research and outline the benefits of timber compared to plastic

5 reasons why sustainable timber must become a core global building material

Sustainable timber has a key role to play in reaching net zero. Image:  Jace & Afsoon on Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Stephanie Burrell

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Forests is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, net zero carbon cities.

Listen to the article

• When sourced from sustainable timber, biobased buildings can be hugely instrumental in combating climate change as they store vast amounts of carbon.
• Sustainable timber buildings are easy and cost-effective to build and run and they are highly durable and fireproof.
• Sustainable timber buildings create jobs and boost the economy and they make for healthier living and working environments.

When sourced from sustainably managed, climate-smart forests , biobased buildings can be hugely instrumental in combating climate change, driving investment back into forests while simultaneously creating a carbon sink in the built environment. There are five reasons why sustainable timber must become one of Earth’s core building materials, these are:

1. Timber building materials store vast amounts of carbon

Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere and much of that carbon remains stored within the tree's woody biomass even once they’re cut down and processed into wood and used for anything from the frame of a building to a door or kitchen unit. Once that wood reaches the end of its natural use, providing it’s recycled into another long-life product – a timber facade is turned into bio-insulation, for example – that carbon remains stored within the structure it has morphed into.

So, while traditional buildings made from concrete and steel are expected to produce around 2,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions, an equivalent timber building can match this in carbon storage .

And, not only does timber construction benefit the environment by helping to cut down carbon emissions by substituting for carbon-intensive materials, it can also create demand for wood from sustainable well-managed forests, thereby paying for management that reduces the likelihood of forest fires and providing habitat for wildlife.

Have you read?

These are the 5 drivers of forest loss, how can we make the world's buildings net-zero, 2. timber building materials are durable and even fireproof.

Using the latest manufacturing processes, wood can now be engineered into mass timber, where the wood is layered and pressed together to create extremely tough and resilient wooden structures. Different incarnations of mass timber are now being used to replace many carbon-emitting, highly durable construction materials, including concrete and steel.

Mass timber is even proven to be fire and earthquake-resistant. It’s difficult to ignite and can withstand severe earthquakes and explosions .

The Climate Smart Forest Economy Program (CSFEP) is working with Easy Housing , for example, to scale timber-based, flexible, affordable housing solutions. Easy Housing’s flexible, prefabricated timber homes can withstand natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes and category 4 hurricanes, and they are termite resistant.

The Global Risks Report 2023 ranked failure to mitigate climate change as one of the most severe threats in the next two years, while climate- and nature- related risks lead the rankings by severity over the long term.

The World Economic Forum’s Centre for Nature and Climate is a multistakeholder platform that seeks to safeguard our global commons and drive systems transformation. It is accelerating action on climate change towards a net-zero, nature-positive future.

Learn more about our impact:

• Scaling up green technologies: Through a partnership with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, and over 65 global businesses, the First Movers Coalition has committed $12 billion in purchase commitments for green technologies to decarbonize the cement and concrete industry.
• 1 trillion trees: Over 90 global companies have committed to conserve, restore and grow more than 8 billion trees in 65 countries through the 1t.org initiative – which aims to achieve 1 trillion trees by 2030.
• Sustainable food production: Our Food Action Alliance is engaging 40 partners who are working on 29 flagship initiatives to provide healthy, nutritious, and safe foods in ways that safeguard our planet. In Vietnam, it supported the upskilling of 2.2 million farmers and aims to provide 20 million farmers with the skills to learn and adapt to new agricultural standards.
• Eliminating plastic pollution: Our Global Plastic Action Partnership is bringing together governments, businesses and civil society to shape a more sustainable world through the eradication of plastic pollution. In Ghana, more than 2,000 waste pickers are making an impact cleaning up beaches, drains and other sites.
• Protecting the ocean: Our 2030 Water Resources Group has facilitated almost $1 billion to finance water-related programmes , growing into a network of more than 1,000 partners and operating in 14 countries/states.
• Circular economy: Our SCALE 360 initiative is reducing the environmental impacts of value chains within the fashion, food, plastics and electronics industries, positively impacting over 100,000 people in 60 circular economy interventions globally.

Want to know more about our centre’s impact or get involved? Contact us .

3. Timber buildings are easy and cost-effective to construct and run

Wood is also lighter and – because it can often be prefabricated off-site – easier to manoeuvre and construct than concrete and steel. And, as engineered wood is easier to manufacture than less green alternatives, speeds up the build process and creates a healthier, safer and more pleasant working environment, it can work out as cost-effective too. It could even become cheaper than concrete and steel in the future.

“The economies of scale that have developed for concrete and steel don’t yet exist for the mass-timber industry, but we’re getting pretty close to economic parity with steel and concrete for particular building types, say six to 12 storeys high,” explains Alan Organschi, Director, Innovation Labs at Bauhaus Earth and principal and partner at Gray Organschi Architecture . “This is because with such a lightweight and workable material as wood, smaller crews using lighter tools and less intensive material handling equipment can assemble wooden components pre-manufactured to precise tolerances in off-site factories. You have to look at the entire construction process from beginning to end to properly assess and capture the potential cost benefits of these new bio-based material systems.”

The timber frames of Easy Housing's affordable housing solutions are prefabricated in local carpentry workshops across East Africa, for example, and the average-sized project can be completed within three months.

Timber is also a more effective insulator than metals, glass and concrete , so timber buildings require less heating in winter and less cooling in summer, making them more energy and cost-efficient to run too.

4. Timber construction creates jobs and boosts the economy

From sustainable forest management to carpentry, encouraging the use of locally sourced, sustainable wood creates jobs and benefits local economies.

Recognizing the environmental and economic impact of using wood in construction, some national governments are now moving to mandate that all new buildings must be constructed partially from timber. The French government now requires all new public buildings to contain at least 50% wood and 20% of new homes built in Amsterdam must be built of timber or bio-based materials from 2025.

As wood becomes the go-to construction material, it will jump-start mass timber supply chains worldwide. We will see more factories producing cross-laminated timber (CLT), the most commonly used mass timber product today, but this must be done in a climate-smart way.

In line with the very ethos of a climate-smart forest economy, which ensures that the climate contribution is indeed net positive, the supply of sustainable wood to these factories must scale in proportion to demand. By applying holistic carbon measures across the sink, storage and substitution functions of the timber value chain and avoided deforestation legislation and certification schemes, we have to hand the tools necessary to avoid demand leading to the degradation of the forest resource.

In East Africa, CSFEP is working to develop the climate-smart forest economy in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda . It’s working with architecture, engineering and construction company BuildX Studio to create a new regional value chain and market that will literally build demand for sustainable timber in construction and help support reforestation. The CSFEP is engaging relevant stakeholders interested in supporting and investing in a climate-smart forest economy to develop a network that can support growth and help address barriers in the value chain.

5. Timber buildings make for healthier living and working environments

A growing body of evidence shows that people like to be connected to nature and buildings designed to be biophilic, or in tune with nature, respond to this desire. We benefit physically and mentally from living and working in timber buildings.

A study by Rice et al . found that people seem to have an innate understanding that wood creates healthier environments and naturally view timber-built rooms as warm, comfortable, relaxing, inviting and natural spaces. While this Slovakian study found that being in a building made from natural materials and fabrics positively impacts work efficiency and creativity and this research found that a hospital waiting room constructed from wood, helps to reduce the stress levels of visitors.

UpLink, the World Economic Forum's open innovation platform, and Manulife have launched the Sustainable Forest Economy Challenge , a call for start-ups that provide innovative and scalable models for sustainable forest management. To find out more and to submit your solution, visit UpLink.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Nature and Biodiversity .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Here’s what adventuring can teach you about leadership

May 29, 2024

What causes coral bleaching, and how can we stop it?

Andrea Willige

Why nature-positive cities can help transform the planet

Carlos Correa Escaf

May 24, 2024

How Japan is harnessing blue carbon as a pathway to net zero 

Naoko Tochibayashi

Tourism is bouncing back - but can we make travel sustainable?

Robin Pomeroy and Sophia Akram

May 23, 2024

Businesses must do more to protect biodiversity: Here are key steps to a nature-positive future

Anna-Maria Fyfe Hug

May 22, 2024

Better Meets Reality

About Sustainability, & Related Topics & Issues

Is Wood More Sustainable Than Plastic? (Wood vs Plastic Comparison)

In this guide, we outline whether wood might be more sustainable than plastic , and vice versa.

We compare some of the key factors involved in the production, usage and waste management of each.

Summary – Is Wood More Sustainable Than Plastic?

Breaking Down Which Might Be More Sustainable

Ultimately, whether wood is more sustainable than plastic depends on variables such as the application it is being used for, and how it’s sourced, produced and managed on a product or item case by case basis.

For example, they might be used as raw building materials, or they may be fabricated and treated with various finishes to make furniture and other processed items.

But, general sustainability consideration for wood vs plastic might be:

1. Sourcing Of Materials

Wood can come from tree plantations, and trees are a natural and renewable resource

These plantation forests may or may not be sustainably managed (FSC certification is one example of a sustainably sourced certification)

Wood may also come from pre or post consumer sources, such as off-cuts of wood, and a certain % of wood material in new wood products will in this case be recycled wood material.

Plastic on the other hand is traditionally a synthetic material sourced from fossil fuel feed stock.

Plastic can be recycled and used for new plastic products, but not all plastic is recyclable .

2. Production

Wood may use less energy and have a lower carbon footprint compared to plastic in the production stage.

Although, there may be some indicators where plastic is more eco friendly in the production process depending on the type of wood it is being compared to

3. Transport and Delivery

Plastic tends to be a lighter material than solid wood, and may have a lower transport and delivery footprint due to lower energy and fuel consumption.

4. Waste Management

Wood is an organic material that may have greater potential for re-use and recycling compared to some plastics

Plastic in general as a material has a low recycling rate in some countries comparative to some other materials

5. Pollution

Wood is biodegradable, whereas plastic is not.

Comparatively, plastic takes a long time to break down , and may contribute pollution issues that wood may not.

Overall, wood may be a more sustainable material across various indicators.

However, finished wood products with other materials added like metal and plastic trimming, glues, varnishes etc., have a significantly higher eco footprint [than just wood or timber by itself] (sustainability.stackexchange.com)

Other Relevant Considerations For Wood

Note that wood pulp is also used for the production of paper, which we compared to plastic in this guide .

Paper has a different sustainability footprint to raw wood, as paper mills are known to not be very eco friendly

Examples Of Products With Both Wood & Plastic Options

Building Materials

Furniture (chair, bed, table, bench, etc.)

Flooring (timber flooring vs vinyl flooring made from PVC)

Wood vs Plastic: Comparison

General Sustainability Of Each Material

– Sourcing Of Materials

Wood comes from trees, which are a renewable natural resource.

Trees can be sustainably grown and managed as tree stock.

Plastic comes from natural gas and crude oil non renewable fossil fuel feedstock.

Some may question whether we will run out of fossil fuels like oil or natural gas (used as a feedstock for plastic) anytime soon .

– Production

At the production stage, wood may be more sustainable across various aspects and indicators:

Wood can be fairly energy efficient in production compared to metal and plastic. Most of the energy used in timber production especially comes in drying the timber (fwpa.com.au).

Materials such as concrete, plastic or aluminium, require a lot of energy from fossil fuels to produce compared to timber (reuters.com).

In addition, there is very little waste when wooden products are made, whether it’s floorboards, furniture, doors, or something else entirely. Any residual chippings can be burned as an energy source, or used as sawdust during manufacture (greenne.com)

It’s also worth mentioning that trees both absorb carbon, and produce oxygen.

– Delivery & Transport

Solid wood is usually heavier than plastic, which might make delivering and transporting it more expensive, and use more fuel and have a higher carbon footprint.

It may also be less space efficient.

It would be interesting to compare the eco impact of the U value or insulation value of timber vs uPVC vs aluminum window frames. But, we couldn’t find any exact figures.

It is noted though that the cellular makeup of wood means that it naturally retains heat more effectively than other materials (greenne.com)

– Waste Management & Recycling

From a waste management, recycling and re-use perspective, wood may be an efficient material to use that has high re-use potential.

Wood can be burnt for energy as waste, but so can plastic .

However, some reports say that timber incineration for energy production is carbon neutral

[Timber mills make use of] The entire tree … Bark is removed and used for mulch and decorative landscaping. First cuts and unusable board feet are recovered or culled for use in engineered wood products. Board ends are cut up and sold as hobby wood. Sawdust and shavings are packaged for animal bedding. In some mills, scrap wood is even used to produce energy or steam to keep the mill and kilns running (ironwoods.com).

In addition, wood is usually able to be upcycled, salvaged, and reclaimed easily from timber mills (used for secondary applications such as mulching and used for landscaping for example, or, off cuts can be used for other uses) (reuters.com)

Of the approximate 70m tons of wood sent to landfill annually, the US government estimates 30m tons of it could have been reused [and there is potential to reclaim more wood from house remodelling and demolition than what we currently do] (theguardian.com).

The incineration of timber for energy production can be regarded as CO2 neutral (sustainability.stackexchange.com)

Using recycled wood in construction and then burning it as fuel could lead to a reduction in carbon emissions by up to 135 million tonnes a year (reuters.com).

– Pollution

Plastic pollution ( in the ocean , and on land ) is currently reported as an issue far more than pollution from wood or timber.

Plastic also breaks down into microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment .

– Impact On Humans

The potential negative impact of plastic on humans and human health might be more significant than wood

Additives in plastic like BPA for example might be one potential concern.

Micro plastics in the air indoors that humans may inhale are also more closely linked to plastic furniture and textiles .

– Impact On Wild Life & Environment

Plastic may have  more of a negative impact on wildlife than wood.

Ingestion, entanglement and leaching of chemicals may be examples of potential issues.

Although, … wood … from ‘illegal logging or irresponsible deforestation’ [may be a potential issue for wild life and the environment] (reuters.com)

– Durability

Both materials can last a long time, but hardwood in particular can last up to 100 years as a door (greenne.com)

Some types of plastic such as some soft plastics and some packaging plastics have a high waste rate , and this obviously means more waste is generated compared to longer life plastics.

– Cost/Economy

Both materials are reasonably affordable.

Wood can beat out plastic for some products though:

‘Wooden pallets are often less expensive to acquire than plastic pallets, and they are usually able to be used for more extended periods of time’ (palletone.com)

Wood vs Plastic In Building, Furniture & Other Applications

Across various applications, wood may be more sustainable as a material than plastic, or, may outperform plastic across certain indicators.

Some of those indicators may include greenhouse has emissions, energy consumption to produce, eco friendliness to dispose of, and pollution they are responsible for.

Wood is more favorable than most other material substitutes when it comes to global warming potential of different materials in construction and furniture (sustainability.stackexchange.com)

Other studies also show wood as being one of the most eco friendly materials across various measures/indicators for building materials, furniture, TV units, window frames, and other applications (fwpa.com.au)

Furniture, floors and doors made out of wood require less energy to produce than aluminium or plastic, and on top of that wood continues to store carbon for years … Carbon stored by wood products offsets nearly all of the greenhouse gas emissions related to their production (reuters.com)

Wood is by far the superior choice for building in all categories: total energy used to build, occupy, and dispose of; air and water emissions produced during manufacturing; solid waste generated in production and recovery; greenhouse gases produced during manufacturing; ecological resource use (ironwoods.com)

In the ironwoods.com resource link below, they have two good tables comparing wood and plastic across various eco and performance indicators

The Sustainability Of Plastic

Read more specifically about the sustainability of plastic in this guide .

This guide also outlines some of the overall pros and cons of plastic .

Other Factors To Consider

– Just as there are different types of plastic , there are different types of wood.

Each different type of wood (and wood material, product or item) can have a different sustainability footprint 

– The waste management systems, facilities and technology in a given country or State make a difference to the sustainability not just of different materials, but different waste items and products (because of how different waste materials and items are processed among the different disposal options at different rates)

– Whether or not the wood product is made of recycled wood can make a difference

The same applies to salvaging wood where possible from existing wood products 

– How long a wood product or item lasts, or how many times it can be used/re-used before being thrown out, impacts it’s sustainability footprint

– Sourcing wood from sustainably managed wood stock makes a difference in terms of sustainability

Sustainability forestry certification are one example of this

– The sustainability of products containing wood can change when they are used in combination with other materials and substances

Wood based products can come made with other materials like glues, plastics, metal, finishes & treatments, etc – all these additional materials and substances can change the sustainability footprint of a wood product (sustainability.stackexchange.com)

1. https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6896/wood-vs-plastic-vs-metal-furniture-and-other-items-is-the-wood-product-genera

2. https://inhabitat.com/materials-smackdown-whats-greener-wood-metal-or-plastic/

3. https://www.reuters.com/article/climatechange-forests-furniture/ditch-metal-and-plastic-and-turn-to-wood-to-save-the-planet-says-u-n-idUSL8N1A63B3

4. http://www.greenne.com/wood-environmentally-friendly-choice/

5. https://www.palletone.com/why-wood-is-the-most-sustainable-and-durable-material-for-pallets/

6. http://ironwoods.com/woods-vs-plastics/

7. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/recycled-wood-green-sustainable-built-environment

8. https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/is-paper-more-sustainable-than-plastic-comparison/

9. https://www.fwpa.com.au/images/marketaccess/PN03.2103%20furniture%20review%20WEB.pdf

10. https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/plastic-pollution-on-land-faq-guide/

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Frontiers in Built Environment
• Sustainable Design and Construction
• Research Topics

Wood in Built Environment – Benefits, Challenges and Future

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Wood has been used in construction and infrastructures throughout millennia and it is considered as one of the oldest building materials. The fact that timber is a natural product and aligned with the demand of modern societies for sustainability has boosted its popularity. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from ...

Keywords : Wood, timber buildings, indoor environment, wood modification, sustainability

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2018

Minimizing environmental impacts of timber products through the production process “From Sawmill to Final Products”

• Shankar Adhikari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8822-433X 1 &
• Barbara Ozarska 2  

Environmental Systems Research volume  7 , Article number:  6 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

91k Accesses

45 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

As awareness of climate and environment issues increases and consumption habits change, new opportunities are opening up for the forest industry and wood construction to develop functional green solutions to meet consumers’ needs. Wood is a versatile raw material and the only renewable construction material. The manufacture of wood products and structures consumes little energy in comparison to similar products and structures made of other materials. Unlike other materials, most of the energy needed to manufacture wood products is derived from renewable energy sources. The global timber sector currently faces the dual challenges of meeting the growing demand of quality timber products and minimising possible adverse impacts on the environment and human health. Major sources of environmental impacts occur throughout the wood supply chain from sawmills to final products. The major objective of this paper is to explore ways to reduce the environmental impacts of timber products, from sawmills to final products. The specific objectives include the identification of major sources and mechanisms of environmental impacts from timber products, the assessment of the status of energy consumption and GHG emission in wood products during timber processing and manufacturing as well as identifying the potential ways to minimize these environmental impacts.

