Abstract
Purpose of Review
Conventional formaldehyde-based adhesives for wood-based composite panels are subject to significant concerns due to their formaldehyde emissions. Over the past decade, the wood adhesive industry has undergone a considerable transformation that is characterized by a major push in bio-adhesive development. Various bio-based materials have been explored to create alternatives to conventional formaldehyde-based adhesives. Moreover, growing interest in circularity has led to increasingly exploiting industrial coproducts and by-products to find innovative solutions.
Recent Findings
Industrial production generates many coproducts that can serve as renewable resources to produce eco-friendly materials. These coproducts offer alternative supply sources for material production without encroaching on food production. Many bio-based compounds or coproducts, such as saccharides, proteins, tannins, and lignocellulosic biomass, can also be used to develop bio-based adhesives. As part of ongoing efforts to reduce formaldehyde emissions, new hardeners and crosslinkers are being developed to replace formaldehyde and bio-scavengers. Other alternatives, such as binderless panels, are also emerging.
Summary
This review focuses on sources of bio-based material derived from by-products of various industries, which have many advantages and disadvantages when incorporated into adhesives. Modification methods to enhance their properties and performance in wood-based panels are also discussed. Additionally, alternatives for developing low-emission or formaldehyde-free adhesives are addressed, including hardeners, bio-scavengers, and binderless options. Finally, the environmental impact of bio-based adhesives compared to that of synthetic alternatives is detailed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Many international organizations have described the health risks associated with formaldehyde emissions (FEs), including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Indeed, IARC classified formaldehyde as a Group 1 carcinogen for humans in 2004 [1]. In 2010, the WHO established an indoor air quality guideline for short- and long-term exposure to formaldehyde of 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08 ppm) for all 30-min periods at lifelong exposure [2]. In the United States, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) implemented a measure in 2009 to control airborne toxic substances and limit FEs from composite wood products sold in California. Canada subsequently aligned its regulations with the those of United States to protect human health and the Canadian economy. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act established maximum emission levels for formaldehyde from composite wood products, which range from 0.05 to 0.13 ppm depending on the type of product [3]. Conventional adhesives are the primary target of these regulations. These adhesives include phenol–formaldehyde (PF), urea–formaldehyde (UF), melamine–formaldehyde (MF), and polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate (pMDI) resins. While these adhesives are cost-effective and perform well in terms of bonding ability, mechanical properties, thermal stability, and water resistance, stricter regulations are driving industries and researchers to develop new bio-based adhesives to meet the growing demand for healthier and more environmentally friendly products. There has been a substantial increase in the number of scientific papers investigating bio-based adhesives for wood-based composite panels (WBCPs) since 1990. There were approximately 60 papers on the topic in 2000, and more than 500 in 2022. This surge can be primarily attributed to the implementation of new FE regulations worldwide and growing interest in using bio-based and renewable products as alternatives to petroleum-derived products. Various sources of plant- and animal-based raw materials are being explored to produce low-emission or formaldehyde-free bio-based adhesives. These materials include lignocellulosic compounds, tannins, plant- or animal-based proteins, saccharides, and starch. This review summarizes recent advances in bio-based adhesives for WBCP manufacturing, and the environmental impacts and current challenges associated with such adhesives.
Overview of the WBCP/Adhesive Market
Many types of WBCPs exist for a variety of applications. This section reports on particleboard (PB), medium-density fiberboard (MDF), oriented strand board (OSB), plywood, and their conventional adhesives. The main adhesive systems used in the particleboard and MDF industry are UF, MF, melamine-urea–formaldehyde (MUF), PF, and pMDI. UF adhesives are the thermosetting resins most commonly used to produce plywood and other interior-grade WBCPs (PB and MDF), and represent nearly 85% of all aminic resins manufactured globally, with an annual volume of around 11 million tons. Global production of UF-bonded MDF exceeds 100 million cubic meters per year. Over 90% of WBCPs produced worldwide are made with UF adhesives [4]. The forest products industry utilizes UF resin extensively, accounting for 61% in particleboard, 27% in MDF, and 5% in hardwood plywood production. Additionally, it serves as a laminating adhesive (7%) for bonding furniture overlays to panels and interior flush doors [5]. The WBCPs used in outdoor applications, like plywood and OSB, are produced with hydrolytically stable resins like PF (plywood, OSB) and pMDI (OSB) [6, 7].
Recent Developments in Bio-based Adhesives
Utilization of Renewable Natural Resources
Valorization of Industrial Coproducts and Bio-waste
Several renewable natural materials are at the forefront of new bio-based adhesive developments for WBCPs [8]. Nevertheless, a significant portion of these natural materials is derived from intensive agriculture or unsustainable production practices, or in direct competition with resources intended for human or animal consumption. This section details the process of valorizing industrial coproducts and bio-waste, whose sources are set out in Fig. 1. This process involves diverting these resources from their usual path towards the landfill or incinerator and thus reduces a significant cost burden for the industries that are responsible for their disposal.
-
–Marine Biowaste
During commercial processing, the seafood industry produces substantial solid discards and by-products, constituting up to 60% proteins on a dry-weight basis [9,10,11,12]. These proteins include myofibrillar protein, collagen, enzymes, and soluble nitrogenous compounds [9]. Chitin, the second most abundant polysaccharide in nature, is sourced from crustacean exoskeletons, notably shrimp shell waste [13].
-
–Wood Residues
Wood compounds, such as lignin, tannins, and cellulose, can be readily extracted from wood processing residues [14,15,16]. In fact, for every 2.4 m3 of lumber produced, sawmills collect around 907 kg of sawdust, shavings, slabs, and edgings. About 75% of this material is wood leftovers, while the remaining 25% is bark. [14]. These wood residues can be used to generate energy; manufacture WBCPs, pulp, and paper; and produce various bio-products, including bio-adhesives for WBCPs [17].
-
–Agricultural Industry
Agricultural waste poses a considerable challenge, as humans annually generate 150 billion metric tons through intensive farming, harvesting, cultivation, and industrial practices [18,19,20]. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of this waste is improperly disposed of through random burning or landfilling, leading to environmental pollution. However, efforts towards sustainability are being made, particularly by using agricultural biowaste such as starch, cellulose, and protein to produce natural biopolymers [18].
-
–Agri-Food Industry
Agri-food by-products, such as discarded fruits and vegetables, seeds, leaves, peels, and forest residues, are potential sources of high-value bioactive molecules such as tannins. Furthermore, the main sources of protein derived from biowaste and by-products from the agri-food industry include wheat, potato, corn, soy, rapeseed, and sunflower [21,22,23].
-
–Dairy Coproducts
In the dairy sector, milk processing yields numerous by-products, that could represent potential environmental concerns if not disposed of properly. Among these, the cheese industry stands out for producing the most significant and environmentally impactful by-product: whey. Nevertheless, there has been significant focus in recent decades on the valorization of whey and its by-products, driven by the rising demand for protein-rich products. However, the increased production of whey protein products worldwide means there has also been an increase in the production of by-products from these processes, such as whey permeates, which are mainly composed of lactose [24]. Aside from the usual by-products resulting from standard milk processing, significant quantities of milk are occasionally discarded due to non-compliance with food industry safety standards or surplus production. This discarded milk contains valuable components like casein, whey protein, and lactose, presenting promising prospects as a raw material for various applications [25].
-
–Slaughterhouse – Blood, Chicken Feathers
Chicken feather waste, a material whose global annual production in the poultry industry represents 65 million tons, is primarily dumped, buried, or burned. However, this biowaste could be a promising source of value-added products [26] such as the protein keratin, which has a unique structure. Its high disulfide bond content means its crosslinking can be broken and re-established [27,28,29]. Blood is one of the poultry industry’s main by-products, and it is usually underutilized due to high disposal cost. The unsafe and improper disposal of such waste can lead to tremendous environmental pollution and associated health challenges. Many slaughterhouses opt to dispose of poultry blood in landfills, which leads to this protein source being underutilized.
