Formaldehyde emission test methods

Product tests. Clearly, the best product test is full-scale testing of finished panels under actual use conditions. This has been done (27,38) but is expensive, because several full-sized panels of each product must be pre-conditioned at constant temperature and humidity for at least a week. The next best approach is to test product samples in air chambers under standardized conditions. A summary of such methods is contained in Table I. A very large effort has been made over the last three decades world-wide to develop quick, reliable and meaningful product tests. Wittmann (16), Zartl (20), Plath (17), Verbestel (1, Neusser (21,22), Roffael (25), HUD, the U.S. Forest Products Industry (39,40), many standaraization organizations (41-43) and others have published many viable methods, but the testing involves a combination of complex factors and there is simply no single test that fulfills everybody s specific needs. Table I list some of the currently accepted test methods for formaldehyde emission from particleboard, plywood and medium density fiberboard. 

Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard, Air Chamber Test Method for Certification and Qualification of Formaldehyde Emission Levels," U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 24, Part 3280.406, (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), and F eral Register, Vol. 48, pg 37136-37195, 1983. 

Large Scale Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Emission from Wood Products Air Chamber Method, FTM-2" National Particleboard Assocaiton, Hardwood Plywood Association, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Register, 1982, 48, 37169. 

Hardwood plywood products are decorative in nature and are designed for interior use. Over 95X of all hardwood plywood is made with urea-formaldehyde adhesives. Responding to concerns about formaldehyde and certain wood products, test methods for measuring surface emissions were developed in the early 1980 s. Emissions from most hardwood plywood and particleboard products have decreased 65% to 95% in recent years primarily by use of low emitting UF adhesives and/or scavengers. Good correlation has been demonstrated between product test methods and indoor levels of formaldehyde in experimental manufactured homes. Decorative surface finishes can act to either increase or decrease surface emissions, depending on the nature of the finish and the substrate. 

Small scale test method for determining formaldehyde emissions from wood products, two-hour desiccator test, FTM 1, Reston, VA. 

G. Gramp, W. Groah. "Evaluation of the relationship between formaldehyde emission from particleboard mobile home decking and hardwood plywood wall paneling as determined by product test methods and formaldehyde levels in experimental mobile homes." U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 1982. 

Large-Scale Test Method For Determining Formaldehyde Emissions From Wood Products — Large Chamber Method, FTM 2-1983 National Particleboard Association Gaithersburg, MD, 1983. 

These test chambers can be incorporated to the enzymatic methods for formaldehyde determination. Formaldehyde emissions of a product, or mix of products, to the ambient air can be collected in distilled water or 1% sodium bisulfite as the absorbing solution. After collection, formaldehyde samples are analyzed as described above. In the mobile home simulator test method (2J, double or triple impingers, which are placed in series, should be used in order to collect all of the formaldehyde vapor. The test conditions should simulate the actual environment. Several factors such as temperature and relative humidity of the system including the specimens and background of formaldehyde in the test chamber, affect the precision and accuracy of the results. It has been shown that a 7 C change in temperature doubles the emission level (L). The temperature of the test chamber should be... 

The effect on particleboard of an ammonia treatment can also be shown using this testing method. In figure 8 again the ideal mixing model is applied. Notice that the line with the lowest emission is the one on the top. The reason is that the reciprocal values and not the steady state formaldehyde concentrations as such, are plotted. Here the slope is different as well. 

The GEM method is based upon the assumption that the size and shape of the testing chamber does not influence the emission. During the testing the formaldehyde concentration in the chamber will rise and stabilize at a steady state concentration. At constant climate the steady-state concentration or emission rate from the test object depends on the relation between the loading factor and the air change rate. Good air circulation in the chamber is also essential ( ). 

Tentative Test Method for Emission of Formaldehyde from Wood Products - 24 Hour Desiccator Method" National Particleboard Association, 1980. 

Singh Walcott, J. St. Pierre, C. Ferrel, T. Garrison, S. Groah, w. "Evaluation of the Relationship Between Formaldehyde Emissions from Particleboard Mobile Home Decking and Hardwood Plywood Wall Paneling Determined by Product Test Methods and Formaldehyde Levels in Experimental Mobile Homes" Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., Report, Prepared on Contract No. AC-5222, H.U.D., March, 1982. 

