Next Article in Journal
Review of the Integration of Fused Filament Fabrication with Complementary Methods for Fabricating Hierarchical Porous Polymer Structures
Previous Article in Journal
A Simulation-Based Risk Assessment Model for Comparative Analysis of Collisions in Autonomous and Non-Autonomous Haulage Trucks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Eugenol@Natural Zeolite Nanohybrid vs. Clove Powder as Active and Reinforcement Agents in Novel Brewer’s Spent Grain/Gelatin/Glycerol Edible, High Oxygen Barrier Active Packaging Films
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/app15179705
applsci-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

Life Cycle Analysis of Particleboard Made of Corn Stalk and Citric Acid at Laboratory Scale

by
Lilik Astari
1,2,
Robert H. Crawford
3,
Kenji Umemura
4,
Barbara Ozarska
1 and
Benoit Belleville
1,*
1
School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne, Richmond, VIC 3121, Australia
2
Research Center for Biomass and Bioproducts, National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia (BRIN), Jalan Raya Bogor KM 46, Bogor 16911, Indonesia
3
Melbourne School of Design, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
4
Research Institute of Sustainable Humanosphere, Kyoto University, Uji-Shi, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(17), 9705; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179705
Submission received: 8 August 2025 / Revised: 27 August 2025 / Accepted: 1 September 2025 / Published: 3 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Unlocking the Potential of Agri-Food Waste for Innovative Applications and Bio-Based Materials, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Research on particleboard fabrication using non-wood biomass as an alternative to wood particles is steadily increasing due to environmental awareness. Information on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of particleboards made of non-wood biomass and non-formaldehyde adhesives is scarce. This research presents the life cycle assessment (LCA) of particleboard fabrication made from corn stalk particles and citric acid in Indonesia and Australia at laboratory scale. Cradle-to-gate boundaries were applied with the fabrication steps involving particle preparation, citric acid solution preparation, the mixing of adhesive and particle, a hot-pressing process, and a final production process. The functional unit is a particleboard with 282 mm × 208 mm × 12 mm dimensions. The life cycle inventory data were obtained from particleboard sheet fabrication on a lab scale. Southeast Asia (Indonesia) and Southern Australia (Victoria) conditions were adopted for geographical background processes, using data from the Ecoinvent V.3.10 database. LCA calculation was conducted using the OpenLCA V.2.1.1 software. The environmental impacts were calculated using the ReCiPe Midpoint 2016 methodology. The results showed that oven drying and pre-treatment drying contributed the most to energy consumption in both regions, accounting for 97.14% at the Indonesian site and 96.49% at the Australian site. The environmental impacts in the Australian context showed higher values in 10 out of 18 categories. The five highest environmental impacts were terrestrial ecotoxicity (5.50 × 102 kg 1,4-DCB in Indonesia, 6.37 × 102 kg 1,4-DCB in Australia), global warming (2.72 × 102 kg CO2 eq in Indonesia, 2.49 × 102 kg CO2 eq in Australia), human non-carcinogenic toxicity (4.65 × 102 kg 1,4-DCB in Indonesia, 4.18 × 102 kg 1,4-DCB in Australia), water consumption (2.50 × 102 m3 in Indonesia, 4.62 × 102 m3 in Australia), and fossil resource scarcity (7.34 × 101 kg oil eq in Indonesia, 6.86 × 101 kg oil eq in Australia). Implementing solar drying and sourcing raw materials from farms closer to the production site could reduce energy consumption by up to 48.57% in Indonesia and 48.24% in Australia. These findings underscore the high energy demand of drying and the importance of site selection in particleboard production.

