THIS IS A TRIAL VERSION OF ARTICLE PAGE FOR THE NEW VERSION OF SciELO Site ×

SciELO

Revista mexicana de ciencias forestales

Print version ISSN 2007-1132

Rev. mex. de cienc. forestales  vol. 15n. 84
https://doi.org/10.29298/rmcf.v15i84.1441

Artículo de Revisión

Prominent wood protection methods

Article Indicators
Núñez-Retana, Víctor Daniel1

González-Tagle, Marco Aurelio1

González-Rodríguez, Humberto1

Yáñez-Díaz, María Inés1

Himmelsbach, Wibke1*

Author affiliation
×
  • 1Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. México.
Author notes
*Autor para correspondencia; correo-e: wibke.himmelsbach@uanl.edu.mx Conflicto de intereses Los autores declaran no tener ningún conflicto de interés. Contribución por autor Víctor Daniel Núñez-Retana: desarrollo de la idea y del manuscrito; Marco Aurelio González-Tagle, Humberto González-Rodríguez y María Inés Yáñez-Díaz: revisión del manuscrito; Wibke Himmelsbach: estructura y revisión del manuscrito.
Permissions
×

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons

Creative Commons License

Abstract

Wood is a material widely used in construction, furniture, and other applications. Technologies are used to protect its quality and durability against biological damage and the effects of water, temperature and radiation that affect its physical and mechanical properties. The present work reviews the available treatments, evaluates their advantages and disadvantages, and defines the criteria for their use. The theme was divided into two sections: (I) Wood degrading agents, and (II) A classification of protection technologies that included both the traditional methods and novel approaches such as nanotechnology. The conclusions obtained with this approach point to the fact that several traditional chemical treatments substantially reduce biological damage and moisture absorption in wood. However, potential health and environmental effects should be considered. On the other hand, the dimensional stability of the wood is improved through the use of heat treatments. The use of nanometric composites for wood protection is a very promising technique that is under increasing development. However, it is a technology that requires special care because the nanomaterials must be toxic to the agents causing biodeterioration, but harmless or less hazardous to humans and the environment.

Key words:
Wood degradation, durability, nanotechnology, wood protection, chemical treatments, heat treatments

Introduction

According to FAO (2022), the annual global industrial production of wood in 2020 was approximately 3.9 billion cubic meters destined for fuel or roundwood, 473 million cubic meters were produced as sawn timber, and 367 million cubic meters, as materials derived from the wood. The demand for these products, mainly roundwood, is expected to reach 6 billion cubic meters by 2050 (Barua et al., 2014).

Wood protection is crucial in the global timber market, which faces the challenge of preserving it against biodegradation and exposure to water. This challenge can be solved with the help of protection technologies (Chen et al., 2020). As a response, methods have been developed to treat the wood using different protection strategies to improve its resistance to biodegradation.

In this regard, the quality, protection and resistance to degradation of wood products depends on such factors as humidity, temperature, wood density, and protection treatments (Gérardin, 2016).

UNE-EN 350 (Asociación Española de Normalización, 2017) classifies wood into four categories according to its ease of treatment: Class I, easy to treat; Class II, moderately easy to treat; Class III, difficult to treat; and Class IV, extremely difficult to treat. This standard establishes methods for assessing and classifying the durability of wood, understood as its ability to resist decay and decomposition against fungi, termites, and marine organisms (Reinprecht, 2016), and it is applicable even to treated or modified wood. The use of such a standard is crucial to provide a recognized standardized framework allowing comparison, as well as adding credibility by supporting the information with accepted standards and offering practical guidance through specific criteria and tests. In addition, its reference is essential to determine the commercial quality of the wood.

In this sense, in recent years, several works have been carried out to show affordable and environmentally friendly alternatives for the protection of wood. Some of these protection treatments are well-known and widely used in the industry, such as the traditional ones described by Peraza (2002), while others are more novel and involve nanotechnological techniques such as those described by Teng et al. (2018) and Jasmani et al. (2020).