-
–Other
While insects are considered a dietary staple in certain cultures, they are generally regarded as unwanted pests or an unhealthy food option in many regions due to their potential consumption of toxic plants or as they live in pesticide-treated environments [21]. García et al. investigated the potential of using black soldier fly larvae as a new alternative to protein-based adhesives and a viable substitute for UF resin in particleboard production [30].
Biopolymer Extraction: Traditional vs. Green Processes
Considerable resources have been devoted to developing simple, cost-effective approaches to extract biopolymers from waste biomass. Various solvents and extraction techniques, including high-pressure and high-temperature techniques, supercritical fluids, ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction, as well as enzymatic treatments, have been suggested to more efficiently retrieve valuable compounds. Traditional organic solvents such as diethyl ether, N,N-dimethylformamide, ethanol, hexane, toluene, and their aqueous solutions are commonly used as extractants. Nevertheless, many solvent-based extraction methods are criticized for being inefficient due to their prolonged extraction/purification times and the fact that they need a substantial volume of solvent per sample, which results in a considerable amount of toxic waste being generated [31]. For example, conventional chitin extraction using outdated chemical processes necessitates large quantities of hazardous chemicals (NaOH and HCl) that generate residues and requires lots of water in each process stage for neutralization and washing [32]. However, a variety of methods have been developed that successfully use environmentally friendly techniques to extract chitin and chitosan from various sources. These methods include ionic liquids, deep eutectic solvents, microbial fermentation, enzyme-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, ultrasonic-assisted extraction, subcritical water extraction, and electrochemical extraction [32, 33].
Technologies for Modifying Natural Compounds and Their Bio-Based Adhesives
A comprehensive summary of the technologies that are employed to modify lignin and proteins is provided in Table 1. Many lignin modification methods, such as demethylation, hydroxymethylation, phenolation, and oxidation, have been reported to effectively improve lignin’s reactivity. For example, demethylation is an effective prospective method whereby phenolic hydroxyl groups are generated under mild reaction conditions through the conversion of aromatic methoxy groups. Consequently, the lignin has more reactive sites, with a higher proportion of catechol moieties, which enhances its reactivity [34]. Furthermore, various protein modification methods exist, including thermal, chemical, enzymatic, and mechanical techniques. Protein modification enhances the water resistance and bonding strength of protein molecules by exposing specific functional groups. Modification occurs by breaking down the primary protein structure, which reduces the molecular size of the protein and results in reactive amino and carboxyl groups being exposed [35, 36].
-
–Carbohydrates: Starch, Chitosan, Sucrose, and Others
Three types of carbohydrates exist, namely monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, galactose), disaccharides (e.g., lactose, sucrose, maltose), and polysaccharides [53, 54]. Starch is a polysaccharide composed of D-glucose units (glucopyranose), with amylose and amylopectin as its primary biopolymers. The properties of starch-based adhesives hinge on the ratio of amylose to amylopectin. Due to carbohydrate molecules’ polar structure, carbohydrate adhesives typically absorb considerable amounts of water, leading to weakened and poor wet bond strength. Modifying agents are commonly incorporated for two main purposes: to induce gelatinization by breaking down starch before application and to directly alter the starch structure.
Chemical modification by crosslinking, grafting copolymerization, oxidation, esterification, and etherification, among other methods, has been employed to improve the performance of starch-based adhesives. Typically, starch-based adhesives are produced through esterification or transesterification reactions, where the hydroxyl groups of starch are replaced with larger functional groups derived from free fatty acids or their derivatives. Acid hydrolysis of starch leads to a reduction in its molecular weight as it breaks down into amylose and amylopectin [55]. To minimize hydrogen interaction and enhance the mechanical properties of starch-based adhesives, the hydroxyl groups within starch molecules can be oxidized to carbonyl and carboxyl groups. [56]. Graft-modifying starch with hexyl acrylate or glycidyl methacrylate is expected to improve its hydrophobicity [57].
Chitosan, consisting of β-(1,4)-linked 2-acetamido-2-deoxy-d-glucopyranose and 2-amino-2-deoxy-d-glucopyranose units, is obtained from chitin via deacetylation using alkaline treatment. A significant drawback of chitosan solutions in the adhesive is their rapid solidification within seconds when mixed with reactive low-molecular-weight aldehydes (such as formaldehyde, glyoxal, and glutaraldehyde) used as hardeners. This characteristic makes it impossible to spread them onto the wood surfaces. [58]. Chitosan, rich in hydroxyl and amino groups, exhibits strong chemical reaction abilities in terms of intramolecular and intermolecular hydrogen bond formation. Chitosan can undergo crosslinking with acids such as citric and boric acid, along with aldehydes like glyoxal and glutaraldehyde, to improve adhesive’s strength and moisture resistance [59]. Furthermore, chitosan can be chemically modified thanks to its amino and primary and secondary hydroxyl active groups, as shown in Fig. 2 [60]. Several chemical modifications can occur, such as Schiff base modification, carboxylation, alkylation, acylation, quaternization, graft modification and crosslinking.
Sucrose-based adhesive crafted by ester linkages with citric acid and sucrose has been shown to exhibit excellent performance on particleboard. Nonetheless, the challenge associated with esterifying hydroxyl and carboxyl groups prompted the utilization of high press temperature (200 °C) and extended press time (10 min) to ensure effective adhesive curing. An alternative method involves thermally degrading sucrose to obtain 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (5-HMF) [61]. Indeed, dehydrating carbohydrates, particularly monosaccharides and oligosaccharides, can yield 5-HMF and other furan compounds under acidic conditions. The sucrose’s glycosidic linkage undergoes cleavage in the presence of acid, such as citric acid, producing fructose and glucose compounds. Subsequently, under hot pressing conditions, these compounds are converted into 5-HMF through dehydration mechanisms. This research underscores the various approaches that can be used to optimize sucrose-based adhesives for different applications and considers both esterification and thermal degradation pathways [62]. As Song et al. studied, sucrose can be oxidized by an oxidant such as sodium permanganate (KMnO4), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), sodium periodate (NaIO4), ammonium persulfate ((NH4)2S2O8) or ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) to obtain bio-based aldehydes [61]. Song et al. demonstrated that (NH4)2S2O8 successfully oxidizes native sucrose and that the hydroxyl groups are transformed into carbonyl or carboxyl groups. In their experiments, the products of oxidized sucrose included formaldehyde, glyoxal, formic acid, ethanedioic acid, and oxaloacetic acid. Then, the oxidized sucrose reacted with hexanediamine by Schiff base reaction and amide reaction [61]. Moreover, Zhang et al. developed wood adhesives derived from biomass that showcased excellent bonding properties and water resistance. They used sodium periodate as an oxidant at a low reaction temperature (50 °C) to treat carbohydrates like glucose, sucrose, and starch. The treatment resulted in the formation of solutions containing biomass-derived aldehydes. The authors then prepared three distinct resins—oxidized glucose-hexamethylenediamine, oxidized sucrose-hexamethylenediamine, and oxidized starch-hexamethylenediamine—through a Schiff base reaction with the solutions and hexamethylenedimine [63].
-
–Tannins: Bio-Based Adhesive Formulations
Tannins are another renewable material that can serve as bio-based adhesive in WBCP manufacturing. Tannins can be classified into two types: hydrolyzable and condensed tannins. Hydrolyzable tannins find application in the leather industry, whereas condensed tannins are employed in adhesive synthesis due to their unique chemical composition. Derived from the polymerization of flavanol monomers, condensed tannins possess phenolic hydroxyl groups and exhibit high reactivity attributed to the resorcinol and phloroglucinol functionality in their structure. Among condensed tannins, mimosa bark, quebracho heartwood, and pine bark tannins have been subject to extensive research for the development of bio-based adhesives [8, 64].