Amidst growing environmental consciousness and increasing demand for timber products, the importance of fulfilling growing demand for these products on the one hand, and at the same minimizing environmental impacts, is increasingly recognized. While FAO ( 2001 ) had predicted that by the end of 2020, global consumption of industrial timber products will increase by 45%, UK based sustainable real estate organization FIM, based on existing growth levels, has forecasted that global timber consumption in 2020 will be 2.3 billion cubic meters. This is an increase of 24% from the 2015 level and equivalent to a 4.4% increase per annum (FIM 2017 ). Moreover, The World Bank has also forecasted that global timber demand is set to quadruple by 2050 (FIM 2017 ). As a result, there is growing concern about fulfilling the need for increasing demand for timber products without deteriorating the world’s forest resources. Hence, enhanced insight is required into ways of improving the efficiency of timber production process, reducing wood wastage and helping the timber sector to address growing environmental challenges (Eshun et al. 2012 ).

Timber products are regarded as products produced from renewable and sustainable environmental resources (Klein et al. 2016 ). However, as other products, timber products may create various kinds of environmental impacts at different stages of the timber product supply chain, from harvesting to their disposal (Fig.  1 ). A major source of the environmental impacts is the consumption of energy required to produce timber products and emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) during the manufacturing process from raw materials to the final products. Although production of timber products also involves emission of carbon, forest and timber provide carbon sinks because trees consume carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through carbon sequestration (Le Quéré et al. 2009 ). However, the forestry sector in general, and removal of trees through deforestation contribute to up to 17% of GHG emission into the atmosphere (Miles and Kapos 2008 ; Baccini et al. 2012 ). Other forms of environmental impact associated with timber products are due to the transportation of timber products (Lindholm and Berg 2005 ), use of chemicals, and wood wastage (Jurgensen et al. 1997 ; Wootton 2012 ).

Modified from Eshun et al. ( 2012 )

Flow chart of activities in timber production stages and production of wastage in timber production sector. It represents the typical timber product production system, from harvesting to the final products through two subsystems viz the forestry and timber industry subsystems, within the timber production sector.

Figure  1 represents the typical timber product production system, from harvesting to the final products. It shows two subsystems, the forestry and timber industry, within the timber production sector.

The major objective of this paper is to explore ways to reduce the environmental impacts of timber products, from sawmills to final products. The specific objectives include the identification of major sources and mechanisms of environmental impacts from timber products, the assessment of the current status of energy consumption and GHG emission in wood products during timber processing as well as identifying the potential ways to minimize these environmental impacts during the timber production process.

Main sources of environmental impacts of timber products can be categorised into physical impacts of timber processing, energy use and production of GHG emissions.

Sources attached to physical impacts of timber products

The production process for timber products, from log extraction to final products involves several stages, which can affect the surrounding environments in the form of land, air and water pollution. This paper looks into the impacts of timber products from sawmilling to disposal.

The sawmilling process involves debarking and cutting of logs into sections, which are sawn into timber boards. Particulate environmental matter arises from log debarking, sawing into boards, wood residues and kiln drying as these processing stages create environmental hazards on the land. Similarly, heavy machinery is involved throughout the process with the impacts on land, water, and air quality. For example, sawmilling sector is the backbone of the wood based industry in Malaysia. A study by Ramasamy et al. ( 2015 ) on the environmental impact of sawmilling industry concluded that several gases such as CO 2 , CH 4 , NOx, N 2 O, SO 2 , and CO were found discharged into the environment and the impacts were found in the form of global warming, acidification, human toxicity, eutrophication, and photo-oxidant formation in Malaysia.

Manufacturing processes

Timber processing and manufacturing involves different types of machines and processes such as sawing, drying, machining, jointing, gluing and finishing and so on, which can be connected to both environmental hazards, and workers occupational health and safety.

The major hazards with the machines could be classified into mechanical (e.g. crushing, cutting, trapping, shearing, abrasion, friction), structural (e.g. sharp edges, projections, obstructions, potential to fragment, collapse, overturn), physical (e.g. electricity, pressurized content, noise and vibration, heat, moisture or cold temperatures), chemical (e.g. gases, fumes, liquids, dusts, that can cause adverse health effects), ergonomic hazards (awkward working positions, manual handling, repetitive movements), and biological (e.g. present of bacteria, molds in materials used or processed in machinery) (Bluff 2014 ; Poisson and Chinniah 2016 ). Furthermore, as workers have to use machinery in all phases of its lifecycle from installation, through operation, maintenance, troubleshooting, repairs, adjustments, set-up, production disruptions, to cleaning and dismantling, they get exposed to various hazards (Poisson and Chinniah 2016 ; Rus et al. 2008 ). A study based on sixty-six Australian manufacturing firms which produce and supply machinery into local and international markets found that less than one in ten firms comprehensively recognized hazards, used safe place controls as the primary risk control measures, and provided substantial, good quality information to minimize environmental hazards, but the remaining firms did not consider the environmental impacts (Bluff 2014 ).

Wood waste and by‐products

Preventing wood waste to improve the efficiency of primary wood utilization significantly helps to reduce the environmental impacts on the one hand, and fulfill timber product demands without further damage to world forest resources on the other. Dionco-Adetayo ( 2001 ) has found that out of 1 m 3 of tree cut and removed from the forest, about 50% goes to waste in the form of damaged residuals, followed by abandoned logs (3.75%), stumps (10%), tops and branches (33.75%), and butt trimmings (2.5%). Wood wastes comprise a significant portion of waste materials. For instance, in Germany, 401 million tonnes of wastes was produced in 2015, out of which waste wood accounts to 11.9 million tonnes. (Sommerhuber et al. 2015 ; Garcia and Hora 2017 ). The primary sources of waste wood were wood packaging (21%), demolition and construction (26.7%), wood processing industry (14%), municipal wastes (20.7%), imported wood (9.7%) and others such as private households and railway construction (8%) (Sommerhuber et al. 2015 ; Garcia and Hora 2017 ). Similarly, around 1,781,000 tonnes of wood waste was being generated in Australia per annum until 2007 (Taylor and Warnken 2008 ).

This large amount of wasted wood is often used in the steam production boiler for drying wood products, or is dumped in a site (Eshun et al. 2012 ). These practices contribute to environmental impacts through wood waste and at the same time lead to depletion of timber resources. Eshun et al. ( 2012 ) have identified 19 wood waste sources in Ghana, out of them 3 related to the forestry sub system and 16 to the timber industry subsystem. Major sources of wood waste were low quality logs with large defects, bark, off-cuts, sawdust, slabs, and edged trimmings from sawn timber. There are new technologies for the utilization of low quality logs which can significantly reduce the wood wastage as well as specialized equipment which enables to maximize the wood recovery. However, in many enterprises, particularly in developing countries, these new production methods have not yet been used. Therefore, the major causes of wood wastage can be broadly classified into technology-based factors such as the use of obsolete equipment and inefficient procedures and production methods, management-based operational practices, and administrative and institutional issues.

Toxic chemicals

Different types of chemicals are used in the process of timber production, especially in preservative treatment, adhesive application and coating of final products. Though these chemicals have played the positive role of increasing the life span of timber products, they can also contribute to environmental impacts through the toxic elements they contain. For example, disposal of timber from demolition building sites still retaining high levels of preservatives is also another important environmental concern. Many countries have introduced policies, which prevent the use of toxic chemicals.

Even though adhesives are important materials made up of both natural and synthetic substances for bonding wood components into wood product they still might have some negative environmental impacts (Yang and Rosentrater 2015 ). Phenol–formaldehyde (PF) and urea–formaldehyde (UF) are the two commonly used adhesives in external environments due to high weather- and water-resistance properties (Cetin and Özmen 2002 ; Pizzi and Mittal 2011 ; Zhang et al. 2013 ). However, even the completely cured adhesives regarded as non-toxic and safe, can produce hazardous materials for both humans and the environment (Yang and Rosentrater 2015 ). For example, some curing agents such as aliphatic amines, and cycloaliphatic amines might cause irritation or damage to the skin, eyes, lungs, and liver (Yang and Rosentrater 2015 ). Therefore, there is growing interest in the use of adhesives which are environmentally benign (McDevitt and Grigsby 2014 ).

Wood coatings

Wood coatings protect wood from environmental influences such as moisture radiation, mechanical and chemical damage, and biological deterioration. However, they contain liquid made up of either organic solvent or water, and have potential to emit volatile organic compounds (VOC). VOC such as those containing chlorofluorocarbon are considered a major environmental problem from both air pollution and human health and safety perspectives (de Meijer 2001 ).

Impacts associated with transportation

Environmental impacts associated with the transportation of timber from forest to sawmills, then sawn timber from sawmills to manufacturing companies, and finally to end-users, consume significant amounts of fossil fuel, and thereby emit greenhouse gas (GHG) to the environment. A study carried out in Swedish wood supply chain showed that transportation of timber from forests to industrial sites consumes more fossil fuels than any other part of the chain (Lindholm and Berg 2005 ). The energy used during the transportation system has impacts on the environment due to release of emission with likely effects on global warming, acidification and eutrophication. For example, organic compounds and phosphorus released to water, and emissions of nitrogenous compounds to both air and water, are the most serious environmental impacts. Similarly, road transport of timber account for almost half of the total GHG emissions. In East Norway, GHG emissions from the final felling, extraction and transport of timber, was found to have 17.893 kg CO 2 -equivalents per m 3 of timber delivered to industry gate in 2010 (Timmermann and Dibdiakova 2014 ). As a result, transportation creates impacts on the atmosphere, land and water resources, and noise pollution.

Study by Timmermann and Dibdiakova ( 2014 ) assessed annual greenhouse gas effects from seedling, tree felling, transportation and processing of timber products. The study concluded that GHG emissions of forestry supply chain activities and found road transport of timber had the highest impact in climate change category.

Maintenance of timber products during use

Maintenance of timber products is carried out either in the form of their full or partial replacement, or by using chemicals to maintain or prolong their life. Therefore, proper care must be taken while maintaining timber products to produce minimum impact on the environment.

Disposal of timber products creates various environmental impacts especially in urban area. Commercial and industrial wastes, construction and demolition activities, pallets and packaging; and utilities are the main sources of urban wood wastes (Taylor and Warnken 2008 ). When the products are disposed instead of being reused, recycled and refurbished they will create the outside pollution and GHG emissions in many ways due to transport from the source to a landfill site; disposal of synthetic materials contributes to toxic waste, which can leach from landfill, and finally, such materials take up a large amount of space in landfill sites and create the need for new waste disposal sites (ERDC 2001 ). Although huge volume of waste wood is disposed of to landfill sites in major cities around the world, data on wood waste from the larger categories of waste is not differentiated in most cases. Data on wood waste from Landfills in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, estimate that approximately 446,000 and 623,000 tonnes are annually disposed of respectively (Taylor et al. 2005 ). The figure of Melbourne city wood waste disposal is enough to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground 1.5 time (Taylor et al. 2005 ).

Similarly, if disposal is carried out by burning of used products, it also produces smokes, contamination and emissions into the environment. For instances, solid contamination has disposal issues by reducing the efficiency of burning and producing waste, whereas excess chlorine in the burning also reduces the burning efficiency and can contribute to the production of dioxins (Taylor et al. 2005 ).

Sources of impacts due to the use of energy and emission of GHG

The energy involved in the process and stored in the product is called embodied energy (Ibn-Mohammed et al. 2013 ). Various types of energy source are used for different stages of timber production. Primarily energy is used for processing and materials handling, drying of raw materials, and associated utilities and services such as boiler steam, and condensation system, heating and lightning of premises (Bergman and Bowe 2008 ). As a result, there would be two phenomena involved together, energy consumption during the production process, and emission of greenhouse gas and other gasses as a consequence.

Sources of energy

The major sources of energy in sawmilling are either electrical energy or thermal energy. Electrical energy includes electricity supplied through the grid system, and is primarily used in sawing process, whereas thermal or heat energy is generated through biomass and used primarily for drying of sawn timber. Energy sources can also be classified based on the origin of the energy (Bergman and Bowe 2008 ). For example, if the energy is produced within the sawmill site, and used for drying or other purposes, it is called an onsite energy source. On the other hand, if energy requirements are fulfilled from outside of the sawmill site, they are referred as offsite energy sources.

On the other hand, sources of energy can also be classified based on the sources of carbon emission as the part of sawmilling procedures. For example, the energy produced as a result of the burning of wood biomass is called a biogenic energy, whereas energy derived from fossil fuel is called as the anthropogenic emission source (Gunn et al. 2012 ).

Sources of energy from fossil fuel have a significant impact on the environment and are non-renewable. If the sources of energy are renewable and have less impact on the environment such as hydroelectricity, wind energy, are known as renewable sources of energy. These have a lower environmental impacts and health hazards.

GHG emission of timber products

The energy sources and the ways they are used contribute to the production of GHG emissions and other environmental impacts.

Major environmental impacts associated with timber products include emission to air especially emission of GHG among others (Wilnhammer et al. 2015 ; Van et al. 2017 ). This kind of impact is called as carbon foot printing or the carbon impact of timber products (Box 1 ).

Box 1: The wood product carbon impact equation A − B − C − D = E

Manufacturing carbon : Manufacturing uses energy and most energy production results in carbon dioxide release.

Bio - fuel : Wood residues are often burned for energy during the manufacture of wood products.

Carbon storage : Carbon dioxide is absorbed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis by the growing tree. This carbon is converted to wood, bark and other parts of the tree.

Substitution : There are alternatives to wood products for most applications. However, almost all of these non-wood alternatives require more energy for their manufacture, and the energy used is almost entirely fossil carbon.

Total Carbon Footprint or Carbon Credit : The bio-fuel (B), carbon storage (C) and substitution (D) effects reduce the carbon footprint of wood products. In fact, these effects together are almost always greater than the manufacturing carbon (A), so the overall carbon effect of using wood products is a negative carbon footprint (i.e. carbon credit or storage). Thus using wood products can help us to reduce contributions to climate change and conserve energy resources.

Source : Bergman et al. ( 2014 )

The forest industry especially the timber production process contributes to global GHG emission in different ways from harvesting to end use and disposal. Manufacturing–related emissions dominate the GHG contribution from the sector by accounting for 55% of all emissions occurring throughout the value chain (Miner 2010 ) which is approximately, 490 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent per year. This is mainly due to the fuel combustion at the manufacturing facilities. Similarly, a significant amount of emission of about 238 million tonnes, also occurs at the end of the life cycle, especially from methane emission (235 million tonnes) and emission associated with the burning of used products (3 million tonnes) (Miner 2010 ).

A study on life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value chain in Switzerland shows that high environmental benefits in construction and furniture are often achieved when replacing conventional heat production and energy-consuming materials. For instance, replacement of fossil fuels for energy or energy-intensive building materials, and taking appropriate measures to minimize negative effects such as particulate matter emissions could ensure high environmental benefits (Suter et al. 2017 ).

Methods of impact assessment

Major methods in vogue for the impact assessment of environmental sectors are life cycle assessment (LCA) (Gustavsson and Sathre 2006 ; Ramesh et al. 2010 ; Roy et al. 2009 ), input–output methods (Ivanova and Rolfe 2011 ), cost–benefit analysis (Atkinson and Mourato 2006 ), health hazard scoring (HHS) system, material input per service-unit (MIPS), Swiss eco-point (SEP) method, sustainable process index (SPl), Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry’s life-cycle impact assessment (SETAC LCA), and environmental priority system (EPS) (Hertwich et al. 1997 ).

Though most of these methods could be applied to examine the complex interaction among the timber production process from the sawmill to final product, and their impact on their corresponding environments, LCA can explain such a relationship in a more comprehensive way. This is because it is a procedure for evaluating the energy and environmental burdens related to a process or activity, which is carried out with the help of identifying the source of energy used or consumption, the materials used and their impact on the environment (Goedkoop et al. 2008 ).

So far, extensive studies on LCA and various aspect of timber production are well documented (Cabeza et al. 2014 ; Dodoo et al. 2014a , 2014b ; Lippke et al. 2004 ; Mirabella et al. 2014 ; Puettmann and Wilson 2007 ). Among them, the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), has published a 22-module research plan and protocol to develop a LCA for residential structures and other wood uses while evaluating the life cycle inventory (LCI) databases for use in each stage of processing “from cradle to grave” (Lippke et al. 2004 ; NCASI 2006 ).

Benefits of using timber in various products

Wood competes with many other materials in various products and applications. The main competitors are: steel, concrete, aluminum, brick and plastic (Taylor 2003 ; George 2008 ). Many studies have been conducted which compared the environmental impacts of wood and its competing materials. Production of wood results in few greenhouse gas emissions, in which the main emission source is the energy used in wood processing. The energy saving requirements of the industry in wood processing can be met with the use of wood residue, which provides more energy savings compared to the use of fossil fuel based energy. On the other hand, production of most competitor materials results in high greenhouse emissions. The emission values of wood and competitor products are presented in Table  1 .

Wood consumes less energy, and emits less pollutant to the environment, thereby adds environmental values throughout the life of the structure. In contrast, steel and concrete use more energy, emit more greenhouse gases, and release more air and water pollutants during the manufacturing process than that of wood products (APA 2017 ). For example, wood is 105 times more efficient than concrete, and 400 times more efficient than steel. When it comes to energy consumption, steel and concrete consumes 12 and 20% more than wood products respectively. Similarly, steel emits 15% more GHG than wood and concrete emits 29% GHG more than wood. Likewise, steel and concrete significantly contribute in water pollution than that of wood products. For example, steel pollutes 300% more water resources, and concrete pollutes 225% more water than the wood products (APA 2017 ).