The objective of this paper is to provide a general review of the main techniques currently available for wood protection and to evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. First, wood degrading agents will be discussed, followed by a classification of protection technologies ranging from traditional methods to modern and novel approaches such as nanotechnology.

Wood degrading agents

Table 1 presents a classification of the most important agents affecting the durability of wood, their effects and the most recent reference research proposing different protective treatments. In general, a distinction is made between biotic and abiotic agents. The former refer to living organisms, and the latter, to physical and chemical components of the environment.

Table 1
Factors influencing wood degradation, damages, and proposed protective treatments.
Agents Damages Treatments proposed Research of reference
Biotics Xylophagous microorganisms Mechanical properties Structural damage to the cell wall of the wood Coloring Acetylation Furfurylation Goodell et al. (2020) Broda (2020) Martha et al. (2021) Marais et al. (2022)
Xylophagous insects (termites) Destruction of the cell walls Mechanical damages Aesthetic damages Impregnation of soluble resins or polysaccharides Rust y Su (2012) Yang et al. (2022)
Crustaceans and bivalves Perforations in wood used in vessels Impregnation of soluble resins or polysaccharides Nanotechnological treatments Marais et al. (2022)
Abiotics Water Shrinkage and swelling Particle and compound dissolution Causes fungal growth Discoloration Acetylation DMDHEU (1,3-dimethiol-4,5-dihydroxyethyleneurea) Nanotechnological treatments Rowell (2020) Wang et al. (2021) Goodell et al. (2020) Marais et al. (2022)
UV rays Coloring Degradation of surface components (lignin, hemicellulose) Impregnation of soluble resins or polysaccharides Heat treatment Nanotechnologcial treatments McKinley et al. (2019) De Avila et al. (2019)
Thermal decomposition Elimination of volatile compounds Surface degradation DMDHEU (1,3-dimethiol-4,5-dihydroxyethyleneurea) Heat treatment Reinprecht (2016) De Avila et al. (2019)
Degradation by chemical compounds (alkalis, detergents, acids) Degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose fibers Varnishes or protective coatings Impregnation of soluble resins or polysaccharides Nanotechnological treatments Peraza (2002) Xu et al. (2020)

The main factors of wood degradation, understood as damage to the wood structure that can be initiated at both higher and molecular levels, include abiotic or atmospheric agents such as moisture, UV rays, and temperature, together with the presence of xylophagous organisms (Reinprecht, 2016). Exposure to sunlight and thermal decay affect the adhesion of coatings and the appearance of wood structures, leading to early replacement (McKinley et al., 2019).

On the other hand, moisture variations in the environment favor the growth of microorganisms that damage wood and affect its quality and properties, especially outdoors and in contact with the ground (Marais et al., 2022).

The main wood degrading agents are fungi, which cause different types of rot, such as white rot, brown rot, soft rot, mold rot, and blue stain, the latter having only an aesthetic effect on the wood. Fungi, with the exception of those causing blue stain, damage the structure of the wood, reducing its strength and visual appeal (Broda, 2020).

Insects also damage wood, the most economically relevant being termites. Although only a small percentage of these cause damage, their global economic impact in 2010 was estimated at US $40 billion (Rust and Su, 2012). In addition, marine borers, such as crustaceans and bivalves, bore into the wood of ships, destroying it over time (Marais et al., 2022).

Development and Discussion

In order to establish a certain type of wood protection treatment or preservative to be used, several aspects must be considered. These include the type of wood to be preserved (coniferous or broadleaf), the level of risk of deterioration to the particular service environment, the function the wood will serve (structural, ornamental, container, etc.), and the required service life.

On the one hand, there are hardwoods that are resistant and do not require any treatment for protection. On the other hand, there are softwoods with less natural durability. Figure 1 shows a classification of wood protection technologies.

