EPA-690/R-98-146
November 1998
Final Report
THE APPLICATION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE INDOOR AIR EMISSIONS
FROM ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS
By
Cybele M. Brockmann, Linda S. Sheldon,
Don A. Whitaker, and Jesse N. Baskir
Research Triangle Institute
3040 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. 822002
EPA Project Officers: Kelly W. Leovic and Elizabeth M. Howard
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460

-------
NOTICE'
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.

-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building e science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iii

-------
Abstract
The objective of this research was to investigate pollution prevention options to reduce
indoor emissions from a type of finished engineered wood. Emissions were screened from four
types of finished engineered wood: oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with a heat
curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (PBVST); oak-veneered hardboard coated
and cured with a stain, and a heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
(HBVSST); particleboard overlaid with vinyl (PBVY); and particleboard overlaid with melamine
(PBM). The PBVST and HBVSST had substantially higher initial emission factors of summed
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) relative to those for PBVY and PBM. The PBVST and
HBVSST also had higher decay emission factors of formaldehyde relative to the initial emission
factors of formaldehyde for PBVY and PBM.
The acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings and particleboard were identified as sources of
VOCs from the PBVST. A coatings study was conducted to evaluate emissions and performance
properties of potentially low-emitting substitutes for the acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings.
Within the scope of the emissions and performance tests of the study, three types of coatings
were found to have significantly lower emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde
relative to those for the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings; these included a two
component waterborne polyurethane; a UV curable acrylate; and a UV and heat curable multi-
functional acrylate-free emulsion. These coatings also had comparable performance
characteristics to the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings. All three wood coatings
are currently available in the market place.
A fiber study was conducted to evaluate emissions of potentially low-emitting engineered
fiber panels. Three types of engineered fiber panels were identified as having significantly lower
emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde relative to those for particleboard; these
included medium density fiberboard made with methylene diisocynate resin (MDI); a wheatboard
panel made with MDI resin; and a panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard. All three
fiber panels are in the market place and are used to construct a wide variety of interior products.
i_v

-------
Table of Contents
Chapter	Page
Abstract	ii
Figures	 vi
Tables	 viii
Acronyms 	 ix
1.0 Introduction	1
1.1	Background	1
1.2	Engineered Wood Products	2
1.3	Research	3
2.0 Results 	5
2.1	Overview	5
2.2	Phase 1 	7
2.2.1	Screening Tests	7
2.2.2	Quantitative Decay Tests	10
2.3	Phase 2 	10
2.4	Phase 3	14
2.4.1	Coatings Evaluation	14
2.4.2	Fiber Panel Study	18
2.4.2.1	Emission Tests	19
2.4.2.2	Performance Characteristics 	21
3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations	24
4.0 Phase 1 Screening Study 	26
4.1	Overview	26
4.2	Objectives 	26
4.3	Experimental Design 	26
4.3.1	Sample Collection 	26
4.3.2	Chamber Air Collection	28
4.3.3	VOCs Collection	 30
4.3.4	Analysis of VOCs	30
4.3.4.1	Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges	30
4.3.4.2	Analysis of VOCs on DNPH Cartridges 	32
4.3.4.3	Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors 	34
4.4	Results	34
4.5	Conclusions	37
5.0 Phase 2 Component Study	40
5.1	Overview	40
5.2	Objectives 	40
5.3	Experimental Design 	40
5.3.1	Sample Collection 	40
5.3.2	Chamber Air Sampling	41
V

-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Chapter	Page
5.3.3	VOCs Collection	41
5.3.4	Analysis of VOCs 	42
5.3.4.1	Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges	42
5.3.4.2	Analysis of Aldehydes and Ketones on DNPH Cartridges ... 42
5.3.4.3	Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors 	44
5.4	Results	45
5.5	Conclusions	48
6.0 Phase 3 Coatings Study 	49
6.1	Overview	49
6.2	Objectives 	49
6.3	Experimental Design 	50
6.3.1	Collection and Preparation of Coupons for Coatings Optimization
Trials and Performance Tests (Steps 1 and 2)	51
6.3.2	Coatings Optimization Trials (Step 3)	51
6.3.3	Performance Tests (Step 4) 	54
6.3.4	Collection and Preparation of Coupons for Coatings
Applications (Steps 5 and 6) 	55
6.3.5	Coatings Applications (Step 7)	56
6.3.6	Receipt, Storage, and Chamber Air Sampling (Steps 8 through 10) ... 56
6.3.7	Collection of VOCs	58
6.3.7.1	Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges (Step 11)	58
6.3.7.2	Analysis of Aldehydes and Ketones on DNPH Cartridges ... 63
6.3.7.3	Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors 	64
6.3.8	Statistical Analysis of Emission Factors Data (Step 12)	65
6.4	Results	67
6.4.1	Performance Tests	67
6.4.2	Emission Tests	68
6.5	Conclusions 	73
7.0 Phase 3 Fiber Panel Study	78
7.1	Overview	78
7.2	Objective 	79
7.3	Experimental Design 	79
7.3.1	Collection of Products	79
7.3.2	Preparation of Test Squares	80
7.3.3	Chamber Air Collection	80
7.3.3.1 VOCs Collection 	81
7.3.4	Analysis of VOCs	81
7.3.4.1	Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges	81
7.3.4.2	Analysis of VOCs on DNPH Cartridges 	83
7.3.4.3	Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors 	85
7.3.5	Statistical Analysis of Emission Factors Data	85
vi

-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Chapter	Page
7.4	Results	86
7.4.1 Emission Data 	86
7.4.1.1	Emission Data of Unfinished Test Squares	86
7.4.1.2	Emission Data of Finished Test Squares	89
7.5	Conclusions and Recommendations 	92
8.0 Data Quality	94
8.1	Overview	94
8.2	QAPPs	94
8.3	Data Quality Indicator Goals 	94
8.3.1	Precision 	94
8.3.2	Accuracy 	95
8.4	Quality Control	95
8.5	Inspections, Audits, and Data Reviews 	95
References	97
Appendix A - Phase One Screening Study	A-1
Appendix B - Phase Two Component Study	B-1
Appendix C - Phase Three Coatings Study	C-1
Appendix D - Phase Three Fiber Panel Study	D-1
Appendix E - Precision of Chamber Air Concentrations 	E-1
Appendix F - Accuracy Calculations	F-1
Appendix G - Names and Addresses of Coatings and Fiber Panel Participants 	G-1
vi'i-

-------
List of Figures
Figure	Page
2-1 Emissions test chamber	6
2-2 Estimated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of finished
engineered wood conditioned for six hours	8
2-3 Estimated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares of finished
engineered wood conditioned for six hours	9
2-4 Quantitated emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of finished
engineered wood conditioned for 31-days 	11
2-5 Quantitated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of components of
finished engineered wood conditioned for 31 days	12
2-6 Quantitated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares of
components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days	13
2-7 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares of
engineered panels conditioned 26 to 30 days	20
2-8 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard conditioned 26 to 28 days .... 22
2-9 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished wheatboard conditioned approximately 28 days 	23
4-1 Sample collection for Phase 1 	27
4-2 Emissions test chamber	29
4-3 Estimated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of finished
engineered wood conditioned for six hours	35
4-4 Estimated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares of finished
engineered wood conditioned for six hours	36
4-5	Quantitated emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of finished engineered
wood conditioned for 31-days	38
5-1	Sample collection of components	40
5-2 Quantitated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of components
of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days	46
5-3	Quantitated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares of
components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days	47
6-1	Steps one through four of experimental design	52
6-2	Steps five through ten of experimental design 	52
6-3	Drawdown bar	53
6-4	Application of coating with drawdown bar	53
6-5	Close-up of drawdown bar	53
6-6	Mustard and stain tests 	55
6-7	Adhesion test	55
6-8	Gloss checker 	55
6-9	Durometer for measuring hardness 	55
viii

-------
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure	Page
6-10 Example of how Board A was labeled and divided into coupons
(drawing not to scale)	57
6-11 Conditioning chambers	59
6-12	Four of six emission factors test chambers	59
7-1	Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares of
engineered panels conditioned less than 24 hours	87
7-2 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares of
engineered panels conditioned 26 to 30 days	88
7-3 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and finished
test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard conditioned 26 to 28 days 	91
7-4 Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and finished
wheatboard conditioned approximately 28 days	92

-------
List of Tables
Table	Page
2-1	Selected Coatings Systems	14
2-2	Performance Tests of Coatings Systems	16
2-3	Quantitated Mean Emission Factors for Uncoated and Coated Test Squares
Conditioned for 28 Days 	17
2-4	Selected Engineered Panels	19
2-5	Finished Engineered Fiber Panels Selected for Screening 	19
4-1	Conditions For Chamber Testing for Screening and Decay Tests	28
4-2	GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOCs	31
4-3	Target Aldehydes and Ketones	32
4-4	HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors	33
5-1	Conditions For Chamber Testing	41
5-2	GC/FID Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOC	43
5-3	Target Aldehydes and Ketones	43
5-4	HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors	44
6-1	Coatings Systems Evaluated	49
6-2	Number of Coupons Coated and Reserved as Field Coupons 	56
6-3	Conditions For Chamber Testing	60
6-4	Number of Chamber Air Samples Collected 	60
6-5	GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOC	61
6-6	Target Aldehydes and Ketones	63
6-7	HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors	64
6-8	ANOVA for Objective One	66
6-9	ANOVA for Objective Two	66
6-10	Performance Tests Results	68
6-11	Quantitated Mean Emission Factors from Uncoated and Coated Test Squares
Conditioned for 28 Days 	70
6-12	P-Values of Mean Emission Factors of Select Compounds	71
6-13	Organic Compounds Listed on MSDS vs. Compounds Detected During
Emissions Tests 	74
7-1	Selected Engineered Panels	78
7-2	Finished Engineered Fiber Panels Selected for Screening 	79
7-3	Conditions for Chamber Testing 	80
7-4	GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOCs	82
7-5	Target Aldehydes and Ketones	84
7-6	HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors	84
7-7	ANOVA for Statistical Analysis 	86
7-8	P-values for Mean Emission Factors of TVOC from Test Squares Conditioned
26 to 30 Days 	90
7-9	P-values for Mean Emission Factors of Formaldehyde from Test Squares
conditioned 26 to 30 Days	90
8-1	Data Quality Indicator Goals for Chamber Air Concentrations	94
8-2	Inspections, Audits, and Data Reviews	96
X

-------
Acronyms
AqS
AtoI
Ajvoc
AVoc
ACH
ACH/L
ANSI/KCMA
APPCD
BFB
Ca/k
Cvoc or TVOC
DNPH
DR
EPA
ETAC
GC
GC/FID
GC/MS
HB
HBVSST
HPLC
IAQ
IEMB
LEMs
Mqs
MTo|
Mjvoc
Mvoc
MACT
MDF
MDI
MEK
mL/min
MSDC
MSDS
NBS
NIH
NIST
NRMRL
P2
PB
PBM
PBV
peak area of the quantitation standard {ng/cartridge)
peak area of toluene (ng/cartridge)
peak area of TVOC (ng/cartridge)
peak area of VOC (ng/cartridge)
air exchange rate (air changes per hour)
air exchange rate per loading
American National Standards Institute/Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
bromopentafluorobenzene
concentration of the target aldehyde or ketone in the chamber air sample (pg/m3)
concentration of VOC or TVOC
concentration of DNPH/analyte derivative in the sample extract (ng/[jL)
molecular weight of the aldehyde or ketone * molecular weight of the aldehyde or
ketone/DNPH derivative
dinitrophenylhydrazine
double rub
Environmental Protection Agency
Electrotechnology Application Center
gas chromatography
gas chromatography/flame ionization detection
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
hardboard
oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
high pressure liquid chromatography
indoor air quality
Indoor Environment Measurement Branch
low-emitting materials
mass of quantitation standard (ng/cartridge)
mass of toluene (ng/cartridge)
mass of TVOC (ng/cartridge)
mass of VOC (ng/cartridge)
maximum achievable control technology
medium density fiberboard
methylene diisocyanate
methyl ethyl ketone
milliliter per min
Mass Spectral Data Centre
material safety data sheet
National Bureau of Standards
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
pollution prevention
particleboard
particleboard overlaid with melamine
oak-veneered particleboard

-------
Acronyms (continued)
PBVS
oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea

sealer
PBVST
oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea

sealer and topcoat
PBVY
particleboard overlaid with vinyl
PF
phenol-formaldehyde
PFT
perfluorotoluene
RH
relative humidity
RIC
reconstructed ion chromatogram
RRFToj
relative response factor for toluene
RRfvoc
relative response factor for VOC
RSD
relative standard deviation
RTI
Research Triangle Institute
TVOCs
total volatile organic compounds
UF
urea-formaldehyde
UV
ultraviolet light
Vs
sample volume of chamber air (L)
Vy
total volume of sample extract (i.e., 5000 pL)
V
veneer
voc
volatile organic compound
VOCs
volatile organic compounds
xii

-------
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background
A 1987 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ranked indoor air
pollutants as the fourth highest risk in a list of nearly 30 environmental problems.1 A 1990 follow-
up study by EPA's Science Advisory Board also identified indoor air pollution as a prime
candidate for more aggressive risk reduction strategies.2 The primary risk from indoor air
pollutants is to human health. The high human health risk from pollutants in indoor air is a result
of the following factors: 1) pollutant concentrations are higher indoors than outdoors; this occurs
because indoor air includes outdoor air pollutants in addition to those pollutants generated
indoors; and, 2) people spend more time indoors. On average, people spend an estimated 90
percent of their time indoors where they are exposed to the higher levels of pollutants than
outdoors. Particularly sensitive populations (such as the sick, elderly, and young) often spend
more time indoors than outdoors, resulting in even greater than average exposure.
Health effects from exposure to indoor air pollution range from eye, nose, or throat
irritation to cancer. The high relative risk from exposure to indoor air pollution is supported by a
series of long-term EPA studies of human exposure to indoor air pollutants.3 Major findings from
these studies are: 1) for many pollutants, indoor levels are 2-5 times higher than outdoor levels;
2) in both rural and heavily industrialized areas, personal exposures and concentrations indoors
exceed those outdoors for essentially all of the prevalent volatile organic compounds (VOCs); 3)
after some activities (e.g., hobbies, painting), indoor air pollutant levels can be up to 1,000 times
higher than outdoor levels; and, 4) in new non-residential buildings, levels of VOCs can be as
much as 100 times higher than outdoor levels.
Sources of indoor air pollutants include both gases (organic and inorganic) and particles.
The indoor environment is affected by numerous emission sources and activities that can impact
indoor air quality (IAQ). The major sources of indoor air pollution can be categorized into: outdoor
air, soil gas, building materials, building systems, consumer products, and human activities.
Three general approaches exist to reduce exposures to indoor air pollutants: 1) source
management, i.e., controlling the source of emissions or preventing emissions indoors through
use of less toxic or lower risk materials; 2) ventilation, i.e., providing general or task-specific local
ventilation to reduce human exposure to pollutants in the indoor environment; and, 3) air
cleaning, i.e., removing pollutants from the indoor air through filtration, adsorption, or chemical
destruction.
In many cases, the most effective and efficient strategy for reducing exposure to indoor
air pollution is at the source of the pollution through source management. According to the
definition in the Pollution Prevention Act of 19904 section (5)(A and B) the term "source
reduction" means any practice which: 1) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance,
1

-------
pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment
(including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and 2) reduces the
hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or technology modifications, process
or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials,
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. The term
"source reduction" does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a
process or activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of a product or
the providing of a service.
Source reduction or pollution prevention (P2) can be the best way to reduce risks from
indoor air pollution, because it minimizes the potential for exposure to indoor air pollutants by
minimizing the amount released into the indoor environment, while simultaneously reducing the
environmental impacts of products used indoors throughout their life cycle. One way to reduce
emissions is through the use of lower-emitting materials (LEMs). LEMs are products that have
lower emissions to the indoor air than other alternatives for the same use. This encompasses the
"reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials" activities listed in the
definition of source reduction.
The Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD)/lndoor Environment
Measurement Branch (IEMB) of EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) is responsible for much of EPA's IAQ research and seeks to integrate IAQ and P2 into
a strategic approach to indoor source management. Strategies for improving IAQ and preventing
pollution include evaluating existing data to identify LEMs; encouraging the development of
LEMs, products, and equipment; and developing appropriate test methods for use by industry to
promote P2. P2 projects currently underway within IEMB focus on the many sources of indoor
air pollution, including office equipment, aerosol consumer products, textile products, conversion
varnishes, biocontaminants, and engineered wood products.
1.2 Engineered Wood Products
Engineered wood products are used throughout residential, office, and commercial
settings. Examples of products using engineered wood include computer stations, desks,
entertainment units, book cases, kitchen and bathroom cabinets, counter tops, etc. Most of
these products are assembled from one or more types of finished engineered wood.
Engineered wood is distinct from solid wood, in that it is composed of wooden elements
of various sizes held together by a synthetic resin. Particleboard (PB) and medium density
fiberboard (MDF) are the most common types of engineered wood for constructing interior
products. Hardboard (HB) is also used. PB is made from wood particles of various sizes,
whereas MDF and HB are made from wood fibers. In the US, most interior-grade PB and MDF
are bonded with urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins; hardboard is bonded with phenol-formaldehyde
(PF) resins.
Engineered wood is often finished prior to assembling it into a product. Panels are
printed or overlaid with materials to give them a solid color, a wood grain pattern, or other
decorative look. Common types of overlays include vinyl, wood veneer, and paper. Paper
overlays usually contain resins to give the paper strength and durability. A protective coating
2

-------
may also be applied to the paper after it is overlaid to the board. Wood veneered panels are
usually coated with sealers and topcoats.
Most engineered wood products consist of three or four types of finished engineered
wood. For example, a cabinet may have sides and shelves made from PB printed with a wood
grain pattern; a back made from HB overlaid with a vinyl film; and a door made from MDF
overlaid with wood veneer and then coated with a sealer and topcoat.
Indoor emissions from engineered wood products can arise from the engineered wood
(both the wood and resin); finishing materials applied to the engineered wood; and glues used to
assemble pieces of finished engineered wood together. Emissions from specific products will
vary with the amount and type of materials used to construct them. For example, emissions from
a cabinet made with vinyl and paper overlaid PB will differ from emissions from a cabinet made
with printed PB and wood veneered MDF.
1.3 Research
In September 1993, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) began a collaborative research
effort with EPA's NRMRL/APPCD/IEMB to identify and evaluate P2 techniques to reduce indoor
emissions from engineered wood products.
To begin the research, RTI reviewed the literature to characterize the engineered wood
industry and to identify existing information regarding emissions from engineered wood products.
Emissions from engineered wood were well characterized then, however, few studies were
available on the contribution of finishing materials. RTI published these findings in the report
Sources and Factors Affecting Indoor Emissions from Engineered Wood Products: Summary and
Evaluation of Current Literature5
RTI and EPA established a group of technical advisors to provide input to the research.
The technical advisors included representatives from the engineered wood and wood products
industries and their trade associations. These advisors played an integral role in the research by
providing feedback regarding research plans, providing materials for emissions testing, and peer
reviewing papers and reports of the research.
In May of 1994, RTI and EPA convened an initial research planning meeting with the
technical advisors to discuss the focus and approach of the research. Since emissions from
engineered wood products vary with the amount and type of materials used to construct them,
the group decided that the research should focus on reducing indoor emissions from specific
types of materials rather than from specific products. The objective was to reduce indoor
emissions from one or two types of materials used in large quantities in a wide variety of
engineered wood products. The approach to the research consisted of three major phases.
In Phase 1, emission tests were conducted to screen (i.e., estimate) emission factors of
VOCs from several types of finished engineered wood. The purpose of the screening was to
select a type of finished engineered wood for P2 evaluation (i.e., source reduction evaluation). In
Phase 2, emission tests were conducted to determine emission factors of VOCs from
components of the selected type of finished engineered wood. The purpose of the component
study was to identify the source(s) of VOCs from the finished engineered wood. In Phase 3,
potential LEMs were identified and evaluated as alternatives for the emission sources identified
3

-------
in Phase 2.
This report presents research of Phases 1 through 3. Chapter two provides an overview
of the results from each phase of the research. Chapter three presents the conclusions of the
research. Chapters four through seven discuss each phase of the research in terms of their
objectives, experimental design, methods, and results.
4

-------
Chapter Two
Results
2.1 Overview
Sections 2.2 through 2.4 present the key results from each phase of the research. In
each phase of the research, emission tests were conducted to estimate or quantitate VOCs from
selected materials. Multiple environmental test chambers, like the one shown in Figure 2-1, were
used to measure VOCs from materials under dynamic conditions. The 0.012 m3 chambers
operated at 50% relative humidity (% RH), 23 ± 2 JC, an air exchange rate (ACH) of 1/h, and a
loading ratio (L) of 1.0 m2/m3 (total surface area of the tested material (0.012 m2) divided by the
volume of test chamber). Air that entered the chambers was treated to remove VOCs. The test
chambers were constructed of glass, Teflon, and stainless steel.
VOCs in the test chambers were collected by passing chamber air through sorbent
cartridges. The mass of each VOC collected on a sorbent cartridge was either estimated (using
a response factor for toluene) or quantitated (using calibration standards), depending on the
objective of the emission tests. The mass of total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) collected
on a sorbent cartridge was estimated using a response factor for toluene. (Chapters 4 through 7
provide detailed descriptions of how individual VOCs and TVOC were extracted and analyzed
from sorbent cartridges). The estimated or quantitated masses of individual VOCs and TVOC
collected on a sorbent cartridge were converted to chamber air concentrations based on the
volume of chamber air that passed through the cartridge. The chamber air concentrations of
individual VOCs and TVOC were then converted to emission factors (EFs) using the following
equation
L
where
Cm	= measured concentration of a VOC or TVOC in a chamber air sample (pg /m3)
ACH	= air exchange rate in the test chamber
L	= loading ratio in the test chamber
An emission factor of summed VOCs for a tested material was calculated by summing the
individual emission factors of VOCs for the tested material.
Throughout Chapter 2 and the remainder of the report, emission factors derived by
estimating the masses of individual VOCs and TVOC on sorbent cartridges are labeled in Figures
as estimated emission factors; emission factors derived by quantitating the masses of individual
VOCs on sorbent cartridges are labeled in Figures as quantitated emission factors.
5

-------
Chamber Operating Conditions
for Emissions Testing
Temperature	23°C ± 2
Relative Humidity
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)
Test Square Area
Loading (L)
ACH/L
50 ±5%
1 ± 0.05/h
0.012m'
1.0m W
Glass Bell Jar	
Gas Oullet
Gas Inlet
Sample
Collection
Outlet
Test Square
Stainless Steel Plate
Mixing Fan
Teflon Gasket
DNPH Cartridge for
Collecting Aldehydes
and Ketones
; Stir Plate
Gas Vent —
Multisorbent
Cartridges for
! Air
—* Cleaning j—*• Gas —~
System | Supply
Pump
Ambient
Air
- j
Other VOC
Pump ~
Pump
Figure 2-1. Emissions test chamber.
6

-------
2.2 Phase 1
The objective of Phase 1 was to conduct emission tests to identify a type of finished
engineered wood for P2 evaluation. Phase 1 testing included screening tests and quantitative
decay tests.
2.2.1 Screening Tests
Emission tests were conducted to screen (i.e., estimate) initial emission factors of
summed VOCs for four types of finished engineered wood; these included oak-veneered
particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (PBVST);
oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
and topcoat (HBVSST); particleboard overlaid with vinyl (PBVY); and particleboard overlaid with
melamine (PBM). Melamine is a paper overlay saturated with melamine and UF resins. These
materials were selected for screening because they were identified by focus group members as
materials used to construct a high volume of engineered wood products (MDF was also identified
as a type of material used to construct a high volume of engineered wood products, however, it
could not be acquired for the screening). Samples of the engineered wood were collected from a
single manufacturer of finished engineered wood; the samples were collected from the end of the
manufacturing line.
Figures 2-2 and 2-3 present estimated emission factors of summed VOCs and aldehydes
and ketones, respectively, for test squares of PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, and PBM conditioned
under typical indoor conditions (23 °C, 50% relative humidity [RH], and one air exchange [ACH]).
(Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A list emission factors of individual VOCs, aldehydes and
ketones for each of the test squares). Figure 2-2 shows that initial emission factors of summed
VOCs were substantially higher for test squares of PBVST and HBVSST relative to those for
PBVY and PBM. Alcohols made up a large portion of the emission factors of summed VOCs for
test squares of PBVST and HBVSST, whereas, virtually no alcohol emissions were detected from
test squares of PBVY and PBM. Alcohols were listed as solvents in the material safety data
sheets (MSDS) for the coatings (i.e., the sealer and topcoat). Terpenes were only detected from
test squares made with PB. Terpenes are volatile constituents of certain wood species such as
pine (used to make the PB). Terpenes are not major constituents of hardwood species, which
are used to manufacture HB. The presence of terpenes in emissions from the PB test squares
suggests that they may permeate through all three types of finishes, (i.e., veneer with coatings,
melamine, and vinyl).
In Figure 2-3, n-hexanal was unique to test squares made with PB. Acetone was emitted
primarily from test squares made from PB, although small amounts were measured from test
squares of HBVSST. Acetone and n-hexanal have been associated with wood fibers in certain
types of engineered wood panels.6 The fact that these compounds were not detected in the
emissions from the HB test squares suggests that these compounds may be specific to certain
wood species or specific types of engineered wood.
Initial emission factors of formaldehyde were substantially higher for test squares of
PBVST and HBVSST relative to those for test squares of PBVY and PBM. The acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat were believed to be the major reason for these differences.
7

-------
E
O)
O
CO
c
o
tn
(/)
LJJ
T3

LU

m
~ Terpenes
I Other Oonpxncb
1 /^jetydes/Ketones
i/Achate



zr


¦

>
>
CD
CQ
CD
Q.
CL
Q_
111

CM
¦«-

T-i-
*-
eg
co
1	
1—
1—
1—
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
(0
CO
CO
>
>
>
>
CO
CD
CQ
m
X
X
X
X
CN|
CO
$ $ $
CD CD
Q. Q.
DO
OL
1 . , m , is
•

eg

T	
CM
CN
co
5
2
2
2
CD
CQ
CQ
QQ
CL
Q.
CL
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, or PBM), followed by sample number
(1, 2, or 3), followed by test square number (1 or 2), where
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
HBVSST = oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and
topcoat
PBVY = particleboard overlaid with vinyl
PBM = particleboard overlaid with melamine
Emissions variability between samples is shown by test squares with the same material acronym, but different
sample numbers. Emissions variability within samples is shown by test squares with the same material
acronym and sample number, but different test square numbers.
Figure 2-2. Estimated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of
finished engineered wood conditioned for six hours.
8

-------
20000-
E 18000-
12000
10000-
8GOO +
6000-
i
i
i
i
¦
¦
CO
I
I
CO
I I I I
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, or PBM), followed by sample
number (1, 2, or 3), followed by test square number (1 or 2), where
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with a acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
HBVSST = oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
and topcoat
PBVY = particleboard overlaid with vinyl
PBM = particleboard overlaid with melamine
Emissions variability between samples is shown by test squares with the same material acronym, but
different sample numbers. Emissions variability within samples is shown by test squares with the same
material acronym and sample number, but different test square numbers.
Figure 2-3. Estimated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test
squares of finished engineered wood conditioned for six hours.
9

-------
Research has shown that catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings release formaldehyde over time as part
of their curing process.7
2.2.2 Quantitative Decay Tests
As a final step in the selection of a type of finished engineered wood for P2 evaluation,
emission tests were conducted to quantitate emission factors over time for PBVST and HBVSST.
The purpose of the quantitative decay tests was to evaluate potential emissions from PBVST and
HBVSST at a time when they might be installed in an indoor environment as part of an
assembled product.
Figure 2-4 shows quantitated emission factors of formaldehyde over time for test squares
of PBVST and HBVSST. All test squares showed a rapid decay of formaldehyde during the first
week of sampling. By the fourth time point (14 days), formaldehyde emission factors for PBVST
and HBVSST appeared to level out to approximately 300 pg/(m2*hr), which was substantially
higher than initial emission factors of formaldehyde from PBVY and PBM [initial emission factors
ranged from 51 to 90 pg/(m2*hr)]. Based on these results and those from the screening tests,
PBVST was selected for P2 evaluation.
2.3 Phase 2
The objective of Phase 2 testing was to identify the source(s) of emissions from PBVST.
Emission tests were conducted to quantitate emission factors for various components of PBVST;
these included particleboard (PB); veneer (V); oak-veneered particleboard (PBV); oak-veneered
particleboard coated and cured with an catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer (PBVS); and oak-veneered
particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (PBVST).
Samples of the components were collected directly from a manufacturing line (the same
manufacturing line from which samples of PBVST were collected in Phase 1).
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 present quantitated emission factors of summed VOCs and
aldehydes and ketones, respectively, for test squares of PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and PBVST
conditioned/aged under typical indoor conditions for 31 days. (Table B-1 in Appendix B lists
emission factors of individual VOCs, aldehydes and ketones for each of the test squares.) As
shown in Figure 2-5, emission factors of summed VOCs for PB and PBV were 1600 Mg/(m2*hr)
and 470 |jg/(m2»hr), respectively. The emission factor of summed VOCs for the veneer was 17
pg/(m2«hr), which suggests that VOCs from PBV were being emitted by the PB and possibly the
glue used to adhere the veneer to the PB. (The glue is a mixture of polyvinyl acetate (a white
glue) and an UF resin; the mixture contains less than 0.6% formaldehyde.) Since the emission
factor of summed VOCs for PBV was substantially lower than the emission factor of summed
VOCs for PB, this suggests that the veneer was suppressing emissions from the PB.
The emission factor of summed VOCs was 470 |jg/(m2*hr) for the test square of PBV
compared to 1400, 1600, and 1300 |jg/(m2*hr) for test squares of PBVS and 2300, 1900, and
1800 (jg/(m2,hr) for test squares of PBVST. The increase in emissions from PBV to PBVS
appears to be due to the addition of the sealer to PBV. The increase in emissions from PBVS to
PBVST appears to be due to the addition of the topcoat to the PBVS.
10

-------
-C
~
-------
JZ
£
O)
=L
U
(0
LL
C
O
"c/>
w
"E
LU
T3
.+-»
ro
c
CO
=>
a
2500
2000
1500-
1000
500
~ Terpenss
1 Cther Carpands
§ AjetyfesKekres
i/techds



00
CL
>
m
Q.
>
CO
CL
CM
W
>
CD
CL
co
W
>
00
CL
V-
CM
co
I—
H-
t—
a)

CO
>
>
>
as
m
CO
CL
Q.
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PB, V, PBV, PBVS, or PBVST), followed by sample number (1,
2, or 3), followed by test square number (1), where
PB = particleboard
V = veneer
PBV = oak-veneered particleboard
PBVS = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and PBVST all came from the same manufacturer.
Emissions variability between samples is shown by lest squares with the same material acronym, but different
sample numbers.
Figure 2-5. Quantitated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of
components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days.
12
-------
E,
O)
u
00
c
o
U)
M
E
LU
"O
03
ra
c
CO
3
o
2500
2000
1500
1000-
500 -
¦ other
iHsonai
lAxtcne
~ FormalcJetyje
tuaca
00
Q.
>
CD
Q_

¦*—
T—


T—
T-
C\l
co
-r~
IN
CO
w
03
03
I—
I—

>
>
>
03
w
03
CD
CD
CD
>
>
>
Q.
Q.
CL
m
CD
00



Q.
CL
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PB, V, PBV, PBVS, or PBVST), followed by sample number (1, 2,
or 3), followed by test square number (1), where
PB = particleboard
V = veneer
PBV = veneered paricleboard
PBVS = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and PBVST all came from the same manufacturer.
Emissions variability between samples is shown by test squares with the same material acronym, but different
sample numbers.
Figure 2-6. Quantitated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares
of components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days.
13
-------
As shown in Figure 2-6, emission factors of n-hexanal for PB and PBV were 490
|jg/(m2*hr) and 97 pg/(m2*hr), respectively. Emission factors of acetone for PB and PBV were
270 and 110 pg/(m2*hr), respectively. The presence of n-hexanal and acetone in emissions from
the test square of PB supports the hypothesis from Phase 1 that these compounds are
associated with the wood in the PB. The lower emission factors of acetone and n-hexanal for the
PBV test square relative to those for the PB test square suggests that the veneer suppressed
emissions of these compounds from the PB. PBV, PBVS, and PBVST all had similar emission
factors of n-hexanal and acetone, which also supports the hypothesis from Phase 1 that these
compounds are emitted from the wood in the PB rather than the coatings.
Emission factors of formaldehyde for PB and PBV were 230 pg/(m2»hr) and 130
pg/(m2»hr), respectively. The emission factor of formaldehyde for the veneer was 9 pg/(m2»hr),
which suggests that the veneer was suppressing formaldehyde emissions from the PB. The
emission factor of formaldehyde for the test square of PBV was 130 |jg/(m2*hr) compared to
320, 340, and 360 Mg/(m2*hr) for test squares of PBVS and 530, 440, and 390 pg/(m2»hr) for test
squares of PBVST; these increases suggest that the coatings were a source of formaldehyde.
2.4 Phase 3
Phase 2 testing identified acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings and UF bonded PB as
potential sources of emissions from PBVST. The objective of Phase 3 was to identify and
evaluate potentially low-emitting substitutes for these materials.
2.4.1 Coatings Evaluation
Five alternative coatings systems {where coatings system = sealer and topcoat) were
identified as potentially low-emitting substitutes for the acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings system
(Table 2-1). Standard industry tests for performance of wood coatings and quantitative emission
tests were conducted on test squares of PBV coated and cured with the six coatings systems.
Table 2-1. Selected Coatings Systems

Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Chemistry
Acid
catalyzed
alkyd-urea
Two
component
polyurethane
Non-air
inhibited
unsaturated
polyester
Acrylate
Multi-
functional
acrylate-free
emulsion
Polyurethane
dispersion
Carrier
organic
solvents
water
water
none
water
water
Cure
method
heat
heat
UVa light
UV light
heat + UV
light
heat
a UV = ultraviolet
Table 2-2 presents the results of the performance tests. In this table, Coating 1 refers to
test squares of PBV finished with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (the type of
coatings system identified as a potential source of emissions from PBVST in Phases 1 and 2).
Coatings 2 through 6 refer to test squares of PBV finished with five alternative coatings systems.
Comparing the performance ratings of the alternative coatings systems to the ratings of Coating
14
-------
1 (the benchmark coating) provides an indication of the ability of the alternative coatings systems
to achieve the performance of Coating 1. Coatings 3, 4, and 5 outperformed Coating 1 in the
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) test. Coatings 4 and 5 outperformed Coating 1 in the mustard test.
For the stain tests, Coatings 2, 4, 5, and 6 performed the same as Coating 1; Coating 3
performed fairly well in the stain tests except for its performance with grape juice and coffee. All
coatings performed equally well in the adhesion and fingernail mar resistance tests. Coatings 4
and 5 had gloss ratings that differed substantially from that of Coating 1.
One caveat to the performance data is that measurements of hardness and chemical
resistance depend on how much time has elapsed since a coating is cured. Some coatings
gradually develop their hardness and chemical resistance over a period of one to two weeks.
Standard industry practice is to wait two weeks after cure before running chemical resistance
tests; hardness tests are usually measured at 1, 3, 7, 14, 31, and 93 days after cure. For this
evaluation, mustard and stain tests were performed one to two weeks after the coatings were
cured; MEK tests were performed on the same day the coatings were cured; and hardness tests
were measured one to two days after the coatings were cured. The coatings in Table 2-2 differ
mainly in how they performed in the MEK and mustard tests; since time is a critical factor in
developing chemical resistance, some of the coatings that performed poorly, may have improved
with time.
Table 2-3 presents mean emission factors for test squares of PBV coated and cured with
each of the six coatings systems and for test squares of uncoated PBV (all of the test squares
were conditioned for 28 days prior to measuring their emissions). (Tables C2 through C9 in
Appendix C present emission factors for individual test squares finished with each of the coatings
systems and emission factors for individual test squares of lab and field coupons; these tables
also show emissions variability among test squares with the same coatings system.) The
emissions data were statistically analyzed to ascertain if emission factors of summed VOCs for
test squares of coated and cured PBV were significantly different than those for test squares of
uncoated PBV. The mean emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares coated and cured
with Coating Systems 1, 3, and 6 were statistically higher than the mean emission factor of
summed VOCs for test squares of uncoated PBV, indicating that these coatings systems are a
significant source of emissions from finished PBV. The mean emission factors of summed VOCs
for test squares coated and cured with Coatings Systems 2, 4, and 5 were statistically lower than
the mean emission factor of summed VOCs for test squares of uncoated PBV, indicating that
these coatings systems are not a significant source of emissions from finished PBV and that
these coatings systems suppressed emissions from the veneered particleboard.
The emission data were also statistically analyzed to ascertain if emission factors of
individual and summed VOCs for test squares of PBV coated and cured with Coatings System 1
(i.e., the existing coatings system for finishing PBVST in Phases 1 and 2) were statistically
different than those for test squares of PBV coated and cured with the five alternative coatings
systems. The mean emission factor of summed VOCs for test squares of PBV coated and cured
with Coatings System 1 was significantly higher than the mean emission factors of
15
-------
Table 2-2. Performance Tests of Coatings Systems
Performance Tests
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating
Chemical Resistance






