Next Article in Journal
Balancing Sustainability and Profitability: The Financial Effect of Green Innovation in Chinese High-Pollution Industries
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Global Environmental Engagement: The Role of Willingness and Membership in Environmental Action
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083609
sustainability-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Use of Castor Oil Resin on Particleboards: A Systematic Performance Review and Life Cycle Assessment

by
Afonso José Felício Peres Duran
1,
Gabriela Pitolli Lyra
1,
Luiz Eduardo Campos Filho
1,
Romulo Henrique Batista Martins
1,
Cristiane Bueno
2,
João Adriano Rossignolo
3,* and
Juliano Fiorelli
3
1
Material Sciences and Engineering Graduate Program, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, SP, Brazil
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCAR), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
3
Department of Biosystems Engineering, School of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga 13635-900, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3609; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083609
Submission received: 11 March 2025 / Revised: 2 April 2025 / Accepted: 14 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Resin is necessary for the particleboard-manufacturing process since, given its characteristics as a polymeric matrix, it can directly affect these composites’ physical and mechanical properties. In this context, research on using castor-oil-based polyurethane resin (castor oil PU) as a binder in particle panels has been studied to evaluate this material performance and the adhesive efficiency. Some studies indicate that castor-oil-based resin has ecological advantages compared to the use of petroleum-based resins and presents better performance compared with other resins. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review and life cycle assessment focusing on the comparative performance between castor oil PU resin and commercial resins. The comparative panorama developed in this research demonstrated the application potential of the adhesive, presenting studies that obtained better results in the physical and mechanical properties of particle panels that used the castor-oil-based binder. Castor oil PU resin also obtained a good result in the life cycle assessment compared to other resins, with better environmental performance in 12 of the 18 impact categories that were evaluated and standing out in the human toxicity categories. Based on the results, castor oil PU resin is an alternative for more sustainable production, combining good technical performance and lower potential environmental impacts in panel production.

1. Introduction

Particle panels are composite materials produced from wood particles or any other lignocellulosic material as long as they provide mechanical resistance and meet the pre-established density for the desired purpose. Binding these particles together in the panel-pressing process requires the use of adhesive resins, which can be synthetic or natural [1].
Within this context, the resin is fundamentally crucial in the performance of particleboards since its influence on the composite, given aspects, such as the chemical composition, can affect its physical and mechanical properties [2].
According to Solt et al. (2019) [3] and Bekhta et al. (2021) [4], although the resin represents only 2 to 14% of the dry mass of wood in the panels, the cost of the resin can correspond to around 30 to 50% of the total costs of the materials used to produce the panels. Therefore, the importance of controlling and optimizing resin costs in producing particleboards is observed since, even at low concentrations, it significantly impacts the final price of the products.
The adhesive resins currently being used in the manufacturing of particleboards are those of synthetic origins, such as polyvinyl acetate, phenol-formaldehyde, and urea-formaldehyde, and those of organic origin, such as vegetable oil-based polyurethanes [2,5,6].
Due to the low cost of these components, the particleboard industry extensively uses synthetic resins, such as urea-based and phenolic resins [7,8]. However, these adhesive resins are produced using formaldehyde solvent, which has the disadvantage of releasing formaldehyde into the environment. This compound has a characteristic odor and high chemical reactivity and is classified as a carcinogen. Inhaling can cause eye and skin irritation, dizziness, nausea, and respiratory problems due to dry airways [7,9].
According to Arias et al. (2021) [10], due to concerns about the environmental impacts of the most common resins, the development of bio-adhesives from renewable natural resources has been increasing in studies developed since 2010. Within the theme of alternative resins and according to Wilckazk et al. (2019) [8], the use of vegetable oil-derived adhesive resins presents environmental advantages concerning the use of synthetic resins, as it allows for a reduction in the production of waste that is not easily degradable and less formaldehyde emissions into the environment.
Related to the use of vegetable oil-based resins, using castor beans, which are found abundantly in subtropical and tropical regions of Brazil, it is possible to synthesize an adhesive composed of polyols (extracted from castor-based oil) and pre-polymers (isocyanates) which, when mixed, present a reaction that gives rise to polyurethane adhesive [11,12].
Castor-oil-based polyurethane resin (castor oil PU) has excellent potential as a binder in particle panels. Several studies indicate that these composites have better properties than petroleum-derived polymers, highlighting that the raw material base of this product comes from natural and renewable sources. Finally, castor oil PU resin also has the advantage of curing at lower temperatures, in the range of 90–100 °C, compared with formaldehyde-based resins (150–200 °C) [2,12,13].
The IQSC-USP (Institute of Chemistry of São Carlos of the University of São Paulo) was one of the precursors in producing castor oil PU resin. Some initial studies were presented in the early and mid-2000s in the proceedings of the IBRAMEM event (Brazilian Meeting on Woods and Wooden Structures) [14,15,16].
However, the application of castor oil PU resin in particleboards began to gain notoriety in high-profile journals from 2011 onwards. In this sense, the research by Fiorelli et al. (2011) [17] stands out as one of the pioneering studies evaluating the potential of sugarcane bagasse for manufacturing particulate panels. The results of the panels’ physical and mechanical properties were satisfactory, and the authors concluded that the castor oil PU resin demonstrated efficiency as a polymeric matrix in producing composite panels based on sugarcane bagasse.
Within the context of sustainability, the industrial sector has, in recent years, shown great concern related to reducing environmental impacts in its production systems. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology stands out for presenting tools that make it possible to quantify all inputs and outputs of a product system and thus identify the environmental impacts of each step of the process, allowing one to visualize and present possible alternatives that can minimize these impacts or comparatively present the process that generates the lowest environmental impact [18,19,20].
Although there are studies that compare castor oil PU resin and other resins, there is no work that provides a more well-founded review of the technical performance of this resin or the development of a direct comparative life cycle assessment between the production of castor oil PU resin and a commercial resin, evaluating the environmental performance of this adhesive.
Considering the importance of the resin in the production of particleboards and presenting the potential of castor oil PU resin for this purpose, the objective of this article was to systematically review the literature on the use of a castor-oil-based adhesive in the production of particle panels and the development of a comparative LCA between castor oil PU resin and the commercial resins urea–formaldehyde (UF resin) and melamine urea–formaldehyde (MUF resin). In this context, this review focuses on the influence of this resin under different aspects on the performance of these composites, such as the physical and mechanical properties, in addition to possible gaps in studies.

2. Methodology

2.1. Systematic Review Protocol and Selection of Studies of Interest

A systematic literature review was carried out using a protocol based on adaptations of studies by Lima et al. (2021) [21] and Rossignolo et al. (2022) [22] according to the objective of this research to investigate the state-of-the-art concerning the use of the castor oil PU resin in the production of particleboard.
In this article, the Web of Science database was chosen as a search tool due to its credibility in the scientific world and its wide range of coverage. Database research records registered until 2 May 2024 were considered. The search strategy was based on the following phases: identification, screening and eligibility, and final analysis [23,24].
Therefore, two filters were applied initially in the study identification phase (Table 1) using the tools provided by the database. The filters applied were as follows:
-
Filter 1: The keywords should be identified using the descriptor terms in the Web of Science platform studies titles, keywords, or abstracts. Initially, the terms castor oil resin or castor oil adhesive were applied to verify the breadth of the topic.
-
Filter 2: Subsequently, the terms particleboard and oriented strand board (OSB) were included to restrict the proposed topic to the area of interest of this article. Boolean logic was applied, and an asterisk was used in the descriptor term to include plurals and possible variations (castor oil resin or castor oil adhesive) and particleboard*) or (castor oil resin or castor oil adhesive) and (oriented strand board or OSB)).
In the second step, screening and eligibility, consolidated research records were reviewed to ensure consistency with the scope of the review. These articles’ abstracts, introductions, and conclusions were analyzed at this stage, and all records were according to the proposed theme.
In the last step of the search strategy, the evaluation criterion was to select articles that presented comparative information between the castor oil PU resin and other adhesive resins used in the particleboard-manufacturing process, given that in other articles, the focus of the work could be related only to the lignocellulosic or similar material and not the polymeric matrix.
Twelve comparative articles were then selected, and two more not found by refining the search (through additional reading) were subsequently added. These are the studies developed by Uemura Silva et al. (2021) [19] and Sugahara et al. (2023) [25]. For these 14 studies, a complete and in-depth reading process was performed to discuss the influence of castor oil PU resin on the performance of particleboards.
Three more articles that are correlated with the use of castor oil PU resin were added: Panda et al. (2018) [26], Owodunni et al. (2019) [27], and Rabello and Ribeiro (2022) [28]. In this sense, bibliometric information was extracted and saved from the 95 previously selected articles to present a scientific mapping of the proposed topic. This information was obtained using the Web of Science tools and saved in comma-separated value format (CSV). The VOSViewer software (version 1.6.16) was used to process the bibliometric information, which made it possible to carry out scientific network mapping of the results.
Filters were applied to all keywords in the selected articles, thus synchronizing singular and plural terms to avoid duplication and similarity problems. Correlated terms were also unified to provide a more precise and cleaner overview of network mapping, in which, for example, terms correlated to physical and mechanical properties, such as thickness swelling and flexural strength, were unified based on the term phmec properties (physical and mechanical properties) and agro-industrial waste by agro-waste. Still, the mapping was outlined only with keywords with two or more occurrences in the database to provide a more cohesive overview of the proposed topic.

