...
首页> 外文期刊>Atmospheric environment >Formaldehyde emission-Comparison of different standard methods
【24h】

Formaldehyde emission-Comparison of different standard methods

机译:甲醛释放量-不同标准方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The emission of formaldehyde is an important factor in the evaluation of the environmental and health effects of wood-based board materials. This article gives a comparison between commonly used European test methods: chamber method [EN 717-1, 2004. Wood-based panels-determination of formaldehyde release-Part 1: formaldehyde emission by the chamber method. European Standard, October 2004], gas analysis method [EN 717-2, 1994. Wood-based panels-determination of formaldehyde release-Part 2: formaldehyde release by the gas analysis method, European Standard, November 1994], flask method [EN 717-3, 1996. Wood-based panels-determination of formaldehyde release-Part 3: formaldehyde release by the flask method, European Standard, March 1996], perforator method [EN 120, 1993. Wood based panels-determination of formaldehyde content-extraction method called perforator method, European Standard, September 1993], Japanese test methods: desiccator methods [JIS A 1460, 2001. Building boards. Determination of formaldehyde emission-desiccator method, Japanese Industrial Standard, March 2001 and JAS MAFF 233, 2001] and small chamber method [JIS A 1901, 2003. Determination of the emission of volatile organic compounds and aldehydes for building products-small chamber method, Japanese Industrial Standard, January 2003], for solid wood, particleboard, plywood and medium density fiberboard. The variations between the results from different methods can partly be explained by differences in test conditions. Factors like edge sealing, conditioning of the sample before the test and test temperature have a large effect on the final emission result. The Japanese limit for F~(****) of 0.3 mg l~(-1) (in desiccator) for particleboards was found to be equivalent to 0.04 mg m~(-3) in the European chamber test and 2.8 mg per 100g in the perforator test. The variations in inter-laboratory tests are much larger than in intra-laboratory tests; the coefficient of variation is 16% and 6.0% for the chamber method, 25% and 3.5% for the gas analysis method and 15% and 5.2% for the desiccator method.
机译:甲醛的排放是评估人造板材料对环境和健康影响的重要因素。本文对常用的欧洲测试方法进行了比较:腔室法[EN 717-1,2004。人造板-甲醛释放量的测定-第1部分:腔室法释放甲醛。欧洲标准,2004年10月],气体分析方法[EN 717-2,1994。人造板-甲醛释放量的测定-第2部分:通过气体分析法释放的甲醛,欧洲标准,1994年11月],烧瓶法[EN 717-3,1996年。人造板甲醛释放量的测定第3部分:烧瓶法甲醛释放量,欧洲标准,1996年3月],穿孔法[EN 120,1993年。人造板-甲醛含量的测定-萃取方法称为穿孔器法,欧洲标准,1993年9月],日本测试方法:干燥器法[JIS A 1460,2001。日本工业标准,2001年3月和JAS MAFF 233,2001中甲醛释放-干燥剂的测定方法和小室方法[JIS A 1901,2003。建筑产品中挥发性有机化合物和醛的排放的测定-小室方法, [日本工业标准,2003年1月],用于实木,刨花板,胶合板和中密度纤维板。不同方法得出的结果之间的差异可以部分通过测试条件的差异来解释。诸如边缘密封,测试前样品的预处理和测试温度等因素对最终发射结果有很大影响。日本对刨花板F〜(****)的限量为0.3 mg l〜(-1)(在干燥器中)在欧洲室内试验中相当于0.04 mg m〜(-3),每升为2.8 mg在穿孔器测试中100克。实验室间测试的差异远大于实验室内测试的差异。室法的变异系数为16%和6.0%,气体分析法的变异系数为25%和3.5%,干燥器法的变异系数为15%和5.2%。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号