INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3655
Development of Cassava-Based Bio-Adhesive Using Polyvinyl Acetate
(P.V.A.) for Engineered Wood Products Manufacturing
Emmanuel Okiri Ushie
*
., Emmanuel Akomaye Ugbong., Atowon Dickson, Orok Okon
Department of Wood Products Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Cross River State,
Calabar, Nigeria
*
Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800330
Received: 07 Aug 2025; Accepted: 17 Aug 2025; Published: 13 October 2025
INTRODUCTION
Adhesives are glue substances that serve as a binder which holds up materials together that is are able to make
things adhere or stick together without deformation or failure through a process called adhesion (Baumann and
Conner, 2003). Adhesives are categorized as either natural or synthetic. Natural adhesives include animal
glues, casein glues, natural gums and resins, sodium silicates and vegetable glues. Vegetable glues are starch-
based and are made from starches and dextrin (Kennedy, 2013). Starch has several advantages as a raw
material in the production of adhesives, including: renewability, biodegradability, abundance, relatively cheap
and affordability (Agboola, et al., 2010) and can also be used to produce diverse products as food, paper,
textiles, beverages, confectionery, pharmaceuticals, and building materials (FAO, 2010).
Starch is produced from grain or root crops such as sweet potatoes, maize, wheat, rice, yam and cassava. The
advantages of cassava for starch production over other grains or root crop includes: high purity level, excellent
thickening characteristics, a neutral (bland) taste, desirable textural characteristics, is relatively cheap and it
contains a high concentration of starch (dry-matter basis), (Masamba et al., 2001).
Cassava starch (Manihot esculenta) has numerous characteristics, including high paste viscosity, high paste
clarity and high freeze-thaw stability which are advantageous to many industries. Cassava (Manihot
esculental) is a renewable, an almost unlimited resource and one of the most abundant substances in nature. It
is one of the most important starchy root crops of the tropics used for food and industrial purposes. Cassava
(Manihot esculenta) is a staple crop and food in many tropical regions, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. It is widely cultivated for its starchy tuberous roots, which are a significant source of carbohydrates
in diets. The occurrence of cassava (Manihot esculenta) is prevalent in countries with suitable climates, and it
plays a crucial role in food security for many communities. In Nigeria, it is consumed raw or fried as garri,
starch flour and a variety of other items (Tonukari, 2004). The cassava project of the Nigerian government
aimed at increasing the utilization of cassava for industrial purposes and as a foreign exchange earner has
stimulated research into the processing and conversion of cassava and its products into industrial products and
as raw materials. It is in line with this initiative that this study seeks the utilization of cassava starch, a
secondary product in the production of garri from cassava which is usually drained off especially in the rural
areas as a raw material for the production of adhesives. The effectiveness of an adhesive is determined by its
bonding capability (resistance to load shear), ease of application, reasonable setting time, resistance to
moisture, aging, heat and fungal attack, non-staining and gap filling (Finn, 2015). Cassava based adhesives
have the unique advantage of having smooth, clear fine texture, non-staining, more viscous, stable and neutral
pH. The nonpoisonous nature makes it a desirable choice particularly for domestic and most non-structural
utilization (Masamba, et al., 2003). The major drawback in the use of starch as an adhesive is the stability of
the product over time (FAO, 2014). This study will also investigate possible improvement methods of the
properties of the adhesives produced by studying the effects of borax and temperature on the viscosity, density
and pH of adhesive and the use of different modifiers in the production of the adhesive.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3656
Cassava starch (Manihot esculental) is extracted through processes involving washing, crushing, and
separating the starch from the fibrous components of the root. Studies by Ocloo et al. (2013) discuss the
extraction methods and the quality of starch obtained.
The use of starch-based adhesives has gained attention due to the biodegradability and renewability of starch.
Research by Li and Sun (2015) explores the modification of starch for various applications, including
adhesives.
Traditional adhesives often involve non-renewable resources and may contribute to environmental issues. The
work of Nair et al. (2017) discusses the environmental impact of adhesive industries, providing a context for
the need of sustainable alternatives;
Economic feasibility is a crucial aspect. Studies like those by Zhang et al. (2019) delve into the economic
viability of utilizing alternative materials in adhesive production, providing insights into the potential
advantages of cassava starch.