However, their utilization is limited due to their high viscosity and poor water resistance, attributed to the presence of hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions within their structure. Tannin-based resins form a crosslinked structure by autocondensation or crosslinking. Tannin autocondensation reactions occur through the generation of ions along the polymeric chain in an acidic or basic environment and are initiated by opening the flavonoid repeating unit. Subsequently, these structures interact with other tannin chains through ionic polycondensation. Furthermore, incorporating a crosslinker in tannin-based resin has been shown to increase its mechanical strength, such as internal bonding (IB). Innovations in crosslinkers and hardeners are detailed in the next section. A range of crosslinkers, such as hexamethylenetetramine, hexamine, trishydroxymethyl nitromethane, glyoxal, glutaraldehyde, phthaldialdehyde, caprolactam, chitosan, dicyandiamide, citric acid, maleic anhydride, phthalic acid, furfural, and furfuryl alcohol, have been explored as hardeners for tannin-based resins [64,65,66,67]. Moreover, hybrid tannin-based adhesives are commonly used in WBCPs such as PB and plywood. Furanic derivatives, such as 5-HMF produced from the conversion of sucrose during hot pressing, have been used as crosslinkers in tannin resin formulations [68, 69]. Another bioresource that is frequently studied with tannins is starch. Tannins have been proven to help address the drawbacks associated with starch, including inadequate water resistance, limited shelf life, high viscosity, and low mechanical properties. Incorporating starch makes it possible to utilize less tannin in resin synthesis [70, 71]. Moreover, using tannins with soy protein and lignin has been investigated in many studies [71,72,73].
Low-emission and Formaldehyde-free Adhesives
Innovations in Hardeners and Crosslinkers
Acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, n-butyraldehyde, glyoxylic acid, glycolaldehyde, and vanillin can be used as crosslinkers instead of formaldehyde in adhesives. Partial substitution of formaldehyde by n-butyraldehyde has been shown to improve the water resistance of the adhesive [74]. The non-volatile aldehyde glyoxal is utilized in adhesives such as protein-glyoxal and lignin-glyoxal resins for WBCPs [75, 76]. Studies have demonstrated that glyoxal is less reactive than formaldehyde. Dimethoxyethanal (DME), an aldehyde derived from glyoxal, is a non-toxic compound employed in the production of WBCPs. DME can effectively be used as a substitute for formaldehyde in melamine and urea resins with a single formyl group. Although DME reacts with melamine and urea in a similar pH range as formaldehyde, it is notably less reactive [77]. Glutaraldehyde is an effective crosslinking agent for proteins thanks to its ability to react with amino groups [6]. Glycolaldehyde (GA), which is derived by cracking glucose, has been tested as a potential substitute for formaldehyde in UF adhesives. However, Sandahl et al. showed that it is not a good substitute for formaldehyde in UF resins. The low bond strength and water solubility urea-GA resins have been found to exhibit, which may be attributable in part to the incomplete polymerization of the resin and the hydrophilic nature of the hydroxyl group in GA, render GA-based resins more hydrophilic than formaldehyde-based adhesives [78]. Low-mass furanic compounds like furfuraldehyde, furfuryl alcohol, and 5-HMF are derived by treating carbohydrates such as polysaccharides, gums, and sugars with acid [79]. Furthermore, the acid-catalyzed dehydration of hexoses, such as D-Glucose or D-Fructose, leads to 5-HMF (see Fig. 3) [80]. However, resins that contain a furanic compound as a substitute for formaldehyde require longer press times and high press temperatures (180 °C for 5-HMF and 130 °C for furfural) to cure because these bio-based aldehydes are less reactive.
Bio-Scavengers
Adding bio-based additives such as tannins, lignin, starch, wheat flour, and rice husk flour, or other compounds such as starch derivatives, charcoal, pozzolan, and zeolites to resin is an eco-friendly way to decrease FEs from WBCPs [81]. Bark flour from tree species with high polyphenol content (walnut, chestnut, fir, and spruce) also exhibit formaldehyde-scavenging properties. Adding mimosa and birch bark to UF adhesives is an inexpensive solution for valorizing bark on an industrial level as a bio-based formaldehyde scavenger [82, 83]. Moreover, chitosan is a biodegradable and eco-friendly scavenger that reduces FEs. Chitosan powder was found to have greater formaldehyde adsorption capacity than chitosan solution [59]. The reaction between chitosan amino groups and formaldehyde carbonyls results in the reduction of FE [84]. Various nano-adsorbents for formaldehyde, most of which are polysaccharide-based, have been developed in this context. Shalbafan et al. specifically prepared chitosan grafted with 3-[2-(2-aminoethylamino)ethylamino]propyl-trimethoxysilane (AAAPTMS) and chitosan nanoparticles to increase formaldehyde adsorption efficiency. They showed that their MDF panels' overall FEs decreased when 1% chitosan-based adsorbents were added to the UF resin. Furthermore, chitosan's amino reactive sites mean grafting and many other modifications such as alkylation, hydroxy alkylation, carboxy alkylation, sulfation, thiolation, phosphorylation, acylation, and acidic or enzymatic depolymerization can be performed under mild reaction conditions to create new functionalized derivatives [85]. Primary or secondary amine group-containing scavengers, including urea, ammonia, and melamine, are widely employed and cost-effective for reducing FE. Their efficiency stems from their ability to react with free formaldehyde in the resin and hydrolyzed formaldehyde in the panel. Therefore, proteins, which are composed of amino acids, can be used as scavengers and reduce the FEs from WBCPs [86]. Liu et al. developed formaldehyde scavenger microcapsules to prepare ultra-low-FE particleboard. Their results showed that a microencapsulated formaldehyde scavenger prepared by emulsification crosslinking with chitosan as the wall material and urea as the core material can effectively control formaldehyde release over 180 days. Compared to their control panel, their particleboard containing the scavenger microcapsules reduced FEs by 51.4% at 28 days and 25.8% at 180 days. It is worth noting, however, that introducing microcapsules had an adverse impact on the particleboard's physical and mechanical properties [87]. The use of nanocellulose modified with aminosilane (3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, APTES) as a formaldehyde scavenger in UF resin was studied. Kawalerczyk et al. showed that functionalizing nanocellulose with APTES results in a reduction in FEs [88]. Dukarska et al. investigated adding pine needles as a formaldehyde scavenger to UF resin using the same principle. Since non-modified needles negatively impact the bonding quality of plywood, they modified the pine needles with APTES and hydrothermal treatment. Their study showed that applying hydrothermal treatment and silanization to the pine needles improved the plywood's bonding quality, increased its shear strength, reduced its tendency to delaminate after the aging test, and significantly reduced its FEs [89]. The effectiveness of green tea in reducing FE was also confirmed in a study, where green tea leaves were used as a filler in plywood [90].
Nanocellulose-reinforced Wood Adhesives
Adding the sustainable and low-cost bio-nanomaterial nanocellulose (NC), either as cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) or cellulose nanofibers (CNFs), into formaldehyde-based adhesives for WBCPs can increase the mechanical and physical properties of the panels while also reducing their FEs [91]. However, NC's use as adhesive reinforcement is limited because it significantly increases the viscosity of adhesives [92]. Lengowski et al. studied the addition of CNFs at different concentrations to reinforce PF resin for plywood panels. They found that adding CNFs increased the viscosity and decreased the gel time of the adhesives considered, which could interfere with adhesive penetration into the wood. However, in their study, the CNFs improved the adhesives' interaction with the wood and resulted in greater resistance in dry and wet shear tests. They showed that the parallel and perpendicular static bending strengths of their CNF-reinforced treatments were the same as those of their CNF-free control treatment [93]. Furthermore, Kawalerczyk et al. investigated the effect adding NC to MUF adhesives has on the properties of plywood. They demonstrated that adding small amounts of NC improved the panels' bonding quality, mechanical properties, and bending strength, and decreased their FEs [94]. Yildirim et al. investigated how adding NC and boric acid (BA) to UF resin affected the mechanical and physical properties of particleboard. Their results showed that using NC and BA as reinforcements positively affected the mechanical and physical performance of the panels, for example, by increasing IB with the addition of 3% NC and 3% BA [95]. Finally, the benefits that incorporating NC in wood adhesives provides open up the possibility of altering adhesive properties, increasing the mechanical and physical properties of wood through reinforcement, and reducing FEs.