1) MEK Test1
20
10
100
100
100
10
2) Mustard Test (1 hr/24 hr)2
4/8
2/6
2/3
10
8/9
4/6
3) Stain Test (24 hr)3






Vinegar
10
10
10
10
10
10
Lemon
10
10
10
10
10
10
Orange Juice
10
10
10
10
10
10
Grape Juice
10
10
8
10
10
10
Tomato Catsup
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coffee
10
10
8
10
10
10
Olive Oil
10
10
10
10
10
10
100-proof Alcohol
10
10
10
10
10
10
Detergent and Water
10
10
10
10
10
10
Water
10
10
10
10
10
10
Adhesion4
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
Gloss5
46
40
51
61
65
48
Hardness6
74
77
74
72
77
71
Fingernail Mar Resistance7
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
Coating 1 = heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea
Coating 2 = heat curable two component polyurethane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable acrylate
Coating 5 = UV and heat curable multi-functional acrylate-free emulsion
Coating 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
1 The MEK Test is a test where a cloth saturated with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) is rubbed in a back and forth
motion or double rub (DR) on the surface of a coated substrate. The ratings for the MEK Test are the number of
DR's until the first sign of substrate or to a maximum of 100 DR.
2Mustard tests were performed according to the procedures of the covered spot test in ASTM D13088. For the test,
a few drops of mustard were applied to the horizontal surface of a coated substrate, the drops were covered with a
watch glass to prevent (hem from evaporating. The watch glass was removed after one hour and the mustard
washed off with water. The coated substrate was examined for damages to the coating such as discoloration,
changes in gloss, blistering, softening, swelling, and loss of adhesion If no damages were seen, the coating was
given a rating of 10 and the test stopped. If the mustard damaged the coating, the spot was evaluated 23 hours
later (24 hours after the mustard was washed off) to determine if the coating improved over the interval; the coating
was rated from 0 to 10.
3	The individual stains were performed according to the procedures of the covered spot test in ASTM D1308 and
using stains outlined by ANSI/KCMA A161.1-1990, 9.3.s The stains were applied in the same manner as the
mustard, except that the stains were left on the coated substrate for 24 hours, at which point the stain was rinsed
off, and the coating rated from 0 to 10 depending on its damage (a score of 10 indicated no damage to the
coating)
4	Adhesion was tested according to ASTM D335S;10 a rating of 5B is the highest adhesion.
'Gloss was measured according to ASTM D52311 using a Gloss Checker (1G-310 manufactured by Horiba); gloss
ratings ranged from 0 to 120, with the latter being the highest value.
6	Hardness was measured according to ASTM D224012 using a Durometer (Model 307L manufactured by PTC
Instruments); the ratings are 0 to 100, with 100 being the highest value.
7	Fingernail mar resistance was measured subjectively, VG = very good.
16
-------
Table 2-3. Quantitated Mean Emission Factors for Uncoated and Coated Test Squares
Conditioned for 28 Days
Emission Factors, pg/(m?»hr)
Uncoated lest	Test Squares Coated and Cured with
Compounds	squares of PBV Coating 1 Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coaling 6
Formaldehyde
140
400
20
70
18
19
33
Acetaldehyde
61
53
41
65
68
41
68
Acetone
420
520
490
380
390
430
510
Propionaldehyde
21
16
15
16
16
12
17
2-Butanone
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bulyraldehyde
15
-
-
18
-
-
12
Benzaldehyde
23
-
-
30
14
18
23
Valeraldehyde
65
37
26
54
28
19
57
rri-Tolualdehyde
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o-Hexanal
410
150
120
280
79
93
350
1-Pentanol
62
150
16
38
13
14
49
Limonene
79
68
54
74
38
37
83
Junipcne
89
61
24
54
1G
13
67
Terpenes
170
320
220
170
110
100
120
1-Butanol
6
800
-
5
-
8
7
Toluene
-
16
-
5
22
-
6
2-Methyl-1-butanol
-
55
-
-
-
-
-
Butyl acetate
-
38
-
-
-
-
-
1,2-Propanediol
-
15
-
33
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
270
-
-
33
-
-
m,p-Xylene
-
660
-
-
110
-
-
2-Hoptanono
15
550
8
13
9
7
22
o-Xylene
-
210
-
-
32
-
-
Propylbenzene
-
91
-
-
-
-
-
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-
110
-
-
-
-
-
1 -Mothyl-2-pyrrolidonc
-
11
-
20
-
5
2400
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
8
1700
43
610
18
6
7
Naphthalene
-
24
-
-
-
-
-
Hexyl acetate
-
400
-
-
-
-
-
Indan
-
13
-
-
-
-
-
C3-Benzenes
-
1100
-
-
-
-
-
C4-Benzenes
34
190
25
33
17
16
33
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
-
-
-
-
-
24
240
Unknown 1
-
-
-
180
-
-
-
Unknown 2
-
-
-
260
-
-
-
woe"
1000
5200
610
1700
810
540
2800
Summed VOCs"
1600
7800
1100
2300
1000
900
4100
Coating 1 = heat curable acid cataly7ed alkyd-urea
Coaling 2 = heat curable two component polyurathane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable acrylate
Coating 5 = UV and heat curable multi-lunctional acrylale-free emulsion
Coaling 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
' < 5 |jg/(m'«hr)
" TVOC = total volatile organic compounds from TVOC analysis of multlsorbent tubes
"Summed VOCs are the sum of emission factors > 5 pg/(m?-hr), rounded to two significant figures
17
-------
summed VOCs for test squares of PBV coated and cured with Coatings Systems 2 through 6.
The mean emission factors of most organic solvents [such as butanol, C4- benzenes, 2-(2-
butoxyethoxy)ethanol] were significantly higher for test squares of PBV coated and cured with
Coatings System 1 compared to test squares with Coatings Systems 2 through 6.
In terms of individual compounds, the mean emission factor of 1-methyl-2-pyrroiidone for
test squares of PBV coated and cured with Coatings System 1 was significantly lower than the
mean emission factor of 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone for test squares of PBV coated and cured with
Coatings System 6 (1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone is a type of solvent listed in the MSDS for Coatings
System 6). The mean emission factors for compounds unknown 1 and unknown 2 were also
significantly lower for test squares of PBV coated and cured with Coatings System 1 compared to
those for test squares of PBV coated and cured with Coatings System 3.
A few caveats exist regarding the emissions tests. Certain nonvolatile compounds that
were listed in the MSDS for some of the coatings systems were not analyzed for in the emission
tests; these included nitrocellulose, p-toluene sulfonic acid, hexamethylene diisocyanate,
polyisocyanates, acrylate oligomers, and acrylic polymers. These compounds were not analyzed
for in the emission tests for the following reasons: (1) they were not expected to be emitted into
the air during testing (because of their low volatility); (2) they were not expected to recover
efficiently from the emission test chambers and, (3) they were not expected to be amenable to
the analytical methods used for this study. Certain volatile compounds that were listed in the
MSDS for some of the coatings systems were also not analyzed for in the emission tests; these
included acrylate monomers, N.N-dimethylethanolamine, and ammonia. Acrylate monomers and
N.N-dimethylethanolamine were not analyzed for in the emission tests because they were not
amenable to the analytical methods in the study and because they were not expected to recover
efficiently during the chamber tests (due to their polar nature). Ammonia was not tested for in
the emission tests because it was not amenable to the analytical methods in the study.
2.4.2 Fiber Panel Study
Six types of engineered fiber panels were identified as potentially low-emitting materials
for constructing engineered products for interior applications (Table 2-4). Emissions were
screened from the six types of engineered fiber panels and PB manufactured with wood fibers
and UF resins. (The UF bonded PB tested during the fiber study did not come from the same
source as the UF bonded PB tested in Phases 1 and 2.) Emissions were also screened from a
few finished engineered fiber panels (Table 2-5). Due to limited resources, only a few types of
finished engineered panels could be screened.
Samples of unfinished engineered fiber panels were collected from the end of the
manufacturing line. For Product E, panels were collected from the manufacturing line after they
were treated with ammonia (a treatment used to reduce formaldehyde emissions from the
unfinished panels). Except for Product O, samples of finished panels H, I, J, and M were also
collected from the end of the manufacturing line. For Product O, samples of unfinished oak-
veneered wheatboard were collected from the end of the manufacturing line. The samples were
sent to a coatings facility where they were coated and cured with the two component
polyurethane that was evaluated in the Phase 3 (Coating 2). The finished coupons were sent
back to RTI for emissions testing.
18
-------
Table 2-4. Selected Engineered Panels
Panel
Identification
Fiber Source
Adhesive/Resin
Source
Interior Applications
A
Recycled newspaper
None
floors, walls, roof decking, furniture, office partitions
B
Wheat straw
MDI'
PBb applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelving
C
Recycled corrugated
cardboard
None'
furniture, store displays, countertops, shelving
D
Lumber and plywood
residuals
MDI
MDF applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves
E
Lumber and plywood
residuals
UFd
MDF applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves
F
Lumber and plywood
residuals
UF
PB applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves,
floor underlayment, stair treads
N
Lumber and plywood
residuals
pF»
PB applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves,
floor underlayment, stair treads
" MDI = Methylene diisocyanate
b PB = particleboard
c MDF = medium density fiberboard
d UF = Urea-formaldehyde
e PF = Phenol-formaldehyde
1 The manufacturing process does not require adhesive or resin to form the fibers into a panel; once the panels are
manufactured, they are glued together (in sets of two) using a white, polyvinyl acetate glue.
Table 2-5. Finished Engineered Fiber Panels Selected for Screening
Panel Identification Description
H	Product B (wheatboard) with veneer
I	Product B overlaid with vinyl
J	Product B overlaid with melamine
M	Product C (recycled corrugated cardboard) painted
O	Product B coated and cured with two component polyurethane coating
2.4.2.1 Emission Tests
Figure 2-7 presents emission factors of total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) and
formaldehyde for test squares of unfinished engineered fiber panels (TVOC does not include
formaldehyde). (Appendix D presents emission factors of individual VOCs for the test squares.)
The TVOC and formaldehyde data were statistically analyzed to ascertain which test squares
differed with respect to their emissions of TVOC and formaldehyde. The mean emission factors
of TVOC for test squares A, F, and N were significantly higher than the mean emission factors of
TVOC for test squares B through E. The mean emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares
E and F (the UF bonded panels) were significantly higher than the mean emission factors of
formaldehyde for test squares A through D, and N.
19
-------
E,
D)
Q
O
<0
U_
c
.2
co
w
UJ
T5
G>
03
E
«->
-------
Figures 2-8 and 2-9 present emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares
of finished recycled corrugated cardboard and wheatboard, respectively; test squares of
unfinished recycled corrugated cardboard and wheatboard are also shown for reference. Test
squares of recycled corrugated cardboard finished with paint (Product M) had slightly higher
emission factors of TVOC than the unfinished test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard
(Product C). Emission factors of formaldehyde were fairly consistent between the unfinished and
finished test squares.
As shown in Figure 2-9, emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of oak-
veneered wheatboard (Product H) were substantially higher compared to emission factors of
formaldehyde for test squares of unfinished wheatboard (Product B). In the Phase 2 component
study, formaldehyde emissions were not detected from the veneer. The elevated formaldehyde
emissions from the oak-veneered wheatboard are likely due to the UF glue used to adhere the
veneer to the wheatboard. Emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of oak-veneered
wheatboard coated and cured with the two component polyurethane were lower than those for
test squares of unfinished oak-veneered wheatboard. The coatings evaluation showed that the
mean emission factor of formaldehyde for test squares of PBV coated and cured with the two
component polyurethane was very low [approximately 21 M9/(m2,hr)]. The coating appears to be
suppressing formaldehyde emissions from the UF glue.
2.4.2.2 Performance Characteristics
Due to limited resources, the fiber study did not measure physical properties of the
engineered fiber panels such as density, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, etc. Instead,
these properties were provided by the panel manufacturers (see Table D-1 of Appendix D).
According to the manufacturer of the wheat panel made with MDI resin, this panel can be
used in the same manner as PB to construct finished engineered wood products; it is currently
being manufactured with a variety of finishes such as wood veneer, melamine, vinyl, and paper
for the construction of kitchen cabinets. The manufacturer of the panel made from recycled
corrugated cardboard states that the panel can be used to construct store displays, countertops,
shelving, furniture and cabinets, etc; it is currently being manufactured with finishes such as
wood veneer and paint. The MDF panel made with MDI resin can be used in the same manner
as UF bonded MDF in the construction of engineered wood products. Product literature for the
engineered panel made from recycled newspaper lists the following applications for the panel: a
construction material for office partitions, a filler material for furniture (such as bed boards),
hobby boards (such as train boards), carpet underlayment, sidewall sheathing, ceiling panels,
etc; it can be covered with a fabric for decorative purposes.
21
-------
~ Formaldehyde
i "f\OC
t-cmcmmyT^'T
TITic<|C0"'-C\irgcO
OOOOS222
Test squares are labeled by material letter (C or M), followed by sample number, followed by test square number,
respectively, where
C = unfinished panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard
M = panel made from painted recycled corrugated cardboard
Emissions variability between samples is shown by test squares with the same material letter, but different
sample numbers. Emissions variability within samples is shown by test squares with the same material letter and
sample number, but different test square numbers.
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Figure 2-8. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard conditioned 26 to 28
days.
22
-------
"O
(D
ro
e
w
LU
300-
~ Formaldehyde
si tux
Test squares are labeled by material letter (B, H, O, t, or J), followed by sample number, followed by test square
number, respectively, where
B = unfinished wheatboard
H = veneered wheat board
0	= veneered wheat board with heat curable two component polyurethane coating
1	= wheatboard with vinyl
J = wheatboard with melamine
Emissions variability between samples is shown by test squares with the same material letter, but different sample
numbers. Emissions variability within samples is shown by test squares with the same material letter and sample
number, but different test square numbers.
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Figure 2-9. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished wheatboard conditioned approximately 28 days.
23
-------
Chapter Three
Conclusions and Recommendations
The objective of this research was to reduce indoor emissions from a type of finished
engineered wood. Conclusions that can be drawn from this study include:
•	UF bonded PB and acid-catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings were identified as sources of
emissions from PBVST - a type of finished engineered wood used to construct a
variety of engineered wood products. These findings are based on emission testing of
PBVST made by a single manufacturer, and may not be applicable to PBVST made by
other manufacturers.
•	Within the scope of the emission tests and performance tests conducted for the
coatings evaluation, the heat curable two component polyurethane, the UV curable
acrylate, and the UV curable multi-functional acrylate-free emulsion appear to be viable
alternatives for the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea.
•	A variety of engineered fiber panels (i.e., those made with wheat and MDI; wood and
MDI; and recycled corrugated cardboard) were found to have very low emission factors
of TVOC and formaldehyde (relative to UF bonded PB and MDF). These low-emitting
engineered fiber panels can be finished with veneer, vinyl, melamine, etc, and are
currently used to construct a wide variety of products for interior applications.
Recommendations for future research relating to the findings of this study include:
•	The screening materials collected in Phase 1 (i.e., PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, and PBM)
should be collected from several manufacturers and tested to assess emissions
variability between manufacturers.
•	The screening materials collected in Phase 1 were collected at a single time point from
the manufacturing line. These samples should be collected several weeks or months
apart from the same manufacturing line and tested to assess emissions variability
within samples from the same manufacturing line. Engineered fiber panels tested in
Phase 3 should also be collected and tested at various intervals from the same
manufacturing line, particularly, panels made from recycled materials; for the latter,
emissions may vary if the composition of the recycling material varies.
•	A broader study of the recommended coatings systems should be conducted to
determine how they perform in the manufacturing environment, in terms of their ease of
use, worker safety, clean up, manufacturing emissions, etc. The cost of the coatings
should be assessed in terms of equipment needs, e.g., stainless steel or plastic pipes
for waterborne coatings, UV lights for UV coatings. Performance tests should also be
conducted at critical time points.
24
-------
•	Standard air sampling methods and recovery techniques should be developed for
compounds that could not be analyzed during the coatings evaluation, such as
hexamethylene diisocyanate, polyisocyanates, acrylate oligomers, and acrylic
polymers.
•	A broader study of the low-emitting engineered fiber panels should be conducted to
assess manufacturing issues (such as cost, worker safety) involved with making the
panels. Performance tests should also be conducted on the panels.
25
-------
Chapter Four
Phase 1 Screening Study
4.1	Overview
As discussed in the overview of the report, the objective of the research was to
investigate P2 options for reducing indoor emissions from a specific type of finished engineered
wood rather than a whole product. A screening study was conducted to select a type of finished
engineered wood for P2 evaluation.
The following materials were selected for screening:
•	PBVST (oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-
urea sealer and topcoat)
•	HBVSST (oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid
catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat)
•	PBM (particleboard overlaid with melamine)
•	PBVY (particleboard overlaid with vinyl)
These materials were selected for screening because they were identified by focus group
members as materials used to construct a high volume of engineered wood products.
4.2	Objectives
The objective of the screening study was to select a type of finished engineered wood for
P2 evaluation. Screening tests were conducted to estimate initial emission factors of summed
VOCs from the four types of finished engineered wood. Quantitative decay tests were conducted
to determine if emission factors decreased over time due to sample conditioning. As explained
in the Section 4.4, these tests were only conducted on PBVST and HBVSST.
4.3	Experimental Design
4.3.1 Sample Collection
Samples of PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, and PBM were collected from a large manufacturer
of finished engineered wood products. The manufacturer purchases PB and HB, finishes the PB
and HB, and then assembles the finished boards into engineered wood products. The PB is
purchased from a single supplier and is made from wood particles (made from pine) and UF
resins. The HB is made with wood fibers (made from hardwood species) and PF resins. Three
samples of each of PBVST, HBVSST, PBM, and PBVY were collected directly from the finishing
line (Figure 4-1). Three coupons were cut from the center of each sample. All coupons cut from
the same sample were placed in a steel container with an airtight lid. The containers were
transported to RTI within one to four days of manufacture. Upon
26
-------
purchased	*- veneer —*- seder —cure —~ topcoat —cure
particleboard w/ glue
'7K
[T] [t] [T]
purchased.
hardboard
-veneer .
w/ glue
.stain
.sealer.
. cure —topcoat
ure , ¦ . »
/ t \
[p l|] [p
purchased
particleboard'
thermofused
mel amine

Qj-^pn
m-^F«
purchased
particleboard'
vinyl
overlay
applied
with glue
EH-©
H-©
Figure 4-1. Sample collection for Phase 1.
27
-------
1
arrival at RTI, the coupons were removed from their containers and visually inspected to ensure
that the coupons remained intact during transportation. The coupons were resealed in their
containers and then placed in a freezer operating at -10 to -20 °C to minimize losses of VOCs
from the coupons prior to testing.
4.3.2 Chamber Air Collection
Screening tests were conducted within three weeks of sample collection. For these tests,
containers of each material were removed from the freezer and allowed to warm to room
temperature. A select number of coupons of each material were removed from the containers
and visually inspected to determine that the finishes on the coupons remained intact during
storage. The coupons were prepared into 0.0762 by 0.0762 m (-0.006 m2) test squares
(containers with unused coupons were returned to the freezer). The edges of the test squares
were sealed with sodium silicate (liquid glass) to ensure that emitted VOCs came only from the
surfaces of the test squares and not the cut edges. The test squares were placed in individual
test chambers (Figure 4-2). Table 4-1 lists the operating conditions of the test chambers.
Chamber air samples for measuring VOCs were collected six hours after each test square was
placed in a test chamber.
Table 4-1. Conditions For Chamber Testing for Screening and Decay Tests
Test Parameters	Conditions
Chamber Size	0.012 m3
Temperature	23"C
Relative Humidity	50%
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)	1/h
Source Area (A)	-0.012 mJ
Loading (1.)	1.0 m2/m3
Quantitative decay tests were conducted approximately ten weeks after sample
collection. For these tests, containers of PBVST and HBVSST were removed from the freezer
and allowed to warm to room temperature. Remaining coupons of PBVST and HBVSST were
removed from the containers and visually inspected to determine that the finishes on the
coupons remained intact during storage. The coupons were prepared into test squares as
described above. The test squares were placed in individual test chambers that operated at the
conditions shown in Table 4-1. Chamber air samples for measuring VOCs were collected 1, 3, 7,
14, 21, and 31-days after each test square was placed in a test chamber. The decay tests were
carried out for 31-days to estimate potential indoor emissions from PBVST and HBVSST.
According to the manufacturer of PBVST and HBVSST, 31-days represents the typical time lag
between when these materials are manufactured and when they arrive in an indoor environment
as part of an assembled product.
28
-------
Glass Bell Jar
Gas Outlet
Chamber Operating Conditions
for Emissions Testing
Temperature
Relative Humidity
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)
Test Square Area
Loading (L)
ACH/L
Test Square
Ambient
Air
Gas Inlet
Sample
Collection
Outlet
Mixing Fan —
Teflon Gasket

: i Stir Plate
Gas Vent ~
-• \ Multisoment
23"C ± 2
50 ±5%
1 ± 0.05/h
0.012m'
1 Om'/m1
1.0
Stainless Steel Plata
DNPH Cartridge for
,- Collecting Aldehydes
and Ketones
\\
Air | Meter
Cleaning : Gas *
System Supply
I	'
J „	Cartridges for
\\	Collecting
u V.	Other VOC
\\ V
\\
\\
Pump
w.
Pump
Pump
Figure 4-2. Emissions test chamber.
29
-------
4.3.3	VOCs Collection
VOCs in the chamber air samples were collected by passing chamber air through one
dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-coated silica gel cartridge and two multisorbent cartridges
containing Tenax TA, charcoal, and Ambersorb (Figure 4-1 shows the arrangement of the
cartridges for collecting VOCs). DNPH cartridges are designed to collect aldehydes and
ketones. Multisorbent cartridges are designed to collect other types of VOCs.
Chamber air was passed through the DNPH cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 80
to 85 mL/min for 45 minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 3.8 L. Chamber air
was passed through each multisorbent cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 35 mL/min for 45
minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 1 L.
4.3.4	Analysis of VOCs
4.3.4.1 Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges
For screening tests, VOCs on multisorbent cartridges were thermally desorbed and then
analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) using the conditions shown in
Table 4-2. Identification of unknown sample constituents was performed using an electronic
search of the NIH/EPA/MSDC Mass Spectral Data Base (NIST library) and the Registry of Mass
Spectral Library (Wiley library). Manual review of the data was also performed to verify computer
identifications and to identify compounds not found using the computer library search.
Prior to analysis, a set of standard cartridges were analyzed to show proper mass
calibration for the GC/MS system, to establish GC retention time windows for selected VOCs,
and to generate total ion response factors for VOCs quantitation estimates. Two external
standards, [i.e., perfluorotoluene (PFT) and bromopentafluorobenzene (BFB)], were also added
to each standard cartridge. PFT was used to monitor instrumental tune (mass resolution and ion
abundance) and BFB was used as an external quantitation standard. Each day during sample
analysis, an additional standard cartridge was analyzed to demonstrate ongoing instrumental
performance.
Quantitative estimates of identified VOCs were based on total ion reconstructed
chromatographic peak areas and a total ion relative response factor generated for toluene
(RRFToI). Standard cartridges were prepared and analyzed as described above. Each of these
cartridges contained a known mass of toluene and the external quantitation standard. The
RRFTo, was calculated from the resulting data as
R«=Ta, = ' M°s
-------
Table 4-2. GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOCs
Parameter
Setting
THERMAL DESORPTION

Trap Type
1 = Multisorbent, 2 = Multisorbent
Tube Raised Ambient
Off
Initial Carrier Flow
1 min
Tube Chamber Heat Time
6 min
Tube Chamber Temperature (Max)
320°C
Secondary Carrier Flow
2 min
Trap 1 Heat (Max)
270°C
Trap 2 Heat (Max)
31CPC
Trap-to-Trap Transfer Time
2 min
Trap-to-Column Transfer Time
20 min
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH

Instrument
Hewlett-Packard 5890
Column
DB-624 widebore fused silica capillary column
Temperature Program
35°C (5 min) to 200°C (1 min) at 5"C/min
Carrier gas flow rate
1.8 mL/min
MASS SPECTROMETER

Instrument
Hewlett Packard, Model 5988A
Ionization Mode
Electron Ionization Scan 35-350 m/z
Emission Current
0.3 mA
Source Temperature
200"C
Electron Multiplier
2000 volts3
' Typical value

During each day of the screening analysis, an additional standard cartridge was
analyzed. If the RRFTa, was within ±25% of the RRFTo, obtained during the instrument calibration,
the GC/MS system was considered "in control", and the RRFTol from the calibration was used to
estimate VOC amounts on sample cartridges as
M _ Avoc • Mqs
voc ~ aQ5 ¦ RRFToI
where MVOc is the estimated mass of a VOC (ng/cartridge), MQS is the mass of quantitation
standard (ng/cartridge), Avoc is the peak area of the VOC, and AqS is the peak area of the
quantitation standard (ng/cartridge).
TVOC were calculated from the total ion chromatogram (TIC). The total area of the TIC
was integrated for the retention time window from n-hexane through n-tetradecane. The mass of
31
-------
7V0C (Mjvoc) was calculated as
M _ ATVOc ' Mqs
noc * aqs ¦ rrft„
The concentration of each VOC and TVOC in a chamber air sample was calculated as:
n	^VOC or TVOC
VOC or TVOC	y
where Cv0CorTV0C = Concentration of the VOC or TVOC in the chamber air sample (pg/m3)
MVOCor7Voc = Mass of VOC or TVOC on multisorbent cartridge
Vs	= Sample volume of chamber air, L
4.3.4.2 Analysis of VOCs on DNPH Cartridges
For both the screening and quantitative decay tests, DNPH cartridges were analyzed for
the target aldehydes and ketones listed in Table 4-3. DNPH/aldehyde derivatives on sample
cartridges were extracted by eluting each cartridge with 5 mL of HPLC grade acetonitrile into a 5
mL volumetric flask. The final volume was adjusted to 5.0 mL and the samples aliquoted for
analysis. Blank cartridges were eluted with each sample set to identify background
contaminants. Additional blank cartridges were spiked with known amounts of DNPH/aldehyde
standards as a method of assessing recovery.
Table 4-3. Target Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
n-Hexanal
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives in sample extracts were analyzed by HPLC with UV detection
using the conditions shown in Table 4-4. Purified and certified DNPH derivatives of the target
aldehydes were used for the preparation of calibration solutions. Target aldehydes were
identified by comparison of their chromatographic retention times with those of the purified
standards. Quantitation of the target compounds was accomplished by the external standard
method using calibration standards prepared in the range 0.02 to 15 ng//v.L of the
32
-------
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives. Standards were analyzed singly for the aldehyde DNPH derivatives
and a calibration curve calculated by linear regression of the concentration and chromatographic
response data. Calibration curves for all target compounds were considered acceptable if
r2 > 0.998.
Table 4-4. HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors
Parameter
Instrument
Column
Solvent System
Gradient
Mobile Phase Flow Rate
Injection Size
UV Wavelength
Setting
Waters Series 510
NOVA-PAK C18,3.9 x 150 mm
A: Water/Acetonitrile/Tetrahydrofuran 60/30/10 v/v
B: Acetonitrile/Water 40/60 v/v
100% A for 3 min; then a linear gradient to 100% B in 10 min.
Hold 15 min at 100% B
1.5 mL/min
20 pL
360 nm
To demonstrate on-going instrumental performance, a calibration standard was analyzed
each day prior to the analysis of any samples. The calibration was considered "in control" if the
measured concentration of the aldehyde/DNPH derivatives in the standard was 85 to 115% of
the prepared concentration.
The concentration of each target aldehyde and ketone in the chamber air samples was
calculated as:
'a!k
Cy x Vy x Dp
V,
where C^ = Concentration of the target aldehyde or ketone in the chamber air sample (Mg/m3)
Cy = Concentration of DNPH/analyte derivative in the sample extract (ng/^L)
Vy = Total volume of sample extract (i.e., 5000 pL)
Vs = Sample volume of chamber air (L)
D, = Molecular weight of the aldehyde or ketone * molecular weight of the aldehyde or
ketone/DNPH derivative
33
-------
4.3.4.3 Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors
Concentrations of individual VOCs and 7VOC measured in chamber air samples were
converted to emission factors using the following equation
CmxACH
EF = 	
where
Cm	= measured concentration of a VOC or TVOC in a chamber air sample (pg /m3)
ACH	= air exchange rate in the test chamber
L	= loading ratio in the test chamber
An emission factor of summed VOCs for a tested material was calculated by summing the
individual emission factors of VOCs for a tested material.
4.4 Results
Results from the screening tests are presented in Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A.
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 are graphs of the data in these tables. Emission factors for test squares 1-1,
2-1, and 3-1 compare emissions variability between samples 1, 2, and 3. Emission factors for
test squares 1-1 and 1-2, and 2-1 and 2-2 compare emissions variability within samples 1 and 2,
respectively. For test squares of PBVST, PBM, and PBVY, emission factors of summed VOCs
were fairly consistent between and within samples. For test squares of HBVSST, emission
factors of summed VOCs were fairly consistent between samples 1 and 2; sample 3, however,
had a much higher emission factor of summed VOCs than those for samples 1 and 2.
Figure 4-3 shows that initial emission factors of summed VOCs were substantially higher
for test squares of PBVST and HBVSST relative to those for PBVY and PBM. Alcohols made up
a large portion of the emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of PBVST and
HBVSST, whereas, virtually no alcohol emissions were detected from test squares of PBVY and
PBM. Alcohols were listed as solvents in the MSDS for the coatings. Terpenes were only
detected from test squares made with PB. Terpenes are volatile constituents of certain wood
species such as pine (used to make the PB). Terpenes are not major constituents of hardwood
species, which are used to manufacture HB. The presence of terpenes in emissions from the PB
test squares suggests that they may permeate through all three types of finishes, (i.e., veneer
with coatings, melamine, and vinyl).
In Figure 4-4, n-hexanal was unique to test squares made with PB. Acetone was emitted
primarily from test squares made from PB, although small amounts were measured from test
squares of HBVSST. Acetone and n-hexanal have been associated with wood fibers in certain
types of engineered wood samples.6 The fact that these compounds were not detected in the
emissions from the HB test squares suggests that these compounds may be specific to certain
wood species or specific types of engineered wood.
34
-------
O)
Zi.
i—"
o
o
CO
c
o
'to
w
E
Lil
T3
a>
to
E
¦+-*
if)
UJ
2DOOO
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
COO
2000
0
:>W-:
n Terperes
¦ Cther Ccrrpounds
I/Wefydes/Kfetcnes
i/tohois
rJM
T-
T
t-
"f—

¦*-


i—
t
1
CN
h-
cS
ri
T—
rii
CO

Csl
H
h*
H
1—
H-
H-
>
>
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
>
>
>
>
>
CO
CO
CO
CO
CQ
DQ
DO
DQ
CO
>
>
>
>
CL
Q.
CL
CL
CL
CQ
CQ
m
CQ


CD
CL
CD
Q.
C\|
s
m
a.
CM
CM
CD
CL
co
s
00
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, or PBM), followed by sample number,
followed by test square number, respectively, where
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
HBVSST = oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and
topcoat
PBVY = particleboard overlaid with vinyl
PBM = particleboard overlaid with melamine
Figure 4-3. Estimated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of
finished engineered wood conditioned for six hours.
35
-------
.c
•
23000
~E
18000 -
~05
3.
10000 -
i_T
O
Q
14X0
CD
Li.
C
12000-
o
w
w
10000-
e
LU
0COO
U
o;
6000
ra
£
40D0-
OT
LU
2000
0
i-
Ji i
m , m , m
T—
T~
*-