Unlike their competitors, wood products are part of the carbon cycle. Therefore, as tree absorb carbon dioxide and act as an important carbon sink, they contribute to carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation as well (George 2008 ). There are no environmentally perfect building and construction materials; however, wood is still an intelligent and informed choice especially for many commercial and residential buildings (APA 2017 ) mainly due to low energy use and CO 2 emission than that of steel and concrete products. For example, wood-based building construction consumes 3800 gigajouls (GJ) of total energy whereas steel and concrete based structure consumes 7350 and 5500 GJ energy, respectively. Similarly, on carbon emission, wood-based construction emits 73000 kg carbon emission whereas steel and concrete based construction emits 105,000 and 132,000 kg carbon, respectively (APA 2017 ).

Most construction materials such as steel, concrete, aluminum and plastic require a high energy input during the manufacturing process while the manufacture of timber products uses much less energy than the competitive materials. (Figure  2 ).

Modified from Australian Government, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation ( 2006 )

Greenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture of building materials used in a range of construction components for a single storey house in Sydney, Australia.

Many studies have also confirmed that timber products have a net carbon storage value which means that they store more carbon than is required in their manufacture. Typical results for various materials are shown in Table  2 .

Possible ways to reduce the environmental impacts of timber products

With the identification of potential sources of environmental impact and their mechanisms at different stages of the timber production process, the following methods can be applied to tackle the associated contemporary challenges.

Changes in energy sources and consumption pattern

As energy sources and consumption patterns are critical towards overall environmental impacts of energy consumption practices, environmentally friendly energy sources should be promoted. For example, fossil fuel based energy such as energy generated from coal, has more adverse environmental impacts than that of non-fossil based energy sources. Similarly, anthropogenic emissions due to fossil fuel have comparatively higher emission and negative environmental impacts, than that of biogenic emission from burning wood materials (Bergman and Bowe 2008 ). Therefore, while choosing energy sources for the timber production process, there needs to be proper care in the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuel-based energy techniques. Even if fossil fuel based energy source are to be used, efforts must be made to use as little energy as possible.

Use of Sawmill by-products as a thermal energy

Instead of leaving the sawmill products within the premises of sawmills, and creating environmental hazards, they could be collected and used for producing thermal energy to reduce environmental impacts. This would help to minimize the reliance on offsite fossils fuel to some extent and promotes the production of bioenergy at the sawmill site. For example, the sawdust could be recycled into a bio-briquette. Such bio-briquettes have even higher heating value ranged from 14.88 up to 16.94 MJ/kg, than that of the briquette made from other substances (Lela et al. 2016 ).

Improved sawmilling and sawing machinery

Improved sawmilling techniques, machinery and manufactured products help reducing the environmental hazards and human health problems (Harms-Ringdahl et al. 2000 ) and ultimately contribute to environmental sustainability in numerous ways (Gaussin et al. 2013 ). The use of recent technology and safety procedures could be helpful in these regards.

Laurent et al. ( 2016 ) conducted environmental assessment of a wood manufacturing industry and established environmental profile of the company so that company continue to maintain its environmental integrity as well as environmental profile of different wood products it manufactures.

First, improved and new varieties of machinery instead of old and obsolete one help reducing the wood waste, thereby reduce environmental impacts, while increasing the working efficiency in terms of time, energy and efforts. Second, hazardous energies related to machinery use can be minimised as safety and precautionary measures such as lockout system. The lockout measures is a step-by-step procedure, carried out by authorised employee to prevent inadvertent machine energization or the release of stored energy, which is in practice in Canada and the United States (Poisson and Chinniah 2016 ). Third, and most importantly, workers health and safety, and ergonomic measures have to be taken into account while planning and executing the sawmilling operation in the field (Jones and Kumar 2007 , 2010 ).

Improved energy efficiency in drying system

Wood drying is the key to controlling wood quality of final products, and it consumes up to 90% of the processing time in hardwoods and more than 70% of primary processing cost, with the use of significant amounts of heat and energy (Goreshnev et al. 2013 ). The supplied heat is primarily used for the drying process, which is carried out in a drying kiln. Lead-time and wood quality are the major priority before energy consumption while producing the lumber (Anderson and Westerlund 2014 ). Therefore, the introduction of improved drying processes including simple yet environmentally friendly drying process would be beneficial to reduce the environmental impacts while ensuring the quality of final products. For example, solar drying provides opportunity as an alternative method of drying timber, while using renewable solar energy to address the shortcomings associated with fossil fuel based drying process. In addition, solar systems use the energy from sun, which is abundant, inexhaustible and nonpolluting (Akinola 1999 ; Akinola et al. 2006 ; Kumar and Kishankumar 2016 ), thereby has little environmental impact (Belessiotis and Delyannis 2011 ), unlike other forms of fossil fuel based drying methods. However, external factors such as air temperature, air velocity geographic locations, and relative humidity influence the potential drying rate. Yet, it has advantages over open-to-the-sun or air drying techniques, because the solar dryer traps solar energy to increase the temperature of circulating air and ensures the required equilibrium moisture content (EMC), enhanced shelf life, value addition, and quality enhancement (Helwa et al. 2004 ; LayThong 1999 ). These features can be further complemented by the controlled air humidity and other drying conditions, even with the use of water sprayers in some cases. However, there might still be chances that productivity is affected by weather condition such as rainfall, cloud cover, and less predictable outcomes than that of industrial kilns (Haque and Langrish 2005 ).

Solar kiln drying is usually affected by geographic and climatic conditions. For example, the temperature inside the kiln is affected by the ambient temperature and solar radiation (Hasan and Langrish 2014 ; Phonetip et al. 2017a ). Areas with low humidity offer a productivity performance for solar kilns (Ong 1997 ). According to Phonetip et al. ( 2017b ), decreasing the relative humidity (RH) level to 40% can dry boards faster than when the conditions are maintained at 60% RH. Taking advantage of a low ambient RH could result in several benefits, such as lowering the consumption of water and energy.

A study by Phonetip et al. ( 2018 ) described a method that used the combined tools of GIS and Fuzzy theory to identify the most suitable locations for solar kilns based on variables of geographical and climatic conditions and restricted areas, using an example location in Vientiane, Laos. This method can be applied to different geographical regions and local climatic seasons.

Therefore, in order to improve efficiency and reduce the environmental impacts, various kind of solar drying are in practice, such as integral, distributed and mixed type solar dryers based on the mode of utilization of solar heat, and greenhouse system, external collector, and mixed mode solar drying depending on greenhouse systems. Currently, enhanced solar timber kilns can also be used with characteristic features of solar energy storage with independent heating, integration of an air heater in the storage and in the drying chamber, and management of different drying cycles based on the quality control of the products (Ugwu et al. 2015 ).

Overall, solar drying has more environmental advantages due to shorter drying time, and better drying quality than that of air-drying. Similarly, it requires, low operating costs and lower training manpower, along with the chances of having EMC in broad range of climates, and ultimately constitutes an environmentally friendly technique due to its reliance on renewable resources and low environmental impact.

Studies on improving energy efficiencies have shown that if available state-of-the-art technologies are applied in drying kilns, it could reduce the heat consumption by about 60% (Anderson and Westerlund 2011 , 2014 ; Johansson and Westerlund 2000 ). Moreover, a study by Anderson and Westerlund ( 2014 ) using the Torksim simulation program has further reported that energy recovery technologies in the sawmill industry could save considerable amounts of energy and biomass for the other purpose. According to the authors, use of a heat exchanger, mechanical heat pump, and open absorption system are the major energy recovery technologies. For instance, open absorption system is the most effective which will reduce energy consumption by 67.5%, whereas mechanical heat pump could also decrease a significant amount of energy usage and result in a large heat surplus in the drying system. However, the latter requires high consumption of electricity. In contrast, use of heat exchanger technology contributes only a marginal increase in energy efficiency of 4–10% depending upon the sawmill condition and drying scheme. Therefore, findings of such studies mainly related to the result of higher energy efficiency from open absorption system should be promoted to reduce the energy use and GHG emission, increase the efficiency, and minimize the environmental impacts.

Use of environmentally friendly chemicals

Preservatives.

There is a growing trend towards environmentally friendly preservatives to reduce the environmental impacts while improving the durability of timber products. In this context, environmentally benign wood preservative systems can be developed with proper combination of an organic biocide with metal chelating and/or antioxidant additives (Schultz and Nicholas 2002 ). That will not only enhance protection of wood against fungi as compared to the biocide alone, but also consequently, help reduce the environmental impacts especially on land and water resources. Physical barriers have been accepted as alternative non-biocidal wood protection method in India as they reduce leaching and subsequent negative impacts of wood preservative components to the organisms in vicinity (Sreeja and Edwin 2013 ).

Policy and legislative measures to ban the use of toxic preservatives, and growing awareness on using less toxic and more environmentally friendly preservatives would be another way to reduce the environmental impacts (Lin et al. 2009 ). For example, a number of toxic preservatives such as CCA, cresote, and preservatives based on volatile organic solvent (VOC), are restricted in Europe and the USA. Instead, use of environmentally friendly preservatives such as copper-organic preservatives replacing CCA, CCB and CCP preservatives, microemulsion water-dilutable concentrates with organic fungicides and insecticides, and water and solvent-based coloured preservatives replacing creosote, have emerged to fill the gap (Coggins 2008 ; EU 2006 ). Therefore, stringent environmental policies will have to be practiced to reduce the use of harmful chemicals in wood preservatives, as practiced under Biocidal Products Directives within European Union (Hingston et al. 2001 ) and restricted pesticidal use of three primary heavy duty wood preservatives (“HDWPs”) under Environmental Protection Agency, USA in 2008 (Tomasovic 2012 ).

Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources ( 2016 ) accepts certain permanent preservative treatments as biosecurity treatments for use on certain timber products and timber packaging. For a timber preservative treatment to sufficiently address biosecurity risks and be accepted as a biosecurity treatment by the department, it must meet the following requirements:

suitable treatment application methods, preservative penetration zone requirements, preservative retention requirements and accepted preservative formulations.

As biochemical adhesives have 22% fewer environmental impacts than that of petrochemical adhesives (Yang and Rosentrater 2015 ), use of biochemical adhesives should be encouraged. For example, Pizzi ( 2006 ) have identified bio-based adhesives such as tannin, protein, carbohydrate, lignin, and unsaturated oil to maintain both environmentally friendly alternatives and efficient traditional adhesives of the timber industries. Consistent with these findings, Navarrete et al. ( 2012 ) conducted a comparative study between the emission from particle board produced with UF and the natural adhesives and found that there was at least seven times higher emission of urea formaldehyde than that of biochemical based adhesive such as lignin and tannin. Yet, the impacts from these biochemical adhesive is quite significant, therefore various innovative measures have to be taken to reduce the impacts on the environment. For example, adhesive based on hexamine could be used to reduce the impact of formaldehyde. Similarly, environmentally-friendly products such as tannin-hexamine adhesive, and in case of lignin adhesive, adhesives pressed at high speed, in the presence of pre-methylated lignin could be used to reduce the environmental impacts (Yang and Rosentrater 2015 ). Furthermore, soy-based adhesive has also been effective in increasing the wet bond strength with the use of polyamidoamine–epichlorohydrin (PAE) resin as a co-reactant. That has led to resurgence in soy-based adhesive consumption with minimal environmental impacts (Frihart and Birkeland 2014 ).

In India, extensive research studies have been carried out since 1980 on extending the soya flour to synthetic resin (Sarkar et al. 1985 ; Zoolagud et al. 1997 ). Mamatha et al. ( 2011 ) developed phenol-soya adhesive for the manufacture of exterior grade plywood. About 40% substitution of phenol by soya was optimized for making exterior grade plywood having strength properties confirming to relevant standard requirements. The substitution not only helps to minimize the formaldehyde release from the products and disposal of waster for better utilization, but also reduces the air and water pollution along with minimization of production cost of the plywood products due to reduced cost in resin system (Mamatha et al. 2011 ).

A recently published book “Bio-based Wood Adhesives” by Zhongqi He ( 2017 ) provides the synthesis of the fundamental knowledge and latest research on bio-based adhesives from a remarkable range of natural products and byproducts, and identifies need areas and provides directions of future bio-based adhesive research.

Policy measures should be placed on restriction of VOCs to the atmosphere. Likewise, an interesting shift from using less environmentally harmful adhesive in joining wood components for furniture and interior joinery by wood welding technology without the use of adhesive has been also initiated. This could be explained by the polymerization and cross-linking of lignin and of carbohydrate-derived furfural (Gfeller et al. 2003 ). Many studies have been conducted on wood welding using high speed rotation welding (Pizzi et al. 2004 ; Belleville et al. 2016 ) and linear welding (Mansouri et al. 2010 ; Martins et al. 2013 ; Belleville et al. 2017 ). If this technique could be scaled up successfully, it would contribute to reduce the adhesive based emission and environmental hazard involved in the timber productions process.

While choosing the adhesive during the course of timber product manufacturing and production processes, proper attention has to be given to environmentally friendly either bio-based adhesive or techniques without using adhesive as far as possible to reduce the impact both on the environment, and the human health.

Wood coating

Over the past few years, regulation under the Clean Air Act (USA) and consumer demand for low-VOC finishes have led to the creation of a variety of new products. Many penetrating finishes, such as semi-transparent stains, have low solids content (pigment, oils, polymers) and are being reformulated to meet low-VOC regulations. To meet the VOC requirements, these reformulated finishes may contain higher solids content, reactive diluents (dilutants or thinners), new types of solvents and/or co-solvents, or other non-traditional substitutes. These low-VOC requirements favour film-forming formulations over products that penetrate the wood surface, since traditional wood stains were formulated to penetrate the wood, and the new formulations that meet the VOC requirements may not penetrate as well.

Another way to decrease air emissions from wood finishes is to change the formulation to a water-based coating. The new water-based products achieve a dramatic improvement over solvent-based finishes in terms of VOC emissions and human comfort and health. Companies that have successfully switched to water-based coatings have worked closely with their suppliers to determine the best water-based formula for their specific uses.

Wood waste management

Eshun et al. ( 2012 ) and EPA (2015) have listed ways to minimize wood waste and wood waste management. Main measures to wood waste management include, among others, good operating practices, technology changes, changes in input materials, waste recycling, and waste reuse/recover practices. Similarly, EPA (2015) has described the waste reduction opportunities via lumber receiving, drying and storage; rough end and gluing; machining and sanding; assembly; finishing; packing, shipping and warehouse; building and equipment maintenance.

It is interesting to note that developed countries such as Australia and Sweden place more emphasis on waste recycling, and waste reuse/recover, whereas other countries such as Taiwan, South Africa, and India have put emphasis on improving almost all processing and manufacturing techniques identified above. This might be due to the fact that developed countries may already have good operating practices and required technology in the timber production sector. A study carried out by Daian and Ozarska ( 2009 ) in Australia has highlighted the need for using recovered and waste wood in the mulching and compost sector, bioenergy sector, animal product sector, and engineered wood product sector.

During 2013 and 2014, Italy re-used 95% of the waste wood to produce particleboard, while Germany and United Kingdom shared the account to 34 and 53% respectively (Garcia and Hora 2017 ).

In Europe, the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) provides a guideline of basic concepts and procedure related to the waste management. A concept called “end-of-waste criteria” has been introduced that is used as a guideline to determine when a waste ceases to be a waste and becomes a secondary raw material. In this concept, waste hierarchy is maintained from landfill through recovery, recycling, reuse to reduce from the least favoured to most favoured option (Garcia and Hora 2017 ). The values and ways to wood recovery and recycling, classified into direct and indirect recycling, have been well illustrated by Taylor and Warnken 2008 (Fig.  3 ). Indirect recycling of wood products results in compost or mulch which will decompose into carbon dioxide aerobically. Similarly, direct recycling and reuse of recovered wood into timber products prolong the service life of the timber and at the same time provides the opportunity of potential recovery at end-of-life. Degradable organic carbon contained in the wood disseminate into methane in the landfill site. Methane has 25 times higher global warming potential, so recovering wood will prevent the greenhouse gases (Taylor and Warnken 2008 ).

Modified from Taylor and Warnken ( 2008 )

Schematic flow of recycling, reuse and recovery of wood products.

Integrated industrial sites

With due consideration of growing energy demand from the different industrial sectors, an essential strategy would be the development of highly integrated industrial sites. Such sites would serve to lower energy and resource consumption and, at the same time, complement one plant to another. For example, saw mills would supply huge biomass to other pellet plants, pulp and paper plant, and combined heat and power (CHP) plants, and some portion of such biomass would be used to fulfill the internal heat requirements as well (Anderson and Toffolo 2013 ). Therefore, if these plants were combined it would reduce the energy and resource consumption and help reduce the environmental impacts.

Energy efficient biofuel and improved transportation system

Environmental impacts associated with transportation could be minimized by changing the source of energy and mode of transportation of the timber products. Use of renewable sources of energy such as electricity generated from hydropower, and biofuel, instead of fossil based energy would reduce emission during the transportation. Interestingly, in Sweden it was reported that transporting forest products via railway transport requires less process energy than by using road vehicles. Furthermore, use of biofuel instead of fossil fuel in a lorry could replace about 96% of fossil energy (Lindholm and Berg 2005 ).

By- or co-product or even wood waste can be a feedstock for second generation biofuel (Cantrell et al. 2008 ; Havlík et al. 2011 ; Sklar 2008 ), or be supplied by dedicated plantations. The latter ones seems more promising and can be established on marginal lands (Tilman et al. 2006 ; Zomer et al. 2008 , Havlík et al. 2011 ), or enter into direct competition with conventional agricultural production (Field et al. 2008 ; Gurgel et al. 2007 ) and other services. Therefore, improved transportation system for timber products with the use of energy efficient biofuel should be promoted.

Safe disposal

Environmental impacts related to disposal of wood wastage can be minimized by using a minimum amount of materials required for the production process, and renewable materials, and by avoiding materials that deplete natural resources while prompting recycle and recyclable material and waste by-products. Similarly, those left for disposal should be put into safe disposal landfill sites. Landfill sites represent a major disposal option for wood wastes in many countries. For example, in Australia, it is estimated that approximately 2.3 million tonnes of solid wood products are placed in all Australian landfills each year (Ximenes et al. 2008 ). There should be reliable landfill side for safe disposal of wood wastage.

Policy support

Overarching policy and institutional support should be in place in order to realize the improvements with regard to minimizing adverse environmental impacts as a result of the production process of timber products in general and sawmilling in particular. Similarly, it should encourage robust production planning (Zanjani et al. 2010 ), suitable policy measure of impacts minimization and quality enhancement (Loxton et al. 2013 ), and further collaboration with other stakeholders.

