3.8 Article

THE DECAY RESISTANCE OF FOUR HYDROTHERMALLY TREATED HARDWOOD SPECIES

Journal

ACTA FACULTATIS XYLOLOGIAE ZVOLEN
Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 17-27

Publisher

TECHNICKA UNIV ZVOLENE
DOI: 10.17423/afx.2022.64.2.02

Keywords

alder; beech; birch; durability; Gloeophyllum trabeum; maple; saturated water steam; Serpula lacrymans; thermal treatment; Trametes versicolor

Funding

  1. Slovak Research and Development Agency [APVV-17-0456]
  2. Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education SR [1/0665/22]
  3. Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure (OPII) - ERDF [ITMS 313011T720]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the durability of European beech, alder, paper birch, and Norway maple wood after hydrothermal treatment. The results showed that these hardwood species were highly susceptible to brown and white rot caused by basidiomycete fungi, with significant mass loss.
Studies on the durability of European beech (Fagus sylvatica), alder (Alnus glutinosa), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and Norway maple wood (Acer pseudoplatanus) after hydrothermal treatment in saturated water were carried out. Treatment of hardwoods was performed at two temperatures of 105 and 135 degrees C for 6 hours. Fungal resistance was tested in the laboratory conditions with brown rot fungi Serpula lacrymans, Gloeophyllum trabeum and white-rot fungus Trametes versicolor. Half-specimens from each species were leached in accordance with STN EN 84 prior to the test. The results of decay resistance tests showed strong susceptibility of hydrothermally treated hardwood species to brown and white rot caused by basidiomycete fungi. In all cases, the mass loss was greater than 20%, and the moisture content significantly exceeded the fibre saturation point, above the level required for a fungal attack. Leaching had an insignificant effect on fungal resistance. All hardwoods were classified as non-durable species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available