the manufactured MDF panels was determined using a Quintek X-Ray densimeter (QMS Core Model QPRS-01x and QMS Particleboard Model QDP-01x). The physical and mechanical properties of the panels were determined according to ASTM D1037-06a [22] and ANSI A208.2-2016 [1]. The physical properties evaluated were water absorption and thickness swell at 2 and 24 h, while the mechanical properties determined were internal bond (IB), modulus of elasticity (MOE), and modulus of rupture (MOR). The number of specimens for each test and their characteristics are shown in Table 3. The specimens used for the density profile were the same as those used in the IB tests. The specimens were conditioned for 15 days at 65% relative humidity and 22 °C. The mechanical tests were carried out in an MTS universal mechanical testing machine with a capacity of 5 kN.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Completely randomized design was used to analyze the data for each variable. Data were analyzed using R Studio software [23]. A Shapiro–Wilk test was used to analyze the normality of data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p ≤ 0.05) and comparison of means with Tukey test were performed. Furthermore, Pearson correlation analyses were performed between average density, and water absorption and thickness swell. Additionally, Pearson correlation analyses were performed between internal cohesion and average, maximum, and minimum densities.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Panels Density

The density profiles for the three types of MDF panels are presented in Figure 1. It shows a higher density near the surfaces, while the center of the panels presented a decrease in density. According to Halvarsson et al. [24], in MDF panels with this type of density profile, it is the more compressed fibers of the high-density surface layers that expand the most when the MDF samples are immersed in water for 24 h, thus causing swelling. The panels with 10 and 30% of ADBF presented a similar density profile to the WF panel (Figure 1A). However, there is a minimal difference between the profiles, which may be caused by the ADBF; therefore, it is likely that this small difference influences the properties of these panels. The density profile is related to the performance of the panel. A deep density profile allows the board to better laminate, glue, and finish due to the high density of the surface [25]. On the other hand, when the density profile is more flat, it can reduce the bending properties of the panels [26].
The highest average density was obtained for MDFC (749 kg·m–3), followed by MDF30 (738 kg·m–3) and MDF10 (735 kg·m–3). The higher maximum density was obtained by MDFC (995 kg·m–3), while the minimum density was obtained for MDF30 (390 kg·m–3). There are no statistically significant differences between the three types of panels in the average, but there are for the maximum density, with MDFC being different from MDF10 and MDF30, while for the minimum density, MDFC showed a significant difference with MDF30 (Figure 1B). The p value of the ANOVA test for average, maximum, and minimum density of the panels is shown in Table 4. Panels did not present statistically significant difference in average density, while in maximum and minimum densities, there was significant difference.

3.2. Water Absorption and Thickness Swell

Water absorption and thickness swelling after 2 and 24 h in water immersion are shown in Figure 2. The lowest water absorption (Figure 2A) at 2 and 24 h was obtained for MDFC (3.7% and 18.9%, respectively), while MDF30 had the highest absorption at 2 (4.7%) and 24 h (22.4%). There were no significant differences between MDFC and MDF10 in water absorption at 2 and 24 h; however, there were significant differences between these and MDF30. The lowest thickness swelling (Figure 2B) was presented by MDFC at both 2 (0.9%) and 24 h (4.5%), followed by MDF10 (1.1% and 4.9%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between MDF10 and the other panels for thickness swell at 2 h, but there was between MDFC and MDF30. Statistically significant differences were found between the three types of panels in thickness swell at 24 h.
Table 5 shows the p value of ANOVA test for WA and TS after 2 and 24 h in water immersion of the panels. The panels presented statistically significant difference in WA and TS, both at 2 and 24 h.
The results indicate that ADBF decreases the resistance of the panels to water absorption and swelling in thickness. According to Moreno-Anguiano et al. [21], fiber of bagasse of A. durangensis contains 32.4% extractives, 44.7% holocellulose, 7.6% lignin, and 12.6% ash. Thus, the high content of extractives present in ADBF could have caused poor gluing of these fibers, due to the migration of extractives to the surface after high pressing temperatures [27]. On the other hand, Xing et al. [10] stated that excessive curing of the UF resin in the surface layers of the panel may also have caused high thickness swelling. In addition, agricultural residues have a higher buffer capacity compared to wood [28]. These aspects remain to be investigated further.