The Egyptians used vegetable glue adhesives in wood works and in the production of Papyri. It was during the
19th century that there was technological advancement which led to the sourcing and production of varieties of
adhesive. In 1912, F.G Parkins found out that starch could be converted by mild caustic soda solution into
liquid glue that was stable at room temperature.
Most of the popular adhesives currently used in the country are imported as such the clamour for adhesive that
are locally produced has been on primary concern for embarking on this project. It is the aim of this project to
produce wood adhesive from local raw materials using cassava as the case study or reference study. Though
starch can be extracted from plants for example corn, barley, wheat, potatoes and cassava but for simplicity
have to be reduced to cassava. The primary aim of this study is to investigate and promote the utilization of
cassava starch as a sustainable and eco-friendly raw material for wood adhesive production.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Materials collection
The main component used to make this glue is cassava tubers, which were gathered from a farm in Cross State
to extract starch. Other ingredients include:
Calcium carbonate (CaCo3): to improve viscosity
Distilled water: As solvent
Genope: For proper mixing of materials
Antifoamer: To remove the foam caused by genope
Acetate (P.V.A): used as water resistance
Natrosol cellulose (2.5HHBr): Act as a thickener
Formaldehyde (CH
2
O): As a preservative.
These materials were bought from specialized shop.
Materials Preparation
Extraction of Starch from Cassava Tubers
The Cassava tubers were harvested from a farm in Cross River State. Before use, the cassava tubers were
peeled and washed. The peeled cassava was soaked in water to soften it. The cassava tubers were grounded in
a grinding machine, into a Cassava paste. This breaks the plant cell and thus releases the cassava paste. After
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3657
grinding, fine cassava was obtained which was soaked in water and left for three hours. Just to allow the
cassava fine particles to settle. The fine cassava particles were screen with 200 micrometer sieve. More water
was added as the cassava slurry will be rubbed on top of the sieve to achieve proper separation of the chaff or
fiber from the main starch. As separation continues, the starch and water escapes through small pores while
chaff and cell debris are retained on the surface of the screen. The starch and water was allowed to stay for five
hours in order for it to settle down. Then the water will be slowly decanted and the surface of the starch was
washed with water to remove dirt and non- starch which has settled with the starch.
The starch was sprayed on a clean tray and thoroughly sun-dried, so that it could be stored and preserved.
Sawdust Preparation
Sawdust: The sawdust is important materials in the production process of the particleboard. These sawdust
used was obtained from the Akim Timber market Calabar, Cross River State.
The sawdust after gotten was sundried for two days so as to reduce the moisture content (MC) and was oven
dry for two (2) hours to its minimal. Since sawing is a mechanical process, the sawing action results to various
particle sizes hence, the sawdust comprises of different sizes. The dried sawdust was sieved using different
sieve sizes attached to a sieve shaker.
A sieve shaker is a device used to separate particles of various sizes by vibrating or shaking a stack of sieves
each with a different mesh size. As the sieve shaker operates smaller particles pass through the finer meshes
while larger particles remain on the sieve with a larger mesh opening. This allows for the sorting of materials
based on particle size. The sieve shaker can be used for dry sieving of sawdust to achieve the desired particle
size distribution for particleboard production.
After sieving the resultant sieve sizes were grouped into coarse, medium coarse, fine and dust particle sizes.
The particles retained in the 425µm was the medium coarse, the 300µm was the fine particles and pan were
grouped as the dust particle.
Wooden Mold: a wooden mold of 300mm x 200mm x 15mm is prepared, the mold is without lid or bottom
but plywood is introduced at the bottom and used as lid to facilitate pressing. The reason behind this is to allow
for easy removal from the mold without cracking the product. Material combination are:
1. Wood particles of two sizes:
425 µm medium coarse, 300 µm coarse, Fine particles
2. Adhesives: Top bond adhesive, Bio-adhesive
3. Wooden mold
Forming Of Particleboard
First Layer Preparation:
A ratio of 15% of 300 µm fine coarse particles and pan particles was mixed with 18% adhesive (top bond
adhesive for one particleboard and bio-adhesive for another).
This mixture was transferred into a wooden mold to form the first layer, ensuring a smooth and even surface
by pressing.