1. Introduction

A particleboard is an engineered wood panel made of wood particles and other lignocellulosic materials fabricated under heat and pressure [1]. Particleboards are valued for their cost-effectiveness and straightforward manufacturing process [2]. Particleboards have desirable properties such as uniformity in density, a smooth surface and the ability to remain flat [3], good thermal insulation and sound absorption properties [4], and the availability of products in various thicknesses and sizes [5]. Particleboards can be applied for both non-structural and structural applications [6]. Particleboards are widely used in indoor applications and are the most preferred wood-based board owing to their affordability and ease of processing in modular furniture production [7]. Furthermore, research by Lee et al. [8] reported that particleboards are applicable for wooden-house construction.
The global production of particleboards reached 110 million m3 in 2022, a significant increase from 76 million m3 in 2012 [9]. The high demand for particleboards has led to a significant increase in the demand for wood chips as the main raw material, putting high pressure on the forest industry and leading to ecological setbacks such as deforestation and biodiversity loss. Therefore, it is important to initiate the search for alternative wood particles.
Given their lignocellulosic content, agricultural by-products—particularly those derived from plants—present a viable biomass alternative to wood chips in particleboard fabrication. These by-products are typically defined as animal or plant source residue that is not further processed into food or feed and can contribute additional environmental and economic burdens within primary processing [10]. The increasing use of agricultural waste as an alternative to traditional raw materials in particleboard production aligns with the global shift towards implementing a circular economy to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs). The circular economy emphasises efficient resource management, waste reduction, and the transformation of waste into high-value products [11]. With global economic development and population growth driving a surge in manufacturing sectors, the limitations of wood as a forest product to meet the growing demand are becoming apparent. Therefore, exploring the potential of agricultural waste as an alternative raw material for engineered wood-based panel production is a promising solution.
Agricultural by-products derived from plants can be divided into wood and non-wood. The wood biomass includes softwood and hardwood species. Non-wood agricultural products can be classified as fruit, grass, leaf, seed, stalk, straw, and stem [12]. Typically, non-wood biomass has a small diameter, except for bamboo and oil palm trunks. This trait limits the use of non-wood biomass in the processing of lumber, strips or veneer [13]. However, non-wood biomass is a suitable raw material for particleboard fabrication because the dimensions and size of the material are not critical [14].
Studies on agricultural by-products from staple crops such as rice, wheat, and corn are considered important because they provide an abundant and continuous residue. Large quantities and continuous availability of raw material feed for particleboard fabrication are essential. The latest research shows that rice straw [15,16,17], rice husk [18,19,20], wheat straw [21,22,23,24], corn cobs [25,26,27,28], and corn husk [29,30,31] have all been successful as wood substitutes for particleboard fabrication. Furthermore, research on the utilisation of corn stalks (CSs) as a raw material for particleboards has also been documented [32,33,34,35]. The agricultural by-products mentioned above produced particleboards with physical and mechanical properties comparable to those of wood-based particleboards, according to international standards.
Besides challenges in the availability of raw materials, particleboard fabrication faces challenges in terms of conventional adhesives that are sourced mainly from petroleum-based materials. Urea formaldehyde (UF), melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) and phenol formaldehyde (PF) are common adhesives for wood-based panel manufacture, including particleboards [36]. These adhesives are favourable in particleboard manufacturing given their cost-effectiveness under various curing conditions, ease of use, high water-solubility, fast reaction, good thermal properties, and resistance to microorganism attacks [37]. However, the use of formaldehyde-based adhesives is a major concern because formaldehyde emissions continue to be released after the production process [7], which can lead to human health issues [38,39].
To address this challenge, extensive research has been conducted on the fabrication of particleboards using natural adhesives. Among several natural adhesives, citric acid (CA) has been widely investigated as a binding agent in particleboard fabrication research [40,41,42,43]. CA (C6H8O7) is an organic acid that is found mainly in citrus fruit [44]. Particleboard fabrication made of non-wood agricultural by-products and using CA as the adhesive has been reported, using sweet sorghum bagasse [45,46], new giant reed [47], hemp hurd [48], nipa fronds [49], salacca fronds [50], bamboo [51,52], as well as CS [35]. All the authors have confirmed that the formation of ester linkages as a result of the reaction between carboxyl groups in CA and hydroxyl groups of fibre leads to the high bondability of particleboards. The research demonstrated an innovative substitution for conventional particleboard adhesives.
Astari et al. (2024) [35] studied the fabrication of particleboards made of CS and CA. Their findings indicated that the incorporation of CSs with 25 wt% CA resulted in acceptable mechanical properties for base particleboard type 13 (for base or decorative or non-structural purposes) according to the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) A 5908:2022 [53]. Although the combination of CS and CA supports the development of eco-friendly particleboards, the fabrication process still requires a thorough life cycle analysis. Life cycle analysis can identify potential environmental hotspots and provide a basis for decision-making to minimise impacts [54]. The environmental impact assessment can be carried out using a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology.
According to ISO 14040 [55] and ISO 14044 [56], LCA is recognised as a strategic and effective tool for evaluating potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life cycle and identifying possible areas of enhancement. There are four main steps in LCA: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment and the interpretation of the results [57].
LCA studies on particleboard fabrication using non-wood materials and natural adhesives are scarce. Mata et al. (2023) [58] reported the LCA of pilot-scale particleboard production using cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) with starch and chitosan as the adhesives. Energy consumption was identified as the most influential environmental impact category, followed by the production of starch and chitosan. The substitution of photovoltaic panels for national grid electricity was found to substantially reduce impacts across most categories. LCA studies on particleboards made of sugarcane bagasse were reported by dos Santos et al. [59] and Cangussu et al. [60]. It was found that the distance between raw material collection and particleboard production significantly affected the impact categories. In addition, the LCA of corn cob particleboards was reported by Ramos et al. [28]. Region-specific LCA studies on particleboards made from wood particles were reported in Australia [61], Japan [62], Brazil [63], Spain [64], Pakistan [65], and Iran [66]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the LCA study on the particleboard fabrication process using CS and CA at laboratory scale in Southeast regions has never been documented. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the life cycle analysis and environmental impact of laboratory-scale particleboard fabrication using corn stalk and citric acid in Australia and Indonesia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Goal, Scope, Functional Unit, System Boundary

The main goal of this study is to evaluate the life cycle environmental impact of particleboard fabrication using CS and CA 25 wt% at laboratory scale in Indonesia, according to previous research by Astari et al. [35,67] and particleboards made of CS and CA 25 wt% in Victoria (Australia). This study aims to identify the hotspots in the processes and recommend improvements to reduce life cycle environmental impacts. The methodology follows ISO 14040 [55] and ISO 14044 [56].
The functional unit is defined as a reference unit by which the performance of a system is quantified in LCA [28]. The functional unit is the specified unit used to compare similar products intended for similar purposes, although the final product applications are uncertain, given several available options. This study’s functional unit is a particleboard of 0.000704 m3 in accordance with the actual size of the particleboard (282 mm × 208 mm × 12 mm).
The system boundary defines the stages or phases that will be included in the analysis. The system boundary in this research is a ‘cradle-to-gate’ approach, covering the following stages: raw material acquisition, adhesive preparation, CS particle preparation (grinding and sieving), adhesive and CS particle mixing, hot-pressing, and final processing (Figure 1).
The three main components for particleboard fabrication are CS particles, CA, and water. Particleboard fabrication in this study is divided into three main stages: (1) CS particle preparation, (2) adhesive (CA) preparation, and (3) particleboard pressing (Figure 2).
Preparation of the CS particles begins with removing the leaves and tassels. Then, the stalks are cut into smaller sizes—between 5 and 10 cm—using a hand machete. The smaller-sized stalks are milled to obtain particles. The particles are then homogenised using a sieve to obtain a particle size 6–8 mesh. Using an oven at 80 °C for 20 h, these particles are then oven-dried to reach a moisture content of less than 5%.
A CA solution (adhesive) with a 59% w/v concentration was prepared by mixing CA and demineralised water using a magnetic stirrer. This percentage was identified as the optimum CA content in a study by Umemura et al. [68]. The dissolving time was nine minutes at room temperature. The solution was then placed in enclosed bottles ready for further processes.
The particleboard was fabricated by mixing the dried CS particles with the adhesive in a drum mixer. The adhesive was sprayed into the drum mixer using an air-powered spray gun. The mixture of particles and adhesive was then subjected to a pre-drying treatment before the hot-pressing process to reduce the moisture content again to less than 5%. Pre-drying was conducted at 80 °C for 20 h.
The dried mixture was then formed into a mat in an aluminium and wood mould with dimensions of 280 mm × 208 mm × 100 mm. The mat then underwent the pressing process. The hot-press machine was preheated to 200 °C. The preheat time was 40 min, with the assumption of a workshop area temperature around 30 °C (Indonesian context). A preheat time of 40 min was also applied in the Australian context given fabrication was conducted during summer.
Upon the hot-press machine reaching a temperature of 200 °C, the aluminium mould containing the mat was positioned on the lower platen. Subsequently, the lower platen was ramped up to approach the upper platen until a 12 mm gap was reached. This process took approximately three minutes. Following this, the pressing time was set to 10 min with a pressing temperature of 200 °C. After pressing, the particleboard was conditioned for seven days at room temperature. After conditioning, the particleboard was trimmed using a woodworking machine. The final product is a particleboard with a dimension of 282 mm × 208 mm × 12 mm, which aligns with the functional unit for the LCA.
Although the process of particleboard fabrication in this study for the Indonesian and Australian contexts is identical, the equipment is different. Details on the processes and the equipment used in each context are presented in Table 1.
The particleboard’s physical and mechanical properties were determined in accordance with the JIS A 5908:2022 [53]. The physical properties include the particleboard’s density, thickness swelling, and water absorption. The mechanical properties investigated were flexural strength, internal bonding, and screw holding power properties.