>
>
CD
m
CD
Q.
CL
CL
v>
03
>
m
x
CM
03
03
>
CD
X
CM
I-
03
w
>
CD
X
CO
I—
03
03
>
CD
X
CQ
CL
CN
>-
>
CD
CL
CO
>
>
m
Q.
iQher
Bn+teaisf
i Axtore
~ RarrElcletycte

tea ;
IH L
m
1-
T-
CVJ
T-

(N
Csl
CO


2
2
CD
CO
CD
CQ
CL
CL
Q-
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PBVST, HBVSST, PBVY, or PBM), followed by sample
number, followed by test square number, respectively, where
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
HBVSST = oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
and topcoat
PBVY = particleboard overlaid with vinyl
PBM = particleboard overlaid with melamine
Figure 4-4. Estimated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test
squares of finished engineered wood conditioned for six hours.
36
-------
Initial emission factors of formaldehyde were substantially higher for test squares of
PBVST and HBVSST relative to those for test squares of PBVY and PBM. The acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat were believed to be the major reason for these differences.
Research has shown that catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings release formaldehyde over time as part
of their curing process.6
Results from the quantitative decay tests are shown in Figure 4-5. Test squares of
PBVST and HBVSST showed a rapid decay of formaldehyde during the first week of sampling.
By the fourth time point (14 days), formaldehyde emission factors for PBVST and HBVSST
appeared to level out to approximately 300 pg/(m2*hr), which was substantially higher than initial
emission factors of formaldehyde from PBVY and PBM [initial emission factors ranged from 51 to
90 pg/(m2»hr}]. For this reason, quantitative decay tests were not conducted on PBVY and PBM.
Test squares in the decay study had lower, initial emission factors of formaldehyde than
test squares in the screening study; the former were prepared from coupons stored in a freezer
for 3 weeks, whereas the latter were prepared from coupons stored in a freezer for 10 weeks.
One possible explanation for this difference is that storing the coupons at -10 to -20 °C was not
completely effective in suppressing their emissions, thus, the 10 week old coupons had lower
emissions than the 3 week old coupons.
4.5 Conclusions
•	Initial emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde were substantially higher
for PBVST and HBVSST relative to those for PBVY and PBM.
•	Initial emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde were substantially higher
for PBVST relative to those for HBVSST.
•	Emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of PBVST and HBVSST decayed
over time as the test squares conditioned/aged under typical indoor conditions (e.g.,
23 °C, 50% RH, and 1 ACH). Emission factors of formaldehyde appeared to reach a
steady-state level after the test squares aged for two weeks; this steady-state level
was approximately a fourth of the initial emission factors of formaldehyde for the test
squares aged less than six hours. This steady-state level was also substantially
higher than initial emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of PBVY and
PBM.
•	The acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat were suspected sources of VOC
emissions from PBVST and HBVST. Most of the emitted VOCs, except
formaldehyde, were listed on the MSDS for the coatings. Formaldehyde is a by-
product of the curing mechanism of these coatings.
37
-------
1200
1 000
800
600
S2 400
CD
a.
i—"
o
o
(0
U-
c
o
to
ot
E
HI
x>
©
TO
C
03
3
a
200
x
~
» PBVST1-2
- PBVST2-2
a HBVSS T2-2
x HBVSST1 -3
3
1 0
1 5
20
25
30
35
ChamberAir Samp ling Time (Days)
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PBVST or HBVSST), followed by sample number (1 or 2),
followed by test square number (2 or 3), where
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and
topcoat
HBVSST = oak-veneered hardboard coated and cured with a stain, and an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea
sealer and topcoat
Figure 4-5. Quantitated emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of finished engineered
wood conditioned for 31 -days.
38
-------
•	Based on the screening and quantitative decay tests, PBVST was selected for P2
evaluation. Although HBVSST could have also been selected for further evaluation
(since it was finished with the same sealer and topcoat as PBVST), PBVST was
selected because it had higher initial emission factors of summed VOCs than
HBVSST; the higher initial emission factors suggested that both the PB and the
coatings might be contributing to emissions from PBVST.
•	Since emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of PBVST decayed with time
and appeared to level out after two weeks, future emissions testing was conducted on
aged samples versus newly manufactured samples. Samples were conditioned/aged
around 31-days, since this is the typical time lag between when PBVST is
manufactured at the particular plant in Phase 1 and when it arrives in an indoor
environment as part of an assembled product.
•	Because freezing the coupons may not have been completely effective in suppressing
their emissions, storage time was shortened for future testing.
39
-------
Chapter Five
Phase 2 Component Study
5.1	Overview
Based on the results from the Phase 1 Screening Study, PBVST was selected for P2
evaluation. A component study was conducted to assess the source(s) of emissions from
PBVST.
5.2	Objectives
The objective of the component study was to quantitate emission factors from various
components of PBVST to identify the sources of emissions from PBVST. Components tested
included: particleboard (PB); veneer (V); oak-veneered particleboard (PBV); oak-veneered
particleboard with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer (PBVS); and oak-veneered particleboard
with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (PBVST).
5.3	Experimental Design
5.3.1 Sample Collection
Three samples of each material (PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and PBVST) were collected from
various stages of the manufacturing process (Figure 5-1). The coated samples were collected
after they were cured. Three coupons were cut from the center of each sample. All coupons
cut from the same sample were placed in a steel container with an airtight lid. The containers
were transported to RTI within one day of manufacture. Upon arrival at RTI, the coupons were
removed from their containers and visually inspected to ensure that the coupons remained
intact during transportation. The coupons were resealed in their containers and then placed in
a freezer operating at -10 to -20 °C to minimize losses of VOCs from the coupons prior to testing.
purchased—veneer
particleboard w/ glue

sealer—>¦ cure-^ry^- topcoat-*-cure
•e
/
7TV~
-------
5.3.2 Chamber Air Sampling
Approximately two weeks after sample collection, containers of PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and
PBVST were removed from the freezer and allowed to warm to room temperature. A select
number of coupons of each component were removed from the containers and visually
inspected to determine that the coupons remained intact during storage. The coupons were
prepared into 0.006 m by 0.006 m test squares. The edges of the test squares were sealed
with sodium silicate (liquid glass) to ensure that emitted VOCs came only from the surfaces of
the test squares and not the cut edges. The test squares were placed in individual test
chambers which operated at the conditions shown in Table 5-1. Chamber air samples for
measuring VOCs were collected 31-days after each test square was placed in a test chamber;
31-days was selected as the testing time since it is the typical time lag between when PBVST is
manufactured (at the plant participating in the study) and when it arrives in an indoor
environment as part of an assembled product.
Table 5-1. Conditions For Chamber Testing
Test Parameters	Conditions
Chamber Size	0.012 m3
Temperature	23rC
Relative Humidity	50%
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)	1/h
Source Area (A)	-0.012 m2
Loading (L)	1.0 m2/m3
5.3.3 VOCs Collection
VOCs in the test chambers were collected by passing chamber air through one
dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-coated silica gel cartridge and two multisorbent cartridges
containing Tenax TA, charcoal, and Ambersorb (Figure 4-2 in Section 4.3.3 shows the
arrangement of the cartridges for collecting VOCs). DNPH cartridges are designed to collect
aldehydes and ketones. Multisorbent cartridges are designed to collect other types of VOCs.
Chamber air was passed through the DNPH cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 50
mL/min for a 1- to 2- hour period to give nominal sample volume of approximately 2 L.
Chamber air was passed through each multisorbent cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 25
mLVmin over a 2-hour period to give a nominal sampling volume of 3 L.
41
-------
5.3.4 Analysis of VOCs
5.3.4.1	Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges
VOCs on multisorbent cartridges were thermally desorbed and then analyzed by gas
chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC/FID) using the conditions shown in Table 5-
2. Target VOCs were identified by comparison of their chromatographic retention times with
those analyzed on standard cartridges. GC/MS confirmation was performed for selected
samples.
Quantitation of target VOCs was performed using calibration curves generated from the
analysis of standard cartridges prepared at five different levels. Standard cartridges contained
all of the target VOCs plus the internal quantitation standard, m-dichlorobenzene. One
calibration cartridge was analyzed at each level. For each target VOC, the ratio of the area of
the target to the area of the internal standard was calculated. A calibration curve was generated
for cartridge amount versus area ratio using second order regressions. Calibration curves for all
target analytes were considered acceptable if r2 values were greater than 0.995.
To demonstrate on-going instrumental performance, a mid-level calibration standard was
analyzed each day prior to the analysis of samples. The calibration was considered "in control" if
the measured concentration of each target was 70 to 130% of the prepared concentration. For
2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol a window of 50 to 130% was used.
The concentration of each target analyte in chamber air samples was calculated by
dividing the mass of analyte on the cartridge by the volume of air sample collected.
5.3.4.2	Analysis of Aldehydes and Ketones on DNPH Cartridges
DNPH cartridges were analyzed for the target aldehydes and ketones listed in
Table 5-3. DNPH/aldehyde derivatives on sample cartridges were extracted by eluting each
cartridge with 5 mL of HPLC grade acetonitrile into a 5 mL volumetric flask. The final volume
was adjusted to 5.0 mL and the samples aliquoted for analysis. Blank cartridges were eluted
with each sample set to identify background contaminants. Additional blank cartridges were
spiked with known amounts of DNPH/aldehyde standards as a method of assessing recovery.
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives in sample extracts were analyzed by HPLC with UV detection
using the conditions shown in Table 5-4. Purified and certified DNPH derivatives of the target
aldehydes were used for the preparation of calibration solutions. Target aldehydes were
identified by comparison of their chromatographic retention times with those of the purified
standards. Quantitation of the target compounds was accomplished by the external standard
method using calibration standards prepared in the range 0.02 to 15 ng/;/.L of the
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives. Standards were analyzed singly for the aldehyde DNPH
42
-------
Table 5-2. GC/FID Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOCs
Parameter
Setting
THERMAL DESORPTiON

Trap Type
1 = Multisorbent, 2 = Multisorbent
Tube Raised Ambient
Off
Initial Carrier Flow
1 min
Tube Chamber Heat Time
6 min
Tube Chamber Temperature (Max)
32CTC
Secondary Carrier Flow
2 min
Trap 1 Heat (Max)
270 °C
Trap 2 Heat (Max)
310"C
Trap-to-Trap Transfer Time
2 min
Trap-to-Column Transfer Time
20 min
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH

Instrument
Varar 3700
Column
DB-624 widebore fused silica capillary column
Temperature Program
35°C (5 min) to 200'C (1 min) at 5°C/min
Carrier gas flow rate
1.8 mL/min
Detector
flame inonizer
a Typical value
Table 5-3. Target Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acelone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butyraidehyde
Benzaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
n-Hexanal
43
-------
Table 5-4. HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors
Parameter
Setting
Mobile Phase Flow Rate
Injection Size
UV Wavelength
Gradient
Instrument
Column
Solvent System
Waters Series 510
NOVA-PAK C18, 3.9 x 150 mm
A: Water/Acetonitrile/Tetrahydrofuran 60/30/10 v/v
B: Acetonitrile/Water 40/60 v/v
100% A for 3 min; then a linear gradient to 100% B in 10 min.
Hold 15 min at 100% B
1.5 mL/min
20 pL
360 nm
derivatives and a calibration curve calculated by linear regression of the concentration and
chromatographic response data. Calibration curves for all target analytes had r2 ^ 0.998.
To demonstrate on-going instrumental performance, a calibration standard was analyzed
each day prior to the analysis of any samples. The calibration was considered "in control" if the
measured concentration of the aldehyde/DNPH derivatives in the standard was 85 to 115% of
the prepared concentration.
The concentration of each target aldehyde and ketone in the chamber air samples was
calculated as:
where Ca/k = Concentration of the target aldehyde or ketone in the chamber air sample (pg^nr3)
Cy = Concentration of DNPH/analyte derivative in the sample extract (ng/pL)
Vy = Total volume of sample extract (i.e., 5000 pL)
Vs = Sample volume of chamber air, L
D, = Molecular weight of the aldehyde or ketone molecular weight of the aldehyde or
5.3.4.3 Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors
Concentrations of individual VOCs measured in chamber air samples were converted to
emission factors using the following equation
Cy x Vy x DF
V,
ketone/DNPH derivative
EF =
CmxACH
L
44
-------
where
Cm	= measured concentration of a VOC in a chamber air sample (pg /m3)
ACH	= air exchange rate in the test chamber
L	= loading ratio in the test chamber
An emission factor of summed VOCs for a tested material was calculated by summing the
individual emission factors of VOCs for the tested material.
5.4 Results
Results from the component tests are shown in Table B-1 of Appendix B. Figures 5-2
and 5-3 are graphs of the data in this table. For test squares of PBVS and PBVST, emission
factors were fairly consistent between samples (i.e., test squares 1-1, 2-1, and 3-1). Only one
sample each of PB and PBV was analyzed for VOCs.
Figures 5-2 and 5-3 present emission factors of summed VOCs and aldehydes and
ketones, respectively, for test squares of PB, V, PBV, PBVS, and PBVST. As shown in Figure 5-
2, emission factors of summed VOCs for PB and PBV were 1600 pg/(m2*hr) and 470 pg/(m2*hr),
respectively. The emission factor of summed VOCs for the veneer was 17 pg/(m2«hr), which
suggests that VOCs from PBV were being emitted by the PB and possibly the glue used to
adhere the veneer to the PB. (The glue is a mixture of polyvinyl acetate (a white glue) and an UF
resin; the mixture contains less than 0.6% formaldehyde.) Since the emission factor of summed
VOCs for PBV was substantially lower than the emission factor of summed VOCs for PB, this
suggests that the veneer was suppressing emissions from the PB.
The emission factor of summed VOCs was 470 pg/(m2*hr) for the test square of PBV
compared to 1400, 1600, and 1300 pg/(m2»hr) for test squares of PBVS and 2300, 1900, and
1800 pg/(m2»hr) for test squares of PBVST. The increase in emissions from PBV to PBVS
appears to be due to the addition of the sealer to PBV. The increase in emissions from PBVS to
PBVST appears to be due to the addition of the topcoat to the PBVS.
As shown in Figure 5-3, emission factors of n-hexanal for PB and PBV were 490
pg/(m2*hr) and 97 pg/(m2»hr), respectively. Emission factors of acetone for PB and PBV were
270 and 110 jjg/(m2*hr), respectively. The presence of n-hexanal and acetone in emissions from
the test square of PB supports the hypothesis from Phase 1 that these compounds are
associated with the wood in the PB. The lower emission factors of acetone and n-hexanal for the
PBV test square relative to those for the PB test square suggests that the veneer suppressed
emissions of these compounds from the PB. PBV, PBVS, and PBVST all had similar emission
factors of n-hexanal and acetone, which also supports the hypothesis from Phase 1 that these
compounds are emitted from the wood in the PB rather than the coatings.
Emission factors of formaldehyde for PB and PBV were 230 pg/(m2«hr) and 130
pg/(m2*hr), respectively. The emission factor of formaldehyde for the veneer was 9 pg/(m2*hr),
which suggests that the veneer was suppressing formaldehyde emissions from the PB. The
emission factor of formaldehyde for the test square of PBV was 130 pg/(m2*hr) compared to
320, 340, and 360 |jg/(m2«hr) for test squares of PBVS and 530, 440, and 390 pg/(m2«hr) for test
squares of PBVST; these increases suggest that the coatings were a source of formaldehyde.
45
-------
E,
D>
O
•4--
O
CO
U_
C
o
w
to
'E
UJ
~a
a>
CO
C
CO
3
o
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
~ Terpenes
¦	Other Compards
l^detydes/Ketones
¦	Alcohols
0 —
s£'~
c ;
' ;
|
m
D-

T—
T—







CO
w
W
h-
I—
CD
>
>
>
w
w
CL
03
QQ
m
>
>

Q.
CL
CL
m
CD




CL
CL
CO
>
DO
a.
Test squares are labeled by material acronym {PB, V, PBV, PBVS, or PBVST), followed by sample number,
followed by test square number, respectively, where
PB = particleboard
V = veneer
PBV = oak-veneered paricleboard
PBVS = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
Figure 5-2. Quantitated emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of
components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days.
46
-------
c.
CN
£
D)
3.
O
(0
LL
c
o
V)
w
E
LU
T>
Q>
-*-»
CO
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
T
c
ro
O 0
¦	other
¦	n-Hsxanal
i Asetone
~ Formaldehyje




I
• j ...
i
: i -

+

r-


T—

c\l
co
>
w
W
W
CO
>
>
>
a.
CO
CD
m

£L
CL
CL
T^"
^—
T—
i	
C\i
1	
rO
1	
w
(/>
C/>
>
>
>
DO
CD
CQ
Q-
CL
CL
CD
CL
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (PB, V, PBV, PBVS, or PBVST), followed by sample number, followed
by test square number, respectively, where
PB = particleboard
V = veneer
PBV = oak-veneered paricleboard
PBVS = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer
PBVST = oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
Figure 5-3. Quantitated emission factors of aldehydes and ketones for test squares of
components of finished engineered wood conditioned for 31-days.
47
-------
Conclusions
• PB had substantially higher emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde
compared to PBV. The veneer had very low emission factors of summed VOCs and
formaldehyde (relative to the other components). The veneer likely suppressed
emissions from the PB.
•	PBVS and PBVST had substantially higher emission factors of summed VOCs and
formaldehyde compared to those for PBV; these increases in emission factors were
likely due to the coatings.
•	Based on the results of Phase 2, potentially low-emitting coatings and engineered
fiber samples were identified and evaluated for reducing VOC emissions from PBVST.
48
-------
Chapter Six
Phase 3 Coatings Study
6.1 Overview
In Phase 2, an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat were identified as likely
sources of VOCs and formaldehyde from PBVST (oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured
with the acid-catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat). In Phase 3, a coatings study was
conducted to evaluate emission factors for PBV (oak-veneered particleboard) coated and cured
with five alternative coatings systems (system = sealer and topcoat) and the acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea coatings system from Phase 2. Selection criteria for the alternative coatings systems
included coatings that were:
» claimed as low-emitting by the manufacturer
• expected to have comparable performance and aesthetics to the acid-catalyzed
alkyd-urea coatings system
compliant with existing regulations (i.e., MACT and VOC)
currently on the market
representative of different chemistries and cure technologies.
Table 6-1 lists the types of coatings systems evaluated.
Table 6-1. Coatings Systems Evaluated
Coating 1 Coaling 2	Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
Chemistry i
Carrier
Cure
" UV = ultraviolet
Acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea
organic
solvent
heat
Two
component
polyurethane
water
heat
Non-air inhibited
unsaturated
polyester
water
UV° light
Acrylate
none
UV light
Multi-functional
acrylate free
emulsion
water
heat + UV light
Polyurethane
dispersion
water
heat
6.2 Objectives
The principal objectives of the coatings study were:
(1)	To ascertain if coatings systems contribute significantly to 35-day emissions of
coated and cured PBV relative to uncoated PBV.
(2)	To ascertain if emission factors for test squares of PBV coated and cured with the
five alternative coatings systems are significantly different than emission factors
for test squares of PBV coated and cured with the heat curable acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea coatings system.
(3)	To evaluate and compare the performance characteristics of the five alternative
coatings systems and the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings
49
-------
system.
To meet these objectives, samples of uncoated PBV were collected from the
manufacturing plant that supplied samples in Phases 1 and 2. The samples were cut into
coupons and then coated and cured with the six different coatings systems. Quantitative
emission tests were conducted to characterize individual and summed VOC emissions for the
coated and uncoated coupons. Since the focus of the research was on indoor air emissions, the
tests characterized emissions from the finished coupons 35-days after they were coated and
cured instead of emissions from newly cured coupons; emissions were also characterized from
the uncoated coupons after they had aged 35-days. A 35-day testing time was selected because
it is close to the 31-day time lag between the manufacture of PBVST from the manufacturing
plant in Phases 1 and 2, and the installation of PBVST as an assembled product in an indoor
environment. Although a 31-day testing time was used in Phase 2, a 35-day testing time was
selected for this study to avoid the possibility of having to test on weekends; i.e., a 35-day testing
time ensured that emissions tests would take place on the same day of the week as the
coating/cure application.
For the first objective, a statistical analysis was performed on the 35-day emission factor
data to determine if the coatings systems were a significant source of individual and summed
VOC emissions from the finished coupons. For the second objective, a statistical analysis was
conducted on the 35-day emission factor data to ascertain if emission factors of individual and
summed VOCs for PBV coated and cured with the five alternative coatings systems were
significantly different than emission factors of individual and summed VOCs for PBV coated and
cured with the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings system. For the third objective,
the performance of the coated coupons was evaluated using standard tests for performance of
wood coatings.
6.3 Experimental Design
The experimental design included the following steps;
(1)	Collect boards of unfinished PBV for coatings applications trials and performance
testing.
(2)	Prepare coupons from unfinished boards for coatings applications trials and
performance testing.
(3)	Conduct trials of coatings applications.
(4)	Conduct performance tests.
(5)	Collect three boards of unfinished PBV for coatings applications.
(6)	Cut and prepare coupons from unfinished boards for emissions testing.
(7)	Apply and cure coatings systems to predesignated unfinished coupons.
(8)	Hold finished and unfinished coupons in sealed containers for seven days;
afterwards, cut and prepare test squares from coated and uncoated coupons for
emissions testing.
(9)	Allow coated and uncoated test squares to condition at ambient conditions (23:,C,
50% RH, and 1 ACH) for 28 days.
(10)	Conduct chamber emissions tests on coated and uncoated test squares.
(11)	Characterize emission factors from chamber emissions test data.
(12)	Assess the statistical significance of the emission factors in terms of design
objectives.
50
-------
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 are flow diagrams of Steps 1 through 4 and Steps 5 through 10, respectively.
Coatings applications and performance tests (Steps 3, 4, and 7) were conducted at the
Electrotechnology Application Center (ETAC) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The ETAC facility is a
coatings laboratory that houses an electric convection oven, an UV curing chamber, and various
equipment for evaluating finish characteristics of coated wood. The staff at ETAC were selected
to carry out the coatings applications and performance tests because they have widespread
experience in formulating, applying, and evaluating various types of wood coatings.
Several resin manufacturers and coatings formulators for the engineered wood finishing
industry provided the coatings systems for the evaluation. RTI provided these suppliers with
samples of PBVST collected from the manufacturing plant in Phases 1 and 2. RTI asked the
coatings suppliers to formulate their coatings to give similar gloss, thickness, and performance
characteristics to the samples of PBVST. The coatings supplier to the PBVST manufacturer in
Phases 1 and 2 provided a heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea system that was similar to the
one used by the manufacturer.
6.3.1	Collection and Preparation of Coupons for Coatings Optimization Trials and
Performance Tests (Steps 1 and 2)
In Steps 1 and 2, several boards of unfinished PBV were collected from a manufacturing
plant and cut into 15.24 cm by 20.32 cm coupons. The coupons were sent to ETAC for coatings
optimization trials and performance tests.
6.3.2	Coatings Optimization Trials (Step 3)
In Step 3, ETAC conducted coating application and curing trials on coupons from Step 2
to optimize these procedures for Step 7 (in Step 7 coupons were coated and cured for emission
factors testing). Coatings were applied using a drawdown bar (Figures 6-3 and 6-4). A
drawdown bar is a round stainless steel bar tightly wound with stainless steel wire; it is standard
lab apparatus for applying uniform amounts of coatings to small substrates such as coupons.
The amount of coating transferred to a substrate is governed by the area of the groove between
the coils of wire (Figure 6-5). This groove allows an exact amount of coating to pass through the
coils, leaving a smooth, uniform thickness of coating on a substrate. Although a drawdown bar is
not used to apply coatings in the manufacturing environment, it was selected to minimize
variations in application thickness for a given coatings system. As will be discussed further in
the text, each coatings system was applied to multiple coupons. The applied thickness of each
coatings system varied depending on the recommendation of the coatings supplier (see Table C-
1 in Appendix C for the applied thickness of each coatings systems). Having consistent
thicknesses within a given coatings system was important to minimize variations in emission
factors for each test square.
51
-------
Collect several boards of unfinished
veneered particleboard from Plant 1
purchased —>- veneer
particleboard w/ glue

sealer—cure—topcoat -
cure



Transport boards to RTI and cut each board into coupons
t-
'<


'

Ship coupons to ETAC for coatings optimization and performance testing
Figure 6-1. Steps one through four of experimental design.
Collect several boards of unfinished
veneered particleboard from Plant 1
purchased—>- veneer
particleboard w/ glue
	f>- sealer—cure—topcoat—+¦ cure
E 0

JL
Transport boards to RTI and cut each board into 12 coupons I
£
™T
Ship 10 coupons/board to ETAC

T
I
Retain 2 coupons/board as lab blanks
Coat 8 coupons/board; retain 2 coupons/board as field blanks
1
Ship coupons back to RTI for 35-day conditioning and emissions testing §

Figure 6-2. Steps five through ten of experimental design.
52
-------

Figure 6-3. Drawdown bar.
Figure 6-4. Application
of coating with
drawdown bar.
Diameter of wire
determines amount of
coating going through this	Wire coils	Rod
space or grove.	^	#
JHZIT	j f r-r-» > > r rr r-r>v > > / TrrTTr^-rr jr 7/.//j j j j / rf / s r* rr
I
Coupon to be coated
Figure 6-5. Close-up of drawdown bar.
53
-------
Coatings suppliers provided instructions for applying and curing their coatings to coupons
of PBV to produce a similar finish to the PBVST manufactured in Phases 1 and 2. The
instructions specified coatings thicknesses (for both the sealer and topcoat), flash time, oven
cure cycle, etc. ETAC made some modifications to dry and cure cycles to ensure optimal drying
conditions. For example, if a coating did not dry to a visually acceptable film during the ambient
flash step, then additional time was allotted to that cycle. Also, if a coupon could not be handled
due to incomplete curing, the oven cure cycle was extended. Table C-1 in Appendix C lists the
coating and curing procedures established during the optimization trials; these conditions were
followed during applications for both the performance and emission tests.
6.3.3 Performance Tests (Step 4)
After optimizing the coating application and curing techniques, ETAC coated coupons for
performance evaluations. The coated coupons were evaluated using standard industry tests of
performance of wood coatings (Step 4). Properties tested included: adhesion; fingernail mar
resistance; and chemical resistance to the solvent methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), mustard, and 10
types of stains. Gloss was also measured. These properties were selected for testing because
they are of interest to manufacturers of engineered wood products.
For the MEK test, a rag was soaked in MEK, and then repeatedly rubbed over the same
spot of a coated coupon in a back and forth motion. Each back and forth motion was counted as
one double rub (DR). Each test was a maximum of 100 DRs. Coatings were rated according to
the number of DRs required to rub off the coating or to a maximum of 100 DRs.
Mustard and stain tests were performed according to the procedures of the covered spot
test in ASTM D1308-798 using stains outlined by ANSI/KCMA A161.1-1990, 9.3.9 For the
mustard test, a few drops of mustard were applied to the horizontal surface of a coated coupon;
the drops were covered with a watch glass to prevent them from evaporating (Figure 6-6). The
watch glass was removed after one hour and the mustard washed off with water. The coated
coupon was examined for damages to the coating such as discoloration, changes in gloss,
blistering, softening, swelling, and loss of adhesion. If no damages were seen, the coating was
given a rating of 10 and the test stopped. If the mustard damaged the coating, the spot was
evaluated 23 hours later (24 hours after the mustard was washed off) to determine if the coating
improved over the interval; the coating was rated from 0 to 10, where 0 indicated no improvement
and 10 indicated complete recovery of the coating.
Individual stains were applied in the same manner as the mustard, except that each stain
was left on the coated coupon for 24 hours, at which point the stain was rinsed off, and the
coating rated from 0 to 10 depending on the resulting damage (a score of 10 indicated no
damage to the coating).
Adhesion was tested according to ASTM D3359.10 For this test, a Crosshatch tool was
used to scribe a lattice pattern on the surface of a coated coupon. A wide piece of semi-
transparent, pressure sensitive tape was pressed firmly across the scribe marks and then jerked
off with one quick motion (Figure 6-7). Adhesion was rated on a scale of 0B to 5B, depending on
how much coating came up with the tape. A rating of 0B indicated that 65% or more of the
coating was removed; a rating of 5B indicated that no coating was removed.
54
-------
Figure 6-6. Mustard and stain tests.
Figure 6-7. Adhesion test
Gloss was measured according to ASTM D52311 using a Gloss Checker manufactured by
Horiba (model 1G-310) (Figure 6-8). Gloss ratings ranged from 0 to 120, with the latter being the
highest gloss rating. Hardness was measured according to ASTM D224012 using a Durometer
manufactured by PTC instruments (model 307L) (Figure 6-9). Hardness was rated on a scale of
0 to 100, with 100 being the highest hardness rating. Fingernail mar resistance was measured
subjectively.
6.3.4 Collection and Preparation of Coupons for Coatings Applications (Steps 5 and 6)
Figure 6-8. Gloss checker.
Figure 6-9. Durometer for measuring
hardness.
!n Step 5, three 39.37 cm by 85.09 cm boards of unfinished PBV were collected by RTI
directly from the manufacturing line prior to finishing; the boards were pulled from the line one
after the other and placed into a single prepurged Tedlar bag. The boards were transported to
RTI within four hours of collection.
Upon arrival at RTI, each board was cut into eight 15.24 cm by 20.32 cm coupons and
four 8.26 cm by 20.32 cm coupons (Step 6). Each coupon was labeled on an exposed edge with
55
-------
a sample code that included a board letter designation (A to C) and a coupon number (1 to 12)
as shown in Figure 6-10. After labeling, the exposed edges of the coupons were sealed with two
applications of sodium silicate to ensure that emitted VOCs came only from the surfaces of the
test squares and not the cut edges. Each prepared coupon was placed in a 1 gallon, uncoated
steel container with a compression sealed lid. Eight 15.24 cm by 20.32 cm coupons, and two
8.26 cm by 20.32 cm coupons from each board were sent to ETAC for the coatings study.
6.3.5	Coatings Applications (Step 7)
For each board, six different coatings systems were applied to eight, 15.24 cm by 20.32
cm coupons over the course of two days; two coupons per board were left uncoated (the latter
were referred to as field coupons) (Step 7). As shown in Table 6-2, the six different coatings
systems were applied to coupons from the same board over the course of two days. Ideally, all
eight coupons from the same board should have been coated in a single day, however, only six
test chambers were available for emission factors testing at one time. For the statistical design,
chamber air samples had to be collected from coated coupons that were the same age as their
corresponding field and lab coupons. Since only six test chambers were available for testing at
one time, only four coupons were coated per day.
6.3.6	Receipt, Storage, and Chamber Air Sampling (Steps 8 through 10)
For each board, four coupons were coated and cured per day; that same day, the finished
coupons and their corresponding field coupon were shipped overnight to RTI. The finished
coupons and field coupon arrived at RTI in separate containers. Upon receipt at RTI, the four
finished coupons and field coupon were held in their shipping containers until seven days had
elapsed since the coupons were finished.
Table 6-2. Number of Coupons Coated and Reserved as Field Coupons
Coatings:
I

Coatings Systems




Day
Board 1
2
3
4
5
6
FCa
Total
1
A 1
1
1
1


1
5
2
A

1*
liHill
1
1
1
5
3
B 1
1

1
1

1
5
4
B 1
1
1


1
1
5
5
C
1
1

1
1
1
5
6
C 1


1
illlii
lllllll
1
5
a FC=field coupon; field coupons were not coated.
b Shaded blocks indicate duplicate applications; duplicate coatings applications were part of the statistical design.
56
-------
t
3.81 cm
20.32 cm
20.32 cm
85.09 cm
20.32 cm
20.32 cm



A1
A9
A5
A2
A10
A6
A3
A11
A7
A4
A12
A8
15.24 cm
8.26 cm
39.37 cm

Note:
Coupons A1 through A8 were coated.
Coupons A9 through A12 served as lab or field coupons.
Direction of wood grain was parallel to 85.09 cm side.
15.24 cm
Figure 6-10. Example of how Board A was labeled and divided into coupons (drawing
not to scale).
57
-------
Seven days after the coatings applications, the coupons were removed from the
containers and a 0.0762 by 0.0762 m test square was cut from the center of each finished
coupon (Step 8). A test square was also cut from the lab coupon corresponding to the coated
coupons and field coupon (the lab coupon was the same age as the latter). Each test square
was labeled on an exposed edge with its board code and coupon number using a graphite pencil.
The edges of the test squares were sealed with two coats of sodium silicate to ensure that
emitted VOCs came from the surfaces of the test squares and not the cut edges. Each test
square was placed in an individual conditioning chamber maintained at 23;,C, 50% RH, and 1 air
exchange rate per hour (Figure 6-11). The 6 test squares were conditioned for 27 days (Step 9).
On the evening of the 27th day, the test squares were removed from the conditioning
chambers and transferred to individual test chambers (Figures 6-12). Test conditions in the
chambers are shown in Table 6-3. The test squares resided in the test chambers overnight
which allowed them to equilibrate with the chamber air. The following morning, chamber air
sampling was initiated. Table 6-4 shows the number of air samples collected during each
chamber run. For each run, chamber air samples were collected from finished coupons that were
the same age as their corresponding field and lab coupons. Chamber blanks were collected prior
to each chamber run to demonstrate acceptably low chamber background concentrations. One
chamber control was collected after each run to demonstrate acceptable recovery from chambers
during emission testing. Upon completion of each chamber run, the test squares were removed
and the chambers cleaned.
6.3.7 Collection of VOCs
In Step 10, VOCs in the test chambers were collected by passing chamber air through
one dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-coated silica gel cartridge and two multisorbent cartridges
containing Tenax TA, charcoal, and Ambersorb (Figure 4-2 in Section 4.3.3 shows the
arrangement of the cartridges for collecting VOCs). DNPH cartridges are designed to collect
aldehydes and ketones. Multisorbent cartridges are designed to collect other types of VOCs.
Chamber air was passed through the DNPH cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 70
to 80 mL/min for 120 minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 9 L. Chamber air was
passed through each multisorbent cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 30 to 35 mL/min for
60 minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 1.7 to 2 L.
6.3.7.1 Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges (Step 11)
VOC on multisorbent cartridges were thermally desorbed then analyzed by GC/MS using
the conditions shown in Table 6-5. Identification of unknown sample constituents was performed
using an electronic search of the NIH/EPA/MSDC Mass Spectral Data Base (N1ST library) and
the Registry of Mass Spectral Library (Wiley library). Manual review of the data was also
performed to verify computer identifications and to identify compounds not found using the
computer library search. Results of these analyses were used to select target VOCs for
quantitative analysis.
Prior to analysis, a set of standard cartridges was analyzed to show proper mass
calibration for the GC/MS system, to establish GC retention time windows for selected VOCs,
58
-------
Bill
Figure 6-11. Conditioning chambers.
Figure 6-12. Four of six emission factors test chambers
59
-------
Table 6-3. Conditions For Chamber Testing
Test Parameters				 Conditions
Chamber Size	0.012 m3
Temperature	23 °C
Relative Humidity	50%
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)	1/h
Source Area (A)	-0.012 m2
Loading (L)		1.0 m;/m3
Table 6-4. Number of Chamber Air Samples Collected
Chamber



