Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 2448–2451

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

The influence of moisture content of raw material on the physical

and mechanical properties, surface roughness, wettability,
and formaldehyde emission of particleboard composite
Mehmet Baharoğlu a, Gökay Nemli a,⇑, Bünyamin Sarı a, Selahattin Bardak b, Nadir Ayrılmısß c
a
Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Trabzon, Turkey
b
Artvin Çoruh University, Faculty of Forestry, Artvin, Turkey
c_ _
Istanbul Üniversity, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objectives of this research were to investigate surface characteristics, physical (thickness swelling)
Received 25 August 2011 and mechanical (modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity and internal bond strength) properties, and
Received in revised form 14 October 2011 formaldehyde emission of particleboard composite, as affected by moisture content of wood. Three-
Accepted 28 October 2011
layered particleboard panels manufactured from wood particles at five different moisture contents
Available online 7 November 2011
(20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 95%). Roughness measurements, average roughness (Ra), mean peak-to-valley
height (Rz), and maximum roughness (Ry), were taken from the sanded samples along and across the
Keywords:
sandmarks using a fine stylus tracing technique. Contact angle measurements were obtained by using
A. Wood
B. Mechanical properties
a goniometer connected with a digital camera and computer system. Statistical analysis showed
B. Wettability significant differences in the surface roughness, contact angle, formaldehyde emission, physical and
D. Surface analysis mechanical properties of the panels following moisture content. Based on the findings obtained from this
study, an increase or decrease in the moisture content of wood beyond a certain limit, before chipping
operations, negatively affected the wettability and smoothness of particles, and formaldehyde emission,
physical and mechanical properties of particleboards.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Particleboard is a very popular wood based panel product used
as a substitute of wood in almost all woodworking projects, such as
furniture, cabinets, subflooring, home constructions, mobile home
decking, door core, dinettes, case and sporting goods, counter tops,
kitchen frames, interior fitments, wardrobes, mill work, interior
decoration, pool tables, shelving, toys, cupboards, stair treads, join-
ery, veneered panels, signs, and wall linings. It is manufactured
from particles, such as wood chips, sawmill shavings, discrete
wood scraps, recycled wood, agricultural residues or even saw
dust, and a synthetic resin or other suitable binder an held together
under heat and pressure [1,2]. The forest resource is depleting, and
the price of wood is increasing. The demand for particleboard has
been growing due to the uniform smooth surface, density and
thickness, ability to stay flat, strength, machine ability, screw-
holding capacity of particleboard and agricultural wastes usage
instead of wood in manufacturing [3].
Many researchers have studied the effects of some processing
variables on the physical and mechanical quality properties of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 462 3772868; fax: +90 462 3257499.
E-mail address: nemli@ktu.edu.tr (G. Nemli).
particleboard, the most of them being wood species [4], hot press
diagram [5], amount of adhesive [6], panel density [7], dimensions
of the particles [8], formaldehyde/urea mole ratio and waste screen
dust usage [9], moisture content and temperature of particleboard
[10], waste sanding dust usage [11], density profile [12] , acidity of
the particles [13], hot press conditions [14], needle litter usage
[15,16], press type [17], average moisture content of mat [18],
shelling ratio [19], impregnation with bark extractives [20], surface
coating applications [21,22], lamination technique [23], residue
type and tannin content [24].
Urea formaldehyde is the major adhesive for particleboard
manufacturing due to its short press time, low cost, excellent
adhesion, intrinsic cohesion, high reactivity and water solubility,
and lack of color in the finished product. However, it has high
reversibility of the amino methylene link, which also explains the
low resistance of urea formaldehyde resins against the influence of
water and moisture. This is one of the reasons for its formaldehyde
emission, when hardened and in service. Formaldehyde is one of
the world’s most ubiquitous chemicals. It is a simple chemical
made of oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. It is produced from metha-
nol using a catalytic oxidation process. Formaldehyde based glues
are used to manufacture composite products used extensively in
moldings, furniture, cabinetry, counter tops, shelving and stair