Thumbnail
Treatments used for wood protection. Based on Gérardin (2016), Sandberg et al. (2017), Teng et al. (2018), Papadopoulos et al. (2019), Teacă et al. (2019), Jasmani et al. (2020), and Khademibami and Bobadilha (2022).
Figure 1
Treatments used for wood protection.

Traditional treatments by chemical modification

In chemical modification treatments, as a traditional treatment, the cell wall of the wood is reacted with low molecular weight active monomers or oligomers under certain conditions such as high temperature heating. Chemicals can also be introduced into cell cavities such as lumens and vessels in such a way as to block the physical channels and reduce the access of water into the cell walls of the wood (Xie et al., 2013).

In this regard, it is worth mentioning that acetylation is a chemical process in which the free hydroxyl groups of the wood cell wall are converted into acetyl groups and all the weight gained by the acetyl is converted into units of occluded hydroxyl groups. This technique can significantly reduce water absorption and improve resistance to fungal and insect attacks (Yang et al., 2022). However, acetylation presents some disadvantages, such as partial lignin degradation, and deformation and cracking of refractory woods. This, in turn, leads to poor quality and performance (Martins et al., 2019).

Another method is furfurylation, which consists of impregnating the wood with furfuryl alcohol, obtained by processing furfural, a compound derived from biomass by-products. This technique reduces water absorption and, therefore, fungal attack (Martha et al., 2021). However, its limitations include the fact that the weight of the catalyst must be small for it to penetrate the pores effectively (Bi et al., 2021).

Furfurylation is suitable for wood species with higher porosity and loose and tidy structures (Dong et al., 2016). Wood treated with furfuryl alcohol has higher hardness and stiffness, good appearance and texture similar to tropical timbers. It can be used for decking boards. Acetylated wood, on the other hand, has greater biological durability and dimensional stability. Therefore, it is good joinery products and for various structural applications (Mantanis, 2017); however, the manufacturing costs are higher (Bi et al., 2021).

Among the impregnating materials, resins are a widely used and versatile group in the protection of wood. Their main purpose is to stabilize or reinforce the dimensions of the wood because they polymerize or cross-link easily (Wang et al., 2021). However, their use may present disadvantages, such as possible degradation due to weathering, difficulty in achieving uniform application, and the potential environmental impact associated with chemical compounds present in certain resins (Stefanowski et al., 2018).

Schardosin et al. (2020) point out that impregnation with kerosene emulsions could be a substitute for acetylation, if the objective is to reduce water absorption. However, they also indicate that particle size influences the penetration of the wax into the wood.

Traditional treatments by thermal modification

Thermal modification of wood began in 1915 in Wisconsin, USA, but did not become known throughout the world until the 1970s and 1980s. The process usually occurs at a temperature of 150 to 240 °C, and its main objective is to improve dimensional stability and microbial resistance (Hill et al., 2021). However, these treatments have certain drawbacks. First, they significantly affect the fracture toughness of the wood (Khademibami and Bobadilha, 2022); in addition, they modify the color of the wood, especially that of tropical woods. The current challenge is to find the balance between improved protection against agents, the loss of resistance, the preservation of the original color, and the improvement of the equipment used in the application of these treatments (Gu et al., 2019).

Currently, there is a wide variety of processes for the thermal modification of wood. Table 2 lists the main commercial heat treatment processes used in Europe.