Second Layer Preparation:
A ratio of 15% of 425 µm medium coarse particles was mixed with 18% of the same adhesive used for the first
layer.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3658
This mixture was applied on top of the first layer to form the second layer.
Third Layer Preparation:
Another mixture of 15% of 300 µm fine coarse particles and pan particles was mixed with 18% of the
adhesive.
This was applied as the third and final layer.
Pressing Process:
After forming all three layers, the entire particleboard was subjected to a cool press for 3 hours to ensure
proper adhesion and surface quality.
Drying Process:
After removing the board from the mold, it was sundried for 5 days.
For the bio-adhesive particleboard, additional oven drying was performed for 8 hours.
For the top bond adhesive particleboard, additional oven drying was performed for 8 hours.
Material Testing
Viscosity test
The NDJ-5S digital viscometer is a rotational viscometer that works by rotating a spindle in a fluid sample at a
set speed and measuring the resistance to rotation. This resistance is directly proportional to the fluid’s
viscosity. The viscometer displays the viscosity value digitally in centipoise (cP), the unit of measurement for
dynamic viscosity.
The NDJ-5S is particularly suited for testing a wide range of fluids including adhesives, resins, and paints. The
viscosity test was carried out at the Fluid Mechanics Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering
University of Cross River State Calabar.
The NDJ-5S digital viscometer measures viscosity in centipoise (cP). Below are the readings for Sample A:
Bio-adhesive and Sample B: Top Bond Adhesive at different rotational speeds (RPM).
Moisture content (MC):
The weight of each board was taken. The sample was immersed in clean water at room temperature for 24
hours to determine the weight when fully saturated with cold air. It was then dried in the over until constant
weight was achieved.
Moisture Content (%) =
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑊𝑑𝑟𝑦
𝑊𝑑𝑟𝑦
x 100
W
initial
is the initial weight of the particle board.
W
dry
is the weight of the particle board.
Water Absorption
The sample was cut into 200mm by 100mm by 15mm.
The sample was weighed and then immersed in clean water at room temperature. The test sample was carefully
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3659
lowered down into water. The test sample was reweighed at the end of 1 hours each for 8 hours to determine
the level of water absorption and percentage of water absorption.
Water Absorption Percentage (%) (
𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡−𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
)𝑥 100
Where:
Final Weight: The weight of the material after it has absorbed water.
Initial Weight: The weight of the material before it was submerged in water.
Thickness Swelling
Sample was immersed in fresh water at room temperature. The sample was carefully placed so as to allow for
maximum thickness swelling. The sample was removed under room temperature and test was carried out after
1 hour for total of 8 hours immersion period.
The thickness of the board and percentage of thickness of both sample was calculated:
Change in thickness swelling = T
2
– T
1
Percentage thickness swelling =
𝑇2−𝑇𝐼
𝑇2
𝑥 100
Impact Test
Impact test on Bio-adhesive and top bond adhesive particleboard (using a rebound hammer).
It is important to note that the method applied on this experiment is a non-destructive method
Rebound hammer is a non-destructive testing tool originally designed to measure the surface hardness of
particleboard or concrete. The basic working principle of the rebound hammer is based on the rebound of a
spring-controlled mass after it hits the surface of the material being tested.
The procedure for using the rebound hammer to test the impact resistance of particleboard involves the
following steps:
i. Preparation of Test Surface
The particleboard surface is dry and free from any debris. The surface is flat and stable to ensure accurate
results.
ii. Positioning the Rebound Hammer
Holding the rebound hammer perpendicular to the surface of the particleboard. This Ensure that the plunger
makes direct contact with the test surface.
Using the rebound hammer formula
f
c
= a. R + b
Where
f
c
= compressive strength in N/mm²
R = rebound hammer (given in PSI)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3660
a and b = calibration constants (a = 0.7 and b = 5)
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Viscosity test
Table 1; variation in Viscosity test
Rotational Speed (RPM)
Sample A Bio-adhesive (cP)
Sample B Top bond adhesive (cP)
10 RPM
920
780
20 RPM
880
740
30 RPM
850
720
50 RPM
830
700
Figure 1: Viscosity uptake variation in the two samples
The graph shows the viscosity of both Sample A (Bio-adhesive) and Sample B (Top Bond Adhesive) as
measured using the NDJ-5S Digital
Viscometer at different rotational speeds (RPM). As the rotational speed increases, the viscosity of both
samples decreases, indicating a shear-thinning behavior.
