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

net/publication/338689468

Investigation of Fire-Retardant Additive on Particleboard Properties

Conference Paper · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 884

6 authors, including:

Sergej Medved Dennis Jones

University of Ljubljana Luleå University of Technology
41 PUBLICATIONS 506 CITATIONS 104 PUBLICATIONS 1,525 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Miha Humar Boštjan Lesar

University of Ljubljana University of Ljubljana
263 PUBLICATIONS 3,362 CITATIONS 84 PUBLICATIONS 1,218 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Jones on 20 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 141

INVESTIGATION OF FIRE-RETARDANT ADDITIVE ON

PARTICLEBOARD PROPERTIES

Sergej Medved*, Dennis Jones**, Paw Fælled***, Dejan Pirš*, Miha Humar* and
Boštjan Lesar*

* University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Wood Science and Technology,

Rožna dolina, Cesta VIII/34, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
** Luleå University of Technology, Wood Science and Engineering, Forskargatan 1, 93177
Skellefteå,Sweden
*** Burnblock ApS, Wilders plads 8a, Copenhagen, Denmark

SUMMARY
Fire resistance of wood-based panels is, in addition to mechanical and sorption properties, an
important property when considering its usability for construction usage. Increased fire
resistance is achieved through fire retardant addition during panel production or by spraying
fire-retardant on already finished panels. The downside of fire-retardant addition during panel
production is related to decreased mechanical properties. In the work presented here, the
impact of fire-retardant addition on relevant properties of particleboard was investigated. The
fire-retardant was added to the surface layer adhesive mixture only. In these studies, the fire-
retardant Burnblock® was used. The main reason for the targeted application (surface layer)
of fire-retardant is related to the origin of first contact point at fire. This is usually with the
material surface, hence it's more important to additionally protect the panel surface layer.
Three-layer particleboard (thickness 16 mm, target density 0.65 g·cm-3) with and without
fire-retardant in the surface layer was prepared. The loading ratio of fire retardant was
between 0 and 30 kg·m-3. The addition of fire-retardant influence properties of produced
panels.

INTRODUCTION
Usability of wood-based composites is determined mainly by their mechanical and sorption
properties, but when it comes to their usability in construction, especially for residential
buildings or public buildings like kindergartens, schools, hospitals, etc., the resistance against
fire is important. The resistance of wood-based composites against fire, in their usual
composition/structure is limited (Lowden & Hull, 2013), hence fire-retardants need to be added
to the board composition. The most often used substances for increasing the fire resistance are
borates (borax, boric acid) as mentioned by Ayrılmış et al. (2007), Winandy et al. (2008) and
Nagieb et al. (2011).

Since boards with added fire-retardant are mostly used in construction, the preservation of
adequate mechanical and sorption properties is necessary. According to Syska (1968), Gillespie
(1981), LeVan et al. (1996) and Hashim et al. (2009), the addition of fire-retardant affected
properties of produced boards. In mentioned research, the addition of fire-retardant lowered
mechanical properties (negative effect) and thickness swelling (positive effect).

A downside of conventionally employed fire-retardant is also related to their nature, namely

they are not environmentally friendly. With increased awareness and with a goal to use
materials that are environmentally friendly (low impact on environment), the use of so called
green chemicals is of high interest (Betts, 2008), hence the aim of this research was to see if it
was possible to get good fire-retardancy whilst maintaining adequate mechanical and sorption
properties when water-based, non-toxic fire-retardant is used.

International Panel Products Symposium 2019

142

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Particles were produced from fresh chips from coniferous wood species with a moisture content
between 70 and 80 % in a laboratory chipper. Wet particles were afterwards separated into 4
size classes. Oversized (residues on sieve with opening 6.14 mm) and fines (everything that
passed through sieve with opening 0.237 mm) were rejected, while residues on sieve with
opening 0.237 mm, 0.6 mm, 1.0 mm and 1.27 mm were used for surface layer and residues on
sieve with opening 1.5 mm, 2 mm and 4 mm were used as core layer. Particles were the dried
at 70° C for 16 hours. The moisture content of the dried particles was between 1 and 4 %.

The resin applied was melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF), produced by Meliamin Kočevje

(Slovenia). The blending ratio for surface layer particles was 10 %, whilst for core layer
particles it was 6 %. To the resin for core layer particles, 3 % of ammonium sulphate (hardener)
was added.