Apart from aforementioned measures to minimize environmental impact as a result of timber production process, some other social, ecological and economic factors should also be taken into account. For example, in order to obtain sustained supply for raw timber from the forest, the timbers supplied from sustainably managed and certified forest is being encouraged (Päivinen et al. 2012 ). In addition, timber industry should incentivize and support the endeavors of both government and private sectors on plantation and management of forests, so that it would create harmony among them and help the regular supply of raw materials to the industry. Similarly, societal need, interest, and capacity should also be considered while designing, and operating the sawmill industry. Further, proper coordination and collaboration among different stakeholders are also crucial for the success of the industry.

Major sources of environmental impacts occur throughout the wood supply chain from sawmills to final products. Many studies have been conducted with the aim to identify environmental impacts of timber products. The studies, in particular the ones based on LCA methods have provided comprehensive coverage of different processes such as energy consumption, manufacturing process and their impacts on the environments. The impacts can be minimized in various ways: changes in energy consumption behavior, promotion of renewable energy, improved sawing and sawmilling practices, proper wood waste management, use of less toxic chemicals on the treatment of wood and timber products, and most importantly use of energy efficient and environment friendly drying techniques and energy sources such as effective air drying, improved solar and kiln drying, microwave modification and vacuum technology inter alia . Moreover, there needs to be proper policy support to promote the concept of integrated industrial site with effective coordination and collaboration among relevant stakeholders. That collaborative work not only helps produce quality forest products, but also reduces their concomitant environmental impacts. Moreover, it should help to ensure the broad goal of environmental sustainability, while recognizing the timber sector as a part of an integrated approach of sustainable development.

Akinola AO (1999) Development and performance evaluation of a mixed-mode solar food dryer. Federal University of Technology, Akure

Google Scholar  

Akinola O, Akinyemi A, Bolaji B (2006) Evaluation of traditional and solar fish drying systems towards enhancing fish storage and preservation in nigeria: Abeokuta local governments as case study. J Fisheries Int 1:44–49

Anderson J-O, Toffolo A (2013) Improving energy efficiency of sawmill industrial sites by integration with pellet and CHP plants. Appl Energy 111:791–800

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson J-O, Westerlund L (2011) Surplus biomass through energy efficient kilns. Appl Energy 88:4848–4853

Anderson J-O, Westerlund L (2014) Improved energy efficiency in sawmill drying system. Appl Energy 113:891–901

APA (2017) Sustainable building, sustainable future. APA, Washington D.C

Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for economic co-operation and development. OECD, Paris. ISBN 9264010041

Australian Government, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2016. Timber permanent preservative treatment requirements. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/import/goods/timber/approved-treatments-timber/permanent-preservative-treatment . Accessed 19 Mar 2018

Australian Government, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (2006) Forest, wood and Australia’s carbon balance. Australian Government, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Australia

Baccini AGSJ, Goetz SJ, Walker WS, Laporte NT, Sun M, Sulla-Menashe D, Hackler J, Beck PSA, Dubayah R, Friedl MA, Samanta S (2012) Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat Climate Change 2:182

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Belessiotis V, Delyannis E (2011) Solar drying. Sol Energy 85:1665–1691

Belleville B, Pizzi A, Ozarska B (2016) Assessing the potential of wood welding for Australian eucalypts and exotic species. Eur J Wood and Wood Prod 74:753–757

Belleville B, Amirou S, PIzzi A, Ozarska B (2017) Optimization of wood welding parameters for Australian hardwood species. BioResources 12:1007–1014

CAS   Google Scholar  

Bergman RD, Bowe SA (2008) Environmental impact of producing hardwood lumber using life-cycle inventory. Wood Fiber Sci 40:448–458

Bergman R, Puettmann M, Taylor A, Skog KE (2014) The carbon impacts of wood products. For Products J 64:220–231

Bluff E (2014) Safety in machinery design and construction: performance for substantive safety outcomes. Saf Sci 66:27–35

Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V, Pérez G, Castell A (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:394–416

Cantrell KB, Ducey T, Ro KS, Hunt PG (2008) Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation opportunities. Biores Technol 99:7941–7953

Cetin NS, Özmen N (2002) Use of organosolv lignin in phenol–formaldehyde resins for particleboard production: I. Organosolv lignin modified resins. Int J Adhes Adhes 22:477–480

Coggins C (2008) Trends in timber preservation—a global perspective. J Tropical For Sci 20:264–272

Daian G, Ozarska B (2009) Wood waste management practices and strategies to increase sustainability standards in the Australian wooden furniture manufacturing sector. J Clean Prod 17:1594–1602

de Meijer M (2001) Review on the durability of exterior wood coatings with reduced VOC-content. Prog Org Coat 43:217–225

Dionco-Adetayo EA (2001) Utilization of wood wastes in Nigeria: a feasibility overview. Technovation 21:55–60

Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2014a) Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy Build 82:194–210

Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2014b) Lifecycle primary energy analysis of low-energy timber building systems for multi-storey residential buildings. Energy Build 81:84–97

ERDC (2001) Aiming for sustainable product development furniture and building products. Energy Research and Development Corporation, Centre for Design at RMIT, Australia

Eshun JF, Potting J, Leemans R (2012) Wood waste minimization in the timber sector of Ghana: a systems approach to reduce environmental impact. J Clean Prod 26:67–78

EU (2006) Directive 2006/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency

FAO (2001) Global forest resource assessment 2000. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome

Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2008) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol Evol 23:65–72

FIM (2017) Update on global timber demand. FIM Service Limited, Burford

Frihart CR, Birkeland MJ (2014) Soy properties and soy wood adhesives: soy-based chemicals and materials. American Chemical Society, Washington D.C

Book   Google Scholar  

Garcia CA, Hora G (2017) State-of-the-art of waste wood supply chain in Germany and selected European countries. Waste Manag 70:189–197

Gaussin M, Hu G, Abolghasem S, Basu S, Shankar M, Bidanda B (2013) Assessing the environmental footprint of manufactured products: a survey of current literature. Int J Prod Econ 146:515–523

George A (2008) Impact of carbon trading on wood products, forest and wood products. Australia, Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited

Gfeller B, Zanetti M, Properzi M, Pizzi A, Pichelin F, Lehmann M, Delmotte L (2003) Wood bonding by vibrational welding. J Adhes Sci Tech 17:1573–1589

Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M (2008) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation. Den Haag, Impact world

Goreshnev M, Kazarin A, Lopatin V, Sekisov F, Smerdov O (2013) Combined timber drying method’. J Eng Phys Thermophys 86:336–339

Gunn JS, Ganz DJ, Keeton WS (2012) Biogenic vs. geologic carbon emissions and forest biomass energy production. GCB Bioenergy 4:239–242

Gurgel A, Reilly JM, Paltsev S (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. J Agric Food Ind Organ 5:2

Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2006) Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 41:940–951

Haque M, Langrish T (2005) Assessment of the actual performance of an industrial solar kiln for drying timber. Dry Technol 23:1541–1553

Harms-Ringdahl L, Jansson T, Malmén Y (2000) Safety, health and environment in small process plants—results from a European survey. J Saf Res 31:71–80

Hasan M, Langrish TA (2014) Numerical simulation of a solar kiln design for drying timber with different geographical and climatic conditions in Australia. Dry Technol 32:1632–1639

Havlík P, Schneider UA, Schmid E, Böttcher H, Fritz S, Skalský R, Aoki K, De Cara S, Kindermann G, Kraxner F, Leduc S (2011) Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39:5690–5702

He Z (2017) Bio-based wood adhesives. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, p 366

Helwa N, Khater H, Enayet M, Hashish M (2004) Experimental evaluation of solar kiln for drying wood. Dry Technol 22:703–717

Hertwich EG, Pease WS, Koshland CP (1997) Evaluating the environmental impact of products and production processes: a comparison of six methods. Sci Total Environ 196:13–29

Hingston J, Collins C, Murphy R, Lester J (2001) Leaching of chromated copper arsenate wood preservatives: a review. Environ Pollut 111:53–66

Ibn-Mohammed T, Greenough R, Taylor S, Ozawa-Meida L, Acquaye A (2013) Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends. Energy Build 66:232–245

Ivanova G, Rolfe J (2011) Using input-output analysis to estimate the impact of a coal industry expansion on regional and local economies. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 29:277–288

Johansson L, Westerlund L (2000) An open absorption system installed at a sawmill: description of pilot plant used for timber and bio-fuel drying. Energy 25:1067–1079

Jones T, Kumar S (2007) Comparison of ergonomic risk assessments in a repetitive high-risk sawmill occupation: saw-filer. Int J Ind Ergon 37:744–753

Jones T, Kumar S (2010) Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in four sawmill jobs. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 16:105–111

Jurgensen M, Harvey A, Graham R, Page-Dumroese D, Tonn J, Larsen M, Jain T (1997) Review article: impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity, and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Sci 43:234–251

Klein D, Wolf C, Schulz C, Weber-Blaschke G (2016) Environmental impacts of various biomass supply chains for the provision of raw wood in Bavaria, Germany, with focus on climate change. Sci Total Environ 539:45–60

Kumar S, Kishankumar VS (2016) Thermal energy storage for a solar wood drying kiln: estimation of energy requirement. J Indian Acad Wood Sci 13:33–37

Laurent AB, Menard JF, Lesage P, Beauregard R (2016) Cradle-to-gate environmental life cycle assessment of the portfolio of an innovative forest products manufacturing unit. BioResources 11:8981–9001

LayThong H (1999) Rubberwood processing and utilization. Malayan forest records, 39th edn. Rubberwood processing and utilization, Malaysia

Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG, Marland G, Bopp L, Ciais P, Conway TJ, Doney SC, Feely RA, Foster P (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat Geosci 2:831–836

Lela B, Barišić M, Nižetić S (2016) Cardboard/sawdust briquettes as biomass fuel: physical–mechanical and thermal characteristics. Waste Manag 47:236–245

Lin L-D, Chen Y-F, Wang S-Y, Tsai M-J (2009) Leachability, metal corrosion, and termite resistance of wood treated with copper-based preservative. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 63:533–538

Lindholm E-L, Berg S (2005) Energy requirement and environmental impact in timber transport. Scand J For Res 20:184–191

Lippke B, Wilson J, Perez-Garcia J, Bowyer J, Meil J (2004) CORRIM: life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials. For Prod J 54:8–19

Loxton EA, Schirmer J, Kanowski P (2013) Designing, implementing and monitoring social impact mitigation strategies: lessons from forest industry structural adjustment packages. Environ Impact Assess Rev 42:105–115

Mamatha BS, Sujatha D, Nath SK (2011) Soya based phenolic resins for plywood manufacture. J Indian Acad Wood Sci 8:112–116

Mansouri HR, Pizzi A, Leban J-M (2010) End-grain butt joints obtained by friction welding of high density eucalyptus wood. Wood Sci Technol 44:399–406

Martins SA, Ganier T, Pizzi A, Del Menezzi CHS (2013) Parameter scanning for linear welding of Brazilian Eucalyptus benthamii wood. Eur J Wood Prod. 71:525–527

McDevitt JE, Grigsby WJ (2014) Life cycle assessment of bio-and petro-chemical adhesives used in fiberboard production. J Polym Environ 22:537–544

Miles L, Kapos V (2008) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: global land-use implications. Science 320:454–455

Miner R (2010) Impact of the global forest industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Mirabella N, Castellani V, Sala S (2014) LCA for assessing environmental benefit of eco- design strategies and forest wood short supply chain: a furniture case study. Intl J Life Cycl Assess 19:1536–1550

Navarrete P, Pizzi A, Tapin-Lingua S, Benjelloun-Mlayah B, Pasch H, Rode K, Delmotte L, Rigolet S (2012) Low formaldehyde emitting biobased wood adhesives manufactured from mixtures of tannin and glyoxylated lignin. J Adhes Sci Technol 26:1667–1684

NCASI (2006) Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of substituting wood products for non-wood alternatives in residential construction in the United States, 925th edn. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Canada

Norgate TE, Jahanshahi S, Rankin WJ (2007) Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. J Clean Prod 15:838–848

Ong KS (1997) Comparison between drying of timber in a solar dryer and in an electrically-heated kiln. Dry technol 15:1231–1237

Päivinen R, Lindner M, Rosén K, Lexer M (2012) A concept for assessing sustainability impacts of forestry-wood chains. Eur J For Res 131:7–19

Phonetip K, Brodie G, Ozarska B, Belleville B (2017a) Drying Eucalyptus delegatensis timber by solar kiln using an intermittent drying schedule of conventional laboratory kiln. Dry. Technol 17:1–2

Phonetip K, Ozarska B, Belleville B, Brodie G (2017b). Using a conventional laboratory kiln as a simulation of solar cyclic drying. In: IUFRO division 5 conference/SWST 60th international convention forest sector innovations for a greener future. Vancouver, Canada

Phonetip K, Ozarska B, Brodie G, Belleville B, Boupha L (2018) Applying a GIS-based fuzzy method to identify suitable locations for solar kilns. BioResources. 13:2785–2799

Pizzi A (2006) Recent developments in eco-efficient bio-based adhesives for wood bonding: opportunities and issues. J Adhes Sci Technol 20:829–846

Pizzi A, Mittal KL (2011) Wood adhesives. CRC Press, Boston

Pizzi A, Leban J-M, Kanazawa F, Properzi M, Pichelin F (2004) Wood dowel bonding by high speed rotation welding. J Adhes Sci Technol 18:1263–1278

Poisson P, Chinniah Y (2016) Managing risks linked to machinery in sawmills by controlling hazardous energies: theory and practice in eight sawmills. Saf Sci 84:117–130

Puettmann ME, Wilson JB (2007) Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood building materials. Wood Fiber Sci 37:18–29

Ramasamy G, Ratnasingam J, Bakar ES, Halis R, Muttiah N (2015) Assessment of environmental emissions from sawmilling activity in Malaysia. BioResources 10:6643–6662

Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla K (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy Build 42:1592–1600

Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10

Rus RM, Daud A, Musa KI, Naing L (2008) Knowledge, attitude and practice of sawmill workers towards noise-induced hearing loss in kota bharu, Kelantan. Malays J Med Sci 15:28

Sarkar A, Naha P, Nag J (1985) Development of suitable economic adhesives based on synthetic resin as well as proteinous materials and their application in the production of tea-chest plywood. IPIRTI research report No. 07

Schultz TP, Nicholas DD (2002) Development of environmentally-benign wood preservatives based on the combination of organic biocides with antioxidants and metal chelators. Phytochemistry 61:555–560

Sklar T (2008) Ethanol from wood waste an opportunity for refiners. Oil Gas J 106:54–59

Sommerhuber PF, Welling J, Krause A (2015) Substitution potentials of recycled HDPE and wood particles from post-consumer packaging waste in wood-plastic composites. Waste Manag. 46:76–85

Sreeja A, Edwin L (2013) Physical barriers: an alternative to prevent negative impacts of chemically treated wood. J Indian Acad Wood Sci 10:140–147

Suter F, Steubing B, Hellweg S (2017) Life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value chain: the case of Switzerland. J Ind Ecol 21:874–886

Taylor J (2003) Review of the environmental impact of wood compared with alternative products used in the production of furniture. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Coorporation, Australia

Taylor J, Warnken M (2008) Wood recovery and recycling: a source book for Australia. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Coorporation, Australia

Taylor J, Mann R, Reilly M, Warnken M, Pincic D, Death D (2005) Recycling and end-of-life disposal of timber products. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Coorporation, Australia

Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600

Timmermann V, Dibdiakova J (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry in East Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1593–1606

Tomasovic BS (2012) The fate of treated wood infrastructure. Va Environ Law J 30:28

Ugwu S, Ugwuishiwu B, Ekechukwu O, Njoku H, Ani A (2015) Design, construction, and evaluation of a mixed mode solar kiln with black-painted pebble bed for timber seasoning in a tropical setting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1404–1412

Van Hilst F, Hoefnagels R, Junginger M, Shen L, Wicke B (2017). Sustainable biomass for energy and materials: A greenhouse gas emission perspective. Working paper: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht, Utrecht University

Williamson TJ, Olweny M, Moosmayer V, Pullen SF, Bennetts H (2001) Environmentally friendly housing using timber-principles. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Austalia

Wilnhammer M, Lubenau C, Wittkopf S, Richter K, Weber-Blaschke G (2015) Effects of increased wood energy consumption on global warming potential, primary energy demand and particulate matter emissions on regional level based on the case study area Bavaria (Southeast Germany). Biomass Bioenergy 81:190–201

Wootton JT (2012) Effects of timber harvest on river food webs: physical, chemical and biological responses. PLoS ONE 7:43561

Ximenes FA, Gardner WD, Cowie AL (2008) The decomposition of wood products in landfills in Sydney, Australia. Waste Manag 28(11):2344–2354

Yang M, Rosentrater K (2015) Environmental effects and economic analysis of adhesives: a review of life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) in 2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting, p 1

Zanjani MK, Ait-Kadi D, Nourelfath M (2010) Robust production planning in a manufacturing environment with random yield: a case in sawmill production planning. Eur J Operational Res 201:882–891

Zhang W, Ma Y, Xu Y, Wang C, Chu F (2013) Lignocellulosic ethanol residue-based lignin–phenol–formaldehyde resin adhesive. Int J Adhes Adhes 40:11–18

Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA, Verchot LV (2008) Climate change mitigation: a spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:67–80

Zoolagud SS, Rangaraju TS, Narayana prasad TR, Mohandas KK (1997) Study on the suitability of deoiled soya bean flour and Jatropha seed cake flour as extenders for UF and PF resin adhesives for bonding MR and BWR grades of plywood. IPIRTI research report No. 97

Download references

Authors’ contributions

SA drafted the manuscript. BO provided conceptual guidance and polished and revised the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

The authors read the manuscript and agree for publication.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors declare that this manuscript is not published or consider for publication elsewhere.

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal

Shankar Adhikari

School of Ecosystem and Forests Science, University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, Melbourne, Australia

Barbara Ozarska

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shankar Adhikari .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Adhikari, S., Ozarska, B. Minimizing environmental impacts of timber products through the production process “From Sawmill to Final Products”. Environ Syst Res 7 , 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-018-0109-x

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2017

Accepted : 02 April 2018

Published : 20 April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-018-0109-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental impacts
• Timber products

Laminated Timber Buildings: An Overview of Environmental Impacts

• First Online: 14 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Rahman Azari 3 &
• Maryam Singery 4  

Part of the book series: Innovative Renewable Energy ((INREE))

902 Accesses

Wood and timber are historical construction materials, but their applications in buildings have been largely limited to low-rise construction as well as wood products such as doors, window frames, or furniture used in buildings. The application of timber in tall buildings has recently received significant interest by architects and engineers, mainly due to concerns about the environmental impacts of buildings, timber’s carbon potentials, and developments of new timber products with enhanced mechanical properties.

