Masterthesis Life Cycle

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/279286317
Life cycle assessment of adhesives used in wood constructions
Technical Report · May 2015
CITATIONS READS
13 10,072
2 authors, including:
Abhishek Chaudhary
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
108 PUBLICATIONS 4,854 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Multi-indicator Sustainability Assessment of Food Systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abhishek Chaudhary on 29 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of adhesives used in
wood constructions
www.chemistryexplained.com
Master Thesis
Ecological System Design
Prof. Dr. Stefanie Hellweg

Institute of Ecological System Design
ETH Zürich
Annika Messmer
May 2015
Supervisor: Abhishek Chaudhary

Acknowledgement
I would particularly like to thank Abhishek Chaudhary and Prof. Dr. Stefanie Hellweg
for the supervision of my master’s thesis. Further I would like to thank Dr. Joseph
Gabriel from Purbond for his support on the topic of PUR adhesive production, Dr. Ari
Setyan from the EMPA and Prof. Dr. Jing Wang for their high commitment on the part
of the emission measurement as well as the two companies where I could kindly measure
the emission during application of the adhesive. Finally I thank everyone else who was
involved in different ways in the success of this study.
II
Abstract
The demand for wood construction has increased in recent years, and two main reasons
are responsible for that: on one hand, the increasing awareness of environmental issues
such as fossil depletion and climate change, and on the other hand, the support of adhe-
sive technologies that enable wood to be used for new and demanding construction tasks.
A very promising and new application of wood in construction is cross laminated timber
(CLT). However, the environmental performance of wood as the only known renewable
and sustainable construction material is impacted from the use of synthetic adhesives.
Recent studies have already highlighted adhesives as a hotspot of the environmental per-
formance of composite wood products. Traditional formaldehyde-based adhesives, such
as melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF), phenol formaldehyde (PF) and phenol resorcinol
formaldehyde (PRF), were used for wood construction. Today, new formaldehyde-free
adhesives such as polyurethane (PUR) are also available for the production of wood con-
struction. Polyurethane has two benefits. First, there is the environmental performance,
i.e. the replacement of formaldehyde, which is suspected to have a negative impact on
human health; and second, a lower amount of PUR adhesive is required for the produc-
tion of CLT. Therefore, PUR adhesive is suspected to have lower environmental impacts
compared to the traditional adhesives. At present, however, no study comparing the
environmental impacts of wood adhesives used in wood construction is available. Hence,
the object of this study was to compare the environmental impact of the different adhe-
sives using the methodology of life-cycle assessment and ReCiPe. Data for the production
of MUF, PF and PRF adhesives was collected from different sources in the literature,
and the data for PUR was provided by a company in Switzerland. The emissions in two
different companies were measured to observe the impact and the occupational risk from
the application of the adhesives in a glue laminated timber manufactory. To complete
the life-cycle assessment, the impacts from the adhesive during the use phase and final
disposal were also assessed using data and models taken from the existing literature.
For the production of CLT, PUR has the lowest environmental impact. This is mainly
because a low amount of adhesive and no additional hardener is required. However, the
endpoint result of the ReCiPe method includes a subjective weighing which has a high
influence on the result. In addition no uncertainty analysis was performed as some of the
data was aggregated and the differences between most of the adhesives are too small to
be significant. For all adhesives the production of raw material has the highest impact
on the endpoint result of the ReCiPe method. During the application, no high emis-
sions were measured and none of the substances exceeded the threshold of the maximum
workplace concentration (MAK). But still the calculated impact on human toxicity with
the Usetox method resulted for MUF in higher impacts for the application than for the
production. For all adhesives higher impacts on human toxicity were observed for the use
phase then for their production and also the impact from the final disposal determined
with the LCA4AFR tool was lower compared to the production of the adhesives. Ac-
cording to the findings of the life-cycle assessment with the ReCiPe method and in order
to reduce the impact of adhesives used in wood construction, a possibility would be to
focus on the raw materials. There are several different options: one would be to substi-
tute the synthetic raw materials with renewable materials such as lignin, tannin, cashew
nutshell liquid and castor oil. These materials have already been tested for composite
wood products, but have not yet been tried for wood constructions.
Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Wood Adhesive and Engineered Wood Products: Literature Review 3

2.1 Wood Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Engineered Wood Products (EWP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Environmental Impact of Adhesive used in Engineered Wood Products . . 7
3 Research Objective 10
4 Method 11
4.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Adhesive Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure in Glulam Factory . . . . . . . 19
4.3 Assessment of the Use Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Assessment of Final Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Results and Interpretation 25

5.1 The Impact Assessment of the Production of 1kg Adhesive with a solids
content of 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Result of the second Impact Assessment for the Production of Adhesive
and Hardener in Relation to their Use in CLT Production . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 Result of Occupational Risk Assessment and Environmental Impacts of
the Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4 The Result of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Use Phase . . 35
5.5 The Result of the Environmental Impact Assessment of Final Disposal . . 36
6 Discussion 37
6.1 Environmental performance of PUR compared to formaldehyde-based ad-
hesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Potential to Improve the Environmental Performance of Wood Adhesives . 41
6.3 The limitation of the validity of this LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7 Conclusion 42
8 Appendix IV
List of Figures
Figure 1: Wood use in the past, present and future (Sathre & Gustavsson,
2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2: Global market share of different wood adhesives (Transparency
market research, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 3: The global glulam consumption in the recent years (UNECE FAO,
2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4: The structure of cross laminated timber (Karacabeyli et al. , 2013) 7
Figure 5: The cradle to gate system boundary of the first assessment . . . . 14
Figure 6: The cradle to gate system boundary of the second assessment . . 14
Figure 7: The sketch of the production process in company A . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 8: The sketch of the production process in company B . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 9: The result of the first assessment of the adhesive production for
the three endpoint categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 10: The endpoint result per impact categories of the first assessment
of the adhesive production for all datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 11: The midpoint result of the first assessment of the adhesive pro-
duction for all datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 12: The LCA endpoint result for adhesive and hardener used in the
production of CLT differentiated by midpoint indicators of the
ReCiPe methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 13: The impact of the production of 1kg of the different raw materialsXIII
Figure 14: The impact of the production of 1MJ with the different production
mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIII
Figure 15: Midpoint result of MUF Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV
Figure 16: Midpoint result of MUF Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV
Figure 17: Midpoint result of PF Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV
Figure 18: Midpoint result of PF Ecoinvent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV
Figure 19: Midpoint result of PRF Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI
Figure 20: Midpoint result of PUR Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI
Figure 21: Midpoint result of the second assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . VII
Figure 22: The sensitivity of the impact from final disposal on the C-content
of the adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
. XX
Figure 23: The LCA of CLT production with MUF adhesive . . . . . . . . XXXI .
Figure 24: The LCA of CLT production with PRF adhesive . . . . . . . . . XXXI .
Figure 25: The LCA of CLT production with PUR adhesive . . . . . . . . . XXXI .
Index of Abbreviations
MUF Melamine urea formaldehyde
PF Phenol formaldehyde
PRF Phenol resorcinol formaldehyde
PUR Polyurethane
UF Urea formaldehyde
EWP Engineered wood products
glulam Glued laminated timber
CLT Cross Laminated Timber
MDI Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
VOC Volatile organic compounds
ISO International organization of standardization
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
DALY Disability-adjusted life years
MAK Maximal work place concentration
TVA Technische Verordnung für Abfallbehandlung
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
1 Introduction 1
1 Introduction
Wood construction has been undergoing a revival in recent years. During the techno-
logical development of the nineteenth century wood lost its pioneering role and modern
construction materials like concrete and steel became more important (Glos et al. , 2008).
The building industry has a large environmental impact due to the extensive use of natu-
ral resources and the huge energy demand. Today the building sector accounts for about
42% of energy use and produces 35% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Europe(EC,
2007). The increasing awareness of policy makers and society about the depletion of nat-
ural resources and climate change has heavily influenced the building sector over the
last two decades, and the demand for sustainable and renewable building materials has
increased (Glos et al. , 2008). Wood, the only known renewable building material, has
therefore gained importance and furthered the development of new adhesives technologies
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: Wood use in the past, present and future (Sathre & Gustavsson, 2009)
In the past, wood properties strongly depended on tree species, climate zone of origin
and the individual trees. Today it is possible to produce engineered wood products of
more predictable performance and homogeneity thanks to new adhesive technologies.
Therefore, wood can be used for completely new applications and more demanding con-
struction tasks (Pacheco-Torgal et al. , 2014).
Traditionally, thermosetting adhesives based on formaldehyde, such as amino-formaldehyde

adhesives (melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF) and phenolic adhesive (phenol formalde-
hyde (PF) or phenol resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF)), are used in wood construction.
These synthetic adhesives have the advantage that they provide strength, durability
and enhance the use of wood for construction (Pacheco-Torgal et al. , 2014). The high
formaldehyde emissions from the wood products engineered in the early stage and the
health impact on people exposed to the formaldehyde discredited the traditional adhe-
sives in the 1960s. As a result, the industry was forced to lower the formaldehyde content
of the traditional adhesives, and new formaldehyde-free adhesives have been developed
(Marutzky, 2003) in recent years.
Polyurethane (PUR) is a formaldehyde-free adhesive approved for application in wood
constructions. Polyurethane uses methyl-diphenyl-diisocyanate as a binding agent in-
stead of formaldehyde (Gabriel, 2015). Compared to the traditional adhesives, a lower
amount of adhesive is required to be applied in wood constructions for PUR, and no ad-
ditional hardener is necessary. Due to the lower amount of adhesive and the elimination
of formaldehyde, PUR adhesive is expected to cause less environmental damage than

1 Introduction 2
traditional adhesives (Gabriel, 2015). But there are today still no studies available about
a direct comparison of the environmental performance of the several adhesives used in
wood construction.
The relevance of the environmental performance of wood adhesive is also ensured by the
fact that according to Pizzi & Mittal (2011) more than two-thirds of all wood products
used across the world are today either totally or partly bonded using a variety of wood
adhesives. The global consumption of adhesives used for overall woodworking was almost
2 million tons in 2014 (including furniture, building products and other applications), and
the consumption of wood adhesives is expected to increase in the future (Transparency
market research, 2014).
The present global market share of PUR (Figure 1) is still small compared to traditional
adhesives (Transparency market research, 2014). However, newly engineered wood prod-
ucts, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), are mainly produced with PUR adhesive.
Therefore, the market share of PUR is expected to increase until 2020 due to the pre-
dicted rise in the demand for engineered wood products (Committee on Forests and the
Forest Industry, 2015).
Figure 2: Global market share of different wood adhesives (Transparency market re-
search, 2014)
The main goal of this thesis is to compare the environmental performance of the pro-
duction, application, use phase and final deposition between the new formaldehyde-free
PUR adhesive and the traditional formaldehyde-based wood adhesives.

2 Wood Adhesive and Engineered Wood Products:

Literature Review
Bonding wood dates back to the ancient Egyptians (3500 years before Christ), who
already knew the art of veneering wood and used adhesives to attach decorations to
wood (Skeist, 1990). They used adhesives of natural origin, mainly casein made of a
protein isolated from milk (Nicholson, 1991). Casein was not the only adhesive used for
bonding wood in this early stage of human history, other varieties made from animal
blood or vegetable starch were also known. Synthetic adhesives were introduced just
before the start of the Second World War (Eckelman, n.d.). Synthetic adhesives have the
benefit being suitable for applications that are far to demanding for the natural adhesives.
This explains why the use of synthetic adhesives has surpassed that of natural adhesives
and why they have become indispensable for engineering tasks (Eckelman, n.d.). The use
of engineered wood products (EWP) for diverse purposes involving structural elements
began in 1980.
2.1 Wood Adhesives

Today, wood adhesives can be broadly classified as either synthetic-based or based on
natural material.
2.1.1 Natural Adhesives

For long time natural adhesives were the only known adhesive for wood bonding. They
were made of natural polymers from plants and animals, produced from animal blood,
hide, casein, starch, soybean, dextrin and cellulose (American wood council, n.d.). The
first commercial natural adhesive plant was founded 1690 in Holland. But casein was also
produced in Switzerland and Germany in the early nineteenth century (Delmonte, 1947).
The introduction of synthetic adhesives in the 1930s replaced natural based adhesives,
since they can’t provide the necessary strength and durability required for the structurally
engineered wood products of today. However, for non-structural applications, such as
indoor furniture, etc., natural adhesives are still used and produced in small quantities
(American wood council, n.d.).
2.1.2 Synthetic Adhesives

Urea formaldehyde was the first synthetic adhesive to be introduced in the 1930s. This
was the start of a successful and fast growing global industry (Keimel, 2003). In a few
years, new synthetic adhesives for specific applications (not only wood bonding) were
continuously developed and established adhesives improved. Today several different ad-
hesives are available on the market for a range of very specific applications (Skeist, 1990).
The synthetic adhesives can be classified into two types: thermoplastic and thermoset-
ting. The two types differ in their chemical structure and response to heat (Nitthiyah,
2013).

2.1.2.1 Thermoplastic
Thermoplastic adhesives are adhesives of homogenized liquid whose aggregate state de-
pends on the temperature. The process of curing and melting is reversible, which means
it can be reheated to form a liquid after being cured for some time (Plastics Europe,
2015). The application range for thermoplastic adhesives is limited due to their chemical
characteristics. They can only be used for non-structural applications in low temperature
climate and they are not resistant to heat or fire. Thermoplastic adhesives are not used
in wood construction, and therefore are of no relevance to this thesis.
2.1.2.2 Thermosetting
Thermoplastic adhesives, by contrast, are cure irreversible. The curing process can be
induced by heat (over 200 degrees), through chemical reaction or suitable irradiation.
Adding energy or a catalyst cause the molecular chains to react at the chemical activity
site. This process is called a cross-linking process, which results in a molecule of a larger
molecular weight and with a higher melting point. Thermosetting adhesives are generally
stronger than thermoplastic adhesives and better suited for high temperature applica-
tions (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005). For bonding wood constructions thermosetting
adhesives are mainly used. Different thermosetting wood adhesives are available. These
are presented in the following section.
Urea Formaldehyde (UF)

Urea-formaldehyde is a low-priced adhesive. It is mainly used for indoor applications.
The characteristics of UF adhesive are fast hardening, high dry bond strength and colour-
less glue joints. UF adhesives can be hardened hot or cold, but for rapid hardening an
additional hardener has to be applied. The glue joints of UF adhesive are high-strength,
but brittle and inelastic. Therefore, tension in the wood, caused from changes in humid-
ity and temperature, harm the glue joints and decrease the performance of the adhesive.
UF adhesives are only applicable for indoor products. The ratio of formaldehyde and
urea influences the strength of the glue joints and has to be between 0.9:1 and 1.3:1. The
more formaldehyde the adhesive contains, the higher the content of reactive groups is and
the better the performance. But with a higher amount of formaldehyde more emissions
also given off from the adhesive during the application, hardening and use phase. The
ideal molar ratio F:U is between 0.9:1 and 1.1:1 (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).
Melamine Urea Formaldehyde (MUF)

Melamine urea formaldehyde is similar in composition to the UF adhesive, but melamine
provides additional amino groups to the adhesive. MUF adhesive can be hardened hot or
cold and the glue joints are colourless and light resistant. The additional melamine makes
the glue joints of MUF more elastic than those of UF. Therefore, MUF glue joints have
a greater resistance to humidity and moisture. But as melamine is expensive, the molar
ration of melamine is kept as low as possible. Not yet hardened MUF glue joints contain
free-formaldehyde, which can be emitted during the hardening process. But hardened
glue joints are completely harmless. The process of cold hardening can be accelerated
with ammonium-containing hardener. MUF adhesives are applied in large amounts in
the engineered wood product industry (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).

Phenol Formaldehyde (PF)

Phenol-formaldehyde is applied in a broad spectrum of engineered wood products. It
is very strong and highly durable in dry and wet conditions and exhibits a very high
adhesion to wood. Hardening can occur under both hot and cold applications. PF adhe-
sives are mainly applied in moist and climate-resistant particle- or fiberboard, plywood,
pressed laminated wood and glued laminated timber. PF is traditionally not used for
cross-laminated timber production, but as the characteristics are similar to the other
wood adhesives it is still included in this study. PF can be hardened hot without ad-
ditional hardener. For the cold hardening process additional acid hardener is required,
such as p-toluene sulphonic acid, aralkyl phosphoric acid, aralkyl-sulfonic acid, maleic
anhydride, sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid. Depending on the manner of production, two
types of PF adhesives can be produced: resole or novolac adhesive. Resole are produced
by an alkaline condensation of phenol and formaldehyde, whereas novolac are produced
by an acid condensation of phenol and formaldehyde. For the production of glued lam-
inated timber (similar but not as strong as CLT) novolac PF is mostly used. Phenol
adhesives are toxic, and skin contact should be avoided. Workers exposed to the adhe-
sive have to wear gloves and skin protection. The content of free formaldehyde emitted
from PF adhesive in engineered wood products is lower than that emitted by MUF and
UF adhesives (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).
Phenol Resorcinol Formaldehyde (PRF)

Phenol resorcinol formaldehyde is similar to PF adhesive, but contains an additional
compound of resorcinol. Resorcinol increases the strength and the resistance of the glue
joints in wet conditions. Therefore, PRF is mainly applied in outdoor wood constructions
and in the surface gluing required for climate resistant joints. To achieve a fast curing
process, additional hardener (paraformaldehyde) has to be used. PRF is toxic to the skin
and dermatosis can’t be avoided after multiple skin contacts. Therefore, workers exposed
to uncured adhesive have to wear protecting clothing. However, the cured adhesive is
harmless (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).
Polyurethane (PUR)
PUR is a formaldehyde-free adhesive used in engineered wood products mainly in cross-
laminated timber. The curing process of PUR is induced by the moisture in the wood.
The cured glue joints are moisture and hydrolysis resistant. During the process of cur-
ing, a low amount of CO2 is created and emitted. In place of formaldehyde, it contains
isocyanate. Isocyanate can theoretically also be emitted into the indoor environment
during the production and use phase of CLT (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).
The application specification and the price of each adhesive are summarized in Table 1.
The environmental impacts associated with the adhesives, including a detailed description
of formaldehyde and isocyanate, are presented later in this chapter.