The resultant mat was pressed at a temperature of 150° C and specific pressure 3 N·mm-2 to a
nominal thickness of 16 mm. The target density was 0.65 g·cm-3. A lower pressing temperature
was due to the addition of fire retardant according to the producer (Burnblock ApS), which has
an activation temperature around 180° C, and if pressing mats was undertaken at a higher
temperature, there would be a risk of premature activation of fire retardant. As a result of the
lower temperature, a pressing time of 5 minutes was used. Boards were then cooled and stored
at temperature 20±2° C and relative humidity 65±5 %.

For this work, the fire retardant Burnblock® was used (produced by Burnblock ApS, Denmark).
Burnblock® is non-toxic, made from ingredients that occur naturally in fruits and vegetables or
are found in nature in their elemental form. Fire retardant was added only to surface layer
particles prior to blending. The reason for targeted application (surface layer) of fire retardant
was related to the origin of first contact point at fire, which is usually at/on the material surface.
The loading factor for Burnblock® was 0 (board A), 10 kg·m-3 (board B), 20 kg·m-3 (board C)
and 30 kg·m-3 (board D) respectively. In addition to these, additional boards were also made,
where 10 kg·m-3 of Burnblock® was sprayed on the lower and upper surfaces of the mat prior
to pressing (board E). In all cases, an 18.5% water solution was used.

After climatization, the following properties were determined:

- Thickness, density (EN 323) and density profile: size 50×50 mm2, 6 samples
- Moisture content (EN 322): size 50×50 mm2, 4 samples
- Internal bond (EN 319): size 50×50 mm2, 8 samples
- Bending strength and modulus of elasticity (EN 310): size 410×50 mm2, 6 samples
- Surface soundness (EN 311): size 50×50 mm2, 8 samples
- Thickness swelling (EN 317) size 50×50 mm2, 8 samples, immersion time 2 hours and
24 hours
- Fire resistance – resistance against smouldering: size 100×100 mm2, 2 samples

For fire resistance – resistance against smouldering, a modified method similar to that described
by Hagen et al. (2011) was used, whereby the sample (size 100×100 mm2) was placed on top
of a hot plate set at a temperature of 400±5° C (Figure 1).

Medved et al.
 143

Figure 1: Medium-scale smouldering set-up (hot plate method)

One side of the samples was exposed for 1 minute, whilst the other side was exposed for 5
minutes. Mass of samples was determined prior to exposure and 2 minutes after exposure. This
allowed the calculation of mass loss (Equation 1) and mass loss rate (Equation 2).
(𝑚1 −𝑚2 )
∆𝑚% = × 100 (1)
𝑚1

(𝑚1 −𝑚2 )
𝑀𝐿𝑅 = (2)
𝜏

where
m1 ............. mass prior to exposure in g
m2 ............. mass after exposure in g
τ ................ time of exposure in seconds (60 or 300 seconds)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The addition of Burnblock® influenced the thickness (Table 1) of boards and density profile
(Figure 2), while its impact on density and moisture content was not significant.

Table 1: Thickness, density and moisture content of particleboards without and with
Burnblock® (values in brackets are standard deviation values)
Burnblock®
Thickness Density Moisture content
loading rate
16.07 mm 0.707 g·cm-3 7.89 %
Board A 0
(0.082) (0.036) (0.174)
-3
15.75 mm 0.638 g·cm 7.81 %
Board B 10 kg·m-3
(0.107) (0.014) (0.267)
15.92 mm 0.650 g·cm-3 8.00 %
Board C 20 kg·m-3
(0.065) (0.005) (0.228)
-3
15.61 mm 0.661 g·cm 8.42 %
Board D 30 kg·m-3
(0.071) (0.023) (0.151)
-3
15.97 mm 0.688 g·cm 7.96 %
Board E1 10 kg·m-3
(0.096) (0.005) (0.018)

1
Water solution of Burnblock® (18.5 %) was sprayed on the upper and lower mat surface before pressing

International Panel Products Symposium 2019

144

For all the boards with added Burnblock®, the thickness and density were lower, compared to
the reference board (Board A, without Burnblock®). The average density of boards where
Burnblock® was added prior to blending (Board B, C and D) increased with increasing loading
factor. This correlation was also evident in core layer density (Figure 2, and Table 3).