Water absorption is a property of panels related to their dimensional stability, which has been studied by several authors. Despite water absorption is reported in the literature, it is not a characteristic evaluated in the ANSI A208.2-2016 standard. The results obtained for WA in MDF10 and MDF30 panels are lower than those reported by Akgül [29] for MDF made with 10–90%, and 30–70% of Urtica dioica L. stem-wood fiber, respectively. Akgül [29] indicates that the addition of Urtica dioica stem fiber to the panels reduced their physical properties; nonetheless, they still met the standards. Similarly, MDF30 showed lower WA than those obtained by Akgül and Tozluoğlu [30] on MDF from Arachis hypogaea L. husk and wood fibers. These authors report that Arachis hypogea husk could be added up to 30% for the production of MDF.
The TS values obtained are lower than those reported by other authors for panels made from wood and non-wood fiber [31,32,33]. Lee et al. [31] evaluated MDF manufactured from blends of sugar cane bagasse and tallow tree fibers. They found that the maximum percentage to manufacture MDF is 50% without impact on thickness swelling. Whereas Akgül et al. [32] produced MDF with mixtures of pine wood and corn stalks, and they mentioned that the addition of corn stalks reduced the panel properties.
The TS (expressed in mm) at 2 and 24 h of immersion is plotted as a function of average density in Figure 3. The TS values presented by the panels meets the maximum required by ANSI A208.2-2016 for medium density fiberboard.
The Pearson correlation among average density values and water absorption and thickness swelling is presented in Table 6. There is a significant correlation between the average density of MDF30 and water absorption after 24 h, which is a strong positive correlation. On the other hand, there is no significant correlation between the rest of the variables.

3.3. Internal Bond

Internal bond was higher in MDFC (0.84 N·mm–2), while the lowest resistance was presented by MDF30 (0.70 N·mm–2). MDF10 had an internal bond of 0.83 N·mm–2. There are no statistically significant differences between MDF10 and MDFC; similarly, there are no significant differences between MDFC and MDF30. The presence of 10% ADBF does not affect the internal bonding strength with respect to MDFC panels; however, increasing the percentage of ADBF to 30 decreases. The internal bonding strength showed by the panels with ADBF meets the minimum required by ANSI A208.2-2016. The MDF10 panels reach grade 155 while MDF30 meets grade 130 (Figure 4).
The results obtained for IB are higher than those reported by other authors for panels with similar proportions of wood fiber and non-wood fiber. Gillah et al. [34] reported an IB of 0.48 N·mm–2 for sisal and wood fiber panels, in which their IB was reduced with the addition of sisal fibers. Abdul et al. [35] indicated an IB of 0.73 N·mm–2 for oil palm empty fruit bunch and rubber wood panels. They also reported that the increase of non-wood fibers into the panels decreased their properties. On the other hand, Belini et al. [36] obtained an IB of 0.58 N·mm–2 for eucalyptus and bagasse fiber panels with a ratio of 75:25%. Nevertheless, the IB increased to 0.80 N·mm–2 when a ratio of 50:50% was used.
The decrease of IB in MDF30 panels may be caused by the high presence of extractives in bagasse fibers. Regularly, extractives modify the properties of lignocellulosic materials, which, in turn, alters their adhesion properties [37]. It is possible that the waxes in the bagasse fibers are incompatible with phenolic resins because of their different polarities. Thus, the adhesive decreases its ability to penetrate the lignocellulosic material, resulting in a lower resistance to internal bond of the panels [38].
Table 7 shows the Pearson correlation between internal bond and the different densities obtained in the X-ray densitometer. Neither of the MDF panels presented significant correlations between internal cohesion and average, maximum and minimum density.

