Abstract
The influence of alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ) preservative was studied relative to the bonding strength of Masson pine joints and the penetration of the adhesive into wood. Masson pine specimens treated with ACQ of three concentrations (0.1%, 0.5%, 1.0%) were bonded with aqueous polymer isocyanate (API) adhesive, and the shear strength, wood failure percentage, bondline thickness, average penetration depth (AP), and effective penetration depth (EP) of the wood joints were evaluated. The shear strength (6.34 to 6.85 MPa) and the wood failure percentage (87.0% to 87.8%) of the three series of treated joints were significantly lower than that of the untreated samples, while the treated specimens showed significantly larger bondline thickness (43.3 to 47.2 μm), smaller AP (30.6 to 35.8 μm), and smaller EP (24.7 to 25.7 μm) than the untreated specimens. The increase of ACQ concentration from 0.1% to 1.0% had no significant impact on the bonding strength and adhesive penetration parameters. The correlation between shear strength and penetration depths of treated joints was significant at the 0.01 level based on Pearson correlation analysis, while the coefficient of determination (R2) of the shear strength resulted from least squares regression analysis was 0.250 and 0.143 for AP and EP, respectively.
Download PDF
Full Article
Effect of the ACQ Preservative on the Bonding Strength of Aqueous Polymer Isocyanate Bonded Masson Pine Joints and on the Adhesive Penetration into Wood
Lizhe Qin,a,b La Hu,a Zhangqi Yang,a,* and Wengui Duan b
The influence of alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ) preservative was studied relative to the bonding strength of Masson pine joints and the penetration of the adhesive into wood. Masson pine specimens treated with ACQ of three concentrations (0.1%, 0.5%, 1.0%) were bonded with aqueous polymer isocyanate (API) adhesive, and the shear strength, wood failure percentage, bondline thickness, average penetration depth (AP), and effective penetration depth (EP) of the wood joints were evaluated. The shear strength (6.34 to 6.85 MPa) and the wood failure percentage (87.0% to 87.8%) of the three series of treated joints were significantly lower than that of the untreated samples, while the treated specimens showed significantly larger bondline thickness (43.3 to 47.2 μm), smaller AP (30.6 to 35.8 μm), and smaller EP (24.7 to 25.7 μm) than the untreated specimens. The increase of ACQ concentration from 0.1% to 1.0% had no significant impact on the bonding strength and adhesive penetration parameters. The correlation between shear strength and penetration depths of treated joints was significant at the 0.01 level based on Pearson correlation analysis, while the coefficient of determination (R2) of the shear strength resulted from least squares regression analysis was 0.250 and 0.143 for AP and EP, respectively.
Keywords: ACQ preservative treatment; Aqueous polymer isocyanate; Masson pine; Bonding strength; Adhesive penetration
Contact information: a: Guangxi Forestry Research Institute, Guangxi Engineering Research Center of Masson Pine, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Superior Timber Trees Resource Cultivation, Nanning 530002, Guangxi, China; b: College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, Guangxi, China; *Corresponding author: yangzhangqi@163.com
INTRODUCTION
Preservative treatments are a widely used approach to increase the service life of wood and wood products (Yang et al. 2012). Although various chemicals such as creosote oil, coal tar, and pentachlorophenol prevent wood degradation by white and brown rot fungi, termites, and marine borers, the low-toxicity and environmentally friendly water-based preservatives have gradually become the leading products. Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) has high efficiency and low cost as a commercial wood preservative, but its high toxicity has decreased its use (Onuorah 2000; Antwi-Boasiako and Damoah 2010). Alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ) has become one of the most promising preservatives, for its good permeability in wood, resistance to leaching in water, long-term efficiency, low toxicity, and the absence of arsenic, chromium, and phenols (Goodell et al. 2007).
Masson pine (Pinus massoniana Lamb.) is the most widely distributed pine species in China and has become one of the dominant forest plantation species in southern China. It has good mechanical properties, with a bending strength of 87.9 MPa and elastic modulus of bending strength of 13.8 GPa for mature plantation wood (Bao et al. 1998). Its growth rate is more rapid than other pine species in China, and thus it could be an important raw material for structural timbers. However, the sapwood of Masson pine is easily subjected to wood-decaying fungi and insect attack, and it must be pre-treated with preservatives for outdoor and construction uses. In addition, Masson pine wood has more large knots and lower trunk straightness than pine species in colder areas of northern China (Hu et al. 2018). Processing it into glued laminated timbers has become, therefore, an important way to improve the utilization rate of logs, and to manufacture high-performance structural products.