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.10.020
 M. Baharoğlu et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 2448–2451
systems, flooring and many other household furnishings. Formal-
dehyde can be irritating to the eyes nose and throat. The eyes are
most sensitive to formaldehyde exposure. It causes health prob-
lems such as asthma and cancer [25–28].
Particleboard is widely used as substrate for thin overlays such
as laminates, resin impregnated papers, foils and direct finish to
surface uses including furniture, counter and desk tops, cabinets,
floor, wall, ceiling panels, door skin and office dividers.
Roughness is a measure of the fine irregularities on a surface.
The surface roughness of particleboard plays an important role
since any surface irregularities may show through thin overlays
reducing the final quality of the panel. When particleboard is used
as substrate for surface coating, its particleboard surfaces must be
capable of having resistance stresses to peeling. Fine irregularities
on the board surface will show through overlays and, this affects
products grade, quality, finishing and gluing.
Wettability is defined as a condition of a surface that deter-
mines how fast a liquid will wet and spread on the surface or
whether it will be repelled and not spread on the surface. Wettabil-
ity is crucial for good adhesion in bonding between particleboard
and coating. Liquid surface coatings or adhesives have to wet, flow,
and penetrate the cellular structure of wood in order to establish
intimate contact between molecules of composite surface and
coating. Contact angle (CA) method has been commonly used to
determine wettability of particleboard. When the CA is zero, per-
fect wetting of a surface occurs. Liquids wet surfaces when the
CA is less than 90° [29–31].
The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of
moisture content of raw material (wood) on the physical (thick-
ness swelling) and mechanical (modulus of rupture, modulus of
elasticity and internal bond) properties, surface roughness, wetta-
bility and formaldehyde emission of particleboard composite.
2. Materials and methods
Low-quality Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaerth subsp. Barbata trees with
diameter at breast height ranging from 15 to 20 cm were harvested
in Trabzon, Black Sea Region of Turkey. The bark was removed be-
fore the chipping. After the foliage was trimmed, all the trees were
chipped using a ring type flaker before the chips were reduced into
smaller particles using a hammermill. The particles were dried to
3% moisture content in a dryer. The dried particles were classified
into two sizes using a 3.0–1.5–0.5 mm openings vibrating screen
for the core and face layers. In the next process, resin was applied
with a pneumatic spray gun. Based on oven dry weight of particle
weight, 9% and 11% urea formaldehyde resin (formaldehyde/urea
mole ratio: 1.20) with a solid content of 65% was applied for core
and surface particles, respectively. The ratio of the face thickness
to the total thickness of a panel known as the shelling ratio was
0.40 for all samples. Ammonium sulfate (concentration: 25%) was
used as a resin hardener during the blending process by about
1% based on the solid amount of adhesive. No wax or any other
additives were used for the panel manufacture. Mats formed man-
ually in a frame with a size of 55  55 cm were pressed in a hot
press at a temperature of 130 °C using a pressure of 25 kg/cm2
for 10 min. All panels were pressed to a nominal thickness of
18.0 mm and an average target density of 0.70 g/cm3. The five dif-
ferent panel compositions are outlined in Table 1. Duplicate panels
were made for each group.
The panels and woods were kept in a conditioned room with a
relative humidity of 65% and a temperature of 20 °C until they
reached equilibrium moisture content. Particleboard panels were
then cut into test samples based on EN standards (EN 310, EN
317, EN 319) [32–34]. Modulus of rupture (MOR), modulus of elas-
ticity (MOE), internal bond strength (IB) and thickness swelling
2449
Table 1
Experimental design of the study.
Panel types Moisture contents of woodsa
A 20
B 40
C 60
D 80
E 95
a
Before chipping process.
(TS) after 24 h immersion of the samples were determined. Twenty
samples were cut from test panels to measure physical and
mechanical properties. Mechanical tests were performed on a Uni-
versal Instron testing machine with a 2000 kg load cell. Moisture
contents of woods were conducted according to TS 2471 standard
[35]. The samples used for wettability and surface roughness tests
were sanded with a sequence of 100 and 150 grit sand papers. The
perforator value of the formaldehyde emission was determined
using the EN 120 (European Committee For Standardization
1991) method [36]. Three specimens were used for formaldehyde
emission measurements.
The surface properties of the samples were determined by
employing a fine stylus profilometer (Mitutoyo SJ-301). The sam-
ples with dimensions of 50 mm  50 mm  18 mm were condi-
tioned in a climate chamber at 20 °C and 65% RH. Ten samples
were used from each type of the panel for the surface roughness
measurements. Three roughness parameters characterized by ISO
4287 standard (1987), respectively, average roughness (Ra), mean
peak-to-valley height (Rz), and maximum peak-to-valley height
(Ry) were considered to evaluate the surface properties of the pan-
els [37]. The surface roughness parameters were calculated from
the digital information. The vertical displacement of the stylus is
converted into electrical signals by a linear displacement detector
before the signal is amplified and converted into digital informa-
tion. Ra is the arithmetic mean of the absolute values of the profile
deviations from the mean line and is by far the most commonly
used parameter in surface finish measurement. The surface rough-
ness of the samples was measured with a sensitivity of 0.5 lm.
Measuring speed, pin diameter and pin top angle of the tool were
10 mm/min, 4 lm and 90°, respectively. The length of tracing line
(Lt) and cut-off were 12.5 mm and 2.5 mm (k), respectively. Mea-
suring force of the scanning arm on the samples was 4 mN
(0.4 gf). Measurements were done at room temperature and pin
was calibrated before the tests [38].
The wetting behavior of the particleboard samples conditioned
at 65% RH and 20 °C was characterized by the contact angle meth-
od (goniometer technique). The contact angles were obtained
using with a KSV Cam-101 Scientific Instrument (Helsinki, Fin-
land). Using the sessile drop method, which is the most widely
used procedure; the contact angle is determined simply by aligning
a tangent with the sessile drop profile at the point of contact with
the solid surface. The drop image was stored by a video camera and
an image analysis system calculated the contact angle (h) from the
shape of the distilled water drop at room temperature. An imaging
system was used to measure contact angle and shape and size of
water droplets for the tested surfaces of the particleboard samples.
The image of the liquid drop was captured by a video camera and
the contact angle was measured by digital image analysis software.
After the 5-lL droplet of the distilled water was placed on the sam-
ple surface, contact angles from the images were measured at fifth
second. Ten samples with dimension of 50 mm  50 mm  18 mm
were taken used from each type of formulation for the contact an-
gle measurements [39].
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for sig-
nificant difference between factors and levels. When the ANOVA
2450 M. Baharoğlu et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 2448–2451

