Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Salleh2014, Referensi Kadar Pati
Salleh2014, Referensi Kadar Pati
Salleh2014, Referensi Kadar Pati
To cite this article: Kushairi Mohd Salleh, Rokiah Hashim, Othman Sulaiman, Salim Hiziroglu,
Wan Noor Aidawati Wan Nadhari, Norani Abd Karim, Nadiah Jumhuri & Lily Zuin Ping Ang (2015)
Evaluation of properties of starch-based adhesives and particleboard manufactured from them,
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 29:4, 319-336, DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2014.987362
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2015
Vol. 29, No. 4, 319–336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2014.987362
The objective of this study was to evaluate some of the mechanical and physical
properties of experimental particleboard panels manufactured from rubberwood (He-
vea brasiliensis) bonded using oil palm starch, wheat starch, and urea formaldehyde
(UF) at a density of 0.60 g/cm3. Bending characteristics, internal bond strength,
thickness swelling, and water absorptions of the samples were determined based on
Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS). Overall mechanical properties for natural binder
oil palm starch resulted in higher values than those made from wheat starch. The
highest internal-bonding strength (IB) value of 0.41 N/mm2 was determined for the
samples made from oil palm starch. Dimensional stability in the form of thickness
swelling of the samples made from oil palm starch had higher values, ranging from
4.24 to 22.84% than those manufactured from wheat starch. Natural adhesive
showed comparable strength with panels manufactured with UF. Overall results meet
the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) requirements except for water absorption and
thickness swelling of the samples.
Keywords: oil palm; rubberwood; particleboard; starch; mechanical properties
1. Introduction
Increasing demand for wood and wood products has been an important factor on how
to utilize our forest resources as sustainable as possible. Limited forest resources in
many countries are creating great interest to use underutilized wood and non-wood
resources as raw material to produce value-added products. Wood composite industry is
also considering using waste and underutilized species as raw material.
It is a well-known fact that urea formaldehyde (UF) is most widely used adhesive
in many countries, including Malaysia. Manufacturing of panel products with excellent
physical and mechanical properties at a low cost is the major advantage of UF. How-
ever, one major disadvantage of UF is its formaldehyde emission, which creates signifi-
cant health and environmental problem.
Starch is a carbohydrate abundantly present in various plant species, such as potato,
wheat, sago, and rice. Depending on the plant, starch has different chemical structure,
determined by the presence of amylose and amylopectin. Amylose forms a linear
extracted to maximize the amount of starch. The remaining residues were filtered using
a sieve with a mesh size of 100 μm in order to have a pure starch. By using Beckman
Coulter Allegra X-15R centrifuger, the filtered solution was centrifuged using four of
750 mL centrifuge bottle at 4750 rpm for 15 min at temperature of 24 °C. The starch
precipitate was removed from the centrifuge bottles and dried in a laboratory oven at a
temperature of 50 ± 2 °C approximately for 3 days. Dried extracted starch was ground
using a blender and stored at room temperature for further use.
AD OD
Moisture content ð%Þ ¼ 10 (1)
OD
For moisture sorption capacity, two grams of air-dry weights (W) of starches pow-
ders were weighed on tarred petri dish. The samples were then placed in a desiccator
filled with distilled water at room temperature. Amount of water absorbed (Wa) by the
samples after being exposed to high relative humidity for a five-day period (Wg) were
weighed.[17] Moisture sorption capacity was calculated as in Equation (2).
Wa
Moisture sorption capacity ð%Þ ¼ 100 (2)
W
For swelling capacity, starches with air-dry weight of 0.1 g (Wx) were placed in the
beaker then dispersed with 100 ml deionized water. Swollen polymer was separated by
using filter paper after 1 h.[18] The samples were weighed (Wy), and the swelling
capacity was calculated as in Equation (3).
Wy
Swelling capacity ð%Þ ¼ 100 (3)
Wx
For hydration capacity, about one gram of oil palm starch and wheat starch were
weighed (a) repetitively and then placed in a centrifuge tube and covered with 10 ml of
distilled water. Intermittently the tube was shaken for 2 h and afterwards centrifuged at
4750 rpm for 8 min. The weight of the powder after water uptake (b) was deter-
mined.[19] Hydration capacity was calculated as in Equation (4).
b
Hydration capacity ¼ (4)
a
For true density, xylene was used as the immersion fluid to determine true densities
of oil palm starch and wheat starch by the liquid displacement method.[18] True
density was calculated as in Equation (5).