Overview of Emerging Technologies and Reaction Mechanisms
Binderless WBCPs
Binderless panels contain no adhesive and are produced by activating the chemical components of the wood panel during steam or heat treatment [96]. When heat and pressure are applied to lignocellulosic material, the constituent components of wood cell walls—cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin—degrade. This degradation yields monomers containing free radicals derived from hemicelluloses, amorphous cellulose, and lignin with additional reactive sites. These reactive sites react again, which promotes self-bonding in binderless panels. Moreover, the degradation of lignin and hemicelluloses produces acetone, organic acids, and furfural acids, which can undergo polymerization and serve as effective binding agents [97]. To produce a sufficient bonding area, particularly in the absence of a binder, wood polymers must be plasticized above their glass transition temperature. Consequently, when lignocellulosic material is subjected to high temperatures, its components undergo reactions that lead to the release of acidic compounds from hemicelluloses. These compounds act as catalysts for cellulose and hemicellulose degradation and then recondense to form a natural resin or bond with lignin. The plasticized lignin envelops the cellulose and hemicelluloses, and solidifies as the temperature decreases towards the end of the process. This process significantly influences the mechanical properties of the final material. Due to the wide variety of components and characteristics it can have, lignocellulosic material is well-suited for producing binderless panels [98]. Various parameters, including temperature, pressure, time, and particle size, affect the self-bonding mechanism. In self-bonding processes, the main reactions often involve the activation of chemical components within the panel constituents, particularly through hemicellulose hydrolysis and lignin softening during hot pressing. Additionally, investigating chemical and enzymatic pretreatments on raw materials presents innovative strategies for improving binderless particleboard production. Chemical pretreatments such as alkaline, acidic, and oxidation agents have been used to activate fiber surfaces [99]. In contrast, enzymatic treatments typically involve milder reaction conditions, produce fewer by-products, and are more environmentally friendly compared to chemical alternatives.
-
–Mechanical Pretreatments
Mechanical pretreatment increases the total accessible surface area and thus improves the accessibility of constituents and leads to better bonding strength. Refining wood particles through the grinding process leads to a reduction in crystallinity of cellulose, particle size, and polymerization degree. However, achieving fine grinding necessitates a considerable energy input. The size and shape of the particles can significantly affect the properties of binderless panels. Particleboard with particles measuring 0.25 to 1 mm has been shown to have the best mechanical results [100]. To enhance the dimensional stability and adhesion of binderless fiberboard, steam explosion is employed to increase the contact area through defibrillation, thus resulting in a rough fiber surface. Moreover, this process releases lignin from the cell wall, which acts to prevent the water absorption of hydrophilic polymers like hemicelluloses and cellulose [101].
-
–Chemical Pretreatments
Chemical pretreatments can be acidic, neutral, or alkaline. Commonly employed acids include sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and acetic acid, which are utilized for lignocellulosic component hydrolysis. Acid pretreatment effectively breaks the van der Waals forces, hydrogen bonds, and covalent bonds, and leads to the solubilization of hemicelluloses, the partial breakdown of lignin, and an increase in cellulose crystallinity. Therefore, alkaline and acid concentrations and treatment times must be carefully controlled to avoid the excessive degradation of the main components of the wood. Moreover, under acidic catalysis, hemicelluloses can generate furfural and 5-HMF, with furan monomers produced during high-temperature wood heating. Lewis acids, like aluminum chloride hexahydrate (AlCl3·6H2O), have been shown to promote furfural and 5-HMF generation, which has the potential to promote wood fiber self-bonding. Alkaline pretreatment involves alkaline reagents, such as sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide in aqueous solutions, being added to biomass. This pretreatment results in increased internal surface area through cell wall swelling, a reduction in the degree of polymerization and crystallinity, the breaking of links between lignin and other polymers, and the breakdown of lignin. NaOH pretreatment facilitates the saponification of intermolecular ester bonds [101].
-
–Biological Pretreatments
Enzymatic pretreatment can activate the surface by breaking down molecules and generating additional reactive sites, such as radicals, for self-bonding, which improves binderless fiberboard performance. Phenol-oxidizing enzymes, such as laccase and peroxidases, are produced by various organisms, including fungi—particularly white rot—as well as certain plants, bacteria, and animals. These enzymes, expressed notably by white-rot fungi, can degrade cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin. Both laccase and peroxidases facilitate the one-electron oxidation of phenolic groups into phenoxy radicals; however, their mechanisms differ. Laccase catalyzes the oxidation of phenolic substrates using dioxygen (O2), while peroxidases like lignin peroxidase and manganese peroxidase rely on hydrogen peroxide as a substrate [102]. Since laccase is an oxidoreductase agent, it removes the lignin from cellulosic material and promotes lignin polymerization via free radical reactions. Laccase penetration into fibers during treatment is limited and results in primarily surface lignin oxidization. Consequently, the fiber surface generates free radicals, which serve as reactive sites for subsequent crosslinking reactions during fiberboard production [103]. The laccase oxidation mechanism is described as follows (1):
Another approach is to produce what are called mycelium-based bio-composites (MBCs) by incorporating the mycelia of filamentous fungi in a substrate and nutrient blend in a predeveloped mold. The mycelia act as a binder by efficiently weaving an entangled network that binds the substrate particles together into a cohesive aggregation. In industrial settings and research laboratories, oven drying is frequently utilized to inhibit fungal growth and produce the final product [104]. The fungi most commonly used to pretreat lignocellulosic bio-composites are white-rot fungi such as Trametes sp., Colorius sp., Pleurotus sp., Pycnoporus sp., and Ganoderma sp. It is preferable to use a selective white-rot fungus that will degrade lignin and hemicelluloses, while leaving cellulose mostly unaltered, as it predominantly contributes to the material's strength. The steps involved in MBC production include materials selection (fungal strain and feedstock), substrate sterilization, inoculation, molding, incubation, heat treatment (from 130 °C to 200 °C), and surface finishing [105].
Enzymatic and fungal pretreatments are categorized as wet processes, although the substrate can undergo pre-drying before the pressing stage. Enzymes are preferred for pretreating higher-density fiberboard, while fungi are commonly employed for lower-density particleboard. However, the results prove challenging due to the considerable influence that various parameters such as time, pH, temperature, and relative humidity have on the efficacy of fungal and enzymatic pretreatments [104].
Esterification and Imidization Reactions
Ando et al. attempted to understand the reactions between citric acid and wood. They proposed that esterification occurs between citric acid and various wood components. Their findings revealed that, under the wood molding conditions utilized, citric acid partially esterifies the primary hydroxyl groups of polysaccharides such as cellulose and glucomannan, as well as certain lignin substructures like β-O-4 and β-5, along with a secondary hydroxyl group at the 2-position of xylan [106]. The formation of covalent bond ester linkages contributes to the excellent dimensional stability and water resistance exhibited by wood moldings bonded with citric acid-type adhesive. Scharf et al. developed a novel formaldehyde-free adhesive system for particleboard based on imidazole in combination with citric acid and sorbitol. Nonetheless, the mechanism underlying the interaction between imidazole and wood / citric acid remains uncertain [107]. Chen et al. used an olefin-maleamic acid (OMA) resin to develop a formaldehyde-free adhesive for WBCPs. Their research demonstrated that the amic acid groups in the OMA resin can undergo two distinct reactions when subjected to hot pressing. The first is an anhydration reaction, which leads to the formation of anhydride groups, and the second is an imidization reaction, which results in imide group formation. The imidization reaction tends to predominate and imparts excellent water-resistance properties to WBCPs. Meanwhile, the anhydride groups produced by the anhydration reaction can further interact with the hydroxyl groups of wood through esterification to facilitate the crosslinking of wood material [108]. Glycerol and maleic anhydride, derived from biomass, are utilized as the primary constituents for the esterification process. Ring-opening grafting maleic anhydride onto the three hydroxyl groups of glycerol results in polyacids. Subsequently, the synthesis of a hyper-branched polyester (HBPE) is achieved by adding more glycerol, which leads to the condensation of glycerol's hydroxyl groups with the carboxyl groups of polyacids. HBPE resin has been tested as an adhesive for wood, and the best bonding performance was achieved when the reaction time between the polyacids and glycerol was two hours. The reaction temperature was 140 °C [109]. Furthermore, the catalytic oxidation of glycerol yields various compounds like glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone.