Preservative treatments change both the physical (such as surface free energy and surface roughness) and chemical (such as pH and buffer capacity) properties of wood, and thus could affect the bonding strength of glued products. The influence mechanism differs according to different categories of wood, preservatives, and adhesives. Soluble copper and monoethanolamine (MEA) in ACQ accelerate the cure of phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde resin (PRF) and reduce its bonding strength with southern pine (Lorenz and Frihart 2006). Studies on Japanese larch concluded that ACQ had no influence on both bonding strength and delamination (Miyazaki and Nakano 2003). Moreover, Shukla and Kamdem (2012) reported that ACQ treatment showed no significant effect on most of the properties (such as density, flexural modulus of rupture (MOR), and modulus of elasticity (MOE) of southern pine laminated veneer lumber (LVL). The results from Jin et al. (2010) showed that the mechanical properties of bamboo oriented strand board (OSB) were not affected by pre-treatment with ACQ within the retention level of 1.52 to 4.67 kg/m3. Up to now, there has been a lack of published research involving the bonding strength of treated Masson pine with ACQ.
During the formation of wood/adhesive glue joints, adhesives undergo five distinct motions (Marra 1992), the penetration of adhesives into the porous structure of wood is essential because it influences the bond quality and subsequently the performance of the whole structure. Mechanical interlocking and chemical bonds are most important and common among all bonding mechanisms. According to the mechanical interlocking mechanism, the bonding strength depends on the penetration of adhesives in wood, and thus a deeper penetration contributes to a higher bonding strength. Therefore, adhesive penetration is an important predicator of bond strength and durability (Modzel et al. 2011).
Adhesive penetration of wood occurs on micrometer level (gross penetration), a nanometer level (cell wall penetration), or other smaller levels of penetration (Frihart 2004). The gross penetration has been studied qualitatively and quantitatively by various methods such as transmitted light microscopy (Hare and Kutscha 1974), fluorescent microscopy (Johnson and Kamke 1992), scanning electron microscopy (Koran and Vasishth 1972), and X-ray microtomography (Modzel et al. 2011), while the cell wall penetration has only been qualitatively detected by techniques such as ultraviolet microscopy (Gindl et al. 2002), X-ray energy dispersive spectrometer (Buckley et al. 2002), confocal Raman microscopy (Gierlinger et al. 2005), and nanoindentation (Konnerth and Gindl 2006). Generally, gross penetration is measured by penetration depth of the adhesive, and it is strongly influenced by wood factors (wood species, anatomical orientation and surface roughness), adhesive factors (adhesive type and viscosity), and process factors (applied pressure and temperature) (Kamke and Lee 2007). The effects of preservatives on wood surface properties and curing characteristics of adhesives might lead to different penetration depths between treated and untreated wood. Although various analytical techniques have been used to determine the depth of the adhesive penetration in untreated wood as well as several categories of modified wood, a quantitative characterization on adhesive penetration in preservative treated wood has not been reported.
In this study, the effects of the ACQ preservative on the bonding strength of aqueous polymer isocyanate (API) bonded Masson pine joints and on the adhesive penetration into wood was investigated. Masson pine wood samples were treated with ACQ of three concentrations (0.1%, 0.5%, 1.0%) and then bonded with the API adhesive. The bonding strength and adhesive penetration of glue joints were investigated with a mechanical testing machine and optical microscope, respectively. The difference between treated and untreated wood/API glue joints and the correlation between bonding strength and adhesive penetration for the treated joints were analyzed.
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials
Masson pine logs with a length of 2 m were collected from a 22-year-old progeny test forest of primary seed orchard in Nanning Forestry Division. The logs were sawn into timbers with a thickness of 35 mm and dried in a conventional kiln. The dried timbers were further processed into boards with a size of 300 mm × 50 mm × 20 mm (longitudinal × tangential × radial). The final wood moisture content and air-dried density were 11.10% and 0.58 g/cm3, respectively.
The wood preservative solution, with 15.4% ACQ-D (68.4% copper amine expressed as copper oxide to 31.6% didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) quaternary ammonium compound), was purchased from Green Thai Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen, China).