322 K.M. Salleh et al.
Ws
True Density ðDtÞ ¼ (5)
ða þ Ws Þ bÞ SG
where Ws = weight of starch, a = weight of bottle + xylene, b = weight of bot-
tle + xylene + starch after liquid displacement, SG = specific gravity of xylene.
For bulk and tapped density, starch powders were weighed for 50 g (W), then
gently poured through a short-stemmed glass funnel into a 100 ml graduated cylinder.
The volume occupied by the starch powder was taken as V. Wooden surface at height
of 7 inches was prepared subsequently and the powders were tapped until no further
change in volume was observed. This volume (Vt) was taken as the tapped volume.[18]
Bulk and tapped density calculated as in Equations (6) and (7).
W
Bulk density ðBdÞ ¼ (6)
V
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
W
Tapped density ðTdÞ ¼ (7)
Vt
The powder porosity was calculated by the method of Ohwoavworhua and Adelakun
as calculated in Equation (8).[20]
Bd
Porosity ð%Þ ¼ 1 100 (8)
Dt
The compressibility index and Hausner’s ratio based on bulk density (Bd) and tapped
density (Td) was computed as in Equations (9) and (10).[18]
Td Bd
Carr index ð%Þ ¼ 100 (9)
Td
Td
Hausner ratio ¼ (10)
Bd
Electronic pH meter was used to determine pH of the starch by weighing 1 g of the
starches diluted with 100 ml of distilled water.[18] The particle size analysis was evalu-
ated using a particle size analyzer, the Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern Instruments), with a
Scirocco dry powder feeder. The particle size of the starch was measured and expressed
in micrometer (μm) units.
Starch content was determined based on previous work done by Nielsen.[21] About
2 g of oven-dry weight of starch was weighed in a beaker followed by addition of 2 ml
distilled water and 2.7 ml of 72% perchloric acid. Magnetic stirrer was used to stir the
solution for 10 min and then adjusted by adding distilled water into the beaker to get
50 ml of total solution. Supernatant formed was taken (1 ml) and transferred to a
100 ml beaker, after which, 6 ml distilled water, a drop of phenolphthalein, and a few
drops of 6 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) were added. Then, titration process proceeded
by using acetic acid until pink color in the solution disappeared before another 2.5 ml
of acetic acid being added into the solution. Next, 0.5 ml of 10% potassium iodide (KI)
and 5 ml of 0.01 N potassium iodate (KIO3) were added into the solution. The obtained
bluish solution was analyzed using UV–vis spectrophotometer at 650 nm wavelength.
To determine the starch content, a linear regression Eq. was used.
Amylose and amylopectin content of oil palm starch and wheat starch were deter-
mined based on the methodology adapted from Riley et al.[22] About 5 g of starch
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 323
was weighed and placed in an extraction thimble for extraction process to remove the
lipid content by using n-hexane as solvent. Then lipid-free starch and the extraction
thimble were air dried for 12 h before the lipid-free starch was removed from the
extraction thimble and dried in an oven at 30 °C for 24 h. Approximately 20 mg lipid-
free starch was weighed and put into the test tube and subsequently dissolved in 8 ml
of 90% dimethyl sulfoxide before being shacked for 2 min and heated in water bath at
85 °C for 15 min. Then the solution inside the test tube was diluted in 25 ml volumet-
ric flask, 1 ml of dilution solution beforehand and filled into 50 ml volumetric add with
40 ml distilled water and 5 ml iodine, then the solution was shacked and left for
15 min. Absorbance of the sample was measured by UV–vis spectrophotometer at
600 nm wavelength. Linear regression Eq. on the calibration graph was used to calcu-
late the total amylose and amylopectin content of the starch.
The determination of protein content was carried out according to the Kjeldahl’s
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
methods based on British Standard 1994a.[23] Lipid content of starches was completed
through the extraction process of starch by using n-hexane as solvent based on British
Standard 1994b.[24] For ash content, starch sample of about 1 g of air-dry weight in a
ceramic crucible was weighed and placed in a furnace until a white residue is formed.
The temperature of the furnace was slowly increased until a temperature of 525 °C was
reached. The ash content was calculated as in Equation (11).
Weight of starch residue
Ash content ð%Þ ¼ 100 (11)
Initial weight of starch sample
The basic properties that bioadhesives are comprised of are solid content, viscosity, pot
life, swelling power, and solubility, which were determined accordingly.