Finally, Table 2 presents a comprehensive overview of various bio-based technologies and adhesives considered in this work along with their respective applications in WBCPs.
Bio-based vs. Synthetic Adhesives: Life Cycle Analysis and Eco-friendliness
The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology has been proven to be the most appropriate way to assess the environmental impacts of products. LCA can consider the entire life cycle of a product, i.e., from the sourcing of raw materials through processing, manufacturing, and marketing until the end of its life. Several studies have highlighted that the significant environmental footprint of WBCPs primarily stems from the utilization and processing of wood resources, as well as the FE released by synthetic adhesives [103]. Several LCA comparison studies have shown that bio-based adhesives sourced from diverse origins demonstrate better environmental performance compared to petrochemical-based adhesives in WBCP manufacturing. For instance, Arias et al. conducted comprehensive LCAs of lignin (kraft and organosolv), soy, and tannin-based adhesives, and compared their results with those of their petrochemical-based counterparts [111]. In lignin-based adhesives, the glyoxylated lignin functionalization stage emerges as the primary contributor to their significant environmental impact, particularly due to substantial energy demands and unregulated glyoxal emissions into the air. Existing examinations of tannin-based adhesives have focused on enhancing on-site emissions and optimizing the chemical dosage. Two main concerns have been highlighted: the need to mitigate terrestrial toxicity resulting from uncontrolled glyoxal emissions, and the need to minimize the glyoxal dosage while manufacturing tannin-based bio-adhesives. Finally, soy-based adhesives can be considered an environmentally promising alternative to fossil-based resins, as their overall impact is approximately 25% less than that of PF adhesives and nearly equivalent to that of UF adhesives. However, Moretti et al. compared three previous LCA of adhesives used in fiberboard production and found there were variations between the overall performance evaluations of the bio-based adhesives and those of their petrochemical counterparts [112]. The outcomes depended on the type of lignin used and the underlying assumptions made. In one scenario, the environmental performance of lignin-based adhesives was significantly worse than that of conventional formaldehyde-based adhesives. In another instance, an LCA comparison suggested that WBCPs produced with lignosulfonate-based adhesives were environmentally superior to those produced using UF adhesive. Similarly, kraft lignin-based adhesives were deemed more environmentally friendly than UF adhesives [112]. Finally, Eisen et al. highlighted that the environmental efficiency of industrial bio-based adhesives remains a subject of considerable debate, primarily relying on assumptions regarding theoretical and unverified products. A significant obstacle to the widespread adoption of innovative bio-based value products is the fact that many conversion technologies are still in experimental or pilot phases [113]. Ultimately, Heinrich emphasized two factors that are crucial for any alternative adhesive. Firstly, its pricing will significantly influence its market adoption, and several studies have indicated that bio-based adhesives can be cheaper than their petrochemical-based counterparts. Secondly, the renewable products' success hinges on its ability to function as a drop-in replacement for conventional practices without requiring any changes to manufacturing facilities or equipment [15].
Conclusions and Perspectives
This review highlights the progress that has been made in utilizing coproducts as primary materials to produce bio-based adhesives for WBCPs. Significant breakthroughs have been achieved by exploring various resources derived from plant and animal origins, and resulted in bio-based adhesives being developed with minimal or no formaldehyde content. These resources span a wide variety of materials, including lignocellulosic compounds, tannins, proteins, and saccharides. By redirecting these resources away from conventional disposal methods like landfills or incineration, industries stand to mitigate the substantial cost burden associated with disposal processes while fostering the development of high-value-added materials like adhesives. Despite lingering challenges, such as the limited water resistance and bonding strength of bio-based adhesives, ongoing efforts in terms of material modification and the exploration of diverse hardeners and crosslinkers offer promising avenues for improvement and enabling bio-based adhesives to compare favorably with their synthetic counterparts. Innovative bio-scavengers are being actively developed in the quest to reduce FEs, as is highlighted in this review.
Additionally, emerging technologies such as binderless panels, which circumvent the need for any adhesive by activating the chemical components of the panel constituents to adhere the wood particles through mechanical, chemical, hydrothermal, or biological treatments, are gaining prominence in scientific research. Furthermore, growing emphasis is being put on modifying wood particles to catalyze esterification reactions between acids and various wood components and open up new pathways for adhesive innovation.
In conclusion, despite methodological variations yielding different outcomes, LCA comparison studies consistently underscore the potential of bio-based adhesives to supplant their traditional counterparts and thereby reduce the negative impacts of WBCPs on human health and the environment. Realizing this potential hinges on advancements in extraction techniques, the adoption of sustainable modification processes, and the implementation of energy-saving measures throughout the life cycle of bio-based adhesives for the wood panel industry.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Protano C, Buomprisco G, Cammalleri V, Pocino RN, Marotta D, Simonazzi S, Cardoni F, Petyx M, Iavicoli S, Vitali M. The carcinogenic effects of formaldehyde occupational exposure: A systematic review. Cancers. 2021;14(1):165.
WHO guidelines for indoor air quality. selected pollutants. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2010.
La Gazette du Canada, Partie 2, volume 155, numéro 14 : Règlement sur les émissions de formaldéhyde provenant des produits de bois composite [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 12]. Available from: https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2021/2021-07-07/html/sor-dors148-fra.html
Dorieh A, Selakjani PP, Shahavi MH, Pizzi A, Movahed SG, Pour MF, Aghaei R. Recent developments in the performance of micro/nanoparticle-modified urea-formaldehyde resins used as wood-based composite binders: A review. Int J Adhesion Adhesives. 2022;114:103106.
Conner AH. Wood: Adhesives. Encycl Mater Sci Technol [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2024 Jan 4];9583–99. Available from: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001emst.book.9583C/abstract
Solt P, Konnerth J, Gindl-Altmutter W, Kantner W, Moser J, Mitter R, van Herwijnen HW. Technological performance of formaldehyde-free adhesive alternatives for particleboard industry. Int J Adhesion Adhesives. 2019;94:99–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2019.04.007.
Frederick A. Kamke, John A. Nairn. 13 - Advances in structural wood products adhesive bonding. In Woodhead Publishing in Materials, Advances in Structural Adhesive Bonding (2nd ed.), Woodhead Publishing. 2023;417:455. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91214-3.00001-6.
Arias A, González-Rodríguez S, Barros MV, Salvador R, de Francisco AC, Piekarski CM, Moreira MT. Recent developments in bio-based adhesives from renewable natural resources. J Clean Prod. 2021;314:127892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127892.
Sasidharan A, Venugopal V. Proteins and Co-products from Seafood Processing Discards: Their Recovery, Functional Properties and Applications. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2020;11:5647–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00812-9.
Boussetta A, Benhamou AA, Charii H, Ablouh EH, Mennani M, Kasbaji M, Boussetta N, Grimi N, Moubarik A. Formulation and Characterization of Chitin-Starch Bio-Based Wood Adhesive for the Manufacturing of Formaldehyde-Free Composite Particleboards. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2023;14(11):3671–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02091-x.
Boussetta A, Benhamou AA, Ihammi A, Ablouh EH, Barba FJ, Boussetta N, Grimi N, Moubarik A. Shrimp waste protein for bio-composite manufacturing: Formulation of protein-cornstarch-mimosa-tannin wood adhesives. Industrial Crops Prod. 2022;187:115323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02091-x.
Cheng HN, He Z, Li CH, Bland JM, Bechtel PJ. Preparation and evaluation of catfish protein as a wood adhesive. Int J Polym Anal Charact. 2021;26(1):60–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/1023666X.2020.1844361.
