Song Wei, Cao Yang, Wang Dandan, Hou Guojun, Shen Zaihua, Zhang Shuangbao
Beijing Key Laboratory of Wood Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
MOE Key Laboratory of Wooden Material Science and Application, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 10;10(12):e0144374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144374. eCollection 2015.
As a large producer and consumer of wood building materials, China suffers product formaldehyde emissions (PFE) but lacks systematic investigations and basic data on Chinese standard emission tests (CST), so this paper presented a first effort on this issue. The PFE of fiberboards, particleboards, blockboards, floorings, and parquets manufactured in Beijing region were characterized by the perforator extraction method (PE), 9-11 L and 40 L desiccator methods (D9, D40), and environmental chamber method (EC) of the Chinese national standard GB 18580; based on statistics of PFE data, measurement uncertainties in CST were evaluated by the Monte Carlo method; moreover, PFE data correlations between tests were established. Results showed: (1) Different tests may give slightly different evaluations on product quality. In PE and D9 tests, blockboards and parquets reached E1 grade for PFE, which can be directly used in indoor environment; but in D40 and EC tests, floorings and parquets achieved E1. (2) In multiple tests, PFE data characterized by PE, D9, and D40 complied with Gaussian distributions, while those characterized by EC followed log-normal distributions. Uncertainties in CST were overall low, with uncertainties for 20 material-method combinations all below 7.5%, and the average uncertainty for each method under 3.5%, thus being acceptable in engineering application. A more complicated material structure and a larger test scale caused higher uncertainties. (3) Conventional linear models applied to correlating PFE values between PE, D9, and EC, with R2 all over 0.840, while novel logarithmic (exponential) models can work better for correlations involving D40, with R2 all beyond 0.901. This research preliminarily demonstrated the effectiveness of CST, where results for D40 presented greater similarities to EC-the currently most reliable test for PFE, thus highlighting the potential of Chinese D40 as a more practical approach in production control and risk assessment.
作为木质建筑材料的生产和消费大国，中国面临产品甲醛释放量（PFE）问题，但缺乏关于中国标准排放测试（CST）的系统调查和基础数据，因此本文首次针对此问题展开研究。采用中国国家标准GB 18580中的穿孔萃取法（PE）、9 - 11 L和40 L干燥器法（D9、D40）以及环境舱法（EC），对北京地区生产的纤维板、刨花板、细木工板、地板和镶木地板的PFE进行了表征；基于PFE数据统计，采用蒙特卡罗方法评估了CST中的测量不确定度；此外，还建立了不同测试之间的PFE数据相关性。结果表明：（1）不同测试对产品质量的评价可能略有不同。在PE和D9测试中，细木工板和镶木地板的PFE达到E1级，可直接用于室内环境；但在D40和EC测试中，地板和镶木地板达到E1级。（2）在多次测试中，PE、D9和D40表征的PFE数据符合高斯分布，而EC表征的数据遵循对数正态分布。CST中的不确定度总体较低，20种材料 - 方法组合的不确定度均低于7.5%，每种方法的平均不确定度低于3.5%，在工程应用中可以接受。材料结构越复杂、测试规模越大，不确定度越高。（3）传统线性模型用于关联PE、D9和EC之间的PFE值，R2均超过0.840，而新颖的对数（指数）模型在涉及D40的相关性中效果更好，R2均超过0.901。本研究初步证明了CST的有效性，其中D40的结果与目前最可靠的PFE测试方法EC更为相似，从而突出了中国D40在生产控制和风险评估中作为更实用方法的潜力。