For solids’ content, 5 g of adhesive was taken and dried in an oven at 103 °C ± 2
for 24 h, then reweighed until it reached a constant weight which was then calculated
and expressed in percentage.[25] Viscosity of the adhesive was determined by using a
rotary rheometer (AR1000-N) taken at a shear rate of 150 s−1 at a temperature of
28 °C.[26] The pot life of the adhesive was determined by time taken for the adhesive
to become non-usable,for which the sample was left inside a beaker until the adhesive
became too thick to be spread.[27]
Swelling power and solubility of the starch were carried out with five samples of
starch dispersion (2% w/v) heated in a shaking water bath at five different temperatures
(55, 65, 75, 85, and 95 °C) for 30 min, then the samples were cooled before they were
centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 30 min. The gel and supernatant which resulted from the
centrifugation process were separated with both the supernatant and the gel being
heated in an oven at 103 °C ± 2 until they achieved their constant weight. The swelling
power and solubility of the starch were calculated and expressed in percentage.[28]
These X-rays were collimated and directed onto the sample. As the sample and detector
were rotated, the intensity of the reflected X-rays was recorded. X-rays (Cu-Kα) gener-
ated at opening voltage and current of 40 kV, and 40 mA was used to measure the scan
respectively.[5]
Number of sample
Density MC TS WA MOE IB
Raw material Binder type Number of panel MOR
Rubberwood UF 5 30 10 15 15 10 15
Rubberwood WS 5 30 10 15 15 10 15
Rubberwood OPS 5 30 10 15 15 10 15
Notes: UF, urea formaldehyde; WS, wheat starch; OPS, oil palm starch; MC, moisture content; TS, thickness
swelling; WA, water absorption; MOE, modulus of elasticity; MOR, modulus of rupture; IB, internal bond
strength.
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 325
starch had higher moisture content than wheat starch with a small difference of 11.87
and 11.61%. Moisture content in both types of starch recorded was still within the
range of commercial starch. Oil palm starch moisture content recorded in this study
was lower than 11.98% recorded in previous work by Noor et al.[14] For wheat starch,
maximum moisture content for commercial purposes is 13%, while in this work, mois-
ture content recorded was 11.61%.[30]
Moisture sorption capacity of oil palm starch was higher than wheat starch having
4.37 and 2.55%, respectively. Oil palm starch is more sensitive at high relative humid-
ity condition, thus its mirror physical stability of starch granule of oil palm starches
was less than wheat starch.[18] This suggests that oil palm starch granules were more
hygroscopic than wheat starch, to which water molecules from the environment can
easily be attached. The amount of liquid material absorbed and stored by starch was
obtained by determination of swelling capacity and hydration capacity of the starch
granules. All these two properties revealed that oil palm starch has good ability to
absorb water compared to wheat starch by having swelling capacity of 18.52% and
hydration capacity of 6.11%, both of which are higher than wheat starch’s. All these
properties have a linear relationship with moisture content recorded for both types of
starch, whereas oil palm starch had higher moisture content than wheat starch even
when both were stored at room temperature with same relative humidity.
True density, bulk density, and tapped density of the samples were also determined.
Oil palm starch had higher true density, bulk and tapped density to compare to wheat
starch by having true density of 1.41, bulk density of 0.55 g/ml and tapped density of
0.90 g/ml. These densities were calculated in order to determine porosity, Carr index,
and Hausner ratio of the starch. The porosity of oil palm starch is lower than wheat
starch, that is 60.99 and 66.42%, respectively. The Carr index and Hausner ratio corre-
lated with the flowability of the starch granule, which also reflects the viscosity of the
starch adhesive in particleboard making in this study. In viscous form, molecules slide
around each other, whereas there is high resistant to such flow lead to high viscosity of
formed adhesive. From Table 2, oil palm starch had higher Carr index and Hausner
ratio than wheat starch, that is 38.90 and 1.64% to wheat starch having 36.41 and
1.57%, respectively. Higher Carr index and Hausner ratio gave more cohesive and less
free flow of starch granules in a liquid medium leading to higher viscosity for adhesive
making.[18]
Particle size for both types of starch was shown in Figure 1. Wheat starch had an
average size of 15.75 μm, while the oil palm starch had an average size of 12.39 μm.