Two-component API adhesive was provided by Xin Mei Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Guilin, China), and the weight ratio of main agent to curing agent was 100:20. The main agent was a mixture of poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) solution, emulsifiers including poly(styrene-co-butadiene) (SBR) and poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) (EVA), and filler of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The main agent was white viscous liquid with a solid content of 60%, and its viscosity and pH were 20 Pa·s and 7.0, respectively. The curing agent (polymeric methylene bis-(phenyl isocyanate) (pMDI)) was brown liquid with a viscosity of 0.3 Pa·s.
Methods
Preservative treatment
Masson pine boards were placed into an impregnation vessel with ACQ solution (0.1%wt, 0.5%wt, 1.0%wt), and the vessel was moved into a pressure tank. A preliminary vacuum was applied at -0.08 to -0.09 MPa for 30 min, and pressure was then applied up to 1.2 MPa for 60 min. The retention of wood preservatives was calculated as follows,
(1)
where R is the retention of wood preservatives (kg/m3), m1 is the mass of the wood specimens after impregnation treatment (kg), m2 is the mass of the wood specimens before impregnation treatment (kg), C is the concentration of preservation solution (%), and V is the volume of wood specimens before impregnation treatment (m3).
The treated wood specimens were transferred to an oven at 40 °C for drying. After drying for 1 week, the specimens were transferred to a humidity chamber (temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, relative humidity of 65 ± 5%) for another two weeks. The penetrating of wood preservatives was measured according to GB/T 31761 (2015).
Bonding test
The gluing surface of specimens was sanded before being pressed into 2-layer wood joints under unit pressure of 1.0 MPa for 8 h. The API adhesive was applied with a spreading ratio of 250 g/m2. Each set of tests was repeated 10 times, and two samples were cut from each joint (Fig. 1). A few samples with processing defects were abandoned, and 17 to 20 samples were obtained for each set of tests. The shear strength and wood failure percentage were measured by a universal mechanical testing machine with loading speed of 0.5 kN/s, according to the GB/T 26899 (2011).
Fig. 1. An illustration of laminate with a 50 mm-glued surface and a 5 mm-unglued portion
Adhesive penetration measurement
For each wood joint, one block with length of 20 mm was first cut across the longitudinal direction. The block was then processed to a thinner block with a thickness of 7 mm, ensuring that the bondline located nearly the central of the block. Two small blocks with a width of 7 mm were finally cut from the thinner block, and in total 20 samples were obtained for each set of tests. The samples were impregnated in water for 3 d. Transverse sections with a thickness of 25 μm were cut from the samples using a sliding microtome and dehydrated by placing them in an alcohol solution under progressively increasing concentrations (30%, 50%, 70%, 95%, 100%) for 10 min. The dehydrated slices were fixed between a glass slide and a cover glass with a drop of Canada balsam.
The bondline thickness and gross penetration were measured by a Nikon microscope (Eclipse Ni-E, Japan). The average penetration depth (AP) calculated using Eq. 2 represents the average depth of penetration for several column tissues within the entire measurement length, while the effective penetration depth (EP) calculated using Eq. 3 represents the total adhesive area detected in the interphase region divided by the width of the bondline (Qin et al. 2016),
where yi is the penetration depth of on column tissue (μm), and N is the total column number of tissues in measurement length (μm). Ai is the area of adhesive object i (μm2), and X0 is the length of the bondline in the measurement area (50 measurement areas; bondline length of each area was 1400 μm in this article).
An illustration of measurement parameters in Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 is shown in Fig. 2. Image processing and analysis software are usually used to measure these three parameters (Johnson and Kamke 1992). X0 and yi could be easily acquired with Image-Pro Plus software (Media Cybernetics Incorporated, Rockville, USA). Ai was usually measured by circling the adhesive area using MATLAB software (Math Works Incorporated, Natick, MA, USA), which was proved to be a highly efficient and simple way.
Fig. 2. Measurement parameters in experimental image
Fig. 3. Calculation of penetration area (Ai) by MATLAB software
To be specific, the target area was first chosen from the photomicrograph, and then it was converted to binary images using MATLAB software (Fig. 3). Consequently, adhesive regions were converted to white areas, while the remaining regions were converted to black areas. Ai was finally obtained by counting the pixel elements of white areas and a simple manual calculation.