indicated a significant difference among factors and levels, a com-
parison of the means was undertaken a Newman Keuls test to
identify which groups were significantly different from other
groups at 95% confidence level.
3. Results and discussion
The mechanical and physical properties of the panels are shown
in Table 2. The significant differences between the panel types are
presented by letters in Table 2.
Based on EN 312 (1993) standard, 11.5 and 13.0 N/mm2 are the
minimum requirements for MOR of particleboard panels for general
uses and interior fitments (including furniture), respectively, while
the minimum MOE for interior fitments is 1600 N/mm2 [40]. The pa-
nel type C had higher MOR and MOE for general purposes and
furniture manufacturing requirements. The panels made from A.
glutinosa (L.) Gaerth subsp. Barbata wood at 40% (panel type B) mois-
ture content satisfied the required level of MOR for general uses.
The IB data ranged from 0.14 to 0.40 N/mm2. The minimal
requirements of internal bond strength for general purpose and fur-
niture manufacturing are 0.24 and 0.35 N/mm2, respectively [40].
According to the test results, while panel type B had only the re-
quired level of IB for general purposes, C type panels met the re-
quired levels of IB either general purposes and interior fitments.
Twenty-four-hour water soaking resulted in thickness swelling
ranging from 17.43% to 25.58% as shown in Table 2. A maximum TS
value of 15% is allowed for particleboard panels used in load-bear-
ing applications in dry conditions [40]. The results showed that any
test panels had the required level of TS due to no usage wax or
other water repellent agents in the manufacturing of test panels.
The maximum permissible formaldehyde content for E1 quality
is 8 mg CH2O/100 g dry sample [36]. Any test panels had the re-
quired level of FE due to usage of urea formaldehyde adhesive that
has high formaldehyde/urea mole ratio (1.20).
Table 3 shows result of the surface roughness parameters and
contact angles of the particleboard panels. Statistical analysis
showed significant differences between the average roughness
and contact angle values of the samples at 95% confidence level.
The differences between the groups are given in Table 3 as letters.
The panels made from wood having a moisture content of 60%
had the smoothest surface and the lowest contact angle, while
the roughest surface and highest contact angle were found for pan-
els made from wood at 20% moisture content.
Increasing moisture content of wood from 40% to 60% signifi-
cantly decreased the formaldehyde emission, improved thickness
swelling, increased mechanical strength properties of the panels
and caused smoother surfaces and low contact angle. High mois-
ture content in wood causes rising free water presence in wood cell
lumen, and behaves like oil, and provides easy and anti-friction
chipping of wood. As could be seen in Table 3, increasing moisture
content of wood from 40% to 60% caused smoother surface and de-
creased contact angle. The meaning of decreased contact angels
and smoother surface are increasing adhesion between wood par-
ticles. Increasing adhesion between wood particles causes strong
bonds. Strong bonds increase mechanical strength properties and
make difficult water diffusion into particleboard and formaldehyde
releasing from panels [41].
However, increasing moisture content of wood from 60% to 80%
and 95% statistically increased formaldehyde emission, contact an-
gle and thickness swelling, decreased mechanical strength proper-
ties, and caused rougher surfaces. If the raw materials are at high
moisture content, the water breaks the wood cells during chipping
operations. Breaking wood cells causes wooly and rough surfaces.
As could be seen in Table 3, increasing moisture content of wood
from 60% to 80% and 95% caused rougher surfaces and increased
contact angel. Increasing contact angle and roughness decrease
adhesion between particles. Decreasing adhesion causes poorer
physical and mechanical properties and increases the formalde-
hyde releasing [42].
The worst physical and mechanical properties and highest
formaldehyde emission values were obtained from panels made
from wood at 20% moisture content. At below fiber saturation
point, approximately 30% moisture content, there is no water in
wood cell lumen. Absence of water in lumen causes friction be-
tween wood and cutters during chipping process. Heated cutters
produce rough particles. Low moisture content increases the brit-
tleness of wood. Roughest particle surfaces are produced from brit-
tle woods during chipping operations. As could be seen in Table 3,
roughest surfaces and lowest contact angle were obtained from
particleboards from wood at 20% moisture content. The contact
between the wood particles cannot be proved due to presence of
roughest particles and poorest wettability compared other