Table 1: Overview of the application and price of the different adhesives (Vick & Ad-
herends, 1999; Gabriel, 2015)
Adhesive Application Price per kg Price per kg

100% solids content
(€/kg) (€/kg)
MUF structural, limited exterior 2.20 3.75
PF structural-/ non-structural, 3.00 5.00
fully exterior
PRF structural, fully exterior 3.50 5.80
PUR structural, fully exterior 5.50 5.50
2.2 Engineered Wood Products (EWP)

Engineered wood products are value-added wood products made by bonding lumber,
veneers, strands or fibers together with glue. High performance products that are struc-
turally stable and of unlimited sizes, can be produced. The demand for engineered wood
products in the construction industry strongly depends on general construction activity,
and therefore on the global economic situation. It has been observed that the demand
for engineered wood products used in construction increased despite the downturn of the
economy in the past few years, and it is expected to drastically increase in the near fu-
ture. For example, the consumption of glued laminated timber (glulam) almost doubled
in Europe in the last decade and reached a value of about 3 million m3 in 2012 (in the
same year the global consumption was 5 million m3 ) (Manninen, 2014).
The development of glulam consumption in Europe in recent years is shown in Figure
2.2.
Figure 3: The global glulam consumption in the recent years (UNECE FAO, 2013)
The focus of this study however will be on a relatively new, engineered wood product
used in construction called cross-laminated timber (CLT).

Cross-Laminated Timber
Cross-laminated timber is made of several layers of wood boards glued crosswise together
(see Figure 2.2). The number of layers varies, but there have to be a minimum of three
layers. This makes CLT to a very strong and stable material. The size of the produced
CLT-panels is unlimited during the production, but transportability regulates it. The
production of CLT was introduced in Germany and Austria in 1990, and the demand has
increased significantly over the last few years. It can be used as substitute for concrete
and steel construction (Manninen, 2014). The production of CLT in Europe in 2012 was
560’000m3 , whereof 65% was produced in Austria, and only 4% of the whole European
production was produced in Switzerland (Kutnar, 2013).
Figure 4: The structure of cross laminated timber (Karacabeyli et al. , 2013)
2.3 Environmental Impact of Adhesive used in Engineered Wood Products

Recent studies show that wood adhesive is an environmental hotspot of the lifecycle of
composite wood products. Significant contributions to the following impact categories
have been found: global warming, photochemical oxidant formation, acidification, eu-
trophication, toxicity (Pacheco-Torgal et al. , 2014; Silvaa et al. , 2013). For example,
the production of the petroleum-based raw material for amino adhesives primarily effects
fossil depletion, acidification, global warming, abiotic depletion and eutrophication. The
formaldehyde emissions of the adhesive, on the other hand, have an impact on photo-
chemical oxidation, ecotoxicity and human toxicity (Silvaa et al. , 2013). Similar impacts
are also expected for all other synthetic wood adhesives.
Raw Material
Synthetic adhesives used for engineered wood production have a fossil feedstock mainly
based on petroleum, and the production of the raw material requires a lot of energy,
which is mainly produced from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, and especially petroleum, are the
most obvious and important example of a finite resource, which is being rapidly depleted
(Leggett, 2006). Therefore, the adhesives used for the production of wood constructions
have an impact on the depletion of finite resources.
Emission
The use of fossil feedstock is only one aspect of the environmental impact of wood ad-
hesives. The other aspect that should be considered when assessing the environmental
impact of wood adhesives are the emissions that occur during the application of the
engineered wood production and the use phase of the wood product. These emissions

have potential negative impacts on the indoor environment, and therefore pose a health
risk for people being exposed to them in the workplace or at home (González-García
et al. , 2011). The traditional wood adhesives contain formaldehyde, which can be par-
tially emitted during the application and the early stage of the use phase of the wood
product. The problem of formaldehyde emission from engineered wood products was
identified in the 1960s. After the initial discovery, threshold values were introduced and
the formaldehyde content of the adhesives was lowered (Gomez-Bueso & Haupt, 2010).
Since the trend of constructing air-tight modern buildings began in recent years, the issue
of formaldehyde emissions from wood products in the indoor environment has increased
(Less et al. , 2015). But also emissions from the formaldehyde-free adhesive PUR would
be possible. There the emissions of isocyanate are mainly supposed to have an impact
on indoor air quality (Streil, 2006).
Generally, the emissions from engineered wood products used in construction, such as
CLT, are considered to be much lower than the emissions from wood composite products
such as particle boards. For the production of engineered wood products used in con-
struction, less adhesive is required and only a small amount of adhesive is located directly
on the surface of the product. Therefore, for wood products used in construction, the
emissions are expected to be greater during the manufacturing process than in the use
phase (Barr et al. , 2010).
In the following, the health impact and the threshold value of substances emitted from
adhesives are described in detail.
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) Volatile organic compounds are used as organic
solvents in various products, such as paint, adhesives and varnish. They easily evaporate
in the gas phase and, as air pollutants, have harmful effects on human health by con-
tributing to respiratory illnesses. Some VOCs are also mutagenic or toxic to reproduction
and harmful to the unborn (Environment et al. , 2013). The threshold limits for work
place exposure to the individual VOC substances are defined by SUVA (2012).
Formaldehyde Formaldehyde is a VOC, which is suspected to cause irritation to the

eyes, nose and throat. It is characterized as a human carcinogen causing nose and throat
cancer by the department of health and human services (ATSDR, 2015). The maximal
concentration at workplaces (MAK) has ben defined by SUVA (2012) to have a threshold
limit of 0.37mg/m3 . The amount of formaldehyde emissions emitted from wood adhesives
(MUF, PF and PRF) depends on the adhesive type and molar ratio. For MUF, higher
emissions were observed than for PRF and PF adhesives (Funch, 2002).
Isocyanate Isocyanates are a family of highly reactive chemicals with low molecular
weight. The most commonly used compounds are diisocyanates, such as MDI and HDI,
which are also used in PUR adhesive. Direct contact with high isocyanate emissions can
cause irritation of the respiratory track and eyes. Direct skin contact can cause marked
inflammation, and there is evidence that both skin and respiratory exposure can lead to
sensitization of the workers (CDC, 2014).
The hazard of exposure is directly related to the volatility and molecular weight of the
isocyanates. Diisocyanates have a higher molecular weight than other isocyanates, and
their volatility, vapor pressure and toxicity is therefore much lower than other isocyanates
(Sullivan & Krieger, 2001). The highly reactive NCO-group of the molecule is suspected
to have an impact human health. In order to determine the air quality the total concen-
tration of the NOC-group is measured. The defined maximal workplace concentration
(MAK) for the total NCO-group is 0.02mg/m3 (SUVA, 2012).

2.3.1 The Methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in general

The methodology used to assess the environmental impact of a given product is known as
life-cycle-assessment. It includes the complete life-cycle of the product, i.e. the extraction
and processing of raw material, the manufacturing of the product, all transportations
and distribution measures, as well as the use and maintenance, recycling, reuse or final
disposal of the product (Consoli, 1993).
For the performance of an LCA the International Organisation of Standardization (ISO)
provides guidelines within the series ISO 1404 and 14044. These guidelines describe the
main steps of a LCA (Consultants, 2014) :
Goal and Scope

In this first step of a LCA, the intended use (goal) and scope have to be clarified.
This includes: the definition of the functional unit and the system boundaries,
a description of the system and the method used for the impact assessment, a
description of the data and data quality requirements, as well as a description of
all assumptions and limitations of the LCA.
Inventory Analysis
The second step of a LCA is to set up the life-cycle inventory (LCI) of the system.
This includes the collection and calculations of the input/output data associated
with the product. Therefore, all resources, emissions used and produced during the
production and life cycle of a product are collected in an inventory.
Impact Assessment
In the impact assessment the emissions and resources collected in the life-cycle in-
ventory are transformed into a limit number of impact categories. Different meth-
ods can be used to predict the potential environmental impact of a product or a
process.
Interpretation
The interpretation of the results includes different checks to ensure that the con-
clusion and procedure used for the study are sufficiently supported by the data.
Checks and analyses of uncertainty, sensitivity and contribution are recommended.

3 Research Objective 10
3 Research Objective
The objective of this master’s thesis is to compare the environmental impacts of four
different wood adhesive types (melamine urea formaldehyde (MUF), phenol formaldehyde
(PF), phenol resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF) and polyurethane (PUR)) used in wood
construction by using the methodology of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and focusing on
the following aspects:
Quantifying the environmental impact of the adhesive production (cradle to gate)

• The production of 1kg of adhesive with a solids content of 100%
– Which adhesive production has the highest/lowest environmental impact?
– To which impact categories do the impacts mainly belong?
– Which process or input causes the most environmental impact?
– How high are the environmental impacts in relation to the cost?
• The production of adhesive and hardener used in cross-laminated timber pro-
duction:
– Which adhesive has the best environmental performance when producing
1m2 of cross-laminated timber with three layers and a thickness of 30cm?
– How much does the performance of the adhesive change when considering
the amount and hardener used and their specific solids content?
– How high are the environmental impacts in relation to the cost?
Quantifying the environmental impacts of the application in the engineered wood production
– Risk-assessment: How high are the emissions of the different adhesives

during the application? Are workers in a glulam factory exposed to a
risk?
– What is the environmental impact for each adhesive induced from the
measured emissions?
Quantify the environmental impact of the use phase

– What emissions can be expected during the use phase of cross-laminated
timber?
– What are the environmental impacts of these emissions?
– How much does the use phase contribute to the overall performance?
Quantifying the environmental impact of the final disposal

– What emissions occur during the final disposal?
– What are the environmental impacts of these emissions?
– How high is the environmental impact of the final disposal compared to
the production and use phase?

4 Method 11
4 Method
As first step, a literature research for the life-cycle inventory data of the four adhesive
types was performed. For PUR, the life-cycle data of the production were provided from
a company in Switzerland. In a second step, the production process was modelled in
SimaPro8 for each dataset, with consideration given to resources and emissions used and
produced. The impact assessment of the production was performed in two steps based
on the process models: First, the impact assessment was performed for the production
of 1kg of adhesive with a solids content of 100% in order to observe the differences
of the environmental impact between the adhesives and to find out which process or
raw material contributes the most to the overall performance. Second, the amount of
adhesive and hardener used to produce cross-laminated timber was taken into account
and a second impact assessment was performed.
The emissions (formaldehyde, VOC and isocyanate) were measured during application
in two different companies to assess the environmental impact of the adhesive applied
in the CLT factory and to assess the occupational risk for the workers. In oder to be
comprehensive, the environment impact of the use phase and the final disposal were
also considered by using emission data and models from the existing literature on the
subject.
4.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Adhesive Production
4.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition

Four different types of adhesives are used for cross laminated timber production. They
have similar functionality, but different chemical compositions and methods of applica-
tion. The goals of this assessment are to investigate the environmental impact of the
production for each adhesive and to compare their environmental performance relative
to each other. This is carried out in two steps:
First: The production of 1kg of adhesive with a solids content of 100% is analysed to
determine which process or raw material contributes the most to the overall performance
of each adhesive. The environmental impacts of the different adhesives can be compared
to each other.
Second: In the second assessment, both differences in manner of the production and
differences in the amount of adhesive and hardener used for the production of CLT
are considered. Through this assessment, the impact of the hardener and the different
amount of adhesive can be observed, and the adhesive with the lowest impact on the
environmental performance of CLT can be identified.
4.1.1.1 Functional Unit

The functional unit creates a reference level for inputs and output and also provides a
way to compare the different adhesives. Different functional units are used for the two
assessments:
First: the production of 1kg of adhesive with a solids content of 100%.
Second: the production of the amount of adhesive/hardener used in the production of

1m2 CLT with three layers and a thickness of 30cm.

4 Method 12
4.1.1.2 Description of the Production System

The production process is similar for all adhesive types. The raw materials of the adhesive
are mixed together in the factory using small amounts of electricity and heat. Both the
production process and the raw material inputs are similar. All adhesives are based on
petrochemicals produced from natural gas, crude oil or coal. Formaldehyde is a part of all
adhesives, either as feedstock for the production of raw materials, or as a binding agent
in the adhesive. Formaldehyde is mainly produced from the oxidation of methanol using
Fe/Mo catalysts (Gayathri & Muthamilarasi, 2005). In the following, the production
process of each adhesive type is described in detail.
Production of Polyurethane The main raw material for the production of polyurethane
adhesive is a binding agent based on 50% methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate (MDI) and
50% polypropyleneglycol. During the manufacturing process, the binding agent is mixed
in a reactor at ambient temperature with several small amounts of other additives (in-
cluding HDI trimerisat, silica fume and polyglycol). Methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate
is produced in two steps: first, aniline and formaldehyde are made to react with hy-
drochloric acid as catalyst to a diamine-precursor. And second, the precursor forms
together with phosgene MDI. Polypropylenglycol is produced through the polymeriza-
tion of propylenoxide and ethylendiamine (Gabriel, 2015).
Production of MUF For the production of MUF, melamine is mixed with UF adhesive.
To produce urea, natural gas is reformed into ammonia in a steam reforming process at
high temperatures and high pressure. Together with CO2 the produced ammonia is
later reacted and urea is formed. Formaldehyde, as described above, is produced from
the oxidation of methanol, which in turn, is produced through a catalytic reformation
of natural gas. Melamine is produced from urea with a catalyst at high pressure and
temperature. The by-products of the melamine production are CO2 and ammonia, which
can be recycled (CMP, 2003).
Production of PF The raw materials for PF adhesive are phenol and formaldehyde.
The process of producing phenol is called the Hock process and includes several steps: in a
first step, cumene is produced from benzene and propene (both produced from crude oil)
at 600 K by means of pressure and an acid catalyst. In a second step, cumene is oxidized
with air at a temperature of 350-390K and 1-7atm pressure to cumene-hydroperoxide,
which is then in a third step, mixed with sulfuric acid at 313-373K to decompose and
produce phenol and propane. Propane is the co-product of this process, with 6 tons of
propane produced per 10 tons of phenol. (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005).
Production of PRF For the production of PRF, adhesive resorcinol is mixed with
phenol-formaldehyde resin. There are two main processes used to produce resorcinol.
In the US the benzene-disulfonation process is still used, whereas in Japan a new pro-
cess, called hydroperoxidation of meta-diisopropylbenzene (m-DIPB), is used. For this
study, the newer process of hydroperoxidation of meta-diisopropylenbenzen is considered.
The m-DIPB is produced with the Friedel-Crafts alkylation of benzene and propylene
using a catalyst to attain a high purity of m-DIPB. In a second step, the m-DIPB are
oxidized with air to dihydroperoxid (DHP) in a pressurized reactor and a catalyst at
80-120 degrees. The last step in the production of resorcinol is the cleavage of DHP,
which is achieved using a strong acidic catalyst such as sulfuric acid, sulfur trioxide,
phosphoric acid, hydrochloric aid, boron trifluoride, p-toluene sulfonic acid, acid clays or
ion-exchange resins (Durairaj, 2005).

4 Method 13
Production of MUF Hardener The MUF hardener is produced from a mixture of raw
materials consisting of: resorcinol, kaolin, formic acid, thickener and water. Resorcinol,
benzene and propene are produced from crude oil (in a similar process to that described
above). Kaolin is directly extracted from the earth. Formic acid is produced from
sulphuric acid and sodium formate. And cellulose derivative is used as thickener. All the
raw materials are mixed in the factory at ambient temperatures (CMP, 2003).
Production of PF Hardener For PF adhesive maleic anhydride is used as a hardener.

Maleic anhydride can be produced by two means. One is the partial oxidation of benzene,
and the other is the oxidation of n-butanes. For both processes slightly elevated pressure,
and temperatures between 350-450 degrees, are required. In the first method, benzene is
mixed with compressed and heated air over a catalyst. In the second, superheated butane
is fed into a reactor containing a catalyst. For both processes, the off-gas contains maleic
anhydride. In Europe, 75% of the maleic anhydride production is produced using the
first method and 20% by the second (Althaus et al. , 2007).
Production of PRF Hardener The hardener for PRF adhesive is paraformaldehyde,

which is a polymere formaldehyde (Zeppenfeld & Grunwald, 2005). Paraformaldehyde is
produced through vacuum evaporation of an aqueous solution of formaldehyde (Naujoks
& Fuchs, 1934).
Production of Cross Laminated Timber The amount of adhesive used for the produc-
tion of 1m2 CLT with 3 layers and a thickness of 30cm varies depending on the type of
adhesive used for the bonding. In Table 2 the different amount of adhesive used in CLT,
as well as their specific solids content, are listed.
Table 2: The amount of adhesive used to produce 1m2 CLT with 3 layers and a thickness
of 30 cm
Adhesive Amount solids content source

(g/m2 CLT) (%)
MUF 800 65 Kläusler (2014)
PF 900 45-55 Gabriel (2015)
PRF 900 55-60 Kläusler (2014)
PUR 360 100 Kim et al. (2013)
For MUF, PF and PRF adhesives additional hardener has to be used to accelerate the
process of curing. PUR adhesive can be applied cold, without additional hardener.
In Table 3, the amount of hardener and adhesive used for the production of 1m2 CLT
with 3 layers and a thickness of 30 cm is listed for each adhesive.
Table 3: The adhesive-hardener ratio used for CLT production
Adhesive Ratio Adhesive Hardener Source

(g/m2 CLT) (g/m2 CLT)
MUF 100:60 500 300 Holzbau (2014)
PF 100:10 810 90 Zeppenfeld & Grunwald (2005)
PRF 100:20 750 150 Wang et al. (2014)
PUR 100: 0 360 0 Gabriel (2015)

4 Method 14
4.1.1.3 Description of the System Boundaries

The system boundary for the assessment of the adhesive production is cradle to gate. The
assessment considers not only the impacts of the adhesive production in the factory, but
also all the impacts which are associated with the production of raw materials, including
their extraction and production as well as their delivery to the factory. Not included
in this assessment is the infrastructure of the factory and the labor involved, nor the
packing, application, use phase and final disposal. During the production of adhesives
no co-products are generated, and a black-box approach considering only in- and outflows
was selected for modelling the production process.
The system boundary for the second assessment of the production only includes the
production of the amount of adhesive and hardener used to produce 1m2 CLT with three
layers and a thickness of 30cm. Other resources used for CLT production, such as wood,
electricity, heat, etc., as well as any on site emission involved in the production of CLT,
are not included in this assessment. In Figure 5 and 6, the system boundaries of the two
assessments are presented. The only differences between the two assessments concern the
amount of adhesive and the presence or absence of hardener- theses are only considered
for the second assessment.
Figure 5: The cradle to gate system Figure 6: The cradle to gate system
boundary of the first assess- boundary of the second as-
ment sessment

4 Method 15
4.1.1.4 Data Quality and Assumptions

Input data such as raw material, water use, energy use and output data such as emissions
to the air, water and soil were collected for each adhesive. The LCI data were found in
literature, with the exception of the LCI data on PUR, which was provided from a
company in Switzerland. In Table 4, all the different datasets are listed together with
their source:
Table 4: The source of the datasets included in the life cycle assessment
Adhesive name Location Source