The current chapter will provide an overview of the state-of-the-art knowledge related to the environmental impacts of timber’s application in buildings. The chapter starts with a brief history of timbers in buildings, reviews the carbon cycling in forests and how deforestation affects it, and proceeds with the pros and cons of timber construction and the recent technological developments that have addressed the concerns regarding timber’s application in tall buildings. Finally, an overview of the literature regarding the life cycle environmental impacts of timber buildings is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Architectural Digest. March 22, 2019. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-timber-framed-building-finally-opens-doors

Carbon constitutes 27.24% of the CO 2 mass. One ton of carbon translates to 3.67 ton of CO 2 .

EIA. (2019). Energy consumption by sector . Retrieved from US Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_3.pdf

EPA. (2020a). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2018 fact sheet. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-11/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet.pdf

EIA. (2020). Annual energy outlook . Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/industry.php

Guinness. (2020, November). Tallest wooden building . Retrieved from Guinness World Records: https://guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/79569-tallest-wooden-building/

Williams, J. H. (1971). Roman building-materials in south-East England. Britannia, 2 , 166–195.

Article   Google Scholar  

Langenbach, R. (2007). From “opus Craticium” to the “Chicago frame”: Earthquake-resistant traditional construction. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1 , 29–59.

Cornwall, W. (2016). Tall timber. Science, 353 (6306), 1354–1356.

Howard, J. L., & Liang, S. (2019). U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics, 1965–2017 . Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

Book   Google Scholar  

FAO. (2020). The state of the World’s forests 2020 . New York: FAO and UNEP.

Google Scholar  

USGCRP. (2018). Second state of the carbon cycle report . Washington, DC: US Global Change Research Program.

Battles, J. J., Bell, D. M., Kennedy, R. E., Saah, D. S., Collins, B. M., York, R. A., et al. (2018). Innovations in measuring and managing forest carbon stocks in California. In California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment .

EPA. (2020b). U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks . Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P., Lomas, M. R., Piao, S. L., et al. (2008). Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using 5 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). Global Change Biology, 14 , 1–25.

Tejaswi, G. (2007). Manual on deforestation, degradation, and fragmentation using remote sensing and GIS . Rome: FAO.

IPCC. (2020). Climate change and land . Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Woodard, A., & Milner, H. (2016). Sustainability of timber and wood 7 in construction. In J. Khatib (Ed.), Sustainability of construction materials (pp. 129–157). Cambridge: Woodhead.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ramagea, M. H., Burridge, H., Busse-Wicher, M., Fereday, G., Reynolds, T., Shah, D. U., et al. (2017). The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68 , 333–359.

Rowell, R. (2007). Chapter 22. Chemical modification of wood. In F. Stoyko & B. Debes (Eds.), Handbook of engineering biopolymers—homopolymers, blends and composites . Munich: Hanser.

UFN. (2019). Trees improve our air quality . Retrieved from Urban Forestry Network: http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm

Lippiatt, B. (2007). BEES 4.0: Building for environmental and economic sustainability, technical manual and user guide . Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Nakano, K., Koike, W., Yamagishi, K., & Hattori, N. (2020). Environmental impacts of cross-laminated timber production in Japan. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22 , 2193–2205.

Chen, Z., Gu, H., Bergman, R. D., & Liang, S. (2020). Comparative life-cycle assessment of a high-rise mass timber building with an equivalent reinforced concrete alternative using the Athena impact estimator for buildings. Sustainability, 12 (4708), 1–15.

Katsuyuki, N., Karube, M., & Hattori, N. (2020). Environmental impacts of building construction using cross-laminated timber panel construction method: A case of the research building in Kyushu, Japan. Sustainability, 12 (2220), 1–14.

FPL. (2010). Wood handbook; wood as an engineering material . Madison, WI: Forest Products Laboratory. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Robertson, A. B., Lam, F. C., & Cole, R. J. (2012). A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: Laminated timber or reinforced concrete. Buildings, 2 , 245–270.

Guo, H., Liu, Y., Meng, Y., Huang, H., Sun, C., & Shao, Y. (2017). A comparison of the energy saving and carbon reduction performance between reinforced concrete and cross-laminated timber structures in residential buildings in the severe cold region of China. Sustainability, 9 (1426), 1–15.

Skullestada, J. L., Bohneb, R. A., & Lohneb, J. (2016). High-rise timber buildings as a climate change mitigation measure—a comparative LCA of structural system alternatives. Energy Procedia, 96 , 112–123.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Architecture, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Rahman Azari

Architectural & Engineering Design Technology Program, South Texas College, McAllen, Texas, USA

Maryam Singery

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

World Renewable Energy Congress, Brighton, UK

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Azari, R., Singery, M. (2022). Laminated Timber Buildings: An Overview of Environmental Impacts. In: Sayigh, A. (eds) The Importance of Wood and Timber in Sustainable Buildings. Innovative Renewable Energy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71700-1_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71700-1_9

Published : 14 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-71699-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-71700-1

eBook Packages : Energy Energy (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Planning & Construction
• Building Control
• Construction Technology News
• Construction Software News
• Health & Safety
• HR & Skills
• Stakeholders
• Publications
• Our Audience
• Prestige Contributors
• Testimonials

• BIM Software Providers
• Structural Warranty Providers

Recycled plastic lumber: A more sustainable alternative to timber

In this article, jonathon pearce, head of sales, centriforce, explores the benefits of recycled plastic lumber, and how the material is emerging as an alternative to timber construction.

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health recently found that 18% of large particle pollution in the UK is caused by the construction industry, and 97% of people working in the construction industry believed air quality was an ‘extremely or very important’ environmental concern.

With the growing concern among workers within the industry, combined with the astronomical impact on the environment, we need to put on a united effort to reduce the industry’s impact on the environment.

Perhaps it may come as a surprise to some, but timber is not as ethical a construction material as you may think.

Disadvantages to the use of timber in construction

• Deforestation
• Loss of biodiversity
• Increased carbon emissions

Thankfully, sustainable timber alternatives made from recycled plastics are increasingly available, offering improved durability without the need for mass deforestation – protecting the planet and even outperforming traditional timber.

Advertisement

Recycled plastic was listed in the top seven eco-friendly materials of 2020 by BuildPass, an expert sustainable construction consultancy.

Despite being a fairly new and innovative material, recycled plastic alternatives to timber are becoming increasingly popular and already being used in nature reserves, outdoor decking and seating – the possibilities for their use are always growing.

Read on to find out a few of the key benefits of choosing recycled plastic timber alternatives for your construction materials.

What is recycled plastic lumber?

On the face of it, recycled plastic lumber both looks and feels just like wood – in fact, it’s more than likely you will have seen, and perhaps even felt, recycled plastic lumber without noticing a difference.

From park benches to nature reserve boardwalks, recycled plastic is being used everywhere for its ability to hit green initiatives as well as its superior strength and longevity, all the while still retaining the desirable aesthetic and texture of wood.

The plastic your business and household recycles is sent to a material recovery centre where it’s compressed into bales, typically around 450-680kg – which is then sold to companies who turn them into recycled plastic lumber.

What are the advantages of recycled plastic lumber?

Strength and durability.

One of the key advantages of recycled plastic ‘lumber’ is exceptional durability. Unlike traditional wooden timber, plastic is both water- and rot-resistant, ensuring the material doesn’t shrink, swell or weaken when exposed to moisture, preserving its structural integrity.

Rather than replacing timber when it loses its structure, using recycled plastic alternatives reduces the frequency of replacements and minimises resource consumption. This makes a crucial difference to the way you can store it.

Timber made from recycled plastic can be stored outside all year round – even in the wettest and coldest winters without needing to be covered up. Such practical qualities extend to commercial use.

Benches made from recycled plastic lumber can easily be wiped down to dry them after getting wet whereas traditional wood becomes sodden, taking hours, even days to dry fully.

This is why sustainable alternatives to timber are designed to out-live traditional timber; it not only helps preserve the environment, but also keeps business costs low.

2. Environmental impact

The ecological impact of deforestation for timber extraction cannot be ignored. Trees play a crucial role in absorbing CO2 emissions, and their removal disrupts the natural carbon cycle.

Sustainable timber alternatives help address this issue as they don’t require the destruction of trees and forests. Plus, recycled plastic lumber stays the same weight no matter the weather unlike traditional timber which becomes heavier as it absorbs water. This has benefits on two accounts. It reduces transportation-related emissions – making it the greener choice.

It also reduces additional fuel costs making it a more cost-effective material to transport. The industry-wide effort to cut emissions starts with making executive decisions at the materials stage of the construction journey.

If all construction companies chose materials that do not fluctuate in weight and are longer lasting, fewer emissions will be released by delivering them, which would significantly reduce our industry’s part in creating harmful emissions.

Plastics haven’t always had a good reputation, and even recycled plastic products aren’t all made equally.

It is important that you do your research when buying sustainable alternatives to timber, as sometimes their advertising can be misleading. The latest report by Greenpeace USA claims recycled plastic products run the risk of leaching into the environment, which harms the local ecosystems and can impact humans.

Therefore, it’s crucial that you check any materials closely and ensure any manufacturers are transparent about their approach to preventing environmental leaching. This way, you can opt for a recycled plastic lumber alternative that does not leach harmful chemicals into the environment, to make sure you’re not curbing one environmental issue while creating another.

3. Cost-efficiency

Incorporating sustainable alternatives to timber can bring about numerous long-term cost benefits. One such alternative is the utilisation of products made from recycled plastics, which exhibit exceptional tensile strength and durability.

They have been proven to outlast traditional wooden timber by up to four times, significantly reducing the need for frequent repairs or replacements. This advantage not only helps builders save on spending but also contributes to environmental conservation, creating a win-win situation.

Furthermore, recycled plastic lumber offers additional advantages in terms of maintenance and ongoing expenses. Due to its stain- and chew-resistant qualities, this material is virtually maintenance-free. As a result, there is no need for costly upkeep or treatments, further reducing ongoing expenses associated with timber maintenance.

By embracing sustainable alternatives like recycled plastic lumber, builders and construction companies can experience substantial long-term cost savings. These savings are achieved through the increased durability and reduced maintenance requirements of the material.

Additionally, the use of recycled plastics helps mitigate environmental impacts by reducing the demand for new timber, contributing to a more sustainable and eco-friendly construction industry.

4. Versatility and ease of use

Sustainable timber alternatives offer versatility across a wide range of applications and industries. Their adaptability makes them ideal for construction projects including residential, commercial, and public buildings.

Compared to traditional timber, recycled plastic alternatives are also easier and quicker to process. This results in saving time and resources during construction – making the switch to recycled plastic lumber the ideal move for your business and the environment.

As mentioned, sustainable alternatives to timber are significantly lighter in weight, making them easier to transport and handle on site. As they are easier to carry and handle, it makes the construction process far more efficient, allowing projects to be completed in shorter amounts of time.

Recycled plastic lumber enhances site safety

A further benefit of the lighter weight and easier to carry enhances worksite safety. Enhanced safety measures in the workplace should be given utmost importance, and efforts to improve it should be prioritised whenever feasible.

Construction sites are full of inherent dangers due to various hazards, heavy materials, and powerful machinery. It’s hardly surprising that these workplaces account for nearly 10% of non-fatal work-related injuries caused by handling, lifting, or carrying heavy objects. However, you can mitigate the risk of lifting-related injuries by choosing lighter alternatives to traditional timber, thereby reducing the burden on workers and recycled plastic lumber offers just that.

Arguably the most valuable tool a builder possesses are their hands, which makes it all that more important to protect them from damage – this includes splinters. Recycled plastic lumber does not split, crack or splinter mitigating the chance of injuries, unlike wooden timber which is liable to cause splinters or cuts, especially when working with unfinished wood.

The time has come for the construction industry to embrace sustainable alternatives. We can help limit deforestation damage, reduce carbon emissions, and promote a more circular economy by switching to eco-friendly materials.

Together, we can build a greener future while meeting the growing demands of our modern world.

Jonathon Pearce

Head of Sales

Centriforce

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How digital building logbooks can boost retrofit and sustainability, building materials made from mycelium composites less sustainable than concrete, study finds, net zero requires reuseable, repurposed buildings, ciob reveals pre-election manifesto, will environmental outcome reports deliver faster, more sustainable development, new guidance on calculating embodied carbon in warehouse equipment launched by cibse and amazon, the modular building institute: the voice of commercial modular construction, pushing the building envelope on sustainability, revolutionising ev charging: inside the technology behind ratio ev’s io7 charging pillar, reshaping the future of uk housebuilding: introducing m-dock, draft guidance for social housing decarbonisation fund wave 3 released, tophat managing director to move on after just four years in post, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured MMC News

Children in crisis: confronting the stark reality of england’s housing emergency.

News. Analysis. Opinion.

The Planning, Building & Construction Today website is the place to come for compelling and informative features, news and products for a diverse audience serving a wide construction sector.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• GDPR Information
• GDPR Privacy Policy

© Adjacent Digital Politics Ltd

Wood vs. Plastic – A Quick Comparison

As sustainability becomes an increasingly important factor for businesses, industry experts are continuously exploring the most eco-friendly packaging solutions. Two of the most widely used materials in packaging are wood and plastic.

In this exclusive Nature’s Packaging blog post, we will compare the environmental impact of wood vs plastic packaging, addressing factors such as production energy, recyclability, and biodegradability.

Production Energy: Wood Packaging Takes the Lead

When comparing the energy required to produce wood and plastic packaging materials, wood emerges as the more sustainable option. Wood packaging production typically consumes less energy and releases fewer greenhouse gas emissions than plastic production.

The lower energy demand can be attributed to the fact that wood is a naturally occurring material, whereas plastic is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas. Moreover, wood acts as a carbon sink, storing carbon dioxide throughout its life cycle, which helps mitigate climate change.

Recyclability: A Mixed Bag of Results

Both wood and plastic packaging can be recycled, but the recycling rates and processes for these materials differ significantly.

Wood packaging, such as pallets and crates, can be easily repaired, reused, and eventually recycled into wood chips, mulch, or particleboard. While the recycling rate for wood packaging varies depending on local infrastructure and initiatives, its recyclability remains a strong point in its favor.

Plastic packaging, on the other hand, presents more challenges when it comes to recycling. While some types of plastic can be recycled multiple times, others can only be recycled once or not at all.

Additionally, plastic recycling rates are generally lower than those for wood, and the recycling process can be energy-intensive, reducing its overall sustainability advantage.

Biodegradability: Wood Packaging Shines

In terms of biodegradability, wood packaging stands out as the clear winner. Wood is a natural, organic material that decomposes over time, breaking down into harmless substances that can be absorbed back into the environment. This process not only reduces waste but also returns valuable nutrients to the soil.

Plastic packaging, however, does not share this advantage. Most plastics are not biodegradable and can persist in the environment for hundreds of years. Even biodegradable plastics, while an improvement, can take years to break down and often require specific conditions for proper decomposition.

Wood Packaging as a Sustainable Choice for Industry Experts

To achieve sustainability goals in the supply chain, we must weigh the environmental impacts of the materials we choose for packaging solutions. This comparison of wood and plastic packaging highlights that wood is generally a more sustainable option, given its lower production energy, recyclability, and biodegradability.

While plastic packaging may offer advantages in terms of weight and durability, it’s essential to consider the broader environmental implications. By prioritizing sustainable materials like wood and encouraging innovations in eco-friendly packaging, we can drive our industry toward a greener future, where the environmental footprint of packaging is minimized, and a circular economy becomes a reality.

You might also like

• First Name *
• Last Name *

1421 Prince Street, Suite 340 Alexandria, VA  22314-2805

CONTACT DETAILS

Phone:  703 519 6104

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Antibiotics (Basel)

Testing the Antimicrobial Characteristics of Wood Materials: A Review of Methods

Muhammad tanveer munir.

1 Laboratoire Innovation Matériau Bois Habitat Apprentissage (LIMBHA), Ecole Supérieure du Bois, 7 rue Christian Pauc, 44306 Nantes, France; [email protected] (M.T.M.); [email protected] (M.I.)

Hélène Pailhories

2 Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES EA3859, SFR 4208, Université d’Angers, 49933 Angers, France; [email protected]

3 Laboratoire de bactériologie, CHU Angers, 49933 Angers, France; rf.sregna-uhc@drallieveam

Matthieu Eveillard

4 CRCINA, Inserm, Université de Nantes and Université d’Angers, 44200 Nantes, France

Florence Aviat

5 Your ResearcH-Bio-Scientific, 307 la Gauterie, 44430 Le Landreau, France; moc.liamg@taivaecnerolf

Laurence Dubreil

6 PAnTher, Oniris, INRA, Université Bretagne Loire, F-44307 Nantes, France; [email protected]

Michel Federighi

7 UMR INRA 1014 SECALIM, Oniris, route de Gachet, CS 40706, 44307 Nantes cedex 03, France; [email protected]

Christophe Belloncle

Associated data.

Some wood species have antimicrobial properties, making them a better choice over inert surfaces in certain circumstances. However, the organic and porous nature of wood raises questions regarding the use of this material in hygienically important places. Therefore, it is reasonable to investigate the microbial survival and the antimicrobial potential of wood via a variety of methods. Based on the available literature, this review classifies previously used methods into two broad categories: one category tests wood material by direct bacterial contact, and the other tests the action of molecules previously extracted from wood on bacteria and fungi. This article discusses the suitability of these methods to wood materials and exposes knowledge gaps that can be used to guide future research. This information is intended to help the researchers and field experts to select suitable methods for testing the hygienic safety and antimicrobial properties of wood materials.