Sample A (Bio-adhesive) has a higher viscosity than Sample B (Top Bond Adhesive) at every RPM.
At 10 RPM, Sample A has a viscosity of 920 cP, while Sample B has a viscosity of 780 cP.
At 50 RPM, Sample A has a viscosity of 830 cP, and Sample B has a viscosity of 700 cP.
The difference in viscosity between the two samples suggests that Sample A (Bio-adhesive) is generally
thicker and more resistant to flow than Sample B (Top Bond Adhesive) across all RPM settings.
Effect of Rotational Speed:
As the rotational speed increases, both adhesives show a decreasing viscosity. For example:
Sample A: At 10 RPM, the viscosity is 920 cP, but at 50 RPM, it drops to 830 cP.
Sample B: At 10 RPM, the viscosity is 780 cP, and at 50 RPM, it drops to 700 cP.
This decrease in viscosity with increased RPM further confirms that their viscosity changes depending on the
applied shear force over time of testing.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3661
Moisture content:
Table 2; Initial moisture Weight of Board samples
Time (hours)
Weight A (g)
Initial
300.0
2
290.0
4
280.0
6
275.0
8
269.7
For particle board A: the final dry weight (after 8 hours) is 269.7g.
For particle board B: the final dry weight (after 8 hours) is 231.9g as shown in table 2 above. It showing
variation loss of MC to final stage of usage.
Figure 2: MC variation in the two samples
Table 3; Final Moisture Content weight of board samples
Time (hours)
Moisture Content of A (%)
Moisture Content of B (g)
Initial
11.23
16.44
2
7.52
12.11
4
3.81
7.81
6
1.96
3.49
8
0.00
0.00
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3662
Sample A: starts with a lower moisture content than Sample B as it loses less moisture initially. Both samples
reach moisture content by the end of the 8-hour drying period as showed in the graph in figure 2 above
Initial Moisture Content weight of sample:
At the start (0 hours) Sample A has a moisture content of 11.23%, while Sample B has a higher moisture
content of 16.44%.
This means that Sample B (without a water preservative) holds more water initially compared to Sample A,
which has a water preservative that slows moisture retention.
Moisture Loss over Time:
Both samples show a steady decrease in moisture content over time.
The curves are not linear they display a gradual slope indicating that moisture is being lost at a slower rate as
the drying process progresses.
Rate of Moisture Loss:
Sample B loses moisture more rapidly than Sample A. This is indicated by the steeper slope of Sample B’s
curve particularly in the first 4 hours as showed in figure 2 above. By the 6-hours volunmentry dry weight
mark, Sample B has nearly reached its final dry weight.
Sample A, on the other hand, retains its moisture for a longer period of time with a more gradual decline in
moisture content.
Sample A (Bio-adhesive) contains a water preservative which explains why it holds onto moisture more
effectively than Sample B. This preservative slows the evaporation of moisture which results in a slower rate
of moisture loss.
Sample B (Top bond adhesive) which lacks a water preservative loses moisture more rapidly. This make
Sample B more prone to drying faster.
Water Absorption
Table 4; Water Absorption
Time
(hours)
Wet Weight of
Sample A (g)
Water Absorption %
(Sample A)
Wet Weight of
Sample B (g)
Water Absorption %
(Sample B)
Initial
300
0%
270
0%
1
310
3.33%
285
5.56%
2
315
5.00%
290
7.41%
3
320
6.67%
295
9.26%
4
325
8.33%
305
12.96%
5
330
10.00%
315
16.67%
6
335
11.67%
325
20.37%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3663
7
338
12.67%
330
22.22%
8
340
13.33
335
24.07%
Figure 3: Water absorption uptake over time for the two samples
The graph in figure 3 showed water absorption over time for two different particle boards Sample A (Bio-
adhesive) and Sample B (Top Bond Adhesive).
Initial Water Absorption (0–2 hours):
Sample A (Bio-adhesive) shows a slower initial water absorption rising from 3.33% to 5.00% in the first 2
hours.