MUF Brazil Brazil Silva et al. (2014)
MUF Casco Sweden CMP (2003)
MUF Wilson USA Wilson (2010)
PF Wilson USA Wilson (2010)
PF ecoinvent Europe Althaus et al. (2007)
PRF Wilson USA Wilson (2010)
PUR Switzerland Gabriel (2015)
MUF hardener USA NREL (2013)
PRF hardener USA NREL (2013)
PF hardener Europe Althaus et al. (2007)
In the following paragraphs the datasets are described in detail:
Melamine Urea Formaldehyde (MUF)

Three different datasets for MUF were found in literature. The datasets are taken from
different places in the world: USA, Sweden and Brazil. A detailed description of each
dataset follows:
Melamine Urea Formaldehyde produced in Brazil (MUF Brazil) The data for the
MUF produced in Brazil are taken from the environmental performance assessment of
the melamine urea formaldehyde resin manufactory from Silva et al. (2014). He collected
data of raw material, electricity and energy use and air emission in a factory in Brazil.
The data for the soil and water emissions were taken from the inventory data of Wilson
(2010). The data for the background flows were also collected from the literature: The
data for the production of urea in Brazil are described in the study of Ribeiro (2009),
and the data for the methanol production in Brazil has been taken from Camargo (2007).
The data for Brazilian diesel were taken from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) and adapted according
to the higher content of sulfur (500ppm), which leads to higher sulfur emissions (Brasil,
2009). The data for melamine, sodiumhydroxide, formic acid and water were taken from
Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010), as well as the data for the electricity (Brazilian mix). For transport,
typical values used in Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) have been assumed.
Melamine Urea Formaldehyde produced in Sweden (MUF Casco) This data is avail-
able from CMP (2003). The data is aggregated so that it can’t be assigned to any
previous processes or products other than the production of MUF. The data from the
raw materials have been taken from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010), has all the emission and the
transport data. The production of urea formaldehyde adhesive, melamine formaldehyde
adhesive and formaldehyde takes place in the same factory in Sweden. Sodium hydrox-
ide is also produced in Sweden, but in a different factory, and is therefore transported a

4 Method 16
short distance to the adhesive factory. The other raw material for the adhesive produc-
tion is produced at different sites in Europe. Urea and methanol are transported in bulk
transport by sea and melamine by truck in big bags.
Melamine Urea Formaldehyde produced in US (MUF Wilson) In the life-cycle-

inventory of Wilson (2010), data for the MUF production such as raw material use,
emission of the factory and energy use were collected at 6 different plants in the US.
This inventory also considers the transport of the raw materials to the factory. The back
ground data for the production of the raw materials such as urea, melamine, formic acid,
sodium hydroxide, etc. were taken from the Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) database.
Phenol Formaldehyde (PF)

For the production of phenol formaldehyde adhesive two datasets were found in literature
one for the US and one for Europe.
Phenol Formaldehyde produced in US (PF Wilson) The life cycle inventory data of
phenol formaldehyde from Wilson (2010) were collected in 13 different plants in the US.
The collected data contain information about the raw material and energy use and the
emissions in the factory. Also the transport of the raw material is considered in the data.
Again, the back-ground data for the production of the raw material were taken from the
Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) database. For the production of the electricity, the US mix from
Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) was chosen.
Phenol Formaldehyde produced in Europe (PF Ecoinvent) This dataset is provided

from Althaus et al. (2007), and considers the production of PF in Europe. The data,
however, is not collected from any companies, but in stead generated and rough esti-
mations. Therefore, this dataset does not represent a real production situation and is
not recommended for the use in a comparative LCA. Nevertheless, this dataset is still
included in the assessment to observe the difference between the two PF datasets.
Phenol Resorcinol Formaldehyde (PRF)

For phenol resorcinol formaldehyde only one dataset was found in the literature.
Phenol resorcinol formaldehyde produced in US (PRF Wilson) The inventory data

for PRF from Wilson (2010) has been collected in 8 different plants in the US. It contains
information about the use of raw material, energy and electricity for the production of
PRF in the factory as well as the transport of the raw material to the factory. The
background data for the production of the raw materials was taken from the Ecoinvent 2.2
(2010) database. For resorcinol, no LCI data could be found, neither in the Ecoinvent 2.2
(2010) database nor in literature. As the research in literature on the production process
of resorcinol shows, however, the hydroperoxidation process of meta-diisopropylenbenzen
(first step to produce resorcinol) is quite similar to the production process of phenol (with
the intermediate product cumene). So for resorcinol, the data of phenol production in
Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) was adapted for resorcinol production by doubling the input of
cumene.
Polyurethane (PUR) Polyurethane is the only adhesive included in this study that is
not based on LCI data from literature, but rather based on data from a Swiss com-
pany producing PUR in Germany and Switzerland. The company provided data for
raw material and energy use. The major raw material for the production of PUR is

4 Method 17
methylene-diphenyl-diisocaynate (MDI). Together with polypropyleneglycol (produced

through polymerization of propyleneoxide and ethylenediamne), it reacts to the binding
agent of the adhesive.
The background data for the production of MDI is taken from the Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010)
database. For polypropyleneglycol, no data could be found in the Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010)
database, but LCI data for the polymerization of propylenoxide and ethylenediamine
were reported in ISOPA (2012). The background data for propylene oxide and ethye-
lenediamien production were taken from the Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) database.
Aside from the MDI and propyleneglycol, small amounts of several other additives are
also added. No reported lifecycle-inventory data could be found for these chemicals. To
quantify the cumulative energy demand and the global warming potential based on the
chemical structure for these adhesives, the tool Finechem (Wernet et al. , 2009) was
used.
Hardener for MUF, PF and PRF For the MUF and PRF hardener, data from the
USLCI database (NREL, 2013) was used. The data of both datasets is aggregated so
that the emissions and resources can’t be allocated to different background processes
like resorcinol production or kaolin extraction. In the data, all the resources and the
emissions for the production of the raw material, and all the emissions emitted from the
production in the factory are included. Also included is the energy needed for both the
production or extraction of raw materials, as well as the production of the hardener in
the factory. The transportation of the raw materials to the hardener factory likewise
considered in the data. Different hardeners can be used for the PF adhesive. For this
assessment, maleic anhydride was selected, and the LCI data for its production were
taken from the Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) database.
Summary of the assumptions

Table 5 summarizes all the assumptions taken for the assessment of the adhesive produc-
tion.
Table 5: The list of all assumptions taken for the production assessment
Dataset Assumption
PRF Wilson LCI data for resorcinol production adapted from phenol production process
PUR No emissions in adhesive factory
Impact of the production of the additives calculated with the Finechem tool
Typical transportation distances of raw material taken from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010)
PF Estimation of the adhesive and hardener amount used for the CLT production
MUF Brazil LCI data for diesel production adapted from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) with 500ppm sulphur
4.1.2 Inventory Analysis

A short list of the input of raw materials for each dataset is presented in Table 6. The
detailed inventories for all adhesives can be found in the Appendix (8).
According to the differences of the raw materials, also the molar ratio of the adhesive
varies between the datasets. Table 7 presents the molar ratios of the adhesives considered
in this study.

4 Method 18
Table 6: Inventory of the raw materials of the different datasets
MUF Brazil MUF Wilson MUF Casco PF Wilson PF Ecoinvent PRF Wilson PUR
(kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg)
Melamine 0.10 0.08
Urea 0.39 0.39
Phenol 0.24 0.95 0.28
Resorcinol 0.19
Formaldehyde 0.16 0.26 0.17 0.151 0.09
Polypropylene glycol 0.402
MDI 0.491
Table 7: The molar ratio of the adhesives
Adhesive Molar ratio Free formaldehyde (%)

MUF Wilson F:(M+U) 1.16
MUF Brazil F:(M+U) 1.35 0.45
MUF Casco F:(M+U) n/a 0.6
PF Wilson F:P 2.23
PF Ecoinvent F:P 0.5
PRF Wilson F:(P+R) 0.61
PUR - - -
4.1.3 Impact Assessment using the Method of ReCiPe

The method used in this study to transform the list of the life cycle inventory results into
a limited number of impact categories is called ReCiPe. In the methodology of ReCiPe,
two indicator levels are determined: midpoint (18) and endpoint (3). Environmental
mechanisms are used as the basis for the modelling. This can bee seen as a series of
effects that creates a certain level of damage to a certain impact category. The longer
the environmental mechanism is, the higher the uncertainties become. The benefit of
only taking the first step into account, is the relatively low uncertainty, as this is based
on chemical/physical parameters which are easy to measure or determine. The midpoint
categories in ReCiPe are, therefore, calculated with less uncertainty than the three end-
point categories. But the benefit of the endpoint categories is that they are much easier
to interpret. In contrast, the midpoint categories are more numerous, have very abstract
meanings and are difficult to compare. The idea behind the midpoint and endpoint
categories is that each user can choose between the uncertainty of the categories or the
uncertainty of the correct interpretation of the categories (Goedkoop et al. , n.d.).
Both midpoint and endpoint categories contain factors influenced by the three cultural
perspectives (individualist, hierarchist and egalitarian). Each perspective represents a
set of choices for issues such as time and the expectation that the proper management or
future technology development can avoid future damages. For this impact assessment the
hierarchist perspective was selected. The results of the impact assessment are presented
in Chapter 5.
For the determination of the impact on human toxicity aside the ReCiPe an other method
is used, called Usetox (Rosenbaum et al. , 2008). This method includes effect factors for
substances having a harmful impact on human health.

4 Method 19
4.2 Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure in Glulam Factory

MUF and PUR are the main adhesives used for the production of wood construction
products such as CLT and glulam in Switzerland. For glulam production the adhesive is,
similar to CLT production, applied on the surface of the wood. The only difference is that
for glulam the wood layers are glued lengthways together whereas for CLT production the
layers are glued crosswise together. Emission measurements were performed during the
application in two factories in Switzerland to observe the environmental impacts of the
adhesive application. Both factories produce glued laminated timber but use different
kinds of adhesives. Company A uses MUF, and company B uses PUR for the glulam
production.
4.2.1 Production Process in Glued Laminated Timber in Factory

Company A produces 10-15 m3 of glued laminated timber per day. The adhesive is
applied in glue lines on the wood. For one charge this process takes about 5-10 min.
Between 200-250g/m2 of MUF adhesive is applied to the wood per layer. After the ap-
plication, the glued laminate timber is pressed for 20 min at 80 degrees and 250 bar.
Only one worker is needed for the production. He has to place the wood correctly into
the machine and to control the adhesive application. He works about 30- 50 cm away
from the nozzles during the application. No ventilation is installed close to the glued
laminated timber production area, and the worker wears no protective gear other than
gloves when cleaning the nozzles or touching the glued wood. The production runs non-
stop from 7 am till 5 pm in the afternoon.
The company B produces 60 m3 per day. It is much bigger than company A, but the
adhesive application is very similar. The adhesive is also applied in glue lines on the wood.
For one charge the process takes between 10 and 20 minutes, depending on the length
of the wood. 200 g/m2 PUR adhesive is applied to the wood. After the application, the
glued wood is pressed vertically for 90 min at 22 degrees, 70-100 bar and high humidity
(65%). Similar to company A, company B also has no ventilation installed close to the
application area. There are several workers in the factory but only one has to work close
to the application area and to control the application process. In this factory too, the
workers wear no other protective gear aside from gloves when cleaning the nozzles or
touching the glued wood. After each break, the nozzles have to be cleaned from the
curing glue with a towel.

4 Method 20
4.2.2 Emission Measurement

The following substances are considered essential for the two adhesives: formaldehyde
(mainly for MUF), isocyanate (mainly for PUR) and VOC (for both). The emissions
only occur when the adhesives are still reactive. Therefore, the emissions were measured
close to the application station and the press.
Formaldehyde and isocayante emissions cause hazardous impacts to human health (as
described in Chapter 2). For both substances, threshold values for the maximum work-
place concentration (MAK) are defined from SUVA (2012) (see Table 8). The MAK
values for the individual VOCs are present in Table 42 and 43 in the Appendix.
Table 8: MAK-value for formaldehyde and isocyanate
Formaldehyde Isocyanate
mg/m3 mg/m3
MAK 0.37 0.02
4.2.2.1 Measurement setup

Figure 7 and 8 present the sketch of the production area and the positions of the three
measurements of both companies.
Figure 7: The sketch of the produc- Figure 8: The sketch of the produc-
tion process in company A tion process in company B
The first measurement has been performed close to the worker who controls the appli-
cation process. The second measurement was performed close to the press, due to the
different climate condition. And the third measurement was performed 5m away from
the application area in order to observe how the substances disperse in the air. The mea-
surement was repeated for each company on a second day. In addition, a background
measurement has been performed when no production took place in the factory. For
company A, the background measurement was performed on a day with no production,
where as for company B the background measurement was performed in the evening 30
minutes after the production had stopped.

4 Method 21
4.2.2.2 Measurement Method

The three substances were measured at each point. In addition the particle concentration
(mass and number concentration) was also measured to observe the air quality in the
factory.
Sample Collection Air was pumped with a velocity of 200 ml/min for 30 min through
the cartages which had different sorbent inside. For formaldehyde DNPH was used, for
VOC Tenax TA and Carbopack C and for isocyanate a filter was used. During this 30
minutes the emitted substances accumulated on the sorbent. Parallel to the emission,
the humidity and temperature were also measured, as they influence the emission from
the adhesive in engineered wood products.
Sample Analysis After the sampling, the adsorbed substances were resolved and were
analysed in a chromatograph.
4.2.2.3 Risk Observation and health impact assessment from application

To observe the risk for the workers in the factory the measured concentrations of the
different substances were compared to their corresponding MAK-value. A risk for the
workers is only expected if measured concentrations exceeded the threshold values. The
results of the measurements are presented in Chapter 5. The average emission measured
5 m away minus the background measurement was considered to be the representative
emission occurring from the adhesive application and which is inhaled by the worker
during the 8 hours of shift. With the average amount of adhesive applied during the
measurement (presented in Table 9) the emission per gram adhesive can be calculated
for each substance.
Table 9: The amount of adhesive applied during the emission measurement
Formaldehyde VOC1 VOC2 Isocyanate

Company A (g) 19375 35000 19375 -
Company B (g) 46603 30958 23280 48958
Considering the amount of adhesive applied on the wood for CLT production the emission
of the application of adhesive can be determined for the production of CLT. For the
estimation of the impact on human health on one hand the amount of emission inhaled
by the worker has to be determined for each substance (0.5 m3 /h during 8 hours) and on
the other hand the effect factor (EFi ) from UseTox has to be known for each substance
(see Appendix, Table 46). With these information the impact of the emission on human
health can be determined for each substances by multiplying the amount of emission
inhaled and the effect factor.

4 Method 22
4.3 Assessment of the Use Phase

Different studies show that the air quality in wooden buildings is negatively impacted by
the emissions from the adhesive in engineered wood products (Funch & Clorius, 2002).
4.3.1 Total Emission from CLT in the Use Phase

The emission rates (µg/m2 /h) from MUF and PRF adhesives used in glued solid wood
were measured in a chamber experiment over the course of 28 days at three different
points in time in the study of Funch (2002). In a similar chamber experiment, the emis-
sion rate from PUR adhesive used in glued solid wood was also measured by Bremer
Umweltinstitut (2011) (see Table 48 to 50 in the Appendix). No emission rate measure-
ments were found in literature for PF adhesive. PF adhesive is not commonly used for
CLT, and therefore PF adhesive was excluded from the assessment of the use phase. The
focus of the LCA methodology is on the total input and output, rather than on the emis-
sion rate of a product (ISO, 2006). For the calculation of the total output of emissions
from the use phase of adhesive in 1 m2 CLT, a time-dependent emission model has to
be integrated over a defined period of time. Different models have been reviewed from
Guo (2002) and Skaar & Jørgensen (2013). But only three of the models were considered
applicable for general emission modelling. All three are decay models based on emission
rate, are controlled by internal diffusion and are not limited by vapour pressure. Of the
three possible models, the first-order decay model (Guo, 2002) was selected for this study
(2).
E = E 0 ∗ e-k*t (1)
(2)
The decay model was fitted to the emission rate data from each substance and adhesive
(MUF, PRF, PUR) using nonlinear regression. The decay model with the generated
parameters was integrated for each substance and dataset over the time of the use phase
(3). The time goes from t0 (time when the product was installed in the house) to tf (end
of service life of the product). The use phase of CLT is about 40 years (Aktas & Bilec,
2012). The total amount of emission from each adhesive in 1 m2 CLT can be found in
Table48 to 50 in the Appendix.
ˆ tf
mtoti = E i (t) dt. (3)
t0

4 Method 23
4.3.2 Use Phase Human Health Impact Assessment

Chaudhary & Hellweg (2014) and Hellweg et al. (2009) proposed an approach for the cal-
culation of the impact on human health from the use phase of engineered wood products
(4, 5):
n
X n
X
impactindoor = mtoti ∗ iF ∗ EF i = mtoti ∗ CF iindoor (4)
i=1 i=1
n
X
impactoutdoor = mtoti ∗ CF ioutdoor (5)
i=1
Only a portion of the emissions remains indoors and has an impact on the indoor air
quality. The rest of the emissions can escape outdoors due to ventilation or air exchange.
The emissions from the use phase of CLT, therefore have both indoors and outdoors
impacts on human health. The Impactindoor and impactoutdoor in Equation 4 and 5 are
the impacts on human health [cases per functional unit], EFi is the human health effect
factor for inhalation of a certain substance [cases per kg substance] and iF is the intake
fraction describing the fraction of the emission inhaled by people exposed to the emission
in a room. The intake fraction can be calculated using Equation 6.
IR ∗ h ∗ P
iF = (6)
V ∗ 24 ∗ N
IR is the inhalation rate (0.5 m3 /h), h is the exposure time (assumed to be uniformly
distributed over the day), P is the number of people in the room (assumed to be only
one), N is the ventilation rate (assumed to be 0.5/h) and V is the volume of the room
(standard room assumed to have volume of 17.4m3 ). The approach for the calculation
of the intake fraction is based on Hellweg et al. (2009)’s recommendation to use a one
box model with the following assumptions: homogeneously mixed air, connection to sur-
roundings by ventilation, disregard of adsorption and desorption and inhalation as the
most significant means of exposure. The portion of emissions escaping outdoors was
calculated from the total emissions emitted minus the amount inhaled.
The indoor characterization factor CFi can be calculated for each substance from the
effect factor (EFi ) and the intake fraction. The effect factors and the outdoor character-
ization factor CFioutdoor were directly taken from the Usetox model (an environmental
fate, exposure and effect model developed by UNEP/SETAC (Rosenbaum et al. , 2008)).
They are listed in Table 51 in the Appendix.
The conversion factors suggested by Huijbregts et al. (2005) were used to convert the
unit of the effect factors and the characterization factors from [cases per kg] into [DALY]
(disability adduced life years, a concept developed by the world health organization and
a powerful concept to address human health damages). The impact from the use phase
of MUF, PRF and PUR adhesive used in 1 m2 CLT on the human toxicity are presented
in Chapter 5.