Table 2
Treatments used for thermal modification of timbers.
Process Temperature (°C) Duration (h) Pressure (MPa) Utilized atmosphere References
FWD(Feuchte-Wärme-Duck) 120-180 ≈15 0.5-0.6 Vapor Sandberg et al. (2017)
160-180 7-10 bar Saturated vapor Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
PLATO (Providing Lasting Advanced Timber Option) 150-180/ 170-190 4-5/ 70-120/ >2 weeks (Partially) super-atmospheric Saturated vapor/hot air Sandberg et al. (2017)
150-180/ 150-190 Saturated vapor Gérardin (2016)
160-190/ 170/190 4-5/3-5 days/ 14-16/2-3 days Atmospheric Saturated vapor Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
Over 190 Ormondroyd et al. (2015)
150-190/ 4-5/3 a 5 days/ 15-16 h/3 days 0.6-1 Water vapor/hot air Reinprecht (2016)
ThermoWood 130/ 185-215/ 80-90 30-70 Atmospheric Vapor Sandberg et al. (2017)
130/ 185-215 2-3 Overheated vapor Gérardin (2016)
100-130/ 185-215 a 230/ 80-90 Hot air or water vapor Reinprecht (2016)
185-215 2-15 h Vapor Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
185-215 Ormondroyd et al. (2015)
Le Bois Perdure 200-230 12-36 Atmospheric Vapor Sandberg et al. (2017)
200-230 Inert Gérardin (2016)
100-120/ 200-240/ Depends on the species Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
230 Nitrogen Ormondroyd et al. (2015)
Rectification 160-240 8-24 Nitrogen or another gas Sandberg et al. (2017)
240 Nitrogen or CO2 Gérardin (2016)
210-260 Nitrogen with less than 2 % oxygen Reinprecht (2016)
210-240 Atmospheric <2.0 % oxygen Inert gas Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
OHT (Oil Heat Treatment) 24-36 Vegetable oils Sandberg et al. (2017)
180-220 2-4 Reinprecht (2016)
18 Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
TVT (Thermo-Vacuum Treatment) 160-220 Over 25 Vacuum 150-350 1 000 (mbar) Vacuum Sandberg et al. (2017)
100/ 160-220 Over 25 Vacuum 150-350 1 000 (mbar) Vacuum Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
Westwood 204 Acosta-Acosta et al. (2021)
*The initial moisture content of all processes varies between 0 and 30 %. The stages of each process are separated by “/” and depend on the treatments and authors. Modified and expanded from Sandberg et al. (2017).

The choice of the best heat treatment is sometimes complicated, as all processes have some technical or economic limitations or disadvantages. The species and moisture content of the wood, as well as the intensity of the treatment, must be considered when making the selection. Pockrandt et al. (2018) compared different heat treatments of hardwoods and conclude that the TVT process is less destructive than ThermoWood; however, the durability of the wood is not significantly improved with the TVT process. Jebrane et al. (2018), for their part, cite that for softwoods both processes lead to similar results.

Thermogravimetric analysis has shown that hardwoods such as beech, poplar, ash, and eucalyptus are more susceptible to thermal degradation than softwoods such as pine and spruce (Candelier et al., 2016). This is due to the hemicellulose content in hardwoods containing highly acetylated functional groups, compared to softwoods (Martínez-Abad et al., 2018).

Traditional treatments of natural origin

Traditional treatments of natural origin are usually based on water or oily substances. Water-soluble preservatives are mainly used when the preservation of the color of the wood is an important factor, as is the odor of the preservative substance once applied to the wood. These preservatives have the disadvantage that they do not confer dimensional stability, while they may increase the corrosion rate of nails or metal fasteners (Reinprecht, 2016).

Oil-soluble wood preservative methods are a promising alternative as impregnators and binders in paints or in combination with other formulations (Cesprini et al., 2022). They are preservatives that fill the cavities of the wood by capillary action, i. e., they do not chemically bind to the cell walls; therefore, a high retention capacity must be ensured to achieve the desired protection (Woźniak, 2022).

There are other very effective preservatives such as creosote and PCP (pentachlorophenol); despite not being of natural origin, these were widely used in Europe and North America, but their use has been banned since 2018 due to health and environmental concerns (Khademibami and Bobadilha, 2022). Likewise, although the current acceptance of copper/chromate/arsenic salts (CCA), acid/copper/chromate (ACC), arsenate/cupric/ammonia (ACA), and arsenate/cupric/zinc/ammonia (ACZA) is limited by environmental concerns, they have played a crucial role in the conservation of timber (Tarmian et al., 2020).