Table 2
Properties of experimental panels.

Panel types MOR (N/mm2) MOE (N/mm2) IB (N/mm2) TS (%) FE (mg CH2O)
A 8.05 (a) (1.58) 987.64 (a) (50.36) 0.143 (a) (0.013) 25.58 (a) (1.14) 15.89 (a) (0.05)
B 12.78 (b) (0.75) 1513.32 (b) (75.18) 0.286 (b) (0.025) 19.01 (b) (1.08) 11.48 (b) (0.03)
C 14.15 (c) (1.06) 1845.78 (c) (62.21) 0.399 (c) (0.018) 17.43 (c) (1.36) 10.02 (c) (0.08)
D 10.39 (d) (0.48) 1398.01 (d) (42.36) 0.220 (d) (0.036) 21.16 (d) (1.01) 13.66 (d) (0.06)
E 9.20 (e) (0.25) 1104.56 (e) (83.02) 0.184 (e) (0.022) 23.75 (e) (1.11) 14.71 (e) (0.04)

Note: Different letters in the parenthesis represent statistical differences at 95% confidence level. Numbers in the parenthesis are standard deviations.

Table 3
Average surface roughness and contact angles of test panels.

Panel types Ra (lm) Ry (lm) Rz (lm) Contact anglea (°)

A 9.57 (a) (0.45) 51.35 (a) (2.98) 45.82 (a) (2.36) 115.89 (a) (1.97)
B 4.75 (b) (0.22) 37.16 (b) (2.87) 30.19 (b) (1.75) 90.58 (b) (1.86)
C 3.22 (c) (0.34) 31.82 (c) (2.34) 25.43 (c) (3.08) 83.20 (c) (1.14)
D 6.28 (d) (0.18) 42.51 (d) (2.54) 36.74 (d) (2.02) 95.71 (d) (1.08)
E 7.91 (e) (0.15) 46.08 (e) (1.58) 40.27 (e) (1.89) 102.33 (e) (1.22)

