See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273432794

Feasibility Study on the Production of Particleboard from Maize Cobs, Rice

Husks, and Groundnut Shells Using Acacia Mimosa Tannin Extract as the
Bonding Adhesive

Article  in  Journal of Architectural Engineering · March 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000135

CITATIONS READS

6 2,710

8 authors, including:

Chigbo Mgbemene Frédéric Pichelin

University of Nigeria Bern University of Applied Sciences
38 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   1,281 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Lehmann Henry Tats Kimeng

Bern University of Applied Sciences Ahmadu Bello University
14 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lightweight boards View project

Wood welding View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chigbo Mgbemene on 29 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Feasibility Study on the Production of Particleboard from
Maize Cobs, Rice Husks, and Groundnut Shells Using
Acacia Mimosa Tannin Extract as the Bonding Adhesive
Chigbo Mgbemene1; Andreas Rosenkranz2; Frederic Pichelin3; Martin Lehmann4; Charles Job5;
Henry Kimeng6; Sani Mustapha7; and Okey Nduka8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In recent years, depleted resources and environmental concerns have stimulated research in renewable and recyclable materials for
particleboard production. This paper presents the research work on the production of particleboards using maize (Zea mays) cobs, rice (Oryza
glaberrima) husks, and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) shells, which are abundantly available as agricultural residues. The goal of this project was
to study the feasibility of medium-density particleboard panels made of agricultural residues for use as internal partition wall cladding in residential
buildings. The panels of densities between 600 and 900 kg=m3 were produced using a natural-based adhesive from acacia mimosa tannin extract
and hexamine. Some other parameters like the moisture content (after adhesive application) and the press temperature were varied during the
production so as to investigate their effect on some mechanical and physical properties like internal bond strength, bending modulus of rupture,
swelling, and hardness. The mechanical properties of rice husk– and groundnut shell–derived particleboard failed to satisfy European standard
requirements in terms of bending strength; those made of maize cobs achieved the specifications but at a higher density compared with common
wood-based particleboard. The swelling behavior did not meet the standard for use in wet areas. The particle geometry and size as well as the board
structure did not compare well with the properties of the wood-based materials, but the products from those residues do hold promise for use as
nonload-bearing members. On the side of rice husk and groundnut shells, alternate areas of application such as thermal insulation and decorative
cladding materials could be contemplated. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000135. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Particleboards; Maize cobs; Rice husks; Groundnut shells; Panels; Adhesives; Tannin; Density; Temperature; Moisture
content.

Introduction
Depleting resources and environmental concerns (Millennium Eco-
system Assessment 2005) have stimulated research on renewable and
recyclable resources for particleboard production (Deppe and Ernst
2000). Growing competition for raw wood by the paper industry,
sawmill industry, and producers of wood pellets for thermal use has
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Nigeria, Nsukka
410001, Nigeria (corresponding author). E-mail: chigbo.mgbemene@gmail
.com
2
Lecturer and Project Leader, Dept. of Architecture, Wood, and Civil
Engineering, Bern Univ. of Applied Sciences, CH-2504 Biel, Switzerland.
3
Professor, Doctor of Natural Sciences, Head of Materials and Wood
Technology Research Unit, Dept. of Architecture, Wood, and Civil Engi-
neering, Bern Univ. of Applied Sciences, CH-2504 Biel, Switzerland.
4 also affect the adhesives employed in the production of particle-
Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture, Wood, and Civil Engineering, Bern
Univ. of Applied Sciences, CH-2504 Biel, Switzerland.
5
Professor, Royal Institute of British Architects Architecture Graduate,
Dept. of Architecture, Wood, and Civil Engineering, Bern Univ. of Applied
Sciences, CH-2504 Biel, Switzerland.
6
Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture, Ahmadu Bello Univ., Zaria 2222,
Nigeria.
7
Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture, Ahmadu Bello Univ., Zaria 2222,
Nigeria.
8
Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture, Univ. of Nigeria, Enugu 400006,
Nigeria.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 4, 2013; approved on
September 19, 2013; published online on September 21, 2013. Discussion
period open until May 10, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/04013006(10)/$25.00.
led to efforts on the part of the derived timber product industry to look
for alternative resources for the production of particleboard (Dix et al.
2009). Alternative resources for particleboard production could come
from agricultural waste products like maize (Zea mays) cobs [Fig. 1(a)],
rice (Oryza glaberrima) husks [Fig. 1(b)], and groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea) shells [Fig. 1(c)]. Huge quantities of maize, rice, and
groundnut residues are generated annually around the world, most of
which presently remain unused (Leiva et al. 2007). Burning of these
residues is the usual practice in the developing parts of the world and
that contributes to the global greenhouse effect (Li et al. 2010). If
these agricultural residues could be converted to particleboard, then
the huge quantities that usually are burned instead would be useful
materials, and the environmental, ecological, and social aspect
problems would be abated.
The problem of depleting resources and environmental concerns
boards. In the last few years, the depletion of fossil resources, along
with growing prices and environmental issues, has heightened the
need for the use of natural adhesives (Pizzi 2006). Again, compared
with wood, agricultural residues generally contain high amounts of
wax and silica, hindering their adhesion to polar adhesives (Ndazi
et al. 2006). This obstacle can be overcome by using isocyanate-
based adhesives or by applying alkaline pretreatments to the
particles to prepare their surfaces for bonding with common
particleboard adhesives (Markessini et al. 1997; Ndazi et al. 2007).
Isocyanates, however, are several times more expensive than
common particleboard adhesives and they are classified as haz-
ardous pollutants in the air (Garay et al. 2009); also, pretreatments
involve additional processing steps. To avoid both and to reach
a maximum content of renewable material without formaldehyde