3.4. Modulus of Elasticity (MOE) and Modulus of Rupture (MOR)

Figure 5 shows the values of the modulus of elasticity and modulus of rupture obtained for each type of board. MDFC panels presented the highest MOE (1955 N·mm–2); nevertheless, there is no significant difference between them and MDF10 (1786 N·mm–2). On the other hand, MDF30 panels had the lowest MOE (1526 N·mm–2), which was significantly different from MDFC and MDF10 (Figure 5A). Regarding the MOR, the highest average value was shown by MDFC (17.8 N·mm–2), followed by MDF10 (17.6 N·mm–2); however, there were no significant differences between them. On the other hand, MDF30 panels obtained the lowest value (13.2 N·mm–2) and were significantly different from MDFC and MDF10 (Figure 5B). The MOE and MOR values are lower than those reported by other authors for processed wood fiber and non-wood fibers MDF panels using fiber ratios similar to this work. Çöpür et al. [39] report MOE of 2320 and 2852 N·mm–2 and MOR of 18.6 N·mm–2 for panels made from hazelnut shells and fibers of Pinus nigra and Fagus orientalis. They stated that up to 20% of hazelnut shells could be utilized to manufacture panels which meet the standards. Akgül et al. [40] indicate MOE of 4035 N·mm–2 and MOR of 27.1 N·mm–2 in corn stalk and oak wood panels. In their case, the incorporation of corn stalk did not increase the MOE and MOR of the panels. Although the MOE and MOR of the present work were lower than other reported, MDF10 and MDF30 panels met the minimum value required by ANSI A208.2-2016 in MOE and MOR for grade 115 panels.
The decrease in mechanical properties of MDF30 panels may be due to the presence of small particles in the ADBF and the minimal contact between them [33]. The pH of the ADBF is another factor that could reduce the mechanical strength of the panels. Moreno et al. [21] report that A. durangensis bagasse fiber has a pH of 5.8. According to Baharoglu et al. [41], materials with low pH result in panels with low strength properties, because adhesive curing occurs before hot pressing when the pH of the fibers is low [42]. When fibers with lower pH and UF resin are used in the MDF industry, it is expected to result in a higher degree of pre-curing during drying [43]. Nevertheless, UF is an adhesive that cures better in an acidic environment [44]. The aforementioned is in agreement with the results obtained by Park et al. [45], who reported that high alkalinity fibers retarded the curing of UF in MDF. According to Stefke and Dunky [46], the condensation reactions of UF resin take place during the hardening process causing a cross-linked condition and thus developing the internal bond between the fibers. UF preferably needs a low pH for the above to take place.

4. Conclusions

The results show that the incorporation of A. durangensis bagasse fiber does not affect the physical and mechanical properties of wood-based MDF panels. The MDF panels made with 10% of ADBF did not present significant differences in their physical and mechanical properties with the wood-based panels, except for the thickness swelling after 24 h. In contrast, panels with 30% ADBF showed significant differences from wood fiber panels. However, both panels with 10% and 30% of ADBF meet the requirements of grade 115 for medium density fiberboard for interior applications according to the American National Standard. Density did not correlate concerning water absorption and thickness swelling, except for the MDF30 board after 24 h. The densities did not present correlation with internal bonding. The addition of ADBF to panels did not affect the type of density profile of panels; however, the ADBF reduced the density of the MDF panels. These findings demonstrate the potential of A. durangensis bagasse fiber to be used as a complement in the manufacture of wood-based MDF panels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.-P. and O.M.-A.; methodology, A.C.-P., O.M.-A., A.C. and P.R.; software, O.M.-A. and C.W.; validation, A.C.-P., O.M.-A. and J.G.R.-Q.; formal analysis, A.C.-P., O.M.-A., R.R.-S. and J.G.R.-Q.; investigation, O.M.-A. and A.C.; resources, A.C., R.R.-S. and C.E.H.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, O.M.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.C.-P., A.C., P.R., J.G.R.-Q., C.W. and C.E.H.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the first author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Centre de Recherche sur les Matériaux Renouvables of Université Laval for the support and facilities granted to carry out this work. The authors also thank the Programa Institucional de Doctorado en Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales (PIDCAF) for its support. Finally, the authors express their gratitude to CONACYT for the doctoral scholarship awarded to Oswaldo Moreno-Anguiano.