4.7 Article

The effect of ultrasonic intensity on physicochemical properties of Chinese fir

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.104985

关键词

Chinese fir; Physicochemical properties; Ultrasonic intensity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [31600457, 31270604]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cavitation intensity is affected by ultrasonic intensity (UI) and is a key parameter to describe experimental results during ultrasonic treatment. The relationship between the UI and physicochemical properties of Chinese fir was investigated. In this study, four frequencies (25, 28, 40, and 59 kHz) were used at the same intensity of 240 W and the same duration of 35 min. The UI during the ultrasonic treatment was determined, and the chemical components were determined. The chemical structure, crystallinity, morphology, and extractives of wood were respectively analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results showed that higher crystallinity was associated with a larger integrated area under the curve of the ultrasonic intensity (UIA). The largest UIA was observed at 25 kHz, followed by those at 40, 59, and 28 kHz. The relative content of hemicellulose was strongly affected by the ultrasonic treatment. No chemical reactions were observed in the wood, whereas the ultrasonic treatment affected the torus of the bordered pits and facilitated the migration of extractives. In general, the higher the UIA, the stronger the effect of the cavitation was. The most significant changes in the physicochemical properties were observed at 25 kHz. The instantaneous ultrasonic intensity (IUI) changed over time, and the UIA was closely associated with changes in the physicochemical properties of the wood. The results of this study demonstrate that UI has a significant influence on the physicochemical properties of wood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据