Coatings Systems


I


Run°
Board
1
2
3
4
5
6
«
o
LL
LCb
Total0
1
A
1
1
1
1


1
1
6
2
A


1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
B
1
1

1
1

1
1
6
4
B
1
1
1


1
1
1
6
5
C

1
1

1
1
1
1
6
6
C
1


1
1
1
1
1
6
a FC=uncoated field coupon.
* LC=uncoated lab coupon.
c Each chamber run occurred 35-days after each coatings day shown in Table 6-3. Coupons were randomly
assigned lo the test chambers.
and to generate instrumental response factors for TVOC quantitation. Standard cartridges were
spiked with known amounts of toluene and aliphatic hydrocarbons ranging in volatility from
n-hexane to n-tetradecane. Two external standards, perfluorotoluene (PFT) and
bromopentafluorobenzene (BFB), were added to each standard cartridge. PFT was used to
monitor instrumental tune (mass resolution and ion abundance) and BFB was used as an
external quantitation standard. Each day during sample analysis, an additional standard
cartridge was analyzed to demonstrate ongoing instrumental performance.
60
-------
Table 6-5. GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOC
Parameter
Setting
THERMAL DESORPTiON
Trap Type
Tube Raised Ambient
Initial Carrier Flow
Tube Chamber Heat Time
Tube Chamber Temperature {Max)
Secondary Carrier Flow
Trap 1 Heat (Max)
Trap 2 Heat (Max)
Trap-to-Trap Transfer Time
Trap-to-Column Transfer Time
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
Instrument
Column
Temperature Program
Carrier gas flow rate
MASS SPECTROMETER
Instrument
Ionization Mode
Emission Current
Source Temperature
Electron Multiplier
1 = Multisorbent, 2 = Multisorbent
Off
1	min
6 min
320°C
2	min
270°C
310°C
2 min
20 min
Hewlett-Packard 5890
DB-624 widebore fused silica capillary column
35"C (5 min) to 200"C (1 min) at5°C/min
1.8 mL/min
Hewlett Packard, Model 5988A
Electron Ionization Scan 35-350 m/z
0.3 mA
200 "C
2000 volts3
Typical value
61
-------
During quantitative analysis, identification of target analytes was based on
chromatographic retention times relative to standards and the relative abundances of extracted
ion fragments selected for quantitation. Quantitation was accomplished using chromatographic
peak areas derived from extracted ion profiles. Calibration standards containing the target
analytes were prepared on Tenax TA cartridges at masses ranging from 10 to 500 ng/cartridge.
Each calibration standard and sample contained a known mass of the quantitation standard,
bromopentafluorobenzene. Relative response factors (RRFs) for individual VOCs were
calculated as
AT • Ma<.
DDE _ T OS
r
-------
The concentration of each VOC and 7VOC in a chamber air sample was calculated as:
n	^VOCor TVOC
^VOCarTVOC	7~,
where CVOcDrTvoc = Concentration of the VOC or TVOC in the chamber air sample (pg/m3)
MVOCorTvoc = Mass of VOC or TVOC on multisorbent cartridge
Vs	= Sample volume of chamber air, L
6.3.7.2 Analysis of Aldehydes and Ketones on DNPH Cartridges
DNPH cartridges were analyzed for the target aldehydes and ketones listed in Table 6-6.
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives on sample cartridges were extracted by eluting each cartridge with 5
mL of HPLC grade acetonitrile into a 5 mL volumetric flask. The final volume was adjusted to 5.0
mL and the samples aliquoted for analysis. Blank cartridges were eluted with each sample set to
identify background contaminants. Additional blank cartridges were spiked with known amounts
of DNPH/aldehyde standards as a method of assessing recovery.
Table 6-6. Target Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanorie
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
n-Hexanal
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives in sample extracts were analyzed by HPLC with UV detection
using the conditions shown in Table 6-7. Purified and certified DNPH derivatives of the target
aldehydes were used for the preparation of calibration solutions. Target aldehydes were
identified by comparison of their chromatographic retention times with those of the purified
standards. Quantitation of the target compounds was accomplished by the external standard
method using calibration standards prepared in the range 0.02 to 15 ng/,uL of the
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives. Standards were analyzed singly for the aldehyde DNPH derivatives
and a calibration curve calculated by linear regression of the concentration and chromatographic
response data. Calibration curves for all target analytes were considered acceptable if
r2 * 0.998.
63
-------
Table 6-7. HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors
Parameter	Setting
Instrument	Waters Series 510
Column	NOVA-PAK C18,3.9 x 150 mm
Solvent System	A: Water/Acetonltrile/Tetrahydrofuran 60/30/10 v/v
B: Acetonitrile/Water 40/60 v/v
Gradient	100% A for 3 min; then a linear gradient to 100% B in 10 min.
Hold 15 min at100%B
Mobile Phase Flow Rate	1.5 mL/min
Injection Size	20 pL
UV Wavelength	360 nm
To demonstrate on-going instrumental performance, a calibration standard was analyzed
each day prior to the analysis of any samples. The calibration was considered "in control" if the
measured concentration of the aldehyde/DNPH derivatives in the standard was 85 to 115% of
the prepared concentration.
The concentration of each target aldehyde and ketone in the chamber air samples was
calculated as:
^ Cy x Vy x DF
elk	v
S
where Ca/k = Concentration of the target aldehyde or ketone in chamber the air sample (Mg/m3)
Cy = Concentration of DNPH/analyte derivative in the sample extract (ng/pL)
Vy = Total volume of sample extract (i.e., 5000 pL)
Vs = Sample volume of chamber air, L
D, = Molecular weight of the aldehyde or ketone * molecular weight of the aldehyde or
ketone/DNPH derivative
6.3.7.3 Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors
Concentrations of individual VOCs and TVOC measured in chamber air samples were
converted to emission factors using the following equation
CxACH
EF = ~m.	
L
where
Cm = measured concentration of a VOC or TVOC in a chamber air sample (pg /rn3)
64
-------
ACH = air exchange rate in the test chamber
L = loading ratio in the test chamber
An emission factor of summed VOCs for a tested material was calculated by summing the
individual emission factors of VOCs for a tested material.
6.3.8 Statistical Analysis of Emission Factors Data (Step 12)
The emission factors generated in Step 11 were statistically analyzed to ascertain (1) if
coatings systems contribute significantly to 35-day emissions from test squares of finished PBV
relative to test squares of uncoated lab coupons, i.e., unfinished PBV, and (2) if emission factors
for test squares of PBV finished with the five alternative coatings systems are significantly
different than those for test squares of PBV finished with the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-
urea coatings system. To address the first objective, t-tests were conducted to assess
differences in the mean emission factors of individual and summed VOCs between test squares
finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares of unfinished PBV, test squares finished
with Coatings System 2 versus test squares of unfinished PBV, test squares finished with
Coatings System 3 versus test squares of unfinished PBV, test squares finished with Coatings
System 4 versus test squares of unfinished PBV, test squares finished with Coatings System 5
versus test squares of unfinished PBV, and test squares finished with Coatings System 6 versus
test squares of unfinished PBV. To address the second objective, t-tests were conducted to
assess potential differences in the mean emission factors of individual and summed VOCs for
test squares finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares finished with Coatings System
2, test squares finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares finished with Coatings
System 3, test squares finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares finished with
Coatings System 4, test squares finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares finished
with Coatings System 5, and test squares finished with Coatings System 1 versus test squares
finished with Coatings System 6.
To meet the first objective, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of the following form
was employed:
log(y+1) = overall mean + board effect + coating effect + error
where y denotes the mean emission factor of a specific compound. The logarithmic scale was
used to account for possible measurement error variance heterogeneity, which typically is
approximately proportional to the magnitude of the emission factor. The addition of one to the
log value was necessary to avoid taking logs of zero, which occurred for some compounds.
Table 6-8 shows the ANOVA for objective one.
65
-------
Table 6-8. ANOVA for Objective One
Source of Variation	Degrees of Freedom
Coatings (including lab blanks as one level)	6
Boards	2
Residual	20
_For theJirst objective, the t value for testing coating i was determined as
where L( and Llgb denote the means of log(y+1) for test squares finished with coating i and test
squares of unfinished PBV, respectively, adjusted for board effects, and s.e. denotes the
standard error of the indicated mean. The standard errors were based on the residual mean
square from the ANOVA; hence p values were computed as the probability of observing a
random variable T with magnitude greater than the calculated t value, when T follows a t
distribution with 20 degrees of freedom. The following equation was used to calculate p-values:
p-value(i) = 2Pr[T > |f(/)|]
P values below some threshold level (e.g., 0.05 or 0.01) are typically used to declare that a
statistically significant difference exists.
For the second objective, a similar ANOVA model was employed; however, the emissions
data for the test squares of unfinished PBV were not used. Table 6-9 presents the ANOVA for
objective two.
Table 6-9. ANOVA for Objective Two	
Source of Variation	Degrees of Freedom
Coatings (including lab blanks as one level)	5
Boards	2
Residual	15
The test of no difference between the true average log emission factors for the pair of coating
systems (i and j) was carried out by calculating the p value associated with the test statistic t(i,j):
66
-------
^.(L,.)]2 + [s.e.(L.)]2
where L,- and Lj denote the means of log(y+1) for test squares finished with coatings i and j,
respectively, adjusted for board effects, and s.e. denotes the standard error of the indicated
mean. The standard errors were based on the residual mean square from the ANOVA; hence p
values were computed (using the same p-equation for Objective 1) as the probability of observing
a random variable T with magnitude greater than the calculated t value, when T follows a t
distribution with 15 degrees of freedom.
6.4 Results
6.4.1 Performance Tests
Table 6-10 presents the results of the performance tests. In this table, Coating 1 refers to
test squares of PBV finished with an acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (the type of
coatings system identified as a potential source of emissions from PBVST in Phases 1 and 2).
Coatings 2 through 6 refer to test squares of PBV finished with five alternative coatings systems.
Comparing the performance ratings of the alternative coatings systems to the ratings of Coating
1 (the benchmark coating) provides an indication of the ability of the alternative coatings systems
to achieve the performance of Coating 1. Coatings 3, 4, and 5 outperformed Coating 1 in the
MEK test. Coatings 4 and 5 outperformed Coating 1 in the mustard test. For the 11 stain tests,
Coatings 2, 4, 5, and 6 performed the same as 1; Coating 3 performed fairly well in the stain
tests except for its performance with grape juice and coffee. All coatings performed equally well
in the adhesion and fingernail mar resistance tests. Coatings 4 and 5 had gloss ratings that
differed substantially from that of Coating 1. Note, gloss can usually be varied quite easily by a
coatings formulator without affecting other parameters such as hardness; therefore, a difference
in gloss is not nearly as significant as a difference in a performance property such as chemical
resistance.
67
-------
Table 6-10. Performance Tests Results
Performance T ests
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating
Chemical Resistance






1) MEK Test
20
10
100
100
100
10
2) Mustard Test (1 h/24)
4/8
2/6
2/3
10
8/9
4/6
3) Stain Test (24)






Vinegar
10
10
10
10
10
10
Lemon
10
10
10
10
10
10
Orange Juice
10
10
10
10
10
10
Grape Juice
10
10
8
10
10
10
Tomato Catsup
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coffee
10
10
8
10
10
10
Olive Oil
10
10
10
10
10
10
100-proof Alcohol
10
10
10
10
10
10
Detergent and Water
10
10
10
10
10
10
Water
10
10
10
10
10
10
Adhesion
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
Gloss
46
40
51
61
65
48
Hardness
74
77
74
72
77
71
Fingernail Mar Resistance
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
VG
Coating 1 = heal curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea
Coating 2 = heat curable two component polyurclhane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable anrylale
Coating 5 = UV and heat curable muiti-fimclional acrylate-free emulsion
Coating 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
One caveat lo the performance data is that measurements of hardness and chemical
resistance depend on how much time has elapsed since a coating is cured. Some coatings
gradually develop their hardness and chemical resistance over a period of one to two weeks.
Standard industry practice is to wait 14 days after cure before running chemical resistance tests;
hardness tests are usually measured at 1, 3, 7, 14, 31, and 93 days after cure. For this study,
mustard and stain tests were performed 1 to 2 weeks after the coatings were cured;
MEK tests were performed on the same day the coatings were cured; and hardness tests were
measured 1 to 2 days after the coatings were cured. The coatings in Table 6-10 differ mainly in
how they performed in the MEK and mustard tests; since time is critical factor in developing
chemical resistance, some of the coatings that performed poorly, may have improved with time.
6.4.2 Emission Tests
Table 6-11 presents mean emission factors for test squares of PBV finished with each of
the coatings systems and test squares of the lab and field coupons. Tables C2 through C9 in
Appendix C present emission factors for individual test squares finished with each of the coatings
systems and emission factors for individual test squares of lab and field coupons; these tables
also show emissions variability among test squares with the same coatings system. As shown
earlier in Table 6-2, each coatings system was applied and cured to four test squares; three of
the test squares were from separate boards (i.e., one each from Boards A, B, and C). An
additional test square was from one of the three boards. For each coatings system, the mean
emission factors in Table 6-11 were calculated by first averaging emission factors of test squares
68
-------
within boards, and then averaging emission factors across boards.
Table 6-12 presents partial results of the statistical analysis of the mean emission factors
of individual and summed VOCs for test squares of PBV finished with each of the coatings
systems and test squares of the lab coupons (i.e., unfinished PBV); Table C-11 in Appendix C
presents the complete analysis of the mean emission factors of all compounds. As discussed in
Section 6.3.8, the statistical analysis was performed on adjusted mean emission factors
converted to a log scale basis.
For the comparison of the mean emission factors for test squares of unfinished PBV with
the mean emission factors for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings Systems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6, statistically significant p-values (i.e., those less than 0.05) were marked with either a plus
or minus sign in Table 6-12. The plus sign indicates that the mean emission factor of test
squares of PBV finished with Coatings System j (j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) was statistically higher
than the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV; this is equivalent to saying
that the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV was statistically lower than the
mean emission factor for test squares of PBV finished with Coating System j.1 The minus sign
indicates that the mean emission factor for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System j
was statistically lower than the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV; this is
equivalent to saying that the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV was
statistically higher than the mean emission factor for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings
System j.
In terms of answering Objective One (do coatings systems contribute significantly to 35-
day emissions from finished PBV relative to unfinished PBV?), the mean emission factors of
summed VOCs for test squares finished with Coatings Systems 1, 3, and 6 were statistically
higher than the mean emission factor of summed VOCs for test squares of unfinished PBV.
The mean emission factors of summed VOCs for Coatings Systems 2, 4, and 5 were statistically
lower than the mean emission factor of summed VOCs for the test squares of unfinished PBV,
indicating that these coatings systems suppressed emissions from PBV.
Some of the coatings systems suppressed wood compounds such as n-hexanal and
limonene. For example, the mean emission factors of n-hexanal for test squares finished with
Coatings Systems 1, 2, 4, and 5 were significantly lower than the mean emission factor of
n-hexanal for tests squares of unfinished PBV. The mean emission factors of limonene for test
squares finished with Coatings Systems 2, 4, and 5 were statistically lower than the mean
emission factor of limonene for test squares of unfinished PBV. None of the finished test
squares had significantly different mean emission factors of acetone compared to the mean
emission factor of acetone for the test squares of unfinished PBV, indicating that none of the
coatings systems suppressed acetone emissions from PBV.
1For discussions of the statistical analysis of the data, the term "mean" refers to the mean
of log(y+1), where y = emission factor.
69
-------
Table 6-11. Quantitated Mean Emission Factors from Uncoated and Coated Test Squares
Conditioned for 28 Days
Emission Factors, pg/(m;-hr)

Uncoated lest

Test Squares Coated and Cured with

Compounds
squares of PBV
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating
Formaldehyde
140
400
20
70
18
19
33
Acetaldehyde
61
53
41
65
68
41
68
Acetone
420
520
490
380
390
430
510
Propionaldehyde
21
16
15
16
16
12
17
2-Butanone
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
Butyraldehyda
15
-
-
18
-
-
12
Benzaldehyde
23
-
-
30
14
18
23
Valeraldehyde
65
37
26
54
28
19
57
m-Tolualdehyde
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n-Hexanal
410
150
120
280
79
93
350
1-Pentanol
62
150
16
38
13
14
49
Limonene
79
68
54
74
38
37
83
Junipene
89
61
24
54
16
13
67
Terpenes
170
320
220
170
110
100
120
1-Bulanol
6
800
-
5
-
8
7
Toluene
-
16
-
5
22
-
6
2-Methyl-1-butanol
-
55
-
-
-
-
-
Butyl acetate
¦
38
-
-
-
-
-
1,2-Propanediol
•
15
-
33
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
-
270
-
-
33
-
-
rn,p-Xylene
-
660
-
-
110
-
-
2-Heptanorio
15
550
8
13
9
7
22
o-Xylene
-
210
-
-
32
-
-
Propyl benzene
-
91
-
-
-
-
-
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionale
-
110
-
-
-
-
-
1 -Methyl-2-pyrrolidono
-
11
-
20
-
5
2400
2-(2-Butoxyelhoxy)ethanol
8
1700
43
610
18
6
7
Naphthalene
-
24
-
-
-
-
-
Hexyl acetate
-
400
-
-
-
-
-
Indan
-
13
-
-
-
-
-
C3-Benzenes
-
1100
-
-
-
-
-
C4-Benzenes
34
190
25
33
17
16
33
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
-
-
-
-
-
24
240
Unknown 1
-
-
-
180
-
-
-
Unknown 2
-
-
-
260
-
-
-
TVOC"
1000
5200
610
1700
810
540
2800
Summed VOCs"		
		1600	
7800
1100
2300
1000
900
4100
Coating 1 = heat curable acid catalyzed aikyd-urea
Coating 2 = heat curable two component polyurethane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable acrylate
Coating 5 = UV and heal curable mulli-funcBonal acrylate-free emulsion
Coaling 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
" < 5 pg/(m'-hr)
11TVOC = total volatile organic compounds from TVOC analysis of multisorbent tubes
"Summed VOCs are the sum of emission (actors > 5 pg/(m''«hr), rounded to two significant figures
70
-------
Table 6-12. P- Values of Mean Emission Factors of Select Compounds
1-Butanol
C4-Benzenes
2-{2-Butoxyettioxy)ethanol
Formaldehyde
Acetone
n-Hexanal
Limonene
P(row/columnj)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.0001 {+)





Coating 3
0.0001 (+)





Coating 4
0.0001 (+)





Coating 5
0.0001<+)





Coating 6
0.0001 (+)





unfinished PBV 0.0001 (+)
0.0023(-)
0.2337
0.0002{-)
0.0780
0.1039
P(row/column,)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.0001(+)





Coating 3
0.0001 (+)





Coating 4
0.0001(+)





Coating 5
0.0001<+}





Coating 6
0.0001 (+)





unfinished PBV
0.0001(+)
0.0546
0.8464
0.0011(-)
0.0048(-)
0.6644
P{i/j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coaling 3
Coating 4
Coaling 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.0001(+)





Coating 3
0.0307(+)





Coating 4
0.0001(0





Coating 5
0.0001 (+)





Coating 6
0.0001 (+)





unfinished PBV
o.oooi(+)
0.000?<+)
0.0001 (+)
0.2157
03125
0.2146
P(row/column,)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.0001 (+)





Coating 3
0.0001 (+)





Coating 4
0.0001 (+)





Coating 5
0.0001 (+)





Coating 6
0.0001 (+)





unfinished PBV
0.0001 (~)
0.0001(-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 {-)
P(row/column,)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.7215





Coating 3
0.0777





Coating 4
0.0944





Coating 5
0.2792





Coating 6
0.8982





Unfinished PUV 0.1943
0.3543
0.4872
0.5594
0.9099
0.2443
P(row/column)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coaling 5
Coating 6
Coating 2
0.6757





Coating 3
0.0048(-)





Coating 4
0.2359





Coating 5
0.2347





Coaling 6
0.0003(-)





unfinished PBV
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-}
0.0979
O.OOOI(-)
0.0001(-)
0.6304
P(i/j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coaling 2
0.6228





Coating 3
0.1184





Coating 4
0.0547





Coating 5
0.1483





Coating 6
0.1538





unfinished PBV
0.1225
0.0433(-)
0.8525
0.0010(-)
0.0055(-)
0.9806
(continued)
71
-------
Table 6-12. Continued
1 -Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
Unknown 1
Unknown 2
Sum of Emission factors
P(row/columi\) Coaling 1
Coating 2
0.1949
Coating 3
0.0518
Coating 4
0.1088
Coating 5
0.1483
Coating 6
0.0001 (-)
unfinished PBV 0.0135(+)
P(i/j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
1.0000
Coaling 3
0.0001 (-)
Coaling 4
0.7874
Coating 5
0.8780
Coaling 6
0.8246
P(i®
Coating 1
Coating 2
1.0000
Coaling 3
0.0001 (-)
Coating 4
0.7609
Coating 5
0.9141
Coating 6
0.9676
P(row/columnj) Coating 1
Coating 2
0.0001 (+)
Coating 3
0.0001 (+)
Coating 4
0.0001 (+)
Coating 5
0.0001 {+)
Coating 6
0.0034(+)
unfinished PBV 0.0001 (+)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coaling 6
0.2267
0.0001 (+) 0.4022
0.4024
0.0001 (+)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.0231 (-) 0 0473(+) 0.0075{-) 0.0049(-) 0.0001 (+)
Coaling 1 = heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea
Coating 2 = heat curable two component polyurethane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable aorylate
Coating 5 = UV and heat curable multi-functional acrylata-free emulsion
Coating 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
For the comparison of mean emission factors for test squares finished with Coatings
System 1 with the mean emission factors for test squares finished with Coatings Systems 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6, statistically significant p-values (i.e., those less than 0.05) were marked with either a
plus or minus sign in Table 6-12. The plus sign indicates that the mean emission factor for test
squares finished with Coatings System 1 was statistically higher than the mean emission
factor for test squares finished with Coatings System i (i = 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6); this is equivalent to
saying that the mean emission factors for test squares finished with Coatings System i were
statistically lower than the mean emission factor of test squares finished with Coatings System 1.
The minus sign indicates that the mean emission factor for test squares finished with Coatings
System 1 were statistically lower than the mean emission factor for test squares finished with
Coatings System i; this is equivalent to saying that the mean emission factor of test squares
finished with Coatings System i was statistically higher than the mean emission factor of test
squares finished with Coatings System 1.
72
-------
In terms of answering Objective Two (are emission factors for test squares of PBV
finished with the five alternative coatings systems significantly different than those for test
squares of PBV finished with the heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea coatings system?), the
mean emission factor of summed VOCs for Coatings System 1 was significantly higher than the
mean emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares finished with all five alternative
coatings systems. Mean emission factors of most organic solvents [such as butanol, C4-
benzenes, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol] were significantly higher for test square finished with
Coatings System 1 compared to those for test squares finished with the alternative coatings
systems. This observation is consistent with the fact that Coatings System 1 is formulated with
organic solvents, whereas Coatings Systems 2 through 6 are formulated with low-VOCs.
In terms of individual compounds, the mean emission factor of 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone for
test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System 1 was significantly lower than the mean
emission factor of 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System
6 (1-methyl-2-pyrroiidone is a type of solvent listed in the MSDS for Coatings System 6). The
mean emission factors for compounds unknown 1 and unknown 2 were also significantly lower
for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System 1 compared to those for test squares of
PBV finished with Coatings System 3.
A few caveats exist regarding the emissions tests. Certain nonvolatile compounds that
were listed in the MSDS for some of the coatings systems were not analyzed for in the emission
tests; these included nitrocellulose, p-toluene sulfonic acid, hexamethylene diisocyanate,
polyisocyanates, acrylate oligomers, and acrylic polymers (see Table 6-13). These compounds
were not analyzed for in the emission tests for the following reasons: (1) they were not expected
to be emitted into the air during testing (because of their low volatility); (2) they were not
expected to recover efficiently from the emission test chambers; and (3) they were not expected
to be amenable to the analytical methods used for this study.
Certain volatile compounds that were listed in the MSDS for some of the coatings
systems were also not analyzed for in the emission tests; these included acrylate monomers,
N,N-dimethylethanolamine, and ammonia (see Table 6-13). Acrylate monomers and
N,N-dimethylethanolamine were not analyzed for in the emission tests because they were not
amenable to the analytical methods in the study and because they were not expected to recover
efficiently during the chamber tests (due to their polar nature). Ammonia was not tested for in the
emission tests because it was not amenable to the analytical methods in the study.
6.5 Conclusions
• The mean emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of PBV finished with
Coatings Systems 1, 3, and 6 were statistically higher than the mean emission factor of
summed VOCs for test squares of unfinished PBV, indicating that these coatings
systems are a significant source of emissions from PBVST.
73
-------
Table 6-13. Organic Compounds Listed on MSDS vs. Compounds Detected During Emissions Tests
Coating # Organic Compounds Listed on MSDS of Coatings Detected in Emission (ves/no-)
1 (Sealer) Aromatic solvent
C6-branched alcohol acetate
Xylene, mixed isomers
Butanol (Butyl alcohol)
2-Heptanone
1,2,4-Trlmethylbenzene
Ethyl benzene
Nitrocellulose (gun cotton)1
Butoxyethoxyethanol
1,1,3,3-Tetramethoxy propane
(aromatic solvents are the C3 and C4 benzenes)
(Cs-branched alcohol acetate is hexyl acetate)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes (part of the C3 and C4 benzenes)
yes
see footnote
yes
yes (identified but not quantified - standard unavailable)
1 (Topcoat) Ethyl-3-ethoxypropionate
Xylene, mixed isomers
Aromatic solvent
Butanol (Butyl alcohol)
1-Pentanol
Ethyl benzene
1,2,4-T rimethylbenzene
Butoxyethoxyethanol
Nitrocellulose (gun cotton)1
1,1,3,3-T etramethoxy propane
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes (part of the C3 and C,. benzenes)
yes
see footnote
yes (identified but not quantified)
1 (Catalyst) p-Toluene sulfonic acid3
Isopropanol (Isopropyl alcohol)
	Methyl alchohol (Methanol)1
see footnote
yes (identified but not quantified)
see footnote
-------
Table 6-13. (Continued)
Coating #
2
Organic Compounds Listed on MSDS of Coatings
Aliphatic polyisocyanates2
Hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI)2
HDI based po!yisocyanate22
3	Acrolein
Acetaldehdye
4	(Sealer) Acrylate monomers3
Acrylate oligomers3
Naphtha
1-Methoxy-2-propanol
4 (Topcoat) Acrylate monomers3
Acrylate oligomers3
Acrylic polymer3
2-Hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenylpropan-1-one
2,3-Dihydroxypropyl methacrylate
Residual monomers3
Ammonia'
6
N-N-Dimethylethanolamine1
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether
N-Methyl pyrrolidone
Detected in Emission (veslno)
see footnote
see footnote
see footnote
no
yes
see footnote
see footnote
yes (naphtha is a mixture of hydrocarbon solvents, e.g., C3 and C4 benzenes)
no
see footnote
see footnote
see footnote
no4
no"
see footnote
see footnote
see footnote
yes
yes
Continued
-------
Table 6-13. (Continued)
Coating # Organic Compounds Listed on MSDS of Coatings Detected in Emission (ves/no)
'Compound not suited for air sampling and or analysis techniques used in study.
2Recovery of compounds from test chambers was poor.
'Standard air sampling methods do not exist and chamber recovery is expected to be poor.
4Standard not available to confirm performance.
MSDS = Material safety data sheet
Coating 1 = heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea
Coating 2 = heat curable two component polyurethane
Coating 3 = UV curable non-air inhibited unsaturated polyester
Coating 4 = UV curable acryiate
Coating 5 = UV and heat curable multi-functional acrylate-free emulsion
Coating 6 = heat curable polyurethane dispersion
-------
•	The mean emission factors of summed VOCs for test squares of PBV finished
with Coatings Systems 2, 4, and 5 were statistically lower than the mean emission
factor of summed VOCs for test squares of unfinished PBV, indicating that these
coatings systems are not a significant source of emissions from PBVST.
•	Within the scope of the emissions tests and performance tests conducted for the
evaluation, Coatings Systems 2, 4, and 5 (the heat curable two component
polyurethane, the UV curable acrylate, and the UV curable multi-functional
acrylate-free emulsion, respectively) appear to be viable alternatives for Coatings
System 1.
77
-------
Chapter Seven
Phase 3 Fiber Panel Study
7.1 Overview
Engineered fiber panels are made from a variety of fiber sources such as lumber and
plywood residuals, wheat straw, recycled newspaper, and recycled corrugated cardboard. Some
panels require an adhesive to bind the fibrous materials together. Others contain additives such
as wax (to retard water absorption) and flame retardents.
In Phase 2, UF bonded PB was identified as a potential source of VOCs and
formaldehyde from PBVST (oak-veneered particleboard coated and cured with an acid catalyzed
alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat). A fiber panel study was conducted to screen (i.e., estimate)
emissions from a variety of unfinished engineered panels that can be veneered and finished with
coatings, similar to PBVST. Table 7-1 lists the types of unfinished engineered fiber panels
selected for screening. All of the panels, except for Panel A, can be veneered and finished with
coatings. Panel A is typically used as an unfinished panel or covered with fabric; it was included
in the study because it can be used in a variety of indoor applications.
Table 7-1. Selected Engineered Panels
Panel
Identification
Fiber Source
Adhesive/Resin
Source
Interior Applications
A
Recycled newspaper
None
floors, walls, roof decking, furniture, office partitions
B
Wheat straw
MDI"
PBb applications such as furniture, cabinetry,
shelving
C
Recycled corrugated
cardboard
None'
furniture, store displays, countertops, shelving, etc.
D
Lumber and plywood
residuals
MDI
MDF° applications such as furniture, cabinetry,
shelves
E
Lumber and plywood
residuals
UF"
MDF applications such as furniture, cabinetry,
shelves
F
Lumber and plywood
residuals
UF
PB applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves,
floor underlayment, stair treads
N
Lumber and plywood
residuals
PF*
PB applications such as furniture, cabinetry, shelves,
floor underlayment, stair treads
0 MDI = Methylene diisocyanate
b PB = particleboard
0 MDF = medium density fiberboard
" UF = Urea-formaldehyde
9 PF = Phenol-formaldehyde
'The manufacturing process does not require adhesive or resin to form the fibers into a panel; once the panels are
manufactured, they are glued together (in sets of two) using a white, polyvinyl acetate glue.
78
-------
Emissions were also screened from a few finished engineered fiber panels. Table 7-2 is
a list of the types of finished panels screened. Project resources limited the types of finished
panels screened and the extent of the emissions testing.
Table 7-2. Finished Engineered Fiber Panels Selected for Screening
Panel Identification	Description
H	Product B (wheatboard) with veneer
I	Product B overlaid with vinyl
J	Product B overlaid with melamine
M	Product C (recycled corrugated cardboard) painted
0	Product B coated and cured with heat curable two component
	polyurethane coating
7.2	Objective
The principal objective of the fiber panel study was to screen emissions of TVOC and
formaldehyde from different types of unfinished engineered fiber panels. A secondary objective
was to screen emissions of TVOC and formaldehyde from finished engineered fiber panels.
Physical properties of the panels such as density, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, etc.,
were not measured in the study, but instead were provided by the panel manufacturers (see
Table D-1 of Appendix D).
Emissions were screened from test squares of unfinished panels within 24 hours of
conditioning the test squares at typical indoor conditions (23CC, 50% RH, and 1 ACH), and 26 to
30 days after conditioning the test squares. Emissions from finished panels were screened 26 to
28 days after conditioning the test squares. Emissions were screened within 24 hours of
conditioning to estimate emissions from newly manufactured panels. Emissions were screened
after 26 to 30 days of conditioning to estimate emissions from panels at a time when they might
be present in a consumer's home as part of an assembled product.
7.3	Experimental Design
7.3.1 Collection of Products
Products A through F, H, I, J, M, and N were collected after the last stage of their
manufacturing process (for Product E, the last stage in the manufacturing process involved
treating the panels with ammonia to reduce formaldehyde emissions from the unfinished panels).
For each product type, three panels were collected from the manufacturing line (all of the
unfinished panels were 1.90 cm thick). Several 23 cm by 15 cm coupons were cut from the
center of each panel. All coupons cut from the same panel were placed in a steel container with
an airtight lid. The containers were transported to RTI within two to five days of manufacture.
Upon arrival at RTI, the coupons were stored in their containers at room temperature until testing.
79
-------
For Product O, three panels of unfinished oak-veneered wheatboard were collected from
the end of the manufacturing line. Several 23 cm by 15 cm coupons were cut from the center of
each panel. All coupons cut from the same panel were placed in a steel container with an
airtight lid. The containers were transported to a coatings facility where the coupons were coated
and cured with a two component polyurethane (the same type of two component polyurethane
evaluated in the Phase 3 Coatings Study). After the coatings cured, the coupons were resealed
in their containers and shipped to RTl. Upon arrival at RTI, the coupons were stored in their
containers at room temperature until testing.
7.3.2	Preparation of Test Squares
Within 7 to 11 days of sample collection, coupons from each product were removed from
storage and cut into test squares. Test squares were labeled on each exposed edge with a
product code (A through F, N, H, I, J, and M), a panel number (1 through 3), and test square
number (1 through 2). A graphite pencil was used to label the test squares. After they were
labeled, the edges of each test square were sealed with sodium silicate (liquid glass) to ensure
that emitted VOCs came from the surfaces of the test squares and not the cut edges.
7.3.3	Chamber Air Collection
Prepared test squares of each product were transferred to individual test chambers for
emissions testing. The test chambers operated at the conditions shown in Table 7-3. The test
squares resided in the test chambers overnight which allowed them to equilibrate with the
chamber air. Air samples for measuring VOCs were collected from the test chambers the
following morning.
Table 7-3. Conditions For Chamber Testing
Test Parameters
Chamber Size
Temperature
Relative Humidity
Air Exchange Rate (ACH)
Source Area (A)
Loading (L)
Upon completion of chamber air sampling, the test squares were removed from the test
chambers and transferred to individual conditioning chambers. The conditioning chambers
consisted of 1 gallon steel chambers which operated at 23°C, 50% RH, and one air exchange
rate.
The test squares were kept in the conditioning chambers for 26 to 30 days; afterwards,
the test squares were removed from the conditioning chambers and transferred to individual test
chambers. The test squares resided in the test chambers overnight which allowed them to
equilibrate with the chamber air. The following morning, air samples were collected from each
test chamber.
Conditions
0.012 m3
23CC
50%
1/h
-0.012 m2
1.0 m2/m3
80
-------
7.3.3.1 VOCs Collection
VOCs in the test chambers were collected by passing chamber air through one
dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-coated silica gel cartridge and two multisorbent cartridges
containing Tenax TA, charcoal, and Ambersorb (Figure 4-2 in Section 4.3.3 shows the
arrangement of the cartridges for collecting VOCs). DNPH cartridges are designed to collect
aldehydes and ketones. Multisorbent cartridges are designed to collect other types of VOCs.
Chamber air was passed through the DNPH cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 100
mUmin for 180 minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 18 L. Chamber air was
passed through each multisorbent cartridge at a flow rate of approximately 25 to 30 mUmin for
approximately 180 minutes to collect a sample volume of approximately 5 L.
7.3.4 Analysis of VOCs
7.3.4.1 Analysis of VOCs on Multisorbent Cartridges
VOCs on multisorbent cartridges were thermally desorbed and then analyzed by GC/MS
using the conditions shown in Table 7-4. Identification of unknown sample constituents was
performed using an electronic search of the NIH/EPA/MSDC Mass Spectral Data Base (NIST
library) and the Registry of Mass Spectral Library (Wiley library). Manual review of the data was
also performed to verify computer identifications and to identify compounds not found using the
computer library search.
Prior to analysis, a set of standard cartridges were analyzed to show proper mass
calibration for the GC/MS system, to establish GC retention time windows for selected VOCs,
and to generate total ion response factors for VOCs quantitation estimates. Standard cartridges
were spiked with known amounts of toluene and aliphatic hydrocarbons ranging in volatility from
n-hexane to n-tetradecane. Two external standards [i.e., perfluorotoluene (PFT) and
bromopentafluorobenzene (BFB)], were also added to each standard cartridge. PFT was used
to monitor instrumental tune (mass resolution and ion abundance) and BFB was used as an
external quantitation standard. Each day during sample analysis, an additional standard
cartridge was analyzed to demonstrate ongoing instrumental performance.
Quantitative estimates of the identified VOCs were based on total ion reconstructed
chromatographic peak areas and a total ion relative response factor generated for toluene
(RRFTo;). Standard cartridges were prepared and analyzed as described above. Each of these
cartridges contained a known mass of toluene and the external quantitation standard. The
RRFToi was calculated from the resulting data as
RRF = A™ ' Mqs
• MTo,
where MTol is the mass of toluene (ng/cartridge)
MQS is the mass of quantitation standard (ng/cartridge)
Atol is the peak area of toluene
AQS is the peak area of the quantitation standard (ng/cartridge).
81
-------
Table 7-4. GC/MS Operating Conditions For Analysis of VOCs
Parameter
Setting
THERMAL DESORPTION
Trap Type
CARTRIDGE DESORPTION
Temperature
Carrier Gas Flow Rate
Time
TRAP 1
Initial Temperature
Desorption Temperature
Desorption Carrier Gas Flow Rate
Desorption Time
TRAP 2
Initial Temperature
Desorption Temperature
Desorption Carrier Gas Flow Rate
Desorption Time
TRAP 3
Initial Temperature
Desorption Temperature
Inject Time
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
Instrument
Column
Temperature Program
Carrier Gas Flow Rate
MASS SPECTROMETER
Instrument
Ionization Mode
Emission Current
Source Temperature
Electron Multiplier
1 = Glass beads, 2 = Tenax TKI, 3 = Open
240 "C
25 mL/min
8 min
-150-C
20°C
10 mL/min
4	min
-10'C
180°C
10 mL/min
35 min
~150"C
lOO'C
5	min
Hewlett-Packard 5890
DB-624 widebore fused silica capillary column
35"C (5 min) to 200"C (1 min) at 5"C/min
1.8 mL/min
Hewlett Packard, Model 5988A
Electron Ionization Scan 35-350 m/z
0.3 mA
200"C
2000 volts3
Typical value
During each day of the screening analysis, an additional standard cartridge was
analyzed. If the RRFT
-------
^ _ ^VOC ' ^QS
'0C " ^QS • RRFrol
where Mvoc is the estimated mass of a VOC (ng/cartridge)
Mqs is the mass of quantitation standard (ng/cartridge)
Avoc is the peak area of the VOC
AqS is the peak area of the quantitation standard (ng/cartridge).
TVOC were calculated from the total ion chromatogram (TIC). The total area of the TIC
was integrated for the retention time window from n-pentane through n-tetradecane. The mass
of TVOC was calculated as
^ _ &TVOC ' Mqs
'TVOC
Aqs ' RRF-To!
The concentration of each VOC and TVOC in a chamber air sample was calculated as:
n	_ Mvoc or TV0C
UVOC or TVOC ~	y
where CVOCorTVOC = Concentration of the VOC or TVOC in the chamber air sample (pg/m3)
Mvocor rvoc = Mass of VOC on multisorbent cartridge
Vs	= Sample volume of chamber air, L.
7.3.4.2 Analysis of VOCs on DNPH Cartridges
DNPH cartridges were analyzed for the target aldehydes and ketones listed in
Table 7-5. DNPH/aldehyde derivatives on sample cartridges were extracted by eluting each
cartridge with 5 ml_ of HPLC grade acetonitrile into a 5 mL volumetric flask. The final volume
was adjusted to 5.0 mL and the samples aliquoted for analysis. Blank cartridges were eluted
with each sample set to identify background contaminants. Additional blank cartridges were
spiked with known amounts of DNPH/aldehyde standards as a method of assessing recovery.
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives in sample extracts were analyzed by HPLC with UV
detection using the conditions shown in Table 7-6. Purified and certified DNPH derivatives of
the target aldehydes were used for the preparation of calibration solutions. Target aldehydes
were identified by comparison of their chromatographic retention times with those of the purified
standards. Quantitation of the target compounds was accomplished by the external standard
method using calibration standards prepared in the range 0.02 to 15 ng/,uL of the
DNPH/aldehyde derivatives. Standards were analyzed singly for the aldehyde DNPH
derivatives and a calibration curve calculated by linear regression of the concentration and
chromatographic response data. Calibration curves for all target compounds were considered
acceptable if r2 > 0.998.
83
-------
Table 7-5. Target Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
n-Hexanal
Table 7-6. HPLC Operating Conditions for the Analysis of Aldehyde Emission Factors
Parameter
Instrument
Column
Solvent System
Gradient
Mobile Phase Flow Rate
Injection Size
UV Wavelength
Setting
Waters Series 510
NOVA-PAK C18, 3.9 x 150 mm
A: Water/Acetonitrile/Tetrahydrofuran 60/30/10 v/v
B: Acetonitrile/Water 40/60 v/v
100% A for 3 min; then a linear gradient to 100% B in 10 min.
Hold 15 min at 100% B
1.5 mUmin
20 |JL
360 nm
84
-------
To demonstrate on-going instrumental performance, a calibration standard was analyzed
each day prior to the analysis of any samples. The calibration was considered "in control" if the
measured concentration of the aldehyde/DNPH derivatives in the standard was 85 to 115% of
the prepared concentration.
The concentration of each target aldehyde and ketone in the chamber air samples were
calculated as:
^ Cy x Vy x DF
alk	7}
where = Concentration of the target aldehyde or ketone in chamber the air sample (pg/m3)
Cy = Concentration of DNPH/analyte derivative in the sample extract (ng/pL)
Vy = Total volume of sample extract (i.e., 5000 pL)
Vs = Sample volume of chamber air, L
D, = Molecular weight of the aldehyde or ketone * molecular weight of the aldehyde or
ketone/DNPH derivative
7.3.4.3 Conversion of Concentrations to Emission Factors
Concentrations of individual VOCs and TVOC measured in chamber air samples were
converted to emission factors using the following equation
CxACH
EF = -2	—
L
where
Cni	= measured concentration of a VOC or TVOC in a chamber air sample (pg /m3)
ACH	= air exchange rate in the test chamber
L	=	loading ratio in the test chamber
An emission factor of summed VOCs for a tested material was calculated by summing the
individual emission factors of VOCs for a tested material.
7.3.5 Statistical Analysis of Emission Factors Data
A statistical analysis was conducted on the fiber data to ascertain which panel materials
differ with respect to their mean, estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde. To meet
this objective, an ANOVA model of the following form was employed:
log(y) = overall mean + panel effect + product effect + error
where y denotes the mean emission factor of TVOC or formaldehyde. The logarithmic scale was
used to account for possible measurement error variance heterogeneity, which typically is
approximately proportional to the magnitude of the concentration. Table 7-7 presents the
ANOVA for the for the statistical analysis.
85
-------
Table 7-7. ANOVA for Statistical Analysis
Source of Variation	Degrees of Freedom
Products	6
Residual (Panels within Products)	14
T-tests were performed for each possible pair of panels (21 in total) to determine if
emission factors differed forTVOC and formaldehyde. The t statistic for comparing products i
and j was determined as
L, - L,
t(i.i) -	1 •
/[S.e.(g]2 * [s.e.(L~)F
where L, and Lj denote the log-scale mean emission factors for panel i and panel j, respectively.
The standard errors (s.e.) appearing in the denominator were based on the residual mean square
from the ANOVA. The test of no difference between the true average log emission factors for a
pair of products was carried out by calculating the p value associated with the test statistic t(i,j):
p-value(ij) = 2 Pt{T>\t{iJ)\]
where T is a random variable having a t distribution with 14 degrees of freedom, which is the
(approximate) distribution of the test statistic if the null hypothesis of no difference in emission
factors is true.
7.4 Results
7.4.1 Emission Data
7.4.1.1 Emission Data of Unfinished Test Squares
Tables D2 through D7 of Appendix D contain screening data for unfinished test squares
of Panels A through F, and N. The tables list individual VOCs with emission factors greater than
5 pg/(m2*hr) for each of the test squares. The following is a discussion of the TVOC and
formaldehyde emission factors for each of the test squares.
Figure 7-1 presents TVOC and formaldehyde emission factors for test squares
conditioned less than 24 hours. Figure 7-2 presents TVOC and formaldehyde emission factors
for test squares conditioned 26 to 30 days. Test squares F and N showed a substantial decay in
TVOC emission factors due to conditioning/aging (Figure 7-2). Test square N3-1 had lower
emission factors than test squares N1-2, N2-1, and N2-2 less than 24 hours after conditioning;
86
-------
~ Formaldehyde
i—i
¦TVOC
T-(Ni-N_T-(NT-T-CM(NMCNt-(NtN|T-CNi-lN(NCNCNr-(N'r
I I t I ^ i I I I I i I I I I I ¦ I I I I I I I I I
t-CNCOOO'CNCNOO-i-t-CNOOCMOCOt-COCOi-t-CNCOt-CNCNCO
<<<<5oQmmoooOQQQLUuuLUU_u_u.u_zzzz:
Test squares are labeled by material letter {A, B, C. D, E, F, or N), followed by panel number and test square
number, respectively, where
A = panel made from recycled newspaper
B = panel made from wheatboard and methylene diisocyanate (MDI) resin
C = panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard
D = medium density fiberboard with MDI resin
E = ammonia treated medium density fiberboard with urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin
F = particleboard with UF resin
N = particleboard with phenol-formaldehyde resin
Figure 7-1. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares of
engineered panels conditioned less than 24 hours.
87
-------
u>
o
CO
u_
c
o
i/i