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ANSI A208.2. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) for Interior Applications; American National Standard Institute: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Indrayani, Y.; Setyawati, D.; Yoshimura, T.; Umemura, K. Termite resistance of medium density fibreboard produced from renewable biomass of agricultural fibre. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2014, 20, 767–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Taghiyari, H.R.; Majidi, R.; Arsalan, M.G.; Moradiyan, A.; Militz, H.; Ntalos, G.; Papadopoulos, A.N. Penetration of different liquids in wood-based composites: The effect of adsorption energy. Forests 2021, 12, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdellah, M.Y.; Fahmy, H.S.; Abdel-Jaber, G.T.; Hashem, A.M. Characteristic properties of glass fiber reinforced sugarcane bagasse medium density fiber board. Ciênc. Tecnol. Mater. 2017, 29, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Halvarsson, S.; Edlund, H.; Norgren, M. Manufacture of non-resin wheat straw fiberboards. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2009, 29, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akgül, M.; Çamlibel, O. Manufacture of medium density fiberboard (MDF) panels from rhododendron (R. ponticum L.) biomass. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Taghiyari, H.R.; Mohammad-Panah, B.; Morrel, J.J. Effects of wollastonite on the properties of medium-density fiberboard (MDF) made from wood fibers and camel-thorn. Maderas. Cienc. Tecnol. 2016, 18, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Akgül, M.; Uner, B.; Çamlibel, O.; Ayata, U. Manufacture of medium density fiberboard (MDF) panels from agribased lignocellulosic biomass. J. Wood Sci. 2017, 62, 615–624. [Google Scholar]
  9. Silva, D.W.; Scatolino, M.V.; do Prado, N.R.T.; Mendes, R.F.; Mendes, L.M. Addition of different proportions of castor husk and pine wood in particleboards. Waste Biomass Valor. 2018, 9, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xing, C.; Deng, J.; Zhang, S.Y.; Riedl, B.; Cloutier, A. Impact of bark content on the properties of medium density fiberboard (MDF) in four species grown in eastern Canada. For. Prod. J. 2006, 56, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yousefi, H. Canola straw as a bio-waste resource for medium density fiberboard (MDF) manufacture. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2644–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aisyah, H.A.; Paridah, M.T.; Sahri, M.H.; Anwar, U.M.K.; Astimar, A.A. Properties of medium density fibreboard (MDF) from kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) core as function of refining conditions. Compos. B Eng. 2013, 44, 592–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ibrahim, Z.; Aziz, A.A.; Ramli, R.; Mokhtar, A.; Lee, S. Effect of refining parameters on medium density fibreboard (MDF) properties from oil palm trunk (Elaeis guineensis). Open J. Compos. Mater. 2013, 3, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Yang, I.; Lee, K.; Oh, S. Manufacture and performance evaluation of medium-density fiberboard made with coffee bean residue-wood fiber. J. Korean Wood Sci. Technol. 2013, 41, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rashid, M.M.; Das, A.K.; Shams, M.I.; Biswas, S.K. Physical and mechanical properties of medium density fiber board (MDF) fabricated from banana plant (Musa sapientum) stem and midrib. J. Indian Acad. Wood Sci. 2014, 11, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ashori, A.; Nourbakhsh, A. Bio-based composites from waste agricultural residues. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 680–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mihailova, J.; Savov, V.; Grigorov, R. Utilization of mass of industrial hemp in the production of medium-density fibreboards (MDF). J. Anatol. Environ. Anim. Sci. 2019, 4, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Iñiguez-Covarrubias, G.; Lange, S.E.; Rowell, R.M. Utilization of byproducts from the tequila industry: Part 1: Agave bagasse as a raw material for animal feeding and fiberboard production. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ilangovan, K.; Linerio, J.; Álvarez, E.; Briones, M.; Noyola, A. Anaerobic treatment of tequila vinasse. In Environmental Biotechnology and Cleaner Bioprocesses; Olguin, E.J., Sanchez, G., Hernandez, E., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2010; pp. 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  20. CRM. Informe Estadístico 2020. Available online: http://www.crm.org.mx/PDF/INF_ACTIVIDADES/INFORME2019.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  21. Moreno-Anguiano, O.; Carrilo-Parra, A.