2.2. Scenario Description: Formulation of Particleboard

This LCA study analyses the fabrication process of particleboards made of CS particles and CA 25 wt% in Indonesia in accordance with previous work by Astari et al. [35] and particleboards with CS and CA 25 wt% fabricated in Victoria (Australia).
The particleboard targeted density was 0.7 g/cm3. To fabricate one functional unit, the following materials are needed:
  • CS particles (moisture content < 5%): 0.364 kg
  • CA solution (concentration 59 wt%): 0.147 kg (to obtain 0.147 kg CA solution, CA powder 0.073 kg was dissolved in 0.123 L demineralised water).
The particleboard’s physical and mechanical properties were tested with reference to the JIS A 5908:2022 [53]. The properties of the particleboards are presented in Table 2.
Properties of the particleboard made in Indonesia fulfil the requirements of the base particleboard type 13 in terms of its physical properties and modulus of rupture, while the internal bonding and screw holding power meet the type 8 requirement according to the JIS A 5908:2022 [53]. The particleboard made in Australia meets the type 8 requirement in terms of density and screw holding power, however the modulus of rupture is slightly below the standard.

2.3. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

The life cycle inventory data—primary data—were collected according to the descriptions in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. Primary data were foreground data [69] that were directly collected during the experiment. Corn cultivation, harvesting, and processing were not counted because the materials used in this study were by-products. Because the by-products were cob, leaves, and husk, the post-harvest of other by-products—aside from stalks—were also not included. The secondary or background data were obtained from the Ecoinvent V.3.10 database. The database processes used include producing CA, electricity, and water supply.
The transportation of raw materials was notably different in the Indonesian and Australian contexts. In Australia, the distance from the raw materials acquisition site to the processing site was 233 km; in Indonesia, the distance was 28 km.

2.4. Environmental Impact Assessment

The methodology selected for the environmental impact assessment for this study is the ReCiPe Midpoint 2016 methodology. Several studies that conduct LCA on particleboard products use this methodology [58,60,70]. The calculation and analysis were performed using the OpenLCA 2.1.1. Software, an open-access software for LCA calculation.

3. Results

3.1. Life Cycle Inventory

Table 3 presents the life cycle inventory of one particleboard made of CS and CA 25 wt% with dimensions of 282 mm × 208 mm × 12 mm. The inventory data encompasses the materials and energy required in the fabrication processes.
Table 3 indicates that the energy consumption in the Indonesian context surpasses that of the Australian context by 88.26%. The higher energy consumption in Indonesia was due to the equipment deployed in the Indonesian context having higher power (Table A1 in Appendix A), particularly the oven drying and hot-press machine. For transportation, similar vehicles were used to convey the corn stalks in Indonesia and Australia, namely four-wheeled passenger cars powered by gasoline. The proportion breakdown of energy consumption per region is summarised in Table 4.
In both Indonesia and Australia, oven energy consumption during fabrication represents the largest proportion of energy use, being 97.14% and 96.49%, respectively. This high consumption is primarily attributed to the long drying duration of 20 h and the additional pre-drying treatment of 20 h. These extended drying times are necessary because the moisture content of CS after harvest is 70–80% [71,72,73]. After mixing the particles with the adhesive—without pre-drying—it was found that the moisture content of the mixture was above 17.45%. Therefore, pre-drying is necessary to reduce the moisture content to less than 5%. Kusumah et al. [45] reported the effect of pre-drying treatment on particleboards using CA as the adhesive. These authors stated that subjecting the sweet sorghum bagasse and CA (20 wt%) particleboard to the pre-drying treatment resulted in a 17.43% increase in bending strength and a 53.33% increase in internal bonding.
After drying, hot-pressing is the second most energy-intensive process, followed by milling. In the Indonesian context, the order of energy consumption percentage is as follows, from highest to lowest: drying, hot-pressing, milling, sieving, mixing, adhesive mixing, and trimming. In the Australian context, the order is drying, hot-pressing, milling, mixing, sieving, adhesive mixing, and trimming. The energy used in each process is electrical energy sourced from the low-voltage supply provided by the distribution grid in Indonesia and Australia.

3.2. Environmental Impacts

Table 5 shows that several environmental impacts are higher in Australia, i.e., terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET), water consumption (WC), marine ecotoxicity (MET), freshwater ecotoxicity (FET), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT), ionising radiation (IR), ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems (ODT), mineral resource scarcity (MRS), marine eutrophication (ME), and stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD). The variation is affected by the difference in energy systems and resource utilisations. In both the Indonesian and Australian context, the five highest impact categories are terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET), HET, GW, water consumption (WC), and FRS.
Terrestrial ecotoxicity is a major impact category driven by agricultural and chemical inputs, including waste disposal. Elevated water consumption reflects either the adoption of water-intensive agriculture practices or the use of citric acid as the adhesive, which requires water for extraction and dilution.
Although the order differs, the two regions exhibit similar primary environmental impacts. Thus, this present study identifies the five key environmental impacts associated with the fabrication of particleboards made of CS and CA. A detailed comparison of the five environmental impacts with significant differences is presented in Figure 3.
Furthermore, five environmental impact categories showed significant differences between Indonesia and Australia: fine particulate matter formation (PMF), land use (LU), marine eutrophication (ME), mineral resource scarcity (MRS), and global warming (GW).
The relative contributions of each LCI phase for environmental impacts are presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows that TET has the most remarkable impact on the transport phase in both countries. In terms of energy, HET, TET, and WC are the notable contributors to the environmental impact profile.

