防腐剂处理过的木材和化学改性木材的耐久性比较试验 - 根据不同的腐朽试验进行评估和分类

IF 2.4 3区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY
Christian Brischke, Susanne Bollmus, Lukas Emmerich
{"title":"防腐剂处理过的木材和化学改性木材的耐久性比较试验 - 根据不同的腐朽试验进行评估和分类","authors":"Christian Brischke,&nbsp;Susanne Bollmus,&nbsp;Lukas Emmerich","doi":"10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Not before the year 2016, the European standard system did allow for classifying the durability of treated wood in addition to natural durability of untreated wood species. After its latest revision, EN 350 (2016) allows a durability classification of solid wood and wood-based materials with the help of five durability classes (DC) between ‘very durable’ (DC 1) and ‘non-durable’ (DC 5). However, different test methods, assessment measures, and calculation methods can be used for durability classification. This inevitably leads to different assessments of the biological durability of wood. This study aimed therefore on a comparative durability classification of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood (here: treated with 1,3-dimethylol-4,5-dihydroxyethyleneurea, DMDHEU) using different laboratory and field test methods. Durability classes of the tested timbers differed not only between tested materials, but depended also on the applied test, assessment, and calculation method. In this respect, the use of relative values (x-values), i.e., mass loss (ML) or MOE loss data compared with a non-durable reference material can help to harmonize the classification and make DCs more comparable. The use of relative values can also help to reduce the effect of varying virulence of test fungi, activity of test soil substrates, and the climate-induced hazard of test sites.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":550,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Wood and Wood Products","volume":"82 4","pages":"1083 - 1094"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative durability tests of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood – Assessment and classification on the basis of different decay tests\",\"authors\":\"Christian Brischke,&nbsp;Susanne Bollmus,&nbsp;Lukas Emmerich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Not before the year 2016, the European standard system did allow for classifying the durability of treated wood in addition to natural durability of untreated wood species. After its latest revision, EN 350 (2016) allows a durability classification of solid wood and wood-based materials with the help of five durability classes (DC) between ‘very durable’ (DC 1) and ‘non-durable’ (DC 5). However, different test methods, assessment measures, and calculation methods can be used for durability classification. This inevitably leads to different assessments of the biological durability of wood. This study aimed therefore on a comparative durability classification of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood (here: treated with 1,3-dimethylol-4,5-dihydroxyethyleneurea, DMDHEU) using different laboratory and field test methods. Durability classes of the tested timbers differed not only between tested materials, but depended also on the applied test, assessment, and calculation method. In this respect, the use of relative values (x-values), i.e., mass loss (ML) or MOE loss data compared with a non-durable reference material can help to harmonize the classification and make DCs more comparable. The use of relative values can also help to reduce the effect of varying virulence of test fungi, activity of test soil substrates, and the climate-induced hazard of test sites.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":550,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Wood and Wood Products\",\"volume\":\"82 4\",\"pages\":\"1083 - 1094\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Wood and Wood Products\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Wood and Wood Products","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00107-024-02065-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 2016 年之前,欧洲标准体系除了允许对未经处理木种的天然耐久性进行分类外,还允许对经处理木材的耐久性进行分类。最新修订后的 EN 350(2016 年)允许借助 "非常耐用"(DC 1)和 "不耐用"(DC 5)之间的五个耐用性等级(DC)对实木和人造板进行耐用性分类。然而,不同的测试方法、评估措施和计算方法可用于耐久性分类。这不可避免地导致了对木材生物耐久性的不同评估。因此,本研究采用不同的实验室和现场测试方法,对经过防腐剂处理的木材和经过化学改性的木材(此处指经过 1,3-二甲基-4,5-二羟基乙烯脲处理的木材,DMDHEU)进行耐久性分类比较。受测木材的耐久性等级不仅因受测材料而异,还取决于所采用的测试、评估和计算方法。在这方面,使用相对值(x 值),即与非耐久性参考材料相比的质量损失 (ML) 或 MOE 损失数据,有助于统一分类,使 DC 更具可比性。使用相对值还有助于减少因试验真菌的毒力、试验土壤基质的活性以及试验场地气候引起的危害而造成的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative durability tests of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood – Assessment and classification on the basis of different decay tests

Comparative durability tests of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood – Assessment and classification on the basis of different decay tests

Not before the year 2016, the European standard system did allow for classifying the durability of treated wood in addition to natural durability of untreated wood species. After its latest revision, EN 350 (2016) allows a durability classification of solid wood and wood-based materials with the help of five durability classes (DC) between ‘very durable’ (DC 1) and ‘non-durable’ (DC 5). However, different test methods, assessment measures, and calculation methods can be used for durability classification. This inevitably leads to different assessments of the biological durability of wood. This study aimed therefore on a comparative durability classification of preservative-treated and chemically modified wood (here: treated with 1,3-dimethylol-4,5-dihydroxyethyleneurea, DMDHEU) using different laboratory and field test methods. Durability classes of the tested timbers differed not only between tested materials, but depended also on the applied test, assessment, and calculation method. In this respect, the use of relative values (x-values), i.e., mass loss (ML) or MOE loss data compared with a non-durable reference material can help to harmonize the classification and make DCs more comparable. The use of relative values can also help to reduce the effect of varying virulence of test fungi, activity of test soil substrates, and the climate-induced hazard of test sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 工程技术-材料科学:纸与木材
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Wood and Wood Products reports on original research and new developments in the field of wood and wood products and their biological, chemical, physical as well as mechanical and technological properties, processes and uses. Subjects range from roundwood to wood based products, composite materials and structural applications, with related jointing techniques. Moreover, it deals with wood as a chemical raw material, source of energy as well as with inter-disciplinary aspects of environmental assessment and international markets. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products aims at promoting international scientific communication and transfer of new technologies from research into practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信