© ASCE 04013006-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Agricultural residues and adhesive material: (a) maize cobs before milling and sieving; (b) rice husks before milling and sieving; (c) unmilled
groundnut (peanut) shells; (d) tannin powder
emission, a tannin-based adhesive was chosen for this research
work.
Several studies have been carried out on the use of agricultural
waste products and natural adhesives for the production of parti-
cleboards. A detailed account of nonwood materials for building can
be found in Youngquist et al. (1994). Some of the literature per-
taining to the three agricultural materials used in this work is pre-
sented here. Sampathrajan et al. (1992) produced panels between
190 and 540 kg=m3 density and made from corn stalk, corn cob, rice
straw, coconut pit, and groundnut shell with urea formaldehyde
adhesive and without pretreatment of the materials. Sekaluvu et al.
(2013) investigated the factors that affect the properties and pro-
duction of particleboards from maize cobs, and concluded that
particle size and resin content significantly affected the properties of
maize cob particleboards. Babatunde (2011) presented a study about
cement-bonded particleboards that could be manufactured from
maize stalk particles, but the dimensional stability and mechanical
strength properties of the boards were affected by the board density
and the additive concentration. The feasibility of making particle-
board from milled peanut (groundnut) shells was studied by Batalla
et al. (2005), and the authors concluded that the stiffness of the
particleboard could be improved greatly by a reduction of the po-
rosity, but that even a low void content had a critical effect on the
strength of the composites.
Osarenmwinda and Nwachukwu (2007) tried to determine the
effect of particle size on the mechanical properties [i.e., modulus of
elasticity (MOE), modulus of rupture (MOR), and internal bond
(IB)] and physical properties (i.e., thickness swelling and water
absorption) of rice husk particleboard. The authors concluded that
the smaller the particle size the better the properties of the parti-
cleboard, stating that particleboard made from rice husk exceeded
the European standard for MOE, MOR, and IB, but the thickness
swelling values were poor. Leiva et al. (2007) analyzed the feasi-
bility of producing medium-density particleboards using waste rice
husks bonded with environmentally friendly adhesives from soy-
bean protein concentrate. They deduced that the soybean adhesive
could be suitable for applications for which the water resistance
© ASCE 04013006-2
J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.
requirements are not stringent. Ciannamea et al. (2010) evaluated the
technical feasibility of using rice husk as wood substitute in the
production of environmentally sound medium-density particle-
boards with adhesives from soybean protein concentrate. Their
results showed that particleboards with this formulation met the
minimum requirements of IB, MOE, and MOR recommended by the
American National Standard ANSI A208.1-2009 [Composite Panel
Association (CPA) 2009] specifications for M-1, M-S, and M-2 grade
medium-density particleboards, but failed to achieve the thickness
swelling value recommended for general-use panels.
A lot has been done in this field with interesting results. For
example, Odozi et al. (1986), while producing particleboard from
different mixtures of maize cobs, bagasse, and wood shavings
bonded with tannin resorcinol, found most of their panels out-
performing commercial-grade, wood-based panels bonded with
modified urea-formaldehyde resin adhesives. Another interesting
result was found by Osarenmwinda and Nwachukwu (2007). A
greater percentage of the literature on particleboard of maize resi-
dues deals with maize stalk instead of maize cob, while most of the
works done on rice husk were done with the rice husk unmilled.
Incidentally, to the knowledge of the authors, none of the works
combined the different types of materials in the form and combi-
nation that is presented in this work. Again, much of the work done in
this area used formaldehyde-based adhesives, but formaldehyde has
been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) as a “known human carcinogen” (IARC 2006); hence, it is
necessary to avoid its usage in adhesive formulations. The aim of
this project, therefore, was to explore the feasibility of producing
nonload-bearing building particleboard panels made of maize cobs,
rise husks, and groundnut shells using natural acacia mimosa tannin
extract as the bonding adhesive [Fig. 1(d)]. More specifically for the
adhesive, tannin-hexamine formulation was used (Pichelin et al.
1999). The authors also aimed at investigating whether the me-
chanical properties of the produced particleboard panels would meet
the European standards for such materials.
A novel approach introduced by this research work is the pro-
duction of a three-layer panel with the layers being made from
J. Archit. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Three-layer panels with the layers made from different materials: (a) groundnut shell panel with maize cob core; (b) maize cob panel with
groundnut shell core