Note: Different letters in the parenthesis represent statistical differences at 95% confidence level. Numbers in the parenthesis are standard deviations.
a
Contact angles from the images were measured at fifth seconds.
 M. Baharoğlu et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 2448–2451
moisture content variations. These decrease the bonding between
the particles, increases the water diffusion into panel. Decreasing
bonding increases formaldehyde releasing from particleboard [43].
4. Conclusions
These preliminary findings indicated that the surface character-
istics, physical and mechanical properties, and formaldehyde emis-
sion of particleboard were significantly affected by the moisture
content of wood. Increasing moisture content of wood from 40%
to 60% significantly decreased formaldehyde emission and thick-
ness swelling, improved wettability and mechanical strength prop-
erties and caused smoother surfaces. The worst physical and
mechanical properties and highest formaldehyde emission values
were obtained from panels made from wood at 20% moisture con-
tent. Increasing moisture content of wood from 60% to 80% and 95%
statistically increased formaldehyde emission, contact angle and
thickness swelling, decreased mechanical strength properties,
and caused rougher surfaces.
References
[1] Bardak S, Sarı B, Nemli G, Kırcı H, Baharoglu M. The effect of decor paper
properties and adhesive type on some properties of particleboard. Int J Adhes
Adhes 2011;31:412–5.
[2] Rokiah H, Wan NWNA, Othman S. Evaluations of some properties of exterior
particleboard made from oil palm biomass. J Compos Mater
1987;45(16):1659–65.
[3] Tabarsa T, Ashori A, Gholamzadeh M. Evaluation of surface roughness and
mechanical properties of particleboard panels made from bagasse. Compos
Part B 2011;42:1330–5.
[4] Lynam FC. Factors influencing the properties of wood chipboard. In: Mitlin L,
editor. Particleboard manufacture and applications. UK: Pressmedia Books
Ltd.; 1969.
[5] Bardak S, Nemli G, Sarı B, Baharoglu M, Zekoviç E. Effect of density profile and
hot press diagram on the some technological properties of particleboard
composite. High Temp Mater Processes (Lond) 2011;1(2):31–7.
[6] Lehman WF. Resin efficiency in particleboard as influenced by density,
atomization and resin content. Forest Prod J 1970;15:155–61.
[7] Çolak S, Nemli G, Demirkır C, Aydın I, Demirel S. Utilization potential of waste
from window joints for particleboard. J Compos Mater 2011;45(1):29–37.
[8] Au KC, Gertjejeansen RO. Influence of wafer thickness and resin spread on the
properties of paper birch waferboard. Forest Prod J 1989;39:47–50.
[9] Sarı B, Nemli G, Bardak S, Baharoglu M, Zekoviç E. Effects of formaldehyde/urea
mole ratio, panel density, shelling ratio and waste screen dust usage on the
physical and mechanical properties and formaldehyde emission of particleboard
composite. High Temp Mater Processes (Lond) 2010;29(4): 287–94.
[10] Dexin Y, Ostman AL. Tensile strength properties of particleboard at different
temperatures and moisture contents. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 1983;44:
281–6.
[11] Bardak S, Nemli G, Sarı B, Baharoglu E, Zekoviç E. Manufacture and properties
of particleboard composite from waste sanding dusts. High Temp Mater
Processes (Lond) 2010;29(3):159–68.
[12] Plath E, Schnitzler E. The density profile a criterion for evaluating
particleboard. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 1974;32:443–9.
[13] Akyüz KC, Nemli G, Baharoğlu M, Zekoviç E. Effects of acidity of the particles
and amount of hardener on the physical and mechanical properties of
particleboard composite bonded with urea formaldehyde. J Adhes Adhes
2010;30(3):166–9.
[14] Hata T. Heat flow in particle mat and properties of particleboard under steam
injection pressing. Bull For Forest Prod Res 1993;80 [Japan].
[15] Nemli G, Yıldız S, Gezer ED. The potential for using the needle litter of Scotch
pine as a raw material for particleboard manufacturing. Bioresour Technol
2008;99:6054–8.
[16] Nemli G, Aydın A. Evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of
particleboard made from the needle litter of Pinus pinaster Ait. Ind Crops Prod
2007;26(3):252–8.
2451
[17] Nemli G, Demirel S. Relationship between the density profile and the