1.1

1.0

0.9
Density g·cm-3

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Thickness in mm

A B C D E

Figure 2: Density profile of produced particleboards

Table 2: Average density and density of individual layer of particleboards without and with
Burnblock®
Burnblock® Surface layer
Average density Core layer density
loading rate density
Board A 0 0.707 g·cm-3 0.857 g·cm-3 0.637 g·cm-3
Board B 10 kg·m-3 0.638 g·cm-3 0.801 g·cm-3 0.561 g·cm-3
Board C 20 kg·m-3 0.650 g·cm-3 0.837 g·cm-3 0.563 g·cm-3
Board D 30 kg·m-3 0.661 g·cm-3 0.816 g·cm-3 0.586 g·cm-3
Board E2 10 kg·m-3 0.688 g·cm-3 0.854 g·cm-3 0.611 g·cm-3

Surface and core layer densities of boards, where water solution of Burnblock® was mixed with
particles prior to blending (board B, C and D) were lower compared to boards without
Burnblock® (board A) and board E, where Burnblock® was sprayed on mat surfaces. While no
correlation could be found in surface layer density in relation towards Burnblock® loading rate,
the increase in core layer density with increasing loading rate could be observed. This could be
the result of increased amount of water in surface layer and later change in core layer mat
behaviour during pressing (at exposure to high temperature).

The addition of Burnblock® also influenced the mechanical (Table 3) and sorption properties
(Figure 3).

2
Water solution of Burnblock® (18.5 %) was sprayed on the upper and lower mat surface before pressing

Medved et al.
 145

Table 3: Mechanical properties of particleboards without and with Burnblock® (values in

brackets are standard deviation values)
Bending Modulus of Surface
Burnblock® Internal bond
strength elasticity soundness
loading rate [N·mm-2]
[N·mm-2] [N·mm-2] [N·mm-2]
14.26 2831 0.75 0.20
Board A 0
(1.177) (71.74) (0.209) (0.026)
10.34 2571 0.70 0.20
Board B 10 kg·m-3
(0.777) (133.22) (0.152) (0.019)
9.12 2375 0.91 0.22
Board C 20 kg·m-3
(1.003) (12.22) (0.146) (0.040)
8.34 2458 0.53 0.18
Board D 30 kg·m-3
(0.568) (125.21) (0.122) (0.20)
8.83 2644 0.80 0.24
Board E3 10 kg·m-3
(1.449) (179.57) (0.116) (0.038)

50
47.43
45.85
45
41.58
40.09
40
36.87 36.99
34.66
35
30.51 30.79
Thickness swelling in %

30

24.93
25

20

15

10

0
A B C D E
Board

TS2 TS24

Figure 3: Thickness swelling of produced particleboards regarding immersion time

The addition of fire-retardant confirmed a previously reported decrease in bending strength and
modulus of elasticity. Bending strength and modulus of elasticity decreased with increasing
loading ratio. The results also indicated the importance of the fire-retardant application, namely
comparing board B and E, where Burnblock® loading rate was the same (the difference was in
application), the resulting bending strength was lower, while modulus of elasticity, surface
soundness and internal bond strengths were higher.
For boards with added Burnblock® internal bond strength was comparable to the board without
Burnblock®, though it should be emphasized that this could be also the consequence of the fact
that Burnblock® was added only in surface layer. Comparing the results of surface soundness
reveals the influence of Burnblock® addition on bond quality. Comparing boards, A to C the
increase in surface soundness could be detected, while at loading rate 30 kg·m-3 the significant
decrease can be detected, which could be an effect of the acid nature of Burnblock®.
The main purpose of Burnblock® addition into particleboard structure was to increase the
resistance against fire. To determine this resistance, a hot plate method was used and the results

3
Water solution of Burnblock® (18.5 %) was sprayed on the upper and lower mat surface before pressing

International Panel Products Symposium 2019

146

of the board exposure to high temperature for 60 seconds and 300 seconds are presented in
Figure 4, Figure 5 and Table 4.

Figure 4: Sample surface after 60 seconds exposure to T=400° C (from top to bottom: board
A, Board B, board C, board, D and Board E

Figure 5: Sample surface after 300 seconds exposure to T=400° C (from top to bottom: board
A, Board B, board C, board, D and Board E

Medved et al.
 147

Table 4: Mass loss and mass loss rate of produced particleboards regarding the exposure time
60 seconds 300 seconds
Burnblock®
Δm% MLR Δm% MLR
loading rate
[%] [g/sec] [%] [g/sec]
Board A 0 1.98 0.037 9.56 0.035
Board B 10 kg·m-3 1.85 0.034 9.95 0.035
-3
Board C 20 kg·m 2.31 0.041 11.07 0.037
-3
Board D 30 kg·m 2.54 0.044 11.06 0.037
4 -3
Board E 10 kg·m 2.47 0.045 9.99 0.035

Although the differences are small, the results of the test were a surprise. Looking at the results
in Table 3, at 60 seconds exposure, the addition of Burnblock® had no effect on fire-resistance,
since mass loss and mass loss rate was higher at almost all boards with Burnblock® (except
board B), but when comparing results of 60 seconds and 300 seconds exposure, the effect of
Burnblock® starts to become visible. A possible reason for higher mass loss could be related to
way that Burnblock® reacts on exposure to high temperature and/or fire. According to the
producer, Burnblock® leaves behind a surface that can char and release water upon application
of heat. This process absorbs a portion of the heat and helps prevent further occurrence and
spread of fire. And if the amount of released water is higher, then the mass loss is also higher.

