Talk:Particle board

message: Don't any master carpenters or qualified wood product engineers edit for Wikipedia?
I came back to this subject matter following a long absence to see completely nonsensical information in the opening paragraphs.  Stating that particle board shelving sags less than plywood shelving is particularly egregious.  (Who would write nonsense like that?)  Such a statement degrades Wikipedia as a whole.  
Particle board and other engineered wood products, notably plywood and medium density fiberboard, serve a particular set of purposes in cabinet design.  They are more dimensionally stable than solid wood.  In the case of particle board, quality depends on the specific design of that particle board -- which can be difficult for a consumer to assess, and which is chosen to fit particular applications.  These are closely held industry facts that are not supplied online or at your local home center.  The quality depends on the proportion and type of resin, how it is cured, the species of wood particles, their sizes, how they are prepared, how they are layered, and the pressure to which they are subjected during packing and curing.  One only need take a look at the exposed end of a particle board specimen to see that the product is not uniformly packed, as seen in the provided photographs.  There are smaller more densely packed wood particles near each surface than in the middle.
Particle board is known to not accept screw fasteners properly.  It is for this reason that alternative fastening systems, notably confirmat-based systems that use no screws at all, and hinges that employ precision pressed fits, have been introduced and widely adopted.  The introduction to the main article contradicts this established fact, absurdly stating that plywood is worse at accepting screws than particle board.
But the dimensional stability of either particle board or medium density fiberboard confers a desirable feature for frameless cabinets (needed when drawers are installed to save the considerable space otherwise wasted because of the use of a face frame).  One simply does not want warped cabinet sides, bottoms, or backs!
The "European hinge" design (incorrectly explained in the article) is press-fit into a precisely-bored 35-mm-diameter cavity formed in the side of a particle-board or MDF cabinet (typically laminated with melamine).  This is essential precisely because screws in particle board or MDF cannot take any force.  However two small screws are used solely to prevent anyone from inadvertently removing the hinges.  Rogue or low-quality cabinet-makers do not adhere to the necessary precision fit between the hinge "cup" and the cavity, with the consequence that the hinges, held in place only by the small screws, fail prematurely.
The detail sections are much better and conform with the facts stated above.  The problem is the introduction.
Jabeles (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: very disappointing status of introductory section of his page

message: It does say "some people think" in at least one sentence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.115.94 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: Plywood was invented during the Second World War
where as the plywood article says
 the earliest known occurrence of plywood was in ancient Egypt around 3500 BC
Pretzelpaws 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5500 year disagreement

message: Is it heavier than normal wood?--Energman 19:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A qualified "Yes", mostly due to the addition of glue and due to the compression applied to sheets in their manufacturing.  Particleboard tends to be denser than the natural wood that was originally used to make the particles of which it is made. —QuicksilverT @ 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: It seems that companies in the business of making this stuff more commonly refer to it as "particleboard", not "particle board".  I think this article should be moved to "Particleboard", and "Particle board" should become the redirect link. —QuicksilverT @ 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particle board vs. particleboard 

message: I have changed the safety sextion by pointing out the hazard of wood dust and an appropriate external link to verify this. Also a comment on formalydehde gas emission for particleboard. --Redsparrow53 (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety section 

message: the reference to the WHO report on the carcinogen effect of formaldehyde is no longer working. Is the issue reconsidered. Et least the EU-ban should be referred to (see # ^ Formaldehyde Ban set for 22 Sept 2007  http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=41468 or even better http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides/pdf/070622_withdrawal_notice.pdf or # ^ IARC Press Release June 2004, http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/archives/pr153a.html (the latter is missing) at the formaldehyde chapter in wikipedia) It is not banned from cosmetics as stated in the article se e.g http://www.malmo.se/download/18.33aee30d103b8f1591680007278/02_15_kosmetika.pdf however, the EU directive can have such effect anyway. But the formulation her is not correct. /Lajos
: Moved editorial comment from article page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO deadlink 

message: This whole entry is extremely poorly-written, shot through as it is with errors of grammar (in particular, failures of subject/verb agreement) and logic. I can't clean it up myself, as I am not an expert on the field, and the intended meaning is not always clear.
On a separate issue, the "sentence" "Both products are great for lamination purposes and furniture making industries", quite apart from its grammatical and stylistic infelicities, hardly displays the required objectivity of tone: what on earth is the word "great" doing there?
Rdbenham (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality issues 

message: I've lost track of the number of times I've gone furniture hunting and seen things being sold as "solid wood" which are clearly veneered particle board. I don't know if this deception is within the scope of this article, but apparently it is legal to refer to particle board as solid wood because the particles are fragments of wood. I'm hunting for an expose' of this practice now. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Solid wood"

message: "In cabinet carcase construction" -- perhaps "carcass" was meant? 158.222.193.138 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  carcase? 

message: Can silicone resin bind hydroxyl substituents of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin of wood particles? The binding process would eliminate water and methanol, from cellulose and lignin, respectively. Methanol is possibly recoverable chemical for re-use. -- Mountainninja (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible use of [[silicone resin]] as binder ? 

message: Well, why Not? Surely the most common name for this product in the Anglosphere is "Chipboard" and not particleboard/particle board.
What's this product most commonly called in your region?
Should we change it so the page is titled Chipboard? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Chipboard 

message: I have seen figures from 5% to 12% adhesive by weight, but not suitable references. Keith McClary (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition % wood, adhesive, other?