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Wehenkel, C.; Pompa-García, M.; Márquez-Montesino, F.; Pintor-Ibarra, L.F. Chemical composition of Luffa aegyptiaca Mill., Agave durangensis Gentry and Pennisetum sp. PeerJ 2021, 9, e10626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. ASTM D1037. Standard Test Methods for Evaluating Properties of Wood-Based Fiber and Particle Panel Materials; American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  23. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Halvarsson, S.; Edlund, H.; Norgren, M. Wheat straw as raw material for manufacture of medium density fiberboard (MDF). Bioresources 2010, 5, 1215–1231. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, S.; Winistorfer, P.M.; Young, T.M.; Helton, C. Step-closing pressing of medium density fiberboard; Part 1. Influences on the vertical density profiles. Holz Roh Werkst. 2001, 59, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shi, J.L.; Zhang, S.Y.; Riedl, B.; Brunette, G. Flexural properties, internal bond strength, and dimensional stability of medium density fiberboard panels made from hybrid poplar clones. Wood Fiber Sci. 2005, 37, 629–637. [Google Scholar]
  27. Faria, D.L.; Scatolino, M.V.; Lopes, T.A.; Júnior, L.M.; Mota, G.S.; Júnior, J.B.G.; Mendes, L.M.; Soriano, J. Performance of glulam beams produced with free-formaldehyde adhesive and underexploited rubber wood treated with preservatives solutions of chromated copper borate and pyrethroids. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2019, 112, 1145–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hosseinkhani, H.; Euring, M.; Kharazipour, A. Utilization of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) pruning residues as raw material for MDF manufacturing. J. Mater. Sci. Res. 2015, 4, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Akgül, M. Suitability of stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) stalks for medium density fiberboards production. Compos. B Eng. 2013, 45, 925–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Akgül, M.; Tozluoğlu, A. Utilizing peanut husk (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the manufacture of medium-density fiberboards. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5590–5594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lee, S.; Shupe, T.F.; Hse, C. Utilization of Chinese tallow tree and bagasse for medium density fiberboard. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  32. Akgül, M.; Güler, C.; Çöpür, Y. Certain physical and mechanical properties of medium density fiberboards manufactured from blends of corn (Zea mays indurata Sturt.) stalks and pine (Pinus nigra) wood. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2010, 34, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Akgül, M.; Korkut, S.; Çamlibel, O.; Ayata, Ü. Some chemical properties of Luffa and its suitability for medium density fiberboard (MDF) production. Bioresources 2013, 8, 1709–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gilla, P.R.; Irle, M.A.; Amartey, S.A. Development and production of laboratory scale novel MDF panels from composite and nonwoven mattresses of sisal and wood fibre mixtures. Holz Roh Werkst. 2000, 58, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Abdul Khalil, H.P.S.; Nur Firdaus, M.Y.; Jawaid, M.; Anis, M.; Ridzuan, R.; Mohamed, A.R. Development and material properties of new hybrid medium density fibreboard from empty fruit bunch and rubberwood. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 4229–4236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Belini, U.G.; Filho, M.T.; Louzada, J.L.P.C.; Rodrigues, J.C.C.; Astolphi, J.R.S. Pilot study for MDF manufacture from sugarcane bagasse and eucalyptus fibers. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2012, 70, 537–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gadhave, R.V.; Mahanwar, P.A.; Gadekar, P.T. Factor affecting gel time/process-ability of urea formaldehyde resin based wood adhesives. Open J. Polym. Chem. 2017, 7, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Hse, C.Y.; Kuo, M.I. Influence of extractives on wood gluing and finishing—A review. For. Prod. J. 1998, 38, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
  39. Çöpür, Y.; Güler, C.; Taşçioğlu, C.; Tozluoğlu, A. Incorporation of hazelnut shell and husk in MDF production. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7402–7406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Akgül, M.; Güler, C.; Üner, B. Opportunities in utilization of agricultural residues in bio-composite production: Corn stalk (Zea mays indurata Sturt) and oak wood (Quercus Robur L.) fiber in medium density fiberboard. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 5090–5098. [Google Scholar]