different materials, as shown in Fig 2. The idea was to investigate

whether the different materials can bond together with each layer
retaining its specific property. However, because the duration of time
allowed for the research work had elapsed, tests could not be carried
out on these panels. Thus, no further mention is made of them in this
paper. Hopefully, tests will be done in the future. This research was
carried out at Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzer-
land, with the funding from the Swiss funding agency Konferenz der
Fachhochschulen.

Experimental Approach

Fig. 3 outlines the process of particleboard production from the raw

materials. Maize cobs [Fig. 1(a)] and rice husks [Fig. 1(b)] were
milled in a hammer mill and fractioned by sieving with 2.0-, 1.0-, and
0.5-mm mesh openings. The particles with 2 mm . X . 1 mm were
designated as X fractions and the ones with 1 mm . Y . 0:5 mm
were designated as Y fractions (where X and Y are the particle sizes).
The particles less than 0.5 mm (designated Z fractions) also were
employed in the investigation but quickly were discarded. Because
of the nature of groundnut shells [Fig. 1(c)], they were processed in
two different ways: milled and unmilled. The milled groundnut
particles were not fractioned. This was done so that a comparison
could be made of the strength of groundnut panels produced. After
milling and fractioning (where necessary), the particles were then
taken for mixing with the adhesive.
To prepare the adhesive, acacia mimosa tannin [Fig. 1(d)] extract
was dissolved in water at concentrations between 32.5 and 50%
to vary the moisture content (MC) of the resinated particles. The
dispersion was adjusted to pH 10 using a 40% solution of sodium
hydroxide in water; 3.5% of hexamine (dry hexamine to dry tannin) Fig. 3. Steps involved in the production process
also was added in the form of a 40% solution in water. Being

© ASCE 04013006-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.