4 Method 24
4.4 Assessment of Final Waste Disposal

Thermosetting wood adhesives are not recyclable, therefore glued scrap wood from build-
ings has to be treated in an appropriate incineration plant according to the TVA(Swiss
Federal Council, 1990). In the past, the emissions in the flue gas of the incineration plant
were considered harmless due to high dilution. But Marutzky & Schriever (1986) have
already showed the environmental impact of the emissions arising from the incineration
of particleboards in in their paper 1986. In the mean-time other studies have also ob-
served the emissions occurring from the incineration of particle boards and composite
wood products (Marutzky & Schriever, n.d.; Karlsson et al. , 2001; Risholm-Sundman &
Vestin, 2005).
The decision support tool LCA4AFR for resource use and waste management was taken
in order to calculate the environmental impact from the incineration of adhesives used
in wood construction. The Excel-based computer program was developed at the ETH
Zürich by the group Ecological-Systems-Design to provide environmental information on
waste treatment processes. The tool evaluates all emissions and resource consumption
of the waste treatment process (at the facility and in the supply chain). It is based on
the elemental mass flow entering and leaving the system with environmental indicators
regarding different impact categories such as climate change, resource consumption, or
toxicity (Boesch et al. , n.d.).
Table 10 presents the elemental composition of the different adhesives. The net heating
value of the different elemental composition was calculated using the equation (4.4) of
Boie (1953):
N HV (kcal) = 83.22 ∗ C + 276.48 ∗ H − 25.8 ∗ O + 15 ∗ N + 94 ∗ Cl

+ 18.5 ∗ F + 65.0 ∗ P + 12.2 ∗ F e (7)
Table 10: The elemental composition of the different adhesives
MUF PRF PUR

C (%) 30 60 61.2
N (%) 33 9.7
O (%) 31 34 22
H (%) 6 6 6
S (%) 1.1
NHV (MJ) 16 24 27
In Chapter 5 are the results presented of the calculated environmental impacts from the
final deposition of the adhesive used in CLT.

5 Results and Interpretation
5.1 The Impact Assessment of the Production of 1kg Adhesive with a

solids content of 100%
Figure 9 and 10 present the endpoint results (for the three endpoint categories and for
the different impact categories) of the impact assessment of the production of 1kg of
adhesive with a solids content of 100%.
Figure 9: The result of the first assessment of the adhesive production for the three
endpoint categories
Figure 10: The endpoint result per impact categories of the first assessment of the adhe-
sive production for all datasets

Only five of 18 possible impact categories contribute to the endpoint result of the over-
all performance of the adhesives: fossil depletion, climate change human health and
ecosystem, particle matter formation and human toxicity. The impact category of fossil
depletion (more than 40%) contributes the most to the overall performance, followed
by climate change human health and ecosystem (more than 14% resp. 8%). For all
adhesives, these three impact categories together make the largest contribution to the
environmental performance (more than 85%). The impact categories particle matter for-
mation and human toxicity make a much smaller contribution. The production of PRF
adhesive has the greatest impact (572mPt) on the environment of the various adhesives.
And the production of MUF (Wilson, 2010) has the lowest impact (321mPt).
In Figure 11 presents the midpoint results of the assessment for all adhesives. These
results are not yet weighted or normalized and have therefore less uncertainty.
Figure 11: The midpoint result of the first assessment of the adhesive production for all
datasets
The contribution of single background processes or substances to the different impact

categories are similar for the midpoint and endpoint results. In the paragraphs below,
the contribution of each adhesive to the different impact categories is analysed in detail
for the endpoint results.
5.1.1 Fossil Depletion

Table 11 lists the contribution of the different raw material inputs to the fossil depletion
for all adhesives. The raw material production makes the largest contribution to fossil
depletion (more than 80%) regardless the adhesive type and dataset. In the paragraphs
below, the impact of the different adhesives on fossil depletion is analysed in detail.

Table 11: The contribution of the processes and substances on fossil depletion
% % % % % % %
Raw material 97.54 80.00 96.70 94.10
Urea 11.87 38.98
Melamine 4.86 16.67
Methanol 79.28 24.35 20.77 4.68
Phenol 73.63 38.14
Sodium hydroxide 2.30
Resorcinol 51.28
MDI 49.26
Transport lorry 2.30 0.86 2.28
Transport rail 1.77
Diesel 1.47
Electricity 1.12
Substances Natural gas 89.77 76.84 87.28 49.40 39.78 39.74 42.11
Crude oil 8.75 17.97 8.38 43.02 52.79 53.85 40.32
Coal 1.34 5.70 4.34 7.26 7.45 6.52 17.05
MUF Adhesive
For all three MUF datasets the impact on fossil depletion is mainly caused by the use
of natural gas (more than 75% and for MUF Brazil even 97%). Natural gas is, on one
hand, the raw material for methanol (about 20%) , urea (about 50%) and melamine
production (about 10%). And, on the other hand, it is also used for energy production
(20% dataset of Wilson (2010)). Especially for methanol production in Brazil, natural
gas is the main energy source (544.94MJ). This explains the high impact of methanol
production in Brazil (almost 80%).
Crude oil is used in the ammonia steam reforming process (the prior process to urea
and melamine production). It is used alongside coal for heat production. Coal is not
only used for heat production but also for the electricity production. 46.5% of the US
electricity mix is produced due to coal burned in a power plant.
PF Adhesive
Both phenol and formaldehyde are petrochemicals produced from crude oil and natural
gas. Therefore, the impact on fossil depletion comes mainly from the production of raw
materials (over 90%). Crude oil is the main feedstock for phenol production. Natural
gas is used for phenol production as an energy source and as raw material for formalde-
hyde production. These differences between the two datasets arise from different inputs
(see Table 11): the Wilson dataset has a 2.5 times higher input of methane (equal to
formaldehyde) than the dataset of Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010), where as Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010)
reports a 1.8 times higher input of phenol than the dataset of Wilson (2010). However,
for both datasets the major part of crude oil is used for phenol production (41% in the
dataset of Wilson (2010) and 49% in the dataset of Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010)).
PRF Adhesive
The production of raw material is also the major impact for PRF adhesive. At 51%,
resorcinol makes the highest contribution to fossil depletion, followed by phenol at 38%.
Crude oil and natural gas is the feedstock for the production of both resorcinol and
phenol. Therefore, the extraction of crude oil and the use of natural gas are primarily
responsible for fossil depletion. 53% of the impact on fossil depletion is caused from
the extraction of the crude oil used as raw material for the production of phenol and
resorcinol (21% and 30% resp. ).

PUR Adhesive
The production of MID and the production of polypropylene glycol have a similar impact
on fossil depletion (each about 50%). MDI is produced with formaldehyde and anilin.
The feedstock for formaldehyde is natural gas and for anilin it is nitrobenzene, which
is produced through the nitration of benzene, whose feedstock is, in turn crude oil.
Polypropylene glycol is produced with propylene oxide, which is produced with propylene,
whose feedstock is also crude oil. All the impacts from PUR adhesive on fossil depletion
are, therefore, allocated to the production of the raw materials.
5.1.2 Climate Change Human Health and Ecosystem

Table 12 lists the impact for the category "climate change human health and ecosystem".
The main impact results from the production of raw materials (more than 83%). The
CO2 emission that occur during the production of raw materials are mainly responsible
for the impact on climate change (for all adhesives more than 85%). In the following
paragraphs, the sources of the CO2 emissions are analysed in detail for each dataset.
Table 12: The contribution of the adhesive production on the category climate change
human and ecological systems
% % % % % % %
Human Eco Human Eco Human Eco Human Eco Human Eco Human Eco Human Eco
Raw material 83.33 83.17 93.46 94.11 93.87 93.95 86.38 89.22
Urea 43.49 43.42 62.93 63.61
Melamine 18.10 18.15 19.63 19.67
Methanol 21.74 21.60 10.90 10.84 12.53 12.53 2.75
Phenol 75.96 76.03 38.00 38.08
Sodium hydroxid 5.38 5.40
Resorcinol 48.38 48.42
MDI 44.27 44.37
Polyprolylene glycol 43.87 43.99
HDI 9.76 9.82
Transport lorry 8.21 3.95
Transport rail 2.94
Diesel
Electricity
Substances CO2 85.42 85.39 92.83 92.79 89.01 88.84 87.70 87.69 87.83 87.64 87.69 87.35 86.37 86.71
Methan 13.22 6.64 6.65 6.64 11.83 10.97 11.83 11.81 11.83 11.94 12.00 12.03 12.66 12.72
MUF Adhesive
The CO2 emissions of MUF production are primarily emitted from the production process
of urea (between 40% and 60% depending on the dataset). CO2 is produced as a by-
product of the ammonia factory process. In the second step of this process, ammonia
is reacted to urea with CO2 at high temperatures (180-190 degree) and high pressure
(150 bar) (CMP, 2003) . The CO2 emissions from the urea production include both:
excess CO2 from the ammonia reformation process and emitted CO2 from the heat and
pressure production. The differences between the MUF datasets can be explained by
the differences in the raw material inputs. The urea production in Brazil contains less
ammonia which leads to lower CO2 emissions (40% less than the process of Ecoinvent
2.2 (2010)).

PF Adhesive
The contribution of the CO2 emissions of PF adhesive to climate change is about 87%.
CO2 is mainly emitted from the production of the raw materials (81%). In this case
especially from the production of pheno atl 66% in the dataset of Wilson (2010), and
at 76% in the dataset of Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010). The production of phenol requires high
temperatures and pressure, both of which are produced by burning coal, natural gas
and/or crude oil, thereby emitting CO2 emissions. The differences between the two PF
datasets are from the the different inputs of formaldehyde and phenol.
PRF Adhesive
The contribution of CO2 emissions from PRF production is similar to that of the PF
adhesives (87%). The CO2 emissions primarily come from the production of raw material
86% (resorcinol (48%) and phenol (38%)). For the production of both resorcinol and
phenol, cumene is needed, and the production of cumene emits large amounts of CO2
(70%), due to the need for high temperature (600K) and high pressure. The energy
required for the production of cumene comes from fossil fuels that emit CO2 .
PUR Adhesive
The production of the raw materials MDI and polypropylene glycol requires benzene
and propylene. As described above, the production of benzene and propylene emits high
amounts of CO2 , and therefore the production of the raw material constitutes for PUR,
too, the highest impact on climate change. And in addition to the feedstock for the raw
material, the electricity needed to create propylene oxide and polymerize polypropylene
glycol also has an impact on climate change (34% of the CO2 emissions).
5.1.3 Particle Formation

Table 13 lists the contribution of the raw materials on the impact category "particle
matter formation" for all adhesives. Similar to the other impact categories, the main
impact of particle matter formation comes from the production of raw materials (more
than 73%).
Table 13: The contribution of raw materials and processes on particle formation
% % % % % % %
Raw material 73.93 91.83 83.31 81.05
Urea 35.38 65.87
Melamine 19.24 21.94
Methanol 19.31 4.01
Phenol 75.38 35.30
Resorcinol 45.75
MDI 50.76
Transport lorry 15.50 9.80
Transport rail 4.76
Diesel
Electricity 4.09
Substances Nitrogen oxides 34.14 22.06 44.98 36.15 34.62 38.83 31.29
Sulfure dioxide 42.07 18.02 20.48 41.15 40.95 38.99 41.67
Particulates < 2.5 um 14.48 26.59 12.48 11.26 13.22
Ammonia 3.32 21.03 1.77 11.71
Particulates >2.5,<1.5 um 5.63 12.58 10.89 12.92
Sulfure oxide 33.01

MUF Adhesive
Nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates <2.5µm and ammonia are the main particles
which are formed by the production of MUF. The production of urea has the highest
impact on the particle matter formation (65%) (dataset of (Wilson, 2010)) this can’t
be observed for the MUF production in Brazil (35%). The urea production reported
in Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) has higher particle matter formation than the urea production
in Brazil. The reason for this difference is again related to the different input of raw
materials. While for the production of urea in Brazil only 0.47 kg of ammonia (Silva
et al. , 2014) is used, 1.23 kg of ammonia are required for the production in the USA
(Althaus et al. , 2007). This difference also influences the disparity between the ammonia
emissions. Transport, too, has an impact on the particle formation for MUF production
in Brazil, because the higher content of sulphur in the diesel fuel (500 ppm) leads to
higher sulphur dioxide emissions.
PF Adhesive
Both sulphur dioxide (41%) and nitrogen oxide (36%) are responsible for the impact on
the particle matter formation. They are mainly formed in the process of producing phenol
(more than 31% and more than 24%, resp.). The production of benzene contributes most
of all to nitrogen emissions, as it is produced during the reformation process.
PRF Adhesive
The main emissions from PRF production regarding particle formation are nitrogen oxide
and sulfur dioxide (both 38%). These emissions are mainly emitted from the production
of cumene (61%, including the production of benzene (33%) and propylene (14%)). Both
nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides are emissions from the energy produced by fossil
fuels, which is used to create the high temperature and pressure needed for the production
of cumene, as well as benzene and propylene.
PUR Adhesive
Both the production of MDI and the production of polypropylene glycol cause parti-
cle formation mainly involving nitrogen oxide (52% resp. 44%) and sulphur dioxide
(50% resp. 49%). Transportation makes only a very small contribution to the nitrogen
oxide emissions (4%), and the production of electricity required for the production of
polypropylene glycol contributes about 36% to the sulphur dioxide emissions.

5.1.4 Human Toxicity

Table 14 lists the impact of all adhesives on the category "human toxicity". As for all the
other impact categories, the production of raw material is the primary factor (accounting
more than 85 %). Manganese emissions into the water have the highest impact (more
than 42%), and these mainly derive from the electricity production.
Table 14: The contribution of the process or substances to human toxicity determined
using the method of ReCiPe
% % % % % % %
Raw material 90.96 86.81 86.16 85.65
Urea 59.22 64.07
Melamine 31.74 22.74
Methanol
Phenol 62.21 40.00
Resorcinol 45.65
MDI 6.42
Transport lorry
Transport rail
Diesel
Electricity
Substances Manganese in water 50.71 54.25 0 62.58 63.19 65.04 42.50

arsenic, in water 10.18 11.50 0 11.23 11.91 12.09 7.29
Vanadium 13.69 9.82 0
Mercury, in ... 8.44 23.04
Selenium 4.75
Chlorine, in air 15.00
Table 15 lists for all adhesives the impact on the category "human toxicity" (carcino-
gen) determined with Usetox. With this method, the contribution of the formaldehyde
emission on site of the factory are for MUF adhesives the highest. Whereas for PF and
PRF adhesive the benzene emissions (to water) contribute the most to human toxicity.
For PUR adhesive the production of ethylenediamnie, used as starter for polypropylene
glycol production, has the highest contribution. The result of the non-carcinogen impacts
is presented in Table 33 in the Appendix.
Table 15: The contribution of the process or substances to human toxicity (carcinogen)
determined with the method of Usetox
% % % % % %
%
Processes Production on site 54.23 12.30 100.00 15.24 79.46 10.76
Ammonia 16.83 58.53
Cumene 80.20 18.88 85.90
Ethylenediamine 35.46
Chlorine 17.54
Substances Formaldehyde air 82.31 83.81 100.00 18.17 80.53 9.98 25.60
Formaldehyde water 8.04
Benzene water 44.11 10.39 47.25
Benzen air 8.60 39.12
Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 31.84
Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- 30.83

5.2 Result of the second Impact Assessment for the Production of

Adhesive and Hardener in Relation to their Use in CLT Production
Figure 12 presents the endpoint and midpoint results of the LCA for the production of
the adhesive and hardener used for CLT production. MUF, PF and PRF adhesives need
hardener for accelerating the curing process, whereas PUR can be applied and cured in
the required time without any additional hardener.
Figure 12: The LCA endpoint result for adhesive and hardener used in the production
of CLT differentiated by midpoint indicators of the ReCiPe methodology.
The results from the first and second assessment were compared to estimate the influence
of the amount of adhesive and of hardener used for CLT production on the overall
environmental performance. For both assessments, the adhesives were rated on a scale
from 1 to 7, where 1 is the adhesive with the best environmental performance and 7 the
adhesive with the worst environmental performance. Table 16 displays the rankings of
the first and second assessment.
Table 16: The ranking of the environmental performance of the adhesives for both as-
sessments (1 is best, 7 is worst)
Assessment 1 (1kg) 6 3 1 2 5 7 4
Assessment 2 (1m2 CLT) 5 4 3 1 6 7 2
The environmental performance of PUR adhesive increased from rate 4 to rate 2 when
considering the amount and hardener used for the CLT production. In contrast, MUF
adhesives lost the average leading position in the ranking of the second assessment.

5.2.1 The Impact of Hardener on the Result of the Production LCA for
Adhesive/Hardener Used in CLT Production
Table 17 presents an overview of the contributions of the hardener on the overall environ-
mental performance per impact category. The detailed results for each impact category
divided according to substances can be found in the Appendix in Table 34 to Table 37.
The use of hardener mainly influences the impact categories fossil depletion and particle
formation. The highest impact of the hardener is observed together with the MUF Casco
dataset on the human toxicity (99%). This can be explained by the fact that the MUF
adhesive reported in this dataset has almost no impact on human toxicity. Therefore,
the low impact of the hardener accounts in this case for close to 100% of the impact.
Table 17: The contribution of hardener and adhesive to the overall performance of each
impact category
CLT MUF Brazil CLT MUF Wilson CLT MUF Casco CLT PF Ecoinvent CLT PF Wilson CLT PRF Wilson CLT PUR
% % % % % % %
Total Hardener 29 38.4 41 9.7 18.3 13.9 0
Fossil depletion Hardener 26.14 45.78 44.46 9.1 16.8 15.98 0.00
Adhesvie 73.86 54.22 55.54 90.8 83.2 84.02 100.00
Climat change human/ecosystem Hardener 32.11 29.00 34.57 10.47 20.11 11.44 0.00
Adhesvie 67.89 71.00 65.43 89.5 79.88 88.56 100.00
Particle formation Hardener 53.52 41.63 42.03 10.00 19.20 16.15 0.00
Adhesvie 46.48 58.37 57.97 89.9 80.7 83.85 100.00
Human toxicity Hardener 22.37 13.45 99.97 9.29 17.7 2.95 0.00
Adhesvie 77.63 86.55 0.33 90.7 82.3 97.05 100.00
Fossil Depletion
The impact on fossil depletion from the hardener use is (depending on the dataset) be-
tween 26% and 45% for MUF adhesives, about 15% for PRF adhesive and between 10%
and 15% for PF adhesive. MUF hardener has a high contribution on the use of coal
(around 9%) and crude oil (depending on the dataset between 8% and 15%) (Table 34
in the Appendix). MUF hardener contains resorcinol, which is produced from benzene,
whose feedstock is mainly crude oil and coal.
The hardener use for PRF and PF adhesive has less impact on fossil depletion than
the MUF-hardener. PRF hardener contributes about 8% to natural gas, 4.5% to crude
oil, and 2.6% to coal use. Paraformaldehyde is used for PRF adhesive which is mainly
produced from methanol, whose feedstock is natural gas. In addition, PRF and PF adhe-
sives require less hardener than MUF adhesive. The ratio for PRF and PF is only about
100:20 and 100:10, respectively (adhesive: hardener), whereas for MUF it is 100:60.
Particle Formation
The contribution of MUF hardener to the particle matter formation is between 41% and
53%, depending on the dataset; and for PRF and PF hardener it is 16% and 10%, resp.
and 15%. The production of both MUF and PRF hardener results in mercury emissions.
Depending on the dataset, the mercury emissions from the MUF hardener contributes
between 13% and 98% to the overall impact on particle formation, compared to 3% for
the PRF hardener.