Statistical analysis
Pearson correlation analysis and least squares regression analysis were used to investigate the relationship between penetration parameters and bonding strength with SPSS Statistics (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Preservative Retention
As shown in Fig. 4, the retentions of ACQ with concentrations of 0.1%, 0.5% and 1.0% were 0.597 kg/m3, 3.051 kg/m3, 6.320 kg/m3, respectively, and the retention had a highly linear correlation with concentration. The penetration of ACQ in Masson pine wood was larger than 90% for the all three set of tests. Above all, ACQ penetrated well in Masson pine sapwood under conventional vacuum-pressure treatment, and its retention was easily adjusted by controlling the ACQ concentration.
Fig. 4. Retention of ACQ in Masson pine wood at different concentrations
Bonding Strength
As shown in Fig. 5, the shear strength of the three series of ACQ treated wood/API glue joints were 6.34 to 6.85 MPa, which were 16.6% to 22.8% lower than that of the untreated sample. The wood failure percentage of the three series of ACQ treated wood/API glue joints were 87.0% to 87.8%, which were 11.8% to 12.6% lower than that of the untreated sample. The measured shear strengths were further compared on the basis of concentrations by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher LSD multiple range test (Fig. 5). The results showed that both the shear strength and the wood failure percentage of the ACQ treated samples were significantly different from that of the untreated sample, while there was no significant difference in that between the three treated groups.
Fig. 5. Bonding strength of Masson pine/API joints with different ACQ concentrations
(Statistically homogenous groups determined using LSD’s significance test)
The average and single values of shear strength and wood failure percentage of untreated Masson pine joints met the criteria of GB/T 26899 (2011) (Fig. 6). Although the average shear strength and wood failure percentage of treated joints met the criteria, some of the single values failed to meet the criteria. This result suggested that the bonding strength of ACQ treated Masson pine joints need to be improved by optimizing the processing parameters, adding primers, or replacing the adhesive.
Fig. 6. Correspondent relation between shear strength and wood failure of Masson pine/API joints with different ACQ concentrations
Adhesive Penetration
Micrographs of the bonding interphase of wood/API glue joints are shown in Fig. 7. The dark area represented the adhesive zone. The treated samples had smaller penetration depth and larger bondline thickness than the untreated sample, which indicated that the API adhesive showed poorer penetrability in ACQ treated Masson pine wood than in untreated wood.
The penetration parameters of the API adhesive in glue joints are given in Table 1. The bondline thickness of the three series of ACQ treated wood joints was 43.3 to 47.2 μm, which was 63.7% to 78.6% higher than that of the untreated sample. Average penetration depth and effective penetration depth of the treated samples were 30.6 to 35.8 μm and 24.7 to 25.7 μm, respectively, which were 44.7% to 52.9% and 29.2% to 31.9% lower than that of the untreated sample. The measured penetration parameters were further compared on the basis of concentrations by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher LSD multiple range test (Table 1). The penetration parameters of the ACQ treated samples were significantly different from the untreated sample, while there was no significant difference between the three treated groups.
Fig. 7. Micrographs of the bonding interphase of wood/API glue joints
Table 1. Bondline Thickness and Penetration Depth of API Adhesive
The Fisher LSD multiple range test indicated that the addition of ACQ had significant negative effect on bonding properties as well as on penetration parameters of glue joints. The reducing of adhesive penetration depth could be a reason for the decrease of shear strength and wood failure percentage of glue joints. The addition of ACQ might change the surface activation energy of wood surface (Cao and Kamdem 2006), and affect the curing of API (Miyazaki and Nakano 2002), thus reducing the flow of API into the wood and forming less bonding force between wood and adhesive.
Correlation Analysis between Shear Strength and Penetration
The three series of ACQ treated groups were merged into one group for Pearson correlation analysis, given that there were no significant differences in bonding strength and penetration parameters among them. The obtained Pearson correlation coefficients were listed in Table 2. The shear strength showed a significant correlation with average penetration depth and effective penetration depth at the 0.01 level, while there was no significant correlation between shear strength and bondline thickness.