1. Introduction

Wood is an organic material and a renewable resource of nature. It is an eco-friendly material as compared to glass, plastic, and metals that cause environmental disorders i.e., pollution or health hazards [ 1 ]. It is also an important constituent of nature-based themes aimed to improve the psychological well-being of inhabitants [ 2 ]. Untreated wood surfaces are traditionally used for food preparation, cutting, fermentation, and packaging [ 3 ]. Wood and wood products are also used as flooring and beddings in animal husbandry practices where they contribute to improvement in the health and welfare of animals [ 4 , 5 ]. Meanwhile, the safety of wood material in hygienically significant places is questioned, owing to its porosity and hygroscopic nature. However, studies have shown that some commonly used wood speices have antimicrobial activities [ 6 , 7 , 8 ] and can be looked on as a safe material for indoor uses in hygienically significant places [ 2 , 9 ] and as food contact surfaces [ 3 , 10 , 11 ]. Therefore, the antimicrobial properties of this material are investigated either to validate its safety as a hygienic surface or for the discovery and identification of the active antimicrobial compounds present in it [ 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Various diagnostic methods are used to determine the antimicrobial properties of wood to evaluate the safety of this material via screening tests and/or quantify the presence of any active compounds [ 6 , 16 ]. Moreover, such tests can help identify the factors affecting the antimicrobial behavior of wood such as the nature of the microbes (type and resistance), the wood characteristics and variability (age, location, part, and treatment) and the environment (humidity, moisture, and temperature) [ 7 , 8 , 10 ]. In addition, such methods can also be used to evaluate the efficacy of disinfectants and treatments used to increase the antimicrobial effectiveness of surfaces [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

In general, antimicrobial properties of wood are studied via extractive-based methods, where compounds are extracted using solvents ( S1 in Supplementary Materials ) and then subjected to conventional antimicrobial testing methods such as agar diffusion and broth dilution [ 8 , 12 , 21 , 22 ]. Meanwhile, the direct methods such as surface contact test, microbe recovery protocols ( S2 in Supplementary Materials ), and bioluminescence assay can assess the surface contamination of wood [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. However, to our knowledge, there are no specific standard methods available for wood material to directly determine its antimicrobial potential or surface contamination. Further, mass spectrometry and chromatography help in the identification and characterization of active compounds [ 16 , 26 , 27 ]. Each method has its own benefits and disadvantages regarding its suitability for the handler.

Few reviews exist on the subject of testing the antimicrobial potential of different materials [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. It is believed that this is the first review of the suitability of these methods for wood and hygienically important microbes, particularly those that can be responsible for infections in the healthcare setting, and among them those being multiresistant to antibiotics. Therefore, this article aims to describe the available antimicrobial assays, their suitability to wood material in different forms, along with their advantages and disadvantages regarding utilization. This information is intended to serve as a guideline for researchers and field experts regarding the application of suitable methods in wood science, microbiology, hygiene, and the discovery of novel antimicrobial agents.

2. Literature Search Method

The literature was searched on Scopus , PubMed , and The Web of Science platforms as shown in Figure 1 . The selected keywords were “Wood*” AND “antimicrobial” OR “antifungal” OR “antibacterial”. The timeline of research was set from the year 2000 to present (25/03/2020). The collected references were loaded to the Rayan ® platform for the screening of literature. The doublings were removed and the titles were read to scrutinize the suitable articles. Preference to inclusion was given to original research articles, published in the last 10 years, dealing with wood material, and written in English. Exclusion criteria were, non-wood material, conference presentations, posters, language other than English, and also the repeated similar methodologies reported by the same research group in multiple publications.

Flow chart of literature review methodology.

3. Results and discussion

A total of 57 articles were obtained to identify the methods of antimicrobial testing of wood material ( Table 1 ). Further studies were added to describe the prospective methods (i.e., autobiography) of studying the antimicrobial properties of different compounds in the form of extractives.

Summary of publications selected for full-text review.

According to the literature findings, it was possible to categorize the methods into two broad groups based on form of test material used e.g., solid wood or extractives. Furthermore, they were subclassified into different groups according to the methodology, as shown in Figure 2 .

Flow diagram outlining review findings on the classification of methods to study the antimicrobial potential of wood material.

3.1. Direct Methods

In this approach, the microbial survival after direct contact with wood samples is studied. These methods give a better understanding of the role of the physical structure of wood as a microorganism inhibitor. In general, they are easy to implement because usually no chemical handling or complicated preparation steps are required.

For research purposes, the direct methods may require an extra step of sterilization of the test material. Generally, the wood test samples are sterilized by autoclaving, ultraviolet irradiation, gamma radiation, fumigation, or by disinfection with alcohols [ 6 , 10 , 41 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 61 , 74 ]. It would be interesting to know if the sterilization methods interfere with the antimicrobial properties of wood material. For example, heat treatment may alter the chemical composition of the wood surfaces [ 21 ], and immersing wood pieces in ethanol may extract some compounds from them, thus, influencing the outcomes of the antimicrobial research.

3.1.1. Agar Diffusion Method

The agar diffusion method is commonly used in routine for antibiotic susceptibility testing in clinical microbiology laboratories [ 75 ]. In this technique, an agar plate is conventionally used, and it is inoculated with a standardized bacterial or fungal suspension. The test sample, containing the potential active ingredients (added as a disc or deposited in a well created in the agar or a cylinder (plug)) is placed on the inoculated agar plate [ 76 , 77 ]. When such a system is incubated at a specific temperature, more often 37 °C, for a recommended time, the observation of growth inhibition around the test sample indicates the susceptibility of the incubated microbe [ 75 ]. This growth inhibition diameter is dependent on the antimicrobial susceptibility of an organism, the diffusion potential of testing antimicrobial agents in agar medium, and the efficacy of the active compounds [ 31 , 78 ].

The choice of the agar medium depends upon the type of microorganism being tested in the experiment. For many microbes, the recommendations have been defined by international organizations, such as the European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing [ 77 ] and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [ 76 ]. In general, the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria is tested on Mueller–Hinton agar [ 6 ]. However, plate count agar (PCA) [ 59 ], Iso-Sensitest ® agar [ 79 ], tryptone soy agar [ 13 ], and other nutrient mediums have also been used [ 80 ]. Antimycogram experiments generally involve the use of Sabouraud agar [ 79 ]. However, malt agar [ 59 ] and potato dextrose agar (PDA) are also employed for this purpose [ 66 ], depending upon the type of species being tested [ 81 ].

The incubation period depends on the growth requirement conditions of the tested microorganisms. Generally, most of the bacterial incubations vary from 18 to 24 h at 37 °C, while in case of fungi, 48 to 72 h are recommended at room temperature (25-30 °C) [ 45 , 72 , 82 ]. Then, the zone of inhibition (diameter) is measured to the nearest mm [ 71 ].

Direct Wood Disc Agar Diffusion Method (Antiboisgram)

Munir et al. (2019) and Pailhoriès et al. (2017) reported a direct diffusion method to screen the bacterial growth inhibition potential of multiple wood species ( Figure 3 ) [ 6 , 7 ]. In this method, a Mueller–Hinton agar plate was inoculated with a 0.5 McFarland bacterial suspension via swab streaking. Then, wood test samples with a disc form (2-4 mm thickness and 9-10 mm diameter) were directly placed on it. After an incubation time of 18-24 h, inhibition zones’ diameters were manually measured by two different readers. [ 7 , 8 ] used this method as a qualitative screening method and the presence of zone of inhibition was considered as a positive antimicrobial activity, while [ 6 ] further used this method and took into account the variability of the method for the interpretation of the results. This method can also be modified to test the antimicrobial properties and durability of treated solid wood samples (5 mm) against different fungi and bacteria [ 19 , 63 , 83 , 84 ]. Recently, a similar approach was applied by treating the Melia azedarach wood samples with acetone extract of Withania somnifera Fruit. Subsequently, the antimicrobial action was investigated against Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Dickeya solani, Erwinia amylovora, Pseudomonas cichorii, Serratia pylumthica, Fusarium culmorum, and Rhizoctonia solani . The positive antibacterial and antifungal responses were observed in the form of inhibition zones around samples on agar [ 34 ].

An antibiogram showing the results of filter paper discs (6 mm) and different oak tree wood discs (10 × 3 mm) tested against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 inoculated on a Mueller–Hinton agar plate: ( a ) negative control inert filter paper disc; ( b ) oak wood transversal cut; ( c – e ) oak wood longitudinal cut, and ( f ) positive control antibiotic (Vancomycin (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom); © Authors.

The direct diffusion method can give screening results very quickly and even the results of this technique can be interpreted in the absence of wood sterilization [ 7 ]. It can also help determine the influence of antimicrobial potential-affecting variables including the species of tree, part of tree [ 8 ], and geometry of cutting [ 6 ]. However, it is difficult to interpret in case of very low antimicrobial activity. In addition, the variability in this method can be high, making quantification a difficult task; therefore, uniform-sized test samples are recommended to overcome this difficulty [ 7 ].

Sawdust-Filled Well Diffusion Method

If the wood sample is only available in particulate and sawdust form, which is a common case in animal husbandry practices, then it can be placed in a well cut into the agar plate [ 4 , 5 ]. This method is a slight modification of agar diffusion method, where uniform-sized wells (5 to 10 mm) are punched aseptically with a sterile borer or a tip on agar plate [ 45 ]. Then, the sample particles are filled in these holes, and the system is incubated. The diameters of the zone of inhibition around these wells are measured as an indication of antimicrobial action [ 7 ] ( Figure 4 ).

Antibiogram result of the well diffusion method to test the antimicrobial activity of sawdust (1–2 mm particle size), filled in wells (10 mm diameter) created in Mueller–Hinton agar against Acinetobacter baumannii : ( a ) oak wood showing the zone of inhibition around the well as a positive result; ( b ) positive control antibiotic disc (Colistin (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom)–6mm diameter disc); ( c ) poplar sawdust with no activity, and ( d ) ash sawdust with no antimicrobial activity; © Authors.

Although this method gives good results for screening purposes, it is not easy to fill the wells precisely without disrupting or contaminating the inoculated agar surface [ 7 ]; for example, Figure 4 a shows that the few fibers are spreading out of the well. In addition, the particle size within samples may affect the diffusion and quantity of test material because finer particle sizes have a higher surface area to volume ratio compared to larger particles [ 85 ]. Therefore, granulometric studies are needed to standardize this protocol.

3.1.2. Evaluation of Microbial Survival on Wood Surfaces

The antimicrobial properties of wood can also be studied by observing the viability of microorganisms on wood. Recovery methods and visualization methods alone or in combination are employed to study the role of physical and chemical composition of wood to counter the microbial growth ( Figure 5 ). Moreover, such methods also provide good evidence of safety studies of comparative materials such as plastic, glass, and steel.

Flow diagram outlining review findings on the methods to study microbial survival on solid wood material.

In previous studies, recovery methods were described as destructive and non-destructive methods [ 52 , 86 ]; however, this classification may vary depdnding upon the availability of sample or employment of methodology. For example, planning can be both a destructive and non-destructive method for constructed surfaces. Therefore, Figure 5 describes more complete illustration of methodologies to study the microbial survival on wooden surfaces.

Microbial Recovery

Here, the recovery is defined as “ the percentage of cells detected from the number of initially inoculated cells on a surface ”. The microbial recovery gives information on their survival on different surfaces at different times [ 86 ]. Such methods are also used to study microbial adhesion and biofilm formation on wood surfaces [ 39 ]. In general, the microbial recovery from surfaces depends upon multiple factors, including the type of wood material, surface roughness, size of surface, porosity, moisture content, type of microbes, recovery method, contact time, skills of the handler, and the media used for collection, transport, and processing of samples [ 46 , 52 , 87 ].

As wood is a porous material with a very complex distribution of porosity [ 88 ], the recovery of total microbial content is difficult [ 86 , 89 ]. Even the transfer of microbes from the wooden contact surface to food is lower as compared to other surfaces [ 73 ]; for example, [ 10 ] reported that the transfer rates of Listeria monocytogenes from wood (0.55%) to cheese was lower than perforated plastics (1.09%) and glass (3%).

Culture-Based Methods

A simple method of microbial recovery is blotting or agar plate contact, which involves directly touching the wood sample to agar to transfer microbes on it [ 2 , 17 , 18 , 23 ]. It involves contacting contaminated pieces of wood on agar at a specific pressure for a known time, e.g., 650 g for 10–20 s [ 60 , 90 ]. Kavian-Jaromi et al. studied the survival of Klebsiella pneumoniae and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on Larch wood [ Larix decidua (Mill)] [ 46 ]. Both heartwood and sapwood cubes (10 × 10 × 5 mm 3 ) were inoculated with about 100 µL of bacterial suspension (10 6 CFU ml −1 ). These samples were blotted onto blood agar plates (Columbia Blood Agar) after 0, 3, and 24 h of inoculation, and subsequently, the developed colonies were counted after 24 h of incubation at 37 °C. Gupta (2017) reported the contact RODAC (Replicate Organism Detection and Counting) plates method for the recovery of fungi and bacteria from different surfaces, including wood. These plates containing sterilized tryptic soy agar (TSA) and potato dextrose agar (PDA) for bacterial and fungal colonies respectively, were impressed upon test surfaces for 20 s and incubated directly at 37 °C and 24 °C for TSA and PDA plates, respectively. They also compared this method with a vacuuming and bulk rinsate method. Vacuuming was similar to air sampling for microbes with certain modifications adapted for surfaces. The contact method showed slightly higher recovery than vacuuming, and the bulk rinsate method gave 2 times higher recovery compared to the aforementioned methods.

Another direct method has been described in the literature where inoculated food contact surfaces, including wood [ 40 ], were covered with agar and after incubation, nitroblue tetrazolium solution (pale yellow) was used to stain colonies (purple) at the agar–test surface interface. Stained colonies could be readily detected and counted, and this method gave 5 times higher recovery than the swabbing method [ 91 ].

A simple rinsing of a wood surface with normal saline to collect microbes has also been reported [ 47 , 67 ]. However, this method is not very suitable for porous materials such as wood because microbes may descend in the depth of pores and do not come out with rinsing solution; in addition, even the surface-adhered microbes would not detach. Meanwhile, elusion-dependent methods recover the higher microbial concentrations from such surfaces [ 48 , 92 ]. They involve the direct immersion of contaminated pieces of test material (e.g., cubes, sawdust, shavings) or a collection device (e.g., swabs, sponges) in an eluent (sterilized phosphate buffer saline or peptone water) and then a physical dissociation method such as shaking, sonication, vortexing, or Stomacher used to recover the microorganisms [ 37 , 44 , 53 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 93 , 94 ]. Then, this suspension is further vortexed for 5–20 s and plated using serial dilution when appropriate [ 50 ]. Although this method gives higher recovery than the contact and vacuum method [ 92 ], the question arises if all the microbes are recovered from wood by this method. Earlier, Vainio-Kaila et al. [ 68 ] used a similar technique to remove all adhered L. monocytogenes and Escerichia coli cells from the surface of wood and glass samples. Samples were vortexed in 15 mL BHI (brain heart infusion) broth for 5 s. To enumerate the colony forming units (CFU), the suspension was subjected to a plate count method. Meanwhile, the test samples after microbial recovery were re-incubated in broth to determine remaining microbial quantity; however, no qualitative growth was observed after 24 h of incubation. This method has also been used to test the survival of microbes on wood shavings [ 53 , 56 ]. [ 62 ] used this method with certain modifications for the evaluation of antibacterial activity on grounded high-density polyethylene, expanded polystyrene, pine, and poplar wood. The materials were ground to obtain 0.4 g of each, and they were then suspended in 20 mL of buffered peptone water. The Staphylococcus aureus bacterial suspension was prepared and added in the same, together with test material, to obtain the final bacterial concentrations of around 1 × 10 5 –3 × 10 5 CFU mL −1 adjusted by the McFarland turbidity method. Then, the suspension was vortexed to homogenize and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. After the incubation time, the decimal dilutions of suspension were made in tryptone saline solution, and then the TEMPO ® system was used to quantify the remaining viable bacterial cells.

In addition, microbes are also collected by swabbing [ 20 ] and by destructive methods such as grinding [ 59 ] and the planing [ 51 ] of wood, and then they were further subjected to vortexing protocol for recovery [ 18 , 52 ].

Swabbing is also a common method for collecting microorganisms from wooden surfaces [ 2 , 20 , 38 , 41 , 51 , 55 , 60 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]. The swabs can be wet or dry and could be in form of cotton, foam, cloth, and sponge [ 35 , 40 , 73 , 100 ]. The microbial collection depends on the type of swabbing approach adapted [ 35 , 46 ]. Ahnrud et al. reported that the sonicating swab device that combines swabbing, sonication, and suction can recover a significantly ( p < 0.05) higher number of L. monocytogenes cells from wooden cutting boards as compared to sponge, foam, and cotton swabbing [ 34 ].

Wood is intrinsically porous, which allows organic debris and bacteria to descend into the pores of wood unless a highly hydrophobic residue covers the surface [ 2 , 89 ]. It is highly likely that the porous structure of wood provides valleys and holes in which microbes are protected from any swabbing action [ 11 ]. In addition, a higher number of microbes were recovered by swabbing a longitudinally cut wood surface as compared to a transversally cut wooden surface owing to the difference of surface porosity [ 101 , 102 ].

In general, the recovery methods give lower recovery from wood in dry conditions as compared to moist surfaces [ 52 ]. Welker et al. reported that the recovery of E. coli with the sponge swab method was similar on plastic and moist maple wood, while it was very low on dry wood (0.1%) and plastic (0.25%) [ 73 ]. Imhof et al. reported that the recovery of Listeria spp. from spruce wood was higher by an abrasive (planing) method as compared to swabbing (cotton rolls) in dry conditions; however, both methods gave similar results when wet with a low detection sensitivity of < 32 CFU/cm 2 [ 51 ]. The role of surface moisture is also linked to longer survival of microbes, which could lead to higher cultivable microbial recovery. Ismail et al. [ 52 ] reported that the microbial recovery rate from wood was greater at higher moisture contents, regardless of the method of recovery (palning, brushing, or grinding), wood species (pine or poplar), and microorganism ( E. coli, L. monocytogenes, or Penicillium expansum ). For example, the recovery rates for E. coli at 18% and 37% moisture contents were 19% and 30% from pine and 8% and 27% from poplar wood, respectively. They also reported that the grinding method was found to be the most sensitive, giving the highest recovery rates in all conditions as compared to planing and a brushing method. In another study, Coughenour et al. [ 38 ] reported that the addition of Bovine Serum Albumen to the glass, wood, vinyl, plastic, and cloth surfaces enabled methicillin-resistant S. aureus to survive for significantly longer duration ( p < 0.001). Interestingly, the recovery of number of CFU was significantly lesser on surfaces stored in 45–55% versus 16% relative humidity.