2.2. Life Cycle Assessment

The development of the life cycle assessment (LCA) for this research followed the guidelines of ISO 14040: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework and 14044: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines [20,29]. This study presents a comparative attributional LCA of three binder resins used in producing particleboards: UF resin, MUF resin, and castor oil PU resin, aiming to evaluate the environmental performance of castor oil PU resin compared with other commercial resins.
The product system function was established to produce resin for adhesive purposes in particleboard production. The reference flow used in the LCA was normalized to produce 1 kg of resin (functional unit) for the three resins evaluated, as seen in Table 2.
The cradle-to-gate approach was used as the system boundary, encompassing the production and acquisition of raw materials, their transport and preparation, and finally, the production of resins. In the case of the castor oil PU resin, castor bean production and their oil extraction are included. This involves the steps of seedling cultivation, soil preparation, seedling planting, handling, harvesting, processing, and transportation. On the other hand, extracting petroleum-derived components is also included for commercial resins. Aggregated data from the processes of each resin were considered, covering everything from the extraction/production of raw materials to the final product, except electricity, the use of water in the resin production, and the volume of raw materials.
The life cycle inventory (LCI) step was developed using primary data from a Brazilian castor oil PU resin company (energy and water consumption and volume of raw materials) and secondary data extracted from a database, with much information contextualized for the European region. The LCA was carried out using the GaBi 6 software and Ecoinvent 3.7.1 and 3.8 as a database for the processes used, as seen in Table 3.
The life cycle impact analysis (LCIA) method used was ReCiPe 2016, which is one of the most current methods available and covers a large number of impact categories to be analyzed: Climate change, including biogenic carbon; Fine Particulate Matter Formation; Fossil depletion; Freshwater Consumption; Freshwater ecotoxicity; Freshwater Eutrophication; Human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer); Ionizing Radiation; Land use; Marine ecotoxicity; Marine Eutrophication; Metal depletion; Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems; Photochemical Ozone Formation, Human Health; Stratospheric Ozone Depletion; Terrestrial Acidification and Terrestrial ecotoxicity.
Subsequently, a normalization procedure was performed to compare the most relevant impact categories and the scenarios with the best environmental performances.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. General Overview of PU Resin as a Particleboard Binder

Table 4 presents the 15 keywords with the highest occurrences in the consolidated database. Notably, the three most cited keywords are directly correlated with the particle panels, castor oil PU resin, and physical and mechanical properties, demonstrating the interest of these studies in evaluating the performance of these panels when using a castor-oil-based resin.
Figure 1 shows the network mapping of keyword occurrences, in which clusters are formed according to the connectivity between the terms presented, varying the node size according to the frequency in which the keyword appears and its interconnection according to their co-occurrence in publications. The network map reinforces the sound correlation between the particleboards, castor oil PU resin, and physical and mechanical property assessment. Other performance evaluations also appear in the clusters, such as evaluations of thermal properties and the durability of these panels when subjected to accelerated aging tests. It is also worth highlighting that terms related to the use of agro-industrial waste are notable in the mapping, emphasizing sugarcane bagasse, which is among the 15 keywords with the highest number of occurrences.
Among the studies that use sugarcane bagasse in particleboards with castor oil PU resin as a binder are Garzón-Barrero et al. (2016) [30], who evaluated the durability of these particleboards, Fiorelli et al. (2018) [31], who associated plant fibers from the Amazon, Fiorelli, Bueno, and Cabral (2019) [32], who associated green coconut fibers, Yano et al. (2020) [33], who associated waste from the wood industry, and Silva et al. (2021) [34], who associated waste from the cellulose industry can be cited.
Other lignocellulosic raw materials appear to be of interest for study in panels using castor oil PU resin, e.g., in the research by Varanda et al. (2013) [35], who evaluated panels using Eucalyptus grandis particles and oat husk, Nogueira, Lahr, and Giacon (2018) [36], who evaluated panels using Brazil nut fruit, and Nasser et al. (2020) [37], who evaluated panels using residual bamboo and peanut shell particles.
Wood residues were also of interest for study in the production of particleboards with castor oil-based adhesive, such as Paes et al. (2011) [38], who evaluated panels with Pinus sp. residual wood particles, Bertolini et al. (2019) [12], who evaluated the acoustic and thermal properties of panels with Pinus sp. residual wood particles, and Seibel, Zimmer, and Fiorio (2021) [39], who evaluated panels with residual wood particles from different eucalyptus species.
The feasibility of using a castor oil PU resin has also been studied in the context of OSB panels, which is considered an evolution in the production of particulate panels. For example, Barbirato et al. (2020) [40] evaluated the chemical, physical, and mechanical properties of OSB panels made from residual Balsa wood, and Ferro et al. (2021) [41] analyzed the pore size distribution in OSB panels produced with Schizolobium amazonicum sp. wood.
As can be seen from the works cited above, the use of castor oil PU resin is strongly associated with the use of lignocellulosic waste. In this sense, the use of lignocellulosic waste represents a form of production aligned with a sustainable circular economy for the wood-based panels sector and castor oil PU resin is also associated with the theme.
Still related to the use of non-lignocellulosic raw materials, the research on hybrid panels using castor oil PU resin presents studies that associate the use of plastics, such as those by Macedo et al. (2015) [42], who evaluated the physical properties of particle panels using pine and eucalyptus wood particles associated with bioriented polypropylene (BOPP), Macedo et al. (2016) [43], who evaluated OSB panels using pine wood chips associated with BOPP, Campos et al. (2023) [44], who produced particle panels using pine wood and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and Rodrigues et al. (2023) [45], who developed particle panels using pine and eucalyptus wood waste associated with polystyrene waste.
Finally, in conclusion, most scientific mapping studies focus on the raw material used and not the binder resin. An interesting exception is Chen, Wu, and Chen (2021) [46], who comparatively evaluate the structure, composition, and chemical interaction of castor oil PU resin and commercial resins. They state that castor oil PU resin used as a binder in composite materials presents better results concerning thickness swelling and internal adhesion. Another study that stands out in the evaluations is the one by Rabello and Ribeiro (2022) [28], who analyzed the properties of castor oil PU resin for the production of composites with minerals, highlighting its superiority in terms of its low density, lower porosity, and more excellent chemical resistance to degradation compared with conventional resins.
The number of citations of an article is one factor that can indicate its relevance in a given research field. The number of citations a researcher has can also correlate with their level of influence in a specific study field. Within this context, Table 5 presents the articles with the highest number of citations in the study field of the proposed topic, highlighting the authors and the year of publication. The study by Fiorelli et al. (2012) [47] presented more citations than the other studies. The first author also stands out, having four research publications among the 12 with the most citations.
Table 6 presents the countries that have carried out research on particleboards using castor oil PU resin as a binder. Notably, although other countries have related publications, this research field is concentrated in Brazil, with 89 documents registered in the search for this systematic review and 889 related citations. The concentration of these studies in the Brazilian territory justifies the number of studies associated with agro-industrial waste, such as sugarcane bagasse, given the economic importance of cultivation in the country.