Achinivu EC, Shamshina JL, Rogers RD. Chitin extracted from various biomass sources: It’s not the same. Fluid Phase Equilibria. 2022;552:113286.
Saal U, Weimar H, Mantau U. Wood processing residues. Biorefineries. 2019:27-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2016_69
Heinrich LA. Future opportunities for bio-based adhesives – advantages beyond renewability. Green Chem. 2019;21:1866.
Arias A, González-García S, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Tannin-based bio-adhesives for the wood panel industry as sustainable alternatives to petrochemical resins. J Ind Ecol. 2021;26:627–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13210.
Abu Bakar NH, Salim N. Challenges and Opportunities in Wood Waste Utilization. Wood Waste Manag Prod. 2023;13:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1905-5_1.
Phiri R, Mavinkere Rangappa S, Siengchin S, Oladijo OP, Dhakal HN. Development of sustainable biopolymer-based composites for lightweight applications from agricultural waste biomass: a review. Adv Ind Eng Polym Res. 2023;6:436–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2023.04.004.
Pongchaiphol S, Suriyachai N, Hararak B, Raita M, Laosiripojana N, Champreda V. Physicochemical characteristics of organosolv lignins from different lignocellulosic agricultural wastes. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;216:710–27.
Kumar Sarangi P, Subudhi S, Bhatia L, Saha K, Mudgil D, Prasad Shadangi K, Srivastava RK, Pattnaik B, Arya RK. Utilization of agricultural waste biomass and recycling toward circular bioeconomy. Environ Sci Poll Res. 2023;30(4):8526–39.
Zeringue CT, Chirdon WM, Sharp W, Gang D, Khattab A, Hernandez R, Revellame E, Holmes W, Zappi ME. Production of Sustainable Green Adhesives from Proteinaceous Biomass with an Emphasis on Waste-Derived Protein Residuals: A Review. Industrial Eng Chem Res. 2023;62(33):12716–31. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c00963.
Fraga-Corral M, Otero P, Echave J, Garcia-Oliveira P, Carpena M, Jarboui A, Nuñez-Estevez B, Simal-Gandara J, Prieto MA. By-Products of Agri-Food Industry as Tannin-Rich Sources: A Review of Tannins’ Biological Activities and Their Potential for Valorization. Foods. 2021;10(1):137. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010137.
Jha A, Kumar A. Biobased technologies for the efficient extraction of biopolymers from waste biomass. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2019;42:1893–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-019-02199-2.
O’Donoghue LT, Murphy EG. Nondairy food applications of whey and milk permeates: Direct and indirect uses. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe. 2023;22(4):2652–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13157.
Costa C, Azoia NG, Coelho L, Freixo R, Batista P, Pintado M. Proteins Derived from the Dairy Losses and By-Products as Raw Materials for Non-Food Applications. Foods. 2021;10(1):135. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010135.
Mozhiarasi V, Natarajan TS. Slaughterhouse and poultry wastes: management practices, feedstocks for renewable energy production, and recovery of value added products. Biomass Conv Bioref. 2022;10:1–24.
Zhou Y, Zeng G, Zhang F, Luo J, Li X, Li J, Fang Z. Toward Utilization of Agricultural Wastes: Development of a Novel Keratin Reinforced Soybean Meal-based Adhesive. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2021;9(22):7630–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c01920.
Jiang Z, Qin D, Hse CY, Kuo M, Luo Z, Wang G, et al. Preliminary study on chicken feather protein-based wood adhesives. J Wood Chem Technol [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2023 May 2];28:240–6. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lwct20
Zheng H, Zhao S, Lu Y, Zhang N, Soladoye OP, Zhang Y, et al. Toward the high-efficient utilization of poultry blood: Insights into functionality, bioactivity and functional components. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 10]; Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bfsn20
García FD, Aigner SN, Cedres JP, Luna A, Escobar MM, Mansilla MA, Bacigalupe A. Novel adhesive based on black soldier fly larvae flour for particleboard production. Construction Building Mater. 2024;411:134758.
Torres-Valenzuela LS, Ballesteros-Gómez A, Rubio S. Green Solvents for the Extraction of High Added-Value Compounds from Agri-food Waste. Food Eng Rev. 2020;12:83–100.
Mohan K, Ganesan AR, Ezhilarasi PN, Kondamareddy KK, Rajan DK, Sathishkumar P, Rajarajeswaran J, Conterno L. Green and eco-friendly approaches for the extraction of chitin and chitosan: A review. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2022;287:119349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119349.
Kumawat TK, Kumawat V, Sharma S, Sharma V, Pandit A, Kandwani N, et al. Sustainable green methods for the extraction of biopolymers. Biopolymers. Springer Series on Polymer and Composite Materials. Springer, Cham. 2022;73:110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98392-5_5.
Ang AF, Ashaari Z, Lee SH, Tahir PM, Halis R. Lignin-based copolymer adhesives for composite wood panels–A review. Int J Adhesion Adhesives. 2019;95:102408.
Ma Y, Kou Z, Hu Y, Zhou J, Bei Y, Hu L, et al. Research advances in bio-based adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2023;126:103444.
Xu Y, Li J, Shi SQ, Han Y, Luo J, Li J, et al. Research Progress of Soybean Protein Adhesive: A Review. J Renew Mater [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Nov 21];10:2520–40. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361167955
Gao Z, Lang X, Chen S, Zhao C. Mini-Review on the Synthesis of Lignin-Based Phenolic Resin. Energy Fuels. 2021;35(22):18385–95.
Di B, Li Z, Lei Y, Wang X, Zhu Y, Qi W, Tian Y. Phenol-enriched hydroxy depolymerized lignin by microwave alkali catalysis to prepare high-adhesive biomass composites. Polymer Eng Sci. 2021;61(5):1463–75.
Chen X, Xi X, Pizzi A, Fredon E, Du G, Gerardin C, et al. Oxidized demethylated lignin as a bio-based adhesive for wood bonding. J Adhes [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Nov 14];97:873–90. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gadh20
Bansode A, Portilla Villarreal LA, Wang Y, Asafu-Adjaye O, Via BK, Farag R, Vega Erramuspe IB, Auad ML. Kraft Lignin Periodate Oxidation for Biobased Wood Panel Resins. ACS Appl Polymer Mater. 2023;5(6):4118–26. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.3c00324.
He Q, Ziegler-Devin I, Chrusciel L, Obame SN, Hong L, Lu X, Brosse N. Lignin-First Integrated Steam Explosion Process for Green Wood Adhesive Application. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2020;8(13):5380–92.
Gao S, Liu Y, Wang C, Chu F, Xu F, Zhang D. Synthesis of Lignin-Based Polyacid Catalyst and Its Utilization to Improve Water Resistance of Urea-formaldehyde Resins. Polymers (Basel) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Nov 14];12:175. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
Younesi-Kordkheili H. Maleated lignin coreaction with phenol-formaldehyde resins for improved wood adhesives performance. Int J Adhesion Adhesives. 2022;113:103080.
Jedrzejczyk MA, Kouris PD, Boot MD, Hensen EJ, Bernaerts KV. Renewable thiol–yne “click” networks based on propargylated lignin for adhesive resin applications. ACS Appl Polymer Mater. 2022;4(4):2544–52.
Averina E, Konnerth J, D’amico S, Van Herwijnen HWG. Protein adhesives: Alkaline hydrolysis of different crop proteins as modification for improved wood bonding performance. 2020 [cited 2023 Mar 27]; Available from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Yue L, Meng Z, Yi Z, Gao Q, Mao A, Li J. Effects of Different Denaturants on Properties and Performance of Soy Protein-Based Adhesive. Polymers (Basel) [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Nov 21];11:1262. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
Lei Y, Gao S, Xiang X, Li X, Yu X, Li S. Physicochemical, structural and adhesion properties of walnut protein isolate-xanthan gum composite adhesives using walnut protein modified by ethanol. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;192:644–53.
Sun Z, Sun B, Bai Y, Gao Z. Economical improvement on the performances of a soybean flour-based adhesive for wood composites via montmorillonite hybridization. Compos Part B. 2021;217:108920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108920.