Sample B (Top Bond Adhesive) absorbs water more rapidly starting from 5.56% at the 1-hour mark and
increasing to 7.41% after 2 hours.
Middle Time Points (3–5 hours):
At 3 hours Sample A water absorption is 6.67% while Sample B is already at 9.26%.
At 4 hours the gap widens with Sample A absorbing 8.33% and Sample B at 12.96%. This indicates that
Sample B adhesive structure is more prone to water penetration especially as exposure time increases.
By 5 hours Sample B absorption has climbed to 16.67% while Sample A is still at a moderate 10.00%.
Late Water Absorption (6–8 hours):
Between 6 and 8 hours Sample A reaches a 13.33% water absorption after 8 hours while Sample B surges to
24.07%.
The gap between the two samples is very clear by this point with Sample B absorbing significantly more water
than Sample A. This shows that the Top Bond Adhesive (Sample B) allows more water to penetrate into the
particle board over time.
Thickness Swelling
Table 5: Initial weight of thickness Swelling
Time (hours)
Water Absorption % (Sample A)
Water Absorption % (Sample B)
Initial
0%
0%
1
3.33%
5.56%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3664
2
5.00%
7.41%
3
6.67%
9.26%
4
8.33%
12.96%
5
10.00%
16.67%
6
11.67%
20.37%
7
12.67%
22.22%
8
13.33
24.07%
Table 6: final weight of thickness Swelling
Time
(hours)
Thickness Swelling
Sample A (mm)
Percentage Swelling
Sample A (%)
Thickness Swelling
(Sample B) (mm)
Percentage Swelling
Sample B (%)
0
15.0000
0%
15.0000
0%
1
15.4995
3.33%
15.8340
5.56%
2
15.7500
5.00%
16.1115
7.41%
3
16.0005
6.67%
16.3890
9.26%
4
16.2495
8.33%
16.9440
12.96%
5
16.5000
10.00%
17.5005
16.67%
6
16.7505
11.67%
18.0555
20.37%
7
16.9005
12.67%
18.3330
22.22%
8
16.9995
13.33
18.6105
24.07%
Figure 4. Variation in thickness swelling of samples A and B
The figure 4 above illustrates the thickness swelling behavior of two particleboard samples, Sample A and
Sample B over an 8-hour period of soaking regimes. The experiment measures the swelling of the boards as
they absorb water a key property in determining their suitability for applications in humid or wet
environments.
Initial Conditions of the board swelling (0 Hours)
At the start of the experiment both Sample A and Sample B had an initial dry thickness of 15 mm. This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3665
baseline serves as a reference for observing the subsequent swelling due to water absorption.
Conditions of the board swelling of Sample A (Bio-adhesive)
The thickness of Sample A increases slowly throughout the experiment with minimal swelling observed in the
first few hours.
After 8 hours the thickness increases to 16.9995 mm, representing a swelling of 13.33%. This slow and steady
swelling indicates that Sample A has lower water absorption properties likely due to its treatment.
Conditions of the board swelling Sample B (Top bond adhesive)
In contrast Sample B shows a more rapid and pronounced increase in thickness. By the first hour the thickness
increases significantly reaching 15.834 mm.
As time progresses the rate of swelling remains consistent and by the end of the 8-hour period the thickness
reaches 18.6105 mm a 24.07% increase in thickness.
Flexural testing of sample
Sample A:( Bio-adhesive): Compressive Strength:
Starts at 20.4 N/mm² at Test Point 1. It dips slightly at Test Point 2 to 19.0 N/mm² but recovers to 20.4 N/mm²
from Test Points 3 to 5.
Overall it shows stability with relatively consistent values across the test points.
Rebound Hammer Load: Figure 5 below showed a comparison between Test Points (x-axis) Compressive
Strength (N/mm²) and Rebound Hammer Load (PSI) for two samples:
Starts at 22 PSI at Test Point 1.
Drops to 20 PSI at Test Point 2, but maintains a value of 22 PSI from Test Points 3 to 5.
The close correlation between compressive strength and rebound hammer load shows that harder surfaces
produce higher compressive strengths.