Table 2. Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Shear Strength and Penetration Parameters for ACQ Treated Glue Joints
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
For ACQ treated glue joints, the variation of bonding properties and adhesive penetration parameters were mainly ascribed to structural difference of wood and uneven distribution of ACQ in wood. The shear strength showed positive correlation with penetration depths but negative correlation with bondline thickness, according to the results from Pearson correlation analysis. This result suggested that a better penetration of API in ACQ treated Masson pine could contribute to a better bonding performance of glue joints. Furthermore, the relationship between penetration depth and shear strength was more remarkable than that between bondline thickness and shear strength, as the penetration depth directly determined the contact area and interaction between adhesives and wood in the bondline (Kamke and Lee 2007).
Least squares regression analysis of shear strength and penetration parameters was further conducted for ACQ-treated samples, as shown in Fig. 8. The coefficient of determination (R2) for average penetration and effective penetration depth were 0.250 and 0.143, respectively.
Although the correlation between shear strength and penetration depths was significant at the 0.01 level, the coefficient of determination (R2) was small, probably due to the complicated influence factors (such as variability of wood properties and curing degree of adhesives) for shear strength of wood joints (Albuquerque and Latorraca 2000; Hass et al. 2009; Uysal 2010). Further studies involving more factors affecting adhesive penetration and bonding strength should be done to clarify the relationship between bonding properties and adhesive penetration.
Fig. 8. Linear regression analysis for shear strength and penetration parameters
CONCLUSIONS
- The average shear strength (6.34 to 6.85 MPa) and wood failure percentage (87.0% to 87.8%) of the ACQ treated wood joints met the criteria of GB/T 26899 (2011), while some of the single values failed to meet the criteria.
- The addition of ACQ showed a significant negative effect on both bonding strength and adhesive penetration parameters of glue joints, while the increase of ACQ concentration from 0.1% to 1.0% had no significant impact on the properties of treated glue joints.
- The correlations between shear strength and penetration depths were significant at the 0.01 level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) for shear strength with average penetration depth and effective penetration depth were 0.250 and 0.143, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful for financial support from Fundamental Research Funds for Guangxi Forestry Research Institute (Project No. 201814), the Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi (Project No. AA17204087-16), the Fundamental Research Funds for Guangxi Forestry Research Institute (Project No. 201803), and the Guangxi Postdoctoral Science Fund Special Grants (Project No. BH2018010).
REFERENCES CITED
Albuquerque, C. E. C. de, and Latorraca, J. V. de F. (2000). “The influence of wood anatomical features on the penetration and adhesion of adhesives,” Floresta E Ambiente 7(1), 158-166.
Antwi-Boasiako, C., and Damoah, A. (2010). “Investigation of synergistic effects of extracts from Erythrophleum suaveolens, Azadirachta indica, and Chromolaena odorata on the durability of Antiaris toxicaria,” International Biodeterior and Biodegradation 64(2), 97-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2009.08.005
Bao, F., Jiang, Z., Jiang, X., Lu, X., and Luo, X. (1998). “Comparative studies on wood properties of juvenile vs. mature wood and plantation vs. natural forest of main plantation tree species in China,” Scientia Silvae Sinicae 34(2), 63-76. (in Chinese)
Buckley, C. J., Phanopoulos, C., Khaleque, N., Engleln, A., Holwill, M. E. J., and Michette, A. G. (2002). “Examination of the penetration of polymeric di-phenyl-diisocyanate (pMDI) into wood structure using chemical state x-ray microscopy,” Holzforschung 56(2), 215-222.
Cao, J., and Kamdem, D. P. (2006). “Surface energy of wood treated with water-borne wood preservatives,” Journal of Beijing Forestry University 28(4), 1-5. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2006.04.001 (in Chinese)
Frihart, C. R. (2004). “Adhesive interaction with wood,” Fundamentals of Composite Processing: Proceedings of a Workshop Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.
GB/T 31761 (2015). “Alkaline copper quat (ACQ) preservative pressure-treated wood,” Standardization Administration of China Beijing, China.
GB/T 26899 (2011). “Structural glued laminated timber,” Standardization Administration of China Beijing, China.