326 K.M. Salleh et al.
The average particle size of the oil palm starch recorded during this experiment was
smaller than previous work by Noor et al. with an average 14.6 μm.[14] This might be
due to different distribution of granules since the size range varied mainly from
(8–15 μm) for oil palm starch. Average particle size for wheat starch by Swinkels [30]
was smaller by 8 μm, which contradicted with previous work by Tomoko and Junko
[31] that ranged from 16.50 to 22.80 μm compared to 15.75 μm recorded during this
experiment. This phenomenon could be due to the polymodal characteristics most
prominent in wheat starch granules since the size range can be grouped into three types
with A-type granules (>15 μm), B-type granules (5–15 μm), and C-type granules
(<5 μm), while for oil palm-starched granules, size is more uniform with size range
more concentrated within 8–15 μm.[32] This property depicted the porosity of oil palm
starch granules, where as the size of the particle decreased, the porosity of the starch
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 327
2
Oil palm starch
0
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
0 20 40 60 80 100
Particle size ( m)
Figure 1. Particle size analysis of oil palm starch and wheat starch.
granules became less as the smaller granules tend to fill the empty space between the
granules itself leading to a lower porosity of oil palm starch compared to wheat starch.
For chemical properties, pH, percentage of amylose and amylopectin, protein con-
tent, lipid content, and ash content were determined. Acidity or basicity of the starch
was measured based on the potential of hydrogen (pH). The pH for both types of adhe-
sive was acidic. Oil palm starch was more acidic than wheat starch with values 6.48
and 6.65, respectively. The acidity behavior of both starches was compatible with the
acidity of particle’s surface, which allowed these adhesives to be attached and form
bonding with wood fibers. Finding in this study shows that wheat starch is less acidic
compared to the finding by Olayemi et al. having 6.23.[18]
Starch contents for wheat starch and oil palm starch were almost similar in this
experiment where oil palm starch is 82.07%, while wheat starch is 82.63%. Amylose
and amylopectin of the starch were determined. Oil palm starch has lower amylose con-
tent with 23.42% compared to wheat starch having 29.71% and higher amylopectin
content, than wheat starch having 76.58 and 70.29%, respectively. Amylose is an insol-
uble polysaccharide unlike amylopectin, soluble in water.[1] These properties have lin-
ear relationships with moisture sorption capacity, swelling capacity, and hydration
capacity in terms of the ability of oil palm starch to absorb more water than wheat
starch.
Protein content of oil palm starch was determined and it was found that it has a
higher percentage of 0.61% compared to that of wheat starch, which has 0.26%. Pro-
teinaceous materials encircle these starch granules which are capable of rapid swelling
upon hydration, and indirectly affect the swelling ability of starch granules of oil palm
starch and wheat starch.[33]
Lipid content of both types of binders was determined by an extraction process. Oil
palm starch had lower lipid content than wheat starch having 0.45 and 0.61%, respec-
tively. This was an agreement with the percentage of amylose content in both starches.
Starch with high amylose content will have high lipid content and vice versa. In this
case, the oil palm starch having lower amylose content thus had lower lipid content
328 K.M. Salleh et al.
contrary with wheat starch having higher amylose content with higher lipid content.
These occurrences due to the hydrophobic molecules such as lipid and aromatic com-
pound bind in loose helical amylose chains which the character of this hydrophobic
interior mirror: the hyrophobicity of amylose towards water.[1] Thus, it affects the
swelling ability of both types of starch.
Purity of the starch was determined by percentage of ash content. Wheat starch had
lower ash content than oil palm starch having 0.20 and 1.07%, respectively. Pureness
of wheat starch was excelling than oil palm starch, which showed that wheat starch
when bought from a supplier was purer compared to starch prepared in the laboratory,
but the difference was not substantial. Based on these basic properties, different sources
of starch will have dissimilar physicochemical characteristics, and it will affect the
properties of natural adhesive and properties of experimental panels.
Basic properties of natural adhesive were displayed in Table 3. Solid content of oil
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
palm starch was 8.50% higher than wheat starch. High solid content lead to higher vis-
cosity of oil palm starch adhesive by having 2310 mPas compared to wheat starch
adhesive having 1740 mPas. High viscosity of oil palm starch was an agreement with
the basic properties of the starch. Oil palm starch had higher Carr index and Hausner
ratio than wheat starch which indicates less flowability of oil palm starch compared to
wheat starch.[18] Other than that, oil palm starch had smaller average particle size
compared to wheat starch. The smaller the size of particles, the higher the number of
particles formed within the same volume proportion. Meanwhile, flow resistance
increases because of higher number of smaller sized particles, leading to higher viscos-
ity level. At low shear rates, the effect is more noticeable, as a weak force interaction
between particle–particle is more prominent.[34] Pot life of the adhesive will depend
upon the viscosity of the adhesive. As the viscosity is high, the time for adhesive to be
too thick to be spread will be decreased, thus for oil palm starch adhesive, pot life was
5 days, while for wheat starch, adhesive was 7 days. This trend showed that all these
three basic properties relate to one another as it will affect the physical and mechanical
properties of manufactured panels in this experiment.