 processed in the alkaline range, the tannin-based adhesive was
assumed to be able to combine the aforementioned pretreatment and
the binding of the particles in one step. Sodium hydroxide included
in the formulation of the adhesive may have had the effect of
degrading the wax layer on the particle surface and forming bonds
without additional measures of surface preparation. The adhesive
was applied to a resin load of 12% (dry tannin to dry particles) using
a laboratory mixer fabricated there in the research laboratory. The
MC of the particles varied between 11 and 25% after adhesive
application.
The resinated particles were formed manually in a 50 3 50-cm
mold. To assess the relationship between the density and the me-
chanical properties of the panels, the density of particles in the mold
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was varied. This variation of density was achieved by varying the
quantity of the resinated particles poured into the mold for a given
volume. As this was a medium-density fiberboard (MDF), three
reference dry densities were chosen for the panel production as
600, 750, and 900 kg=m3 . [MDF boards have densities typically
between 500 and 1,000 kg=m3 (CPA 2002).] Consequently, the
nomenclatures for the panels referred to their densities and their
particle sizes. The formed cake of the resinated particles was pressed
in a heated Siempelkamp press (Siempelkamp Maschinen- und
Anlagenbau, Krefeld, Germany) with a pressing area of 60
3 80 cm2 . The press closing rate was 10 kN=s and 12-mm distance
bars were used to define the panel thickness. The press time was
300 s for all trials. To study the effect of temperature, the pressing
Fig. 4. Some of the produced panels: (a) some single-layered finished panels (in perspective); (b) maize cob panel; (c) rice husk panel; (d) groundnut
shell panel
© ASCE 04013006-4
J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.
was done at three different press temperatures of 180, 150, and
130
C. A press temperature of 180
C is an established temper-
ature for industrial particleboard production; therefore, it was
adopted in this work as the reference temperature. The lower
temperatures of 150 and 130
C also were adopted for the study
bearing in mind that lower temperatures involve slower chemical
and physical reactions. After pressing, some panels were
degassed slowly so the effects of prolonged degassing of panels
could be studied.
The production of laboratory panels was possible with all the
agricultural materials investigated in this research. Some of the
panels produced are shown in Fig. 4. While the panels produced
of maize cobs featured a very compact structure with little pore
volume, rice husk– and groundnut shell–derived panels appeared
loosely packed (Fig. 5). The geometry of the particles differed
strongly from common wood-based particle. The maize cob particles
possessed a compact and granular shape, while the rice husk par-
ticles resembled flaky arches. Unmilled groundnut shells resembled
brittle hollow flakes, while milled groundnut shells were a mix of
powdery material and short fibers. These qualities certainly affect
where the panels could be put to use. For example, because the
panels are hoped to be used in the cladding of walls, the maize panels
(with the compact and granularly shaped particles) are expected to be
the best suited to this application. The hollow in the other two
materials could make them better suited for either thermal or sound
insulation. Tests will need to be done to verify these potential uses.
J. Archit. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Unmagnified picture of the edges of the panels: (a) maize cob; (b) rice husk; (c) groundnut shell; (d)–(f ) scanning electron microscope picture
of the same panels
The experimentation did not entail the use of very specialized
equipment. A Fazioli upright hammer mill (Fazioli Pianoforti, Sacile,
Italy) was used for milling the raw materials while a Haver EML 400
Digital Plus T Dry siever (Haver & Boecker, Oelde, Germany) was
used for fractioning them. IKA Eurostar Power-B mixer (IKA Werke,
Staufen, Germany) was used for mixing the adhesive. A homemade
laboratory particle mixer was used for mixing the particles and the
adhesive. Other equipment used include the following: Mettler-
Toledo Moisture Analyzer HR 73 (Mettler-Toledo International,
Columbus, Ohio), Siempelkamp hot press (Siempelkamp Maschinen-
und Anlagenbau), Zwick/Roell Universal Testers (Zwick, Ulm,
Germany), PIG (paint inspector gauge) ELCO 121 SM-Tooke
Gauge Metric (Elcometer, Manchester, U.K.), and Heeseman MFA
6–Impression Sander (Karl Heeseman Maschinenfabrik, Bad
Oeynhausen, Germany). These are general equipment found in
standard laboratories.
Tests
Several characteristic tests were performed on the produced panels
in accordance with DIN EN 312 [German Institute for Standardi-
zation (DIN) 2003], which requires that particleboards for con-
struction purpose in a wet area without load-bearing function must
undergo three standard tests. These standard tests carried out on the
produced samples were as follows: (1) bending test [DIN EN 310
(DIN 1993c)], (2) IB strength test [DIN EN 319 (DIN 1993b)], and
(3) swelling in thickness test [DIN EN 317 (DIN 1993a)]. These tests
were necessary to ascertain if the panels satisfy the minimum re-
quired values of MOR, IB strength, and swelling in thickness due
to moisture absorption. The DIN EN 312 particleboard require-
ment is equivalent to the American National Standard A208.1-
2009 (CPA 2009) for wood particleboard classes M-2 and M-3
(Li et al. 2010).
Preliminary tests were conducted first on all the samples; based
on the behavior of the samples and the results obtained, the ones for
stabilization tests and analyses were selected. In preparation of the
test pieces for the tests, specimens of dimensions (1) 50 3 50 mm
and (2) 290 3 50 mm were cut from the particleboards. For the IB
test, some of the square specimens were bonded to steel braces with
an EVA-copolymer hot-melt adhesive [Pattex hot sticks (Henkel,
Dusseldorf, Germany)] and then loaded onto a Zwick/ Roell Uni-
versal Tester, which recorded the IB strength of the specimens. The
same equipment was adapted and used for the bending test on the
rectangular specimens. The remaining 50 3 50-mm specimens were
© ASCE 04013006-5
J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.
used for the swelling test. Their dry thickness was measured before
they were immersed in a water bath for 24 h. Their thickness after the
immersion was then recorded.
Other tests done on the panels were for paint adhesion/abrasion
{SN EN ISO 2409 [Swiss Association for Standardization (SNV)
2007)]} (to give an orientation toward potential fields of application
as decorative cladding or flooring material) and Brinell hardness
[DIN EN 1534:2011-01 (DIN 2011)]. Further characteristic tests
done were nail penetration and hole drill tests. Optical microscopy
and density profile checks also were carried out. Thermal, sound
insulation, and fire resistance tests were planned but not performed.
Although seven types of tests were conducted, only the results of the
three standard tests are presented in detail and then discussed in this
paper to satisfy its aim.
Results and Discussion
Density and MC were found to have a very serious effect on the
characteristics of the panels produced. They affected both the IB
strength and the bending strength. The density of the particleboard
was found to have a relationship with the swelling characteristics of
the particleboards. Somehow the density effects also were inter-
twined with temperature effects.
Effect of Density
As the density of the material increased, the IB strength and the
bending strength increased (Figs. 6–9) and the possibility of the
particleboard failing on pressing increased, too. Fig. 7 shows that, at
lower MC, increasing density resulted in a greater rise in strength. A
number of panels pressed at 180
C exhibited vapor blisters, while
some separated on removal from the press. At the dry density of
600 kg=m3 , maize panels of maize X and Y fractions were both
producible without the blisters or separation, while at 750 kg=m3 ,
only the X fraction was producible. At 900 kg=m3 , all fractions
featured vapor blisters or separated. This could have been caused by
trapped steam in the panel during pressing. At 600 kg=m3 , the
structure of the X fraction was porous enough for steam to escape
from the heated panel. At increasing densities, the permeability of
the panel gets reduced making it more difficult for the steam to
escape within the press time. It was observed that, at lower press
temperature, less vapor blisters or separations occurred. At 130
C,
maize panels of X fraction were producible up to 900 kg=m3 dry
density and the finer Y-fraction panels were producible up to
750 kg=m3 . Apart from lowering the temperature, the MC reduction
J. Archit. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Bending MOR of panels made of different materials