3.2. Comparative Overview Between Castor Oil PU Resin and Other Adhesive Resins

This topic will cover articles related to castor oil PU resin in particulate panels that compare efficiency with other adhesive resins used for this purpose. Table 7 presents the average physical and mechanical results of some of these studies, highlighting the positive results in the physical–mechanical performance of these panels when castor oil PU resin is used.
The articles cited in this section present the development of a statistical analysis that demonstrates significant differences in the evaluated properties. The most common is the Tukey test at a 5% significance level.
Fiorelli et al. (2012) [47] evaluated the potential of coconut fibers as a raw material for producing particleboards, assessing two types of adhesive resin and comparing castor oil PU with urea–formaldehyde (UF). The comparative panels were produced with a density of 1000 kg/m3 and the amount of resin in mass varying between 10% and 15%, with physical and mechanical properties being evaluated based on the NBR 14810:2006—Plywood Sheets-Part 3: Testing Methods standard [55]. According to the authors, the use of castor oil PU resin resulted in a decrease in TS and an increase in MOR. A scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was also performed, indicating that the castor oil PU resin fills the spaces between the particles, directly improving these panels’ physical and mechanical properties.
Wechsler et al. (2013) [48] evaluated the potential of macadamia shells as a raw material in the manufacturing of particleboards in comparison to pine wood waste. Within this context, the performance of castor oil PU resin concerning urea–formaldehyde-based adhesive was also evaluated in panels with a density between 690 and 820 kg/m3 and using pine wood residue, with 10% UF resin and 20% castor oil PU. In an analysis of formaldehyde emission, panels with castor oil PU resin showed a lower emission rate even using a more significant amount of resin. The IB property of panels with castor oil PU resin also showed a higher result (0.99 MPa compared with 0.46 MPa for panels with UF), although a more significant amount of resin was used.
Valarelli et al. (2014) [56] evaluated the potential of particleboards made from bamboo waste and two different types of resin (castor oil PU and UF). The physical and mechanical properties of panels with an average density of 650 kg/m3 were determined, varying the resin content between 6% and 12%. The results of this work are presented as a counterpoint to other results favorable to the use of castor oil PU resin, in which panels with UF resin present better results when compared with the same amount of resin applied. Although the castor oil PU resin results are inferior in this case, the authors conclude that the resin is still viable for use as an adhesive for bamboo waste particles.
Fiorelli et al. (2014) [57] evaluated the potential for manufacturing particle panels with Pinus spp. wood residue. An efficiency comparison was also carried out between PU castor and UF resins, evaluating the panels’ physical and mechanical properties with a density of 800 kg/m3 (based on the NBR 14810:2006 standard) and resin contents between 10 to 15%. The MOR result obtained using panels with castor oil PU resin stands out, presenting 14.56 MPa as opposed to the 8.69 MPa presented using panels with UF resin. An SEM analysis observed that the particles from the panels with castor oil PU resin showed better agglomeration when compared with the particles from the panels with UF resin. However, the IB property of these panels did not show a significant difference.
Alves et al. (2014) [53] evaluated the physical properties of panels produced using sawmill waste according to the NBR 14810:2006 standard. These panels were manufactured with an average density of 800 kg/m3 and using two types of adhesives: castor oil PU resin and UF. Table 5 shows that the TS results of panels with castor oil PU resin were lower than those with UF. Regarding the water absorption (WA) property, panels with castor oil PU resin presented an average value of 40.76% compared with 56.86% from another resin. The authors of this research conclude that castor oil PU resin is viable in producing particleboards from sawmill waste and contributes to the ecologically correct disposal of this waste.
Barbirato et al. (2014) [58] focused on the potential of peanut shells and tropical wood particles as raw materials in producing particleboards. This study evaluated panels with a density of 800 kg/m3 and using 15% by mass of different resins (castor oil PU and UF), based on the NBR 14810:2006 standard. The analyses of the results between the different resins indicated that the panels that used castor oil PU resin presented better physical properties and were more than two times better concerning the MOR and MOE properties. The study also states that the SEM analysis showed homogeneity of dispersion between the particles used and the castor oil PU resin.
Fiorelli et al. (2015) [59] investigated the potential application of Pinus spp. wood shavings and green coconut fibers in the production of particleboards. The panels were produced with a density of 800 kg/m3 and different resins, castor oil PU, and UF, with 10% and 12% levels to evaluate these composites. The analysis indicated that panels produced with castor oil PU resin presented superior results, both physical and mechanical, highlighting the physical property of TS since, according to the authors, the expansion of castor oil PU resin made it possible to fill the pores between the particles, which contributes to reducing the water absorption rate.
Nascimento et al. (2016) [60] evaluated the abrasion resistance of particleboards with an approximate density of 850 kg/m3, using Eucalyptus sp. wood waste as raw material and different resins, castor oil PU and UF (both with contents of 12% by mass). The analysis was based on the NBR 14535:2008—Wood Furniture: Requirements and Test Methods of Coated Surfaces standard [61]. The authors observed no significant difference concerning the different resins applied, with both presenting good results as a binder of particles for panels intended for application on interior floors, even when no coating is used.
Varanda et al. (2018) [54] evaluated the physical performance of homogeneous particleboards with Pinus elliottii wood waste and oat husk agglomerated with two types of adhesives, castor oil PU and melanin formaldehyde (MF). Panels with densities in the range of 850–950 kg/m3 were produced, with the levels for both resins varying from 11% to 13%. The research used the NBR 14810:2006 standard as a comparative basis, in which several compositions were evaluated, varying the oat hull content and the type of resin applied. The researchers also highlighted that panels produced with castor oil PU resin showed better performance in terms of physical properties than compared with the MF resin (Table 7).
Sugahara et al. (2019) [13] evaluated high-density particleboards using residual eucalyptus and sugarcane bagasse from the agro-industry, using different resins to agglomerate the particles (castor oil PU and UF), using levels of 10% for both. Panels with a density greater than 800 kg/m3 were produced, comparatively evaluating the physical and mechanical properties, according to the NBR 14810-2:2013—Medium Density Particleboard—Part 2: Requirements and Test Methods standard [62]. According to the authors, both parameters for the different resins comply with the regulatory requirements for classification as P4-type panels, i.e., structural use in dry conditions. Castor oil PU resin was noted as showing greater efficiency when compared with UF, with superior results in mechanical properties and better rates concerning resistance to TS. In contrast, the UF resin did not prove to be adequate.
Buzo et al. (2020) [2] evaluated pine wood particle panels and sugarcane bagasse using different resins (castor oil PU or UF), with a content of 10% for both. Varying concentrations of sugarcane bagasse were used to produce the compositions, in which the panels had a 800 kg/m3 density. The panels were evaluated based on the physical and mechanical properties and classified according to the NBR14810:2018—Medium Density Particleboards—Part 2: Requirements and Test Methods standard [63]. According to the researchers, the panels using 40% sugarcane bagasse and castor oil PU resin showed physical and mechanical results with better performance than the reference panel (100% pinus). This composition is classified, according to regulations, as P6, structural panels for severe loads in dry environmental conditions. The compositions using castor oil PU resin were noted to present superior results, both physical and mechanical, when compared with the UF resin. Also noteworthy is the efficiency of castor oil PU resin concerning particle agglomeration, presenting excellent IB rates.
Lopes Junior et al. (2021) [52] evaluated the optimal organic resin content in oriented strand boards (OSBs) from waste Balsa wood. Panels were manufactured with an average density of 650 kg/m3, using three types of resin (castor oil PU, phenol-formaldehyde (PF), and UF) and varying the levels (13%, 15%, and 18%). The panels were evaluated based on physical and mechanical properties according to the EN 300:2002—Oriented Strand Boards (OSB)—Definitions, Classification, and Specifications standard [64]. According to the authors, the panels with castor oil PU resin presented the best results compared with the other two resins; notably, panels with UF resin did not meet the established regulations. It is also noteworthy that, for each resin content evaluated, the panels with castor oil PU resin presented the lowest absorption rates, indicating stability under aspects of hygroscopicity. The authors conclude that medium-density residual Balsa wood OSB panels can be used in internal environments or for furniture production using castor oil PU resin as a binder.
Uemura Silva et al. (2021) [19] evaluated particle panels with a circular economy and LCA approach, comparing circular construction materials made from waste wood and castor oil PU resin and conventional panels made using virgin wood and synthetic resin (UF). Panels with different compositions were made, varying the wood species (Pinus and Eucalyptus), the type of resin, and the panel density, which had medium density (between 551 and 750 kg/m3) or high density (above 750 kg/m3). The panels were evaluated using thermal, physical, and mechanical properties. According to the authors, the panels made using castor oil PU resin showed superior mechanical results compared to the UF resin, mainly when associated with Eucalyptus wood residue. The LCA study showed positive results in the alternative use of wood waste concerning the traditional scenario of particle boards, presenting a reduction in environmental impacts, such as human toxicity and abiotic depletion. The authors also concluded that castor oil PU resin has a slight advantage over UF resin, with a 4% reduction in the environmental load. However, they suggest further studies focusing on a life cycle analysis between adhesives from renewable and non-renewable sources since the data used in the analysis was obtained using GaBi software tools for the European region and do not reflect the Brazilian market, the central region of interest.
Sugahara et al. (2024) [25] developed a study related to an LCA for OSB panels made of eucalyptus wood and castor oil PU resin, comparing the environmental impacts with the production of traditional panels. The quantitative results of the study demonstrated that the experimental panels produced with a castor oil PU adhesive showed a 15% reduction in the total CO2 equivalent emissions compared with traditional panels made with methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) resin. Regarding human health impact categories, experimental panels showed a 20% decrease in potential impacts compared with traditional panels. Thus, the environmentally positive characteristics of the experimental panels were revealed, highlighting the effectiveness of the castor oil PU adhesive as a more sustainable option in the manufacture of heat-treated oriented wood panels.
Many of the comparative studies described in this review focused on particleboards’ physical and mechanical properties. Within this context, castor oil PU resin demonstrated greater efficiency in particle agglomeration than the other resins evaluated, standing out mainly for its ability to fill voids and improve properties, such as TS and IB [2,47,56,57].
More broadly, studies of particle panels that use castor oil PU resin focus more on the technical feasibility of producing these panels and on evaluating their thermal, physical, and mechanical performance. In the meantime, only two studies assessed the life cycle and circular economy of castor oil PU resin as a panel binder. Therefore, this study gap can be better explored by correlating other agro-industrial by-products, which stand out as raw materials for this purpose.
Another possibility to be further explored is comparing the efficiency of castor oil PU resin with a wider variety of adhesive resins used in producing particleboards, given that most studies only compare it with the UF resin. Finally, studies related to the economic aspects of these resins also lack research and may present another point of view on the production of panels.