3
CO
E
t/t
hi
2500
2000
1500-
1000
500-
LJ Formaldehyde
¦ TVOC
0 -I
llrla ¦¦
CN
CN
co co
< <

m
CN CM CN
N IN IN (N
CN CN CO
CN CN CN
NfNnrrNDi-MminrMnnr
OOCDCDOOOOQDQQLyuJIUUJLJ-
Test squares are labeled by material letter (A, B, C. D, E, F, or N), followed by panel number and test square
number, respectively, where
A = panel made from recycled newspaper
B = panel made from wheatboard and methylene diisocyanate (MDI) resin
C = panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard
D = medium density fiberboard with MDI resin
E = ammonia treated medium density fiberboard with urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin
F = particleboard with UF resin
N = particleboard with phenol-formaldehyde resin
Figure 7-2. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test
squares of engineered panels conditioned 26 to 30 days.
88
-------
however, all of the N test squares had similar emission factors after the longer conditioning
period (Figure 7-2) and after 26 to 30 days conditioning. Formaldehyde emission factors
remained fairly constant from test squares F and N over time.
Most of test squares A and B showed little decay over time in emission factors of TVOC
and formaldehyde. Test square B2-2 had somewhat higher initial emission factors of TVOC than
test squares B1-1, B 2-1, and B3-1; however, over time, the emission factor of TVOC for test
square B2-2 decayed to the same level of those for test squares of B.
TVOC emission factors for test squares C through E all decayed over time.
Formaldehyde emission factors for test squares C and D remained fairly constant over time.
Formaldehyde emission factors unexplainably increased from test squares of E over time.
Tables 7-8 and 7-9 present results of the statistical analysis of the TVOC and
formaldehyde emission factors for test squares conditioned 26 to 30 days (Figure 7-2). As
shown in Figure 7-2, TVOC emission factors for test squares A, F, and N were relatively high
compared to TVOC emission factors for test squares B, C, D, and E. As shown in Table 7-8, the
mean emission factors of TVOC for test squares A, F, and N were significantly higher than those
for test squares B through E. Formaldehyde emission factors for test squares E and F (the UF
bonded products) were substantially higher than formaldehyde emission factors for test squares
A through D, and N (Figure 7-2). As shown in Table 7-9, the mean emission factors of
formaldehyde for test squares E and F were significantly higher than those for test squares A
through D, and N.
7.4.1.2 Emission Data of Finished Test Squares
Tables D8 through D12 of Appendix D contain screening data for finished test squares of
Panels H, I, J, M, and O. The tables list individual VOCs with emission factors greater than 5
pg/(m2»hr) for each of the test squares. The following is a discussion of the TVOC and
formaldehyde results for each of the test squares.
Figures 7-3 and 7-4 present emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for test squares
of finished recycled corrugated cardboard and wheatboard, respectively; test squares of
unfinished recycled corrugated cardboard and wheatboard are also shown for reference. Test
squares of recycled corrugated cardboard finished with paint (Product M) had slightly higher
emission factors of TVOC than the unfinished test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard
(Product C). Emission factors of formaldehyde were fairly consistent between the two products.
As shown in Figure 7-4, emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of oak-
veneered wheatboard (Product H) were substantially higher compared to emission factors of
formaldehyde for test squares of unfinished wheatboard (Product B). In the Phase 2 component
study, formaldehyde emissions were not detected from oak-veneer. The elevated formaldehyde
emissions from the oak-veneered wheatboard are likely due to the UF glue used to adhere the
veneer to the wheatboard. Emission factors of formaldehyde for test squares of oak-veneered
wheatboard finished with t he heat curable two component polyurethane were lower than those
for test squares of unfinished oak-veneered wheatboard. The coatings evaluation showed that
89
-------
Table 7-8. P-values for Mean Emission Factors of "TVOC from Test Squares Conditioned
26 to 30 Days
P-value for Panel A Panel B Panel C Panel D Panel E Panel F
(row/col umnj)
Panel
B
0.0018
wa




Panel
C
0.0016 (+)
0.9604



Panel
D
0.0001 {+)
0.1424
0.1549


Panel
E
0.0021 (+)
0.9342
0.8949
0.1236

Panel
F
0.4527
0.0004 (-)b
0.0004 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0005 (-)
Panel
N
0.0262 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.1087
a For p-values less than 0.05 (which indicate statistical significance at the 95 percent confidence level), a
plus sign indicates that the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel j 0 = A through F) were
significantly higher than the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel i (i = B through N); this is
equivalent to saying that the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel i were significantly lower than
the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel j.
" For p-values less than 0.05, a minus sign by the p-value indicates that the mean emission factors of
TVOC from panel j were significantly lower than the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel i; this is
equivalent to saying that the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel i were significantly higher than
the mean emission factors of TVOC from panel j.
Table 7-9. P-values For Mean Emission Factors of Formaldehyde from Test Squares
Conditioned 26 to 30 Days
P-value for
(roWi/columnj)
Panel A
Panel B
Panel C
Panel D
Panel E
Panel F
Panel B
0.0021 (+)





Panel C
0.7972
0.0036 (-)




Panel D
0.0062 (+)
0.6043
0.0104 (+)



Panel E
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)


Panel F
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.1362

Panel N
0.1261
0.0519
0.1939
0.1332
0.0001 (+)
0.0001 (+)
90
-------
n Formaldehyde
STVX
t-MCMrsiYT^T
^^(NjcoT-f^rgco
OOOQ22S2
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (C or M), followed by sample number, followed by test square
number, respectively, where
C = unfinished panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard
M = panel made from painted recycled corrugated cardboard
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Figure 7-3. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished test squares of recycled corrugated cardboard conditioned 26 to 28
days.
91
-------
£.
o
CO
LL
C
o
w
w
E
LU
"O
0)
*—•
CO
.i
Vi
LD
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
n Formaldehyde
iTVDC
CM
OJ
OJ
I
Test squares are labeled by material acronym (B, H, O, I, or J), followed by sample number, followed by test
square number, respectively, where
B = unfinished wheatboard
H = veneered wheat board
0	= veneered wheat board with heat curable two component polyurethane coating
1	= wheatboard with vinyl
J = wheatboard with melamine
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Figure 7-4. Estimated emission factors of TVOC and formaldehyde for unfinished and
finished wheatboard conditioned approximately 28 days.
the mean emission factor of formaldehyde for test squares of PBV coated and cured with the
heat curable two component polyurethane was very low - 20 pg/(m2*hr) (see Table 6-11 in
Section 6.4.2). The coating appears to suppress formaldehyde emissions from test squares of
oak-veneered wheatboard.
7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
•	A variety of engineered fiber panels (i.e., those made with wheat and MDI; wood and
MDI; and recycled corrugated cardboard) were found to have very low emission
factors of TVOC and formaldehyde (relative to UF bonded PB and MDF). These low-
emitting engineered fiber panels can be finished with veneer, vinyl, melamine, etc,
and are currently used to construct a wide variety of products for interior applications.
•	A broader study of the low-emitting engineered fiber panels should be conducted to
92
-------
assess manufacturing issues (such as cost, worker safety) involved with making the
panels. Performance tests should also be conducted on the panels.
93
-------
Chapter 8
Data Quality
8.1	Overview
Quality assurance (QA) activities were an integral part of this research program. QA
activities that were conducted in support of this study included:
•	Preparing quality assurance project plans (QAPPs),
•	Developing data quality indicator goals for study data,
•	Monitoring quality control procedures and results, and
•	Conducting inspections, audits, and data reviews
8.2	QAPPs
RTI prepared three, category III QAPPs for carrying out sample collection, handling and
storage, and emissions testing for each phase of the research. Each QAPP was approved by
EPA prior to testing.
8.3	Data Quality Indicator Goals
Chamber air concentrations were the critical measurements in this study. Data quality
indicator goals for these measurements are listed in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals for Chamber Air Concentrations
Data Quality Indicator Goals
Chamber Air Concentrations Precision, % RSDa	Accuracy, % RECb
VOCs	s20	2 75 {for quantitative emissions tests only)c
Aldehydes and Ketones	<20	i-75
a % RSD = percent relative standard deviation
b% REC = percent recovery
c accuracy of VOCs not evaluated for semi-quantitative emissions tests
8.3.1 Precision
Precision of chamber air concentrations was evaluated by determining the percent
relative standard deviation (%RSD) between duplicate chamber air samples as follows:
94
-------
%RSD = -I x 100
y
where,
S_	= the standard deviation between duplicate air samples
Y	= the mean of duplicate air samples
Precision calculations are reported in Tables E-1 through E-3 in Appendix E. As seen in these
tables, most duplicate air samples were within the precision goal of < 20 %RSD.
8.3.2 Accuracy
Accuracy of chamber air concentrations was evaluated by determining the percent
recovery (%REC) of VOCs, aldehydes, and ketones from spiked sample cartridges as follows:
%REC = (AJK) x 100%
where,
Am = the amount of compound measured during chemical analysis
Aj = the amount of compound spiked onto a sampling cartridge.
Accuracy calculations are reported in Tables F-1 through F-3 in Appendix F.
8.4	Quality Control
Chamber air samples collected from empty test chambers and blank cartridges were
analyzed to monitor background and accidental contamination. Calibration curves were prepared
prior to analysis of chamber air samples, and check standards were analyzed at regular intervals
to ensure that the calibration remained valid. AH data were generated when the analytical
systems were operating within the control criteria.
8.5	Inspections, Audits, and Data Reviews
Throughout the research, several inspections, audits, and data reviews were conducted
by QA officers at RTI to ascertain that standard operating procedures (SOPs) for instrumentation
were being implemented; procedures in the QAPPs were being followed; data were being
recorded properly; and that records and controls conformed to good laboratory practice. Table 8-
2 lists the inspections, audits, and data reviews conducted in support of this research, all of
which were in compliance with QA requirements.
95
-------
Table 8-2. Inspections, Audits, and Data Reviews
Conducted
Inspections
Instrument Log Notebook Inspection (ACS-SOP-815-003)a
Laboratory Inspection (ACS-SOP-815-001)
SOP Review (ACS-SOP-110-001)
Training Files Inspection (ACS-SOP-110-002)
Audits
Operation of test chambers
Operation of analytical measurement systems
Laboratory activities: preparing coupons into test squares; chamber
air sampling; chamber cleaning, etc.
Laboratory activities: GC/MS and HPLC analysis of VOCs
June 1995
March/April 1996
December 1996
Nov. 1995/Jan. 1996
Aug./Oct. 1996
Aug./Sept. 1995
Aug./Nov. 1996
Sept 1995
October 25, 1996
May 11, 1995
June 13-14, 1995
April 30, 1996
May 28, 1996
Data Reviews (ACS-PDM-180-002)
Results, January 1996
Preliminary Results, June 1996
Preliminary Results, April 1997
Data Review, VOCs (7 day)
Data Review, VOCs (35 day)
Data Review, aldehydes
Jan. 10-15, 1996
June 10-12, 1996
April 2-3, 1997
April 4, 1997
April 7-8, 1997
a Refers to RTI's Analytical and Chemical Sciences Standard Operating Procedures which are
followed by OA personnel at RTI.
96
-------
References
1.	U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, "Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems,"(EPA-230/2-87-025, NTIS PB88-
127030), Washington, DC, February 1987.
2.	U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection," (SAB-EC-90-021), Washington, DC, 1990.
3.	U.S. EPA, Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality Assurance,
"Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study,"(NTIS PB88-100052),
Washington, DC, June 1987.
4.	U.S. EPA, Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Public Law No. 0-508, Vol. 42 U.S.C. Sec
13101-13109. (West Supp. 1991). 1990.
5.	Turner, S.L., Martin, C.B., Hetes, R.G., and Northeim, C.M.; Sources and Factors
Affecting Indoor Emissions from Engineered Wood Products: Summary and Evaluation of
Current Literature, EPA-600/R-96-067 (NTIS PB96-183876), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1996.
6.	Carlson, F.E., Phillips, E.K., Tenhaeff, S.C., and Detlefsen, W.D.; Forest Products
Journal. 1995 45, 71-77.
7.	McCrillis, R.C., Howard, E.M., Fortmann, R., Lao, H.C., Guo, Z., and Krebs, K.A.;
"Characterization of Emissions from Conversion Varnishes," in Proceedings: The
Emission Inventory: Key to Planning, Compliance, and Reporting. EPA/AWMA Specialty
Conference, New Orleans, LA, September 4-6, 1996.
8.	American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Effect of
Household Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes, ASTM D1308-79,
Philadelphia, PA, 1979.
9.	American National Standards Institute. Performance and Construction Standard for
Kitchen and Vanity Cabinets, ANSI/KCMA A161.1-1990, New York, NY, 1990.
10.	American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Methods for Measuring
Adhesion by Tape Test, ASTM D3359-95a, Philadelphia, PA, 1995.
11.	American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss,
ASTM D523-89 (1994)e1, Philadelphia, PA, 1994.
12.	American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Rubber Property-
Durometer Hardness, ASTM D2240-97, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
13.	American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Methods for Evaluating
Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials, ASTM D1037-96a,
Philadelphia, PA, 1996.
97
-------
American National Standards Institute. Particleboard, Mat-Formed Wood, ANSI A208.1,
New York, NY, 1993.
98
-------
Appendix A
Phase One Screening Study
A-1
-------
Table A-l. Estimated Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBVST1
Emission Factors of Test Squares, ug'fnr'hr) Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean ofPBVSTl-1, °. 5 ng'(m2*hr) on DNPI-Ib cartridges
Aldehydes and Ketones
n-Hexanal
610
600
730
650
11
Acetone
12(H)
2000
1600
1600
25
Benzaldchyde
65
70
64
66
5
n-Pentana!
160
170
180
170
6
Formaldehyde
3900
5200
5800
5000
19
Acctaldehvde
190
220
260
220
16
n-Butanal
44
39
78
54
40
Propionaldchyde
41
58
86
62
37
2-Butanone
12
9
7
9
27
Identification of compounds
¦> 5 pg/(m:,hr) on multisorbent cartridges



Alcohols'





1 -Butanol
4000
7000
5000
5300
29
2-MethyI butanol
1500
1000
1000
1200
24
1-PentanoI
1000
250
500
580
66
Total
6500
8300
6500
7100
15
Aldehydes and Ketones





n-Hepatanonc
100
100
100
100
0
n-Nonanal
20
10
10
13
43
Aliphatic Hydrocarlwns





n-Tetradecane
9
5
_&
7
40
Alkyl Ethers





Ethyl clhoxy propionate
400
200
200
270
43
(5 .29)' Ethoxycthcr
8
9
10
9
11
(12 94) Ethoxycthcr
300
in'
400
350
20
Tctramcthoxypropanes
100
60
100
87
27
(32.45) Dibutoxymcthano!
50
40
40
43
13
(37.42) Dibutoxymethanol
70
40
50
53
29
(29.8) Butoxyether
10
7
9
9
18
(34.94) Butoxyether
10
-
7
9
25
(41.94) Butoxyether
90
-
50
70
40
Total
1000
360
870
740
46
Aromatic Hydrocarbons





C3-alkvl benzenes
600
500
600
570
10
Continued
A-2
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares, ug/fm^hrt Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean ofPBVSTl-1, %RSDofPBVSTl-

PBVST1-1
PBVST2-I
PBVST3-1
2-1, and 3-1
1,2-1. and 3-
C4-alkyl benzenes
300
3(H)
300
300
0
Naphthalene
200
300
200
230
25
C5-alkyl benzenes
200
200
100
170
34
Xylenes
100
70
80
83
18
I ".thy! benzene
25
15
15
18
31
Methyl naphthalene
20
10
10
13
43
Toluene
-
6
8
7
20
Total
1400
1400
1300
1400
4
listers





Hexyl acetate isomers
90
130
in
110
26
Methyl dodecanonate
30
20
20
23
25
Butyl acetate
in
in
in


Indenes





Dihydromethyl indenes
100
100
90
97
6
Dihydrodimcthyl indenes
10
10
9
10
6
Monoterpcnes





Limonene
80
90
100
90
11
b-Pinene
60
20
70
50
53
a-Terpene
60
-
60
60
0
a-Pinene
24
40
70
45
52
a-Carene
100
100
100
100
0
Total
320
250
400
320
23
Sesquiterpenes





Junipcne
100
200
150
150
33
Endobomeal acetate
10
10
10
10
0
Sum of compounds > 5 |ig/(m2,hr)
9800
11000
9500
10000
8
on multisorbent cartridges





TVOCs analysis of multisorbent
3000
3000
3000
3000
0
cartridges'1





Continucd
A-3
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares. fig,'('m:,hr') Mean mid %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of PBVST1-1, %RSD ofPBVSTl-
PU VST 1-1 PBVST2-1 PHVS'1'3-1 2-1, and 3-1	K 2-1, and 3-1
Sum of compounds > 5 pg/(in3*hr) on multisorhenf and DNPH cartridges
	16000	19000	18000	17700	9	
1PBVST = veneered particleboard with heat curahle heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urea scaler and topcoat.
h DNPH = dinitrophenylhydraziiie.
c Alcohols were large, poorly defined peaks at high concentration; interferences and overloading prevented accurate quantitation.
d= value < 5 ug/'Cm'-hr).
c Number in parentheses is retention time; exact compound identification not possible from mass spectra.
r Interference with high concentrations of alcohols prevented accurate quantitation.
* TVOC = total volatile organic compounds.
h The TVOC analyses were much lower than the "sum of compounds > 5 ng'(niJ,hr) on multisorbents" because they did not include
alcohols.
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 ng'(tn2*hr).
%RSD *- relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 pg/(m3,hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and'or "%RSI>" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(trr*hr).
A-4
-------
Table A-2. Estimated Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBVY"

Emission Factors of Test Sauares.
ita/(W*hr>
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors




Mean of PBVY 1-1,
, %RSDof PBVY1-1,

PHVY1-1
PBVY2-I
PJSVY3-1
2-1 .and 3-1
2-1, and 3-1
6 hour conditioning





Identification of target compounds > 5 ug/(m2"hr) on
DNPH1" cartridges



Aldehydes and Ketones





Acetone
530
600
450
530
14
n-Hexanal
130
150
100
130
19
Acc (aldehyde
67
71
56
65
12
Formaldehyde
51
52
57
53
6
n-Pentanal
35
•13
33
37
14
Propionaldehyde
15
16
13
15
10
Benzaldehyde
10
11
10
10
6
2-Butanonc
8
6
5
6
24
n-Butanal
7
R
7
7
8
Identification of compounds >
5 jig.'(nr*hr) oil multisorbent cartridges



Aliphatic Hydrocarbons





11-Octane
5
5
7
6
20
n-Pentane
C
10
-
10
0
Aromatic Hydrocarbons





C4-alkyl benzenes
40
50
50
47
12
Toluene
20
15
13
16
23
Esters





Isopropyl acetate
600
600
600
600
0
Butyl acetate
16
20
15
17
16
Monoterpenes





Limonene
40
60
50
50
20
b-Pinene
30
30
40
33
17
a-Pinene
20
40
30
30
33
Total
90
130
120
110
19
Sesquiterpenes





Junipene
30
50
40
40
25
Other Terpenes





d-Carene
80
100
100
93
12
Camphene
17
30
30
26
29
Trieyclene
10
20
20
17
35
a-Fencliene
-
6
5
6
13
Continued
A-5
-------
Table A-2. (Continued)

Emission
Factors of Test Souares. ii&Ynr-hr)
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Total
PBVYI-
110
1 PBVY2-1
160
PBVY3-1
160
Mean ofPBVYl-1.
2-1, and 3-1
140
%RSD of PB V Y1 -1.
2-1, and 3-1
21
Sum of compounds > 5 |ig/(m2*hr)
on multisorbent cartridges
910
1000
1000
970
5
TVOCd analysis of multisorbent
cartridges
1200
1400
1200
1300
9
Sum of compounds > 5 ng'(nr-hr) on multisorbent and DNPI 1 cartridges
1800 2000
1700
1800
8
' PDVY ~ particleboard overlaid with vinyl.
b DNPII = dinilrophcnylhydrazine.
c = value < 5 (ig/(m3«hr).
d TVOC = total volatile organic compounds.
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 pg'(m2,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 jig/(mJ,hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 pg'(m2*hr).
A-6
-------
Table A-3. Estimated Emission Factors of Test Squares of HBVSST4
Emission Factors ofTesI Squares. uty'(m'*hr)
HBVSST HBVSST
2-1 3-1
HBVSST
1-1
Mean of %RSD of
HBVST1-I HBVST1-I
HBVSSl' and	and
1-2 IIBVST1-2 linVSTl-2
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Me,in of "Mean of %RSD of "Mean of
IIBVST1-1 and HfWSTl-1 and
HRVST1-2",	HBVST1-2",
HBVST2-1, and HBVST2-1, and
HBVST.V1	HBVST3-1
6 hour conditioning
Identification of target compounds >5 |ig/(iii2*hr) on DKPH1' cartridges
Aldehydes and Ketones








Formaldehyde
2000
3300
2200
2400
2300
6
2500
27
Acetone
50
33
64
70
67
6
50
34
n-Ucxanal
7
-
6
7
7
11
7
5
Acetaldehydc
32
60
41
43
42
3
45
32
n-Pentanal
-
9
C
MDd


9
0
n-Butnnal
-
35
9
Ml)
9
0
22
84
Propionaldehyde
-
19
9
-
9
0
14
51
Identification of compounds:
:>5 jjg'(mMir) on multisoi bent cartridges




Alcohols'








1-Butanol
2000
4000
2000
3000
2500
28
2800
37
2-Metliv! butanol
300
1000
800
800
800
0
700
52
1 -Pentanol
300
600
300
400
350
20
420
38
Total
2600
5600
3100
4200
3700
21
4000
38
Aldehydes and Ketones








n-I lepatanone
40
200
100
100
100
0
110
73
Aliphatic 1 Iydrocarbons








n-Tetradccane
-
9
-
-


9
0
n-Nonane
6
8
10
10
10
0
8
25
n-Dodecane
-
7
-
-


7
0
n-I )ecane
8
10
10
12
11
13
10
16
Alkyl Ethers








Ethyl ethoxy propionate
100
400
100
100
100
0
200
87
(12.94/ Ethoxyether
200
500
300
100
200
71
300
58
Tetrainethoxvpi opanes
20
100
70
70
70
0
63
64
(41.94) Butoxyether
30
40
40
40
40
0
37
16
(37.42) Dibuloxymethanol
40
40
30
25
28
13
36
20
(32.45) Dibutoxymethanol
30
80
30
30
30
0
47
62
(29.8) Butoxyether
10
40
10
10
10
0
20
87
(34.94) Butoxyether
8
10
8
10
9
16
9
11
Continued
A-7
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
Finishing Factors of Test Simnres. ue/'m'-tir)
Mean an 5
|ig/(m2-hr) on multisorbent
cartridge
5000
10000
5300
6400
5900
13
7000
38
TVOC'1 analysis of
multisorbent cartridges'
2000
4000
2000
2000
2000
0
2700
43
Continued
A-8
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares. umTm'-hr)
Mean of %RSD of
HBVST1-1 1IBVST1-1
HDVSST HBVSST IIBVSST HBVSST
2-1	3-1	1-1	1-2
and
HBVST1-2 HBVST1-2
Mean and %RSD of Emission Fai1nr\
Mean of "Mean of %RSD of "Mean of
I IB VST I -1 and I IB VST I -1 and
HB VST 1-2",	HBVST1-2",
and HBVST2-1. and HBVST2-1, and
HBVST3-I	HRVST.M
Sum of compounds > 5 (ig'(m2*hr) on iriultisorbent and DNPI1 cartridges
7000
13000 7600
8900
8300
11
9400
34
" HBVSST = veneered hardboard with stain, and heat curable heat curable acid catalyzed alkyd-urca scaler and topcoat.
b DNPI I ~ dinitrophcnylhydrazmc.
0- value < 5 ng/(m2*hr).
d ny|)« - mjssjng Jala.
c Alcohols were large, poorly defined peaks at high concentration; interferences and overloading prevented accurate quantitation.
1 Number in parentheses is retention lime; exact compound identification not possible from mass spectra.
s Interference with high concentrations of alcohols prevented accurate quantitation.
h TVOC = total volatile organic compounds.
' The TV(X' analyses were much lower than the "sum of compounds • 5 }ig/'(m2«hr) on multisorbent cartridges" because they did
not include alcohols.
Mean = arithmetic mean of values - 5 (ig'(mJ,hr).
%RSD - relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 iig/(nr*lu).
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were 5 ng/(m2,hr).
A-9
-------
Table A-4. Estimated Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBM*
P-mission Factors of Test
Smiares. ua.'fm''hr1	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of "Mean of	%RSD of "Mean of
Mean of %RSD of PBM2-1 and PBM2-I and
l'DM PBM PBM t'DM PHM2-I and PBM2-1 and PBM2-2", l'BMl-1,	PBM2-2", PBM1-1
1-1 3-1 2-1 2-2 PBM2-2 PBM2-2 andPBM3-l andPBM3-l
6 hour conditioning
Identification of target compounds >5 ng/(m2,hi) on DOTH* cartridges
Aldehydes and Ketones
Acetone
760
660
1100
790
950
23
790
19
n-1 lexanal
260
190
390
250
320
31
260
25
Aeetaldehyde
140
120
200
140
170
25
140
18
Formaldehyde
70
60
90
83
87
6
72
19
n-Pentanal
100
80
150
Ml)'
150
0
110
33
Propionaldehydc
24
22
34
22
28
30
25
12
Benzaldehyde
II
8
12
8
10
28
10
16
2-Butanone
10
8
14
10
12
24
10
20
n-Butanal
20
17
28
MD
28
0
22
26
Identification of compounds
: ¦ 5 ug/(nr-
¦hr) on multisorbent cartridges



Alcohols'1








Octunol
t
-
5
5
5
0
5
0
Aldehydes and Ketones








n-Hcputanone
5
6
8
MD
8
0
6
24
n-Hcplanal
•
-
-
Ml)




Aliphatic Hydrocarbons








n-Octane
16
14
20
20
20
0
17
18
n-I leptanc
7
6
7
12
10
37
8
23
Aromatic I lydrocarbons








C4-alkyl benzenes
40
.16
60
50
55
13
41
23
Toluene
20
7
20
15
18
20
15
46
Total
60
43
80
65
73
15
59
25
Esters








Penty! formate
5
5
7
MD
7
0
6
19
Monoterpenes








Limonene
20
20
40
30
35
20
25
35
b-Pinene
15
14
23
20
22
10
17
24
a-Pinene
16
20
30
20
25
28
20
23
Continued
A-10
-------
Table A-4. (Continued)
Emr^ion Factors of Test
Sciuargs. ur 'f ni'»ht 's
Mem and %RSD of Emission Factors







Mean of "Mean of
%RSD of "Mean ¦





Mean of
%rsd of
PBM2-1 and
PBM2-1 and

PBM PBM PBM PBM
PBM2-I and
PBM2-1 and
PBM2-2",PBMi-l, PBM2-2", PBMl

1-1
3-1
2-1
2-2
PBM2-2
PBM2-2
and PBM3-1
and PBM3-1
Total
51
54
93
70
82
20
62
27
Sesquiterpenes








Junipene
20
15
30
20
25
28
20
25
Other Sesquiterpenes
-
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Other Terpenes








d-Carene
30
20
40
30
35
20
28
27
Camphene
12
20
30
30
30
0
21
43
Trieyelene
15
10
20
16
18
16
14
29
u-Fenchene
-
-
5
5
5
0
5
0
Total
57
50
95
81
88
11
65
31
Sum of compounds 5
220
190
350
270
310
18
240
26
pg/(mJ,hr) on multisorbent








cartridges








TVOCf analysis of
550
420
900
MD
900
0
620
40
multisorbent cartridges








Sum of compounds > 5
1600
1400
2400
1600
2000
28
1700
IK
pg/(m2,hr) on multisorbent
and DNPH cartridges	
* PHM ~ particlcbonrd overlaid with mclamine.
b DNPH = dinitrophenylhvdrnzine.
c "MD" missing data.
a Alcohols were large, poorly defined peaks at high concentration; interference1; and overloading prevented accurate quantitation
e value < 5 (ig'(m2 hr).
r TVOC = total volatile organic compounds.
Mean - arithmetic mean of values -¦ 5 |.ig'(m2-hr),
%RS1) ~ relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values: ¦ 5 ng/(m2,hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and'or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 Hg'(m2*hr)
A-ll
-------
Appendix B
Phase Two Component Study
B-l
-------
Table B-l. Quantitated Emission Factors of Test Squares of Components of PBVST
Mean and %RSD of Emission
Emission Factors of Test Squares. iiRfm'-hrl	Factors
%RSD of
Mean of PBVS1-1, PBVS1-1.2-
PB1-1 V1-1 PBV1-1 PBVS1-1 PBVS2-1 PBVS3-1 2-1, and 3-1 1. and 3-1
3i day conditioning
Identification of target compounds >5 iig/(m'"hr) on DNPH cartridges
Aldehydes and Ketones
formaldehyde
230
9
130
320
340
360
340
6
hexanal
490
-
97
140
170
130
150
14
acctaldehyde
48
8
30
36
48
30
38
24
valeraldelude
70
-
24
34
30
30
31
7
2-butanonc
9
-
-
-
8
-
8
0
butyraldehvde
-
-
7
7
10
7
8
22
propionaldehvde
9
-
6
5
6
5
5
11
bcnzaldehvde
33
-
10
14
11
9
11
22
Total
1200
17
410
680
770
690
710
1
Identification of compounds >
5
•hr) on multisorbent cartridges




Alcohols








1-Butanol
7
-
6
320
360
250
310
18
1-Pentanol
54
-
14
31
29
18
26
27
2-Methyl-1 -Butanol
-
-
-
-
-
-


Total
61
0
20
350
390
270
340
18
Aldehydes and Ketones








Acetone
270
-
110
110
130
100
110
14
2-Heptanone
5
-
-
17
19
22
19
13
Ester








Hexvl Acetate
-
-
-
7
5
8
7
23
Emission Factors ofTest Squares. Mean and %RSD of
ug/fmHir)	F.mission Factors
Mean of %RSD of
PBVST1-1, PBVST1-1.
PBVSTl-l PBVST2-1 PBYST3-1 2-1, and 3-1 2-1, and 3-1
530
440
390
450
16
120
110
87
110
15
18
28
25
24
21
30
26
13
23
39
7
6
0
4
95
7
7
6
7
8
4
5
6
5
20
11
9
7
9
22
890
770
670
780
14
360
260
260
290
20
89
64
51
68
28
35
25
25
28
21
480
350
340
390
20
140
130
120
130
8
23
12
14
16
37
7


7
0
Continued
-------
Table B-l. (Continued)
Mean and °oRSD of Emission	Emission Factors of Test Squares. Mean and %RSD of
Emission Factors of Test Squares. ug/fnr'hr) Factors	mi^m'-hr) Emission Factors
%RSD of	Mean of %RSD of
Mean of I'BVSl-l. PBVSI-1.2-	PBVSTM, PBVST1-I,
PB1-1 Vl-1 PBV1-1 PRVS1-1 PRYS2-1 PBYS3-1 2-l,and3-l l,and3-l	PBVST1-I PBVST2-1 PBVST3-1 2-1,and3-l 2-l,and3-l
Aromatic hydrocarbons
o-Xylenc ......	...
Ethylbenzcne ......	...
Naphthalene 34-..--	...
Tola!	34
Sesquiterpenes











Junipene
330
35 61
86
52
66
27
31
34
30
32
7
Alkyl Ethers











2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
29
310
320
280
300
7
730
760
760
750
2
Ethyl-3-F.thoxy-Propionate
-
-
-
-


23
11
12
15
44
Total
29
310
320
280
300
7
750
770
770
760
2
Sum of compounds > 5	1700 17 470 1400 1600 1300	1400	11	2200 19(H) 1800 2000	10
>ig/(m:*hr) on multisorbent
and DNPH cartridges;	
PB = particleboard
V = veneer
PBV = veneered particleboard
PBVS = veneered particleboard coated and cured with acid catalyzed alkvd-urea sealer
PBVS veneered particleboard coated and cured with acid catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine
= value < 5 ng'(nr*hr)
Mean arithmetic mean of values > 5 ug'(m:*hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ug'(m:*hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and'or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 |jg/fnr*hr)
-------
Appendix C
Phase Three Coatings Study
c-i
-------
Tabic C-l. Application and Curing Procedures of Coatings Systems
Coatings System
PKOCKDURB
1
2
3
4
5
6
Scaler Application






]) Sand/air blast/wipe
X*
X
X
X
X
X
2) Apply sealer to side 1 (mils wet)
3
3
3
1
3
3
3) Ambient flash(min)
20
15
15

10
10
4) Apply sealer to side 2 as step 2)
X



X
X
5) Ambient tlash(mm)
20
15


10
10
6) Dry at 140T(min)
10
15


10
10
7) UV cure with H lamp, 1 pass (W/in)


700
400


UV belt speed (Cm in)


7
41


UV total energy (mJ'cm2)


5200
380


8) Ambient cool(min)
10
S
5

10
10
9) Apply sealer to side 2 as step 2)


X
X


10) Ambient flasli(min)


15



11) Repeat UV cure step 7) above


X
X


12) Ambient cool(min)


5



13) Sand/air blast'wipe
X
X
X
X
X
X
Topcoat Application






1) Apply topcoat to side 1 (mils wet)
3
3
3
0 8
3
3
2) Ambient flash(min)
20
15
15

10
10
3) Apply topcoat to side 2 as step 1)
X
X


X
X
4) Ambient ilash(mtn)
20
15


10
10
5) Dry at 14(PI-(min)
20
15


10
10
6)UV cure with H lamp. I pass (W/in)






UV belt speed (Ptnin)


700
400
700

UV total energy (mJ/cm2)


7
47
24

7) Repeat UV cure step 6) lor side 2


5200
340
1500

8) Ambient cool(min)
30
5
5

10
10
9) Apply topcoat to side 2 as step 1)


X
X


10) Ambient flash (mill)


15



11) Repeat UV cure step f>) above


X
X


12) Ambient cuul(miri)


5
5


CURE TIME (mill, tor one side only)
70
60
30.3
<0.1
40
40
* x means step was performed
C-2
-------
Table C-2. Emission Factors of Test Squares orPBV with Heat Curable Acid Catalyzed
Alkyd-Urea Coatings System
Emission 1


HR/fm'-hr


Mean and
%RSD of Emission Factors






?oRSD
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean





Mean of
of B3
B3 and B5", A4,
of B3 and B5".

