3.8 Article

Sorption behaviour of three African tropical woods (Sapelli, Sipo, Kosipo) with similar anatomical structures from Cameroon

期刊

INTERNATIONAL WOOD PRODUCTS JOURNAL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 194-202

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20426445.2022.2073075

关键词

African tropical woods; equilibrium moisture content; GAB model; moisture sorption behaviour; quantitative anatomical parameters; sorption isotherms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to determine the sorption isotherms of three tropical woods from Cameroon and assess the influence of wood structure on their sorption behavior. The equilibrium moisture contents were experimentally determined, and a strong correlation was found between anatomical parameters and moisture contents. The results showed differences in sorption behavior among different woods at different temperatures, highlighting the importance of specific research data on sorption behavior of Central African woods.
This study aims to determine the sorption isotherms of three tropical woods from Cameroon to understand the conditions for their use and drying. The equilibrium moisture contents were experimentally determined using saturated salt solutions. Some anatomical parameters were also measured to assess the influence of the structure of these woods on their sorption behaviour. Among the sorption models tested, the Guggenheim-Anderson-de Boer model is the one that best fits the experimental points. Our results also reveal a strong correlation between EMCs and the size and number of anatomical parameters. Indeed, up to 40 degrees C, Sipo which has the lowest wood density and larger vessel sizes and rays, contains more water at equilibrium that the two other woods. When temperatures increase above 50 degrees C, Sapelli becomes more hygroscopic due to the expansion of its lumen cells. These findings highlight the need for specific data on the sorption behaviour of Central African woods, to efficiently manage their drying and use.

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

3.8
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