## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulating Agro-Based Materials Production
#### 3.5.2 Binderless Particle Board Simulation--Hot Water Extraction

Table 9: Specific surface area (\(a_{s}\)) expressed in m\({}^{2}\)/g for “binderless particle board” simulation. Figure 7: Mass losses of HS1 and HS2 after simulating process extraction of “binderless particle board” simulation. HS1 is represented in orange shades, while HS2 is represented in shades of blue. HS1 at room temperature (RT) exhibits a specific surface area of 164.3 m\({}^{2}\)/g, which slightly increases to 166.3 m\({}^{2}\)/g when the temperature is elevated to 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C. HS2 demonstrates a decrease in specific surface area from 171.7 m\({}^{2}\)/g at RT to 139.3 m\({}^{2}\)/g at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which represents a decrease of almost 19%. This reduction in surface area for HS2 at higher temperatures suggests a possible structural change or rearrangement of the material, which may reduce the number of accessible pores or reactive sites. Comparing the specific surface area of HS1 and HS2 under these conditions reveals some interesting trends. HS2 RT shows a slightly higher specific surface area (171.7 m\({}^{2}\)/g) than HS1 RT (164.3 m\({}^{2}\)/g), indicating that after extraction with water at room temperature, HS2 might initially have a more porous structure. Moreover, when comparing these values to the control samples, the HS1 control has a specific surface area of 157.9 m\({}^{2}\)/g and the HS2 control has an area of 153.2 m\({}^{2}\)/g. The removal of water-soluble compounds during the heating process leads to an increase in the specific surface area for HS1 and a decrease for HS2. This increase implies that the extraction process may expose more surface area by removing occluding substances, enhancing the material's capacity to interact with other molecules for HS1. On the other hand, the decrease observed in HS2 could be due to the rearrangement of the material, which may hinder the accessibility of open pores. To gain a deeper understanding of how these structural changes affect the crystallinity of the material, we turn to X-ray diffraction analysis. XRD can provide insights into the degree of crystallinity within the hemp shiv, particularly how alkaline treatments and temperature variations influence the crystalline and amorphous regions of the material. * X-ray diffraction of hemp shiv particles  
The percentages of crystallinity for the hemp shiv particles HS1 and HS2 are illustrated in Figure 8.  
Figure 8: Percentage of crystallinity of HS1 and HS2, measured after applying the conditions of the “binderless particle board” simulation. HS1 is represented in orange shades, while HS2 is represented in shades of blue. For HS1 (Figure 8), the crystallinity of the plant particles remains relatively stable across different extraction conditions, with the crystallinity index consistently around 29%. This stability suggests that the various extraction conditions (room temperature, RT, and 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C) have a minimal impact on the crystallinity of HS1. In contrast, HS2 exhibits a slight decrease in crystallinity under different conditions. In particular, the crystallinity index for HS2 decreases from 29.2% under the control condition to 27.9% at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This trend could indicate that the extraction conditions, particularly at higher temperatures, have a slightly greater effect on HS2 compared to HS1. The crystallinity values for both HS1 and HS2 under control conditions are quite similar and align closely with the literature. For instance, [PERSON] et al. (2021) [55] reported a crystallinity percentage of 27.1% for untreated hemp shiv powder. The impact of hot water treatment does not fully disrupt the non-crystalline components such as lignin, hemicellulose, or pectins. As a result, the plant cell wall remains largely intact, limiting access to the cellulose structure, which explains our results.