Molecular Biology Methods

The specific amplification of nucleic acids, such as in polymerase chain reaction (PCR), can be employed as a culture-independent method to investigate the microbial diversity in different environmental settings with complex mixture communities, non-cultivable viable cells (NCVC), interfering contaminants, and low levels of target DNA [ 103 ]. In first step of the PCR technique, the genetic material is isolated and purified from the target samples [ 104 ]. The step can also be a culture-independent method; for example, [ 32 , 33 ] used the swabbing of cutting boards for sample collection. Further, they vortexed the samples to obtain microbes and then extracted DNA without culturing these samples. Finally, they used the pyrosequencing technique to identify bacteria.

In PCR, the probes to target various genes can be designed depending upon the objective of study. The common probes are the phylogenetic probes to get information about the phylogeny of the microorganism, functional gene probes to identify the particular activity of the microbial community, and the species-specific primers to determine the presence of a specific microorganism [ 104 ]. These probes can also be used to detect the quantitative growth of microbes in different conditions. [ 56 , 57 ] studied the survival of fecal microbes in contact with wood material. For microbial recovery, the contaminated wood particles (3 g) were transferred to sterile plastic bags containing an extraction buffer (1:10 ratio). The samples were mechanically treated in a Stomacher lab blender for 3 min at 260 rpm to dislodge the adhering bacteria. The obtained suspension was used for DNA extraction and culturing for counting bacterial numbers. The decrease in the number of microbes as compared to initial inoculation was regarded as a loss of microbial survival in contact with wood material.

Genetic identification approaches are also important to recover NCVCs that are in a dormant state in the environment but are capable of cell division, metabolism, or gene transcription (mRNA production). Generally, the culture-based methods cannot identify NCVCs. [ 35 ] reported that the efficiency of sponge and swab recovery with culture-based methods, to obtain Erwinia herbicola from different laminated wood surfaces, was very low (11% and 29%) as compared to qPCR.

As the DNA of dead microbes can persist for an extended period in environments, the molecular assessment (especially for DNA-based methods) can overestimate the viable cell numbers [ 105 ]. There are other markers proposed to overcome this limitation. Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is turned over rapidly in living bacterial cells. It has very short half-life inside the cell and can be used as a marker for microbial viability and identification of NCVCs [ 104 ]. The nutritional stimulation of bacterial cells immediately produces a significant amount of rRNA precursors (pre-rRNA); these strands are easier to detect than mRNAs [ 103 ]. Therefore, they can also be used as a marker for differentiating NCVC from dead cells that have been inactivated by UV irradiation, pasteurization, serum exposure, and chlorine [ 105 ]. However, these techniques have not been used to study the microbial survival on wood, but the prospect has to be employed.

ATP Bioluminescence Assay

The ATP bioluminescence assay can rapidly detect the adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is a component of all living cells. This process uses the luciferin enzyme derived from fireflies. When ATP from test samples reacts with luciferin in the presence of oxygen, the bioluminescence is generated as a byproduct, which is measured in relative light units (RLU) [ 24 , 106 , 107 , 108 ]. This device is generally applied on the surfaces after cleaning to detect the remaining contamination of microbes and organic matter in real time [ 73 ]. This method uses the swabbing of surfaces to collect organic matter, and results can be understated because of the lower recovery of microbes [ 106 ]. Shimoda et al. [ 25 ] used ATP assay to test the contamination of hospital surfaces (melamine, vinyl chloride, stainless steel, wood, and acrylonitrile–butadiene styrene) and found that wood material showed significantly high RLU values with huge variability. The authors cautioned that ATP values on wood surface were likely to be inaccurate because the CFU on all surfaces were same. Likewise, the sensitivity and specificity of a bioluminescence test as compared to the aerobic colony count method were reported to be 46% and 71% [ 108 ]. A recent study has also shown that ATP measurement is not an appropriate tool to measure bacterial contamination on wood and bamboo surfaces in hygienically important places [ 24 ]. These variations are linked to the organic nature of wood, and some traces of ATP may be present in this material, which interferes with the results, as [ 73 ] reported a higher level of bioluminescence in new wood samples as compared to plastic. From the results of these studies, it can be concluded that an initial reading before contamination and another after contamination can give clearer information about actual microbial presence. Moreover, ATP bioluminescence assay should be coupled with culture-based methods to determine the microbial survival on wood.

Microscopy of Microbes on Wood

The microscopic approaches are promising tools to study the morphology and probes as an indication of microbial survival and viability on different surfaces. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) is widely used to observe the presence of contaminants on wood surfaces. Many articles are found in the literature with biofilm structure analyses by SEM to describe the morphological effects of fungi or bacteria distribution [ 39 , 51 , 73 , 97 , 101 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 ]. Cruciata et al. [ 39 ] described the formation and characterization of early bacterial biofilms on different wood species (Calabrian chestnut, Sicilian chestnut, cedar, cherry, ash, walnut, black pine, and poplar woods) used in dairy production. By using SEM, they observed a visible exopolysaccharide matrix that is typical of biofilm structures and showed the presence of both rod and coccus bacteria on the wood surfaces.

However, SEM is restricted to 2D exploration, and 3D observation of microbial colonization inside the pores and cracks of wood is very difficult [ 115 ]. Furthermore, such a method requires a series of highly invasive fixation steps incompatible with live imaging and is unable to provide direct information on the survival status of bacteria on analyzed wood surfaces [ 116 ]. Moreover, direct microscopy such as environmental SEM can change the morphology of wooden structures and microbial cells during the imaging process [ 42 , 117 ]. Therefore, the application of a microscopy to study microbial survival and interaction with wood components is a challenging task.

Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) in conjunction with digital image processing techniques has been reported as a potent non-invasive optical sectioning tool [ 115 ]. It allows micromorphologies of microbe interaction within wood to be examined at a depth around 50 µm of a specimen without incision, depending on the density of the wood sample [ 116 ]. Xiao et al. [ 116 ] reported that after fixation with glutaraldehyde, it was possible to locate fungal hyphae in wood, and counterstaining wood with fluorescent phospholipid probe enabled the visualization of bacterial colonization and even distinguished Gram types to detect them in wood cell walls. Dubreil et al. [ 42 ] developed an innovative method where they applied CSLM to observe E.coli labeled with a DNA probe DRAQ5 on poplar wood ( Figure 6 ). This approach helped to visualize the presence and localization of bacterial cells, and it can be an interesting approach to determine the hygienic risk of microbial presence. However, this method did not give information of the viability of bacteria, and it even did not work well when applied on S. aureus bacteria. Recent work is being performed to optimize the visualization on hygienically important microbes on wood material by using spectral unmixing methods to analyze multilabeling and separate specifically fluorescence from bacteria, fluorescence from live/dead kit and the autofluorescence of wood (unpublished data).

Methodology to observe DRAQ5-labeled bacteria with confocal spectral laser microscopy [adapted from Dubreil et al. [ 42 ]].

3.2. Methods to Study the Antimicrobial Properties of Wood Extractives

Wood contains biochemical compounds that enhance its resistance to microbial degradation. These special chemicals or extractives are not structural components, so they can be extracted by using different solvents [ 118 , 119 ]. The quantity and type of extractives vary between wood species even within different parts of wood in the same tree [ 119 ]. Moreover, the antimicrobial activities of different extractives in various plants vary according to solvents used [ 8 ]. On one side, extraction-based protocols give precise information of antimicrobial activity, and on the other side, the extraction adds an extra step in the antimicrobial test and requires chemical handling.

3.2.1. Agar Diffusion and Dilution Methods

The antimicrobial properties of wood extractives can be tested by different agar diffusion-based methods that are classified based on loading the test solution on agar.

In the first method, wooden extractives in viscous form can be directly loaded on inoculated agar as circular points and after the incubation period, zones of inhibitions are observed as indicators of antimicrobial activity [ 22 ].

In the well method, extractives (50–100μL) are directly pipetted into 6 mm diameter wells made in the agar. First, the extractive solutions are diluted to different concentration [ 65 , 120 , 121 ].

In the filter paper disc diffusion method, the extractives in different concentrations are impregnated into filter paper discs that are subsequently placed on agar plates. During the test disc preparation, the absorption potential of filter paper discs can vary depending upon the type of paper material being used. There are commercial paper discs available that have a diameter of 6 mm. Their general application is in antimicrobial sensitivity experiments in clinical microbiology laboratories. These discs are impregnated with 15–50 µL of stock solutions [ 122 ]. However, different sizes of the discs ranging from 5 to 10 mm can be created from blotting paper or simple filter paper (Whatman, no. 1 or 3) [ 14 , 82 ] and they can be impregnated with 10–200 µL of test solution extracted from wood material [ 8 , 80 , 84 ]. However, some studies have reported the soaking method in which the crude extracts were dissolved in TWEEN-20 solvent [to emulsify carrier oil in water [ 123 ]] and 10% stock solutions were prepared. The blotting paper discs (6 mm diameter) were soaked in various dilute solvent extracts and dried for 5 min to avoid the flow of extracts in the test media [ 66 , 124 ]. The following step is air drying, maintaining the sterility of material. The repetition of impregnation and drying can allow the loading of more liquid on discs. Finally, the sample loaded filter paper discs are subjected to the agar diffusion method to study the antimicrobial properties ( Figure 7 ).

Antibiogram to test the antimicrobial properties of oak wood ( Quercus petraea ) against Staphylococcus aureus with the agar diffusion method: ( a ) an inert filter paper disc (negative control); ( b ) a wooden disc showing antimicrobial activity by forming a zone of inhibition and ( c ) a filter paper disc impregnated with wood extractives (10 mg extractive content extracted with methanol) showing antimicrobial activity by forming a zone of inhibition; © Authors.

Another method of using agar microdilution has been described in the literature, which involves the dispersion of a test compound in molten agar and dispensing the mixture into a 96-well microplate in a small volume of 100 μL per well, which allows a rapid, easy, and economical preparation of samples as well as providing a uniform and stable dispersion without the separation of the oil–water phases, which occurs in methods with liquid medium [ 125 ].

The extractives in different quantities can also be mixed with agar before pouring into Petri dishes. Later, the bacteria are inoculated by steaking or spreading [ 48 ]. This method is also used for studying the antifungal response of wood extractives, and for this purpose, a piece of agar from a fungi-cultured plate is taken and placed on the extractive-infused petri dish. The size of the circular growth of fungi on agar gives a reading of fungal resistance against extractives [ 79 ].

3.2.2. Broth Dilution Methods

This method is more common to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) [ 28 ], which is the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial product inhibiting the visible growth of a microorganism after overnight incubation [ 126 ]. It requires the homogenous dispersion of a sample agent in solvent, and dilutions of different concentrations are tested to determine MIC [ 31 , 64 ] ( Figure 8 ).

A 96-well plate showing results of the broth microdilution method for an antimicrobial test and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC); © Authors.

If the purpose of an experiment is just to test the antimicrobial potential of wood extractives, only one selected dose can be added [ 71 ]. The inoculation, incubation, and reading can be performed manually or by an automated system, and the results can be read either by the formation of microbial colonies or the stoppage of growth [ 28 , 31 ]. In an automated method, the formation of bacterial colonies gives turbidity to the medium, and it is measured by spectrophotometry [ 71 , 75 ].

3.2.3. Measurement of Wood Mass Loss to Decaying

Wooden surfaces are treated with a number of synthetic and natural products, including wooden extracts, to increase resistance against microbial biodegradation. Measurement of the loss of wooden mass to degradation over time is used as a parameter to evaluate the protective effect of surface treatment or wood itself. Cai et al. [ 36 ] studied the protective effect of Pterocarpus spp. extracts on Poplar samples against wood-degrading fungi. The wood was blast dried in an oven at 40 °C until the mass was constant and then immersed in the prepared extract solution for 2 h. The samples were dried again until the mass was constant. The control and treated samples were placed in culture flasks and incubated at 75% relative humidity and 28 °C for decaying for 3 months. Later, the samples were taken out, hyphae and impurities on the surface were removed, and the samples were oven-dried. The percentage of sample mass loss was used as an indication of the antimicrobial effect.

3.2.4. Bioautography

This extractive-dependent method involves the hybridization of planar chromatography (for phytochemical analysis of extracts) with biological detection methods (for antimicrobial potential) [ 127 ]. The technique is similar to the agar diffusion method except that the tested compound diffuses from the chromatographic layer [ 14 ].

Direct Bioautography

This is a widely used bioautographic method, which links detection on the adsorbent layer with biological tests performed directly on it [ 128 ]. In this method, extractive is loaded on a thin-layer chromatographic (TLC) plate to obtain a chromatogram. Further, this plate is dipped or sprayed with a suspension of microbes grown on a proper culture, and it is then incubated in a vapor chamber to provide a humid atmosphere [ 14 , 129 , 130 ]. In the case of anaerobic microbes, the scenario is different, the incubation in a sealed jar may result in high humidity potentially, causing a softening and peeling of silica gel layer from the aluminum base; the shorter incubation period and concentrated bacterial suspension are recommended to avoid this problem [ 131 ]. Finally, the inhibition of microbial growth can be spotted directly ( Figure 9 ). To improve this visualization, [ 130 ] used p-iodonitrotetrazolium violet, which did not reduce the zone of inhibitions and was visible as white bands. The targeted compounds can also be identified using spectroscopic methods, mostly mass spectrometry, which can be performed directly on a TLC plate [ 27 , 128 ]. This high-throughput method enables analyses of many samples in parallel and the comparison of their activity, making both the screening and semi-quantitative analysis possible [ 128 , 130 ].

Schematic presentation of direct bioautographic method: ( a ) a developed chromatographic plate is placed in a dish; ( b ) agar is poured into this dish, and later, microbes are inoculated and ( c ) after the incubation time, the zones of inhibition can be seen on agar around the active antimicrobial compounds (the figure is adapted from [ 14 , 128 , 129 , 130 ]).

Contact Bioautography

In this method, the TLC plate or paper chromatograms are placed in contact with the inoculated agar surface for some minutes or hours to allow diffusion [ 54 ]. Next, the plate is removed, and the agar layer is incubated for 1–3 days [ 26 ]. The zones of growth inhibition appear in the places where the antimicrobial compounds were in contact with the agar layer [ 131 ] ( Figure 10 ). The visualization can be enhanced by using vital dyes [ 26 ].

Schematic presentation of the contact bioautographic method: ( a ) microbes are inoculated on an agar plate; ( b ) a developed chromatographic plate is flipped over an agar plate to create a chromatographic image and transfer the active compounds, and inoculated plates are incubated for 48 h at 37 °C, and finally, ( c ) the zones of inhibition can be seen on the agar around the active antimicrobial compounds (adapted from [ 28 , 127 , 128 , 131 ]).

Immersion (Agar-Overlay) Bioautography

This is the combination of two formerly described methods. In this technique, an extractive inoculated, developed chromatographic plate is immersed in or covered with molten agar [ 127 ]. After the solidification of agar, the plate is seeded with the tested microorganisms and then incubated [ 132 ] ( Figure 11 ).

Schematic presentation of the immersion bioautographic method: ( a ) a developed chromatographic plate is placed in a dish; ( b ) agar is poured into this dish, and later, microbes are inoculated; ( c ) after an incubation time, the zones of inhibition can be seen on agar around the active antimicrobial compounds (adapted from [ 28 , 127 , 128 , 132 ]).

3.2.5. Active Antimicrobial Ingredient Identification

For the sake of active ingredient or compound identification, the wood extracts are fractioned by chromatographic and spectrophotometric techniques to obtain the pure compounds, which can be further tested for their antimicrobial properties by the conventional methods described above [ 49 , 65 , 133 , 134 ]. However, the fractioning of compounds to test for antimicrobial activities is a laborious bioactivity-guided isolation procedure, and it also yields an extremely low quantity of active substances after purification [ 12 ]. In this scenario, the characterized chemical profile can be labeled as antimicrobial compounds according to previous research done on them [ 16 ].

3.3. Other Methods

There are several other ways to detect the antimicrobial properties of natural compounds, and they still remain to be tested for their application in wood science. One of such methods is inducing infection in animal models and using the dose of extractives as antimicrobial compounds to treat or eliminate the infection. In more sophisticated studies, the mode of action of different compounds is identified against different microorganisms. Plumed-Ferrer et al. [ 13 ] studied the antimicrobial effects of wood-associated polyphenols on food pathogens and spoilage organisms. They identified the mode of antimicrobial effect of these compounds by studying the microbial membrane permeability and membrane damage.

When it comes to bioaerosol quality of indoor air, the effect of the presence of wooden material on the microbial flora is also an important subject of research. Such studies need to utilize static chambers; however, there is no standard method published for wood material. There is an innovative study conducted by Vainio-Kaila et al. [ 70 ] regarding the effect of volatile organic compounds from Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies wood on S. aureus , E. coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and S. enterica Typhimurium. The experiment was carried out in a closed glass container (volume 1.9 L). First, 70 g of sawdust was placed on the bottom. A bacterial solution (20 μL) was inoculated on the glass discs on a rack above the bottom. After the incubation at room temperature for 2, 4, and 24 h, glass discs were dropped in test tubes to recover and enumerate the microbes by the plate count method. This method successfully measured the antimicrobial effect of volatile organic compounds on the microbial survival in different situations of time, air humidity, and sample moisture.

3.4. Pros and Cons of Mthods Used to Study Antimicrobial Behavior of Wood Material

A number of factors influence the choice of method selection to study the antimicrobial properties of wood materials. These factors are related to the availability of experimental material, test samples, purpose of study, and skills of handlers. The advantages and disadvantages of the methods discussed in this review are summarized in Table 2 .

Pros and cons of the methods used to study the antimicrobial behavior of wood material.

4. Conclusions

This review summarizes the methods available studying the antimicrobial behavior of wood material. This information is intended to help field experts and researchers to find methods according to their needs and available resources.

Only a few publications were found using the direct diffusion method for screening the antimicrobial properties of solid wood material. However, this quick method shows the potential to be adapted as a standard screening protocol because of the direct nature of testing. It is noteworthy that a limit of this method is the lack of cut-off values for differentiating active and inactive materials, as such values are available for antibiotics. Therefore, further research is needed to apply this protocol, generate data to identify the variability of this method, and define criteria for interpreting the results of tests.

The literature showed that extractive-based methods are extensively used to identify the antimicrobial properties of wood and wood products. Broth dilution methods indicate the precise minimum inhibitory concentrations of extracted compounds with antimicrobial properties.

Direct bioautography shows good results for screening and the partial identification of active compounds responsible for the antimicrobial activity of wood. However, there is less information available regarding the particular use of contact and immersion bioautography application to search the antimicrobial behavior of wood material. Such studies can serve both purposes of active ingredient identification and their antimicrobial activity testing.

It is also evident that the recovery of microbes to study their survival on wood material remains a challenge. No standard protocol exists for such studies; hence, the methodology is adapted from the other comparative construction products. Consequently, the survival of pathogens on wooden surfaces may be misinterpreted. Future research should identify the recovery and/or survival of different microorganisms on wood regarding the variations related to wood species, physical condition, surface porosity, hygroscopicity, and roughness.

The use of genetic approaches such as quantitative PCR can enhance the efficiency of methods intended to study the microbial survival in contact with wood material. In addition, current microscopic approaches are not very successful to show the microbial survival on wooden surfaces. Therefore, future studies should address the question of microbial viability on wood by using metagenomics approaches and live/dead fluorescence microscopy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable guidance from Dedier Lepelletier (MiHAR laboratory) and Patrice Le Pape (EA 1155 IICiMed) for construction of this manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/9/5/225/s1 .

Author Contributions

M.T.M., H.P., M.E., M.I., F.A., L.D., M.F., C.B., M.T.M., H.P., M.E., M.I., F.A., L.D., M.F. and C.B. are equally contributed for finding the idea and development of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research is part of a project “Bois et Hygiène Hospitalière (BoisH 2 )” funded by CODIFAB and Région Pays de la Loire.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The Cost Effectiveness of Timber vs Other Materials

Dale Joinery explores how timber is a natural, sustainable, versatile building material compared to other materials in construction.

Cost-effectiveness is one of the most important factors to consider when choosing materials for a building project. At Dale Joinery, we have done the hard work for you. We consider factors such as long-term cost, sustainability and your overall well-being.

Timber is a natural, sustainable, and versatile building material that has been used for centuries. Timber has always been the go-to material choice for development projects, but in recent years, it has become increasingly popular for a variety of applications, including construction, furniture, and flooring.

Timber offers several advantages over other materials, including:

Sustainability: Timber is a renewable resource, meaning that it can be replanted and harvested without depleting the planet’s resources. In contrast, many other building materials, such as concrete and steel, are non-renewable and require a lot of energy to produce.

Versatility: Timber can be used to create a wide range of structures and products, from simple garden sheds to complex multi-story buildings and development projects.

Strength: Timber is a strong and durable material, and it can be treated to improve its durability and resistance to fire. Additionally, in the right arrangement, it can span larger distances than concrete beams. 

Insulation: Timber is a good natural insulator, which can help to reduce energy bills and create a more comfortable living environment.

Aesthetics: Timber has a warm and inviting appearance, and it can be used to create a variety of architectural styles.

Why Timber Is More Cost Effective

Timber is often seen as a more expensive building material than concrete and steel. However, this is not always the case. When considering the full life cycle of a building, timber can be a very cost-effective choice.

Initial costs: The initial cost of timber is often higher than concrete and steel. However, the cost of timber has fallen in recent years, and it is now becoming more competitive with other materials.

Construction costs: Timber structures are typically quicker and easier to build than concrete and steel structures as it’s a clean and easy material to work with on or off site. This can save money on labour costs.

Maintenance costs: Timber structures require less maintenance than concrete and steel structures. This can save money on repairs and replacements over the long term.

Energy costs: Timber buildings are more energy-efficient. This can help save money on energy bills in the long run.

Examples of Cost-Effective Timber Construction

The resource is even being used in mass construction which is becoming increasingly popular for large-scale projects. 

Here are a few examples of impressive, cost-effective timber construction projects

In 2019, the world’s tallest timber building was completed in Norway. The Mjøstårnet building is 18 floors tall.

In 2014, the world’s largest timber office building was completed in Vancouver, Canada. The Wood Innovation and Design Center .

In 2016, the USA’s tallest timber building was completed. The T3 building is 18 floors tall.

Benefits of Using Timber in The UK

There are several benefits to using timber in the UK, including:

Sustainability: The UK has a long history of sustainable forestry.

Government support: The UK government is committed to promoting the use of sustainable building materials, and it has several policies in place to support the timber industry.

Public awareness: The public is becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of using timber, and there is a growing demand for sustainable timber products.

Additional Benefits of Using Timber

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, timber also offers several other advantages , including:

Health benefits: Studies have shown that living in timber buildings can have several health benefits, including improved respiratory function and reduced stress levels

Acoustics: Timber has good acoustic properties, which can help to create a more comfortable and productive environment in homes and workplaces.

Fire safety: Timber buildings can be made to be very fire-resistant. In fact, timber has a higher fire resistance rating than steel. Learn more about the fire safety benefits of timber .

Aesthetics: Let’s be honest, timber is such a beautiful, warm material.

Timber is a sustainable, versatile, and cost-effective building material that offers several advantages over other materials. It is particularly well-suited for use in the UK, where there is a plentiful supply of timber available from local sources and the government is supportive of the use of sustainable building materials.

As a prominent producer of top-tier timber windows and doors , at Dale Joinery , we have consistently shown our dedication to minimising our environmental impact and championing eco-conscious solutions. We hold a certification as a carbon neutral plus organisation and actively counterbalance our carbon emissions by planting trees in the UK! 

Contact our expert and friendly team to discuss your timber needs or download our digital brochure to view more information.

Other Articles

• Dale Joinery Guides

Risk Management Redefined: Dale Joinery's Impact on Architectural Projects

How does Dale Joinery work with architects to redefine risk management on projects? Find out more.

How We Work With Architects: All You Need To Know

Discover the finer details of how Dale Joinery works with architects when it comes to timber windows …

Streamlining Building Projects with Cavity Closers

Understand the importance of cavity formers and their benefits in new build development projects.

• Materials Science
• Agriculture
• Aquaculture
• Climate Modelling
• Plastic Waste
• Solar Energy
• Wind Energy
• Nuclear Energy
• Hydrogen Fuel
• Energy Storage
• Battery Calorimeters
• Battery Production
• Battery Recycling
• Energy Metals
• Lithium Supply
• Rare Earth Elements
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Cyber Security
• Digital Infrastructure
• Disruptive Technology
• EV Charging Infrastructure
• EV Energy Storage
• North America
• Special Reports
• Innovation Talks
• The Innovation Platform
• Latest Statistics

• Battery Calorimetry
• Galvanic Energy
• Queensland Pacific Metals
• Pulsar Helium
• Special Focus Publications

Partner News

• Testimonials
• Our Management Team
• Our Editors
• Advanced Search

Using technology to improve the performance of timber

Gordon Ewbank, CEO of the Wood Protection Association, talks to The Innovation Platform ’s Managing Editor Michelle Gordon about the benefits of building with timber and how technology is being used to improve the material’s performance.

The use of timber in the built environment is steadily increasing, driven largely by its excellent environmental credentials, but the material is not without its limitations and technology has a part to play in enhancing its properties to unlock new markets.

Timber has been used as a construction material throughout history but as climate change continues to top political agendas across the globe, and as governments introduce ever more ambitious carbon reduction targets, we are starting to see a resurgence in its use in the modern built environment.

The environmental credentials of timber are excellent as it has the potential to save millions of tonnes of carbon through carbon sequestration – the process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide – with an average three-bedroom, timber-framed house sequestering and storing around 19 tonnes of CO 2 .

The Wood Protection Association is the UK’s lead body on all matters concerning wood protection and its members range from large multi-national timber treatment manufacturers to SMEs, partner trade associations, and individuals such as researchers or scientists.

The organisation’s CEO Gordon Ewbank talks to The Innovation Platform ’s Managing Editor Michelle Gordon about the benefits of building with timber, its potential contribution to carbon reduction targets, and how technology is being used to improve the material’s performance and open up new applications.

Can you outline the role of the Wood Protection Association?

The Wood Protection Association (WPA) represents a specialised and very technical, but important nonetheless, aspect of the timber industry. We are timber specialists, in so much as timber is the material that we are working with; but actually what we do is chemistry.

Our members are associated with enhancing the properties of timber, so taking all of the benefits of using timber in various applications and enhancing those through either the addition of specialist chemical formulations to improve those properties or the modification of the wood substrate itself through chemical processing. We represent pretty much the entire supply chain and we have got some good research and development projects being carried out under the WPA banner.

It is a very interesting sector to be involved in, and although what we as WPA and our members do is chemistry- and processing-orientated, essentially what we are doing is helping to make a really good product even better, and making the most of wood as a construction material by enhancing the properties to open up new markets.

What are the main benefits of using timber as a construction or landscaping material within our built environment?

Timber has a lot going for it. It is flexible and versatile as a building material and, on the whole, it is quicker to put up a timber building than one made of brick, for example. It is also an extremely good insulating material.

There is much more focus these days on the impact of our environment on health and wellbeing and on healthy working environments and living spaces. Timber can play a significant part in this and there is some very interesting research about the mental health impacts of a working or living environment with a lot of timber in it.

Timber is also very much part of modern methods of construction, offsite construction, and the drive towards factory production of construction building modules and that is something that very much has the government’s backing.

When I joined the industry some years ago, we didn’t talk about environmental impact; now, we talk about virtually nothing else because carbon capture data with timber is second to none compared to other building materials. If you do a lifecycle assessment, you actually get positive impacts in terms of carbon from using timber.

Obviously, these things have to be combined with sustainable forest management and the sustainable and responsible procurement of timber, but the industry has done huge amounts on that over the last few decades and we are in a strong place.

What role will timber play in meeting future carbon reduction targets?

It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the more timber you can use in a building, the better the carbon profile of that building will be. There are some applications for timber where its natural properties are more than adequate for what you want. However, there are others, particularly when the timber is exposed to weather or is below a damp proof course or in contact with the ground etc., where it is going to be damp regularly or even permanently. In such applications, most of the sustainable soft wood used for construction would require some added durability to perform long term. That is where our industry comes in. It is about using the right technology and the right application to get the best and most cost-effective performance. It is not rocket science, but it does need good understanding, particularly amongst building designers, of what technology is available and what the various benefits of the different options are, and we play a big part in helping to educate people on that.

How have technologies and wood modification processes been used to enhance and improve timber’s performance?

There are three areas: wood preservation; modification, which is a broader range of technologies; and flame retardants.

Wood preservation involves enhancing the durability of timber through the addition of chemicals. It is an old, traditional industry in many ways, as creosote was first impregnated into the railway sleepers some 200 years ago. But we have moved on a long way since then. A lot of the chemistries we are using are very different to what was used 50, or even 30 years ago.

The advantage of these technologies is that they take a completely sustainable, renewable resource and extend its service life by four, five, six, or potentially even seven times. This could even involve changing something that might have been a waste material into a useful product simply by enhancing its durability, so that it continues to find new markets.

The traditional market for wood protection has been within buildings and the construction envelope, but in the last 10-15 years we have seen growth in the imaginative use of timber outdoors, in decking, for example, which is still a huge growth market.

The use of biocides, which prevent the growth of biological organisms, fungal decay, insects etc. but which are relatively benign to users, has been important for our members. The industry has made massive steps forward in the last 30 years here, and that has been the result of significant expenditure on research and development, which continues now.

Modified wood is a really exciting area. There is a whole variety of technologies under the heading of wood modification but the essence of them all is that rather than adding a chemical into the wood to change its properties, the chemical nature of the wood itself is being changed. So, rather than adding biocides the substrate is being changed so it is less attractive to decay organisms, for example. Some of those technologies use chemicals to modify the timbers, while others use heat.

It is an exciting area because the range of different products coming out of that are expanding the potential uses for timber. There is one branch of wood modification that is enhancing the durability of the wood so much that timber is going back into what was an old market in marine applications. Timber was really phased out of marine applications and even to some extent freshwater applications when creosote was effectively lost to those markets and there were no other preservation technologies quite up to the job. However, certain types of modified wood are very much up to the job, giving excellent long-term performances in some very hazardous environments, and they look great as well. It is still a growth area, however, as these technologies are fairly new; but they will undoubtedly grow in influence over the coming years.

Finally, there is the fire performance of timber and, again, there has been a lot of innovation in that area in recent years. The enhancement of the reaction to fire properties of timber substrates is not a new concept, as impregnation treatments have been around for some 60 or 70 years and still are, albeit with different chemistries. Nevertheless, the exciting innovations in recent years have involved moving the enhancement processes up the supply chain.

So, flame retardant treatments used to be a secondary process, something that was done to a solid piece of timber or a sheet material down the supply chain, where an untreated product would be treated to enhance its properties.

Now, the real growth area is in the production of engineered wood products and sheet materials with flame retardant additives built in at manufacture. So, products such as MDF, OSB, plywood, and some of the laminated timber products are now actually manufactured with the flame retardants in them. That has numerous advantages, in that you have the factory production controls of both the application and the fine tuning of the properties of the product, with all the CE marking and certification that goes with that; it just gives you a more consistent product.

It is a real growth area and a great example of where innovation is addressing a market need for higher performing products, not least in the fallout from the Grenfell tragedy; standards are changing, and people are demanding more, quite rightly, of building products. I think that this sector of our industry has really risen to that challenge.

How are these processes enabling timber to be used in new applications?

I think there is a greater awareness now of what wood preservation technologies can do amongst specifiers and, therefore, it is freeing people up to use timber outdoors in a way that they were not doing before. That is a combination of technology meeting design innovation.

On the wood modification side, there is the obvious opening up of really high hazard applications. Timber had lost those markets, but is now looking to get back into them.

With flame retardants, the Hackitt Review was absolutely accurate in highlighting issues of confidence and quality control down the supply chain, as well as a need for more factory production control of different elements. The new engineered timber products with built in flame retardancy tick all the boxes, and it is very much the way the industry is developing and moving.

What will be the main areas of focus for the WPA over the next couple of years?

Industry can come up with some really great ideas but if you don’t communicate them to the market, they are not going to go anywhere. The challenge for us is therefore supply chain education and opening people’s eyes to timber’s potential.

We will also continue to be active in the area of independent third-party quality assurance. Fire is a really obvious area where people are looking for more reassurance and confidence and we run a number of quality schemes to audit members and their processes and products.

Finally, working with the government on developing appropriate and proportionate regulatory frameworks will also remain a focus. By that, I don’t mean trying to look for loopholes, it is about helping the government to understand that it is possible to regulate an industry without completely stifling innovation. The result of inappropriate legislation that is too heavy handed is that industries no longer invest in innovation; they just exit a particular market because it is not worth the hassle. The government has a role to play by working with and encouraging that industry to adopt the standards that it wants it to meet. There are good examples of that, but it only really works when government and industry work together.

Gordon Ewbank CEO Wood Protection Association +44 (0)1977 558274 [email protected] www.thewpa.org.uk

Please note, this article will also appear in the fourth edition of our new quarterly publication .

Recommended Articles

• Contributor Profile
• The Innovation Platform Issue 04

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured Topics

Zeus North America Mining Corp: Update on exploration at the flagship...

Namibia Critical Metals files updated MRE for Lofdal Heavy Rare Earth...

Industry spearhead Stephen Khan to receive Hall of Fame Award at...

Zeus North America Mining Corp. commences trading on the OTCQB

Advertisements, media partners, similar articles, novel reactor system converts carbon dioxide into methane fuel, policy to field: exploring the farmer-focused initiatives of cap 23, ambitious targets needed to eradicate ocean plastic pollution by 2100, cambridge researchers pioneer cement recycling method for green concrete production, more from innovation news network, green ammonia: maritime fuel and energy storage for a zero-emission future, advanced predictive analytics: centuries old, but essential to ensuring safe and intelligent operation of complex engineered systems, canada’s york university fosters global changemakers, makes waves in sustainable research partnerships worldwide, exploration in america’s newest copper district.

Innovation News Network brings you the latest research and innovation news from the fields of science, environment, energy, critical raw materials, technology, and electric vehicles.

Environment

• Renewable Energy
• Electric Vehicles
• Terms & Conditions
• Green Policy
• Privacy Policy
• General Data Protection Regulation
• GDPR Policy

Disclaimer : This website is an independent portal and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Please Note : Phone calls may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. © Pan European Networks Ltd

The Benefits of Recycled Plastic Wood

Maybe you’re looking for new outdoor furniture to spruce up your home and garden and you’re wondering, what’s best for the environment? What’s long-lasting and low maintenance? We understand that these are important questions for some, so we’ve outlined some key benefits to using recycled plastic wood lumber!

Easily Maintainable

Plastic wood lumber requires very little maintenance as it has a strong resistance to harsh weather conditions, making it versatile and useful in many different environments. On top of this, it also does not require frequent sanding, varnishing, sealing or staining, it will maintain it’s clean finish far beyond any wood product.

Durability and Long Lasting

Plastic wood is just that – a mix of waste plastic and wood, meaning it has got the durability of both materials combined. It does not crack or splinter, meaning it does not have to be replaced or fixed after a few years. Due to this, it has lower long-term maintenance costs than wood, meaning that it saves in the long run – this makes it perfect for local councils, governments and other organisations looking for a long-lasting solution.

The beauty of our plastic wood lumber is that, just like regular wood, it is a material that is completely adaptable meaning it can be made to measure and completely bespoke! It can be cut into and drilled to suit your specific requirements.

Environmentally Friendly

Plastic can take up to 500 years to decompose, meaning it could be sat in our oceans and greenbelts causing damage to the environment and the surrounding wildlife. By using the plastic we find and recycle, we give it a purpose. Around 42,000 plastic bottles (or 1 tonne of plastic) can make 7.7 of our plastic wood benches! We’re reducing depletion of natural resources because our products can be made to resemble timber but they’re also far more durable and resilient. The manufacturing process generates no waste, and our products are even recyclable after their use, making it perfect for anybody looking to go green!

Landfill Clearance

Did you know that 25% of all landfill waste is plastic? By taking these plastics and turning them into something useful, we not only help the environment but help with the clearance of landfills across the country.

With the rise in people looking for greener products, furniture and resources, the demand for products like ours are high. This, in turn, helps the community by directly providing new business and work opportunities.

If you’re looking for a durable alternative to wood alongside an eco-friendly solution get in touch with our team to get a quote for our plastic wood lumber. 

Write a reply or comment cancel reply.