technological properties of the particleboard composite. J Compos Mater
2007;41(15):1793–802.
[18] Nemli G, Aydın I, Zekoviç E. Evaluation of some of the properties of
particleboard as a function of manufacturing parameters. Mater Des
2007;28(4):1169–76.
[19] Kalaycıoğlu H, Nemli G. Producing composite particleboard from kenaf
(Hibiscus cannabinus L.) stalks. Ind Crops Prod 2006;24(2):177–80.
[20] Nemli G, Gezer ED, Yıldız S, Temiz A, Aydın A. Evaluation of the mechanical,
physical and decay resistance of particleboard made from particles
impregnated with Pinus brutia bark extractives. Bioresour Technol
2006;97(16):2059–64.
[21] Nemli G, Yıldız S, Gezer ED. Effects of melamine raw paper weight, varnish
type and the structure of continuous press laminate (CPL) on the physical,
mechanical properties and decay resistance of particleboard. Int Biodeterior
Biodegrad 2005;56(3):166–72.
[22] Nemli G, Örs Y, Kalaycıoğlu H. The choosing of suitable decorative surface
coating material types for interior end use applications of particleboard.
Constr Build Mater 2005;19(4):307–12.
[23] Nemli G, Çolakoğlu G. The influence of lamination technique on the properties
of particleboard. Build Environ 2005;40(1):83–7.
[24] Nemli G, Hızıroğlu S, Usta M, Serin Z, Özdemir T, Kalaycıoğlu H. Effect of
residue type and tannin content on properties of particleboard manufactured
from Black Locust. Forest Prod J 2004;54(2):36–40.
[25] Pizzi A. Advanced wood adhesive technology. New York and Basel: Marcel
Dekker Inc.; 1994. chapter 1.
[26] Hızıroglu S. Surface roughness analysis of wood composites: a stylus method.
Forest Prod J 1996;46(7/8):67–72.
[27] Nemli G, Akbulut T, Zekoviç E. Effects of some sanding factors on the surface
roughness of particleboard. Silva Fennica 2007;41(2):373–8.
[28] Kim S, Kim JA, Kim HJ, Kim SD. Determination of formaldehyde and TVOC
emission factor from wood based composites by small chamber method.
Polym Test 2006;25:605–14.
[29] Natz B. Formaldehyde: facts and background information. In: Formaldehyde
Council Inc. 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209; 2007. p.
1–15.
[30] Uchiyama S, Matsushima E, Kitao N, Tokunaga H, Ando M, Otsubo Y. Effect of
natural compounds on reducing formaldehyde emission from plywood. Atmos
Environ 2007;41:8825–30.
[31] Hızıroglu S. Surface roughness analysis of wood composites: a stylus method.
Forest Prod J 1996;46(7/8):527–33.
[32] EN 310. Wood based panels, determination of modulus of elasticity in bending
and bending strength. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels-
Belgium; 1993.
[33] EN 317. Particleboards and fiberboards, determination of swelling in thickness
after immersion. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels-Belgium;
1993.
[34] EN 319. Particleboards and fiberboards, determination of tensile strength
perpendicular to plane of the board. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels-Belgium; 1993.
[35] TS 2471. Determination of moisture content of wood. Turkish Standards
Institute, Ankara, Turkey; 2005 [in Turkish].
[36] EN 120. Determination of formaldehyde content in fiberboard by using
perforator method. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels-
Belgium; 1993.
[37] ISO 4287. Geometrical product specifications (GPS)-surface texture: profile
method terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva; 1987.
[38] Jarusombuti S, Ayrılmısß N, Bauchongkol P, Fueangvivat V. Surface
characteristics and overlaying properties of MDF panels from thermally
treated rubberwood fibers. Bioresources 2010;5(2):968–78.
[39] Ayrılmısß N, Winandy JE. Effects of post heat treatment on surface
characteristics and adhesive bonding performance of MDF. Mater Manuf
Processes 2010;24:594–9.
[40] EN 312. Particleboards-specifications. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels-Belgium; 1993.
[41] Örs Y, Keskin H. In: Göksu-Hür Offset, editor. Wood science. Ankara, Türkiye;
2001. ISBN: 975-6574-01-1 [in Turkish].
_
[42] Husß S. Effects of technological factors on the properties of particleboard. I.Ü
Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 1979;2:1–14 [in Turkish].
[43] Göker Y, Akbulut T. Factors affecting quality properties of particleboard and
plywood. In: Proceedings of national forest products industry congress, vol. 1,
Trabzon, Turkey; 1999. p. 269–87 [in Turkish].