5.2.2 The Environmental Impact in Relation of the Cost of each Adhesive

The cost highly influences the wood construction industry’s choice of adhesive, therefore
it is important to place the impacts in relation to the cost of the adhesive. Table 18
presents the environmental impact for both assessments in relation to the cost of each
adhesive.
Table 18: The overall environmental impact in mPt for assessment 1 and assessment 2
in relation to the price
Cost per kg of 100% solids content (€/kg) 3.75 3.75 3.75 5.00 5.00 5.80 5.50
Assessment 1 (1kg adhesive) (mPt) 544 386 321 329 505 572 451
Cost of adhesive/hardener used in 1m2 CLT (€) 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.70 2.70 3.15 2.00
Assessment 2 (CLT) (mPt) 248 188 176 153 288 300 162
5.3 Result of Occupational Risk Assessment and Environmental Impacts

of the Application
5.3.1 Emission Measured in the Glulam Factory

Table 19 presents the measured concentrations of formaldehyde, isocyanate and total
VOC emissions at the different spots in company A and B. The emissions were measured
on two different days to obtain differences between the days depending on the production.
In Table 19, only the higher result of the measurement from the two days is presented.
The detailed results from the measurements for each day, substance and company are
presented in Table 42 and 43 in the Appendix
Table 19: The measured formaldehyde, isocyanate and VOC emissions in the glulam
factory
Company A Formaldehyde Isocyanate total VOC Particle Nr. Particle mass

µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 ]/m3 µg/m3
close to application 15 n.d. 6949.63 4000 0.06
at the press 39 - 34818.46 2300 0.07
5m away 19 - 39334.30 2000 0.075
background 13 - 43633.58 4200 0.03
Company B Formaldehyde Isocyanate VOC Particle Nr. Particle mass
µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 #/m3 µg/m3
close to application 11 n.d. 8610.66 9138 0.05
at the press 15 n.d. 13811.86 14300 0.024
5m away 6 n.d. 8221.26 33492 0.02
background 15 n.d. 12668.2364 18700 0.042
MAK 370 20 n.s. n.s. 100
Higher concentrations of all substances were measured in the vicinity of the press than
in the vicinity of the application area. For both companies, the climate conditions close
to the press were very different from the conditions in the rest of the factory. In com-
pany A, the press was heated (80 degrees), and in company B the area of the press had
high humidity (65%). The climate conditions, therefore, influenced the emission of the
substances.

The blank cartridge for the formaldehyde already contained 8µg/m3 of formaldehyde.
Therefore, all the formaldehyde emissions measured in company A and B are highly in-
fluenced by the uncertainty of the measurement, except the one measured at the press
in company A. This is so high that the influence of the uncertainty is less important.
Comparing the background measurement to the measurements during the production

process, no evidence can be observed that the production causes higher amounts of
emissions. The background emissions of VOC in company B are even higher than the
emissions measured at the other sites. The background measurement in company B
was therefore set to short after the production has stopped and the emissions from the
production were still remaining in the air.
Despite all these observations, the measured emissions for formaldehyde and isocyanate
don’t exceed the MAK-value in Table 8 in Chapter 4. Also none of the measured VOC
substances exceeded the MAK value (Table 42 in the Appendix). Therefore, the workers
in both companies are not exposed to a risk.
5.3.2 Impact on human health of the Adhesive Application

Table 20 presents the impacts of the emission of the application on human health in
DALY (disability-adjusted life year) for the measured substances.
Table 20: The impact of the emission from the adhesive application on human toxicity
MUF PUR
DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT
Formaldehyde 1.01E-08 -
Isocyanate - n.d.
VOC 1.36E-09 3.06E-14
Total application 1.15E-08 3.06E-14
Total production 1.51E-09 9.72E-10
5.4 The Result of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Use Phase
Table 21 presents the impacts of the emission during the use phase of CLT on human
toxicity compared to the impacts of the emissions of the production on human toxicity.
Of all adhesives PUR has the smallest impact on human toxicity during the use phase.
All adhesives have a higher impact on human toxicity from use phase than from the
production phase.
Table 21: The impact of the use phase emissions on human toxicity compared to the
impact caused by application and the production, determined with the Usetox
methodology
MUF PRF PUR

DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT
use phase human toxicity impacts 2.54E-06 3.12E-07 8.81E-09
application human toxicity impacts 1.15E-08 - 3.06E-14
production human toxicity impacts (Wilson dataset (MUF, PRF)) 1.51E-09 1.28E-08 9.72E-10

5.5 The Result of the Environmental Impact Assessment of Final

Disposal
Table 22 presents the impact of the final waste disposal of the three adhesive
(MUF, PF and PRF) in kg CO2 equivalents.
Table 22: The impact of final waste disposal of MUF, PRF and PUR adhesive in
kgCO2 eq.
Final disposal Production

kg CO2 eq/m2 CLT kg CO2 eq/m2 CLT
MUF 0.56 1.48
PRF 1.41 2.42
PUR 0.56 1.63
The calculation with the LCA4AFR tool is strongly influenced by the elemental compo-
sition of the cured adhesive especially by the carbon content of the adhesive. For PRF
and MUF, estimated values were used and a sensitivity analysis, therefore, carried out.
The analysis showed that the result strongly depends on the carbon content
(see Figure 22 in the Appendix).

6 Discussion 37
6 Discussion
6.1 Environmental performance of PUR compared to formaldehyde-based

adhesives
6.1.1 Production of 1kg adhesive

The contribution of PUR is higher than for the other adhesives in 9 of the18 midpoint
impact categories (Figure 11). Especially for human toxicity, a very high contribution
of PUR adhesive is observable, mainly due to the emission of mercury (56%) and chlo-
rine (37%) from the propylene oxide production. The propylene oxide production is also
responsible for the high impact on the categories of terrestrial ecotoxicity and ozone
depletion. By contrast, for the impact on the categories of freshwater eutrophication,
marine ecotoxicity, ionising radiation and water depletion, the energy production is pri-
marily responsible. The midpoint result of the different adhesives is difficult to interpret
since the different midpoint categories cannot be easily compared, thus making it difficult
to determine the adhesive with the best result for the environmental performance. For a
comparison of the environmental performances of the different adhesives, the comparable
endpoint result in mPt was calculated for each adhesive using the endpoint method of
ReCiPe, including a subjective weighting of the impact categories.
In the result of the endpoint, fossil depletion is the impact category with the highest
contribution to the overall environmental performance for all adhesives. Depending on
the dataset, it contributes between 41% and 71% to the overall impact of the adhesives.
The high contribution of fossil depletion to the overall impact of the adhesive produc-
tion is strongly influenced by the subjective weighting of the ReCiPe method. A greater
weight is given to the fossil depletion than to the other categories and especially for PUR
adhesive, an other weighing would have a significant influence on the endpoint result.
Consequently, the influence of the weighting has to be considered for the interpretation
of the endpoint results.
The production of raw material is the main contributor for all impact categories, depend-
ing on the impact category and dataset between 73% and 97% The adhesive production
itself did not greatly contribute to the environmental performance, since the raw mate-
rials are mixed at ambient temperatures and pressure.
As all the adhesives are based up on raw material with a similar feedstock and a high
amount of energy is required for the production, the high contribution of raw material to
the impact categories was also observable for the midpoint result of the adhesives aside
from the impact category of human toxicity, where a remarkable contribution from the
emissions in the adhesive factory was also observable for the Usetox (carcinogenic) result.
Overall, the environmental performance of the formaldehyde-free PUR adhesive lies
within the average compared to the formaldehyde-based adhesives. The environmen-
tal impacts of the production of PUR are lower than those of the production of PRF,
but slightly higher than those of the production of MUF and PF.

6 Discussion 38
6.1.1.1 Differences in the environmental performances of the adhesive types

The impacts from the production of the different raw materials has a strong influence
on the environmental performance of the adhesive types. The production of formalde-
hyde and methanol (in Europe) has a much lesser impact than the production of the
same amount of any other raw material, such as urea, melamine, phenol and resorcinol
(see Figure 13). Resorcinol and methanol produced in Brazil have the highest impact.
Therefore, the production of PRF with a high input of resorcinol and MUF Brazil with
a high input of methanol produced in Brazil have a higher impact than the production
of MUF (in SE or USA), PF or PUR adhesive.
6.1.1.2 Differences in the environmental performance between datasets of the same

adhesive
Differences between the datasets of MUF adhesives can be mainly observed for the dataset
MUF Brazil. The main differences lead back mainly to the production of methanol. In
Brazil, 544MJ of energy from natural gas is required for production, whereas Ecoinvent2.2
only reports 32MJ. In Brazil, the natural gas reported in the dataset of the production of
methane is transported from either Rio de Janeiro or Bahia to the factory. Especially the
180km long transport distance (from Rio de Janeiro) of the compressed natural gas has a
strong influence on the energy consumption for the compression of the gas (472MJ per 1kg
of methanol). Moreover the diesel fuel used for transportation activities also has higher
impacts compared to the diesel used in Europe. The diesel fuel in Brazil contains 500ppm
sulphur whereas in Europe only 200ppm is allowed. Therefore, the burning of diesel fuel in
Brazil emits higher emission of sulphur dioxide. Not only the impacts of the production of
raw material but also the production of electricity is different depending on the location
(see Figure 14). By contrast, the electricity production mix of Brazil has the lowest
impact, especially compared with the electricity production mix of the USA and UCTE.
In Brazil, 73 % of the electricity is produced by hydropower (Itten et al. , 2012). The
dataset for PF from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) is not based up on collected data from plants but
rather approximate estimations of stoichiometric calculations, as already mentioned in
the chapter 4. For the production process, only phenol and formaldehyde were considered
as raw material and a production temperature of 100 degrees was assumed. The reason
for this high amount of phenol input could not be found in literature nor when consulting
the description of the PF production process documented by Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010). The
presumption would be that the adhesive reported from Ecoinvent 2.2 (2010) does not
exactly represent PF wood adhesive production, but possibly the production of another
phenolic resin with a higher amount of phenol required.
6.1.2 Production of the amount of adhesive and hardener used for 1m2 CLT
production
For the production of CLT with PUR adhesive, a lower amount (360g) of adhesive and
no additional hardener is required. In the midpoint result of the second assessment (Fig-
ure 21 in the Appendix) PUR has only to three of the 18 impact categories a higher
contribution than the other adhesives (ozone depletion, human toxicity and terrestrial
ecotoxicity). Therefore, PUR adhesive improves its rating of the endpoint result between
the first and second assessment from rank 4 to rank 2 in comparison to the other adhe-
sives.
For the MUF adhesive, the requirement of additional hardener (300g) has a negative
influence on the environmental performance of the adhesive. More than 30% of the over-
all environmental impact is caused by the production of the hardener. For the PF and

6 Discussion 39
PRF adhesives, the impact from the use of additional hardener is less, since only a small
amount is required.
The high amount of PRF and PF adhesives required for CLT production (900g) nega-
tively influences their environmental performance in comparison to PUR adhesive (360g).
In the endpoint result of the second assessment (CLT), PUR adhesive is- aside from PF
(Wilson, 2010) - the adhesive with the best environmental performance. PF adhesive
is rarely used for CLT production therefore, PUR adhesive can be considered to have
the best environmental performance for the production of CLT. However, such assess-
ments using data from different sources and collected in different factories involve high
uncertainty, which are considered to have a significant influence on the result of the as-
sessment. Usually, a uncertainty analysis is performed to gain an idea of the significance
of the result. However, for this assessment, some of the data are aggregated and the
uncertainty of their background processes were not available, while no uncertainty was
provided for the data found in literature. Therefore, a performance of an uncertainty
analysis was not possible and no significant conclusion concerning the result to determine
the adhesive with the best environmental performance can be reached. Nonetheless, the
difference between PRF and PUR adhesive is still considered to be sufficiently high (fac-
tor 1.85) to indicate a better performance for PUR than for PRF, despite the unknown
uncertainties.
6.1.3 The influence of the assumptions

Two assumptions are considered to have a strong influence on the result. First, the
assumption of the LCI data of resorcinol, given that it has a major impact on the en-
vironmental performance of PRF adhesive (endpoint result). The LCI data for the pro-
duction of resorcinol was adapted from LCI data of the production of phenol. Therefore,
the result of PRF contains of high uncertainty. To improve the accuracy of the PRF
endpoint result, real LCI data should be collected for resorcinol in factories. Second, the
estimation of the amount of PF adhesive and hardener used for CLT production also
influence the endpoint result of the assessment. The amount of adhesive used for CLT
production has a very strong influence on the result. However, no data for the CLT
production with PF could be found in literature therefore, a similar amount as for PRF
adhesive was estimated. PF is rarely used for CLT production, thus this adhesive could
also be excluded from the assessment. All the other assumptions have no significant
influence on the assessment. Neither for the emission onsite of the factory nor for the
transportation was a high contribution to the mid- or endpoint result of the production
assessment observed.
6.1.4 The environmental impact in relation to the adhesive price

When assessing the impacts of products such as adhesive the aspect of the cost has also
to be considered, precisely because the difference of the cost between the cheapest and
the most expensive adhesives is 3.30€/kg. PUR adhesive has the lowest impact (aside
PF) for assessment two, but it also has the highest cost of all other adhesives. MUF,
the cheapest adhesive, has higher impacts but costs only about two-thirds the cost of
PUR. Comparing the cost of the adhesive with its market share in Figure 1, the influence
of the cost on the choice of the adhesive used for engineered wood production can be
observed. MUF, the cheapest adhesive has the highest market share; whereas PUR, the
most expensive adhesive, has a very small market share, despite the differences of the
environmental performance between the two adhesives.

6 Discussion 40
6.1.5 The environmental impact of the application

Comparing the background measurement with the measurement during the production in
both companies, no highly increased emissions are observable and none of the emissions
measured in the two glulam companies exceeded the threshold values (MAK). Even the
higher emissions measured close to the press did not exceed the MAK values, and the
isocyanate emissions measured in company B were not even detectable. Therefore, based
on the measurement, the application of adhesives in glulam factories doesn’t pose a risk
for the workers. However the MAK values defended by (SUVA, 2012) are adjusted to
the achievability of the current technologies, why even for emissions below the MAK
values an negative impact on human health can be expected. Therefore, the impact of
the emissions measured in both companies was still included in the LCA assessment.
For PUR adhesive the emission from the application are much smaller compared to the
production. No isocyanate was measurable and only some of the VOC emissions had an
impact whereas for MUF also formaldehyde emission were measured which contribute
93% to the impact of the application. Therefore, the total impact from the application
of MUF adhesive is higher than from the production. For isocyanate some critical voices
claim that even concentrations below the MAK and below the detection limit of the
measurement technology can cause longtime impacts on the health of workers especially
due to the sensitization behavior of isocyanate (Streil, 2006) but this is a subject of the
current discussion.
6.1.6 Environmental impact of the use phase

The use phase of PUR adhesive in CLT has a higher impact (8 times more) on the human
toxicity than the impact of the production. Also for the other adhesives the impact from
the use phase on human toxicity is higher, for MUF it is even 1682 times higher and for
PRF 24 times.
The result of the use phase assessment has to be treated with caution because the emission
rate (µg/m2 h) data was not measured from CLT, but from glued solid wood products with
an emission surface of 231.0mm2 (MUF and PRF) and 0.125m2 (PUR), respectively. For
more appropriate data, a measurement with CLT for the three different adhesives should
be taken. Especially because the impact of the use phase calculated with the emission
rate data from literature is higher than the impact from the production. However, with
this result the importance of a more accurate assessment of the use phase for CLT is still
observable.
6.1.7 Environmental impact of final disposal

The impact of PUR and MUF from the final disposal of 1m2 CLT are small the those
of PRF, although it is of no great relevance for any adhesive vis-a-vis the production.
However, the result calculated with the LCA4AFR tool strongly depends on the data of
the elemental composition. For MUF and PRF, no data was available from the industry,
and therefore estimations were used. The calculation is especially sensitive to the C-
content of the cured adhesive (see Chapter 5). Therefore, the result of the impact from
the final disposal has to be treated with caution. For a better result, data from the
industry should be used.