A4
B3
BS
C3
B3 and B5
and B5
and C3
A4, and C3
Identification of target compounds:
> 5 ng/(in:,hr) on DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
370
420
450
400
440
5
400
9
Acctaldehydc
76
66
45
27
56
27
53
47
Acetone
500
700
550
420
630
17
520
20
Propionaldchydc
16
16
-
-
16
0
16
0
2-Butanone
-
-
-
-




Butyraldehyde
-
-
-
-




Bcnzaldchyde
-
-
-
-




Valeraldehydc
44
37
24
-
31
30
37
26
m-Tolualdeliyde
-
-
-
-




Hexanal
240
180
130
49
160
22
150
64
Identification of target compounds
5 ug/(m!,hr) on multlsorbent cartridges



1-Pentanol
180
150
130
120
140
10
150
20
Limonene
120
73
49
23
61
28
68
72
Junipene
110
55
34
27
45
33
61
72
Terpenes
560
390
230
87
310
36
320
74
1 -Butanol
950
980
700
620
840
24
800
21
Toluene
19
24
13
11
19
42
16
28
2-Methyl-l-butanol
69
54
49
44
52
7
55
23
Butyl acetate
51
51
30
22
41
37
38
39
1 ^2-Propancdiol
16
15
16
13
16
5
15
11
Hthylbenzene
360
340
210
170
280
33
270
35
m.p-Xylcnc
890
800
530
420
670
28
660
36
2-Heptanone
810
71(1
40(1
290
560
39
550
47
o-Xylenc
300
260
150
120
210
37
210
43
Propvlbcnzene
140
110
59
48
85
43
91
51
Ethyl 3-etliox.ypropionnte
140
98
121
82
110
15
110
26
l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
-
15
-
6
15
0
11
61
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)cthanol
1800
1500
1400
1800
1500
5
1700
10
Naphthalene
39
11
12
23
12
6
25
56
Hexyl acetate
630
470
250
220
360
43
400
52
Indan
21
14
8
7
11
39
13
55
C3-Benzenes
1700
1300
690
580
1000
43
1090
52
C4-Benzcnes
310
190
120
90
160
31
187
60
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether -
Unknown 1	-
Unknown 2	-	-	-	-	
Continued
C-3
-------
Table C-2. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
up-'(m'*lir
Mean and %kSD of Emission Factors
A4 B3 B5
TVOC analysis of multisorbenl 7200 5700 3900
cartridges
%KS1) Mean of "mean of %RSl) of "mean
Mean of ofB3	B3 and B5", A4,	ofB3andB5\
C3 B3 and BS and B5 and C3	A4, and C3
3600 4800 27 5200	35
5200
35
Sum of target compounds > 5 fig/(mJ,hr) on muitisorbent and DNPII cartridges
101X10 90(K> 6400 5700 7700 24
7800
28
PBV = veneered particleboard
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 fig/(iri:,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values -¦ 5 pg'(nr"hr)
DNPH = diiiitrophenylhydrazinc
= value < 5 j.ig'(m!-lir)
TVOC ¦= total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(m2,hr).
C-4
-------
Table C-3. Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBV with Two Component Waterborne
Polyurethane Coatings System


lie/fin2
•hr


Mean and
%RS1) of Emission Factors





Mean of
%RS1)
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean





B7 and
ofB7
B7 and B8".C4,
ofB7 and B8",

A5
B7
B8
C4
B8
and B8
and A5
C4, and A5
Identification of target compounds
> 5 ug/(nV
'~hr) on DNI'l 1 cartridges




Formaldehyde
24
27
22
12
25
14
2(1
35
Ace (aldehyde
46
56
46
25
51
14
41
34
Acetone
450
560
500
500
530
8
490
8
Propionaldehyde
15
15
16
-
16
5
15
2
2-Butanonc
-
-
-
-




Butyraldehyde
-
-
-
-




Benzaldehyde
-
-
-
-




Valeraldehyde
26
40
25
-
33
33
29
16
m-Tolualdehydc
-
-
-
-




Hexannl
150
180
140
48
160
18
120
52
Identification of target compounds:
¦' 5 fig/(m2
*hr) on multisorbent cartridges



1-Pentanol
19
26
20
6
23
18
16
56
Limonene
82
67
54
21
61
15
55
57
Junipene
39
31
22
7
27
24
24
67
Terpenes
380
210
160
76
190
19
220
70
1-Butanol
-
-
-
-




Toluene
-
-
-
.




2-MethyI-l-butanol
Bulyl acetate
1,2-Propanedio!
Kthylbenzenc
m,p-XyIcnc
2-lleptarione	10
o-Xylcnc
Propvlbcnzene
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
1 -Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
2-(2-Butoxyetltoxy)etliaiu>l	87
Naphthalene
I lcxyl acetate
Indan
C3-Bcnzenes
C4-Bcnzencs	36
Dipropvlcne glycol, methyl ether
Unknown 1
Unknown 2
18
7
25
19
10
7
f2
14
0
23
33
26
30
7
43
25
53
0
91
60
Continued
C-5
-------
Tabic C-3. (Continued)
[-.mission Factors of Test Squares.
iig/fnv'lir	Mean and %RS1) of Kmission Factors
Mean of	%Rsn	Mean of "mean of %RSDof"mean
B7 and	ofB7	B7 and B8", C4, ofB7andB8",
A5 1)7 158 C4 B8	and 1)8 and A5	C1,andA5
[ V(X: analysis of muitisorbeiil 820 6S0 730 310 690	8	610	43
cartridges
Sum of target compounds > 5 ng/(m!,hr) on inultisorbent and DNPH cartridges
	1400 13(H) 11(H) 700 12(H) 12	MOO	33
PBV = veneered particleboard
Mean arithmetic mean of values > 5 fig/(m!,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 jig/(m2-hr)
1 )NPH dinitrophenylhydrazine
value < 5 ng'Cnr'hr)
TVOC total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and'br "°/oRSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ug/(tn2*hr)
C-6
-------
Table C-4. Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBV with Water Based Non Air Inhibited
Unsaturated Polyester Coatings System

Emission
Factors of Test Sci
uares.




lie/Cm*'
•hr


Mean and %RSI) of Emission Factors




Mean of
A1 and
%RSI ) Mean of "mean of %RSI > of "mean
of A1 A1 and A2", B1, of A1 and A2".

A1
A2
B1
C5
A2
and A2 and C5 B1, and C5
Identification of target compounds
> 5 Mg/(in"
•hr) oil DNPH cartridges


Formaldehyde
69
71
70
70
70
2 70 0
Acctaldchydc
61
72
70
60
67
12 66 8
Acetone
310
370
490
310
340
12 380 25
Propionaldehydc
16
18
17
15
17
8 16 7
2-Butanone
-
-
-
-


Butyraldehvde
18
17
20
16
18
4 18 11
Iicii7^1dchydc
26
26
36
29
26
0 30 17
Valeraldehyde
57
57
62
45
57
0 55 16
m-Tolun!dehyde
Hexanal
300
300
320
220
300
280
19
Identification of target compounds5 (ig/fin2,hr) on multisorbent cartridges
1-Peiitanol
44
48
54
30
46
6
43
28
Limonene
98
110
97
58
100
8
85
28
Junipene
59
71
73
44
65
13
61
25
Terpcncs
240
260
210
130
250
6
200
31
1-Butanol
-
5
-
5
5
0
5
0
Toluene
-
-
-
5


5
0
2-MclhyI-l-butanol
-
-
-
-




Butyl acetate
-
-
-
-




1 ^-Propanediol
17
25
-
38
21
27
30
41
Ethylbcnzenc
-
-
-
-




m,p-XyIenc
-
-
-
-




2-Heptanone
14
16
18
11
15
9
15
24
o-Xylene
-
-
-
-




Propylbeiuene
-
-
-
-




Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-
-
-
-




l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
12
14
6
27
13
11
15
70
2-(2-Buto\yetho\'y)ethanol
300
360
390
770
330
13
500
48
Naphthalene
-
-
-
-




Hexyl acetate
-
-
-
-




Indan
-
-
-
-




C3-Benzenes
-
-
-
-




C4-Benzenes
38
49
43
26
44
18
38
27
Dipropylcne glycol, methyl ether
-
-
-
-




Unknown 1
170
170
200
180
170
0
180
8
Unknown 2
180
150
290
280
170
12
250
27
Continued
C-7
-------
Table C-4. (Continued)
TVOC analysis ofmultisorbent
cartridges
Emission Factors of TcstSciuarcs.
ug/fm'*hr
A1
1500
A2
1500
HI
1800
C5
1700
Mean of
A1 and
A2
1500
Mean and *-i>RSD ot'Kinission Factors
%RSD Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean
ofAl A1 and A2",B1, ofAlandA2",
and A2 andCS	Hl.andC5
0	1700	9
Sum of target compounds > 5 jig/(in2-l>r) on multisorbcnt and DNPH cartridges
	2000 2200 2500 2400 2100 7	2300	9
PBV ¦= veneered particleboard
Mean arithmetic mean of values > 5 pg/(m2*hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 Hg'(m**hr).
DNPH dinitrophenylhydrazine
= value < 5 fig/(tnJ*hr)
TVOC - total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were 5 ng/(m:*hr).
C-8
-------
Table C-5. Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBV with UV Curable Acrylate Coatings
System



Mean of
Mean and
%RSD of Emission Factors




%RSD
Mean of "mean of %KSI) of "mean




A3 and
of A3
A3 and AT,
B4, of A3 and A7\
A3
A7
B4
C7
A7
and A7
and C7
B4, and C7
Identification of target compounds > S ug'(nr
•hr) on DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde 13
38
16
13
26
69
18
36
Acctaldehyde 53
110
64
59
82
49
68
17
Acetone 250
640
450
260
450
61
390
28
Propionaldehyde 17
20
17
12
19
11
16
21
2-Butanone
-
-
-




Butyraldchyde
-
-
-




Benzaldchyde
-
14
-


14
0
Valeraldehyde
51
19
13
51
0
28
74
m-Tolualdchyde
Hexanal
5]
260
91
67
160
92
110
44
Identification of target compounds ;• 5 |ig/(ni5,hr) oil multisorbcnt cartridges
1 -Pentannl
8
35
15
5
22
89
14
60
Limonene
27
100
35
16
64
81
38
63
Junipenc
8
47
15
6
28
100
16
67
Terpcnes
87
270
99
40
180
72
110
64
1-Butnnol
-
-
-
-




Toluene
22
30
22
18
26
22
22
18
2-Methyl-l-butanol
-
-
-
-




Butyl acetate
-
-
-
-




1,2-Propanediol
-
-
-
-




Ethylbcnzene
29
53
35
22
4!
41
33
30
m.p-Xylene
98
180
120
73
140
41
110
31
2-Heptanonc
5
17
7
-
11
77
9
31
o-Xylene
26
54
35
19
40
49
31
35
Propylbcnzcnc
-
-

-




lithyl 3-ethnxypropionate
-
-

-




1 -Methyl-2-pyrroIidinone
-
-

-




2-(2-Hutoxycthoxy)cthanol
29
8

-
19
80
19
0
Naphthalene
-
-

-




Hexyl acetate
-
-
-
-




Indan
-
-
-
-




C3-Benzenes
-
-
-
-




C4-Benzenes
12
46
17
6
29
83
17
66
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
-
-
-
-




Unknown 1	....
Unknown 2	-	-	-	-
Continued
C-9
-------
Table C-5. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
uti/fmMir	Mean and %RS1) of Kmission Factors
Mean of %RSD	Mean of "mean of %RS1) of "mean
A3 and	of A3	A3andA7",B4, of A3 and A7",
A3 A7 B4 C7 A7	and A7	and C7 B4,andC7
TVOC analysis of multisorbent 670 1200 830 660 940	40	810 17
cartridges
Sum of target compounds > 5 pg/(m5*hr) on multisorbent and 1 )N1'I I cartridges
	740 2000 1100 630 1400 64	1000	39
PBV = veneered particleboard
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 }ig/(m2»hr).
%RSI) - relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values *¦> 5 ng'(mJ*hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine
= value < 5 ng/(mJ,hr)
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 |jg/(m:,hr).
C-10
-------
Table C-6. Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBV with Water Based UV Curable
Multi-functional Acrylate-free Emulsion Coatings System
Identification of target compounds
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
I'ropionaldchydc
2-Uutanonc
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehydc
Valcraldchydc
m-Tolualdchyde
Hexanal
Identification of target compounds
1-Pentanol
Limonene
Junipene
Tcrpenes
1-Butanol
Toluene
2-Melhyl-l-bulunol
Butyl acetate
1,2-Propanediol
Ethvlbcnzene
m.p-Xylcnc
2-Heptanone
0-Xylene
I'ropylbcnzene
lithyl 3-ethoxvpropionate
1-Mcthyl-2-pyrrolidinone
2-(2-l	}utoxycthoxy)cthanol
Naphthalene
I Icxyl acetate
Indan
C3-Benzenes
C4-Benzenes
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
Unknown 1
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ug'fro'-hr	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of %RSD Mean of "mean of o/oRSDormean
C6 and ofC6 C6 and C2". B6, ofC6andC2",
A8 B6 C6 C2 C2 and C2 and A8	B6,andA8
5 jig'(m2*hr) on DNPH cartridges
19
20
19
19
19
0
19
3
44
45
30
38
34
17
41
15
380
490
250
560
410
53
430
13
11
13
.
.


12
12
19
22
I 10
17
20
110
14
12
53
19
17
06
17
15
60
21
24
18
19
93
21
31
5 ng/'(m2,hr) on multisorbent cartridges
16
18
8
8
0
14
38
42
43
27
27
0
37
24
15
14
9
9
0
13
25
120
120
59
59
0
KM)
35
8
8
7
7
0
8
8
7
8
5
5
0
7
23
-
-
5
5
0
5
0
-
7
5
5
0
6
24
20
19
10
10
0
16
34
18
38
17
17
0
24
49
Continued
C-ll
-------
Table C-6. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ug/(m*'lir	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of %RSI) Mean of "mean of %RSDof"mean
C6 and ofC6 C6 and C2", H6, ofC6andC2",
A8 B6 C6 C2 C2 and C2 andA8	B6,andA8
Unknown 2
TVOC analysis of multisorbont 670 590	370 370 0	540	29
cartridges
Sum of target compounds : ¦ 5 ug/(m3»hr) on multisorbent and DN'l'I I cartridges
	850 990	870 870 0	900	8
PBV = veneered particleboard
Mean = arithmetic mean of values5 |tg/(m2»hr).
%RSD - relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values '• 5 ng/(m'*hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrnzine
= value ¦: 5 pg/(m2,hr)
TVOC total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "°iRSI>" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(m2'hr).
C-12
-------
Tabic C-7. Emission Factors of Test Squares of PBV with Polyurethane Dispersion
Coatings System


un/fni1*
lir


Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors





Mean of
%KSD
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean





C1 and
of CI
CI and C8", B2,
of CI and C8",

A6
B2
CI
C8
C8
and C8
and A6
B2, and A6
Identification of target compounds >
5 ng'Cm2,
¦hr) on DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
25
44
28
32
30
9
33
30
Acclaldchyde
46
110
53
44
49
13
68
53
Acetone
370
690
580
350
470
35
510
32
Propionaldchydc
15
25
11
11
11
0
17
42
2-Butanone
-
-
-
-




Butyraldehyde
-
12
-
-


12
0
Benzaldehyde
18
27
14
-
14
0
20
34
Valeraldehyde
38
91
43
39
41
7
57
53
m-Tolualdehyde
Hcxanal
280
500
280
260
270
.150
37
Identification oflargct compounds '--5 ug<(nr*hr) on multisorbent cartridges
1 -I'entanol
37
82
28
27
28
3
49
60
Limoncne
73
122
42
62
52
27
82
44
Junipenc
65
94
26
61
44
57
68
38
Terpencs
100
160
76
120
98
32
120
29
1-Butaiiol
-
7
-
-


7
0
Toluene
-
6
-
-


6
0
2-Methyl-1 -butanol
-
-
-
-




Butyl acetate
-
-
-
-




1,2-Propanediol
-
-
-
-




Ethylbcnzcne
-
-
-
-




m,p-Xylenc
-
-
-
-




2-IIeptanonc
17
33
16
15
16
5
22
44
o-Xylcne
-
-

-




l'ropylbenzcne
-
-
-
-




Kthyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-
-
-
-




l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
1800
2700
2300
3100
2700
21
2400
22
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
7
8
-
7
7
0
7
8
Naphthalene
-
-
-
-




Hexyl acetate
-
-
-
-




Indan
-
-
-
-




C3-Benzenes
-
-
-
-




C4-Benzenes
27
53
17
21
19
15
33
54
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
69
360
220
380
300
38
240
64
Unknown 1
-
-
-
-




Unknown 2
-
-
-
-




Continued
C-13
-------
Table C-7. (Continued)
Hmissinn Factors of Test Squares.
ue/ZmMir	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of %RSD	Mean of "mean of %Rsi)of"mean
Claud	of CI	ClandC8",B2, ofCl and C8".
A6 B2 CI C8 C8	andC8	andA6 H2, and A6
TVOCanulysis of mullisorbcnt 2600 3200 2200 3000 2600	22	2800 12
cartridges
Sum of target compounds > 5 )ig/(m!'hr) oil imiltisorbent and DNPH cartridges
	3000 5100 3700 4500 4100 14	4100	26
PBV = veneered partieleboard
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 jig/{mMir)
%RSD " relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ig/(m2,hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine
~ value < 5 jig/(mJ*hr)
TVOC ~ total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were - 5 (Jg'(rrr*hr)
C-14
-------
Table C-8. Emission Factors of Test Squares of Unfinished PBV (Lab Coupons)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ue'fm*',hr
A12 All Bll B12 CI 1 C12 McanofA12
and All
Identification of target compounds > 5 |ig/(m2,hr) on DNPH cartridges
Mean and %KSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of A12 Mean of Bll %RSDofBll Mean of C11 %RSDofCll
and A11
and B12
and B12
and C11
and C12
Mean of
all means
%RSD of
all means
Formaldehyde
160
170
140
140
110
140
170
4
140
0
130
16
150
14
Acetaldehvde
69
67
76
60
41
51
68
2
68
17
46
15
61
21

430
430
520
480
280
370
430
0
500
6
330
19
420
20
Propionaldehyde
23
21
24
19
17
19
22
6
22
16
18
8
21
11
2-Butonone
-
-
-
-
-
-








Butvraldehyde
15
-
-
-
-
-
15
0




15
0
Benzaldehyde
20
28
22
24
22
21
24
24
23
6
22
3
23
6
Valeraldehyde
78
83
72
71
41
47
81
4
72
1
44
10
65
29
m-Tolualdehyde
-
-
-
-
-
-








Hexanal
470
520
410
500
270
280
500
7
460
14
280
3
410
29
Identification of target compounds
> 5 fig'(nr«hr) on multisorbent cartridges







1 -I'entanol
70
75
67
83
44
33
73
5
75
15
39
20
62
33
Limonenc
89
90
87
76
64
65
90
1
82
10
65
1
79
16
Junipene
99
128
72
110
74
50
110
19
91
30
62
27
90
27
Tcrpcnes
160
200
160
150
160
180
180
16
160
4
170
8
170
6
1 -Butanol
6
6
6
7
-
-
6
0
7
11


6
6
Toluene
2-MethyI-1 -butanol
Butyl acetate
1,2-Propanediol
Elhylbenzene
m,p-Xvlene
2-Heptanone
o-Xylene
Propylbenzene
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionale
1 -Methyl-2-pvrrolidinone
16 16 17 16 11 11
16
17
11
15
21
-------
Table C-8. (Continued)
2-(2-Butoxyethoxv)ethanol
Naphthalene
Kmission Factors of Test Squares,
ug'fm'-hr
A12 All 1311 B12 Cll C12
8
Mean and %RSI) of Kmission Factors
Mean of A12 ° 5 ug<'(m2,hr) on multisorbent and DNPH cartridges
	1700 1900 1700 1800 1200 1300 1800	8	1800	4	H00	5	1600 18
PBV = veneered particleboard
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 |ig'(nr*hr).
%RS1) _ relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 pg'(m2,hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine
- value < 5 ng<(nv*hr)
TVOC _ total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 pg'(nr»hr).
-------
Table C-9. Emission Factors of Test Squares of Unfinished PBV (Field Coupons)

Emission Factors of Test Sauarcs.


Mean and
%RSD of Emission Factors







!*hr











A9
A10
B9
B10
C9
C10
Mean of A9
%RSD of A9
Mean of B9 %RSDofB9
Mean of C9
%RSD of C9
Mean of
%RSD

and A10
and A10
and B10
and RIO
and C10
and C10
all means
all mca
Identification of target
compounds
> 5 ftg'(nr-hr) on DNPH cartridges







Formaldehyde
150
120
160
130
160
170
140
15
150
14
170
4
150
10
Acetaldehyde
62
62
69
70
63
62
62
0
70
1
63
1
65
6
Acetone
380
370
490
470
380
350
380
2
480
3
370
6
410
15
Propionaldchvde
22
19
22
20
25
20
21
10
21
7
23
16
21
5
2-Butanone
-
-
-
-
-
-








Butyraldchvde
14
-
14
-
-
-
14
0
14
0


14
0
Bcnzaldchydc
26
18
25
24
23
23
22
26
25
3
23
0
23
5
Valcraldehydc
77
59
84
84
65
66
68
19
84
0
66
1
73
14
m-Tolualdehydc
-
-
-
-
-
-








Hexanal
520
360
510
480
410
430
440
26
500
4
420
3
450
9
Identification of target compounds > 5 ng/(mJ*hr) on multisorbent cartridges
1 -Pentanol
62
58
77
76
53
55
60
5
77
1
54
3
64
18
Limonene
84
110
87
88
60
59
97
19
88
1
60
1
81
24
Junipcne
100
90
110
93
78
96
95
7
100
12
87
15
90
7
Terpenes
240
300
200
190
160
150
270
16
200
4
160
4
210
27
1-Butanol
5
5
6
6
-
-
5
0
6
0


6
13
Toluene	......
2-Methyl-1 -butanol	6	6	0	6	0
Butyl acetate	......
1,2-Propanediol	......
F.thylbenzene	......
m,p-Xylene	......
2-1 leptanone	14 17 17 16 13 12	16	14	17	4	13	6	15	14
o-Xvlene	......
Propylbenzene	......
Ethyl 3-cthoxypropionate	......
1 -Mcthvl-2-pyrrolidinonc		12	12	12	
-------
Table C-9. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ug/fm'-hr
A9 A10 B9 BIO C9 CIO
2-{2-Iiuto\ycihoxy)cthanol	8
Naphthalene	......
Hcxyl acetate	......
Indan	......
C3-Bcnzcncs	-
C4-Benzenes	35 51 42 43 29 26	43	26	43	2	28	8	38	23
Unknown 1	......
Unknown 2	......
TVOC analysis of	1100 1100 1300 1100 920 910 1100	0	1200	12	920	1	1100 13
multisorbenl cartridges
Sum of target compounds > 5 fig/(m:,hr) on multisorbent and DNPH cartridges
	1800 1600 1900 1800 1500 1500 1700	8	1900	4	1500	0	1700 12
PBV - veneered particleboard
= value < 5 jjg/(nr"hi)
Mean ~ arithmetic mean of values > 5 jig (m:,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ig/t'm2*hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ^g-'(m2-hr).
DNPH ™ dinitrophenylhydrazine
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Mean and "-oRSD of Emission 1-actors
Mean of A9 %RSDofA9 Mean of B9 %RSDofB9 Mean of C9	0/oRSDofC9 Mean of	0,oRSD of
andAlO andAlO andBlO andBlO andCIO	andCIO all means	all means
8 0	8	0
-------
Table C-10. P-values for Comparing Means of Log (Emission Factors) of Compounds
COMPOUND
Alcohols
1 -Pcntanol
1-ButanoI
2-Meihyl-1-bulanol
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coaling 4
Coaling S
Coaling 6
unfinished PBV
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished PBV
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished I'BV
Coating 1
0.0001(+)'
0.0001(1)
0.0001(0
0.0001(+)
0.0001(+)
0.0008(+)
Coating 1
O.OOOl(-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.0001(f)
0.0001(1}
0.0001(1)
Coaling 1
0.0001 (+)
o.oooi(+)
0.0349(1)
0.0001(1)
0.0001(1)
0.0001(1)
Coating 2 Coaling 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.000 l(-)b 0.0870 0.0001(-) 0.0001(-) 0.1687
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coaling 4 CoatingS Coating 6
0.0023(-) 0.2337 0.00()2(-) 0.07X0 0.1039
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 CoalingS Coating 6
0.2414
0.0 i 18( i) 0.0001(1) 0.5049 0.0304()
1 ^-Propanediol
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating I
0.0001(+)
0.0476(+)
0.0001(1)
0.0001(1)
0.0001(1)
Tcrpenes
Limonenc
l'(i'j)
Coaling 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
C'onting 6
unfinished i
>BV
Coating I
0.6228
0.1184
0.0547
0.1483
0.1538
0.1225
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coaling 6
0.0433(-) 0.8525 0.00KK-) 0.0055(-) 0.9806
Junipenc
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished PBV
Coaling 1
0.0103(+)
0.5882
0.0003(+)
0.0006(;)
0.3420
0.0375(-)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coaling 4 Coating 5 Coaling 6
O.OOOl(-) 0.1208 O.OOOl(-) O.OOOI(-) 0.2626
Continued
C-19
-------
Table C-10. (Continued)
COMPOUND
Terpcnes
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating .1
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coaling 6
unfinished PBV 0.1374
Coating I
0.2072
0.335-1
0.0019(1)
0.0048(1)
0.0220(+)
Coating 2 Conting 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.9000
0.6519 0.02680 0.0571
0.2460
Indan
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Toluene
P(i'j)
Conting 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished PF3V
Coating 1
0.0001 (-)
0.0001 (-)
0.000!(-)
0.0001(-)
0.0001(+)
Coating 1
0.0001(1)
0.0001(1)
0.0349(-)
0.0001(0
0.0001(0
0.0001(0
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.2414
0.0118(0 0.0001(+) 0.5049 0.0304(~)
m,p-Xylene
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating I
0.0001 (+)
0.0001(+)
0 0001(f)
0.0001(0
o.oo()i(o
o-Xylcne
l'(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coaling 1
0.0001 (-)
0.0001(0
0.0001H
0.0001(-)
0000l(r)
Kthvlbcnzene	Coating I
Coating 2	0.000l(-)
Coating 3	0.000l(-)
Coaling 4	0.000l()
Coaling 5	0.000!(+)
	Coating 6	0.0001(0	
Continued
C-20
-------
Table C-10. (Continued)
COMPOUND
P(i.'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.0001(1)
Coating 3
0.0001(1)
Coating 4
0.000 l(t)
Coating 5
0.0001(1)
Coating 6
0.0001(»)
P(i<3)
Coating I
Coating 2
0.0001(+)
Coating 3
0.0001(+)
Coating 4
0.0001(+)
Coating 5
0.0001(+)
Coating 6
ooooi(')
P(i/j)
Coaling I
Coating 2
0.0001(~)
Coating 3
O.OOOl(-)
Coating 4
0.0001(+)
Coaling 5
0.0001(+)
Coating 6
0 0001(-)
P(i'J>
Coating 1
Coating 2
O.OOOl(-)
Coating 3
0.0001 ()
Coating 4
O.OOOI(-)
Coating 5
0.0001(^)
Coating 6
0.000!(+)
unfinished PRV
0.0001(+)
P(i'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.0001(+)
Coating 3
0.0001 (+)
Coating 4
0.0001(+)
Coating 5
0.000 ](+)
Coating 6
0.0001(+)
P(i'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.0001(+)
Coating 3
0.0001(+)
Coating 4
0.0001(+)
Coating 5
0.0001(1)
Coating 6
0.0001(+)
P(i'j)
Coaling 1
Coaling 2
0.0001(+)
Coating 3
0.0001(+)
Coating 4
0.0001(+)
Coating 5
0.0001 (¦••)
Coating 6
0.0001(~)
Naphthalene
Propylbcnzene
CVBcnzencs
C4-Benzenes
listers
Bulvl aectale
Kthyl-3-ethnxypropionate
I lexyl acetate
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
00546
0.8464
0.0011(-) 0.004 8(-) 0.6644
Continued
C-21
-------
Table C-10. (Continued)
COMPOUND
Alkyl Ethers
2-(2-I *utoxyethoxy)cthanol
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished PBV
Coating 1
0.0001 ()
0.0307( *)
o.()()()i(t)
0.0001(0
0.0001(0
0.000 i(-)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coaling 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.0002(-0 0.0001 (+) 0.2157 0.3125 0.2146
Dipropylene glycol, met
Unknown 1
Unknown 2
Aldehydes and Ketones
Formaldehyde
Aectaldehydc
P(i/j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.9392
Coating 3
0.015 3(-)
Coaling 4
0.015 3(-)
Coating 5
0.0001(-)
Coating 6
O.OOl)l(-)
l'(i'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
1.0000
Coaling 3
0.0001(-)
Coating 4
0.7874
Coating 5
0.8780
Coating 6
0.8246
P(i/j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
1.0000
Coating 3
0.0001 (-)
Coating 4
0.7609
Coating 5
0.9141
Coating 6
0.9676
P(i'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.000 S(+)
Coating 3
0.0001(-)
Coating 4
0.0001(0
Coating 5
0.0001(0
Coating 6
o.oooi(0
unfinished PliV
0 0001(0
P(i'j)
Coating 1
Coating 2
0.3020
Coating 3
0.1035
Coating 4
0.0631
Coating 5
0.4270
Coating 6
0.1277
unfinished PBV
0.1733
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coaling 6
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.018K-) 0.6433
0.4576
0.0317(-) 0.7364
Continued
C-22
-------
Table C-10. (Continued)
COMPOUND
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Butvraldehvde
Bcn7?.ldchvde
Valeraldehyde
n-\Icxanal
P(i.'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 'I
Coating 5
Coating 6
Lab coupon
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coaling 3
Coating 4
Coaling 5
Coating 6
Coating 1
0.7215
0.0777
0.09-14
0.2792
0.8982
0.1943
Coating I
0.2339
0.0182(0
0.0191 (-)
0.7986
0.0090(0
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.3543 0.4872 0.5594 0.9099 0.2443
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
unfinished PBV 0,0026(0 0.0496(0 0.5602(-) 0.5440 0.0050(-) 0.8128
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coaling 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 1
1.0000
0.0001(-)
0.9971
0.8610
0.1642
unfinished PBV 0.2969
P(i/j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating I
1.0000
0.0001(-)
0.1396
0.0001(-)
O.OOOl(-)
0 2969 0.0001(0 0.2951 0.3920 0.6073
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 C.'oating 5 Coating 6
unfinished PBV 0.0001(0 0.0001(0 0.5889 0.0001(0 0.6725 0.0802
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
P(i-J)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating I
0.8894
0.0545
08062
0.4478
0.0402(0
unfinished PBV 0.0195(0 0.0140(0 0.7824 0.0107(0 0.1089 0.9098
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 1
0.6757
0.0048(0
0.2359
0.2347
0.0003(0
unfinished PBV 0.0001(0 0.0001(0 0.0979 00001(0 0.0001(0 0.6304
Continued
C-23
-------
Table C-10. (Continued)
COMPOUND
-Heptanone
1 -Mcthyl-2-pyrrolidoiic
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
unfinished PBV
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 1
0.0001 (-)
0.000!(-)
0.000 i(-)
0.000!(-)
0.000!(-)
0.000!(i)
Coating 1
0.1949
0.0518
0.1088
0.1-183
0.0001(-)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
0.0027(-) 0.9591 O.OOOK(-) 0.0023(-) 0.0513
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
unfinished PBV 0.0135(4) 0.2267 O.OOOl( - ) 0.4022 0.4024 0.0001(4)
TVOC
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating I
0.000 i(+)
0.0001 (+)
0.0001(+)
0.000 1(4)
0.0034(4)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
unfinished PBV 0.0001(-) 0.00080 0.0046(4) 0.1037 0 0004(-) 0.0001(4)
Summed Compounds
P(i'j)
Coating 2
Coating 3
Coating 4
Coating 5
Coating 6
Coating 1
0.0001(4)
0.0001(4)
0.0001(0
o.oooi(i)
0.0034(~)
Coating 2 Coating 3 Coating 4 Coating 5 Coating 6
'The plus sign indicates that the mean emission factor of test squares of I'HV finished with Coatings System j (j 1, 2. 3. 4, 5,
and 6) was statistically higher than the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV (lab coupons); this is equivalent to
saying that the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV was statistically lower than the mean emission factor for
test squares of PBV finished with Coating System j.
11 The minus sign indicates that the mean emission factor for test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System j (j - 1,2,3,4, 5,
and 6) was statistically lower than the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV (lab coupons); this is equivalent to
saying that the mean emission factor for test squares of unfinished PBV wus statistically higher than the mean emission factor for
test squares of PBV finished with Coatings System j.
C-24
-------
Appendix D
Phase Three Fiber Panel Study
D-l
-------
Table D-l. Select Physical Properties of Fiber Panels (As Reported by Panel Manufacturers)
A	B1	C	D2	E2	F	N2
Density, lb/ft'
26-28
41
20
48
48
43.9
55
Modulus of Rupture, lb/in2 (psi)
1086
(cross direction)
1052
(long direction)
3709
4
1000- 1300 5
5600
5200
2509
3200
Modulus of Hlasticity, psi x 105
86
476
150-200
575
520
447
450
Internal Bond, psi

100

130
115
98
320
I lardncss, lb
230
820
330
1150
1150

2200
Screw Holding - Face. Ib

320
76'
325
325
233
575
Screw Holding - lidgc, lb

270
254h
275
275
192
400
Water Absorption (24-hour water soak) %
15
31

16-8
16-8
18.2

Thickness Swell (24-hour water soak test) %

9

8-6
8-6
6.8

Linear Expansion, 50% to 90% Relative Humidify (RH)
0.262%
0.295%
0.15-0.20%
0.25%
0.24%


(cross direction)
0.196
	(long direction)	
1	Based on the average of all panel thicknesses produced. Actual results may vary depending on panel thickness and production type.
2	Average values for 3/4" panels.
! As tested according to ASTM D 1037" @ 50% RH
4 Blank cells indicate data not provided or measured by manufacturer.
' As tested according to ANSI A208.1IJ @ 50% R11
b As tested according to ANSI A208.114 @ 50% RH
A panel made from recycled newspaper
B = panel made from wheatboard and methylene diisocyanatc (MDI) resin
C = panel made from recycled corrugated cardboard
D = medium density fiberboard with MDI resin
ft = ammonia treated medium density fiberboard with urca-formaldchvdc (UF) resin
F =* particleboard with UF resin
N - particleboard with phenol-formaldehyde resin
-------
Tabic D-2. Select Properties and Attributes of Engineered Fiber Panels used to Construct Engineered
Wood Products
Engineered wood products
Select properties and attributes of engineered fiber panels used to construct
engineered wood products
CABINETS
Glue bond durability. Surface integrity. Surface smoothness, Panel flatness

Dimensional stability

Load bearing -Shelf/bottom deflection

Front frame loading

Impact resistance - Shelves, doors, bottoms

Door racking. Drawer integrity

Fastener holding - Screws, staples, hinges

Finish resistance - Stains, chemicals, hot'eold cycling, water, detergent
COUNTERTOPS
Glue bond durability. Surface integrity

Panel flatness. I Jimensional stability

Flexural (bending) stiffness
H.OORS
Glue l>ond durability, Surface veneer

thickness.