4. Discussion

Given the results presented in the previous section, energy consumption for drying is the primary determinant of environmental performance in particleboard fabrication. Therefore, the main focus should be on minimising this energy usage. As mentioned in the previous section, the double drying processes contribute to the high electricity needed in both countries. In the Indonesian context, the energy consumption for drying can be reduced by applying solar drying. Indonesia has a dry season that starts in July and lasts until January, with solar energy potency between 137.8 kWh/m2 and 148.2 kWh/m2 [74]. In Indonesia, corn can be planted year-round. The primary consideration is the availability and accessibility of surrounding water resources, given that corn dies in water-scarce or waterlogged areas [75]. However, according to Pramudia et al. [76], the best time to plant corn in Indonesia is in April. If corn is planted in April, harvest will occur between July and August, given that the growing season lasts three to four months. This timing matches the high availability of solar energy during the dry season. Thus, energy consumption for drying can be minimised.
A recent study by Khouya [77] reported that a hybrid solar dryer that integrated a heat pump and a gas boiler reduced energy consumption in the woody biomass drying process by up to 84%. However, a study on non-wood particles using solar drying is scarce. Therefore, in this study, the assumption in the solar drying scenario is a reduction of 10 h of particle oven drying, resulting in an energy decrease from 238.83 kWh to 180.83 kWh in Indonesia and from 126.86 kWh to 96.26 kWh in Australia. The energy decrease in the solar drying scenario represents 24.39% and 24.12% of energy consumption reduction in Indonesia and Australia, respectively. Further reduction can be expected when solar drying is also deployed for the pre-drying treatment, which also aims to reduce the pre-drying treatment by 10 h. When solar drying scenarios are applied both on drying and pre-drying, with the assumption of a 10 h reduction for each process, the energy consumption reduction is assumed to become 122.83 kWh for the Indonesian context and 65.66 kWh for the Australian context. These reductions represent 48.57% (Indonesia) and 48.24% (Australia) energy savings.
In the Australian context, especially in Victoria, corn is usually sown in spring, starting in September. Franch et al. [78] reported the start of the season of corn in Australia is between August and November, with the end of the season being between December and June. This timeline is also suitable for applying solar drying in the utilisation of CS for particleboard fabrication.
Another approach to reducing oven drying would be discarding the pre-drying treatment during the process. However, this option will affect the mechanical properties of the particleboard, given that the high moisture content of the particles reduces the mechanical properties of the particleboard. The decision to discard the pre-drying treatment could, however, be acceptable if the main purpose of the particleboard fabrication is altered to applications other than high-load or structural material. Kusumah et al. [45] investigated the effect of pre-drying treatment on the properties of particleboards made of sorghum and citric acid. Their results showed that particleboard made from sorghum bagasse and 20 wt% citric acid, without pre-dried particles, exhibited approximately 15% lower modulus of rupture and 50% lower internal bond strength. The high particle moisture content was found to disrupt chemical interactions between the particles and the adhesive, thereby reducing bondability.
Another notable factor for reducing environmental impact would be choosing closer farm sites to supply the raw materials. Whereas, in the Australian context, the farm site was 233 km from the production site, in Indonesia the distance was only 28 km. Dos Santos et al. [59], in their LCA comparative study of particleboards made of sugarcane bagasse and pine shaving, claimed that the shorter the distance between raw material and the production site, the lower the environmental impact.

5. Conclusions

Particleboard fabrication made of CS and CA provides an alternative to conventional particleboards. The drying processes in the fabrication process contribute to the highest energy consumption, followed by the hot-pressing and milling processes.
Several strategies to reduce energy use in either Indonesia or Australia include applying solar drying to the CS particles before mixing. Another strategy is to reduce or eliminate the pre-drying treatment for particleboards intended for non-high load applications and to select farmland closer to the fabrication site. Solar drying is feasible in both Indonesia and Australia, given favourable seasonal conditions.
Compared with the Indonesian context, fabrication in the Australian context resulted in higher environmental impacts. The five greatest environmental impacts in both regions are TET, GW, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, WC, and FRS. The results of the LCA study represent a potential impact change. However, the actual effects may vary because the findings are linked to specific attributes.
Future studies on comparative LCA on particleboards made of CS with conventional adhesive and CA are necessary for comprehensive results. In addition, future studies should focus on the reduction in the environmental impacts of particleboard fabrication made from non-wood lignocellulosic materials and natural adhesives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.; methodology, L.A., R.H.C. and B.B.; software, L.A.; formal analysis, L.A.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.; writing—review and editing, R.H.C., B.B., K.U. and B.O.; visualisation, L.A.; supervision, R.H.C., B.B., K.U. and B.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data in this paper are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Ismadi and Sudarmanto for their technical assistance with the equipment. The authors acknowledge the facilities and scientific and technical support received from the Advance Characterisation Laboratories, Cibinong Integrated Laboratory of Bioproduct, National Research and Innovation Agency, through E-Layanan Sains, Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Life cycle inventory on energy consumption of particleboards in the Indonesian and Australian context.
Table A1. Life cycle inventory on energy consumption of particleboards in the Indonesian and Australian context.
ProcessIndonesiaDuration (h)Energy
(kWh)		AustraliaDuration (h)Energy
(kWh)
EquipmentPower (W) EquipmentPower (W)
CuttingHand machete Hand machete
MillingHammer mill: Pallman Maschinefabrik GmbH & Co. KG, Zweibrüken, Germany, Type PHM 3 Machine No. 0101.93.02735000.170.58Cutting mill: Fritsch Pulverisette®, Fritsch GmbH, Idar-Oberstein, Germany, Type 15.302 Machine No. 60210500.420.44
SievingBuilt-in shaking machine (Bogor, Indonesia)15000.250.38Shaking machine: Vibro veyor (Melbourne, Australia) Pty. Ltd.,11000.170.18
DryingOven: Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Schwabach, Germany, Type UF 450-8718.0280580020.00116.00Oven: Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model TD-500F306020.0061.20
Adhesive dissolvingHotplate stirrer: IKA C-MAG HS (Jakarta, Indonesia)10200.150.15Digital hotplate stirrer: Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model THS-18510500.150.16
MixingBuilt-in drum mixer (Bogor, Indonesia)10000.080.08Air compressor: McMillan MC 12 60 L, Melbourne, Australia24000.170.40
Air compressor: Krisbow® air compressor machine type 10029559 (Jakarta, Indonesia)22000.080.18
Pre-drying treatmentOven: Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Germany, Type UF 450-8718.0280580020.00116.00Oven: Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model TD-500F306020.0061.20
Hot-pressingHot-press machine: Shinto Metal Industri, Ltd., Osaka, Japan, type NF-50HH manufacturing No. 217020, clamping force 50 tons60000.885.30Hot-press machine: Dake®, Grand Haven MI, USA, type 44-226-2, tonnage: 25 tons36000.883.18
TrimmingWood working machine: Tomita®, Ichinomiya-shi, Japan30000.050.15Table saw machine: DEWALT®, Type DWE7491 -XE, Shanghai, China20000.050.10
Energy total 238.83 126.86