Fig. 7. Bending MOR of panels pressed at different MCs

Fig. 8. An overview of the IB strength of maize cob panels

© ASCE 04013006-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.

 of the resinated particles was found to be, to an extent, an effective
measure for controlling the cracking of the panel through high steam
pressure.
Effect of Moisture Content
The MC of the resinated particles played an important role in
producible densities. While at 11% MC the panels were only
producible at densities higher than 900 kg=m3 , 25% MC allowed
the production of panels between 600 and 950 kg=m3 . Although
the densities were specifically referenced, the actual densities of the
produced panels varied within acceptable limits from the reference
densities. The minimum producible densities probably resulted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mechanical Properties and Physical Properties
Table 1 gives an overview of some of the values of the mechanical
and physical properties obtained for some of the panels produced at
180
C and 25% MC.
Modulus of Rupture in Bending
From Table 1 and as shown in Fig. 6, only maize cob panels achieved
the requirements of DIN EN 312 on the bending MOR with all the
other materials possessing significantly lower bending strength.
Based on the DIN EN 312, the MOR should not be less than
14:2 N=mm2 , MOE should not be less than 2,035 N=mm2 , and the
IB strength should not be less than 0:45 N=mm2 for such categories

from the reduced tannin molecule mobility at low MC. At the other
end of the scale, the maximum producible densities were probably
restricted by the steam pressure in the panel during pressing,
resulting in vapor blisters for panels of higher MC as the density
increased. Thus, the higher the MC the lower the producible
densities. Curiously, a 900 kg=m3 panel of maize X particle that
was inadvertently kept overnight after gluing did not separate or
form blisters after pressing. A possible explanation may be that
moisture evaporated from the mixture thereby reducing its MC.
Rice husk and groundnut shell panels did not show any separation.
Their structure is more porous compared with the compact structure
of the maize panels, as can be seen in the microscopy (Fig. 5). Thus,
they are more permeable, allowing the steam to pass off more easily
during pressing.
of particleboards. Table 2 shows a comparison of the MOR values
for maize cob panels at the three different press temperatures. The
bending MOR of maize panels pressed at 150 and 180
C were at
close quarters, while 130
C press temperature resulted in signifi-
cantly lower MOR. For the sake of comparison, the values given in
Table 2 have been normalized to a density of 900 kg=m3 .
It appeared that the press temperature of 130
C was too low for
sufficient curing of the adhesive. Compared with common wood-
based particleboard, however, the density needed to meet the
standard requirement is much higher. When the press temperature
was increased from 130 to 150 or 180
C, only the maize cob panels
showed enhanced bending properties. For rice husk panels, the
results at varying temperature barely changed, and for groundnut
shell, increasing temperature even deteriorated the bending prop-
erties. As this behavior cannot be related to the curing of the ad-
hesive, it may be linked to the material properties of rice husk and
groundnut shell. Possibly the waxes disturb the formation of ad-
hesion increasingly at higher temperature by melting and spreading
over the material surface, or the materials generally degrade to
a higher extent at elevated temperature. Based on these results,
further investigations dealt mainly with the maize cob panels.

Internal Bond Strength

Fig. 9. The IB strength of rice husk X- and Y-fraction panels at 180
C
In terms of the IB strength of the panels, only the maize panels made
the DIN EN 312 requirements. Maize panels of all densities and
press temperatures made the requirements with 50% of the tested
samples exceeding the requirements by a factor of more than 2
(Fig. 8). Compared with common wood-based panels, the results of
these panels were 60–120% higher. The reason for this lies in their
high density along with their flat density profile. The IB strength

