Development and Characterization of Sustainable Biocomposites from Wood Fibers, Spent Coffee Grounds, and Ammonium Lignosulfonate

Le résumé fourni par la source

Coffee processing generates large volumes of spent coffee grounds (SCGs), which contain 30–40% hemicellulose, 8.6–13.3% cellulose, and 25–33% lignin, making them a promising lignin-rich filler for biocomposites. Conventional wood composites rely on urea-formaldehyde (UF), melamine–urea–formaldehyde (MUF), and phenol–formaldehyde resins (PF), which dominate 95% of the market. Although formaldehyde emissions from these resins can be mitigated through strict hygiene standards and technological measures, concerns remain due to their classification as category 1B carcinogens under EU regulations. In this study, fiber-based biocomposites were fabricated from thermomechanical wood fibers, SCGs, and ammonium lignosulfonate (ALS). SCGs and ALS were mixed in a 1:1 ratio and incorporated at 40–75% of the oven-dry fiber mass. Hot pressing was performed at 150 °C under 1.1–1.8 MPa to produce panels with a nominal density of 750 kg m−3, and we subsequently tested them for their physical properties (density, water absorption (WA), and thickness swelling (TS)), mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity (MOE), modulus of rupture (MOR), and internal bond (IB) strength), and thermal behavior and biodegradation performance. A binder content of 50% yielded MOE ≈ 2707 N mm−2 and MOR ≈ 22.6 N mm−2, comparable to UF-bonded medium-density fiberboards (MDFs) for dry-use applications. Higher binder contents resulted in reduced strength and increased WA values. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA/DTG) revealed an inorganic residue of 2.9–8.5% and slower burning compared to the UF-bonded panels. These results demonstrate that SCGs and ALS can be co-utilized as a renewable, formaldehyde-free adhesive system for manufacturing wood fiber composites, achieving adequate performance for value-added practical applications while advancing sustainable material development.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.