References

  1. AS/NZS 1859.1:2017; Reconstituted Wood-Based Panels—Specifications—Part 1: Particleboard. Joint Technical Committee TM-011: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2017.
  2. Rossi, L.; Wechsler, L.; Peltzer, M.A.; Ciannamea, E.M.; Ruseckaite, R.A.; Stefani, P.M. Sustainable particleboards based on brewer’s spent grains. Polymers 2024, 16, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Baharoğlu, M.; Nemli, G.; Sarı, B.; Bardak, S.; Ayrılmış, N. The influence of moisture content of raw material on the physical and mechanical properties, surface roughness, wettability, and formaldehyde emission of particleboard composite. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2012, 43, 2448–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, F.; Fei, B.; Wu, Z.; Peng, L.; Yu, Y. Selected properties of corrugated particleboards made from bamboo waste (Phyllostachys edulis) laminated with medium-density fiberboard panels. BioResources 2014, 9, 1085–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rochester, I.; Kearly, V.; Boulton, N. Panel Guide; Version 4.1; Wood Panel Industries Federation: Grantham, UK; TRADA Technology Ltd.: High Wycombe, UK; The National Panel Product Division: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fiorelli, J.; Gomide, C.A.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Nascimento, M.F.; Sartori, D.L.; Ballesteros, J.E.M.; Bueno, S.B.; Belini, U.L. Physico-chemical and anatomical characterization of residual lignocellulosic fibers. Cellulose 2014, 21, 3269–3277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Başboğa, İ.H. Particleboard manufacturing with low formaldehyde content for indoor applications. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2023, 18, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, M.; Kang, E.-C.; Lee, S.-M.; Yoon, S.-M. Mechanical properties of structural particleboard and termite and decay resistance. BioResources 2023, 18, 6169–6182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. FAOSTAT. Forestry Production and Trade; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2024; Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO (accessed on 29 January 2025).
  10. Gontard, N.; Sonesson, U.; Birkved, M.; Majone, M.; Bolzonella, D.; Celli, A.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Jang, G.-W.; Verniquet, A.; Broeze, J.; et al. A research challenge vision regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Tec. 2018, 48, 614–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tucker, S.N.; Tharumarajah, A.; May, B.; England, J.; Paul, K.; Hall, M.; Mitchell, P.; Rouwette, R.; Syme, M. Life Cycle Inventory of Australian Forestry and Wood Products; Forest & Wood Products Australia Limited (FWPA): Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2009; Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26151873 (accessed on 29 January 2025).
  12. Alwani, M.S.; Khalil, H.P.S.A.; Asniza, M.; Suhaily, S.S.; Amiranajwa, A.S.N.; Jawaid, M. Agricultural Biomass Raw Materials: The Current State and Future Potentialities; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paridah, M.T.; Juliana, A.H.; Zaidon, A.; Khalil, H.P.S.A. Nonwood-Based composites. Curr. For. Rep. 2015, 1, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, S.H.; Lum, W.C.; Boon, J.G.; Kristak, L.; Antov, P.; Pędzik, M.; Rogoziński, T.; Taghiyari, H.R.; Lubis, M.A.R.; Fatriasari, W.; et al. Particleboard from agricultural biomass and recycled wood waste: A review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 20, 4630–4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zakia, H.; Taha, A.; Mervat, K.; Adel, B.; Samir, A.; Jutta, H.; Azra, K. Rice Straw and Flax Fiber Particleboards as a Product of Agricultural Waste: An Evaluation of Technical Properties. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sujatha, D.; Mamatha, S.; Uday, N. Influence of rice straw and wood fiber combination on physical and mechanical properties of rice straw pulverized composite board. Maderas-Cienc. Technol. 2024, 26, e3724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, L.; Hu, Y. Novel lignocellulosic hybrid particleboard composites made from rice straws and coir fibers. Mater. Des. 2014, 55, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Akinyemi, B.A.; Kolajo, T.E.; Adedolu, O. Blended formaldehyde adhesive bonded particleboards made from groundnut shell and rice husk wastes. Clean Technol. Environ. 2022, 24, 1653–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nicolao, E.S.; Leiva, P.; Chalapud, M.C.; Ruseckaite, R.A.; Ciannamea, E.M.; Stefani, P.M. Flexural and tensile properties of biobased rice husk-jute-soybean protein particleboards. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, H.-K.; Hsu, C.-H.; Hsu, P.-K.; Cho, Y.-M.; Chou, T.-H.; Cheng, Y.-S. Preparation and evaluation of particleboard from insect rearing residue and rice husks using starch/citric acid mixture as a natural binder. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2022, 12, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Büyüksari, U.; Akkilic, H. Surface Characteristics of particleboard produced from hydro-thermally treated wheat stalks. Bioresources 2020, 15, 7648–7659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Domínguez-Robles, J.; Tarrés, Q.; Alcalà, M.; El Mansouri, N.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Mutjé, P. Delgado-Aguilar. Development of high-performance binderless fiberboards from wheat straw residue. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tupciauskas, R.; Rizhikovs, J.; Andzs, M.; Bikovens, O. Influence of manufacturing conditions on binder-less boards from steam-exploded hemp shives and wheat straw. Materials 2022, 15, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hyskova, P.; Hysek, S.; Schonfelder, O.; Sedivka, P.; Lexa, M.; Jarsky, V. Utilization of agricultural rests: Straw-based composite panels made from enzymatic modified wheat and rapeseed straw. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 144, 112067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paiva, A.; Pereira, S.; Sá, A.; Cruz, D.; Varum, H.; Pinto, J. A contribution to the thermal insulation performance characterization of corn cob particleboards. Energy Build. 2012, 45, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pinto, J.; Vieira, B.; Pereira, H.; Jacinto, C.; Vilela, P.; Paiva, A.; Pereira, S.; Cunha, V.M.C.F.; Varum, H. Corn cob lightweight concrete for non-structural applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Faustino, J.; Pereira, L.; Soares, S.; Cruz, D.; Paiva, A.; Varum, H.; Ferreira, J.; Pinto, J. Impact sound insulation technique using corn cob particleboard. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 37, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ramos, A.; Briga-Sá, A.; Pereira, S.; Correia, M.; Pinto, J.; Bentes, I.; Teixeira, C.A. Thermal performance and life cycle assessment of corn cob particleboards. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ratna, A.S.; Ghosh, A.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Advances and prospects of corn husk as a sustainable material in composites and other technical applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prasetiyo, K.W.; Hermawan, D.; Hadi, Y.S.; Subyakto, S.; Astari, L.; Amanda, P.; Kusumaningrum, W.B. Manufacturing and characterization of particleboard as partition material made of corn husk bonded using water soluble chitosan adhesive. Eur. Chem. Bull. 2023, 12, 5658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Alshahrani, H.; Prakash, V.R.A. Mechanical, fatigue and DMA behaviour of high content cellulosic corn husk fibre and orange peel biochar epoxy biocomposite: A greener material for cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 133931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kup, F.; Vural, C. Determination of physical and mechanical properties of particleboard obtained from cotton and corn stubble with fibreglass plaster net. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2022, 23, 657–667. [Google Scholar]
  33. Abdulqader, A.A. Efficient utilization of corn stalk and poplar planer shavings in manufacturing particleboard. Maderas-Cienc. Tecnol. 2021, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, S.D.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, J.M.; Guo, M.H. Fabrication and characterization of a novel corn straw/modified ammonium lignosulfonate bio-composite strengthened by polyethylenimine pretreatment. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 34754–34760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Astari, L.; Belleville, B.; Ozarska, B.; Umemura, K.; Crawford, R.; Kusumaningrum, W.B.; Ismayati, M. Performance of self-binding engineered panels made from sweet corn stalks (Zea mays L.) for furniture applications. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2024, 25, 101802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, Q.Y.; Xu, G.X.; Pizzi, A.; Lei, H.; Xi, X.D.; Du, G.B. A green resin wood adhesive from synthetic polyamide crosslinking with glyoxal. Polymers 2022, 14, 2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ergun, M.E.; Özlüsoylu, İ.; İstek, A.; Can, A. Analysis and impact of activated carbon incorporation into urea-formaldehyde adhesive on the properties of particleboard. Coatings 2023, 13, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rovira, J.; Roig, N.; Nadal, M.; Schuhmacher, M.; Domingo, J.L. Human health risks of formaldehyde indoor levels: An issue of concern. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 2016, 51, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bhat, D.; Murugesh, P.; Basavanna, P.N.; Chittoor, H.; Doddaiah, S. Estimation of occupational formaldehyde exposure in cadaver dissection laboratory and its implications. Anat. Cell Biol. 2019, 52, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Teixeira, D.E.; Pereira, D.D.C.; Nakamura, A.P.D.; Brum, S.S. Adhesivity of bio-based anhydrous citric acid, tannin-citric acid and ricinoleic acid in the properties of formaldehyde free medium density particleboard (MDP). Drvna Ind. 2020, 71, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Widyorini, R.; Nugraha, P.A.; Rahman, M.Z.A.; Prayitno, T.A. bonding ability of a new adhesive composed of citric acid-sucrose for particleboard. BioResources 2016, 11, 4526–4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sutiawan, J.; Syahfitri, A.; Purnomo, D.; Sudarmanto; Narto; Akbar, F.; Triwibowo, D.; Ismadi; Amanda, P.; Kusumah, S.S.; et al. Characterization and application of non-formaldehyde binder based citric acid, maleic acid, and molasses adhesive for plywood composite. Polymers 2023, 15, 3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Widodo, E.; Kusumah, S.S.; Subyakto; Umemura, K. Development of moulding using sweet sorghum bagasse and citric acid: Effects of application method and citric acid content. For. Prod. J. 2020, 70, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, S.H.; Tahir, P.M.; Lum, W.C.; Tan, L.P.; Bawon, P.; Park, B.-D.; Al Edrus, S.S.O.; Abdullah, U.H. A Review on citric acid as green modifying agent and binder for wood. Polymers 2020, 12, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kusumah, S.S.; Umemura, K.; Yoshioka, K.; Miyafuji, H.; Kanayama, K. Utilization of sweet sorghum bagasse and citric acid for manufacturing of particleboard I: Effects of pre-drying treatment and citric acid content on the board properties. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 84, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kusumah, S.S.; Umemura, K.; Guswenrivo, I.; Yoshimura, T.; Kanayama, K. Utilization of sweet sorghum bagasse and citric acid for manufacturing of particleboard II: Influences of pressing temperature and time on particleboard properties. J. Wood Sci. 2017, 63, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ferrandez-Garcia, M.T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, C.E.; Garcia-Ortuño, T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, A.; Ferrandez-Villena, M. Experimental Evaluation of a New Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.) Composite using citric acid as a natural binder. Agronomy 2019, 9, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fehrmann, J.; Belleville, B.; Ozarska, B.; Ismayati, M.; Dwianto, W. Effects of mat composition and pressing time on citric acid-bonded ultra-low-density hemp hurd particleboard. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2024, 210, 118070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Santoso, M.; Widyorini, R.; Prayitno, T.A.; Sulistyo, J.; Hamidah, N. Effect of pressing temperatures on bonding properties of sucrose-citric acid for nipa palm fronds particleboard. Wood Res.-Slovak. 2020, 65, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Widyorini, R.; Umemura, K.; Septiano, A.; Soraya, D.K.; Dewi, G.K.; Nugroho, W.D. Manufacture and properties of citric acid-bonded composite board made from salacca frond: Effects of maltodextrin addition, pressing temperature, and pressing method. Bioresources 2018, 13, 8662–8676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Widyorini, R.; Umemura, K.; Isnan, R.; Putra, D.R.; Awaludin, A.; Prayitno, T.A. Manufacture and properties of citric acid-bonded particleboard made from bamboo materials. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2015, 74, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Syamani, F.A.; Arifqi, A.Z.; Munawar, S.S.; Sudarmanto, S.; Astari, L.; Prasetiyo, K.W.; Gopar, M.; Ismadi, I.; Kusumah, S.S.; Hussin, M.H.; et al. Utilization Of citric acid as bonding agent in sembilang bamboo (Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro) particleboard production. Indones. J. For. Res. 2022, 9, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. JIS A 5908: 2022; Japan Industrial Standard A 5908: Particleboard. Japan Standard Association: Tokyo, Japan, 2022.