3.3. Life Cycle Assessment Results

Adhesive resins are one of the main hotspots of particleboard production when it comes to environmental impacts. Therefore, evaluating different types of resins and their potential impacts is necessary when seeking environmentally sustainable alternatives.
Table 8 presents the results for each impact category of urea–formaldehyde (UF), melamine urea–formaldehyde (MUF), and castor oil-based polyurethane (PUR) resins per functional unit (1 kg of resin).
Figure 2 compares the results of potential environmental impacts normalized for the impact categories, in which PUR presents the lowest negative environmental impacts compared with UF, MUF, or both.
Among the 18 impact categories analyzed based on the ReCiPe 2016 methodology, PUR presented lower environmental impacts for 12 categories compared with UF and MUF and a lower impact for the climate change category compared with MUF but with a result very close to the UF resin.
For the climate change category (CC + biogenic), the resin that presented the most significant negative impact was MUF, greater than 10.32% compared with UF resin, which has the best result. The most significant contribution of this resin is due to the production of melamine, urea, and methanol, which cause carbon dioxide and methane emissions. While UF also contains urea and methanol, which contributes to this category, there is no melamine production, the raw material with the highest emissions in MUF production. PUR presents an emission 0.39% higher than UF without a significant increase. In the case of the PUR resin, the castor bean production process is the step with the most significant contribution, presenting emissions in the field due to the use of fertilizers and the production of fertilizers itself, especially NPK, with consequent NO2 emissions.
MUF presented the worst result for the fine particle formation impact category (FPMF), 142% higher than PU, which has the lowest negative environmental impacts for FPMF. Melamine is the raw material that presents the highest emissions for this category, followed by urea and the formation of formaldehyde, which explains why UF resin is the second largest contributor to FPMF, being 62.13% higher than PUR. In the case of PUR, the steps with the most significant contribution are the application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to castor bean crops.
Resins of fossil origin UF and MUF show high negative impact values for the fossil depletion (FD) category, 8179% and 6459% higher than PUR, respectively. This occurs because, in both resins, there is greater use of fossil sources due to urea and methanol, which use mineral coal and natural gas in their production [65]. Melamine is obtained from urea, which is consumed in its production. In the case of MUF, a smaller amount of formaldehyde is replaced by melamine, justifying the lower emission of this resin, which uses a smaller amount of methanol. Furthermore, other chemical products used in industries originate from natural gas, varying the emission values of UF and MUF resins. In the case of PUR resin production, most of the impacts associated with this category are due to transport and equipment that require fossil fuels.
UF and MUF resins show similar results for the freshwater ecotoxicity (FE) category, 5954% and 5354% higher than PUR, respectively. This high potential impact on FE occurs mainly due to formaldehyde emissions that occur during the production process when the condensation reaction generates formaldehyde and also the residual formaldehyde in the resin [66], in addition to urea used in both processes. In the case of PUR resin, the step with the most significant contribution to this category is the production of pesticides, followed by the production of fertilizers used to cultivate castor beans.
In the case of freshwater eutrophication (FET), the MUF resin has the most significant negative impact for this category, 215.95% higher than PUR. Melamine production is the step that provides the most significant contribution to the FET category due to inorganic ammonia emissions released into fresh water, followed by the production of urea, which emits NOx into the atmosphere and hydrocarbons into water. UF resin has a potentially more significant impact than PUR by 94.73% due to the production of urea and methanol, with the emission of NOx and hydrocarbons. PUR resin has the highest emissions in the pesticide production steps, followed by fertilizer production and emissions that occur in the field.
UF resin was the binder that presented the most significant potential negative impact on human toxicity (cancer) (HT, cancer), 5572% higher than PUR, mainly due to the emission of formaldehyde and emissions of nitrogen oxides from urea, which also make a relevant contribution to this category. According to the European Panel Federation (2018) [67], formaldehyde emissions can cause human health problems, such as cancer. MUF presents an emission 4954% higher than PUR due to the same emissions presented for UF. However, as it has less formaldehyde, its emission is also lower. The PUR resin has the highest emissions in the isocyanate production stages, followed by pesticide and fertilizer production.
Unlike what happens for HT, cancer, the resin that presents the most significant potential negative impact for the category of human toxicity (non-cancer) (HT, non-cancer) is MUF, as, in this case, the steps that contribute most are the production of melamine (from urea) and the production of urea. Thus, MUF presents a result that is 18% higher than UF and 2395% higher than PUR. UF has 2002% greater negative impacts than PUR resin. In the case of PUR, the steps with the most significant contribution are pesticide production and field emissions. Although PUR resin has low toxicity, protective measures are essential to ensure the safety of operators and users. During production, it is recommended to use PPE (personal protective equipment), such as gloves and masks, as well as adequate ventilation to minimize exposure to chemical precursors. Process automation can also reduce occupational risks.
For the ionizing radiation category, the UF resin presents the worst results, i.e., with the highest emissions for the category, and this occurs due to the formaldehyde production process from methanol, in addition to the production of urea. This is why UF presents better results than MUF, as it has more formaldehyde since the amount of formaldehyde released decreases as the molar proportion of melamine increases [66]. UF and MUF resins presented results 269.23% and 74.46% higher than PUR, respectively. In the case of the PUR resin, the step with the most significant contribution is the production of isocyanate.
UF and MUF resins present similar results for the marine ecotoxicity category, with UF being 12% higher than MUF, mainly due to the emission of formaldehyde in both production processes. In the case of the PUR resin, the production of pesticides presents the highest emissions for the marine ecotoxicity category, followed by the production of fertilizers. This category is critical when production occurs close to the coast, thus reaching the sea.
For Photochemical Ozone Formation, Ecosystems (POF, E), and Human Health (POF, H), the resin that presented the most significant potential negative impacts was MUF, approximately 26% higher than PUR for both categories. The production of urea is the step with the most significant impact for these categories due to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hydrocarbon emissions. Next, the most impactful steps are the transformation of urea into melanin, methanol, and diesel, with emissions of VOC, NOx, methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Thus, due to its lower consumption of urea for its production, UF resin presents lower results than MUF but with the same emissions, except in transforming urea into melamine, which does not occur for it. It is 4.94% higher than the PUR results for POF, E, and 2.90% for POF, H. In the case of the PUR resin, the most significant contributions occur during the production of isocyanate, with VOC emissions, followed by diesel consumption in the transport steps and use of machinery, mainly agricultural and NO2 emissions in the field.