Table 1. Overview of Some of the Results

Unsanded Sanded
Bending Bending
Dry density IB strength MOE MOR Swelling IB strength MOE MOR
Material Fraction (kg=m3 ) (N=mm2 ) (N=mm2 ) (N=mm2 ) thickness (%) (N=mm2 ) (N=mm2 ) (N=mm2 ) Swelling (%)
a
Maize X 600 0.39 632 5.70 25.57 0.70 767 3.87 24.22
750 0.62a 1,012 8.10 29.80 1.66a 2,164 15.82a 29.49
900 0.61a 1,995 18.16a 44.54
Y 600 0.33 0.68a 1,178 8.77 223.59
Rice X 600 217 0.96 27.73 0.02 0.68 15.42
750 461 2.44 26.52 0.02 423 1.62 17.62
900 0.10 1,027 4.99 25.38 0.10 989 4.06 19.27
Y 600 0.04 0.47 9.52a
750 0.06 601 3.07 16.97
900 0.15 1,216 5.89 25.18
a
Fulfilled the standard DIN EN 312 for nonload-bearing in wet area.

© ASCE 04013006-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.

 Table 2. Bending MOR of Maize Panels at Different Press Temperatures Table 3. Brinell Hardness and Grading of Paint Adhesion/Abrasion Cut
2 Intensity
Press temperature (
C) MOR (N=mm )
Adhesion/ abrasion
130 9.8
classification (cut
150 14.4
intensitya)
180 14.2 Brinell hardness HB
Note: Normalized to 900 kg=m3 . Sample (N=mm2 ) Uncoated Coated
600MX (130
C) 10.22 G11 G10
750MX (130
C) 41.26 G11 G10
900MX (130
C) 57.33 G11 G10
600MX (180
C) 16.24 G12 G11
750MX (180
C) 73.95 G11 G10
600MY (130
C) 43.10 G12 G11
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

750MY (130
C) 38.47 G11 G10

750RX (130
C) 12.29 G14 G11
750RX (180
C) 8.63 G14 G11
900RY (180
C) 23.33 G14 G11
600G (130
C) 13.48 G13 G12
750G (130
C) 20.56 G13 G11
900G (130
C) 16.06 G13 G11
600G (180
C) 10.00 G13 G12
750G (180
C) 19.99 G13 G11
900G (180
C) 6.47 G12 G11
Note: G 1 0 5 excellent (acceptable); G 1 1 5 good (acceptable); G 1 2
5 fair; G 1 3 5 bad; G 1 4 5 very bad.
Fig. 10. Swelling test results for some maize cob and rice husk panels a
The cut intensity grading scale.

that the thin-walled rice husks do not allow water penetration as

generally correlates with the density in the panel core. Common
wood-based panels possess more pronounced density profiles with
comparably low densities in the panel core. Thus, the relevant
density for the IB strength is significantly lower than the average
density of the specimen. As the maize panels tested in this research
possessed flat density profiles and comparably high overall densi-
ties, the relevant density for the IB strength was about 20% higher
than that of common wood-based panels.
The rice and the groundnut panels could not make the set stan-
dard. This is not surprising because of the nature of the particles of
rice husk and groundnut fractions (Fig. 5). Fig. 9 shows some of the
results obtained from the IB strength test for the rice husk panel. This
result is at variance with Osarenmwinda and Nwachukwu (2007) but
rather agrees with the results obtained by Li et al. (2010). In this case,
the panels made of Y particles seemed to have slightly higher IB
strength compared to the rougher X-fraction panels. The higher level
of strength of the Y-fraction panels possibly stemmed from their
larger ratio of cracked edges and more strongly abraded surface.
Swelling of the Panels
Swelling values between 25 and 30% of the original values were
recorded after 24 h immersion in water (Fig. 10). For all materials
the swelling values grew with the density. Based on DIN EN 312, an
acceptable panel should not swell beyond 14% value. Maize cob
panels swelled markedly more than common wood-based panels and
failed to fulfill that standard requirement. The strong swelling was
probably related to the compact particle shape, which was highly
unfavorable for panel production. The granular shape required high
compaction to form sufficient bond strength. The bond strength in
turn induced high restraining forces that were released during the
swelling test, resulting in strong spring back of the panels.
Maize cob and rice husk panels differed strongly in their swelling
behavior. With a swelling value of 9.52%, rice husk Y-fraction
panels satisfied the DIN EN 312 requirement of 14%. This was
achieved by the lowest density rice husk panel (Table 1). It appears
much as the voluminous maize cob particles. This effect is assumed
to stem mainly from their hydrophobic nature. The microscopy
(Fig. 5) also shows that the rice husk panels are less compact than the
maize cob panels. This may have the effect that swelling of the
particles does not result in a proportional swelling of the panel with
respect to the free space between them. Besides, the flat rice husk
particles probably hold lower restoring forces as they are less de-
formed and compacted than the maize cob particles.
Hardness of the Panels
As given in Table 3, maize cob panels had higher hardness compared
to rice husk and groundnut shell panels, which may be explained by
their compact structure. While at the dry density of 600 kg=m3 , they
were still in the same range as the rice husk and groundnut shell, but
their hardness strongly increased at higher densities. Only maize cob
panels reached the level of common wood-based particleboard,
for which the 16-mm panels possess the Brinell hardness (HB) of
38:5 N=mm2 (Dunky and Niemz 2002). At 180
C press tempera-
ture, the 750MX panel even exceeded the HB of common MDF
panels, which at 800 kg=m3 density hold an HB of 60 N=mm2 .
The scratch, adhesion, and mar (SAM) characteristics are given
in Table 3. For uncoated panels, the results of the cross-cut tests were
highly affected by the panel structure. While maize cob panels
(which possess a compact structure with strong bonds between the
particles) exhibited a low degree of flaking, the surface of the rice
husk and groundnut shell panels flaked off to a higher degree. The
maize cob panels showed that density has an effect on the flakiness of
the panel: the lower the density, the flakier the panel (Table 3). In the
cross-cut tests of coated panels, the coating material adhered well
to the particles, upgrading the behavior of the panels compared to
the uncoated ones. The decisive factor for the classification in
Table 3 was the substrate below the lacquer.
Maize cob panels exhibited good characteristics like ability to
hold nails/screws and to have holes drilled in them (Fig. 11). The

