4.5 Article

A comparative study of structural changes in loblolly pine wood following incubation with the fungus Physisporinus vitreus and the bacterium Bacillus subtilis

Journal

WOOD MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2023.2291539

Keywords

Anatomical structure; bioincising; infrared spectroscopy; microscopy; wood decay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the wood destruction patterns of fungus and bacteria and found that bacteria showed more selective consumption of wood components, making them a better choice for controlled wood destruction.
The fungus Physisporinus vitreus and the bacterium Bacillus subtilis are commonly used organisms in wood biotechnology to increase wood permeability. However, comparative researches on wood destruction by these biological wood decomposers are scarce, particularly from microscopic and chemical perspectives. This study aimed to compare the fungal and bacterial wood destruction patterns over time. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) heartwood samples were exposed to both organisms for six and nine weeks; microscopic and spectroscopic analyses of the incubated wood were performed, and mass loss of samples was calculated. Both organisms initially destroyed the pit tori and ray parenchyma cells, but B. subtilis was more selective in its consumption of wood components. It exclusively consumed hemicelluloses and free carbohydrates in wood, whereas the fungus destroyed all chemical components simultaneously. The digestion of bordered pits by B. subtilis was more selective than that by P. vitreus, making it a better choice for controlled wood destruction. By extending the exposure duration, the bacterial destruction pattern remained consistent, whereas fungal destruction spread to the secondary wall of the tracheids. Understanding the interactions between microbes and wood can lead to a more effective and efficient use of this natural resource.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available