  41. Baharoglu, M.; Nemli, G.; Sarı, B.; Birtürk, T.; Bardak, S. Effects of anatomical and chemical properties of wood on the quality of particleboard. Compos. B Eng. 2013, 52, 282–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nemli, G.; Yıldız, S.; Gezer, E.D. The potential for using the needle litter of Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) as a raw material for particleboard manufacturing. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6054–6058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Xing, C.; Zhang, S.Y.; Deng, J.; Riedl, B.; Cloutier, A. Medium-density fiberboard performance as affected by wood fiber acidity, bulk density, and size distribution. Wood Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Poblete, H.; Burgos, R. Eucalyptus nitens como materia prima para tableros de partículas. Maderas. Cienc. Tecnol. 2010, 12, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Park, B.D.; Kim, Y.S.; Riedl, B. Effect of wood-fiber characteristics on medium density fiberboard (MDF) performance. Korean Wood Sci. Technol. 2001, 29, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stefke, B.; Dunky, M. Catalytic influence of wood on the hardening behavior of formaldehyde-based resin adhesives used for wood-based panels. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2006, 20, 761–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 13 00271 g001 550
Figure 1. Density of MDF panels. (A) Density profiles of the average of eight samples of MDF panels. (B) Types of density of the panels obtained from the X-ray densitometry. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 1. Density of MDF panels. (A) Density profiles of the average of eight samples of MDF panels. (B) Types of density of the panels obtained from the X-ray densitometry. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05).
Forests 13 00271 g001
Forests 13 00271 g002 550
Figure 2. Dimensional stability. (A) Water absorption after 2 and 24 h of submersion of MDF panels. (B) Thickness swelling after 2 and 24 h of submersion of MDF panels. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 2. Dimensional stability. (A) Water absorption after 2 and 24 h of submersion of MDF panels. (B) Thickness swelling after 2 and 24 h of submersion of MDF panels. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05).
Forests 13 00271 g002
Forests 13 00271 g003 550
Figure 3. Thickness swell as function of density of MDF panels. (A) Thickness swell after 2 h as a function of density of MDF panels. (B) Thickness swell after 24 h as a function of density of MDF panels. The dotted line represents the maximum TS for panels < 15 mm according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Figure 3. Thickness swell as function of density of MDF panels. (A) Thickness swell after 2 h as a function of density of MDF panels. (B) Thickness swell after 24 h as a function of density of MDF panels. The dotted line represents the maximum TS for panels < 15 mm according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Forests 13 00271 g003
Forests 13 00271 g004 550
Figure 4. Internal bond of MDF panels (A) Internal bond of MDF panels. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05). p value of ANOVA for internal bond is 0.0195. (B) Internal bond as a function of density of MDF panels. Lines represent MDF standard requirement for 115, 130, and 155 grades according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Figure 4. Internal bond of MDF panels (A) Internal bond of MDF panels. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05). p value of ANOVA for internal bond is 0.0195. (B) Internal bond as a function of density of MDF panels. Lines represent MDF standard requirement for 115, 130, and 155 grades according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Forests 13 00271 g004
Forests 13 00271 g005 550
Figure 5. (A) Modulus of elasticity of MDF panels. p value of ANOVA for modulus of elasticity is 9.84 × 10−5. (B) Modulus of rupture of MDF panels. p value of ANOVA for modulus of rupture is 6.50 × 10−6. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05). Dotted lines represent MDF standard requirement for 115 and 130 grades according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Figure 5. (A) Modulus of elasticity of MDF panels. p value of ANOVA for modulus of elasticity is 9.84 × 10−5. (B) Modulus of rupture of MDF panels. p value of ANOVA for modulus of rupture is 6.50 × 10−6. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant difference among panels by Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05). Dotted lines represent MDF standard requirement for 115 and 130 grades according to ANSI A208.2-2016.
Forests 13 00271 g005
Table
Table 1. Properties of urea formaldehyde adhesive.
Table 1. Properties of urea formaldehyde adhesive.
