4.5 Article

Durability against wood-destroying fungi of sweet chestnut and mixed sweet chestnut-poplar OSB

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2023.2289031

关键词

Durability; OSB; poplar; sweet chestnut; wood-based panels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sweet chestnut wood can be used with poplar to manufacture fungal-resistant Oriented Strand Board (OSB/3) with potential applications in humid environments. Experimental results showed that OSB/3 made with sweet chestnut wood had superior fungal resistance compared to poplar-based boards. This highlights the broad potential of sweet chestnut wood in various applications.
The demand for wooden raw materials is constantly on the rise. Meeting this interest requires developing new timber supply chains, tackling illegal trade, using timber more efficiently, and enhancing the service life of wood-based products. From this point of view, sweet chestnut wood can be successfully used, alone or mixed with poplar, to manufacture Oriented Strand Board (OSB). This article assesses the fungal resistance of OSB/3 (load-bearing boards for use in humid conditions) made with different fractions of poplar (P) and sweet chestnut (SC) wood, in order to take advantage of the protective action of the tannins contained in the latter. Four types of OSB/3 were manufactured on an industrial scale: 100% P; 80% P and 20% SC; 50% P and 50% SC; 100% SC. The durability of the experimental boards was determined in accordance with the EN 113-3 standard (2023). No significant differences in mass loss were found for OSB/3 with different sweet chestnut wood fractions. Instead, the mass loss of these panels was significantly lower (i.e. fungal resistance was higher) than that of the poplar OSB/3 and poplar plywood tested for comparison. Based on the results, the use of sweet chestnut wood has interesting potential for the manufacturing of OSB/3 made with adequate gluing quality, suitable for applications in environments where fungal decay may occur.

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

4.5
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