Table 4 displays swelling power and solubility of oil palm starch and wheat starch
at five different temperatures in order to understand the characteristics of these starches
on how it affects thickness swelling and water absorption of manufactured panels. Oil
palm starch overall was higher swelling power and solubility compared to wheat starch
at all five different temperatures. These results had linear relationships with moisture
sorption capacity, swelling capacity, and hydration capacity of basic properties of
starch. All these properties showed that oil palm starch is more hydrophilic than wheat
Table 4. Swelling power and solubility of oil palm starch and wheat starch.
55 65 75 85 95
Temperature, SP SOL SP SOL SP SOL SP SOL SP SOL
°C (g/g) (%) (g/g) (%) (g/g) (%) (g/g) (%) (g/g) (%)
Oil palm 9.42 6.21 12.59 12.29 20.56 21.91 30.51 28.92 36.72 33.19
starch
Wheat starch 7.13 3.01 10.73 5.94 11.17 8.19 13.58 13.73 22.36 38.82
Note: SP, swelling power; SOL, solubility.
starch, leading to an overall higher swelling power and solubility. Early prediction can
be made as to which particleboard made with oil palm starch adhesive will have higher
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
thickness swelling, and water absorption compared to panels made with wheat starch
adhesive. Oil palm starch and wheat starch swelling and solubility characteristics
towards temperature rose as the temperature was increased. For oil palm starch, the
gradual increment of swelling and solubility was at 85 °C, while for wheat starch it
was at 95 °C. Results obtained for wheat starch and oil palm starch was consistent with
previous work by Ačkar et al. and Sulaiman et al.[13,28]
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
for oil palm starch and wheat starch both around 15°, the second peaks near 17° and
18°, and the third main refraction both having around 23°.
Reflection intensities of polycrystalline starch powder was difficult to determine as
each lattice plane present at all orientations lead to many overlapping peaks on graph.
For wheat starch, the graph plotted had similar trend with previous work by Zeng
et al., which proved the similarities of wheat starch used in this study.[35] Wheat starch
had a lower crystallinity compared to oil palm starch due to peak interpolated broaden-
ing compared to oil palm starch. Theoretically, starch with higher amylose content usu-
ally appears with lower crystallinity, which agreed with this study.[1] There was more
amorphous region for wheat starch powder with lower crystallinity index compared to
oil palm starch. In this study, high crystallinity index exhibit high mechanical strength.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
lost 8.39%, respectively. As the temperatures were raised, the derivative weights of
both starches decreased rapidly for the second stage.
The second stage end at different temperatures for both starches which take place at
378.43 °C for wheat starch with 25.45% of derivative weight remaining, while for oil
palm starch at 375.88 °C with derivative weight of 28.68%, respectively. Remaining
derivative weight for the oil palm starch is more than the wheat starch’s which con-
cludes that oil palm starch is thermally stable than wheat starch as the end of the third
stages at 800.00 °C residue left for oil palm starch having 15.58%, while for wheat
starch having 13.22%, respectively. These residues depicted the properties of ash con-
tent, whereas the higher the residues, the less purities of the starch. Anyhow, these
results showed that oil palm starch had commensurate properties with wheat starch, as
the deviation of derivative weight loss is less.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
starch is thermally stable compared to wheat starch, although the melting point difference
between the two is not large.
3.3. Relationship of basic properties of starch and adhesive with physical and
mechanical properties of particleboard panels
Table 5 displays test results of the samples. The highest MOR and MOE values of
11.27 and 2107.43 N/mm2 were found for the samples made from UF as a binder. The
lowest corresponding values were 10.55 and 1844.86 N/mm2 for the panel manufac-
tured using wheat starch as a binder. Overall bending properties of panels made with
oil palm starch and UF have comparable strength higher than those of panels’ bonded
with wheat starch. Internal bonding strength values of the samples followed a similar
trend as bending properties. Panels bonded with oil palm starch and UF resulted in the
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
highest IB value of 0.41 N/mm2. Rubberwood bonded with wheat starch had the lowest
IB value of 0.30 N/mm2.
In general, panels bonded with oil palm starch had better mechanical properties
than wheat starch. This result was in agreement with basic properties of starch and
adhesive used in this study as portrayed in Tables 2 and 3. Smaller particle size was
the main reason why oil palm starch had better mechanical properties than wheat
starch. As the size of the particle is smaller, they have a higher number of particle and
thus, the probability to form bonding with increasingly with the surface area of starch
granules leading to higher formation of hydrogen bonding between starch granules and
starch–rubberwood particles.