PropertiesUnitValue
Appearance Clear to white liquid
Solids content(%)67.00 ± 1.00
Specific Gravity(kg·m–3)1.305 ± 0.010
ViscositycPs335 ± 75
pH @ 25 °C 8.20 ± 0.20
Buffer capacitymL11.5 ± 3.0
Storage life 25 °C (77 °F)Days21
Table
Table 2. Types of panels and their ratios of raw material used.
Table 2. Types of panels and their ratios of raw material used.
Type of PanelRaw Material (%)
Wood Fibers (WF)A. durangensis Bagasse Fibers (ADBF)
MDFC1000
MDF109010
MDF307030
MDFC: Medium-density fiberboard manufactured with 100% of WF; MDF10: Medium density fiberboard produced with 90% of WF and 10% of ADBF; MDF30: Medium density fiberboard elaborated with 70% of WF and 30% of ADBF.
Table
Table 3. Tests and samples sizes and number. The samples used for WA2h, WA24h, TS2h, and TS24h tests were the same.
Table 3. Tests and samples sizes and number. The samples used for WA2h, WA24h, TS2h, and TS24h tests were the same.
TestSymbolSize (mm)Samples per PanelSamples per Type of Panel
Water absorption after 2 hWA2h150 × 150412
Water absorption after 24 hWA2h
Thickness swell 2 hTS2h
Thickness swell 24 hTS24h
Internal bondIB50 × 50618
Modulus of elasticityMOE75 × 339618
Modulus of ruptureMOR
Table
Table 4. p value of ANOVA test for average, maximum, and minimum density of the panels.
Table 4. p value of ANOVA test for average, maximum, and minimum density of the panels.
Type of Densityp Value
Average0.4565
Maximum3.08 × 10−7 *
Minimum0.0268 *
* Statistically significant difference for p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 5. p value of ANOVA for WA and TS at 2 and 24 h of submersion of the panels.
Table 5. p value of ANOVA for WA and TS at 2 and 24 h of submersion of the panels.
Propertyp Value
WA2h1.29 × 10−6 *
WA24h0.000269 *
TS2h0.000162 *
TS24h1.05 × 10−5 *
* Statistically significant difference for p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Pearson correlation for average density values and water absorption and thickness swelling of MDF panels.
Table 6. Pearson correlation for average density values and water absorption and thickness swelling of MDF panels.
WA2hWA24hTS2hTS24h
MDFCCorrelation−0.3007−0.10490.20980.1049
Significance0.340.750.510.75
MDF10Correlation−0.04030.2134−0.4775−0.312
Significance0.900.510.120.32
MDF30Correlation0.54120.6124 *0.34340.3272
Significance0.070.030.270.30
* Significant correlation (p ≤ 0.05).
Table
Table 7. Pearson correlation for different density values and internal bond of MDF panels.
Table 7. Pearson correlation for different density values and internal bond of MDF panels.
Test Average DensityMaximum DensityMinimum Density
MDFCCorrelation−0.1490.0270.181
Significance0.560.910.47
MDF10Correlation0.4250.2900.286
Significance0.080.240.25
MDF30Correlation−0.0050.1470.234
Significance0.980.560.35
Significant correlation (p ≤ 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moreno-Anguiano, O.; Cloutier, A.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, J.G.; Wehenkel, C.; Rosales-Serna, R.; Rebolledo, P.; Hernández-Pacheco, C.E.; Carrillo-Parra, A. Use of Agave durangensis Bagasse Fibers in the Production of Wood-Based Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF). Forests 2022, 13, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020271

AMA Style

Moreno-Anguiano O, Cloutier A, Rutiaga-Quiñones JG, Wehenkel C, Rosales-Serna R, Rebolledo P, Hernández-Pacheco CE, Carrillo-Parra A. Use of Agave durangensis Bagasse Fibers in the Production of Wood-Based Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF). Forests. 2022; 13(2):271. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moreno-Anguiano, Oswaldo, Alain Cloutier, José Guadalupe Rutiaga-Quiñones, Christian Wehenkel, Rigoberto Rosales-Serna, Pamela Rebolledo, Claudia E. Hernández-Pacheco, and Artemio Carrillo-Parra. 2022. "Use of Agave durangensis Bagasse Fibers in the Production of Wood-Based Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF)" Forests 13, no. 2: 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop