ArticlePloS one2015
An Investigation on Formaldehyde Emission Characteristics of Wood Building Materials in Chinese Standard Tests: Product Emission Levels, Measurement Uncertainties, and Data Correlations between Various Tests.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a large producer and consumer of wood building materials, China suffers product formaldehyde emissions (PFE) but lacks systematic investigations and basic data on Chinese standard emission tests (CST), so this paper presented a first effort on this issue. The PFE of fiberboards, particleboards, blockboards, floorings, and parquets manufactured in Beijing region were characterized by the perforator extraction method (PE), 9-11 L and 40 L desiccator methods (D9, D40), and environmental chamber method (EC) of the Chinese national standard GB 18580; based on statistics of PFE data, measurement uncertainties in CST were evaluated by the Monte Carlo method; moreover, PFE data correlations between tests were established. Results showed: (1) Different tests may give slightly different evaluations on product quality. In PE and D9 tests, blockboards and parquets reached E1 grade for PFE, which can be directly used in indoor environment; but in D40 and EC tests, floorings and parquets achieved E1. (2) In multiple tests, PFE data characterized by PE, D9, and D40 complied with Gaussian distributions, while those characterized by EC followed log-normal distributions. Uncertainties in CST were overall low, with uncertainties for 20 material-method combinations all below 7.5%, and the average uncertainty for each method under 3.5%, thus being acceptable in engineering application. A more complicated material structure and a larger test scale caused higher uncertainties. (3) Conventional linear models applied to correlating PFE values between PE, D9, and EC, with R2 all over 0.840, while novel logarithmic (exponential) models can work better for correlations involving D40, with R2 all beyond 0.901. This research preliminarily demonstrated the effectiveness of CST, where results for D40 presented greater similarities to EC-the currently most reliable test for PFE, thus highlighting the potential of Chinese D40 as a more practical approach in production control and risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.