Essentially, the increasing number of interactions between oil palm starch granules
creates an adhesive formulation with higher viscosity. In addition, the uniformity of oil
palm starch granules in terms of size distribution also is one of the main factors leading
to higher mechanical properties of oil palm starch in particleboard making. Wheat starch
granules can be grouped into three types of size range from A-type, B-type, and C-type
so it had wider size distribution compared to oil palm starch.[32] Essentially, a larger
amount of free space to roam with a wide particle distribution of wheat starch, thus
adhesive flow becomes easier resulting in lower viscosity of wheat starch adhesive.
resulting panels made with oil palm starch adhesive having better mechanical properties
compared to panels made with wheat starch adhesive. High solid contents of oil palm
starch is due to a higher number of granules’ particle in a constant volume fraction
since it had smaller particle size than wheat starch.
It appears that combination of binders under heat and temperature during press
resulted in a well-developed bonding between the particles. In a previous study, using
rubberwood blended with modified corn starch as a binder having a density of 0.60 g/
cm3 resulted in the highest MOR of 9.85 N/mm2, MOE of 1967.07 N/mm2, and IB of
0.62 N/mm2, which were lower than mechanical properties found in this study except
for internal bonding strength properties.[16] This revealed that natural starch adhesives
had a comparable strength with UF as a binder, especially as in the case of panels of
rubberwood particle made with oil palm starch.
The difference of mechanical strength of natural binders with control panels was
not much different ranging from 6.39% for bending properties to 26.83% for internal
bonding strength. It appears that starch-based binders can have a potential to replace or
at least to reduce the use of formaldehyde-based adhesive as the mechanical properties.
All mechanical properties of Type-8 panels in this work met the requirements of
Japanese International Standard.[29]
For physical properties of particleboard, moisture content of the panels blended
with oil palm starch had the highest value of 5.57%. Lowest moisture content was of
panels made with UF followed by wheat starch panels with values 5.00 and 5.29%,
respectively. All manufactured panels were made on same pressing time and tempera-
ture then stored at condition room with same period before testing was proceeded.
These values showed that different types of binder would affect the dimensional proper-
ties of manufactured panels. This phenomenon had a similar trend with dimensional
stability properties of manufactured panels as shown in Table 5. The highest thickness
swelling and water absorption values of 71.74 and 142.18% were found for the samples
blended with oil palm starch as a binder.
Dimensional stability of particleboard blended with oil palm starch had higher val-
ues compared to those of particleboard blended with UF and wheat starch. Basic prop-
erties portrayed on Table 2 showed that oil palm starch had higher moisture sorption
capacity of 4.37% compared to 2.55% of wheat starch’s. These values explain why
panels made from oil palm starch had higher moisture content, thickness swelling, and
water absorption than wheat starch panels, as the hydrophobic character of oil palm
starch was more obtrusive than wheat starch. This result was in agreement with the
swelling power test done towards oil palm starch and wheat starch’s. Oil palm starch
334 K.M. Salleh et al.
had higher swelling power compared to wheat starch resulting panels made with oil
palm starch recorded higher number of thickness swelling, and water absorption com-
pared to wheat starch.
Other than that, chemical compositions of oil palm starch and wheat starch are also
responsible for dissimilarity of physical values of manufactured panels. Oil palm starch
had lower amylose and lipid content along with higher protein content, which makes it
more hydrophilic than wheat starch as all these chemical compositions play an impor-
tant role in the hydrophilic character of adhesive formulation. The lowest corresponding
values for thickness swelling and water absorptions were 22.84 and 48.90%, for the
panel manufactured having UF as a binder. The difference of thickness swelling and
water absorption determined between UF binder and natural adhesive were significant
from each other ranging from 55 to 174%.