Table 7; Rebound hammer
Test
Point
Rebounds Hammer Load
(PSI) Sample A
Compressive
Strength (N/mm²)
Rebounds Hammer
Load (PSI) Sample B
Compressive Strength
(N/mm²)
1
22
20.4
22
20.4
2
20
19.0
20
19.0
3
22
20.4
16
16.2
4
22
20.4
16
16.2
5
20
19.0
20
19.0
Avg. Point =19.84
N/mm²
Avg. point = 18.16
N/mm²
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3666
Figure 5: variation of rebound test of samples
Sample B (Top bond adhesive):Compressive Strength:
Starts at 20.4 N/mm² at Test Point 1 (similar to Sample A).
However after Test Point 2 it drops to 16.2 N/mm² at Test Points 3 and 4 indicating a notable reduction in
strength.
The strength slightly increases to 19.0 N/mm² at Test Point 5 but it remains lower than Sample A.
Rebound Hammer Load:
Starts at 22 PSI at Test Point 1.
Drops to 16 PSI at Test Points 3 and 4 matching the decrease in compressive strength.
The hammer load increases to 20 PSI by Test Point 5, but overall remains lower than Sample A at most points.
Sample A (Bio-adhesive) generally maintains a higher compressive strength and rebound hammer load across
all test points. This suggests that the Bio-adhesive material is more resistant to compressive forces and has a
harder surface compared to Sample B.
Sample B (Top bond adhesive) shows a noticeable reduction in compressive strength and hammer load after
Test Point 2. This drop indicates that the material have weaknesses or inconsistencies making it less capable of
withstanding compressive forces at certain points.
Both samples show a strong correlation between the rebound hammer load and compressive strength. As the
rebound hammer load decreases, the compressive strength also decreases, indicating that the surface hardness
of the material is linked to its ability to resist compression.
REFERENCES
1. Abioye, V. F., Ojogbo, E., &Olatunji, G. A. (2005). "Optimizing Cassava Starch Extraction for
Adhesive Production." International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, vol. 5, 15(2), 58-64.
2. Adegunwa, M. O., et al. (2003). "Innovative Modifications of Cassava Starch for Improved Adhesive
Properties." Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials, 13(1), 123-1250
3. Akinoso, R., &Raji, A. O. (1986). "Economic Viability of Cassava Starch-Based Adhesive in
Woodworking." Journal of Sustainable Development Studies.
4. Bai, L., et al. (1995). "Comparative Study on the Bonding Performance of Cassava Starch-Based
Adhesives in Packaging Applications." Journal of Packaging Technology and Research, 44(22), 3358-
3393.
5. Chen, H., & Zhang, S. (1995). "Characterization of Cassava Starch Adhesive for Textile Applications."
Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3667
6. Daramola, B. A., et al. (1997). "Sustainable Adhesive Production: Cassava Starch as a Renewable
Resource." Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 37(4), 235-249
7. Ezeilo, U. C., &Onukwuli, O. D. (2000). "Life Cycle Assessment of Cassava Starch-Based Adhesives
in Construction Applications." Journal of Building Performance, vol. 2.
8. Fasogbon, B. M., &Oluwajuyitan, D. T. (2007). "Enhancing the Thermal Stability of Cassava Starch-
Based Adhesives for Industrial Use." International Journal of Industrial Chemistry.
9. Gao, Y., & Liu, C. (1994). "Mechanical Properties of Adhesives Derived from Cassava Starch: A
Comprehensive Analysis." International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives.
10. Hidayat, A., et al. (2000). "Utilization of Cassava Starch-Based Adhesive in Paper and Packaging
Industries." Journal of Applied Packaging Research.
11. Ibrahim, M. A., et al. (1999). "Environmental Impact Assessment of Cassava Starch Adhesive in
Comparison to Conventional Adhesives." Journal of Cleaner Production.
12. Jiang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2005). "Application of Cassava Starch-Based Adhesives in Wood Panel
Manufacturing."Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology, vol. 3
13. M. E. Ojewumi, I. J. Akwayo, O. S. Taiwo, O. M. Obanla, A. A. Ayoola, E. O. Ojewumi, and E. A.
Oyeniyi, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Phytopharmacological Research, 8(3), 46(2018).
14. K. Wani, and R. Rao, Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 20(2), 149(2013)
15. M.E. Ojewumi, M.E. Emetere, C.V. Amaefule, B.M. Durodola, and O. D. Adeniyi, , International
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 10(3), 1246(2018),