Terrestrial acidification occurs due to the atmospheric deposition of inorganic substances in the soil. For this category, MUF resin presented the most significant potential negative impact, being 54.73% higher than PUR, as the highest emissions occur in the urea-production process, followed by using diesel, melamine production, and methanol. MUF requires greater urea consumption, which is then transformed into melamine, so its emission is higher than UF. Thus, UF is 20.63% higher than MUF, presenting a lower consumption of urea than MUF since there is no melamine in its composition and a higher consumption of methanol, as it has a more significant amount of formaldehyde. These steps contribute mainly to emissions of sulfur dioxide and NOx. Although PUR presents emissions during its production process, field emissions, mainly of NH3 and NO2, followed by the production of pesticides, are the processes that most contribute to this category.
MUF and UF resins presented similar results, with the highest emissions related to the Terrestrial ecotoxicity category, 333.33% and 329.63% higher than the PUR resin. The steps with the most significant contribution to these categories are the production of urea, melamine from urea, and formaldehyde from methanol. PUR resin, the production of pesticides in the agricultural step, and the production of isocyanate are the processes that contribute the most.
Figure 3 compares the results of potential environmental impacts normalized for the impact categories, with PUR having the most significant negative environmental impacts compared with UF and MUF.
As expected, the categories in which PUR presents the worst environmental results are related to agricultural steps, which do not occur for resins of fossil origin.
The freshwater consumption (FC) category is mainly affected by the castor bean irrigation process, in addition to the contribution of Brazilian electricity, in which approximately 66% of the country’s energy production comes from hydroelectric plants. This electricity issue involves all resins since the production process uses electrical energy. PUR consumes 388% more than MUF resin, which has the lowest negative environmental impact on freshwater consumption.
Land use (LU) considers soil transformation, occupation, and vacancy. While it occurs for all three resin-production processes evaluated, for PUR, land is used more extensively due to castor bean cultivation, given the extraction of resources, industrial installation, and others. The average productivity of irrigated castor beans is 3000 kg/ha [68]. Land use for the production of PUR is 2580% greater than that of UF resin, which has the lowest use. UF and MUF resins have similar impacts for this category.
For marine eutrophication (MET), the step of PUR production that makes the most significant contribution is the emissions that occur in the field due to the application of fertilizers in castor bean cultivation. Such emissions are 427% higher than UF emissions. MUF presents a better result than UF but with a difference of approximately 5%. For these resins, the processes with the most significant contribution are the production of urea and melanin. As mentioned for the ME category, this impact is sensitive when castor bean production, in particular, occurs close to coastal regions.
Correlated with the metal depletion (MD) category, the step of PUR production that makes the most significant contribution is the production of metal-containing pesticides: 187.76% higher than the MUF, which presented the lowest potential negative impact. Between MUF and UF, the difference is approximately 11%, with metal oxides being used in their production.
Stratospheric depletion (SOD) in resin production is mainly affected by the production of fertilizer used in castor bean fields, followed by fertilizer production and fuel consumption in transport and agricultural machinery. PUR presented results that were 885% better than those of MUF. The consumption of fossil fuels in processes and transport is the most significant contribution of UF and MUF resins to this category.
Figure 4 presents an overview of all categories evaluated for the three resins: UF, MUF, and PUR.
The analysis of all impact categories shows that the most significant discrepancies are linked to toxicity, a reduction of fossil resources, and land use (FD, FE, HT, cancer, HT, non-cancer, LU, and ME). These discrepancies were already expected due to the production processes of urea, melamine, and formaldehyde in the case of UF and MUF fossil resins and the cultivation of castor beans for PUR resin, which requires a larger area of occupation and transformation.
The results show that the main hotspots in the production of PUR resin are correlated with irrigation, the planting area, and fertilizer use. These steps precede the production of the resin itself. In this sense, the search for optimizing productivity per castor bean area, more efficient forms of irrigation, and more environmentally friendly fertilizer alternatives can contribute to mitigating these impacts.
Advances in cultivation techniques and increased production can reduce costs and improve raw material availability, resulting in more competitive and consistent castor oil PU resin. In addition, more efficient agricultural practices can reduce the environmental impact per unit of resin. Although the expansion of castor bean cultivation can increase the environmental impact, this can be mitigated with sustainable practices, making castor oil a renewable and advantageous alternative to petroleum. In summary, the development of the industry can improve the economic and environmental viability of PUR resin, provided that sustainable practices are adopted.
Among all the impact categories evaluated, PUR resin has the lowest environmental impact in most. This indicates the possibility of replacing commercial UF and MUF resins with vegetable-based resin, a more sustainable alternative.
While castor oil PU adhesive has led to a range of research, mainly related to technical performance, the topic presents some study gaps that can be explored. In the meantime, LCA studies can be developed comparing particulate panels with lower PUR contents than other commercial resins.

4. Conclusions

This study presented an overview of work focusing on comparing castor oil PU resin and commercial resins in the performance of particulate panels. It also produced quantitative LCA data and their respective potential environmental impacts, aiming to evaluate the technical and environmental performance of castor oil PU resin in panel production.
Given the overview created by this study, the potential for using castor oil PU resin as a binding adhesive in particleboards is evident. Several studies presented results of superior physical–mechanical properties compared with other adhesives, mainly the physical property of TS and the mechanical properties, such as MOR and IB.
Also noteworthy is the strong correlation between the use of castor oil PU resin and the use of agro-industrial waste, which gives visibility to the production of composite materials that present production with an environmental focus and alternatives to reduce the emission of harmful gases and the reuse of original resources from natural and renewable sources.
The LCA results demonstrated that in addition to technical feasibility, the castor oil PU resin presents a more sustainable production alternative than commercial MUF and UF resins, obtaining lower negative environmental impacts in 12 of the 18 evaluated categories.
In conclusion, the evaluations in this study show that castor oil PU resin stands out as an alternative adhesive in producing particleboards, which provides excellent results in physical and mechanical properties, combined with production with lower potential negative environmental impacts.

Author Contributions

A.J.F.P.D.: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, writing, reviewing, and supervision; G.P.L.: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing, and reviewing; L.E.C.F.: methodology, data curation, and reviewing; R.H.B.M.: methodology, data curation, and reviewing C.B.: reviewing and supervision; J.A.R.: reviewing and supervision; J.F.: conceptualization, reviewing, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed, in part, by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), Brazil. Process Number #2023/12355-0.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