All particleboard manufactured with natural adhesive had higher values of moisture
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
content, thickness swelling, and water absorption compared to UF resulted from the
nature of the starch itself, which is hydrophilic where it tends to absorb water, thus the
bonding formed between particles, particle–starch and starch–starch is easily broken.[1]
Physical properties of the panels made in this study did not meet the requirements of
Japanese International Standard except for moisture content, which is in the range of
5–12%.[29] The panels produced can be used for interior applications with certain limi-
tations due to the poor dimensional stability. These dimensional stability problems of
the panels can be overcome by several techniques, which are chemical and steam-post
treatment on particles, replace rubberwood particle with fewer hygroscopic materials,
starch modification, and lamination of particleboard surface as proposed in the previous
study.[26,37,38]
4. Conclusions
All mechanical properties of manufactured panels met the requirements of Japanese
Industrial Standard (JIS), but none of the physical properties met the requirements
except moisture content of manufactured particleboards. Particleboards manufactured
with oil palm starch had better mechanical properties, but poor dimensional stability
than those panels made from wheat starch. Oil palm starch had smaller particle size,
more hydrophilic, lower flowability, more acidic, lower amylose and lipid content,
along with higher protein and ash content compared to wheat starch. Basic properties
of starch and adhesive play an important role, as they can predict the final properties of
mechanical and physical properties of manufactured panels. Natural adhesive can
replace or at least reduce the amount of UF binders in particleboard making, as the
mechanical properties resulted in this work revealed that panels with such adhesives
enhanced mechanical properties at a certain extent. Natural adhesive still cannot surpass
dimensional stability of particleboards manufactured with UF binder due to the hydro-
philic characteristics of starch. It seems that natural adhesive need to have some modifi-
cation in order to enhance its hydrophobic characteristics to get a desirable dimensional
stability of manufacture panels.
Funding
The authors want to acknowledge Universiti Sains Malaysia for the research grant [grant number
1001/PTEKIND/815,066], PRGS Grant [grant number 1001/PTEKIND/844,104], and for Fellow-
ship grant awarded to Kushairi Mohd Salleh. Thanks also to Heveaboard Sdn Bhd for providing
raw materials to be used in this study.
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 335
References
[1] Robyt JF. Starch: structure, properties, chemistry, and enzymology. In: Fraser-Reid B, Tatsu-
ta K, Thiem J, editors. Glycoscience. Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2008. p. 1437–1472.
ISBN 978-3-540-36154-1.
[2] Basiron Y. In: Shahidi F, editor. Palm Oil. Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products. Hoboken
(NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
[3] Malaysia Palm Oil Board. Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry; 2011 [cited 29
January 2014]. Available from: http://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?q=Overview+of+the+
Malaysian+oil+palm+industry+2011&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
[4] Ng FY, Yew FK, Basiron Y, Sundram K. A renewable future driven with Malaysian palm
oil-based green technology. J. Oil Palm Environ. 2011;2:1–7.
[5] Baskaran M, Hashim R, Said N, Raffi SM, Balakrishnan K, Sudesh K, Sulaiman O, Arai T,
Kosugi A, Mori Y, Sugimoto T, Sato M. Properties of binderless particleboard from oil palm
trunk with addition of polyhydroxyalkanoates. Composites Part B. 2012;43:1109–1116.
[6] Hashim R, Saari N, Sulaiman O, Sugimoto T, Hiziroglu S, Sato M, Tanaka R. Effect of par-
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
ticle geometry on the properties of binderless particleboard manufactured from oil palm
trunk. Mater. Des. 2010;31:4251–4257.
[7] Hashim R, Said N, Lamaming J, Baskaran M, Sulaiman O, Sato M, Hiziroglu S, Sugimoto
T. Influence of press temperature on the properties of binderless particleboard made from oil
palm trunk. Mater. Des. 2011;32:2520–2525.
[8] Mhd Ramle SF, Sulaiman O, Hashim R, Arai T, Kosugi A, Abe H, Murata Y, Mori Y.
Characterization of parenchyma and vascular. Lignocellulose J. 2012;1:33–44.
[9] Abe H, Murata Y, Kubo S, Watanabe K, Tanaka R, Sulaiman O, Hashim R, Mhd Ramle SF,
Zhang C, Noshiro S. Estimation of the ratio of vascular bundles to parenchyma tissue in oil
palm trunks using NIR spectroscopy. BioResources. 2013;8:1573–1581.
[10] Lim S, Gan K. Characteristics and utilization of oil palm stem. Timber Technol. Bull.
2005;35:81–96.
[11] Henson I, Chang K, Siti Nor Aishah M, Chai SH, Hasnuddin MY, Zakaria A. The oil palm
trunk as a carbohydrate reserve. J. Oil Palm Res. 1999;11:98–113.
[12] Killmann W, Lim S. Anatomy and properties of oil palm stem. In: Proceedings of The
National Symposium of Oil Palm By-Product for Agro Bases Industrie; Kuala Lumpur: Insi-
tute of Malaysia; 1985. p. 18–42.
[13] Sulaiman NS, Hasim R, Amini MHM, Sulaiman O, Hiziroghu S. Evaluation of the proper-
ties of particleboard made using oil palm starch modified with epichlorohydrin. BioRe-
sources. 2012;8:283–301.
[14] Noor M, Azemi M, Mohd D, Manan A, Islam M, Mehat NA. Physico-chemical properties
of oil palm trunk starch. Starch-Stärke. 1999;51:293–301.