Dimensional stability, Impact resistance

Machinability
FLOORS, SUB
Ghie bond durability, Internal bond.

Dimensional stability. Hardness

Structural strength
FURNITURE
Same as Cabinets above, plus

Veneer thickness. Aesthetic qualities

Edge integrity for shaping /contours
ROOF DECKING
Glue bond durability. Structural performance

Deflection'impact resistance

Flexural (bending) stillness
SHEI.VRS
Glue bond durability

Edge muchinability'shaping

Flexural (bending) stiffness
WALLS/CEILINGS
Glue bund durability. Dimensional stability Structural properties. Finish durability
INTERIOR MN1S11
Flame spread ratings
D-3
-------
Tables D3 through D14 present emissions data for Products A through N, H, I, J, M,
and O. Chamber air samples from these products were collected on DNPII and multisorbent
cartridges. Chamber air samples collected on DNPII cartridges were analyzed by IIPLC; target
aldehydes and ketones greater than 5 |ag/(m2*hr) were reported. Chamber air samples collected
on multisorbent cartridges were analyzed by GC/MS, individual compounds greater than 5
|ig/(m2»hr) were reported, as well as TVOC. For most products, the TVOC estimate was much
larger than the sum of individual compounds greater than 5 jig/(m2*hr); this occurred because the
TVOC estimate included many compounds below the 5 ng/(m2*hr) limit for reporting.
D-4
-------
Table D-3. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Recycled Newspaper
Emission Factors of Test Squares,
iic'Cnr-hrl	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of "mean
Mean of %RSD Mean of "mean of ofA3-landA3-





A3-1 and of A3-1 A3-1
and A3-2".
2",Al-l,a

A1 -1
A2-2
A3-1
A3-2
A3-2 and A3-2 Al-
1, and A2-2
2
< 24 hour conditioning







Identification of target compounds
> 5 (ig'(m:
2«hr) on DNl'II cartridges



Formaldehyde
20
15
8
12
io 28
15
33
Acctaldchydc
28
27
18
21
20 11
25
19
Acetone
40
26
32
32
32 0
33
22
Propionafciehydc
6
6
-
-

6
0
2-Butanone
7
-
-
-

7
0
Butyraldehyde
-
-
-
-



Benzaldeliyde
-
-
-
-



Valeruldchyde
7
6
5
-
5 0
6
17
m-Tolualdchydc
-
-
-
-



w-Hexanal
13
y
9
6
8 28
10
29
Identification of compounds 5 ug/(m2,hr) oil multisorbcnt cartridges



IJndecane
6
6
7
8
8 9
7
13
Dodccane
6
6
9
9
9 0
7
25
1-Hcxanol, 2-ethyl-
4
6
-
-

5
28
Sum of compounds > 5
16
18
16
17
17 4
17
6
yg'(m2,hr) on multisorhent







cartridges







TVOC analysis of multisorbcnt
180
190
210
210
210 0
210
7
cartridges







30 day conditioning







Identification of target compounds
¦ 5 }ia'(m:*hr) on DNP11
cartridges



Formaldehyde
21
17
13
12
13 6
17
25
Acetaldehyde
20
16
16
18
17 8
18
12
Acetone
-
-
-
-



Propionaldchyde
5
5
-
-

5
0
2-Butanone
5
5
-
-

5
0
Butyraldehyde
-
-
-
-



Benzaldeliyde
6
5
-
-

6
13
Valei aldehyde
8
5
5
-
5 0
6
29
wi-Tolualdeliyde
-
-
-
-



/j-Hcxanal
31
12
10
7
9 25
17
71
Continued
D-5
-------
Table D-3. (Continued)

Emission Factors of Test Snuares.



iie'Cm2,hr)

Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors


Mean of
" oRSD of "mean


%RSD Mean of "mean of of A3-1 and A3-


A3-1 and
ofA3-1 A3-1 andA3-2". 2",Al-l,andA2-

A1-1 A2-2 A3-I A3-2
A3-2
andA3-2 AM,andA2-2 2
TVOC analysis of multisorbent
180 210 110 190
150
38 180 17
cartridaes



Mean arithmetic mean of values :> 5 ng/(m!,hr).
%RSI) = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ia/(in2,hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydiazine
~ value < 5 |ig/(m2«hr)
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and'or "%KSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were <" 5 ug/(m2,hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on nmltisorbenl cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identitied on DNPH cartridges are "quantitated" emission factors.
D-6
-------
Table D-4. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Wheatboard with
Methylene Diisocyanate Resin
Emission Factors of Test
Squares, ng'fnr-hr)
Mean and "/oRSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of
< 24 hour conditioning
Identification of target cor
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldchyde
2-Butanone
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldel)yde
Valeraldehyde
m-Tolualdeliyde
n-1 Icxanal




%RSD of
Mean of "mean of
"mean ofB2-l



Mean ofB2-
B2-1 and
B2-I and B2-2",
and B2-2", Bl-
Hl-l B3-I
B2-I
B2-2
1 and B2-2
B2-2
Hl-l, and B3-1
1, and B3-1
5 jig/(m:*hr) on DNPH cartridges



6 9
12
9
II
20
9
27
76 79
76
96
86
16
80
6
92 84
52
79
66
29
81
17
5
7
5
6
24
6
13
5
3
-
3
0
4
35
8 9
6
7
7
11
S
16
6
6

6
0
6
0
Identification of target compounds 5 ji2/(nr*hr) on multisorbcnt cartridges



Acetic acid, methyl ester
4
7
-
7
0
6
39
Methane, dichloro-
-
-
11
11
0
11
0
Propanc, 2-mcthoxy-2-mcthyl-
2
-
33
33
0
18
125
1 lexanc
-
-
14
14
0
14
0
l-'uran, 2-methyl-
4
-
6
6
0
5
28
2-Butanonc
4
-
7
7
0
6
39
Toluene
-
-
15
15
0
15
0
Benzothiazolc
-
-
6
6
0
6
0
Sum of compounds > 5 (ig'(mJ,hr)
14
7
92
50
121
32
79
on multiaorbeiit cartridges







TVOC analysis of multisorbcnt 51
74
53
210
130
85
85
48
cartridges







28 day conditioning







Identification of target compounds > 5 ug'(m
2*lir) on DNPII
cartridges




Fonnaldclivde 7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
Acetaldehyde 18
20
19
2A
22
16
20
9
Acetone
-
-
-




Propionaldehyde
-
5
6
6
13
6
0
2-Butanoue 5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
Butyraldehyde
-
-
-




Benzaldehydc
-
-
-




Continued
D-7
-------
Table D-4. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test
Souarcs. ug/fm**hr1	Mean and °-'oKSl) of Emission Factors
%RSD of
%RSD of Mean of "mean of "mean of B2-1
Mean of I{2- H2-1 and B2-1 and B2-2", and B2-2", Bl-
Bl-1 B3-1 B2-1 B2-2 I and B2-2 B2-2 Bl-LandB3-l l,andB3-l
Valeraldehyde	....
m-Tolualdchydc	-
w-llexanal	....
TVCX.' analysis of multisorbent 6S 72 65 51	58	17	66	11
cartridges	
Mean - arithmetic mean of values > 5 (ig/(m:,hr).
%RS1) = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ig'(inJ,hr).
DNPH dinitrophenylhydrazine
= value •' 5 ng'(m2*lir)
TVOC total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were •' 5 ng/(m!,hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbent cartridges are "estimated" emission factors
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPH cartridges are "ijiiuntitated" emission factors.
D-8
-------
Table D-5. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Recycled Corrugated
Cardboard
Emission Factors of l est Squares.
ue'lm2'hr)	Mean an J VoRSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of mean





Mean of
%RSD
Mean of "mean of
ofCl-1 ar





Cl-1 and
ofCI-I
Cl-1 and Cl-2",
2". C2-2. a:

Cl-I
C3-2
Cl-2
C2-2
Cl-2
aiidCi-2
C2-2, and C3-2
o
< 24 hour conditioning








Identification of target compounds
> 5 jjg'(mMir) on DHPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
28
26
25
25
25
0
26
6
Acctaldchydc
49
57
85
61
73
23
60
20
Acetone
260
270
120
220
170
42
230
24
Propionaldchyde
14
14
17
17
17
0
15
12
2-Butanone
9
-
12
6
9
47
9
0
Butyraldchyde
-
NR
-
-




Benzaldchydc
-
NR
-
-




Valeraldehyde
5
NR
-
-


5
0
w-Tolualdehyde
-
NR
-
-




w-Hexanal
7
NR
7
6
7
11
7
5
Identification of target compounds
> 5 ug'(in
I*hr) on multisorbent cartridges



Acetic acid, methyl ester
-
-
7
-
7
0
7
0
2-Propanul, 2-methyl-
56
14
47
49
48
3
39
57
Acctic acid cthenyl ester
-
-
5
3
4
35
4
0
2,3-Butancdione
-
-
7
4
6
39
6
0
Acetic acid, ethyl ester
13
7
15
10
13
28
11
31
1-Pentene
-
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Acetic, acid, propyl ester
-
-
5
3
4
35
4
0
Benzothiazule
-
-
-
12
12
0
12
0
Sum of compounds > 5
69
21
91
81
86
8
59
57
jig/(m2,hr) 011 multisorbent








cartridges








TVOC analysis of multisorbent
190
150
190
190
190
0
180
13
cartridges








26 day conditioning








Identification of target compounds:
¦ 5 Mg/(irr
•hr) on DNP11
cartridges




Formaldehyde
17
15
15
15
15
0
16
7
Acetaldchyde
7
9
7
9
8
18
8
13
Acetone
-
-
-
-




Propionaldehydc
-
-
-
-




2-Butnnone
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
Butyraldehyde	....
Ben/aldehyde	-	-	-	-	
Continual
D-9
-------
Table D-5. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
itg/firi?,hr')	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RS!)ofmean
Mean of %RSD Meai) of"nlcail of 0fci-l and C l-
Cl-land ofCl-1 Cl-1 and Cl-2", 2", C2-2, and C3-
Ci-I C3-2 Cl-2 C2-2 Ci-2 andCl-2 C2-2.andC3-2	2
Valeraldehyde	....
m-Tolualdeliyde	....
n-Hexanal	....
TVCX: analysis of multisorbenl 68 47 52 97 75	43	63	23
cartridges	
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 |ig/(mJ*hr).
%RS1) = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 ^ig'(m2,hr).
DNPH = dinitrophenylhydrazine
~ value < 5 ug/(m2,hr)
TVOC ~ total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate (hat all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 jig/(m!,hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on inultisorbent cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified oil DNPIl cartridges arc ''quantituled" emission factors.
"NR"" not reported
D-10
-------
Table D-6. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Medium Density
Fiberboard with Methylene Diisocyanate Resin
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
}ig.f nr-hr)
Dl-1» D2-2** D3-I*» D3-2**
< 24 hour conditioning
Identification of target compounds 5 jig/(in:,hr) on DNPH cartridges
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butyraidehyde
Ben/aldehyde
Valernldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
Hexanal
7
26
9
30
11
43
7
24
Mean of
D3-1 and
D3-2
9
34
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RSD
Mean ol "mean of %RSD of "mean
D3-1 and D3-2 of D3-1 and D3-2
of!>3-1
and D3-
->
31
40
D2-2, and Dl-1 \D2-2, and 1>I-I
8
30
14
13
Identification of target compounds
¦ 5 ng'(m2-hr) on inultisorbent cartridges



Acetic acid, methyl ester
-
8
-
8
0
8
0
Methane, dichloro-
8
-
-


8
0
Propane, 2-methoxy-2-methyl-
19
-
-


19
0
Ilexune
23
-
-


23
0
Heptane
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Toluene
7
-
-


7
0
2-Furancai boxaldehyde
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Alpha-Pinene, (-)-
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Limonene
6
6
-
6
0
6
0
3-Cyclohexen-1 -ol, 4-metliyl-1 -
7
8
5
7
33
7
5
(1 -methylethyl)-







.alpha -Terpineol
20
23
14
19
34
19
6
Junipcne
10
10
6
8
35
9
16
Sum of compounds > 5
100
70
25
48
67
74
50
fig/'(ni!"hr) on tnullisorbent
cartridges
TV(X^ analysis of multisorben!
cartridges
230
16(1
94
13(1
37
18(1
41
30 day conditioning
Identification of target compounds > 5 pg/(mJ,hr) on DNPH cartridges
Formaldehyde	13 6	6	7	7
Acetaldehyde	16
9
16
46
0
Continued
D-ll
-------
Table D-6. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
fig/fm'*hr)
Dl-1* D2-2** D3-1 ** D3-2**
Acetone
Propioitaldehyde
2-Bulanonc
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldchyde
Valeraldchyde
m-Tolualdehyde
w-I lexanal
Identification of target compounds > 5 fig/(m:,hr) on multisorbent cartridges
.ulpha.-Terpineol	- -	-	6	6	0	6	0
TVOC analysis of multisorbent 53 30 38 75	57	46	47	31
cartridges	
Mean = arithmetic mean of values 5 (ig'(mMir)
%RSD - relative standard dev iation (as a percentage of the mean) of values 5 pg/(m2"hr).
DNPH = dinitrnphenylhydrazine
value 5 |ig/(m2*hr)
TVC)C total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and,'or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 (ig/(m2*hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbent cartridgess are "estimated" emission factors
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPH cartridges arc "quantilated" emission factors.
*For test square D1 -1, the 24 hour chamber air sample collected on the multisorbent cartridge was not analysed (as indicated by the
blank cells).
"For test squares D2-2, D3-I, and 1)3-2, 30 day chamber air samples collected on DNPH cartridges were only analyzed for
formaldehyde; the DNPH cartridges were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells')
Mean and %RSD of I'.mission Factors
%RSD
Mean of of D3-1 Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean
D3-1 and and D3- D3-1 and D3-2 ofD3-l and D3-2
D3-2 2 D2-2: and Dl-1 D2-2, and Dl-1
D-12
-------
Table D-7. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Ammonia-treated
Medium Density Fiberboard with Urea-Formaldehyde Resin
Emission 1'nctors ot'Tcst Squares.
utt/fin^hr)
El-2** E2-2* E3-1 E3-2**
< 24 hour conditioning
Identification of target compounds -
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehydc
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Bulyraldehyde
Henzaldehvde
Valeraldchyde
in-Tolualdehyde
Hexanal
Mean of
E3-1 and
E3-2
5 ng/(m2,hr) on DNPH cartridges
99 93 100 99 100
25 43 51 43 47
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of "mean
Mean of "mean of of 1-3-1 and K3-
E3-1 and F.3-2", 2",El-2,andF2-
%RSI)
ofE3-l
and E3-2
1
12
El-2, and E2-2
97
38
4
31
Identification of compounds > 5 |ig/(m3,hr) on muliisorbent cartridges
Acetic acid, methyl ester	26	71 67 69 4
Heptane	-	6-60
48
6
64
0
Endo-fenehol
5
10
8
9
16
7
40
2-Propanone, 1 -cyclohexylidene-
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
3-Cyclohcxen-1 -ol, 4-mcthyl-
l-(l-methylcthyl)-
7
14
12
13
11
10
42
endo-Borneol
6
12
10
11
13
9
42
.alpha.-Terpineol
Sum of compounds > 5
ug/(mJ,hr) on multisorbent
cartridges
26
70
51
170
44
141
48
160
10
13
37
120
41
53
TVOC analysis of multisorbent
cartridges
160
290
260
280
8
220
39
28 day conditioning
Identification of target compounds;
Formaldehyde
Aeetaldehyde
Aectone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanonc
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehvde
5 |ig/'(ml,hr) on 1 IN I'll cartridges
180 160 230 210 220 6
20	20	0
190
20
16
0
Continued
D-13
-------
Table D-7. (Continued).
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ne/fniMir-)	Mean and "/oRSD of Emission Factors
El -2** E2-2* E3-1 E3-2**	%RSDof"mcan
Mean of	Mean of "mean of of E3-1 and Ti3-
E3-1 and ofE3-l E3-1 and E3-2", 2\El-2,andE2-
E3-2 and E3-2 EI-2,andE2-2	2
Valei aldehyde
m-Tolualdehyde
»-l lexanal
Identification of compounds > 5 ng/(m2,hr) on multisorbent cartridges




Acetic acid, methyl ester - - 8
5
7
33
7
0
Acetic acid - - 6
-
6
0
6
0
l-.alpha.-Tcrpineol - 12 15
16
16
5
14
18
Sum of compounds • 5 12 29
21
25
23
19
50
Hg/(m2,hr) oil multisorbent





cartridges
TVOC analysis of multisorbent 41 75 10!) 92 96	(,	71	39
cartridges	
Mean = arithmetic mean of values5 pg'Oir'hr).
%RS1) _ relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 ug/(m2,hr).
DNPH = dinitiophenylliydrazine
value < 5 ng/(ni'*hr)
TV(X; = total volatile organic compounds
Blank eells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were 5 fig.'(m2'hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbent cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNI'H cartridges arc "quantitated" emission factors.
*l;or test square K2-2, the 24 hour chamber air sample collected on the multisorbent cartridge was not analyzed (as indicated by the
blank cells), the 28 day chamber air sample collected on the DNPH cartridge was only analyzed for formaldehyde; the air sample
was not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
"For test squares KI -2 and K3-2, 28 day chamber air samples collected on DNl'I I cartridges were only analyzed for formaldehyde;
the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells)
D-14
-------
Table D-8. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Particleboard with Urea-
Formaldehyde Resin
Emission Factors of Test Suuares.
Mean and %RSP of Emission Factors





Mean of
%RSD
Mean of "mean of
'/iRSD of "mean





Fl-1 and
of Fl-1
Fl-1 and Fl-2",
ofFl-1 and Fl-

F2-2*
F3-2*
1-1-1*
1*1-2
Fl-2
and Fl-2
F2-2, and 1-3-2
2", F2-2, and F3-2
< 24 hour conditioning








Identification of target compounds
> 5 ng/(m
2>hr) on DNPII cartridges




Formaldehyde
290
290
380
360
370
4
320
14
AcelulJehyde
68
80
58
67
63
10
70
13
Acclone
110
130
120
130
130
5
120
10
Propionaldehyde
31
37
33
36
35
6
34
9
2-Butanone
6
6
7
6
7
11
6
5
Butyraldcliydc
-
5
-
-


5
0
iienzaldehyde
-
-
-
-




Valcraldehydc
15
21
17
19
18
8
18
17
m-Tolualdehyde
-
-
-
-




n-Hexanal
120
150
150
150
150
0
140
12
Identification of compounds • 5 pg'(m!,lir) oil inultisorbent cartridges
Methane. oxyhis-
30
13
-
11
11
0
18
58
Acctic acid, melhyl ester
24
22
-
21
21
0
22
7
I'entanal
15
14
6
5
6
13
12
45
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
9
-
-
-


9
0
Alpha-Pincnc, (-)-
460
230
150
180
170
12
290
53
Camphenc
13
8
-
10
10
0
10
24
2-Bcta-Pincne
250
180
95
140
120
27
180
36
.bcla.-Mvrccnc
5
5
5
8
7
33
6
16
Ben/aldehyde
5
-
-
-


5
0
Delta 3-Carcne
96
80
54
75
65
23
80
20
Alkcnc
11
11
10
13
12
18
11
3
Limoncnc
40
31
25
33
29
20
33
18
.bcta.-l'hella'-rcne
10
8
6
10
8
35
9
13
2-Octenal, (li)-
7
-
-
-


7
0
I-'thanone, 1-phenvl-
5
-
-
-


5

Nonanal
24
-
5
-
5
0
15
93
E'-O-Fenchol
5
-
-
-


5
0
Alpha-Campholene
7
-
-
-


7
0
Aldehyde








Pinoearveol
9
-
-
-


9
0
Bicyclo[2.2.1 ]hcpt-2-cn-7-ol
6
-
-
-


6
0
N-Aectyl-N-Pliciivl
21
9
5
7
6
0
12
0
Elhanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-
-
-
-
-




Deeanal
35
-
-
-


35
0
Continued
D-15
-------
Table D-8. (Continued)
Bicyclo[3.1.1 Jhcpl-2-cnc-2-
carboxaldehyde, 6.6-d
BicyeIo[3.1.1 ]hept-3-en-2-
one, 4,6,6-trimethyl-
Junipcnc
Sum of compounds > 5
Hg/(mJ-hr) on multisorbcnt
cartridges
Emission Factors of Test Stiuares.
ug/(m'»hri
1-2-2*
IS
16
1130
B-2*
6
5
620
5
36!)
•1-2
5
7
530
Mean and %RSI) of Hmissioti 1'actors
Mean of %RSD Mean of "mean of %RSDof "mean
Fl-1 and ofFl-1 FI-I and Fl-2ofFl-landFl-
1' 1 -2 and Fl-2 F2-2, and F3-2 2", F2-2. and F3-2
6
450
0
24
27
10
9
730
75
68
48
TVOC analysis of multisorbent
cartridges
1450 900
600 820
710
22
1000
38
26 day conditioning
Identification of target compounds 5 ug/(m!,lir) on DNPH cartridges
Formaldehyde	250 240 320 310
Acetaldehyde	13
Acetone
I'ropionaldcliydc	10
2-Rutanone	5
Butyraldehyde
Bcnzaldehydc
Valcraldehydc	17
m-Tolualdchydc
w-Hexanal	110
320
13
10
5
17
110
270
13
10
5
17
110
15
0
0
0
Identification of compounds - 5 pg/(ni!-hr) on niultisorbeiit cartridges
1'cntanal
8
10
11
9
10
14
9
12
2-I'urancarhoxaldcliydc
-
6
-
-


6
0
Alpha-l'incnc, (-)-
11
20
15
47
31
73
21
48
2-Hcta-l'inene
-
-
-
16
16

16
0
l-l)ecyne
6
-
7
7
7
0
7
11
Uornylenc
-
-
-
6
6
0
6
0
Sum of compounds: 5
25
.35
32
84
58
63
39
43
Hg/(in2*hr) on multisorbcnt
cartridges	
Continued
D-16
-------
Table D-8. (Continued)

Emission Factors of Test Squares.





IWT'"1
±r}

Mean of
Mean and VoRSD of Emission Factors




%RSD
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean




H-l and
of Fl-1
Fl-1 and Fl-2".
of Fl-1 and Fl-

F2-2* F3-2*
Fl-1*
Fl-2
Fl-2
and Fl-2
F2-2, and F3-2
2", F2-2, and F3-2
TVOC analysis of multisorbent
180 210
210
270
240
18
210
14
cartridges







Mean =* arithmetic mean of values * 5 ng'(m:,hr).
%RSD •= relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 fig/(nr«hr)
DNPII - dinitrophenyihydra/ine
~ value < 5 pg/(m2,hr)
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(m3,hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbent cartridges arc "estimated'" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPl I cartridges are "quamitalcd" emission factors
*For test squares F1 -1, F2-2, and F3-2, 26 duy chamber air samples collected on DNPH cartridges were only analyzed for
formaldehyde; the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
D-17
-------
Table D-9. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Particleboard with
Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
Emission Factors of Test
Squares. m»/(mt,hr')	Mean and %RSD orHmission Factors
Mean of
N2-1 ofN2-l Mean of "mean of %RSI) of "mean of
and N2- andN2- N2-1 andN2-2", N2-1 andN2-2",
Nl-2
N3-1 *
N2-1*
N2-2*
2
2
aiidNI-2, andN3-I
and Nl-2, ar
< 24 hour conditioning







Idenlification of target compounds 5 ng/(m2-hr) on DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde 32
14
33
43
38
19
28
45
AccUildehydc 180
38
170
190
180
8
130
63
Acetone 800
190
810
900
860
7
620
60
Propionaldehyde 47
11
52
47
50
7
36
60
2-Butanone 19
5
19
22
21
10
15
58
Butyraldehyde 58
14
54
56
55
3
42
58
1 ienzaldchyde 77
32
75
80
78
5
62
42
Valeraldchyde 66
62
330
350
340
4
160
100
wi-ToIualdehyde
-
-
-




w-Hcxanal 170
170
950
990
970
3
440
105
Identification of compounds • 5 )ig'(nr*hr)
on multlsorbent cartridges




1,3-Butadicne, 2-nicthyl- 6
-
-
5
5
0
6
13
Unknown
20
-
-


20
0
Acetic acid, methyl ester 110
21
92
54
73
37
68
66
llcxanc 6
-
-
5
5
0
6
13
2-Butenal, (E)- 10
-
7
6
7
11
8
30
Butanal
-
8
8
8
0
8
0
2-Butanonc 6
-
5
-
5
0
6
13
3-Pentcn-2-oI 13
5
8
6
7
20
8
50
Heptane 12
10
6
5
6
13
9
36
1-Butanol 5
-
-
-


5
0
Pentanal 160
29
99
34
67
69
85
79
Toluene 6
-
-
-


6
0
Octane 41
16
41
45
43
7
33
45
Acetic acid
-
11
11
11
0
11
0
1-Pentanol 69
20
63
71
67
8
52
53
1,4-Pentadiene, 3-ethcnyl- 19
-
17
15
16
9
18
12
Bicyclo[2,2,I |hept-2-enc,2,7,7-
-
-
-




Trimethyl-







Tricyclene
-
13
13
13
0
13
0
2-1 leptanone 26
7
27
29
28
5
20
57
lleptanal 12
-
-
-


12
0
Alpha-Pinenc, (-)- 210
89
200
180
190
7
170
43
Camphene 82
5
83
73
78
9
55
79
1,3,5-Cyclolicptatrienc
-
5
5
5
0
5
0
Continued
D-18
-------
Table D-9. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test
Squares. ua/("m*'hr)	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of %RSI)





N2-1
ofN2-l
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of"i





and N2-
and N2-
N2-I and N2-2",
N2-1 and!

Nl-2
N3-1*
N2-1*
N2-2*
2
2
and Nl-2, and N3-1
and Nl-2, ai
C3-Benzene
5
-
6
-
6
0
6
13
Pentnnoic acid
-
-
14
25
20
40
20
0
2-Beta-Pinene
180
21
160
150
160
4
120
72
Furan, 2-pentyl-
-
-
12
12
12
0
12
0
2-Hcptenal, (E)-
23
8
24
19
22
16
18
47
Bcnzaldehydc
62
26
57
62
60
6
49
41
Delta. 3-Carenc
9
-
11
16
14
26
11
28
7-Oeten-4~ol
12
-
11
13
12
12
12
0
Benzene. 4-ethenyl-l ,2-dimcthyl-
6
-
6
5
6
13
6
6
Limoncne
51
10
4X
46
47
3
36
63
Benzene, 1-mcthyl-4-( I-
20
-
27
27
27
0
27
3
mcthylcthyl)-








Ilexanoie acid
6
-
47
79
63
36
35
117
2-Oetenal. (H)-
20
7
21
23
22
6
16
50
1-Octanol
12
-
11
12
12
6
12
3
2,5-Hexanedione
-
-
6
6
6
0
6
0
Fenchonc
6
-
8
10
9
16
8
28
1,6-1 leptadiene, 2,3,6-triiiieihyl-
-
-
5
5
5
0
5
0
[jido-l
-------
Table D-9. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test


Suuarcs. im'Tin2'
•fir)

Mean and %RSD of Fimission Factors




Mean of
%RSD






N2-1
of N2-1
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean of




and N2-
and N2-
N2-1 and N2-2",
N2-1 and N2-2",

Nl-2
N3-I* N2-I*
N2-2*
2
2
and Nl-2, and N3-1
and Nl-2, and N3-1
TVOC analysis of multisorbcnt
2200
660 2100
2100
2100
0
1700
51
cartridges







29 Jay conditioning







Identification of target compounds >
• 5 [ig/(m2,hr) on DNPH cartridges



Formaldehyde
14
6 18
15
17
13
12
45
Acetaldchyde
44




44
0
Acetone
182




180
0
Propionaldehyde
7




7
0
2-Butanone
5




5
0
Butyraldehyde
10




10
0
Benzaldehydc
19




19
0
Valeraldchyde
40




40
0
m-Tolualdehyde
-





0
n-Hcxanal
91




91
0
Identification of compounds 5 (ig/(nr»hr) on multisorbcnt cartridges




Acetic acid, methyl ester
17
9 40
22
31
41
19
60
2-Propanol
31
-
36
36
0
34
9
Heptane
6
-
-


6
0
Pcntanal
32
27
27
27
0
30
13
Acetic acid
5
7
-
7
0
6
23
i-Pentano!
30
10 22
20
21
7
20
49
Hcptanal
10
8
8
8
0
9
13
Alpha-Pinenc, (-)-
7
13 7
H
8
9
9
37
Benzaldehydc
17
6 15
14
15
5
13
49
D-I''enchyl alcohol
-
6
5
6
13
(,
0
Camphor
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Sum of compounds 5
160
38 140
140
140
0
110
60
Hg/(in'*hr) on multisorbcnt
cartridges		
Continued
D-20
-------
Tabic D-9. (Continued)
Eniiiftipn Factors of Test


Squares, fic'Cm^hr)

Mean and %KSD of Emission Factors

Mean of
%RS1)

N2-1
of N2-1 Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean of

and N2-
and N2- N2-I and N2-2", N2-1 and N2-2",
HI-2 N3-1* N2-I* N2-2*
2
2 and Nl-2, and N3-1 and Nl-2, and N3-1
TVOC analysis of multisorbent 450 200 420 400
410
3 350 38
cartridges


Mean _ arithmetic mean of values > 5 ng/(m2,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 (ig/(m2,hr).
DOTH dinitrophenylhydrazine
= value < 5 |ig'(m2*hr)
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and'or "VoUSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 |ig/(m2*hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbent cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNT'H cartridges arc "quantitated'" emission factors.
"For test squares N2-1, N2-2, and N3-1, 29 day chamber air samples collected on DNPH cartridges were only analyzed for
formaldehyde; the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
D-21
-------
Table D-10. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Veneered Whcatboard
with Methylene Diisocyanate Resin
Emission Factors of Test
Squares. ua/(m2,hr>	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of 0/oRsl)
H2-1 ofH2-l Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean of
and H2- and 112- H2-I and H2-2", H2-1 and H2-2".
Hl-2** 113-2* H2-1** H2-2 2	2 and II1-2,and 113-2 and HI-2. and H3-2
< 24 hour conditioning
Identification of target compounds > 5 jig/(nr*lir) on DNPH cartridges
Formaldehyde	980 810 780 920 850 12	880	10
Acctaldchyde	37 24 23 27 25 II	29	25
Acetone	....
Propionaldehyde	....
2-Butanone	5	5	0	5	0
Butyraldchydc	....
Bcnzaldehydc	....
Valeraldchyde	....
m-ToIualdchyde	....
n-Hexanal	....
Identification of compounds ~ 5 ug/(ni2*ln ) on multisorhent cartridges
2-Butanone	5 - -	-	5	0
TVOC analysis of nuiltisorbent 78 43 37 28 33 20	51	47
cartridges
29 day conditioning
Identification of target compounds - 5 ug'Oir'hr) on DNI'H cartridges
Fonnaldchyde	360	570 580 580 1	470	33
Acctaldchyde	8	8	0	8	0
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butyraldehyde
Bciizakichyde
Valeraldchyde
w-Tolualdchyde
n-Hexanal	4	4	0	4	0	
Continued
D-22
-------
Table D-10. (Continued)

(''mission Factors of Test



Squares. fig'lW'hr)

Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors


Mean of
%RSD


112-1
of 112-1 Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean of


and H2-
and H2- H2-I and 112-2", H2-I and H2-2",

HI-2»* H3-2* FI2-I** 112-2
2
2 and HI-2,and 113-2 andHl-2,andH3-2
'l'VOC analysis of multisorbcnt
52 39 41
40
4 46 18
cartridges



Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 pg/(m2"hr).
%RSD relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 ng/(m2,hr).
DNPI1 = dinitrophenylhydrazine
- value 5 (ig'(nf-hi)
TVOC total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 (ig/(m2"hr).
limission factors for compounds identified on multisorbcnt cartridges arc "estimated'" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPH cartridges are "quantitated" emission factors.
*For test squares III-2 and 112-1, 29 day chamber air samples collected nn DNI'll cartridges were only analyzed for formaldehyde;
the air sumples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
*For test square 32-1, the 29 day chamber air sample collected on the I )NP11 cartridges was not analyzed (as indicated by the blank
eells).
D-23
-------
Table D-ll. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Vinyl Overlaid
Wheatboard with Methylene Diisocyanate Resin
Emission Factors of Test
Squares, ng/fitr'hr)	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of	o,	Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean of
12-1 and	of 12-1 12-1 and 12-2", and 12-1 and 12-2", and

11-1»
13-1*
12-1*
12-2*
12-2
and 12-2
11-1, and 13-1
11-1. and
< 24 hour conditioning








Identification of target compounds
> 5 jig.'(nr»hr) on
i DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
21
14
16
16
16
0
17
21
Acetaldehyde
26
28
19
15
17
17
24
25
Acetone
-
-
-
-




Fropionaldehyde
-
-
-
-




2-Butanone
390
360
370
350
360
4
370
5
Butvraldehyde
-
-
-
23
23
0
23
0
Bcnzaldehyde
-
-
-
-




Valcraldehyde
-
-
-
-




wi-Tolualdchydc
-
-
-
-




w-Hexa»al
7
6
5
-
5
0
6
17
Identification of compounds ¦ 5 ng'OnMir) oil mullisorbent cartridges




Methane, dichloro-
7
-
-
4
4
0
6
39
Propane, 2-niethoxy-2-inethyl-
15
-
-
10
10
0
13
28
Furan, 2-methyl-
-
-
13
-
13
0
13
0
3-Buten-2-one
-
6
5
5
5
0
6
13
2-BuUmone
170
140
190
120
160
31
160
10
2-Propenoic acid, 2-
6
5
6
4
5
28
5
11
methyl-. methyl ester
-
-
-
-




2-I'cntanone, 4-methyl-
58
66
64
49
57
19
60
8
Tolucne
190
190
190
140
170
21
180
6
Unknown
18
20
23
13
18
39
19
6
Sum of compounds > 5
460
430
490
350
420
24
440
5
jig/(inJ*hr) on niullisorbent








cartridges








TVOC analysis of multisorbent
540
500
620
420
520
27
520
4
cartridges








29 day coni)itiouiiif>








Identification of target compounds
• 5 jig'i n
i!,lir) on
DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
5
-
5
-
5
0
5
0
Acctaldchyde
Acetone
Fropionaldehyde
2-Butanone
Butvraldehyde	
Continued
D-24
-------
Table D-11. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test
Squares. ng/t'inHir)	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean of ,/#RSD Mean of "mean of %RSD of "mean of
12-1 and of I2-I 12-1 and 12-2". and 12-1 and 12-2", and
II-I* 1.1-1 * 12-1* 12-2* 12-2 and 12-2 Tl-1. and 13-1 Il-l, and 13-1
Benzaldehyde
Valeraldehyde
m-ToIualdehvde
m-1 Icxanal
Identification of compounds > 5 |ig/(m2,hr) on multisorbent cartndgcs
2-Butanonc
25
31
32
46
39
25
32
22
2-Pentanone, 4-methyl-
9
10
13
13
13
0
11
20
Toluene
56
51
63
60
62
3
56
9
Unknown
8
6
6
-
6
0
7
17
Sum of compounds: 5
98
98
1 It)
120
120
6
1 10
12
Hg/(in2*lir) on multisorbent
cartridges
TV()C analysis of multisorbent 160 150 200 200 200 0	170	16
cartridges	
Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 (ig,'(W'hr).
%RSD - relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values -¦ 5 pg'(m;-lu).
DNPI1 = dinitrophcnyllivdrazine
= value < 5 ng/(nr-hi)
TV(XJ = total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were ¦5 ug/(mJ*hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on mullisorbent cartridges arc "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPII cartridges arc "quantitated" emission factors.
*For test squares 11 -1,12-1.12-2, and 13-1. 29 day chamber air samples collected on DNPH cartridges were only analyzed for
formaldehyde; the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
D-25
-------
Table D-12. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Vinyl Overlaid
Wheatboard with Methylene Diisocyanate Resin
Emission Factors of Test
Sciuares. LiG'i'rrr'hrl
Mean and l-'oRSI) of Emission Factors



Mean of
%RSD
Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean of



Jl-1 and
of Jl-1
Jl-1 and Jl-2", and
Jl-1 and Jl-2", and
J2-2* J
3-1 •
Jl-1"*
J1-2* J1 -2
and J1-2
J2-2 and J3-1
J2-2 and J3-1
< 24 hour conditioning






Identification of target compounds"' 5 jig'(m
Hr) on DNPI
I cartridges



Formaldehyde 14
16
13
14 14
5
15
9
Acetnldehyde 64
63
54
59 57
6
61
7
Acetone
-
-
-



Propionaldehyde 10
12
8
11 10
22
11
13
2-Hutanonc 7
7
6
7 7
11
7
4
Butyraldehydc 7
7
7
8 8
9
7
4
Benzaldehyde
-
-
-



Valeruldchyde
-
-
-



m-Tolualdchyde
-
-
-



Hexanul 6
n
/
6
5 6
13
6
12
Identification of compounds "• 5 ^g'(nr-hr) on multisorbcnt
cartridges



Acetic acid, methyl ester 5
6
5
6 6
13
6
9
TV()C analysis of multisorbcnt 50
56
58
67 63
10
56
11
cartridges






29 day conditioning






Identification of target compounds • 5
'•hr) on DNPI 1
cartridges



Formaldehyde 12
10
9
9 9
0
10
15
Acetaldehyde






Acetone






I'ropionaldchyde
2-Butanone
Butyraldehydc
Ben/uldehyde
Valerakleliyde
ni-Tolualdehyde
Hexanal
Identification of compounds • 5 ng/QnMir) on multisorbcnt cartridges
Continued
D-26
-------
Table D-12. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test

Snuares. uiiW'hri Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
Mean ol Mean of "mean of
%RSD of "mean of
J1-1 and of J1-1 Jl-l and .11-2", and
Jl-l and JI-2", and
J2-2* J3-1 * Jl-l** J1-2* Jl-2 and J1-2 J2-2 and J3-I
J2-2 and J3-1
TVOC analysis of multisorbciit 58 70 54 54 0 61
14
cartridges

Mean = arithmetic mean of values > 5 jig'(m5,hr).