6 Discussion 41
6.2 Potential to Improve the Environmental Performance of Wood

Adhesives
In the overall results of the ReCiPe impact assessment the production of raw material
has a high impact on the overall performance of wood adhesives and therefore for the
decrease of the impact of the adhesive production the focus should be on the decrease
of impact of the raw materials. Different possibilities are conceivable. One option would
be to reduce the amount of raw material with high impacts in wood adhesives, such as
by increasing the amount of formaldehyde and decreasing the raw materials with higher
impacts such as urea, phenol etc. However, this option would not be relevant for PUR
adhesive, because both raw materials of PUR adhesive (MDI and polypropylene glycol)
contribute equally (50 %) to the environmental performance of the adhesive and a change
of the ratio of raw material would not lead to an improvement.
A second option to decrease the impact of raw material would be to reduce the required
amount of adhesive applied in CLT. The benefit of a lower amount, and no additional
hardener, for CLT production can be observed by comparing the result of the second
assessment between PUR and the other adhesives. However, this option would have a
negative impact on the properties of the CLT
A third option to improve the environmental performance would be to replace the petro-
chemical raw materials with renewable and sustainable materials, such as lignin, tannin,
cashew nutshell liquid and castor oil. They have already been successfully tested for
the production of wood composite products with promising results (Kim, 2009, 2010;
Varanda et al. , 2013). However, studies observing the feasibility of these renewable
wood adhesives used in wood construction could not yet be found in literature.
6.3 The limitation of the validity of this LCA

The location of the adhesive production has an influence on the environmental perfor-
mance that can be observed in the results of the production LCA of the different MUF
datasets. The location of the three datasets is very diverse, and with Brazil, a location
in the developing world is included in the assessment. The production in Brazil has the
highest environmental impacts of all three datasets, although the input of raw material
for all datasets is similar. The high impacts from MUF production in Brazil (1.7 times
higher compared to SE resp. 1.4 times higher compared the USA), are therefore, mainly
from the production of the raw materials.
USA and Europe, the long-standing leaders in the production of wood adhesives, are
now balanced out by China. In 2004, the majority of MUF adhesive was produced al-
ready in China. However, life-cycle inventory data for the wood adhesive production in
China or other important countries are currently not available. Furthermore, data for
the background processes from Ecoinvent 2.2, or other databases, are not applicable for
these countries. Therefore, it is impossible at the moment to cover the global situation
of wood adhesive production in a LCA.

7 Conclusion 42
7 Conclusion
Aside from the PF adhesive (Wilson, 2010), PUR adhesive has the best environmental
performance for the production of CLT using the method of ReCiPe. This is mainly
because no additional hardener and only a low amount of adhesive is required for the
CLT production with PUR adhesive.
For all adhesives, the raw material production constituted the major impact on the
ReCiPe endpoint result of the production due to its high consumption of fossil feedstock
and energy use. However, these results have to be interpreted with caution for two rea-
sons. First, the calculation of the endpoint result with the method ReCiPe includes a
subjective weighing of the different impact categories and fossil depletion has a higher
weight than other categories such as human toxicity. Although PUR has the highest
contribution to three impacts categories in the midpoint result of the second production
assessment, in the endpoint result it has a better performance than the other adhesives.
Therefore, the weighting of the ReCiPe method has a significant influence on the result.
Second, no uncertainly analysis was performed as some of the data is aggregated. The
differences of the environmental performance of the production between the adhesives
are not very high therefore, the result of the assessment is not significant. However,
evidence for a better performance for PUR compared to PRF can still be observed as
the environmental performance of the production of PRF is almost twice as large as for
PUR adhesive. Moreover, a lower impact was observed for PUR adhesive, compared
with other adhesives for the other stages of the LCA (application, use phase and final
disposal) except for the final disposal, where a similar impact was observed for MUF and
PUR. However, the data for MUF and PRF are highly uncertain. For all adhesives, the
use phase has a higher impact on human toxicity than the production. For MUF also
the application has a higher impact than the production (mainly due to the emission of
formaldehyde). Although no risk for the workers was observed with the emission mea-
surement as none of the measured emissions have exceeded the MAK values and for PUR
the emissions of isocyanate were even below the detection limit.
With the exception of one dataset from Brazil, all datasets are from either the USA
or Europe. Datasets of important countries such as China were not available and thus
not included. This LCA does not cover the global production and market situation of
adhesives; therefore, the validity of this assessment’s results are limited.
An objective for further studies would be to assess the impact of adhesives on the en-
vironmental performance of the entire process of wood constructions. This would show
wether adhesives are an environmental hotspot in the life cycle of wood constructions.
A brief analysis in SimaPro, using the dataset of glulam of Ecoinvent 2.2. for the pro-
duction of CLT, showed for the adhesive only a small contribution (less than 1%) to the
environmental performance of CLT. However, in previous studies adhesives have been
observed to be a hotspot of the LCA of composite wood products. If so, measures such
as reducing the amount of raw material or substituting the raw material with renewable
materials could be considered to reduce the impacts from adhesives.

References 43
References
Aktas, Can B, & Bilec, Melissa M. 2012. Service life prediction of residential interior
finishes for life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Althaus, Hans-Jörg, Chudacoff, Michael, Hischier, Roland, Jungbluth,

Niels, Osses, Margarita, Primas, Alex, et al. . 2007. Life cycle inventories of
chemicals. Final report ecoinvent data v2. 0 No.
American wood council. Adhesive awareness guide. American wood council.
ATSDR. 2015 (January). Substance Register.
Barr, Christopher, Lam, Alvin, & Wei, Wei. 2010. The Use of Wood in Construc-
tion: A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of the use of Laminated Wood in Construction
Relative to Reinforced Concrete.
Boesch, Michael E, Vadenbo, Carl O, & Hellweg, Stefanie. Good Practice

Guidelines.
Boie, Werner. 1953. Fuel technology calculations. Energietechnik.
Brasil, SICV. 2009. Metodologia padrão para elaboração de inventários de ciclo de

vida da indústria brasileira–documento consolidado. Projeto Brasileiro de Inventários
do Ciclo de Vida. Brasília.
Bremer Umweltinstitut. 2011. Untersuchung Holzmusterprobe Skandinavische

Fichte. Analysebericht.
Camargo, André Moreira de. 2007. Inventário do ciclo de vida do metanol para as
condições brasileiras. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.
CDC. 2014 (April). Workplace Safety Health Topics.
Chaudhary, Abhishek, & Hellweg, Stefanie. 2014. Including Indoor Offgassed

Emissions in the Life Cycle Inventories of Wood Products. Environmental science &
technology.
CMP. 2003 (March). Production Melamine-urea-formaldehyde resin 1424.
Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry. 2015. Forest products market
discussions. Economic and Social Council.
Consoli, Frank. 1993. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a code of practice. Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Consultants, PRé. 2014. Pre-sustainability.
Delmonte, John. 1947. Technology of adhesives.

References 44
Durairaj, Raj B. 2005. Manufacturing Processes for Resorcinol. Resorcinol: Chem-

istry, Technology and Applications.
EC. 2007. Action plan for Sustainable Construction.
Eckelman, Carl A. Brief Survey of Wood Adhesives. Purdue University Cooperative

Extension Service West Lafayette IN.
Ecoinvent 2.2. 2010. Ecoinvent 2.2 database and methodology.
Environment, Community, Local Government 2007 Environment, Com-

munity, Local Government 2007 Environment, Community, & Gov-
ernment, Local. 2013. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). webpage,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/AirQuality/VolatileOrganicCompounds/.
Funch, Lis Winther. 2002. Determination of emissions from solid wood elements.
Danish Technology Institute, Arhus, Denmark.
Funch, Lis Winther, & Clorius, Christian. 2002. Indoor climate of single-family
house constructed by use of glued solid wood elements. situ measurement and calcula-
tion. Work report, the Danish Technological Institute.
Gabriel, Joseph. 2015 (March). Personal Correspondence. Purbond AG.
Gayathri, S, & Muthamilarasi, G. 2005. Manufacture of formaldehyde from

methanol.
Glos, Peter, Grosser, Dietger, Radovic, Borimir, & Rug, Wolfgang. 2008.
Holz als konstruktiver Baustoff. Verlagsgesellschaft Rudolf Müller.
Goedkoop, MJ, Heijungs, R, & Huijbregts, M. A life cycle impact assessment

method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the end-
point level. Report I: Characterisation. 2008 [accessed on 2011 07 01]. Available from
internet: http://www. lcia-recipe. net.
Gomez-Bueso, Jose, & Haupt, Robert. 2010. Wood composite adhesives. In:
Phenolic resins: A century of progress. Springer.
González-García, Sara, Feijoo, Gumersindo, Heathcote, Carol, Kandel-

bauer, Andreas, & Moreira, M Teresa. 2011. Environmental assessment of green
hardboard production coupled with a laccase activated system. Journal of Cleaner
Production.
Guo, Zhishi. 2002. Review of indoor emission source models. Part 1. Overview. Envi-
ronmental Pollution.
Hellweg, Stefanie, Demou, Evangelia, Bruzzi, Raffaella, Meijer, Arjen,

Rosenbaum, Ralph K, Huijbregts, Mark AJ, & McKone, Thomas E. 2009.
Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment.
Environmental science & technology.

References 45
Holzbau, MPA BAU Prüfstelle. 2014. Klebstoffe für geklebte tragende Verbindun-
gen in und von Holzbauteilen.
Huijbregts, Mark AJ, Rombouts, Linda JA, Ragas, Ad MJ, & van de Meent,
Dik. 2005. Human-toxicological effect and damage factors of carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. Integrated Environmental As-
sessment and Management.
ISO. 2006. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines

(ISO14044:2006).
ISOPA. 2012. Long and Short-chain Polyether Polyols for Polyurethane Products. Plas-
tics Europe Associateion of Plastics Manufacturers.
Itten, René, Frischknecht, Rolf, Stucki, Matthias, Scherrer, P, & Psi, I.

2012. Life cycle inventories of electricity mixes and grid.
Karacabeyli, Erol, Douglas, Brad, & Council, Binational Softwood Lum-

ber. 2013. CLT Handbook: Cross-laminated Timber. FPInnovations.
Karlsson, Daniel, Dalene, Marianne, Skarping, Gunnar, & Marand, Åsa.

2001. Determination of isocyanic acid in air. Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
Keimel, Fred A. 2003. Historical Development of Adhesives and Adhesive Bonding.

CRC Press.
Kim, H, Oh, J, Jeong, G, Yeo, H, & Lee, J. 2013. Shear performance of PUR
adhesive in cross laminating of red pine. J. Korean Wood Sci. Technol.
Kim, Sumin. 2009. Environment-friendly adhesives for surface bonding of wood-based

flooring using natural tannin to reduce formaldehyde and TVOC emission. Bioresource
technology.
Kim, Sumin. 2010. The reduction of formaldehyde and VOCs emission from wood-based
flooring by green adhesive using cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL). Journal of hazardous
materials.
Kläusler, Oliver Frederik. 2014. Improvement of One-Component Polyurethane

Bonded Wooden Joints under Wet Conditions. Ph.D. thesis, Diss., Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule ETH Zürich.
Kutnar, Andreja. 2013 (October). Past, Present, and Future of EU Wood Adhe-
sive Research and Market. Presentation International Conference on Wood Adhesives,
Toronto.
Leggett, Jeremy K. 2006. Half gone: oil, gas, hot air and the global energy crisis.
Portobello Books London.

References 46
Less, Brennan, Mullen, Nasim, Singer, Brett, & Walker, Iain. 2015. Indoor
air quality in 24 California residences designed as high-performance homes. Science
and Technology for the Built Environment.
Manninen, Heikki. 2014. Long-term outlook for engineered wood products in Europe.
Marutzky, R, & Schriever, E. Emissionsanforderungen an mit Spanplattenresten

betriebene Feuerungsanlagen und Möglichkeiten der Einhaltung. Holz als Roh-und
Werkstoff.
Marutzky, R, & Schriever, E. 1986. Emissionen bei der Verbrennung von Holzs-
panplattenresten. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff.
Marutzky, Rainer. 2003. Formaldehyd und Co. Der mühsame Weg zu schadstoffarmen
Innenräumen. In: Kunststück Innovation. Springer.
Naujoks, Erich, & Fuchs, Otto. 1934. Production of paraformaldehyde. US Patent

1,948,069.
Nicholson, Charles. 1991. ESC Report History of Adhesive. BSA Educational Ser-
vices Committee, July.
Nitthiyah, A. 2013. Optimization and characterization of melamine urea formalde-

hyde (MUF) based adhesive with waste rubber powder (WRP) as filler. Ph.D. thesis,
University Malaysia Pahang.
NREL. 2013 (November). USLCI Database.
Pacheco-Torgal, Fernando, Cabeza, Luisa F, Labrincha, João, & De Ma-

galhaes, Aldo Giuntini. 2014. Eco-efficient construction and building materials:
Life cycle assessment (LCA), eco-labelling and case studies. Woodhead Publishing.
Pizzi, Antonio, & Mittal, Kash L. 2011. Wood adhesives. CRC Press.
Plastics Europe. 2015. Eco-profiles.
Ribeiro, Paulo Henrique. 2009. Contribuição ao banco de dados brasileiro para apoio
à avaliação do ciclo de vida: fertilizantes nitrogenados. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de
São Paulo.
Risholm-Sundman, M, & Vestin, E. 2005. Emissions during combustion of particle-

board and glued veneer. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff.
Rosenbaum, Ralph K, Bachmann, Till M, Gold, Lois Swirsky, Huijbregts,

Mark AJ, Jolliet, Olivier, Juraske, Ronnie, Koehler, Annette, Larsen,
Henrik F, MacLeod, Matthew, Margni, Manuele, et al. . 2008. USEtox the
UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human tox-
icity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

References 47
Sathre, Roger, & Gustavsson, Leif. 2009. Using wood products to mitigate climate
change: External costs and structural change. Applied Energy.
Silva, Diogo Aparecido Lopes, Lahr, Francisco Antonio Rocco, Varanda,

Luciano Donizeti, Christoforo, André Luis, & Ometto, Aldo Roberto.
2014. Environmental performance assessment of the melamine-urea-formaldehyde
(MUF) resin manufacture: a case study in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Silvaa, DiogoAparecido Lopes, Narimatsua, Agnes, Puglieria, Fabio, Lahrb,

Francisco Antonio Rocco, & Omettoa, Aldo Roberto. 2013. Urea formalde-
hyde resin: impacts on the productive life cycle of wood based panels.
Skaar, Christofer, & Jørgensen, Rikke B. 2013. Integrating human health impact
from indoor emissions into an LCA: a case study evaluating the significance of the use
stage. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
Skeist, I. Miron, J. 1990. Handbook of Adhesives. 3rd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Streil, Stephan. 2006. Isocyanate- unauffällig, unerkannt, unterschätzt!? Wohnung

+ Gesundheit.
Sullivan, John Burke, & Krieger, Gary R. 2001. Clinical environmental health
and toxic exposures. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
SUVA. 2012. Grenzwerte am Arbeitsplatz 2012.
Swiss Federal Council. 1990. Technische Verordnung über Abfälle (TVA).
Transparency market research. 2014. Wood Adhesives and Binders (UF, MUF,
PF, PU, Soy-based and Others) Global Industry Analysis,Trends and Forecast, 2014-
2020.
UNECE FAO. 2013. Forest products annual market Review 2012-2013. United Nations
Publications.
Varanda, Luciano Donizeti, Nascimento, Maria Fátima do, Christoforo,

André Luis, Silva, Diogo Aparecido Lopes, & Lahr, Francisco Anto-
nio Rocco. 2013. Oat hulls as addition to high density panels production.
Vick, Charles B, & Adherends, Wood. 1999. Adhesive bonding of wood materials.
Wang, Xiaodong Alice, Hagman, Olle, Sundqvist, Bror, Ormarsson, Sigur-

dur, Wan, Hui, & Niemz, Peter. 2014. Wood construction under cold climate Part
one: Impact of cold temperatures on the shear strength of different adhesives glued
wood joints of Norway spruce and Scots pine. Wood Conference in Timber Engineering.
Wernet, Gregor, Papadokonstantakis, Stavros, Hellweg, Stefanie, &

Hungerbühler, Konrad. 2009. Bridging data gaps in environmental assessments:
Modeling impacts of fine and basic chemical production. Green Chemistry.

References 48
Wilson, James B. 2010. Life-cycle inventory of formaldehyde-based resins used in

wood composites in terms of resources, emissions, energy and carbon. Wood and Fiber
Science.
Zeppenfeld, Günter, & Grunwald, Dirk. 2005. Klebstoffe in der Holz-und Möbe-
lindustrie. DRW-Verlag Weinbrenner.

8 Appendix IV
8 Appendix
Processes modeled in SimaPro for all adhesives
Table 23: MUF Brazil, process modeled in SimaPro
MUF Brazil Amount Unit

MUF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 65 %
Resources
Water, unspecified natural origin/kg 0.23 kg
Materials/fuels
Formic acid, at plant/RER U 0.00007 kg
Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/RER U 0.00005 kg
Melamine, at plant/ Brazil 0.1 kg
Electricity mix/BR U 0.045 MJ
Urea Production, Brazil 0.39 kg
Methanol Production, Brazil 0.16 kg
Diesel, at refinery/RER U 500ppm Sulfur 0.03 kg
Transport, transoceanic freight ship/OCE U 0.924477 tkm
Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3/RER U 0.88169 tkm
Electricity/heat
Emissions to air
Carbon dioxide 0.11 kg
Carbon monoxide 0.00017 kg
Dimethyl ether 0.000036 kg
Formaldehyde 0.0000089 kg
Methanol 0.000004 kg
Particulates, unspecified 0.000002 kg
VOC, volatile organic compounds 0.000078 kg
Emissions to water
Ammonia, as N 0.00013 kg
BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand 0.000662 kg
Solids, inorganic 0.000239 kg
Suspended solids, unspecified 0.000394 kg
Final waste flows
Waste, solid* 0.0000509 kg
**instead of solid emission to soil

8 Appendix V
Table 24: MUF Casco, process modeled in SimaPro
MUF Casco Amount Unit Amount Unit

MUF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 65 % Emissions to air
Resources Carbon monoxide 0.76 g
Air 52.87 g Carbon dioxide 1595 g
Bauxite 0.53 g Carbon dioxide 1595 g
Energy, from coal, brown 0.15 MJ Dimethyl ether 0.002 g
Copper ore 0.25 g Formaldehyde 0.002 g
Energy, from oil 3.87 MJ Hydrocarbons, unspecified 2.45 g
Feldspar 0.24 g Methane 7.88 g
Energy, from hydro power 0.49 MJ Methanol 0.1 g
Energy, from hydrogen 0.03 MJ Ammonia 0.16 g
Iron ore 0.06 g Nitrogen oxides 5.91 g
Energy, from coal 1.86 MJ Sulfur dioxide 2.96 g
Limestone 0.45 g Sulfur oxides 4.77 g
Energy, from gas, natural 42.51 MJ Particulates, unspecified 0.87 g
Nitrogen 3.18 g Propylene glycol 0.49 g
Energy, from uranium 0.48 MJ Final waste flows
Energy, recovered -0.33 MJ Mineral waste 8.04 g
Sulfur 1.15 g Slags and ashes 1.92 g
Uranium ore, 1.11 GJ per kg 0.14 g Sludge 2.07 g
Sodium chloride 2.88 g Waste in incineration 1.95 g
Emissions to water Waste in incineration 1.95 g
BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand 31 mg Waste in incineration 1.95 g
COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand 1.269 g Waste to recycling 3.63 g
Hydrocarbons, unspecified 17 g Waste, toxic 11.02 g
Metals (unspecified) 57 mg Waste, industrial 0.96 g
Nitrogen, total 0.341 g Construction waste 0.07 g
Sodium 0.523 g Waste, unspecified 11.86 g
Suspended solids, unspecified 0.495 g Dust, unspecified 0.98 g
TOC, Total Organic Carbon 0.23 g Waste in inert landfill 17.29 g
Suspended solids, unspecified 0.159 g
Acidity, unspecified 49 mg
Oils, unspecified 44 mg
Sulfate 0.928 g
Ammonium, ion 68 mg