[15] El-Wakil NA, Abou-Zeid RE, Fahmy Y, Mahamed AY. Modified wheat gluten as a binder
in particleboard made from reed. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2007;106:3592–3599.
[16] Amini MH, Hashim R, Hiziroglu S, Sulaiman NS, Sulaiman O. Properties of particleboard
made from rubberwood using modified starch as binder. Composites Part B. 2013;50:259–
264.
[17] Ohwoavworhua FO, Kunle OO, Ofoefule SI. Extraction and characterization of microcrys-
talline cellulose derived from Luffa cylindrica plant. Afr. J. Pharm. Sci. 2004;1:1–6.
[18] Olayemi OJ, Oyi AR, Allagh TS. Comparative evaluation of maize, rice and wheat starch
powders as pharmaceutical excipients. Niger. J. Pharm. Sci. 2008;7:131–138.
[19] Kornblum SS, Stoopak SB. A new tablet disintegrant agent: Crooslinked Polyvinylpyrolli-
done. J. Pharm. Sci. 1973;62:43–49.
[20] Ohwoavworhua FO, Adelakun TA. Some physical characteristics of microcrystalline cellu-
lose obtained from raw cotton of Cochlospermum planchonii. Trop. J. Pharm. Res.
2005;4:501–507.
[21] Nielsen JP. Rapid determination of starch content. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1943;15:176–179.
[22] Riley CK, Wheatley AO, Asemota HN. Isolation and characterization of starches from eight
Dioscerea alata cultivars grown in Jamaica. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2006;5:1528–1536.
[23] British Standard. Starches and derived products – determination of nitrogen content by the
kjeldahl method – spectrometric method. London: British Standard Institution; 1994.
[24] British Standard. Starches, native or modified- determination of total fat content. London:
British Standard Institution; 1994.
336 K.M. Salleh et al.
[25] Chew LT, Wong WC, Midon M, Matsumoto T. A study on the properties of synthetic adhe-
sives available in Peninsular Malaysia. J. Trop. For. Sci. 1988;3:196–203.
[26] Jyothi AN, Moorthy SN, Rajasekharan KN. Effect of cross-linking with epichlorohydrin on
the properties of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) starch. Starch-Stärke. 2006;58:292–
299.
[27] Cognard P. Handbook of Adhesives and Sealants. Vol. 511. United Kingdom: Elsevier;
2005. p. 398.
[28] Ačkar Đ, Babić J, Šubarić D, Kopjar M, Miličević B. Isolation of starch from two wheat
varieties and their modification with epichlorohydrin. Carbohydr. Polym. 2010;81:76–82.
[29] Japanese Industrial Standard. Japanese Industrial Standard for particleboard JIS A 5908. Jep-
ang: Japanese Standard Association; 2003.
[30] Swinkels JJM. Composition and properties of commercial native starches. Starch - Stärke.
1985;37:1–5.
[31] Hashim R, Nadhari WNAW, Sulaiman O, Kawamura F, Hiziroglu S, Sato M, Sugimoto T,
Seng TG, Tanaka R. Characterization of raw materials and manufactured binderless particle-
board from oil palm biomass. Mater. Des. 2011;32:246–254.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 10:52 04 January 2015
[32] Wilson JD, Bechtel DB, Todd TC, Seib PA. Measurement of wheat starch granule size dis-
tribution using image analysis and laser diffraction technology. Cereal Chem. 2006;83:259–
268.
[33] Juhani O, Chokyun R. Gelatinisation of starch and wheat flour starch - A review. Food
Chem. 1978;3:293–317.
[34] Johansen A, Schæfer T. Effects of interactions between powder particle size and binder vis-
cosity on agglomerate growth mechanisms in a high shear mixer. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci.
2001;12:297–309.
[35] Zeng J, Li G, Gao H, Ru Z. Comparison of A and B starch granules from three wheat varie-
ties. J. Mol. 2011;16:10570–10591.
[36] Hoseney RC, Atwell WA, Lineback DR. Functional (breadmaking) and biochemical proper-
ties of wheat flour components. Cereal Chem. 1971;48:191.
[37] Heebink B, Hefty F. Steam post-treatments to reduce thickness swelling of particleboard.
Note FPL–RN–0187. Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory; 1968.
[38] Medved S, Diporovic-Momcilovic M, Popovic M, Antonovic A, Jembrekovic V. Dimensional
stability of particleboards. First Serbian Forestry Congress-Future with Forests; 2011. Vol. 11.
p. 1538.