  54. Farjana, S.H.; Tokede, O.; Tao, Z.; Ashraf, M. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life engineered wood. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 887, 164018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. ISO 14040: 2006; Technical Committee ISO/TC 207, 206, E.m.S.S., Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework. ISO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
  56. ISO 14044: 2006; Technical Committee ISO/TC 207, E.m.S.S., Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
  57. Jahan, I.; Zhang, G.; Bhuiyan, M. Navaratnam. Circular economy of construction and demolition wood waste—A theoretical framework approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mata, T.M.; Freitas, C.; Silva, G.V.; Monteiro, S.; Martins, J.M.; de Carvalho, L.H.; Silva, L.M.; Martins, A.A. Life cycle analysis of a particleboard based on cardoon and starch/chitosan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. dos Santos, M.F.N.; Battistelle, R.A.G.; Bezerra, B.S.; Varum, H.S.A. Comparative study of the life cycle assessment of particleboards made of residues from sugarcane bagasse (Saccharum spp.) and pine wood shavings (Pinus elliottii). J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nara, C.; Luiza, C.V.M.; Lino, M. Environmental analysis of the incorporation of sugarcane bagasse in medium density particleboard panels through life cycle assessment. Recycling 2023, 8, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wood Solutions. Environmental Product Declaration: Particleboard. 2020. Available online: https://www.woodsolutions.com.au/resources/publications/environmental-product-declarations (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  62. Nakano, K.; Ando, K.; Takigawa, M. Hattori. Life cycle assessment of wood-based boards produced in Japan and impact of formaldehyde emissions during the use stage. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 23, 957–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Piekarski, C.M.; de Francisco, A.C.; da Luz, L.M.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Silva, D.A.L. Life cycle assessment of medium-density fiberboard (MDF) manufacturing process in Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. González-García, S.; Ferro, F.S.; Silva, D.A.L.; Feijoo, G.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Moreira, M.T. Cross-country comparison on environmental impacts of particleboard production in Brazil and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hussain, M.; Malik, R.N.; Taylor, A. Environmental profile analysis of particleboard production: A study in a Pakistani technological condition. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1542–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kouchaki-Penchah, H.; Sharifi, M.; Mousazadeh, H.; Zarea-Hosseinabadi, H.; Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A. Gate to gate life cycle assessment of flat pressed particleboard production in Islamic Republic of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Astari, L.; Belleville, B.; Umemura, K.; Filkov, A.; Ozarska, B.; Crawford, R.H. Determination of physical, mechanical and fire retardancy properties of innovative particleboard made from corn stalk (Zea mays L.) particles. J. Renew. Mater. 2024, 12, 1729–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Umemura, K.; Sugihara, O.; Kawai, S. Investigation of a new natural adhesive composed of citric acid and sucrose for particleboard. J. Wood Sci. 2013, 59, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Azmi, S.; Suprihatin, S.; Indrasti, N.S.; Romli, M. The Assessment of environmental impact of the chicken meat agroindustry in Indonesia: Life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective. Trop. Anim. Sci. J. 2023, 46, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lao, W.L.; Chang, L. Comparative life cycle assessment of medium density fiberboard and particleboard: A case study in China. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2023, 205, 117443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kocsis, L.; Hudoba, Z.; Vojtela, T. Investigation of the maize stalk gathering for energetic use. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering—CIGR-AgEng, Valencia, Spain, 8–12 July 2012; Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20133223039 (accessed on 25 January 2025).
  72. Huang, H.; Eckhoff, S.R.; Faulkner, D.B.; Berger, L.L. Harvest date influence on dry matter yield and moisture of corn and stover. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pordesimo, L.O.; Edens, W.C.; Sokhansanj, S. Distribution of aboveground biomass in corn stover. Biomass Bioenerg 2004, 26, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. BMKG. Informasi Prakiraan Potensi Energi. Available online: https://iklim.bmkg.go.id/id/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  75. Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. Technology Info: Corn Cultivation. Available online: https://ppid.pertanian.go.id/doc/1/budidaya%20jagung.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  76. Pramudia, A.; Apriyana, Y.; Adi, S.H.; Kartiwa, B.; Suciantini; Misnawati; Firda, D. Cropping calendar analysis for dry season 2020 in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 648, 012117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khouya, A. Modelling and analysis of a hybrid solar dryer for woody biomass. Energy 2021, 216, 119287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Franch, B.; Cintas, J.; Becker-Reshef, I.; Sanchez-Torres, M.J.; Roger, J.; Skakun, S.; Sobrino, J.A.; Van Tricht, K.; Degerickx, J.; Gilliams, S.; et al. Global crop calendars of maize and wheat in the framework of the WorldCereal project. GISci Remote Sens. 2022, 59, 885–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 09705 g001
Figure 1. System boundary for LCA study of particleboards made of CS and CA.
Figure 1. System boundary for LCA study of particleboards made of CS and CA.
Applsci 15 09705 g001
Applsci 15 09705 g002
Figure 2. Process of particleboard fabrication made of CS and CA.
Figure 2. Process of particleboard fabrication made of CS and CA.
Applsci 15 09705 g002
Applsci 15 09705 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of the five highest impact categories results in Indonesia and Australia. (IDN = Indonesia, AUS = Australia, TET = terrestrial ecotoxicity, HET = human non-carcinogenic toxicity, GW = global warming, WC = water consumption, and FRS = fossil resource scarcity).