Natural compounds, on the other hand, are renewable and easily obtainable substances with beneficial antimicrobial properties and less ecological impact than traditional chemical products (Broda, 2020). Wood protection research focuses on plant and animal compounds, such as essential oils, waxes, resins, and tannins from tree bark, as well as extracts and other related preservatives (Cesprini et al., 2022; Ella et al., 2022).

The heterogeneity from which the compounds are derived, their lower retention within the wood, their easy leaching, and their high susceptibility to degradation are some of the disadvantages of natural preservatives. Therefore, they are generally costly and not very cost-effective, and their use is limited.

Nanotechnological treatments

The main advantage of nanotechnologies in wood preservation is the high capacity of nanoparticles to penetrate wood structures completely and uniformly, resulting in a product with high physical and mechanical performance (Papadopoulos et al., 2019). Therefore, they can improve wood bonding and durability, moisture resistance, UV absorption, structural performance, fire protection, and reduce excessive leaching (Jasmani et al., 2020).

One of the applications of nanotechnology in wood protection is the use of polymeric nanocarriers, which act as a storage and transport medium for fungicides and bactericides to penetrate the wood, with the polymeric matrix controlling the release rate of the fungicides and bactericides (Teng et al., 2018). However, there are certain limitations such as the need to maintain control of the size and stability of the nanoparticle suspension throughout the process, as well as to improve the surfactant system of the nanoparticles (Bi et al., 2021).

Potential nanocarriers include carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and halloysite, a natural nanotubular material made of aluminosilicate clay, which is inexpensive and has no toxicity or negative environmental impact (Lisuzzo et al., 2021).

Furthermore, certain nanometals can be synthesized by chemical methods in their gas and liquid states and used in mixtures with other nanometals or even in traditional heat treatments (Teng et al., 2018). They improve the durability of wood in three ways: first, they interact with bacteria or deactivate the enzymes necessary for degradation reactions; second, they do not recognize fungus in the presence of nanometric metal and therefore prevent its development; and third, they generate reactive oxygen species in fungal cells (Bi et al., 2021).

On the other hand, there are nanoadditives used in coatings to improve the durability of wood. Applied alone or with traditional coatings, they enhance the wood’s mechanical properties, its fire resistance and protect against water and UV damage (Jasmani et al., 2020). They can be applied by brushing, dipping, or in situ polymerization to achieve better adhesion (Bi et al., 2021).

When these materials are used in a coating treatment, the slow and controlled release of the active ingredient is important due to its long-lasting effect and minimal environmental impact (Papadopoulos et al., 2019). In this sense, the incorporation of bio-based nanoparticles could significantly improve the performance of existing compounds in traditional markets and promote the development of new types of biocomposites and markets (Pacheco-Torgal et al., 2019).

Conclusions

The choice of the best wood protection treatment depends on the weighing of ecological, economic, and protection aspects.

To improve the dimensional stability of wood against moisture absorption, acetylation is suggested over furfurylation because it is more environmentally friendly, as it utilizes less aggressive compounds, and potentially more cost-effective in the long term. Both methods improve the effectiveness of the protection; acetylation stands out for its resistance to humidity and decomposition, and furfurylation for its improved stability and resistance, although the latter depends on the quality of the products and the precision of the process.

In the choice of heat treatment for wood, it is suggested to consider several options depending on the specific properties of the project. To minimize environmental impact, FWD, PLATO and ThermoWood all offer environmentally friendly alternatives, as they largely avoid the use of aggressive chemicals. If economic efficiency is crucial, ThermoWood could be a cost-effective selection in the long term, while FWD and Le Bois Perdure involve more substantial upfront investments. In terms of protection, all heat treatments provide significant improvements in wood strength and durability. However, it is important to consider that heat treatment leads to the deterioration of certain mechanical properties.