© ASCE 04013006-8 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Screw, nail, and hole test pictures
characteristics here compared well with the Wood Panel Industries
Federation (WPIF) publication (WPIF 2009). The holes could be
drilled as closely as 10 mm from the edges without cracking.
Conclusions
The feasibility of producing particleboards from agricultural resi-
dues has been studied and panels were produced from them. The
mechanical properties of rice husk– and groundnut shell–derived
particleboard failed to satisfy European standard requirements in
terms of bending strength, while those of maize cob panels achieved
the specifications but at a higher density compared with common
wood-based particleboard. The swelling behavior of the maize cob
panels did not meet the standard for use in a wet area.
The particle geometry and size as well as the board structure of all
the particleboards did not compare well with the properties of the
wood-based materials, but the products from those residues do hold
promise for use as nonload-bearing members. This conclusion was
drawn because laboratory panels made of maize cobs achieved the
standard specifications for construction purpose (nonload-bearing),
but at a significantly higher density compared to wood-based par-
ticleboard. They also exhibited good characteristics like the ability
to hold nails/screws and to have holes drilled in them (Fig. 11), as
well as favorable Brinell hardness and SAM characteristics (Table 3).
These results lead the authors to the conclusion that these boards are
appropriate as construction materials. Optimization of these aspects
is likely to result in lower required density and, thus, catching up
with wood-based panels. The press temperature of 150
C is suffi-
cient to achieve the standard requirements. The MC of the resinated
particles had a high impact on the producible panel density and the
gradient of strength at increasing density. The best results were
achieved at 25% MC after mixing with resin.
The feasibility of producing tannin-bound composite panels
made from maize cobs for construction purpose has been proven at
laboratory scale, but the particle shape and size as well as the panel
structure are still areas for further work so as to improve the panel
© ASCE 04013006-9
J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.
properties. Although the mechanical properties of rice husk– and
groundnut shell–derived particleboards failed to satisfy the standard
requirements for construction purpose, alternate areas of application
such as thermal insulation and decorative cladding material are
possible. This was concluded because of their porous structure.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Swiss funding agency Konferenz der
Fachhochschulen for supporting this project through financial funding.
References
Babatunde, A. (2011). “Durability characteristics of cement-bonded particle-
boards manufactured from maize stalk residue.” J. For. Res., 22(1), 111–115.
Batalla, L., Nuñez, A. J., and Marcovich, N. E. (2005). “Particleboards from
peanut-shell flour.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 97(3), 916–923.
Ciannamea, E. M., Stefani, P. M., and Ruseckaite, R. A. (2010). “Medium-
density particleboards from modified rice husks and soybean protein
concentrate-based adhesives.” Bioresour. Technol., 101(2), 818–825.
Composite Panel Association (CPA). (2002). “American National Standard:
Medium density fiberboard (MDF) for interior applications.” ANSI
A208.2-2002, Gaithersburg, MD.
Composite Panel Association (CPA). (2009). “American National Standard:
Particleboard.” ANSI A208.1-2009, Gaithersburg, MD.
Deppe, H. J., and Ernst, K. (2000). Taschenbuch der Spanplattentechnik,
DRW, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany.
Dix, B., Meinlschmidt, P., van de Flierdt, A., and Thole, V. (2009). “Leichte
Spanplatten für den Möbelbau aus Rückständen der landwirtschaftlichen
Produktion.” Holztechnologie, 2009(2), 5–11 (in German).
Dunky, M., and Niemz, P. (2002). Holzwerkstoffe und Leime: Technologie
und Einflussfaktoren, Springer, Berlin.
Garay, R. M., MacDonald, F., Acevedo, M. L., Calderón, B., and Araya, J. E.
(2009). “Particleboard made with crop residues mixed with wood from
pinus radiata.” BioResources, 4(4), 1396–1408.
German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (1993a). “Particleboards and