Zhang B, Chang Z, Li J, Li X, Kan Y, Gao Z. Effect of kaolin content on the performances of kaolin-hybridized soybean meal-based adhesives for wood composites. Compos Part B. 2019;173:106919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.106919.
Ye H, Pan D, Tian Z, Zhang Y, Yu Z, Mu J. Preparation and properties of geopolymer/soy protein isolate composites by in situ organic-inorganic hybridization: A potential green binder for the wood industry. J Clean Prod. 2020;276:123363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123363.
Zeng G, Li K, Zhou Y, Wang T, Dong Y, Luo J, et al. Natural organic-inorganic hybrid structure enabled green biomass adhesive with desirable strength, toughness and mildew resistance. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;236:123931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123931.
Bian Y, Bai M, Cao J, Li J. A strong soybean meal adhesive enhanced by aluminum hydroxide nanoparticles via a low-cost and simple organic-inorganic hybrid strategy. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2023;125:103442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2023.103442.
Hua LS, Chen LW. Carbohydrates (polysaccharides) as adhesives. Biobased Adhes: Sources Character Appl. 2023;15:325–44.
AitBenhamou A, Boussetta A, Kassab Z, Nadifiyine M, Sehaqui H, Achaby E, et al. Elaboration of carboxylated cellulose nanocrystals filled starch-based adhesives for the manufacturing of eco-friendly particleboards. Constr Build Mater. 2022;348:128683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128683.
Arias A, Feijoo G, Teresa Moreira M, Charrier B, Kowaluk G. Evaluation of Starch as an Environmental-Friendly Bioresource for the Development of Wood Bioadhesives. Molecules. 2021;26:4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules.
Wang H, Wang F, Du G. Enhanced performance of urea-glyoxal polymer with oxidized cassava starch as wood adhesive. Iran Polym J. 2019;28:1015–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13726-019-00760-0.
Chen X, Sun C, Wang Q, Tan H, Zhang Y. Preparation of glycidyl methacrylate grafted starch adhesive to apply in high-performance and environment-friendly plywood. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;194:954–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.11.152.
Xi X, Pizzi A, Lei H, Zhang B, Chen X, Du G. Environmentally friendly chitosan adhesives for plywood bonding. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2022;112:103027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2021.103027.
Dhawale P, Gadhave S, Gadhave RV. Environmentally Friendly Chitosan-Based Wood/Wood Composite Adhesive: Review. Green Sustain Chem. 2023;13:237–53. https://doi.org/10.4236/gsc.2023.134013.
Wang W, Xue C, Mao X. Chitosan: Structural modification, biological activity and application. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;164:4532–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.09.042.
Song J, Chen S, Zhang Q, Lei H, Xi X, Du G, et al. Developing on the well performance and eco-friendly sucrose-based wood adhesive. Ind Crops Prod. 2023;194:116298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116298.
Ando D, Umemura K. Chemical Structures of Adhesive and Interphase Parts in Sucrose/Citric Acid Type Adhesive Wood-Based Molding Derived from Japanese Cedar (Cryptomeria japonica). Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13234224.
Zhang Q, Song J, Lei H, Pizzi A, Du G, Xi X. Preparation of the water-resistant eco-friendly carbohydrate wood adhesives by Schiff base reaction. Wood Mater Sci Eng. 2023;2:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2023.2238261.
Oktay S, Pizzi A, Köken N, Bengü BB. Tannin-based wood panel adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2024;130:103621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103621.
Xi X, Pizzi A, Frihart CR, Lorenz L, Gerardin C. Tannin plywood bioadhesives with non-volatile aldehydes generation by specific oxidation of mono-and disaccharides. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2020;98:102499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2019.102499.
Ndiwe B, Pizzi A, Danwe R, Tibi B, Konai N, Amirou S. Particleboard bonded with bio-hardeners of tannin adhesives. Eur J Wood Wood Prod. 2019;77:1221–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-019-01460-5.
Li J, Lei H, Xi X, Li C, Hou D, Song J, et al. A sustainable tannin-citric acid wood adhesive with favorable bonding properties and water resistance. Ind Crop Prod. 2023;2023:116933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116933.
Xiao G, Liang J, Li D, Tu Y, Zhang B, Gong F, et al. Fully Bio-Based Adhesive from Tannin and Sucrose for Plywood Manufacturing with High Performances. Materials (Basel). 2022;15:8725. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15248725.
Zhao Z, Umemura K. Investigation of a new natural particleboard adhesive composed of tannin and sucrose. J Wood Sci. 2014;60:269–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-014-1405-3.
Boussetta A, Ablouh EH, Benhamou AA, Taourirte M, Moubarik A. Valorization of Moroccan brown seaweeds: elaboration of formaldehyde-free particleboards based on sodium alginate–corn-starch-mimosa tannin wood adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2021;108:102894.
Oktay S, Kızılcan N, Bengü BB. Development of bio-based cornstarch-Mimosa tannin-sugar adhesive for interior particleboard production. Ind Crop Prod [Internet]. 2021;170:113689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113689.
Saražin J, Schmiedl D, Pizzi A, Šernek M. Bio-based Adhesive Mixtures of Pine Tannin and Different Types of Lignins. BioResources. 2020;15:9401–12.
Ghahri S, Pizzi A, Hajihassani R. A Study of Concept to Prepare Totally Biosourced Wood Adhesives from Only Soy Protein and Tannin. Polymers. 2022;14(6):1150.
Dunky M. Natural Crosslinkers for Naturally-Based Adhesives. Biobased Adhes Sources, Charact Appl. 2023;207–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394175406.ch6
Siahkamari M, Emmanuel S, Hodge DB, Nejad M. Lignin-Glyoxal: A Fully Biobased Formaldehyde-Free Wood Adhesive for Interior Engineered Wood Products. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2022;10(11):3430–41.
Averina E, Konnerth J, Van Herwijnen HWG. Protein Adhesives: Investigation of Factors Affecting Wet Strength of Alkaline Treated Proteins Crosslinked with Glyoxal. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14:4351. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204351.
Chrobak J, Iłowska J, Chrobok A. Formaldehyde-Free Resins for the Wood-Based Panel Industry: Alternatives to Formaldehyde and Novel Hardeners. Molecules. 2022;27:4862. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27154862.
Sandahl A, Pedersen LS, Taarning E, Lindhardt A. Evaluation of Glycolaldehyde as a Formaldehyde Substitute in Urea-based Wood Adhesives. BioResources. 2022;17:5769–84.
Jarach N, Zuckerman R, Naveh N, Dodiuk H, Kenig S. Bio- and water-based reversible covalent bonds containing polymers (Vitrimers) and their relevance to adhesives – a critical review. Prog Adhes Adhes Vol 6 [Internet]. 2021;587–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119846703.ch13.
Rosenfeld C, Konnerth J, Sailer-Kronlachner W, Rosenau T, Potthast A, Solt P, et al. Hydroxymethylfurfural and its Derivatives: Potential Key Reactants in Adhesives. ChemSusChem. 2020;13:5408–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202001539.
Kristak L, Antov P, Bekhta P, Lubis MAR, Iswanto AH, Reh R, et al. Recent progress in ultra-low formaldehyde emitting adhesive systems and formaldehyde scavengers in wood-based panels: a review. Wood Mater Sci Eng. 2023;18:763–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2022.2056080.
Liang J, Wu J, Xu J. Low-formaldehyde emission composite particleboard manufactured from waste chestnut bur. J Wood Sci. 2021;67:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-021-01955-x.
Réh R, Krišťák Ľ, Sedliačik J, Bekhta P, Božiková M, Kunecová D, et al. Utilization of birch bark as an eco-friendly filler in urea-formaldehyde adhesives for plywood manufacturing. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:1–21.
Shalbafan A, Hassannejad H, Rahmaninia M. Formaldehyde adsorption capacity of chitosan derivatives as bio-adsorbents for wood-based panels. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2020;102:102669.