To CAPES—Code 001. To National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq Proc. 405201/2021-4, 307921/2021-2 and 306131/2023-4.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Iwakiri, S.; Shimizu, J.; de Castro Silva, J.; Del Menezzi, C.H.S.; Puehringher, C.A.; Venson, I.; Larroca, C. Produção de painéis de madeira aglomerada de Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br. Rev. Árvore 2004, 28, 883–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Buzo, A.L.S.C.; Silva, S.A.M.; de Moura Aquino, V.B.; Chahud, E.; Branco, L.A.M.N.; de Almeida, D.H.; Christoforo, A.L.; Almeida, J.P.B.; Lahr, F.A.R. Addition of sugarcane bagasse for the production of particleboards bonded with urea-formaldehyde and polyurethane resins. Wood Res. 2020, 65, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Solt, P.; Konnerth, J.; Gindl-Altmutter, W.; Kantner, W.; Moser, J.; Mitter, R.; van Herwijnen, H.W.G. Technological performance of formaldehyde-free adhesive alternatives for particleboard industry. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019, 94, 99–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bekhta, P.; Noshchenko, G.; Réh, R.; Kristak, L.; Sedliačik, J.; Antov, P.; Mirski, R.; Savov, V. Properties of eco-friendly particleboards bonded with lignosulfonate-urea-formaldehyde adhesives and PMDI as a crosslinker. Materials 2021, 14, 4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oliveira, S.L.; Freire, T.P.; Mendes, L.M.; Mendes, R.F. The effect of post-heat treatment in MDF panels. Mater. Res. 2017, 20, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Macedo, L.B.; de Moura Aquino, V.B.; Wolenski, A.R.V.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Paineis híbridos de lâminas e partículas de madeira para uso estrutural. Ambient. Construído 2019, 19, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Iwakiri, S.; de Andrade, A.S.; Junior, A.A.C.; Chipanski, E.D.R.; Prata, J.G.; Adriazola, M.K.O. Produção de painéis aglomerados de alta densificação com uso de resina melamina-ureia-formaldeido. Cerne 2005, 11, 323–328. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wilczak, L.; Trianoski, R.; Neto, S.C.; de Paula, C.R.P.; Villanova, R.L.; Azevedo, E. Efficiency of castor oil-based polyurethane in the production of plywood panels. Sci. For. Sci. 2019, 47, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Salthammer, T. The formaldehyde dilemma. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2015, 218, 433–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arias, A.; González-Rodríguez, S.; Barros, M.V.; Salvador, R.; de Francisco, A.C.; Piekarski, C.M.; Moreira, M.T. Recent developments in bio-based adhesives from renewable natural resources. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Da Silva Bertolini, M.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Nascimento, M.F.D.; Agnelli, J.A.M. Accelerated artificial aging of particleboards from residues of CCB treated pinus sp. and castor oil resin. Mater. Res. 2013, 16, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bertolini, M.S.; de Morais, C.A.G.; Christoforo, A.L.; Bertoli, S.R.; Santos, W.N.D.; Lahr, F.A.R. Acoustic absorption and thermal insulation of wood panels: Influence of porosity. BioResources 2019, 14, 3746–3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sugahara, E.S.; da Silva, S.A.M.; Buzo, A.L.S.C.; de Campos, C.I.; Morales, E.A.M.; Ferreira, B.S.; Azambuja, M.D.A.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Christoforo, A.L. High-density particleboard made from agro-industrial waste and different adhesives. BioResources 2019, 14, 5162–5170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Instituto Brasileiro de Madeira e das Estruturas de Madeira. EBRAMEM. In Proceedings of the Encontro Brasileiro em Madeiras e em Estruturas de Madeira, São Pedro, Brazil, 30 July–2 August 2006; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
  15. Instituto Brasileiro de Madeira e das Estruturas de Madeira. EBRAMEM. In Proceedings of the Encontro Brasileiro em Madeiras e em Estruturas de Madeira, Londrina, Brazil, 14–16 July 2008; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
  16. Instituto Brasileiro de Madeira e das Estruturas de Madeira. EBRAMEM. In Proceedings of the Encontro Brasileiro em Madeiras e em Estruturas de Madeira, Uberlândia, Brazil, 24–26 July 2002; p. 206. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fiorelli, J.; Lahar, F.A.R.; Nascimento, M.F.D.; Junior, H.S.; Rossignolo, J.A. Painéis de partículas à base de bagaço de cana e resina de mamona—Produção e propriedades. Acta Sci. Technol. 2011, 33, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Costa, D.; Serra, J.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C. Life cycle assessment of wood-based panels: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 444, 140955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Silva, V.U.; Nascimento, M.F.; Oliveira, P.R.; Panzera, T.H.; Rezende, M.O.; Silva, D.A.L.; de Moura Aquino, V.B.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Christoforo, A.L. Circular vs. linear economy of building materials: A case study for particleboards made of recycled wood and biopolymer vs. conventional particleboards. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 285, 122906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  21. Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jos, A.; Filho, M.; Savastano, H.; Gustavo, F. Algae application in civil construction: A review with focus on the potential uses of the pelagic Sargassum spp. Biomass 2022, 303, 114258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Altman, D.G.; Booth, A.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, g7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Silva, V.L.; Sanjuán, N. Opening up the black box: A systematic literature review of life cycle assessment in alternative food processing technologies. J. Food Eng. 2019, 250, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sugahara, E.; Dias, A.; Botelho, E.; Campos, C.; Dias, A. Life Cycle Assessment of OSB Panels Produced with Alternative Raw Materials. RILEM Bookseries 2023, 45, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Panda, S.S.; Panda, B.P.; Nayak, S.K.; Mohanty, S. A Review on Waterborne Thermosetting Polyurethane Coatings Based on Castor Oil: Synthesis, Characterization, and Application. Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 2018, 57, 500–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Owodunni, A.A.; Lamaming, J.; Hashim, R.; Taiwo, O.F.A.; Hussin, M.H.; Kassim, M.H.M.; Bustami, Y.; Sulaiman, O.; Amini, M.H.M.; Hiziroglu, S. Adhesive application on particleboard from natural fibers: A review. Polym. Compos. 2020, 41, 4448–4460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rabello, L.G.; da Conceição Ribeiro, R.C. Bio-based polyurethane resin: An ecological binder for a novel class of building materials-composites. Mater. Lett. 2022, 311, 131566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  30. Garzón-Barrero, N.M.; Shirakawa, M.A.; Brazolin, S.; de Freitas Nuno de Barros Pereira, R.G.; de Lara, I.A.R.; Savastano, H. Evaluation of mold growth on sugarcane bagasse particleboards in natural exposure and in accelerated test. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 115, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fiorelli, J.; Galo, R.G.; Junior, S.L.C.; Belini, U.L.; Lasso, P.R.O.; Savastano, H. Multilayer Particleboard Produced with Agroindustrial Waste and Amazonia Vegetable Fibres. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 1151–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fiorelli, J.; Bueno, S.B.; Cabral, M.R. Assessment of multilayer particleboards produced with green coconut and sugarcane bagasse fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 205, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yano, B.B.R.; Silva, S.A.M.; Almeida, D.H.; Aquino, V.B.M.; Christoforo, A.L.; Rodrigues, E.F.C.; Junior, A.N.C.; Silva, A.P.; Lahr, F.A.R. Use of sugarcane bagasse and industrial timber residue in particleboard production. BioResources 2020, 15, 4753–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Silva, S.A.M.; Minillo, L.Q.; Aquino, V.B.D.M.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Christoforo, A.L. Use of Residues from the Cellulose Industry and Sugarcane Bagasse in Particleboards. Eng. Agrícola 2021, 4430, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Varanda, L.D.; Nascimento, M.F.D.; Christoforo, A.L.; Silva, D.A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Oat hulls as addition to high density panels production. Mater. Res. 2013, 16, 1355–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nogueira, I.M.D.S.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Giacon, V.M. Desenvolvimento e caracterização de painéis de partículas aglomeradas utilizando o resíduo do ouriço da castanha-do-brasil (Bertholletia excelsa) e resina poliuretana derivada do óleo da mamona. Rev. Mater. 