fibreboards: Determination of swelling in thickness after immersion in
water.” DIN EN 317, Beuth, Berlin.
J. Archit. Eng.
 German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (1993b). “Particleboards and
fibreboards: Determination of tensile strength perpendicular to the plane
of the board.” DIN EN 319, Beuth, Berlin.
German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (1993c). “Wood-based panels:
Determination of modulus of elasticity in bending and of bending
strength.” DIN EN 310, Beuth, Berlin.
German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (2003). “Particleboards:
Specifications.” DIN EN 312, Beuth, Berlin.
German Institute for Standardization (DIN). (2011). “Wood flooring—
Determination of indentation resistance–test method; German version
EN 1534:2010.” DIN EN 1534:2011-01, Beuth, Berlin.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2006). “Formal-
dehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropan-2-ol.” IARC mono-
graphs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Vol. 88, WHO
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NARESUAN UNIVERSITY on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Press, Lyon, France.
Leiva, P., Ciannamea, E., Ruseckaite, R. A., and Stefani, P. M. (2007).
“Medium-density particleboards from rice husks and soybean protein
concentrate.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 106(2), 1301–1306.
Li, X., Cai, Z., Winandy, J. E., and Basta, A. H. (2010). “Selected properties
of particleboard panels manufactured from rice straws of different ge-
ometries.” Bioresour. Technol., 101(12), 4662–4666.
Markessini, E., Roffael, E., and Rigal, L. (1997). “Panels from annual
plant fibres bonded with urea-formaldehyde resins.” Proc., 31st Int.
Particleboard/Composite Materials Symp., Washington State Univ., Pullman,
WA, 147–160.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). “Timber, fuel, and fiber.”
Chapter 9, Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends,
R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash, eds., Vol. 1, Island Press, Wash-
ington, DC, 243–270.
Ndazi, B. S., Karlsson, S., Tesha, J. V., and Nyahumwa, C. W. (2007).
“Chemical and physical modifications of rice husks for use as composite
panels.” Composites Part A, 38(3), 925–935.
© ASCE 04013006-10
View publication stats J. Archit. Eng. 2014.20.
Ndazi, B. S., Tesha, J. V., Karlsson, S., and Bisanda, E. T. N. (2006).
“Production of rice husks composites with acacia mimosa tannin-based
resin.” J. Mater. Sci., 41(21), 6978–6983.
Odozi, T. O., Akaranta, O., and Ejike, P. N. (1986). “Particle boards from
agricultural wastes.” Agric. Wastes, 16(3), 237–240.
Osarenmwinda, J. O., and Nwachukwu, J. C. (2007). “Effect of particle size
on some properties of rice husk particleboard.” Adv. Mater. Res., 18–19,
43–48.
Pichelin, F., Kamoun, C., and Pizzi, A. (1999). “Hexamine hardener be-
haviour: Effects on wood glueing, tannin and other wood adhesives.”
Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 57(5), 305–317.
Pizzi, A. (2006). “Recent developments in eco-efficient bio-based adhesives
for wood bonding: Opportunities and issues.” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol.,
20(8), 829–846.
Sampathrajan, A., Vijayaraghavan, N. C., and Swaminathan, K. R. (1992).
“Mechanical and thermal properties of particle boards made from farm
residues.” Bioresour. Technol., 40(3), 249–251.
Sekaluvu, L., Tumutegyereize, P., and Kiggundu, N. (2013). “Investigation of
factors affecting the production and properties of maize cob-particleboards.”
Waste and biomass valorization, Æhttp://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007%2Fs12649-013-9228-9æ (May 30, 2013).
Swiss Association for Standardization (SNV). (2007). “Paints and var-
nishes: Cross-cut test.” SN EN ISO 2409, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF). (2009). “Panel guide version 3:
Annex 2A, particleboard (wood chipboard).” Æhttp://www.wpif.org.uk/
uploads/PanelGuide/39_%20Annex%202a%20BRE%20V3%2021_04.pdfæ
(Feb. 29, 2012).
Youngquist, J. A., English, B. E., Scharmer, R. C., Chow, P., and Shook,
S. R. (1994). “Literature review on use of nonwood plant fibers for
building materials and panels.” Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-80, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory,
Madison, WI.
J. Archit. Eng.