8 Appendix VI
Table 25: MUF Wilson, process modeled in SimaPro
MUF Wilson Amount Unit

MUF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 60 %
Resources
Gas, natural/m3 0.0135 m3
Materials/fuels
Urea, as N, at regional storehouse/RER U 0.397 kg
Melamine, at plant/RER U 0.0808 kg
Methanol, at plant/GLO U 0.304 kg
Formic acid, at plant/RER U 0.0000509 kg
Ammonium sulphate, as N, at regional storehouse/RER U 0.0000294 kg
Propane/ butane, at refinery/RER U 3.1155E-08 kg
Transport, lorry >16t, fleet average/RER U 0.18 tkm
Transport, freight, rail/RER U 1.5557 tkm
Electricity/heat
Electricity mix/US U 0.0351 kWh
Emissions to air
Carbon dioxide, fossil 0.0255 kg
Particulates 0.00000165 kg
Emissions to water
Solids, inorganic 0.000239 kg
Ammonia, as N 0.00013 kg
Final waste flows
*instead of solid emission to soil

8 Appendix VII
Table 26: PF Wilson, process modeled in SimaPro
PF Wilson Amount Unit

PF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 47 %
Resources
Materials/fuels
Phenol, at plant/RER U 0.244 kg
Electricity/heat
Emissions to air
Phenol 0.00000204 kg
Final waste flows

8 Appendix VIII
Table 27: PF Ecoinvent, process modeled in SimaPro
PF Ecoinvent at 100% solids content Amount Unit

PF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 100 %
Resources
Water, cooling, unspecified natural origin/m3 0.024 m3
Water, unspecified natural origin/m3 0.012 m3
Materials/fuels
Formaldehyde, production mix, at plant/RER U 0.152 kg
Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid/UCTE U 0.333 kWh
Emissions to air
Heat, waste 1.2 MJ
Phenol 0.0019 kg
Emissions to water
COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand 0.00418 kg
DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.00142 kg
TOC, Total Organic Carbon 0.00142 kg
Phenol 0.00171 kg

8 Appendix IX
Table 28: PRF Wilson, process modeled in SimaPro
PRF Wilson Amount Unit

PRF Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 60 %
Resources
Materials/fuels
Ethanol, 95% in H2O, from corn, at distillery/US U 0.00744 kg
Resorcinol, at plant/RER U** 0.19 kg
Electricity/heat
Emissions to air
Phenol 0.00000416 kg
Emissions to water
Phenol 0.000114 kg
Final waste flows
**Phenol has been taken instead of Resorcinol

8 Appendix X
Table 29: PUR, process modeled in SimaPro
PUR Amount Unit

PUR Adhesive 1 kg
solids content 100 %
Materials/fuels
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, at plant/RER U 0.4917 kg
Polypropylene glycol 0.4275 kg
Additive 1 0.03 kg
Additive 2 0.0026 kg
Additive 3 0.0011 kg
Table 30: Urea Brazil, process modeled in SimaPro
Urea, Brazil Amount Unit

Urea Production, Brazil 1 kg
Resources
Materials/fuels
Ammonia, liquid, at regional storehouse/RER U 0.561 kg
Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant/RER U 0.651 kg
Electricity, production mix BR/BR U 0.000541 GJ
Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100kW/RER U 0.0035 GJ
Emissions to air
Nitrogen oxides 0.0000467 kg
Particulates, unspecified 0.000943 kg
Emissions to water
Nitrogen, total 0.000168 kg

8 Appendix XI
Table 31: Methanol Brazil, process modeled in SimaPro

Methanol, Brazil Amount Unit
Methanol Production, Brazil 1000 kg
Resources
Gas, natural/kg 184 kg
Oxygen 34042 kg
Energy, from gas, natural 544.94 GJ
Materials/fuels
Electricity, production mix BR/BR U 320 kWh
Diesel, at regional storage/RER U 2.24 kg
Emissions to air
Water/m3 392.18 m3
Methane 24.024 kg
Hydrocarbons, unspecified 3.654 kg from volume(m3) to kg factor 0.66kg/m3 (wikipedia 2015)
Nitrogen oxides 1.726 kg from volume(m3) to kg factor 1.15kg/m3 (wikipedia 2015)
Sulfur dioxide 9.02 kg from volume(m3) to kg factor 1.98kg/m3 (wikipedia 2015)
Particulates 0.27 kg from volume(m3) to kg factor 0.7kg/m3 (guidechem.com 2015)
Methanol 0.000424 kg 95% NO (1.34kg/m3), 5%NO2 (2.62kg/m3) (wikipedia 2015)
Emissions to water from volume(m3) to kg factor 2.62kg/m3 (wikipedia 2015)
Organic compounds (unspecified) 0.014 kg
Sulfur 0.0002 kg
Emissions to soil
Sulfur 0.02 kg

8 Appendix XII
Table 32: Resorcinol, process modeled in SimaPro
Resorcinol Amount Unit

Resorcinol, at plant/RER U 1 kg
Resources
Water, cooling, unspecified natural origin/m3 0.024 m3
Water, unspecified natural origin/m3 0.012 m3
Materials/fuels
Oxygen, liquid, at plant/RER U 0.716 kg
Chemical plant, organics/RER/I U 4E-10 p
Cumene, at plant/RER U 2.68 kg
Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100kW/RER U 2 MJ
Emissions to air
Heat, waste 1.2 MJ
Cumene 0.00736 kg
Emissions to water
Cumene 0.01288 kg
DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.00579 kg
TOC, Total Organic Carbon 0.00579 kg

8 Appendix XIII
Comparison of impacts of different raw material production and energy production
Figure 13: The impact of the production of 1kg of the different raw materials
Figure 14: The impact of the production of 1MJ with the different production mixes

8 Appendix XIV
Midpoint result of the first assessment (kg)
Figure 15: Midpoint result of MUF Brazil
Figure 16: Midpoint result of MUF Wilson

8 Appendix XV
Figure 17: Midpoint result of PF Wilson
Figure 18: Midpoint result of PF Ecoinvent

8 Appendix XVI
Figure 19: Midpoint result of PRF Wilson
Figure 20: Midpoint result of PUR Wilson

8 Appendix XVII
Result of Usetox assessment for human toxicity (non-carcinogen)
Table 33: The contribution of the process or substances to human toxicity (non-
carcinogen) determined with the method of Usetox
% % % % % % %
Processes Ammonia 2.50 44.02
Benzene 19.39 30.79 23.69
Chlorine 12.99 13.46 5.02 99.44
Propylene glycol 2.11 9.42 7.56 25.15
Sugarcane 88.89
Heavy fuel oil 10.74
Propylene glycol 7.84
Substance Acetaldehyde 3.69 35.87 11.14 13.87 10.13

Aldrin 88.89
Toluene 25.77 23.24 27.21 23.81
Xylene 11.08 18.75 23.77 22.29
Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 7.21 25.30 7.86 7.24
Propylene oxide water 6.82 8.19 11.84 17.04
Propylene oxide air 9.19 13.22
Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 99.46
Detailed result of the second assessment (CLT)
Figure 21: Midpoint result of the second assessment

8 Appendix XVIII
Table 34: Contribution of hardener and adhesive to the impact on fossil depletion (CLT)
CLT MUF, Brazil CLT MUF Wilson CLT MUF Casco PF Ecoinvent PF Wilson CLT PRF Wilson CLT PUR
% % % % % % %
Hardener 26.14 45.78 44.46 0.00 0.00 15.98 0.00
Adhesive 73.86 54.22 55.54 100.00 100.00 84.02 100.00
Substances Natural gas 78.10 61.90 68.39 39.85 49.54 42.03 42.80
Adhesive 66.40 41.39 48.48 39.85 49.54 33.33 0.00
Hardener 11.71 20.50 19.91 0.00 0.00 8.70 0.00
Crude oil 15.22 25.04 19.54 52.64 43.11 49.79 39.70
Adhesive 6.46 9.70 4.65 52.64 43.11 45.17 0.00
Hardener 8.75 15.33 14.89 0.00 0.00 4.63 0.00
Coal 15.22 9.95 12.08 7.45 7.28 8.13 11.63
Adhesive 6.46 0.00 4.47 7.45 7.28 5.47 0.00
Hardener 8.75 9.95 9.66 0.00 0.00 2.66 0.00
Table 35: The contribution of hardener and adhesive to the impact on climate change
human/ eco (CLT)
MUF, Brazil MUF Wilson MUF Casco PF Ecoinvent PF Wilson PRF Wilson PUR
human eco human eco human eco human eco human eco human eco human eco
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Hardener 32.11 32.12 29.00 29.01 34.57 34.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.44 11.44 0.00 0.00
Adhesvie 67.89 67.88 71.00 70.99 65.43 65.43 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 88.56 88.56 100.00 100.00
Substances CO2 88.46 88.47 93.47 93.47 90.96 91.32 87.62 87.63 87.74 87.76 88.27 88.28 87.13 87.15
Adhesive 57.92 57.93 65.89 65.89 60.33 58.44 87.62 87.63 87.74 87.75 77.56 77.57 0.00 0.00
Hardener 30.53 30.54 27.58 27.58 30.64 32.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.71 10.71 0.00 0.00
Methane 10.40 10.39 6.01 6.00 8.88 8.51 11.95 11.93 11.83 11.82 11.24 11.22 12.36 12.35
Adhesive 8.97 8.96 6.01 4.71 7.45 6.98 11.95 11.93 11.83 11.82 11.24 10.50 0.00 0.00
Hardener 1.42 1.42 1.29 1.29 1.43 1.53 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.73 0.72 0.00 0.00
Table 36: The contribution of hardener and adhesive to the impact on particle formation
(CLT)
CLT MUF, Brazil CLT MUF Wilson CLT MUF Casco* PF Ecoinvent PF Wilson CLT PRF Wilson CLT PUR
% % % % % % %
Hardener 53.52 41.63 42.03 16.15 0.00
Adhesvie 46.48 58.37 57.97 100.00 100.00 83.85 0.00
Substances Nitrogen oxides 46.40 36.54 49.94 34.59 41.07 42.20 31.31
Adhesive 15.93 12.84 26.01 34.59 41.07 32.38 0.00
Hardener 30.47 23.70 23.93 0.00 0.00 9.82 0.00
Sulfure dioxide 42.67 28.41 29.95 40.96 0.30 38.86 42.47
Adhesive 19.62 10.48 11.84 40.96 0.30 32.53 0.00
Hardener 23.05 17.93 18.10 0.00 0.00 6.33 0.00
particulates <2.5 6.76 15.48 0.00 12.48 11.91 9.39 12.96
Adhesive 6.76 15.48 0.00 12.48 11.91 9.39 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ammonia 1.55 12.25 1.02 0.29 35.88 0.46 0.60
Adhesive 1.55 12.25 1.02 0.29 35.88 0.46 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
particulates >2.5 ,<10 2.63 7.33 0.00 11.69 10.84 9.09 12.56
Adhesive 2.63 7.33 0.00 11.69 10.84 9.09 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
sulfure oxid 19.09
Adhesive 19.09
Hardener 0.00

8 Appendix XIX
Table 37: The contribution of hardener and adhesive to the impact on human toxicity
(CLT)
CLT MUF, Brazil CLT MUF Wilson CLT MUF Casco* PF Ecoinvent PF Wilson CLT PRF Wilson CLT PUR
% % % % % % %
Hardener 22.37 13.45 99.97 0.00 0.00 2.95 0.00
Adhesvie 77.63 86.55 0.33 100.00 100.00 97.05 0.00
Substances manganese, water 39.33 46.79 63.37 62.26 62.81 42.66
Adhesive 39.33 46.79 63.37 62.26 62.81 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
arsenic, water 7.89 9.93 11.95 11.18 11.70 7.36
Adhesive 7.89 9.93 11.95 11.18 11.70 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium 10.62 8.46
Adhesive 10.62 8.46
Hardener 0.00 0.00
Mercury 22.47 13.66 98.58 3.47 8.31 3.64 22.71
Adhesive 0.34 0.36 0.00 3.47 8.31 0.71 0.00
Hardener 22.13 13.31 98.58 0.00 0.00 2.93 0.00
Chlorine 14.71
Adhesive 0.00
Hardener 0.00
Selenium 4.76 4.53 4.68 3.07
Adhesive 4.76 4.53 0.13 0.00
Hardener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercury in water
Adhesive
Hardener
Protocol, the detailed result of the emission measurement and the

calculated impact on human health
Table 38: Protocol of emission measurement company A first day

Company A Day1
Process Amount of adhesive Length of wood width of wood piece area Measurement
Time g/m^2 cm cm nr. m^2 Time Process Type
11:39 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 12:00 start VOC1
11:48 stopp 12:30 stopp VOC1
12:00 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 12:42 start VOC2
12:20 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 13:26 start Formaldehyde
12:30 stopp 13:37 start Isocyanate
12:41 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 13:56 stopp Formaldehyde
12:51 stopp 14:07 stopp Isocyanate
13:04 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 15:29 start Formaldehyde 5m
13:13 stopp 15:49 stopp Formaldehyde 5m
13:26 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 15:52 start VOC1 5m
13:37 stopp 16:12 stopp VOC1 5m
13:47 start 250 500 12.5 24 15 16:15 start VOC2 5m
15:20 start 250 500 12.5 24 15
15:30 stopp
15:38 start 250 500 12.5 24 15
15:43 stopp
15:55 start 250 500 12.5 24 15
16:02 stopp
16:20 start 250 500 12.5 24 15
16:26 stopp

8 Appendix XX
Table 39: Protocol of emission measurement Company A second day

Company A Day2
10:15 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 10:30 start VOC1
10:30 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 11:08 start VOC2
10:49 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 11:48 start Formaldehyde
10:56 stopp 12:18 stopp Formaldehyde
11:08 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 13:40 start VOC1 5m
11:25 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 14:01 start VOC2 5m
11:46 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5 14:23 start Formaldehyde 5m
12:00 stopp 14:53 stopp Formaldehyde 5m
12:09 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
12:15 stopp
12:26 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
12:33 stopp
12:43 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
12:50 stopp
12:54 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
13:00 stopp
13:05 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
13:10 stopp
13:15 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
13:20 stopp
13:25 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
13:33 stopp
13:39 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
13:49 stopp
13:55 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
14:00 stopp
14:09 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
14:15 stopp
14:30 start 250 5000 12.5 10 62.5
14:40 stopp

8 Appendix XXI
Table 40: Protocol of emission measurement Company B first day

Company B Day 1
09:20 start 200 4000 22 29 255.2 09:30 start VOC1
09:42 start 200 4000 22 29 255.2 09:53 start VOC2
10:32 start 200 1800 12 47 101.52 10:13 stopp VOC2
10:48 stopp 10:17 start Formaldeyhde
10:52 start 200 1830 12 46 101.016 10:32 stopp Isocyanate
11:05 stopp 10:37 stopp Formaldeyhde
11:12 start 200 1210 12 46 66.792 10:45 start Formaldeyde 5m
11:32 stopp 11:10 stopp Formaldeyde 5m
11:36 start 200 1000 12 20 24 11:10 start VOC1 5m
11:30 stopp VOC1 5m
11:32 start VOC2 5m
11:45 stopp Isocyanate
11:52 stopp VOC2 5m
Table 41: Protocol of emission measurement Company B second day

Company B Day 2
09:51 start 200 2300 22 29 146.74 09:53 start VOC1
10:20 start 200 1300 22 47 134.42 10:20 start Isocyanate
10:30 stopp 10:36 start VOC2
10:40 start 200 1409 22 45 139.491 10:50 stopp Isocyanate
10:52 stopp 10:56 stopp VOC 2
11:23 start 200 1409 22 34 105.3932 10:57 start Formaldehyde
11:30 stopp 11:30 stopp Formaldehyde
13:25 start 200 4000 22 15 132 13:18 start Formaldehyde
13:40 stopp 13:35 start Isocyanate 5m
13:47 start 200 4000 22 10 88 13:38 stopp Formaldehyde
14:02 stopp 13:42 start VOC1 5m
14:13 start 200 1400 22 30 92.4 14:02 stopp VOC1 5m
14:05 stopp Isocyanate
14:05 start VOC2 5m
14:25 stopp VOC2 5m