Natural, mostly environmentally friendly treatments, offer effective protection against insects, fungi, and decay. The economic feasibility depends on the specific substance and its availability; however, the possibility of reducing long-term maintenance costs should be considered. Therefore, it is recommended to use these treatments together with other methods.

If the application of advanced treatments for wood protection is desired, the cautious use of nanotechnology with a balanced approach is suggested. It is crucial to assess the sustainability of nanomaterials, minimizing environmental impacts. Despite the initial investment, nanotechnology promises long-term protection and potential cost savings. Its adoption requires addressing environmental considerations and must align with specific objectives to allow profiting from its innovative potential in a gradual and conscious manner.

The importance of adopting environmentally friendly practices is recognized; therefore, it is recommended to focus research on the generation of solutions for the protection of wood that minimize the ecological impact and prioritize treatments of natural origin. The treatment choice must meet the durability and resistance standards indicated in international quality standards. Finally, ways must be sought to optimize costs without compromising the environmental integrity or human health, as well as the effectiveness in protecting the environment.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Conahcyt for the doctoral scholarship granted and to the UANL Foundation for the scholarship provided for an international stay. In addition, they thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which have played a key role in improving this literature review.

Referencias

  • Acosta-Acosta, R., J. A. Montoya-Arango and E. Joma-da-Silva. 2021. Technologies applied to wood heat treatments, a review. Scientia et Technica 26(2):127-136. Doi: 10.22517/23447214.22641. Links
  • Asociación Española de Normalización. 2017. UNE-EN 350:2016 Durabilidad de la madera y de los productos derivados de la madera. Ensayos y clasificación de la resistencia a los agentes biológicos de la madera y de los productos derivados de la madera. Asociación Española de Normalización. Madrid, MD, España. 60 p. Links
  • Barua, S. K., P. Lehtonen and T. Pahkasalo. 2014. Plantation vision: Potentials, challenges and policy options for global industrial forest plantation development. International Forestry Review 16(2):117-127. Doi: 10.1505/146554814811724801. Links
  • Bi, W., H. Li, D. Hui, M. Gaff, … and M. Ashraf. 2021. Effects of chemical modification and nanotechnology on wood properties. Nanotechnology Reviews 10(1):978-1008. Doi: 10.1515/ntrev-2021-0065. Links
  • Broda, M. 2020. Natural compounds for wood protection against fungi-A review. Molecules 25(15):1-24. Doi: 10.3390/molecules25153538. Links
  • Candelier, K., M.-F. Thevenon, A. Petrissans, S. Dumarcay, P. Gerardin and M. Petrissans. 2016. Control of wood thermal treatment and its effects on decay resistance: a review. Annals of Forest Science 73:571-583. Doi: 10.1007/s13595-016-0541-x. Links
  • Cesprini, E., R. Baccini, T. Urso, M. Zanetti and G. Tondi. 2022. Quebracho-based wood preservatives: Effect of concentration and hardener on timber properties. Coatings 12(5):568. Doi: 10.3390/coatings12050568. Links
  • Chen, C., Y. Kuang, S. Zhu, I. Burgert, … and L. Hu. 2020. Structure-property-function relationships of natural and engineered wood. Nature Reviews Materials 5:642-666. Doi: 10.1038/s41578-020-0195-z. Links
  • De Avila D., R., R. Beltrame and D. A. Gatto. 2019. Discolouration of heat-treated fast-growing Eucalyptus wood exposed to natural weathering. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology 53(7-8):635-641. Doi: 10.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2019.53.62. Links
