4.7 Article

Assessment of Structural Differences between Water-Extracted and Non-Extracted Hydro-Thermally Treated Spruce Wood by NIR Spectroscopy

期刊

FORESTS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f12121689

关键词

Sitka spruce; hydro-thermal treatment; water soluble extractives; near infrared spectroscopy; principal component analysis; 2D-COS

类别

资金

  1. JSPS [FY2018-L18536]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that structural changes occur in wood during hydro-thermal treatment, with the amount of water molecules and treatment time influencing these changes. Higher relative humidity and longer treatment times result in more significant modifications. Additionally, a high amount of extractives remain in the wood structure during hydro-thermal treatment, with variations in quantity and composition.
Sitka spruce wood samples were subjected to different conditions of hydro-thermal treatment by varying the relative humidity (RH) and period of exposure at a constant temperature of 120 degrees C. Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy, principal component analysis (PCA) and two dimensional correlation spectroscopy (2D-COS) were employed to examine the structural changes which occur in the wood samples during the applied treatment conditions and to quantify the differences between non-extracted and water-extracted wood specimens after the treatment. Modifications were dependent on the amount of water molecules present the medium and also on treatment time. Higher variations were observed for samples treated at higher RH values and for longer periods. At the same time, it was also observed that during the hydro-thermal treatment a high amount of extractives remain in the wood structure, extractives which vary in quantity and composition. PCA and 2D-COS made it possible to discriminate modifications in the wood samples according to treatment time and relative humidity. Non-extracted and water-extracted samples were also examined to identify the sequential order of band modification.

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