Master’s Thesis FS 2015
8 Appendix
Table 42: The detailed result of the emission measurement in company A and MAK values for the different substances
MAK values isocyanate formaldehyde hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene
µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3
20 600 180000 700000 none none non non 28000 1440000 190000
Company A
Date Location Sorbent isocyanate formaldehyde hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene
12.03.15 Application glue Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 195 115 135 93 8 29 629 129
12.03.15 Application glue Carbopack C/Carbopack B 318 5966 616 50
12.03.15 Application glue DNPH 15
12.03.15 Application glue Filter n.d.
12.03.15 Press Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 402 260 54 159 16 32 1177 933
12.03.15 Press Carbopack C/Carbopack B 373 38003 70 24 2 18 778 66
12.03.15 Press DNPH 39
12.03.15 Press Filter -
12.03.15 5 m away Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 545 33167 55 20 2 17 978 35
12.03.15 5 m away Carbopack C/Carbopack B 555 354 394 221 22 55 1581 121
12.03.15 5 m away DNPH 19
12.03.15 5 m away Filter -
13.03.15 background Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 12 111 140 142 13 37 72 76
13.03.15 background Carbopack C/Carbopack B 64 43340 15 19 1 18 139 38
13.03.15 background DNPH 13
13.03.15 background Filter -
16.03.15 Application glue Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 14 57 122 48 3 15 113 65
16.03.15 Application glue Carbopack C/Carbopack B 8 13089 20 8 0 8 21 24
16.03.15 Application glue Filter -
16.03.15 Press Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 33 1725 101 39 2 15 198 70
16.03.15 Press Carbopack C/Carbopack B 7 13034 53 9 1 8 0 9
16.03.15 Press Filter -
16.03.15 5 m away Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 35 1132 123 55 3 16 118 41
16.03.15 5 m away Carbopack C/Carbopack B 18 21235 22 5 0 7 43 23
16.03.15 5 m away DNPH 17
16.03.15 5 m away Filter -
Annika Messmer
XXII
8 Appendix
Table 43: The detailed result of the emission measurement in company B
MAK values isocyanate formaldehyde hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene m-xylene 1-methyl 4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
Company B
Date Location Adsorber isocyanate formaldehyde hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene m-xylene 1-methyl 4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
25.03.15 Application glue Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 419 25 20 12 97 46 363 1341 5 7
25.03.15 Application glue Carbopack C/Carbopack B 898 23 5163 17 11 46 38 155 1362 8 10
25.03.15 5 m away Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 653 35 12 15 28 12 454 2325 2 4
25.03.15 5 m away Carbopack C/Carbopack B 1389 28 5435 4 7 7 5 223 1117 2 4
25.03.15 5 m away DNPH 6
25.03.15 5 m away Filter n.d.
25.03.15 Press Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 4268 1121 14 13 79 35 7302 966 4 9
25.03.15 Press Carbopack C/Carbopack B 4929 478 2690 9 9 23 25 2999 430 8 11
25.03.15 Press Filter n.d.
25.03.15 background Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 3218 803 10 10 96 44 5415 809 4 11
25.03.15 background Carbopack C/Carbopack B 4881 675 3736 6 6 26 27 2853 442 5 12
25.03.15 background DNPH 15
25.03.15 background Filter n.d.
26.03.15 Application glue Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 257 6 3 3 40 10 98 1233 6 5
26.03.15 Application glue Carbopack C/Carbopack B 322 13 7582 1 2 4 3 81 596 3 4
26.03.15 5 m away Tenax TA/Carboxen 569 587 31 4 5 86 24 393 2028 11 6
26.03.15 5 m away Carbopack C/Carbopack B 41 1 6314 3 3 18 13 19 314 13 7
Table 44: Emission from the adhesive application of the production of 1m2 CLT
µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3
Company A Sorbent formaldehyde isocyanate hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene m-xylene 1-methyl 4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
Day1 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.00 108.83 0.00 -1.76 0.00 -9.28 -1.02 -2.18 4.95 -3.67 0.00 0.00
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -4.91 0.00 -2357.83 0.00 0.65 0.00 -1.46 -0.12 -1.15 -10.30 -1.52 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde (DNPH) 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 12.56 0.00 -1100.43 0.00 9.70 0.00 5.19 0.54 0.96 36.91 2.13 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 6.35 0.00 389.44 0.00 -1.16 0.00 -2.39 -0.24 -0.46 10.89 -0.86 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean Formaldehyde (DNPH) 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annika Messmer
Company B
VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -35.45 -10.41 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.07 -0.14 0.00 -0.27 -67.67 16.43 0.09 -0.06
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -181.49 -25.28 96.68 -0.11 0.00 -0.14 -0.27 0.00 -0.51 -106.27 -4.80 0.28 -0.17
Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -26.23 -7.86 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 -0.70 0.00 -0.33 -50.73 15.50 -0.02 -0.07
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -34.01 -6.30 16.54 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.18 0.00 -0.21 -25.61 6.58 -0.03 -0.08
Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC 1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -30.21 -8.96 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.46 0.00 -0.30 -58.04 15.90 0.03 -0.07
XXIII
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -64.42 -10.21 33.07 -0.03 0.00 -0.02 -0.20 0.00 -0.27 -42.24 4.23 0.03 -0.10
Mean Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 Appendix
Table 45: Total amount of emission inhaled by the worker from application
µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg µg
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -19.64 0.00 -9431.33 0.00 2.60 0.00 -5.86 -0.47 -4.61 -41.19 -6.10 0.00 0.00
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 50.26 0.00 -4401.74 0.00 38.79 0.00 20.75 2.15 3.86 147.63 8.50 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde (DNPH) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 25.41 0.00 1557.75 0.00 -4.64 0.00 -9.57 -0.96 -1.84 43.57 -3.42 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean Formaldehyde (DNPH) 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Company B
Day 1 VOC1(Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -141.78 -41.64 0.00 -0.28 0.00 -0.29 -0.57 0.00 -1.08 -270.68 65.71 0.36 -0.25
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -725.97 -101.10 386.72 -0.46 0.00 -0.54 -1.08 0.00 -2.03 -425.07 -19.18 1.12 -0.67
Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Day 2 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -104.92 -31.43 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.17 -2.79 0.00 -1.30 -202.92 62.00 -0.06 -0.28
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -136.06 -25.20 66.18 -0.04 0.00 0.01 -0.73 0.00 -0.82 -102.46 26.30 -0.13 -0.31
Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00 0.00 -120.83 -35.83 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.03 -1.83 0.00 -1.21 -232.16 63.60 0.12 -0.26
Mean VOC 2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00 0.00 -257.69 -40.85 132.27 -0.13 0.00 -0.10 -0.80 0.00 -1.07 -168.98 16.92 0.12 -0.38
Mean Isocyanate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 46: Effect factors from Usetox for the substances measured in the emissions of the application of the adhesives
Substance formaldehyde isocyanate hexane cyclohexane 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane undecane 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl heptane dodecane α − pinene camphene D-limonene ethyl acetate toluene m-xylene 1-methyl 4-(1-methylethyl) benzene
EFcanc. (cases/kgintake) 1.061 n/a 6.73E-05 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 5.00E-51 0.000 n/a
EFnon-canc. (cases/kgintake) 0.008 n/a 0.009 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0.000 0.005 0.008 n/a
aEF in DALYs/Kg 12.230 n/a 0.025 0.002 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 0.001 0.015 0.027 n/a
CFoutdoor in DALYs/Kg 1.00E-04 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a 2.33E-08 2.40E-07 3.47E-07 n/a
Annika Messmer
XXIV
8 Appendix
Table 47: The impact on human health of the emissions from the application
impact indoor DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT
Day1 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 2.52E-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.51E-11 -2.20E-10 0 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 -5.01E-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3.14E-11 -9.14E-11 0 0
Formaldehyde (DNPH) 2.08725E-08 0
Day2 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 6.96E-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.53E-11 -3.11E-11 0 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 1.28E-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.12E-10 1.27E-10 0 0
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 6.48E-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.32E-11 -5.13E-11 0 0
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 1.32E-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.16E-14 1.31E-14 0 0
Mean Formaldehyde (DNPH) 1.01E-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00E+00 0 0 0
impact outdoor
Day1 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.61E-16 -3.52E-15 0 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9.5973E-16 -1.46E-15 0 0
Day2 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.08E-15 -4.97E-16 0 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.44E-15 2.04E-15 0 0
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.01E-15 -8.21E-16 0 0
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0.00E+00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.55E-19 2.10E-19 0 0
Mean Formaldehyde (DNPH) 8.26E-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Company B
impact indoor DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT DALY/m2 CLT
Day1 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 -3.62E-09 -9.29E-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2.06E-10 9.86E-10 9.84E-12 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6.31E-15 1.58E-14 1.26E-16 0
Isocyanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Day2 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 5.13E-16 3.87E-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.58E-17 6.48E-17 3.59E-21 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.71E-21 1.04E-21 4.61E-26 0
Isocyanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean VOC (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 -7.27E-23 -1.61E-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.51E-23 4.25E-24 1.31E-30 0
Mean VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4.62E-28 6.81E-29 1.68E-35 0
Mean Isocanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
impact outdoor
Day1 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6.31E-15 1.58E-14 1.26E-16 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9.90E-15 -4.60E-15 3.89E-16 0
Isocyanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Day2 VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4.73E-15 1.49E-14 -2.25E-17 0
VOC2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2.39E-15 6.31E-15 -4.68E-17 0
Isocyanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean VOC1 (Tenax TA/Carboxen 569) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5.41E-15 1.52E-14 4.18E-17 0
Mean VOC 2 (Carbopack C/Carbopack B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3.94E-15 4.06E-15 4.30E-17 0
Mean Isocyanate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annika Messmer
XXV
8 Appendix XXVI
Use phase details for the calculation of the impact of the emissions on human
health
Table 48: For MUF adhesive: the emission rate measured in chamber experiment by
Funch (2002), the corresponding k and E0 values of the decay modle and the
calculated total emission during the use phase
Days 3 10 28 E0 k kg/2 CLT

Formaldehyde 107 69 73 129.1342661 0.002611442 2.61144E-06
Acetaldehyde 75 43 0 95 0.003311 0.000003311
Propanal 13 8 0 16 0.00289 0.00000289
Butanal 3 0 0 4 0.004575112 4.57511E-06
Pentanal 18 14 0 20 0.001496 0.000001496
Hexanal 35 25 0 40.429 0.002003 0.000002003
Benzaldehyde 8 4 0 10.7672 0.004126 0.000004126
Acetone 53 35 0 63.3152 0.00247 0.00000247
C10-C16 34 16 0 49.9651 0.004487 0.000004487
Toulen 6 2 0 9.60797 0.006539 0.000006539
Xylene 5 0 0 7.5 0.0056 0.0000056
aPinene 245 90 0 376.324 0.005961 0.000005961
b-Pinene 27 13 0 36.9319 0.004351 0.000004351
3-Carene 7 4 0 8.89728 0.0033331 3.3331E-06
Limonene 17 12 0 19.7369 0.002073 0.000002073

8 Appendix XXVII
Table 49: For PRF adhesive: the emission rate measured in chamber experiment by
Funch (2002), the corresponding k and E0 values of the decay modle and the
calculated total emission during the use phase
Days 3 10 28 E0 k kg/m2 CLT

Formaldehyde 27 15 13 34.7728 0.003514 0.000003514
Acetaldehyde 672 404 0 835.754 0.003029 0.000003029
Propanal 12 7 0 15.1183 0.003208 0.000003208
Butanal 5 2 0 7.40484 0.005454 0.000005454
Pentanal 18 12 0 21.4161 0.002413 0.000002413
Hexanal 27 20 0 30.7058 0.001786 0.000001786
Benzaldehyde 5 3 0 6.22369 0.003041 0.000003041
Decanal 17 6 0 26.5638 0.006199 0.000006199
MIBK/Hexanone 6 4 0 7.1387 0.002413 0.000002413
Acetone 45 61 0 39.4994 -0.001811 -
C10-C16 52 15 0 88.5919 0.0074 0.0000074
Toulen 6 2 0 9.60797 0.006539 0.000006539
Xylene 13 6 0 18.1073 0.004602 0.000004602
aPinene 310 100 0 503.437 0.006735 0.000006735
b-Pinene 77 40 0 101.951 0.003898 0.000003898
3-Carene 45 20 0 63.7012 0.004827 0.000004827
Limonene 75 35 0 103.972 0.004537 0.000004537
b-myrcene 6 2 0 9.60797 0.006539 0.000006539
Phellendrene 8 3 0 12.18 0.005838 0.000005838

8 Appendix XXVIII
Table 50: For PUR adhesive: the emission rate measured in chamber experiment by
Bremer Umweltinstitut (2011), the corresponding k and E0 values of the decay
modle and the calculated total emission during the use phase
Days 1 3 10 E0 k kg/m2 CLT

iso heptan 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
Toulen 46 6 110.122 0.012124 0.000012124
a-pinen 35 8 65.8829 0.008785 0.000008785
limonen 4 1 7.24579 0.008252 0.000008252
cyclopentan 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
sonstige terpene 3 0 3016.571228 0.096017544 9.60175E-05
aceton 8 5 9.78521 0.002798 0.000002798
2-butanon 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
2-heptanon 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
acetophenon 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
methylacetat 7 1 16.117 0.011583 0.000011583
ethylacetat 12 3 21.7374 0.008252 0.000008252
dimethylphalat 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
diisobutylphalate 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
dibutylphalat 3 0 3016.571228 0.096017544 9.60175E-05
1, pgmm 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
acetaldehyde 160 38 215.344 0.004126 0.000004126
propanal 3 0 3016.571228 0.096017544 9.60175E-05
n-petanal 4 3 4.52486 0.001712 0.000001712
n-hexanal 6 4 7.1387 0.002413 0.000002413
n-nonanal 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
ethansäure 40 63 32.9239 -0.002704 -
propansäure 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
n-butansäure 1 0 1030.688303 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
n-petansäure 3 0 3016.571228 0.096017544 9.60175E-05
n-hexansäure 7 0 7214.818124 0.096360863 9.63609E-05
n-heptansäure 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
n-oktansäure 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
ethanol 4 2 5.3836 0.004126 0.000004126
n-butanol 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415
n-pentanol 2 0 3611.645482 0.104149605 0.00010415

8 Appendix
Table 51: Effect factors from Usetox for the substances measured in the chamber experiment
Substance Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Propanal Butanal Pentanal Hexanal Benzaldehyde Decanal MIBK/Hexanone Acetone Ethylbenzene
EFcanc. (cases/kgintake) 1.061307 0.007492 n/a n/a n/a n/ab 0.00137 n/a 0 n/a 0.023585
EFnon-canc. (cases/kgintake) 0.008471 0.038451 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.001777 n/a 0.000163 0.000282 0.000385
aEF in DALYs/Kg 12.23 0.19 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.02 n/a 0.0004401 0.00076 0.27
CFoutdoor in DALYs/Kg 1.00E-04 1.73E-06 0 n/a n/a n/a 1.88E-07 n/a 1.07E-08 1.76E-08 4.36E-06
Substance sonstige Terpene 2-Butanone oxime 2-heptanon Acetophenon Methyle acetate Ethyle acetat Dimethylphalat Diisobutylphalate Dibutylphalat 1, pgmm Nonanal
EFcanc. (cases/kgintake) n/a 0.0154 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
EFnon-canc. (cases/kgintake) n/a 0 n/a 0.000601 n/a 0.000282 n/a n/a 0.00203 n/a n/a
aEF in DALYs/Kg n/a 0.1771 n/a 0.0016227 n/a 0.0007614 n/a n/a 0.005481 0 n/a
CFoutdoor in DALYs/Kg n/a 0.000006 n/a 4.81E-08 n/a 2.33E-08 n/a n/a 2.15E-07 0 n/a
Substance Ethylbenzene Toluene m,p Xylene α − P inene -Pinene 3-Carene Limonene b-myrcene Phellendrene N-Heptan Cyclopentane
EFcanc. (cases/kgintake) 0.023585 5.00E-51 0.000368 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
EFnon-canc. (cases/kgintake) 0.000385 0.005495 0.008384 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
aEF in DALYs/Kg 0.27 0.015 0.027 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
CFoutdoor in DALYs/Kg 4.36E-06 2.40E-07 3.47E-07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Substance Nonanal Ethansäure Propansäure n-Butansäure Pentanoic acid Hexanoic acid Heptanoic acid Octanoic acid Ethanol 1-butanol 1-pentanol
EFcanc. (cases/kgintake) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.000126 n/a n/a
EFnon-canc. (cases/kgintake) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.00203 n/a
aEF in DALYs/Kg n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.001449 0.005481 n/a
CFoutdoor in DALYs/Kg n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.19E-08 1.42E-07 n/a
Annika Messmer
XXIX
8 Appendix XXX
Sensitivity analysis of the impact calculation of the final disposal of PRF and MUF
Table 52: The influence of the carbon content on final disposal
MUF
TOC % 10 30 40 20 50 60
N % 33 33 33 33 33 33
H % 6 6 6 6 6 6
O % 61 31 41 11 51 1
Ash % 2 2 2 2 2 2
NHV MJ 5.91 16.12 18.53 14.80 20.93 29.82
total kgCO2 eq. 0.195 0.556 0.808 0.291 1.03 1.13
CO2 kgCO2 eq. 0.292 0.875 1.17 0.583 1.46 1.75
PRF
TOC % 10 20 30 40 50 60
N %
H % 6 6 6 6 6 6
O % 84 74 64 54 44 34
Ash % 2 2 2 2 2 2
NHV MJ 1.36 5.92 10.48 15.05 19.61 24.17
total kgCO2 eq. 0.33 0.547 0.762 0.977 1.19 1.41
CO2 kgCO2 eq. 0.328 0.959 0.984 1.31 1.64 1.97
Figure 22: The sensitivity of the impact from final disposal on the C-content of the
adhesive

8 Appendix XXXI
LCA of CLT production with MUF, PRF and PUR (ReCiPe endpoint)
Figure 23: The LCA of CLT production with MUF adhesive
Figure 24: The LCA of CLT production with PRF adhesive
Figure 25: The LCA of CLT production with PUR adhesive

View publication stats

Masterthesis Life Cycle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masterthesis Life Cycle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Life cycle assessment of adhesives used in wood constructions

Technical Report · May 2015

Multi-indicator Sustainability Assessment of Food Systems View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Prof. Dr. Stefanie Hellweg

Supervisor: Abhishek Chaudhary

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

2 Wood Adhesive and Engineered Wood Products: Literature Review 3

5 Results and Interpretation 25

MUF Melamine urea formaldehyde

PRF Phenol resorcinol formaldehyde

EWP Engineered wood products

glulam Glued laminated timber

CLT Cross Laminated Timber

MDI Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate

VOC Volatile organic compounds

ISO International organization of standardization

LCA Life cycle assessment

LCI Life cycle inventory

DALY Disability-adjusted life years

MAK Maximal work place concentration

TVA Technische Verordnung für Abfallbehandlung

Traditionally, thermosetting adhesives based on formaldehyde, such as amino-formaldehyde

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

2 Wood Adhesive and Engineered Wood Products:

2.1 Wood Adhesives

2.1.1 Natural Adhesives

2.1.2 Synthetic Adhesives

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Urea Formaldehyde (UF)

Melamine Urea Formaldehyde (MUF)

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Phenol Formaldehyde (PF)

Phenol Resorcinol Formaldehyde (PRF)

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Adhesive Application Price per kg Price per kg

2.2 Engineered Wood Products (EWP)

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Figure 4: The structure of cross laminated timber (Karacabeyli et al. , 2013)

2.3 Environmental Impact of Adhesive used in Engineered Wood Products

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Formaldehyde Formaldehyde is a VOC, which is suspected to cause irritation to the

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

2.3.1 The Methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in general

Goal and Scope

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Quantifying the environmental impact of the adhesive production (cradle to gate)

– Risk-assessment: How high are the emissions of the different adhesives

Quantify the environmental impact of the use phase

Quantifying the environmental impact of the final disposal

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

4.1 Life Cycle Assessment of Adhesive Production

4.1.1 Goal and Scope Definition

4.1.1.1 Functional Unit

First: the production of 1kg of adhesive with a solids content of 100%.

Second: the production of the amount of adhesive/hardener used in the production of

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

4.1.1.2 Description of the Production System

Master’s Thesis FS 2015 Annika Messmer

Production of PF Hardener For PF adhesive maleic anhydride is used as a hardener.

Production of PRF Hardener The hardener for PRF adhesive is paraformaldehyde,