Although the mass loss rate was higher at boards with added Burnblock®, the decrease in mass
loss rate was higher at boards with Burnblock®. The real effect of Burnblock® addition was
revealed when looking at sample cross section (figure 6, table 4)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 6: Cross section of samples after exposure to high temperature (from left to right board
A (a), board B (b), board C (c), board D (d), board E (e)

Table 5: Thickness of charred layer after exposure to high temperature for 300 seconds
Charred layer thickness
Burnblock® loading rate
[mm]
Board A 0 4.18
Board B 10 kg·m-3 4.03
Board C 20 kg·m-3 3.41
Board D 30 kg·m-3 2.98
Board E5 10 kg·m-3 3.22

The thickness of charred area decreases with increasing Burnblock® loading rate.

4
Water solution of Burnblock® (18.5 %) was sprayed on the upper and lower mat surface before pressing
5
Water solution of Burnblock® (18.5 %) was sprayed on the upper and lower mat surface before pressing

International Panel Products Symposium 2019

 148

CONCLUSIONS
The results of preliminary experiment related to usability of Burnblock® for production of fire-
resistant particleboard showed that is possible to make three layered particleboards where fire-
retardant is used only in surface layer. The results showed decreased bending strength with
increased fire-retardant loading rate, while internal bond strength was not significant. The
addition of Burnblock® lowered thickness swelling. The addition of Burnblock® resulted in
increased mass loss when exposed to high temperature, but the difference was smaller when
time of exposure was prolonged from 60 second to 300 seconds. With increasing Burnblock®
loading rate the charred thickness decreased. The Burnblock® application procedure did
influence bending strength, internal bond and mass loss after short time of exposure, while the
difference in charred thickness and mass loss after longer exposure time was not significant.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank for the support to Slovenian Research Agency within program P4-
0015 (Wood and lignocellulosic composites) and to the company Burnblock AsP.

REFERENCES
Ayrılmıs, N., Candan, Z. and White, R. (2007). Physical, mechanical, and fire properties of
oriented strandboard with fire retardant treated veneers. Holz alsRoh-und Werkstoff 65 (6): 449-
458. DOI 10.1007/s00107-007-0195-3

Betts, K.S. (2008). New Thinking on Flame Retardants. Environmental Health Perspectives,
116 (5): A210–A213

Gillespie R.H. (1981). Adhesion in cellulosic and wood-based composites. Nato Conference
Series VI, Materials Science, vol. 3 (Oliver, J.F. (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, USA: 167–
189

Hagen, B.C., Frette, V., Kleppe, G. and Arntzen, B.J. (2011): Onset of smoldering in cotton:
effects of density, Fire Safety Journal, 46: 73–80.

Hashim, R., Sulaiman, O., Kumar, R.N., Tamyez, P.F., Murphy, R.J. and Ali Z. (2009).
Physical and mechanical properties of flame retardant urea formaldehyde medium density
fibreboard. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 209 (2): 635-640

LeVan, S.L., Kim, J.M., Nagel, R.J. and Evan, J.W. (1996). Mechanical properties of fire-
retardant-treated plywood after cyclic temperature exposure. Forest Products Journal, 46: 64-
71

Lowden L.A. and Hull T.R. (2013): Flammability behaviour of wood and a review of the
methods for its reduction. Fire Science Reviews 2 (4) 1-19

Nagieb Z.A., Nassar M.A. and El-Meligy M.G. (2011): Effect of Addition of Boric Acid and
Borax on Fire-Retardant and Mechanical Properties of Urea Formaldehyde Saw Dust
Composites. International Journal of Carbohydrate Chemistry 2011, Article ID 146763: 6 p.

Winandy, J. E., Wang, Q. and White, R. H. (2008): Fire-retardant-treated strandboard:

Properties and fire performance. Wood and Fiber Science 40 (1): 62-71

Syska, A.D. (1969). Exploratory investigation of fire-retardant treatments for particleboard.

U.S.D.A. forest service research note FPL-201: 24 p.

Medved et al.

View publication stats