Figure 3. Comparison of the five highest impact categories results in Indonesia and Australia. (IDN = Indonesia, AUS = Australia, TET = terrestrial ecotoxicity, HET = human non-carcinogenic toxicity, GW = global warming, WC = water consumption, and FRS = fossil resource scarcity).
Applsci 15 09705 g003
Applsci 15 09705 g004
Figure 4. The relative contribution of each phase process to the five highest environmental impacts in Indonesia and Australia.
Figure 4. The relative contribution of each phase process to the five highest environmental impacts in Indonesia and Australia.
Applsci 15 09705 g004
Table 1. Particleboard fabrication process and equipment.
Table 1. Particleboard fabrication process and equipment.
ProcessEquipment
IndonesiaAustralia
Stalk cuttingHand macheteHand machete
Stalk millingHammer mill:
Pallman Maschinefabrik GmbH & Co. KG, Zweibrüken, Germany, Type PHM 3 Model No. 0101.93.027, 3500 W		Cutting mill:
Fritsch Pulverisette, Fritsch GmbH, Idar-Oberstein, Germany, Type 15.302 Model No. 602, 1050 W
Particle sievingBuilt-in shaking machine (Bogor, Indonesia), 1500 WShaking machine:
Vibro veyor (Melbourne, Australia) Pty. Ltd., 1100 W
Particle dryingOven:
Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Schwabach, Germany, Type UF 450-8718.0280, 5800 W		Oven:
Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model TD-500F, 3060 W
Adhesive dissolvingHotplate stirrer:
IKA C-MAG HS 7, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1020 W		Digital hotplate stirrer:
Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model THS-185, 1050 W
Mixing of particles and adhesiveBuilt-in drum mixer: Power 1000 W, Bogor, Indonesia.
Air compressor: Krisbow® machine type 10029559, 2200 W, Jakarta, Indonesia		Air compressor:
McMillan MC 12 60 L, 2400 W, Melbourne, Australia
Mixture pre-drying treatmentOven:
Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Germany, Type UF 450-8718.0280, of 5800 W		Oven:
Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW, Australia, Model TD-500F, 3060 W
Mat hot-pressingHot-press machine:
Shinto Metal Industri, Ltd., Osaka, Japan, type NF-50HH manufacturing No. 217020, clamping force 50 tons, 6000 W		Hot-press machine:
Dake®, Grand Haven, Michigan, USA, type 44-226-2, tonnage: 25 tons, 3600 W
Particleboard trimmingWood working machine:
Tomita®, Ichinomiya-shi, Japan, 3000 W		Table saw machine:
DEWALT®, Type DWE7491-XE, 2000 W, Shanghai, China
Table 2. Physical and mechanical properties of the particleboards fabricated in Indonesia and Australia (Astari et al. [35,67]).
Table 2. Physical and mechanical properties of the particleboards fabricated in Indonesia and Australia (Astari et al. [35,67]).
Particleboard PropertiesIndonesiaAustraliaJIS A 5908:2022-(Type 8) [53]
  • Physical
  • Density (g/cm3)
0.750.670.40–0.90
  • Water absorption (%) *
46.4662.39-
  • Thickness swelling (%) *
10.0019.9012 max.
2.
Mechanical Properties
  • Modulus of rupture (MPa)
14.747.478.0 min.
  • Internal bonding (MPa)
0.180.110.15 min.
  • Screw holding power (N)
436.70321.25300 min.
* Water absorption and thickness swelling values after 24 h of immersion in water.
Table 3. Data inventory of particleboard fabrication per functional unit.
Table 3. Data inventory of particleboard fabrication per functional unit.
Materials and Energy UseValues
InputMaterialCS particles, kg3.64 × 10−1
CA powder, kg7.26 × 10−2
Demineralised water, L1.23 × 10−1
Energy *Electricity: Indonesia, kWh238.83
Electricity: Australia, kWh126.86
TransportDistance: Indonesia, km28
Distance: Australia, km233
* Detailed energy consumption is presented in the appendix.
Table 4. Energy use percentage for particleboard fabrication.
Table 4. Energy use percentage for particleboard fabrication.
EquipmentIndonesia (%)Australia (%)
Milling machine0.240.34
Siever0.160.14
Oven97.1496.49
Adhesive mixer0.060.12
Drum mixer0.110.32
Hot-press2.222.51
Trimming machine0.060.08
Table 5. The environmental impacts of particleboard fabrication according to the Indonesian and Australian contexts.
Table 5. The environmental impacts of particleboard fabrication according to the Indonesian and Australian contexts.
Impact CategoryReference UnitIndonesian ContextAustralian ContextDifference (%)
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET)kg 1,4-DCB5.50 × 1026.37 × 10213.66
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity (HET)kg 1,4-DCB4.65 × 1024.18 × 10210.02
Global warming (GW)kg CO2 eq2.72 × 1022.49 × 1028.64
Water consumption (WC)m32.50 × 1024.62 × 10245.93
Fossil resource scarcity (FRS)kg oil eq7.34 × 1016.86 × 1016.54
Marine ecotoxicity (MET)kg 1,4-DCB2.17 × 1012.49 × 10114.01
Freshwater ecotoxicity (FET)kg 1,4-DCB1.63 × 1011.90 × 10114.21
Human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT)kg 1,4-DCB1.59 × 1011.64 × 1013.05
Fine particulate matter formation (PMF)kg PM2.5 eq4.50 × 1002.73 × 10−194.00
Ionising radiation (IR)kBq Co-60 eq2.77 × 1004.86 × 10043.00
Terrestrial acidification (TA)kg SO2 eq1.32 × 1008.04 × 10−139.39
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems (ODT)kg NOx eq8.12 × 10−14.65 × 10−142.73
Ozone formation, Human Health (ODH)kg NOx eq8.05 × 10−14.52 × 10−143.85
Land use (LU)m2a crop eq4.45 × 10−11.88 × 10076.33
Freshwater eutrophication (FE)kg P eq3.12 × 10−12.40 × 10−123.08
Mineral resource scarcity (MRS)kg Cu eq2.79 × 10−17.93 × 10−164.82
Marine eutrophication (ME)kg N eq5.50 × 10−21.67 × 10−167.07
Stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD)kg CFC11 eq1.18 × 10−41.68 × 10−429.76
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

Astari, L.; Crawford, R.H.; Umemura, K.; Ozarska, B.; Belleville, B. Life Cycle Analysis of Particleboard Made of Corn Stalk and Citric Acid at Laboratory Scale. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 9705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179705

AMA Style

Astari L, Crawford RH, Umemura K, Ozarska B, Belleville B. Life Cycle Analysis of Particleboard Made of Corn Stalk and Citric Acid at Laboratory Scale. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(17):9705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179705

Chicago/Turabian Style

Astari, Lilik, Robert H. Crawford, Kenji Umemura, Barbara Ozarska, and Benoit Belleville. 2025. "Life Cycle Analysis of Particleboard Made of Corn Stalk and Citric Acid at Laboratory Scale" Applied Sciences 15, no. 17: 9705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179705

APA Style

Astari, L., Crawford, R. H., Umemura, K., Ozarska, B., & Belleville, B. (2025). Life Cycle Analysis of Particleboard Made of Corn Stalk and Citric Acid at Laboratory Scale. Applied Sciences, 15(17), 9705. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179705

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