4.4 Article

Microscopic characterization of tension wood cell walls of Japanese beech (Fagus crenata) treated with ionic liquids

期刊

MICRON
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 24-29

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2016.05.007

关键词

Biorefinery; Cell wall; Gelatinous layer; Ionic liquid; Liquefaction; Tension wood

资金

  1. Science and Technology Research Promotion Program for Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Food Industry from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan [26052A]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [25450246]
  3. Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program [14533483]
  4. [15J05592]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25450246] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tension wood that is an abnormal part formed in angiosperms has been barely used for wood industry. In this study, to utilize the tension wood effectively by means of liquefaction using ionic liquid, we performed morphological and topochemical determination of the changes in tension wood of Japanese beech (Fagus crenata) during ionic liquid treatment at the cellular level using light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and confocal Raman microscopy. Ionic liquid treatment induced cell wall swelling in tension wood. Changes in the tissue morphology treated with ionic liquids were different between normal wood and tension wood, moreover the types of ionic liquids. The ionic liquid 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride liquefied gelatinous layers rapidly, whereas 1-ethylpyridinium bromide liquefied slowly but delignified selectively. These novel insights into the deconstruction behavior of tension wood cell walls during ionic liquid treatment provide better understanding of the liquefaction mechanism. The obtained knowledge will contribute to development of an effective chemical processing of tension wood using ionic liquids and lead to efficient use of wood resources. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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