2018, 23, e-11985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nasser, S.M.; Morales, E.A.M.; Pereira, L.E.R.; Eugenio, R.A.P.; Biazzon, J.C.; Lima, M.P.; Bueno, M.A.P.; Archangelo, A.; Celestino, V.R.B.; Nasser, H.M.; et al. Mechanical analysis of bamboo and agro-industrial residue one-layer particleboard. BioResources 2020, 15, 2163–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pae, J.B.; Nunes, S.T.; Lahr, F.A.R.; de Fátima Nascimento, M.; de Albuquerque Lacerda, R.M. Qualidade de chapas de partículas de Pinus elliottii coladas com resina poliuretana sob diferentes combinações de pressão e temperatura. Cienc. Florest. 2011, 21, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Seibel, R.K.; Zimmer, A.; Fiorio, R. Development and characterization of novel castor oil-based polyurethane composites containing wood sawdust and rubber tire powder. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2021, 29, 876–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barbirato, G.H.A.; Junior, W.E.L.; Hellmeister, V.; Pavesi, M.; Fiorelli, J. OSB Panels with Balsa Wood Waste and Castor Oil Polyurethane Resin. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ferro, F.S.; Arroyo, F.N.; Rodrigues, E.F.C.; Fraga, I.F.; Almeida, J.P.B.; Ruthes, H.C.; de Moura Aquino, V.B.; Morales, E.A.M.; de Moraes, M.H.M.; Lahr, F.A.R.; et al. Investigation of Pore Size Distribution by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) Technique Applied on Different OSB Panels. BioResources 2021, 16, 6661–6668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. de Macedo, L.B.; Ferro, F.S.; Varanda, L.D.; Cavalheiro, R.S.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Propriedades físicas de painéis aglomerados de madeira produzidos com adição de película de polipropileno biorientado. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2015, 19, 674–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. De Macedo, L.B.; Da Silva, M.R.; Da Silva César, A.A.; Panzera, T.H.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Painéis OSB de madeira Pinus sp. e adição de partículas de polipropileno biorientado (BOPP). Sci. For. Sci. 2016, 44, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Campos, P.H.S.; Junior, A.J.S.; de Souza, M.V.; Herradon, M.P.; Libera, V.B.L.; Dezen, L.E.; da Silva, É.V.; Silva, A.G.B.P.; Rodrigues, F.R.; Bispo, R.A.; et al. Evaluation and production of high-strength wood composite panels with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). BioResources 2023, 18, 8528–8535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rodrigues, F.R.; Bispo, R.A.; Cazell, P.H.; Silva, M.J.; Christoforo, A.L.; Silva, S.A.M. Particleboard Composite Made from Pinus and Eucalyptus Residues and Polystyrene Waste Partially Replacing the Castor Oil-Based Polyurethane as Binder. Mater. Res. 2023, 26, e20220594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, Y.H.; Wu, C.H.; Chen, Y.C. Optimized condition for eco-friendly wood composites manufactured from castor oil-based polyurethane. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 306, 124789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fiorelli, J.; Curtolo, D.D.; Barrero, N.G.; Savastano, H., Jr.; de Jesus Agnolon Pallone, E.M.; Johnson, R. Particulate composite based on coconut fiber and castor oil polyurethane adhesive: An eco-efficient product. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 40, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wechsler, A.; Zaharia, M.; Crosky, A.; Jones, H.; Ramírez, M.; Ballerini, A.; Nuñez, M.; Sahajwalla, V. Macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia) shell and castor (Rícinos communis) oil based sustainable particleboard: A comparison of its properties with conventional wood based particleboard. Mater. Des. 2013, 50, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fiorelli, J.; De Lucca Sartori, D.; Cravo, J.C.M.; Savastano, H.; Rossignolo, J.A.; Nascimento, M.F.D.; Lahr, F.A.R. Sugarcane bagasse and castor oil polyurethane adhesive-based particulate composite. Mater. Res. 2013, 16, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Lima Mesquita, A.; Barrero, N.G.; Fiorelli, J.; Christoforo, A.L.; De Faria, L.J.G.; Lahr, F.A.R. Eco-particleboard manufactured from chemically treated fibrous vascular tissue of acai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) Fruit: A new alternative for the particleboard industry with its potential application in civil construction and furniture. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 112, 644–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, Y.C.; Tai, W. Castor oil-based polyurethane resin for low-density composites with bamboo charcoal. Polymers 2018, 10, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Junior, W.E.L.; Barbirato, G.H.A.; Pavesi, M.; Soriano, J.; Fiorelli, J. Avaliação do teor ótimo de resinas orgânicas para produção de painéis OSB de madeira Balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) residual. Sci. For. 2021, 49, e3442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alves, L.S.; da Silva, S.A.M.; Azambuja, M.D.S.; Varanda, L.D.; Christóforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Particleboard produced with sawmill waste of different wood species. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 884–885, 689–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Varanda, L.D.; Yamaji, F.M.; Santos, L.R.O.; Silva, D.A.L.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R. Physical performance of particleboards using castor oil-based adhesive. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2018, 22, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. NBR 14810:2006; Plywood Sheets-Part 3: Testing Methods, Terminology. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006.
  56. Valarelli, I.D.D.; Battistelle, R.A.G.; Bueno, M.A.P.; Bezerra, B.S.; de Campos, C.I.; Alves, M.C.D.S. Physical and mechanical properties of particleboard bamboo waste bonded with urea formaldehyde and castor oil based adhesive. Rev. Mater. 2014, 19, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fiorelli, J.; Ramos, R.D.; Sayama, J.T.; Barrero, N.G.; Palone, E.D.J.A. Painéis de partículas com resíduos de madeira de reflorestamento. Acta Sci.-Technol. 2014, 36, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barbirato, G.; Fiorelli, J.; Barrero, N.M.G.; de Jesus Agnolon Pallone, E.M.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Cristoforo, A.L.; Junior, H.S. Painel Aglomerado Híbrido De Casca De Amendoim Reforçado Com Partículas De Madeira Itaúba. Ciência Florest. 2014, 24, 685–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fiorelli, J.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Nascimento, M.F.D.; Curtolo, D.D.; De Lucca Sartori, D.; Belini, U.L. Monolayers particleboards manufactured with wood waste and green coconut fiber. Sci. For. Sci. 2015, 43, 175–182. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nascimento, M.F.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Christoforo, A.L. Painéis de partículas homogêneas fabricados com resíduos lignoceluósicos e resina alternativa para aplicação em pisos Homogeneous particleboards manufactured with lignocellulosic waste and alternative resin for floor applications. Res. Sci. For. 2016, 44, 1001–1007. [Google Scholar]
  61. NBR 14535:2008; Wood Furniture: Requirements and Test Methods of Coated Surfaces standard. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2008.
  62. NBR 14810-2:2013; Medium Density Particleboard—Part 2: Requirements and Test Methods standard. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013.
  63. NBR 14810:2018; Medium Density Particleboards—Part 2: Requirements and Test Methods standard. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018.
  64. EN 300:2002; Oriented Strand Boards (OSB)—Definitions, Classification, and Specifications standard. European Standard: Lisbon, Portugal, 2002.
  65. Silva, D.A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Varanda, L.D.; Christoforo, A.L.; Ometto, A.R. Environmental performance assessment of the melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) resin manufacture: A case study in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tohmura, S.; Inoue, A.; Sahari, S.H. Influence of the melamine content in melamine-urea-formaldehyde resins on formaldehyde emission and cured resin structure. J. Wood Sci. 2001, 47, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. European Panel Federation. Autonomous Agreement on a European Action Guide Regarding the Prevention of Formaldehyde Exposure in the European Panel Industry and Compliance with the Occupational Exposure Limits. 2018. Available online: https://www.efbww.eu/publications/press-releases/action-guide-on-formaldehyde/1697-a (accessed on 19 August 2024).
  68. Embrapa, Mamona—BRS Energia. 2007. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-solucoes-tecnologicas/-/produto-servico/908/mamona---brs-energia (accessed on 29 May 2024).
Sustainability 17 03609 g001