A large number of test methods have been introduced for the determination of the tendency of particleboard to release formaldehyde. Some are analytical methods for the content of formaldehyde in the board, some are emission tests, and some are combinations of the two types. It seems to be generally accepted that the emission tests are the more meaningful ones, among other things because most formaldehvde regulations limit the permissible content of formaldehyde in the air rather than in the particleboard. 

Development and Validation of a Test Method for Formaldehyde Emissions... 

Formaldehyde emission tests were performed on the hoards glued with the most promising formulations. Two boards per formulation type were tested. The emissions were measured according to the specifications of the JIS A 1460 2001 standard [9]. The determination of the formaldehyde emitted by the boards was done by the desiccator method. The emitted quantity of formaldehyde was obtained from... 

Figure 4. Formaldehyde emission test results (mg/1) using the desiccator method according to JIS A 1460 2001 standard [9], F designation formaldehyde emission <0.3 mg/f corresponding to the emission of natural wood.

The formaldehyde emission test on the plywood panels was carried out according to the specification prescribed in European norm EN-210, by the perforator method [26]. 

The measurement of formaldehyde release from wood products Involves the collection of formaldehyde vapor in the test chamber using a suitable absorbing solution and then analyzing the formaldehyde collected. For many years, formaldehyde emission measurements were carried out using the desiccator test sampling method due to... 

Determining Formaldehyde Emission from Wood Products" FTM-2 - 1983 (16). In this method, particleboard and hardwood plywood paneling are tested under the following conditions ... 

At this point of the study it is not possible to improve our knowledge of the emission trends with this method. However, given that the formaldehyde emission from a particleboard must decrease with time, we decided to measure this effect. Two sets of experiments were carried out parallel to each other for one year at 23 L and 65% RH, 80% RH, or 30% RH. The boards were tested at regular intervals by both the perforator method and the gas flow... 

One month after pressing, the boards were cut and triplicate samples for each duplicate board tested according to the dessicator method, using Purpald solution and a colorimeter, for formaldehyde emission over a period of 24 hours and 30 minutes Purpald development. After this initial assessment the samples were placed in a laboratory fan-exhaust oven at a temperature of 50 C to accelerate the test for a period of two months. The samples were tested at regular intervals of three weeks over the two months period. The formaldehyde emission results obtained are shown in Table I. 

The problem with current laboratory methods is that they only measure formaldehyde at a single time point under equilibrium conditions. In contrast, real-life use of particleboard involves climatic shocks. This was well illustrated by a study at the center for surface technology In Haarlem (3). Figure 1 shows that changes in air humidity and temperature greatly and promptly influence formaldehyde emission. Thus, while laboratory tests allow a qualitative evaluation of the emission risk, they do not permit quantitative extrapolation to real-life conditions. 

The incidence of perceptible formaldehyde in homes, offices and schools has caused widespread uncertainty about the safety of living with formaldehyde. This uncertainty was enhanced by the large scale installation of urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) because a substantial part of this material was made from small scale resin batches prepared under questionable quality control conditions, and was installed by unskilled operators (10). The only reliable way to avoid such uncertainty is to know the emission rate of products and develop a design standard that allows prediction of indoor air levels. The first and most important step in this direction was achieved with the development and implementation of material emission standards. As indicated above, Japan led the field in 1974 with the introduction of the 24-hr desiccator test (6), FESYP followed with the formulation of the perforator test, the gas analysis method, and later with the introduction of air chambers (5). In the U.S. the FTM-1 (32) production test and the FTM-2 air chamber test (33) have made possible the implementation of a HUD standard for mobile homes (8) that is already implemented in some 90% of the UF wood production (35), regardless of product use. 

The tannin/hexamine binders alone produced panels with zero formaldehyde emission when tested by the desiccator method [33]. 

A number of methods are suitable for measuring employee exposure to formaldehyde or for characterizing emissions within the worksite. The preamble to this standard describes some methods that have been widely used or subjected to validation testing. A detailed analytical procedure derived from the OSHA Method 52 for acrolein and formaldehyde is presented below for informational purposes. 

---