/'oRSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 ng/'(mJ-hr).

DNPI I ~ dinitrophcnylhydrazinc

= value < 5 pg/(mJ-hr)

TVOC total volatile organic compounds

Blank cells under "mean" and.'or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were
< 5 |ig/(m2*hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on multisorbciit cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPH cartridges are "quantitated" emission factors
*Por test squares J1 -2, J2-2. and J3-1,29 day chamber air samples collected oil DNPI I cartridges were only analyzed for formaldehyde;
the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells).
••lortest square JI -I, the 29 day clinmbcr air sample collected on DNPII cartridges was only analyzed for formaldehyde (the air sample
was not analyzed for the other target compounds [as indicated by the blank cells]); the 29 day chamber air samples collected on the
multisorbciit cartridge was not analyzed (as indicated by the blank cells)
D-27
-------
Table D-13. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Painted Recycled
Corrugated Cardboard
Emission Factors of Test Squares,
utt'lnr-hrl	Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of "mean
Mean of "mean of	of





Mean of
%RSD of
M2-1 and M2-2".
M2-1 and M2-2"





M2-1 and
M2-1 and
and Ml-1 and M3-
and Ml-1 and
Ml-1
M3-1*
M2-1**
M2-2*
M2-2
M2-2
1
M3-1
< 24 hour conditioning








Identification of target compounds
> 5 (ig/(m2,hr) on DNPI1 cartridges




Formaldehyde
35
47
39
43
41
7
41
15
Acetaldehyde
36
49
39
31
35
16
40
20
Acetone
35
45
73
-
73
0
51
39
Propionaldehydc
?
?
80
57
69
24
69
0
2-Butanone
12
10
1 i
9
10
14
11
11
Butyraldehyde
-
8
-
-


8
0
Benzaldehyde
20
24
23
20
22
10
22
9
Valeruldehyde
8
9
•
-


9
8
m-Tolualdehyde
-
-
-
-




Hexanal
6
6
5
.
5
0
6
10
Identification of compounds 5 |ig/(ni!
•hr) on mullisorbent cartridges




2-1'ropanol
9
17
10
10
0
12
36
2-1'ropanol, 2-methyl-
3
6
-


5
47
Disulflde, dimethyl
6
-
-


6
0
Toluene
14
14
12
12
0
13
9
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
75
8
49
49
0
44
77
Benzaldehyde
11
10
9
9
0
10
10
2-FuraneurboxyIic acid, methyl
4
-
-


4
0
ester







Sum of compounds: 5
120
54
80
80
0
85
39
)ig/(m2,lir) on imillisorbent







cartridges







TVOC analysis of multisorbcnt
300
230
250
250
0
260
14
cartridges







28 day conditioning







Identification of target compounds
• 5 pg/(nr*hr) on DNPH cartridges




Formaldehyde
18
15 10
13
12
18
15
22
Acetaldehyde
12




12
0
Acetone
15




15
0
Propionaldehydc
26




26
0
2-Butanonc
-






Butyraldehyde
-






Benzaldehyde
9




9
0
Continued
D-28
-------
Table D-13. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
ug'fmMir)	Mean and *oRSD of Emission Factors
%RSI) of "mean
Mean of "mean of	of
Mean of o/iKsl)0f M2-1 and M2-2", M2-1 and M2-2",
M2-1 and M2-1 and and Ml-1 and M3- andMl-land
Ml-1 M3-1* M2-1** M2-2* M2-2 M2-2	1	M3-1
Valeraldehyde
/w-Tolualdchydc
w-Hexanal
Identification of compounds > 5 |ig'(in:*hr) on multisorbent cartridges
2-Furancarboxaldehyde	39 43 34 35 35	2	39	II
Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2,2- 39 6	6 16 11	64	19	95
dimethyl-1 -{2-hydroxy-1 -
methyle Ihy I )propy 1 ester
Propanoic acid, 2-mcthvI-, 3- 35 10	7 16 12	55	19	74
hydroxy-2,4,4-trimethylpentyI
ester
Sum of compounds ¦ 5	110 59 47 67 57	25	75	40
Hg/(ins,hr) on multisorhent
cartridges
TVOC analysis of multisorbent 180 150 110 140 130	16	150	16
cartridges	
Mean arithmetic mean of values 5 ng/(m2,hr).
%RSD = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 |ig'(ur«hr).
DNPH - dinitrophenvlhydrazine
= value < 5 fig/(nr-hr)
TVOC ™ total volatile organic compounds
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(W*hr).
Emission factors for compounds identified on mullisorbent cartridges are 'estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identified on DNPH cartridges are "quantitated" emission factors.
•For test squares M2-2, and M3-1, 28 day chamber air samples collected on DNPH cartridges were only analyzed for formaldehyde;
the air samples were not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells)
**For test square M2-1, the 24 hr chamber air sample collected on the multisorbenl cartridge was not analyzed (as indicated by the
blank cells), the 28 day chamber air sample collected on the DNt'I I cartridge was only analyzed for formaldehyde (the air sample was
not analyzed for the other target compounds (as indicated by the blank cells)).
D-29
-------
Table D-14. Emission Factors of Test Squares Cut from Panels of Veneered Wheatboard
(made with Methylene Diisocyante Resin) Coated and Cured with Two Component
Waterborne Polyurethane Coatings System
Emission Factors of Test Squares.
01-2 03-1 02-1 02-2
28 day conditioning
Identification of target compounds • 5 jic/(nv*hr) on DNP11 cartridges
Formaldehyde	200 160 150 170
Acetnldehyde	15 15 13 16
Acetone	....
1'ropionaldchydc	....
2-Butanonc	5	-	5	-
Butyraldchyde	-
Bcnzaldehydc	....
Valcraldehyde	....
m-Tohialdehyde	....
n-Hexanal	6 5	6	6
Mean of
02-1 and
02-2
160
15
Mean and " iiRSD of [''mission Factors
VsRSD of "mean
of
%RSl)nf Mean of "mean of 02-1 and 02-2\
02-1 and 02-1 and 02-2", and 01-2 and 03-
02-2 and 01-2 and 03-1	i
9
15
170
15
13
1
10
Identification of compounds
5 (ig/'(ni2
•hr) 011 multisorbent cartridges




Methane, oxybis-
-
-
6
-
6
0
6
0
2-Propa none
-
-
13
-
13
0
13
0
Methane, dichloro-
-
-
7
-
7
0
7
0
Methane, dichloro-
-
-
17
-
17
0
17
0
Propane, 2-methoxy-2-mclhvl
-
-
7
-
7
0
7
0
Benzene, methyl-
-
6
9
-
9
0
8
28
Octane
8
10
7
8
8
9
9
16
Cyelohexmie, 1,1,3-trimethyl-
-
-
-
5
5
0
5
0
Cyclohexane, 1,2,4-triniethyl-.
5
7
-
10
10
0
7
34
(I alpha.,2 beta .1.beta )-








Hexane. 2,3,4-trimetliyI-
6
H)
6
7
7
11
8
29
Octane, 3-methyl-
6
H)
6
7
7
11
8
29
Nonane
27
40
26
29
28
8
32
23
3-IIexyiie
-
6
-
-

0
6
0
Cyclohexane, propyl-
7
9
7
8
8
9
8
13
Sum of compounds ~ 5
59
98
110
74
92
28
83
25
Hg'(m2'hr) on multisorbent
cartridges	
Continued
D-30
-------
Table D-14. (Continued)
Emission Factors of Test Souares.
ug'fmMir)
TVOC analysis of multisorbent
cartridges	
()l-2
150
03-1
190
()2-l
250
02-2
170
Mean of
02-1 and
02-2
210
Mean and %RSD of Emission Factors
%RSD of "mean
of
%RSD of Mean of "mean of 02-1 and 02-2",
02-1 and 02-1 and 02-2", and 01-2 and 03-
02-2 and 01-2 and 03-1	1
27	180	17
Mean - arithmetic mean of values > 5 fig/(mJ,hr).
%RSI) ~ relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values > 5 jig/(inJ*hr).
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 ng/(m2,hr).
DNPH dinilrophenylhydiazine
= value < 5 (.ig'(m2*hr)
TVOC = total volatile organic compounds
Emission factors for compounds identilled on inultisorl>enl cartridges are "estimated" emission factors.
Emission factors for compounds identilled on DNPH cartridges are "quantitated" emission factors.
D-31
-------
Appendix E
Precision of Chamber Air Concentrations
F--1
-------
Tables E-l through E-3 present precision of chamber air samples. For each test square,
chamber air samples were collected on three separate cartridges: one DNPH cartridge and two
multisorbent cartridges (see Figure 4-2 in the report for the arrangement of the cartridges). For a
select number of test squares, chamber air samples collected on both multisorbent cartridges were
analyzed; the results of these "duplicate" measurements were used to evaluate precision. As
discussed in Section 8.3.1, precision of chamber air samples is expressed as the percent relative
standard deviation (%RSD) between duplicate air samples.
E-2
-------
Table E-l. Precision of Chamber Air Concentrations for Component Study

Chamber Air Concentrations, iie/m®
Mean and %RSD of Concentrations

PBVST2-1
PBVST2-1D*
Mcwi PBVST2-1
%RSD PBVST2-1
1-Butanol
260
260
260
0
1-Pentanol
66
62
64
4
2-Methyl-l -Butanol
25
25
25
0
Acetone
130
120
130
5
2-Heptanone
12
12
12
0
Hcxyl Acetate
-
-


Kthyl-3-Ethoxy-Propionatc
10
11
11
7
o-Xylcnc
-
-


lithylbenzcne
-
-


Naphthalene
-
-


Junipene
34
33
34
2
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)c'hanol
770
740
760
3

PBVS2-1
PBVS2-1D
Mean PBVS2-1
%RSD PBVS2-1
1-Butanol
360
350
360
7
1-Pentanol
29
28
29
1
2-Methyl-1 -Butanol
-
-


Acetone
150
110
130
28
2-Heptanone
19
19
19
0
Hcxyl Acetate
5
5
5
0
Ethyl-3-Ethoxy-Propionatc
-
-


o-Xylcnc
-
-


Ethylbenzeiic
-
-


Naphthalene
-
-


Junipcne
87
85
86
1
2-{2-Butoxyethoxv)cthanol
320
310
320
7
' "0" indicates duplicate air sample
" value < 5 fig/nr.
Mean ' • arithmetic mean of values ¦ 5 (ig.'m1.
%RS1) - relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values 5 (jg'm*.
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were 5 jig/iiv'.
E-3
-------
Table E-2. Precision of Chamber Air Concentrations for Coatings Study

Chamber Air Concentrations, us/m3
Mean and %RSD of Concentrations

B3
B3-1)"
Mean B3
%RSI) B3
l-Pentanol
140
150
150
5
Limoncnc
74
73
74
1
.Junipene
S8
53
56
6
Terpenes
420
350
390
13
l-Butanol
990
970
980
1
Toluene
24
24
24
0
2-Methyl-1 -butanol
53
55
54
3
Butyl acetate
52
50
51
3
1 ^-Propanediol
16
15
16
5
F.thylbcnzenc
340
340
340
0
m,p-Xylcne
810
790
800
2
2-IIcptanone
720
700
710
2
o-Xylcne
260
250
260
3
Propylbenzene
110
100
110
6
Hlhvl 3-ethoxvpropionale
99
97
98
1
1-Methvl-2-pvrrolidinone
18
13
16
23
2-(2-Huto\yctho\y)otlianol
1500
1400
1500
5
Naphthalene
11
II
1!
0
Hexyl acetale
470
460
470
2
indan
14
14
14
0
C3-Benzenes
1300
1200
1300
5
C4-Benzenes
190
180
190
4
Dipropylene glycol, methyl etlicr
-
-


Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 min)
-
-


Unknown 2 (approx. 27.S5 min)
-
-


TVOC
5800
5600
5700
2

C5
C5D
Mean C5
%RSD C5
1-Pcntanol
30
29
30
2
Limonenc
58
57
58'
1
Junipene
42
45
44
5
Terpenes
120
140
130
11
1 -Bufatiol
5
-
5
0
Toluene
-
5
5
0
2-Methyl-l-butanol
-
-


Butyl acetate
-
-


1 ^-Propanediol
-
38
38
0
Ethylbenzene
-
-


m,p-Xylene
-
-


2-Heptanone
12
II
12
6
o-Xylene
-
-


Continued
E-4
-------
Table E-2. (Continued)

Chamber Air Concentrations, ue'in3
Mean and %
RSD of Concentrations

C5
CSD
Mean C5
%RSD C5
Propylbenzene
-
-


Ethyl 3-elhoxypropionate
-
-


1 -Mclhyl-2-pyrrolidinouc
20
34
27
37
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)cthanoI
880
660
770
20
Naphthalene
-
-


llcxyl acetate
-
-


Indan
-
-


C3-Bcii7.cncs
-
-


C4-Bcnzenes
25
26
26
3
Dipropylcne glycol, methyl ether
-
-


Unknown 1 (approx. 27,50 mill)
170
180
ISO
4
Unknown 2 (approx. 27 85 min)
380
170
280
53
TVOC
1 501)
1800
1700
12

CI
C1D
Mean CI
%RSD CI
1 -Pentanol
2K
29
29
2
Limonene
42
62
52
27
Junipene
26
53
40
48
Tcrpenes
76
93
85
14
l-Butanol
-
-


Toluene
-
-


2-Methyl-l-butunol
-
-


Butyl acetate
-
-


1,2-Propanediol
-
-


Ethylbcnzene
-
-


m,p-Xylene
-
-


2-IIeptanonc
16
16
16
0
o-Xylene
-
-


Propylbenzene
-
-


Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-
-


I -Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
2300
3000
2700
18
2 -Q. -Butoxyethoxy)et ha nol
-
-


Naphthalene
-
-


Hexvl acetate
-
-


Indan
-
-


C3-Ben/.enes
-
-


C'4-Bcnzcnes
17
19
18
8
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
220
370
300
35
Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 min)
-
-


Unknown 2 (approx. 27.85 min)
-
-


TVOC
2200
3000
2600
22
Continued
E-5
-------
Table E-2. (Continued)

ChamlK-r Air Concentrations, ua/nv
Mean and %RSD of Concentrations

C12
C12D
Mean CI2 %RSDC12
I -Pcntanol
33
33
33 0
Limoncnc
65
66
66 1
Junipene
50
51
51 1
Terpenes
180
180
180 0
1-Butanol
-
-

Toluene
-
-

2-Melhyl-l-butanol
-
-

Bulyl aeetatc
-
-

1 ^-Propanediol
-
-

Ethylbenzene
-
-

m,p-XyleHC
-
-

2-Heplanonc
10
11
11 7
o-Xylene
-
-

Propylbenzene
-
-

F.lhyl 3-ethoxypropionn!e
-
-

1 -MethyI-2-pyrrolidmonc
-
-

2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)cthanol
-
-

Naphthalene
-
-

Hexyl acetate
-
-

Indan
-
-

C3-Benzenes
-
-

C4-Ben/enes
25
24
25 3
Dipropylenc glycol, methyl ether
-
-

Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 min)
-
-

Unknown 2 (approx. 27 85 min)
-
-

TV(X
740
750
750 1

A10
A10-D
Mean A10 %RSDA10
1-Pentanol
58
58
58 0
Limonene
110
100
110 6
Junipene
91
89
90 2
Terpenes
290
300
300 2
1-Butanol
5
5
5 0
Toluene
-
-

2-Mcthyl-l-butanoI
-
-

Butyl acetate
-
-

1 ^-Propanediol
-
-

Ethylbenzene
-
-

m.p-Xylene
-
-

2-Heptanone
17
17
17 0
o-Xylcne
-
-

Propvlbcnzcne
-
-

Continued
E-6
-------
Table E-2. (Continued)

Chamber Air Concentrations, ite/m3
Mean and %RSD of Concentrations

A10 A10-D
Mean A10 "/.RSDA10
Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-

l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
-

2-(2-Butoxycthoxy)clhanol
-

Naphthalene
-

I Icxyl acetate
•

Indan
-

C3-Benzenes
-

C4-Bcn7enes
51 50
51 1
Dipropylene glyeol, methyl ether
-

Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 mill)
-

Unknown 2 (approx 27.X5 mill)
-

TVOC
1100 1100
1100 0

B9 B9-D
Mean B9 %RSD B9
1-Peiitano!
81 73
77 7
Limonene
92 83
88 7
Junipcne
119 100
110 8
Terpenes
200 190
200 4
1-Butanol
6 6
6 0
Toluene
-

2-Methyl-l-butanol
6
6 0
Butyl acetate
-

1,2-Propanediol
-

Ethvlbenzcne
-

m,p-Xylene
-

2-Meptanone
18 16
17 8
o-Xvlene
-

Propvlbenzene
-

Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-

1 -Mcihyl-2-pyrrolidinonc
-

2-(2-I Jutoxyethoxy)cthanoI
8
8 0
Naphthalene
•

Hcxyl acetate
-

Indan
-

C3-Dcnzcnes
-

C4-Bcnzenes
45 40
43 8
Dipropylcnc glycol, methyl ether
-

Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 min)
-

Unknown 2 (approx 27.85 min)
-

TVOC
1300 1200
1300 5
Continued
E-7
-------
Table E-2. (Continued)

Chamber Air Concentrations, ue'm3
Mean and %RSD of Concentrations

C9 C9-D
Mean C9 %RSD C9
1 -Pcntanol
52 54
53 3
I.imonenc
60 60
60 0
Junipcnc
76 80
78 A
Terpenes
150 160
160 4
1-Iiutanol
-

Toluene
-

2-Mcthyl-l-butanol
-

Butyl acetate
-

1 ^-Propanediol
-

Ethyibcnzcne
-

m,p-Xylene
-

2-TIcptanonc
13 13
13 0
o-Xylenc
-

Propvlbenzene
-

Ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate
-

l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
-

2-(2-Butoxyelhoxy)ethanol
-

Naphthalene
-

Hexyl acetate
-

Indan
-

C3-Bcnzcncs
-

C4-Benzcncs
29 29
29 0
Dipropylcne glycol, methyl ether
-

Unknown 1 (approx. 27.50 min)
-

Unknown 2 (approx 27.85 min)
-

TVOC
910 920
920 1
* "D" indicates duplicate aii sample
=¦ value ¦ 5 tig/nrV
Mean = arithmetic mean of values 5 pg/m5.
%RSD relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values S pg'm\
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSI)" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 fig/rn3.
E-8
-------
Table E-3. Precision of Chamber Air Concentrations for Fiber Study

Chamber Air
Mean and
%RSD of




Concentrations, ae/m1
Concentrations



< 24 hour conditioning
B3-1
B3-1D"
Mean B3-1
•/oRSD B3-1



Acetic acid, methyl ester
4
4
4
0



Methane, diehloro-
-
-





Propane, 2-methoxy-2-im*thyl-
2
-
2
0



Hexane
-
-





Furan,2-methyl-
4
-
4
0



2-Butanone
4
-
4
0



Toluene
-
-





Benzothiazole
-
-





TVOC
84
64
74
19



28 day conditioning







TVOC
66
79
73
13



< 24 hour conditioning
Cl-2
C1-2D
McanCl-2
%RSD Cl-2
C2-2
C2-2D Mean C2-2
°/.RSD C2-2
Acetic acid, methyl ester
4
10
7
61
-
-

2-Propanol, 2-mcthyl-
13
82
48
103
47
51 49
6
Acctie acid ethenyl ester
-
5
5
0
-
3 3
0
2,3-Butanedione
9
5
7
40
2
6 4
71
Acetic acid, ethyl ester
10
20
15
47
8
12 10
28
1-Pcntcne
5
-
5
0
-
-

Acetic acid, propyl ester
-
5
5
t)
-
3 3
0
Bc!i70thiazole
-
-


-
12 12
0
TVOC
110
270
190
60
160
220 190
22
< 24 hour conditioning
D3-1
D3-1D
Mean D3-1
%RSD D3-1



Acetic, acid, methyl ester
6
9
8
28



Methane, diehloro-
-
-





Propaise, 2-inctho.\y-2-melhyl-
-
-





Hexaiie
-
-





Heptane
3
8
6
64



Toluene
-
-





2-1'urancarhoxaldehyde
5
4
5
16



Alpha-Pinene, (-)-
5
4
5
16



Limoncne
7
6
7
11



3-Cyclohexen-1 -ol, 4-methyl-1 -
9
8
9
8



(1-mctliylethyl)-







alpha.-Tcrpincol
25
21
23
12



Junipcnc
11
8
10
22



TVOC
170
160
170
4



Continued
E-9
-------
Table E-3. (Continued)
Chamber Air
Concentrations, im/'m1
< 24 hour conditioning El-2	E1-2D
Acetic acid, methyl ester 29	24
Heptane
Endo-Fcnchol 6	4
2-1'ropanonc,	1- -	-
cyclohexylidene-
3-Cyelohexen-l-ol,4-niethy!-	1-8	7
(1-inethylethyl)-
cndo-Bomcnl 7	4
.alpha.-Tcrpincol 28	23
TVOC 170	150
Mean and %RSD ot"
Concentrations
Mean El-2 %RSD El-2
27
6
26
160
13
28
39
14
9
26 day conditioning
Pentanal
2-Furancarboxa!dehyde
Alpha-Pinene. (-)-
2-Beta-Pinene
1-Dccyne
Bornyleiie
TVOC
F2-2 F2-2D Mean F2-2 %RSD F2-2
8	8	0
190
11
180
11
190
< 24 hour conditioning	N2-1
1,3-Butadiene, 2-inethyl-	5
Unknown
Acetic acid, methyl ester	94
1 Icxanc	5
2-Butcnal, (!•!)-	6
Hutanal	8
2-Hutanone
3-l,cntcn-2-ol	6
1-Hcptcnc
Ileptiine	5
1-Butanol
Pentanal	19
Pentanal	15
Toluene	4
Octane	45
Acetic acid	11
1-Pentanol	64
1-Pentanol	6
N2-1D Mean N2-1 %RSD N2-1
4	5	16
90	92	3
4	5	16
8	7	20
8	8	0
5	5	0
9	8	28
3	3	0
7	6	24
4	4	0
65	42	77
98	57	104
4	4	0
38	42	12
11	0
51	58	16
4	5	28
Continued
E-10
-------
Table E-3. (Continued)
Chamlxjr Air	Mean and %RSD of
Concentrations, ug^m3 Concentrations
< 24 hour conditioning
N2-1
N2-1D
Mean N2-1
%RSD N2-1
1,4-Pentadiene, 3-ethenyl-
15
20
18
20
Bicyclo(2,2,l ]hqit-2-ene, 2,7,7-
Trimcthyl-
-
3
3
0
< 24 hour conditioning
N2-1
N2-1D
Mean N2-1
%RSD N2-1
Tricyclenc
13
-
13
0
2-Ueptanonc
29
25
27
10
Heptanal
-
-


Alpha-Pinene, (-)-
180
220
200
14
Camphene
73
93
83
17
1,3,5-Cyelohcpfatricnc
5

5
0
C3-Benzene
-
6
6
0
Pcntanoic acid
25
2
14
120
2-Bcta-Pinenc
150
170
160
9
Furan. 2-pcntyl-
12
-
12
0
2-1 leptcnal, (E)-
19
29
24
29
Renzalcichyde
62
53
58
11
Delta.i-Careiie
16
6
1 1
64
7-( )clcn^1-ol
13
10
12
18
Benzene. 4-ellicnyl-l 2-
dimcthvl-
5
6
6
13
Limonenc
46
49
48
4
Benzene, l-methyM-(l-
methylothyl)-
27
26
27
3
Hexanoic acid
79
14
47
99
2-CX;tciial, (E)-
23
18
21
17
1-Oc'tanol
12
11
12
6
2,5-1 Icxancdionc
6
-
6
0
I'enchone
10
7
9
25
1,6-1 Icptadicne, 23.6-trinicthyl-
5
-
5
0
Endo-Fenchol
IS
15
17
13
Alpha-Campliolenc
Aldehyde
33
23
28
25
trans-Vcrbenol
13
8
II
34
Hicyclo|2.2.1 ]hcpt-2-en-2-
ainine. N JJ-din>elhyl-
18
12
15
28
Camplior
11
10
11
7
Bicyclo[3 1.1 ]hepl:m-3-one,
2,6,6-trimethvl-, (1
4
4
4
0
Phenol, 4-methyl-
26
-
26
0
1,3.7-Octatrieiie, 2,7-dimcthvl-
-
11
11
0
1 -Borncol
10
6
8
35
Continued
E-ll
-------
Table E-3. (Continued)
Chamber Air
Mean and %RSI) of
Concentrations
l-.alpha.-Terpineol
IS
14
16
18
Bieyelo[3.1.1 ]hept-2-ene-2-
20
10
15
47
carboxaldehyde, 6,6-d




< 24 hour conditioning
N2-1
N2-1D"
Mean N2-1
%KSD
Bicye!o[3.1.1 ]hcpt-3-en-2-onc.
16
7
12
55
4,6.6-trimethyl-




Ethanone. 1 -(2-methylphenyl)-
11
8
10
22
2-Decenal, (Z)-
5
4
5
16
Junipene
22
19
21
10
TVOC
2100
2100
2100
0
29 day conditioning	N2-2
Acetic acid, methyl ester	22
2-Propanol	2 6
Heptane
Pentanal	30
Acetic acid
1-Pentanol	21
Heptanal	8
Alpha-Pinene, (-)-	7
Benzaldehyde	14
D-Fenchyl alcohol
Camphor
TVOC	400
N2-2D Mean N2-2 %RSD N2-2
22	0
45	36	38
24	27	16
18	20	il
8	8	0
8	8	9
13	14	5
5	5	0
400	400	0
<24 hour conditioning	12-2
Methane, dichloro-	2
Propane, 2-methoxy-2-methyI- 5
Furan. 2-methyl-
3-Buten-2-onc	6
2-UuUinone	120
2-Propenoie acid, 2-	4
methyl-, methyl ester
2-1'entanone, 4-methyl-	48
Toluene	140
Unknown	14
TVOC	400
12-2 D Mean 12-2 %RSD 12-2
5	4	61
16	II	71
4	5	28
J 30	130	5
4	4	0
SI	50	4
140	140	0
II	13	17
440	420	7
< 24 hour conditioning	Ml-1 MI-ID	Mean M1-1 %RSD Ml-1
2-Propanol	11	6	9	42
2-Propunol, 2-methyl- 3	-	3	0
Disulfide, dimethyl 7	5	6	24
Toluene	15	13	14	10
Continued
E-12
-------
Table E-3. (Continued)

Chamber Air
Mean and %RSI) of

Conce
ntrntions. uu'in1
Concentrations
< 24 hour conditioning
Ml-1
MI-ID
Mean Ml-1
%RSD Ml-1
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
120
30
75
85
< 24 hour conditioning
Ml-1
MI-ID
Mean Ml-1
%RSD Ml-1
Benzaldehyde
12
9
11
20
2-Furancarboxylic acid, methyl
5
3
4
35
ester




TVOC
360
230
300
31
28 day conditioning
M2-1
M2-1D
Mean M2-1
%RSD M2-1
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
34
34
34
0
Propanoic acid, 2-mctliyI-, 2.2-
-
6
6
0
dimcthyl-1 -(2-hydroxy-1 -




melhyleUiyl)propyl ester




Propanoic acid, 2-mcthyl-, 3-
6
8
7
20
hydroxy-2,4,4-trimethvlpeiilyl




ester




TVOC
110
110
no
0
28 day conditioning
02-2
O2-20
Mean 02-2
%RSI> 02-2
Methane, oxybis-
-
-


2-1'ropanonc
-
-


Methane, diehloro-
-
-


Methane, dichloro-
-
-


Propanc, 2-methoxy-2-niethyl-
-
-


Benzene. methyl-
-
-


Octane
8
8
8
0
Cyclohexanc, 1,1,3-ti imethyl-
5
5
5
0
Cyclohexane, 1,2,4-trimethy!-,
10
9
10
7
(1 .alpha.,2.beta.,4 beta.y




Hcxanc, 2,3,4-trimcthyI-
8
7
8
9
Octanc, 3-mcthyl-
7
7
7
0
Nonane
31
28
30
7
3-1 Iexync
-
-


Cyclohexanc. propyl-
8
7
8
9
TVOC
180
170
180
4
1 "D" indicates duplicate air sample
_ value 5 ng/m3.
Mean = arithmetic mean of values • 5 jig'm3.
%RSI) = relative standard deviation (as a percentage of the mean) of values -¦ 5 iig'in5.
Blank cells under "mean" and/or "%RSD" columns indicate that all values for calculating these parameters were < 5 fig/trr.
E-13
-------
Appendix F
Accuracy Calculations
F-l
-------
Table F-l. Summary of Accuracy Calculations
VOCs
Aldehydes and Ketones
Screening Study
(semi-quantitative
analysis for VOCs)
Component Study
Coalings Study
Fiber Study (semi-
quantitative analysis
for VOCs)
not evaluated
3 sets analyzed;
accuracy goals met
not ev aluated
2	spiked cartridges analyzed for 13 compounds; accuracy
goals met (see Table F-2)
3	spiked cartridges analyzed; accuracy goals met for 10
of 13 compounds (see Table F-3)
3 spiked cartridges analyzed for formaldehyde; accuracy
goals met for 2 of 3 cartridges; very low recovery was
found for third cartridge, which may have been due to a
bad injection
1 accuracy not evaluated for semi-quantitative measurements of VOCs
F-2
-------
Table F-2. Accuracy Data for Component Study
Percent Recovery
Spiked Compounds
Cartridge 1
Cartridge 2
Formaldehyde
114
106
Acclaldchydc
115
109
Acetone
116
111
Acrolein
129
117
Propionaldehvdc
99
91
Crotonaldehyde
121
111
2-Dutanone
98
90
Meth acrolein
128
116
Butrv aldehyde
98
89
Benzaldehydc
103
94
Valeraldehyde
98
91
m-Tolualdehyde
91
90
Hexanal
92
77
F-3
-------
Table F-3. Accuracy Data for Coatings Study
Percent Recovery of Amount Spiked
Spiked Compounds"
Cartridge 1
Cartridge 2
Cartridge 3
Formaldehyde
110
100
98
Acetone
180
154
160
Acrolein
110
100
95
Propionaldehyde
100
100
100
Crotonaldehyde
95
99
96
Butryaldehydc
97
86
93
Ben/.aldchyde
110
97
J10
Valeraldehyde
82
82
81
m-ToIualdehyde
120
130
120
Hexanal
99
97
100
"Contamination and stability problems prevented analysis of acetaldehyde, 2-butanonc,
and methacrolein.
F-4
-------
Appendix G
Names and Addresses of Coatings and Fiber Panel Participants
G-l
-------
The following coatings and fiber panel participants agreed to have their names and
addresses appear in this report.
Bayer Corporation - supplier of two-component polyurethane coatings system
100 Bayer Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
Contact: Mike Dvorchak, Ph: 412-777-4149
Gridcore Systems International - manufacturer of panel made from recycled corrugated
cardboard
1400 Canal Avenue
Long Beach, C,A
90813
Contact: Bob Noble, Ph: 562-901-1492
The Homaoste Company - manufacturer of panel made from recycled newspaper
Box 7240
West Trenton, NJ
08628-0240
Contact: Manker Mills, Ph: 800-257-9491
PrimeBoard, Inc. - manufacturer of unfinished and finished wheatboard panels
2111 N3M Drive
Wahpeton, NO
58075
Contact: Kevin Smith, Ph: 800-943-2823
R&D Coatings, Inc. - supplier of acrylate coatings system
P.O. Box 325
Wexford, PA
15090
Contact: Don Eshenbaugh, Ph: 412-935-6830
G-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverie before comple
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/R-98-146
3.
a. title and subtitle The Application of Pollution Prevention
Techniques to Reduce Indoor Air Emissions from
Engineered Wood Products
5. REPORT DATE
November 1998
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHORIS) c Brockmann> L.S. Sheldon, D.A.
Whitaker, and J. N. Baskir
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS
Research Triangle Institute
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR822002
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVEREO
Final; 10/93 - 1/98
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.supplementary notes project officers are Kelly W. Leovic and Elizabeth M.
Howard, Mail Drop 54, 919/541-7717.
16. abstractrep0rt gives results of an investigation of pollution prevention options
to reduce indoor emissions from a type of finished engineered wood. Emissions were
screened from four types of finished engineered wood: oak-veneered particleboard
coated and cured with a heat-curable, acid-catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat
(PBVST); oak-veneered handboard coated and cured with a stain, and a heat-curable,
acid-catalyzed alkyd-urea sealer and topcoat (HBVSST); particleboard overlaid with
vinyl (PBVY); and particleboard overlaid with melamine (PBM). Within the scope of
the emissions and performance tests of the study, three types of coatings were found
to have significantly lower emission factors of summed volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and formaldehyde relative to those for the heat-curable, acid-catalyzed
alkyd-urea coatings: a two-component waterborne polyurethane, an ultraviolet (UV)-
curable acrylate, and a UV-and-heat-curable multi-functional acrylate-free emulsion.
Three types of engineered fiber panels were identified as having significantly lower
emission factors of summed VOCs and formaldehyde relative to those for particle-
board: medium-density fiberboard made with methylene diisocynate (MDl), a wheat-
board panel made with MDI resin, and a panel made from recycled corrugated card-
board. All three fiber panels are in the market place.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Pollution Volatility
Emission Formaldehyde
Wood Products Polyurethane Resins
Particle Boards Paperboards
Sealers Melamines
Coatings Acrylates
Organic Compounds
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Indoor Air
Engineered Wood Pro-
ducts
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOCs)
13 B 20M
14G
iil in, ii j
11G
11A
11C
07C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
198
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------