Figure 1. Network mapping of keyword occurrences.
Figure 1. Network mapping of keyword occurrences.
Sustainability 17 03609 g001
Sustainability 17 03609 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of normalized impact results for impact categories in which PUR presents the best results in relation to UF or MUF.
Figure 2. Comparison of normalized impact results for impact categories in which PUR presents the best results in relation to UF or MUF.
Sustainability 17 03609 g002
Sustainability 17 03609 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of normalized impact results for impact categories in which PUR presents the worst results in relation to UF or MUF.
Figure 3. Comparison of normalized impact results for impact categories in which PUR presents the worst results in relation to UF or MUF.
Sustainability 17 03609 g003
Sustainability 17 03609 g004
Figure 4. Overview of normalized impact results for all UF, MUF, and PUR resins categories.
Figure 4. Overview of normalized impact results for all UF, MUF, and PUR resins categories.
Sustainability 17 03609 g004
Table 1. Sequence of filters and results of the systematic review strategy (Identification phase).
Table 1. Sequence of filters and results of the systematic review strategy (Identification phase).
Filters/
Databases		Castor Oil Resin or Castor Oil Adhesive(Castor Oil Resin or Castor Oil Adhesive) and Particleboard*) or ((Castor Oil Resin or Castor Oil Adhesive) and (Oriented Strand Board or OSB)Consolidated BaseComparative Papers
1st Filter2nd Filter
Web of Science852909514
Table 2. Resins evaluated using an LCA and their acronyms.
Table 2. Resins evaluated using an LCA and their acronyms.
ResinAcronymUnit Function
Urea-formaldehyde resinUF1 kg
Melanin urea-formaldehyde resinMUF1 kg
Castor oil PU resinPUR1 kg
Table 3. Secondary data and respective sources used for adhesive resins.
Table 3. Secondary data and respective sources used for adhesive resins.
Processes Inputs and OutputsData Source
INPUTS
Materials
Castor oil PU resin: EU-28: 2-component PUR adhesive based on polyether and castor oil (modified energy consumption based on a Brazilian industry and water consumption)Ecoinvent 3.7.1
Urea-formaldehyde resin: RER: urea–formaldehyde resin production (modified energy consumption based on a Brazilian industry)Ecoinvent 3.8
Melamine urea-formaldehyde resin: RER: melamine–formaldehyde resin production (modified energy consumption based on a Brazilian industry)Ecoinvent 3.7.1
Electricity consumptionEcoinvent 3.7.1
Electricity: electricity, high voltage, production mix—BR
OUTPUTS
Adhesive resin for particleboard production-
Table 4. Keyword occurrence.
Table 4. Keyword occurrence.
KeywordOccurrenceTotal Link Strength
1particleboards58252
2castor oil resin42203
3phmec properties38176
4wood30151
5composites20121
6wastes19103
7osb1759
8fiber16102
9wood wastes1673
10adhesive1472
11polyurethane resin1472
12thermal properties1264
13sugarcane bagasse1262
14resin1056
15eucalyptus942
Table 5. Articles with the most citations.
Table 5. Articles with the most citations.
DocumentTitlePublication YearCitationsLinks
1[47]Particulate composite based on coconut fiber and castor oil polyurethane
adhesive: An eco-efficient product		20128426
2[26]A Review on Waterborne Thermosetting Polyurethane Coatings Based on Castor Oil: Synthesis, Characterization, and Application2018750
3[27]Adhesive application on particleboard from natural fibers: A review2020512
4[32]Assessment of multilayer particleboards produced with green coconut and sugarcane bagasse fibers20195021
5[19]Circular vs. linear economy of building materials: A case study for particleboards made of recycled wood and biopolymer vs. conventional particleboards2021489
6[48]Macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia) shell and castor (Rícinos communis)
oil-based sustainable particleboard: A comparison of its properties with
conventional wood-based particleboard		20134410
7[49]Sugarcane Bagasse and Castor Oil Polyurethane Adhesive-based Particulate Composite20133711
8[17]Painéis de partículas à base de bagaço de cana e resina de mamona—produção e propriedades20113313
9[50]Eco-particleboard manufactured from chemically treated fibrous vascular tissue of acai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) Fruit: A new alternative for the particleboard industry with its potential application in civil construction and furniture2018337
10[51]Castor oil-based polyurethane resin for low-density composites with bamboo charcoal2018324
11[40]OSB Panels with Balsa Wood Waste and Castor Oil Polyurethane Resin20203020
12[31]Multilayer Particleboard Produced with Agroindustrial Waste and Amazonia Vegetable Fibres2018285
13[52]Evaluation of the optimum content of organic resins for the production of residual OSB wood of Balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) panels2021230
14[13]High-density particleboard made from agro-industrial waste and different adhesives20192218
15[11]Accelerated Artificial Aging of Particleboards from Residues of CCB
Treated Pinus sp. and Castor Oil Resin		20132215
Table 6. Top active research countries based on documents and citations.
Table 6. Top active research countries based on documents and citations.
CountryDocumentsCitationsTotal Link Strength
1Brazil89889148
2Canada43030
3Colombia48018
4United States313752
5Italy33934
6Russia22919
7Belgium22118
8Portugal2216
9Taiwan24412
10Australia14417
11Chile14417
12England11913
13New Zealand11412
14Germany1108
15Malaysia1513
16Nigeria1513
17India1750
Table 7. Mean values of physical and mechanical properties of particleboards comparing castor oil resin and different types of resin.
Table 7. Mean values of physical and mechanical properties of particleboards comparing castor oil resin and different types of resin.
AuthorsResinρTS 24 hMORMOEIB
(kg/m3)(%)(MPa)(MPa)(MPa)
[53]UF (10%)80028.33---
[53]PU (10%)80015.51---
[54]MF (13%)850–95017.9---
[54]PU (13%)850–95011.8---
[13]UF (10%)>80065.61824200.95
[13]PU (10%)>80010.93130202.52
[2]UF (10%)80082.004.294950.06
[2]PU (10%)8006.8035.0035552.23
ρ: density; TS: thickness swelling; MOR: modulus of rupture; MOE: modulus of elasticity; IB: internal bond; UF: urea–formaldehyde; MF: melamine–formaldehyde; PU: castor oil PU resin.
Table 8. Environmental impacts of production systems for different resins per functional unit (1 kg of resin).
Table 8. Environmental impacts of production systems for different resins per functional unit (1 kg of resin).
Impact CategoryAcronymUFMUFPUR
Climate change, incl biogenic carbon (kg CO2 eq.)CC + biogenic2.522.782.53
Fine particulate matter formation (kg PM2.5 eq.)FPMF0.002740.00410.00169
Fossil depletion (kg oil eq.)FD1.541.220.0186
Freshwater consumption (m3)FC0.1270.10.488
Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4 DB eq.)FE0.09990.090.00165
Freshwater eutrophication (kg P eq.)FET0.0004520.0007330.000232
Human toxicity, cancer (kg 1,4-DB eq.)HT, cancer0.1560.1390.00275
Human toxicity, non-cancer (kg 1,4-DB eq.)HT, non-cancer2.252.670.107
Ionizing radiation (kBq Co-60 eq. to air)IR0.120.05670.0325
Land use (Annual crop eq.·y)LU0.04850.05131.3
Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq.)ME0.1290.1150.00348
Marine eutrophication (kg N eq.)MET0.0002880.0003020.00152
Metal depletion (kg Cu eq.)MD0.01170.01050.0299
Photochemical ozone formation, ecosystems (kg NOx eq.)POF, E0.004880.005890.00465
Photochemical ozone formation, human health (kg NOx eq.)POF, H0.004610.005650.00448
Stratospheric ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 eq.)SOD0.00000130.00000070.0000069
Terrestrial acidification (kg SO2 eq.)TA0.008420.01080.00698
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq.)TE11.611.72.7
Acronyms: UF = urea–formaldehyde resin; MUF = urea–formaldehyde melanin resin; PUR = castor oil PU resin.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duran, A.J.F.P.; Lyra, G.P.; Campos Filho, L.E.; Martins, R.H.B.; Bueno, C.; Rossignolo, J.A.; Fiorelli, J. The Use of Castor Oil Resin on Particleboards: A Systematic Performance Review and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083609

AMA Style

Duran AJFP, Lyra GP, Campos Filho LE, Martins RHB, Bueno C, Rossignolo JA, Fiorelli J. The Use of Castor Oil Resin on Particleboards: A Systematic Performance Review and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duran, Afonso José Felício Peres, Gabriela Pitolli Lyra, Luiz Eduardo Campos Filho, Romulo Henrique Batista Martins, Cristiane Bueno, João Adriano Rossignolo, and Juliano Fiorelli. 2025. "The Use of Castor Oil Resin on Particleboards: A Systematic Performance Review and Life Cycle Assessment" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083609

APA Style

Duran, A. J. F. P., Lyra, G. P., Campos Filho, L. E., Martins, R. H. B., Bueno, C., Rossignolo, J. A., & Fiorelli, J. (2025). The Use of Castor Oil Resin on Particleboards: A Systematic Performance Review and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability, 17(8), 3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083609

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