Mati-Baouche N, Delattre C, De Baynast H, Grédiac M, Mathias JD, Ursu AV, et al. Alkyl-Chitosan-Based Adhesive: Water Resistance Improvement. Mol 2019, Vol 24, Page 1987 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Nov 27];24:1987. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/24/10/1987/htm
Hosseini SB, Asadollahzadeh M, Kazemi Najfai S, Taherzadeh MJ. Partial replacement of urea-formaldehyde adhesive with fungal biomass and soy flour in plywood fabrication. J Adhes Sci Technol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Nov 28];34:1371–84. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tast20
Liu Y, Zhao A, Sun L, Zhou H, Xia G, Hu Y, et al. Synthesis of microcapsules containing a formaldehyde scavenger for the sustainable control of hazardous chemical release from particleboard. J Hazard Mater. 2022;443:130156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130156.
Kawalerczyk J, Walkiewicz J, Dziurka D, Mirski R, Brózdowski J. APTES-Modified Nanocellulose as the Formaldehyde Scavenger for UF Adhesive-Bonded Particleboard and Strawboard. Polymers. 2022;14(22):5037.
Dukarska D, Kawalerczyk J, Kmieciak J. Modified pine needles as a formaldehyde scavenger for urea-formaldehyde resin in plywood production. Eur J Wood Wood Prod. 2024;82(1):147–58.
Walkiewicz J, Kawalerczyk J, Mirski R, Szubert Z. The tea leaves as a filler for UF resin plywood production. Wood Res. 2023;68:200–7.
Vineeth SK, Gadhave R V., Gadekar PT. Nanocellulose Applications in Wood Adhesives—Review. Open J Polym Chem [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 8];09:63–75. Available from: //file.scirp.org/Html/1–1800197_95776.htm
Dufresne A. Nanocellulose processing properties and potential applications. Curr Rep. 2019;5:76–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00088-1.
Lengowski EC, Júnior EAB, Dallo R, Nisgoski S, de Mattos JLM, Prata JG. Nanocellulose-reinforced phenol-formaldehyde resin for plywood panel production. Maderas Cienc y Tecnol [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Apr 8];23:1–10. Available from: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext_plus&pid=S0718-221X2021000100405&lng=es&tlng=en&nrm=iso
Kawalerczyk J, Dziurka D, Mirski R, Siuda J, Babicka M. Possibility of Use of NCC-Reinforced Melamine-UreaFormaldehyde Adhesive in Plywood Manufacturing. Drv Ind. 2021;72:279–89. https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2021.2029.
Yildirim M, Candan Z. Performance Properties of Particleboard Panels Modified with Nanocellulose/Boric Acid. BioResources. 2021;16:1875–90.
ParvinNitu I, Nazrul Islam M, Ashaduzzaman M, Khairul Amin M, Iftekhar Shams M. Optimization of processing parameters for the manufacturing of jute stick binderless particleboard. J Wood Sci. 2020;66:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-020-01913-z.
Ramatia D, Syamani FA, Hermawan D. Literature review of production process and self-bonding mechanisms in binderless particleboard. Innov Forestry Sustain Future. 2021;5:149.
Chen Z, Ji R, Wang H, Bertheau E, Simon V, Delgado Raynaud C. Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as Safety Indicators in the Development of Wood-Based Binderless Boards. Appl Sci. 2024;14:1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14031266.
Zhang D, Zhang A, Xue L. A review of preparation of binderless fiberboards and its self-bonding mechanism. Wood Sci Technol. 2015;49:661–79.
Ferrandez-Villena M, Eugenia Ferrandez-Garcia C, Garcia-Ortuño T, Ferrandez-Garcia A, Ferrandez-Garcia MT. The Influence of Processing and Particle Size on Binderless Particleboards Made from Arundo donax L. Rhizome. Polymers (Basel) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Jan 11];12:696. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
Dunky M. Activation of wood surfaces and “binderless” wood composites. Biobased Adhes Sources, Charact Appl [Internet]. 2023;579–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394175406.ch20.
Widsten P, Kandelbauer A. Adhesion improvement of lignocellulosic products by enzymatic pre-treatment. Biotechnol Adv. 2008;26:379–86.
Vitrone F, Ramos D, Ferrando F, Salvadó J. Binderless fiberboards for sustainable construction. Materials, production methods and applications. J Building Eng. 2021;44:102625.
Sun W, Tajvidi M, Hunt CG, Cole BJW, Howell C, Gardner DJ, et al. Fungal and enzymatic pretreatments in hot-pressed lignocellulosic bio-composites: A critical review. J Clean Prod. 2022;353:131659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131659.
KanayoAlaneme K, UchennaAnaele J, MoyosoreOke T, Abiodun Kareem S, Adediran M, AbigaelAjibuwa O, et al. Mycelium based composites: A review of their bio-fabrication procedures, material properties and potential for green building and construction applications. Alexandria Eng J. 2023;83:234–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.10.012.
Ando D, Umemura K. Bond structures between wood components and citric acid in wood-based molding. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13:1–9.
Scharf A, Popescu C-M, Dernegård H, Oja J, Ormondroyd G, Medved S, et al. Particleboards Bonded by an Imidazole-Based Adhesive System. Materials (Basel). 2023;16:7201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16227201.
Chen C, Xu C, Zhai J, Zhao C, Ma Y, Yang W. Low-Cost and Formaldehyde-Free Wood Adhesive Based on Water-Soluble Olefin-Maleamic Acid Copolymers. Cite This Ind Eng Chem Res 2023;62. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c01968
Huang Y, Jin T, Zeng H, Liu L, Xu K, Chai X, et al. Development of novel sustainable hyperbranched polyester wood adhesives from glycerol and maleic anhydride by solvent free method. Ind Crops Prod. 2023;204:117326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117326.
Maulana MI, Adly M, Lubis R, Febrianto F, Hua LS, Iswanto AH, et al. Environmentally Friendly Starch-Based Adhesives for Bonding High-Performance Wood Composites: A Review. Forest. 2022;13:1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101614.
Arias A, González-García S, González-Rodríguez S, Feijoo G, Teresa Moreira M. Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment of bio-adhesives for the wood panel industry A comparison with petrochemical alternatives. Sci Total Environ J. 2020;738:140357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140357.
Moretti C, Corona B, Hoefnagels R, Vural-Gürsel I, Gosselink R, Junginger M. Review of life cycle assessments of lignin and derived products: Lessons learned. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Jan 26];770:144656. Available from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Eisen A, Bussa M. A review of environmental assessments of biobased against petrochemical adhesives. J Clean Prod. 2020;277:124277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124277.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared as part of the research activities of the Wood-Based Composite Panel Research Consortium (Corepan-Bois) at Université Laval. The authors acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [funding reference number ALLRP 571660-21], the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF), the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec (CIFQ) [project number PIP-2019-12], and Corepan-Bois's partners, namely CRMR, UQAT, SEREX, FPInnovations, Tafisa Canada, Uniboard Canada, SACOPAN, and Arbec Forest Products.
Funding
This paper was prepared as part of the research activities of the Wood-Based Composite Panel Research Consortium (Corepan-Bois) at Université Laval. The authors acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [funding reference number ALLRP 571660–21], the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF), the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec (CIFQ) [project number PIP-2019–12], and Corepan-Bois's partners, namely CRMR, UQAT, SEREX, FPInnovations, Tafisa Canada, Uniboard Canada, SACOPAN, and Arbec Forest Products.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
I.C. undertook the systematic literature review and wrote the manuscript with contributions from R.G., A.K., V.L., and A.C. The visuals (Figs. 1, 2, and 3, and Tables 1 and 2) were prepared by I.C. All the authors have critically reviewed the manuscript and agreed to the published version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Calvez, I., Garcia, R., Koubaa, A. et al. Recent Advances in Bio-Based Adhesives and Formaldehyde-Free Technologies for Wood-Based Panel Manufacturing. Curr. For. Rep. 10, 386–400 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00227-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00227-3