Gierlinger, N., Hansmann, C., Röder, T., Sixta, H., Gindl, W., and Wimmer, R. (2005). “Comparison of UV and confocal Raman microscopy to measure the melamine–formaldehyde resin content within cell walls of impregnated spruce wood,” Holzforschung 59(2), 210-213. DOI: 10.1515/hf.2005.033
Gindl, W., Dessipri, E., and Wimmer, R. (2002). “Using UV-microscopy to study diffusion of melamine-urea-formaldehyde resin in cell walls of spruce wood,” Holzforschung 56(1), 103-107. DOI: 10.1515/hf.2002.017
Goodell, B., Jellison, J., Loferski, J., and Quarles, L. (2007). “Brown-rot decay of ACQ and CA-B treated lumber,” Forest Products Journal 57(6), 31-33.
Hare, D. A., and Kutscha, N. P. (1974). “Microscopy of eastern spruce plywood gluelines,” Wood Science 6(3), 294-304.
Hass, P., Müller, C., Clauss, S., and Niemz, P. (2009). “Influence of growth ring angle, adhesive system and viscosity on the shear strength of adhesive bonds,” Wood Material Science and Engineering 4(3-4), 140-146. DOI: 10.1080/17480270903421529
Hu, L., Xu, H., Tan, J., and Yang, Z. (2018). “Research progress in wood property characteristic of masson pine and its processing and utilization,” World Forestry Research 31(1), 40-45. DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2017.0080.y (in Chinese)
Jin, J. W., Qin, D. C., Wei, W. S., and Fan, K. (2010). “Effect of 4 preservatives on physical, mechanical and mold-resistant properties of bamboo oriented strand boards,” 41st Annual Meeting of the International Research Group on Wood Protection Biarritz, France.
Johnson, S. E., and Kamke, F. A. (1992). “Quantitative analysis of gross adhesive penetration in wood using fluorescence microscopy,” Journal of Adhesion 40(1), 47-61. DOI: 10.1080/00218469208030470
Kamke, F. A., and Lee, J. N. (2007) “Adhesive penetration in wood—A review,” Wood and Fiber Science 39(2), 205-220.
Konnerth, J., and Gindl, W. (2006). “Mechanical characterisation of wood-adhesive interphase cell walls by nanoindentation,” Holzforschung 60(4), 429-433. DOI: 10.1515/hf.2006.067
Koran, Z., and Vasishth, R. C. (1972). “Scanning electron microscopy of plywood glue lines,” Wood Fiber 34(2), 202-209.
Lorenz, L. F., and Frihart, C. (2006). “Adhesive bonding of wood treated with ACQ and copper azole preservatives,” Forest Products Journal 56(9), 90-93.
Marra, A. A. (1992). “Technology of wood bonding: Principles in practice,” Springer Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Miyazaki, J., and Nakano, T. (2002). “Effects of wood preservatives on adhesive properties III. Curing of aqueous vinyl polymer solution-isocyanate adhesive with preservatives,” Mokuzai Gakkaishi 48(3), 184-190.
Miyazaki, J., and Nakano, T. (2003). “Effects of wood preservatives on adhesive properties IV. Effects of preservation and incising on shear strength and delamination,” Mokuzai Gakkaishi 49(3), 212-218.
Modzel, G., Kamke, F. A., and Carlo, F. De. (2011). “Comparative analysis of a wood: Adhesive bondline,” Wood Science and Technology 45(1), 147-158. DOI: 10.1007/s00226-010-0354-2
Onuorah, E. O. (2000). “The wood preservative potentials of heartwood extracts of Milicia excelsa, and Erythrophleum suaveolens,” Bioresource Technology 75(2), 171-173. DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00165-0
Qin, L., Lin, L., and Fu, F. (2016). “Microstructural and micromechanical characterization of modified urea-formaldehyde resin penetration into wood,” BioResources 11(1), 182-194. DOI: 10.15376/biores.11.1.182-194
Shukla, S. R., and Kamdem, D. P. (2012). “Effect of copper based preservatives treatment of the properties of southern pine LVL,” Construction and Building Materials 34(5), 593-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.009
Uysal, B. (2010). “Influence of pretreatment on shear strength of various wood species,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 100(1), 245-252. DOI: 10.1002/app.23030
Yang, T. H., Lin, C. H., Wang, S. Y., and Lin, F. C. (2012). “Effects of ACQ preservative treatment on the mechanical properties of hardwood glulam,” European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 70(5), 557-564. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-011-0584-5
Article submitted: November 11, 2018; Peer review completed: January 1, 2019; Revised version received: January 13, 2019; Accepted: January 19, 2019; Published: February 12, 2019.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.2.2610-2621