  • Dong, Y., Y. Qin, K. Wang, Y. Yan, … and S. Zhang. 2016. Assessment of the performance of furfurylated wood and acetylated wood: Comparison among four fast-growing wood species. BioResources 11(2):3679-3690. Doi: 10.15376/biores.11.2.3679-3690. Links
  • Ella N., L.-F., C. S. A. Bopenga B., F. E. Ngohang, L. E. Mengome, S. Aboughe A. and P. Edou E. 2022. Phytochemical and anti-termite efficiency study of Guibourtia tessmanii (harms). Léonard (Kévazingo) bark extracts from Gabon. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology 50(2):113-125. Doi: 10.5658/WOOD.2022.50.2.113. Links
  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2022. Forestry Production and Trade. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO . (10 de abril de 2023). Links
  • Gérardin, P. 2016. New alternatives for wood preservation based on thermal and chemical modification of wood-A review. Annals of Forest Science 73:559-570. Doi: 10.1007/s13595-015-0531-4. Links
  • Goodell, B., J. E. Winandy and J. J. Morrell. 2020. Fungal degradation of wood: Emerging data, new insights and changing perceptions. Coatings 10(12):1-19. Doi: 10.3390/coatings10121210. Links
  • Gu, L., T. Ding and N. Jiang. 2019. Development of wood heat treatment research and industrialization. Journal of Forestry Engineering 4(4):1-11. Doi: 10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.2019.04.001. Links
  • Hill, C., M. Altgen and L. Rautkari. 2021. Thermal modification of wood-a review: chemical changes and hygroscopicity. Journal of Materials Science 56:6581-6614. Doi: 10.1007/s10853-020-05722-z. Links
  • Jasmani, L., R. Rusli, T. Khadiran, R. Jalil and S. Adnan. 2020. Application of nanotechnology in wood-based products industry: A review. Nanoscale Research Letters 15:207. Doi: 10.1186/s11671-020-03438-2. Links
  • Jebrane, M., M. Pockrandt, I. Cuccui, O. Allegretti, E. Uetimane and N. Terziev. 2018. Comparative study of two softwood species industrially modified by Thermowood® and Thermo-Vacuum process. BioResources 13(1):715-728. Doi: 10.15376/biores.13.1.715-728. Links
  • Khademibami, L. and G. S. Bobadilha. 2022. Recent developments studies on wood protection research in academia: A review. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1-18. Doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.793177. Links
  • Lisuzzo, L., T. Hueckel, G. Cavallaro, S. Sacanna and G. Lazzara. 2021. Pickering emulsions based on wax and halloysite nanotubes: An ecofriendly protocol for the treatment of archeological woods. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13(1):1651-1661. Doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c20443. Links
  • Mantanis, G. I. 2017. Chemical modification of wood by acetylation or furfurylation: A review of the present scaled-up technologies. BioResources 12(2):4478-4489. Doi: 10.15376/biores.12.2.4478-4489. Links
  • Marais, B. N., C. Brischke and H. Militz. 2022. Wood durability in terrestrial and aquatic environments-A review of biotic and abiotic influence factors. Wood Material Science & Engineering 17(2):82-105. Doi: 10.1080/17480272.2020.1779810. Links
  • Martha, R., M. Mubarok, I. Batubara, I. S. Rahayu, … and P. Gérardin. 2021. Effect of furfurylation treatment on technological properties of short rotation teak wood. Journal of Materials Research and Technology 12:1689-1699. Doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.03.092. Links
  • Martínez-Abad, A., N. Giummarella, M. Lawoko and F. Vilaplana. 2018. Differences in extractability under subcritical water reveal interconnected hemicellulose and lignin recalcitrance in birch hardwoods. Green Chemistry 20(11):2534-2546. Doi: 10.1039/c8gc00385h. Links
  • Martins, C., P. Santos and A. M. P. G. Dias. 2019. Portuguese hardwoods: an overview of its potential for construction purposes. In: van de Kuilen, J.-W. and W. Gard (Edits.). 7th International Scientific Conference on Hardwood Processing. Delft University of Technology. Delft, ZH, The Netherlands. pp. 286-294. Links
  • McKinley, P., A. Sinha and F. A. Kamke. 2019. Understanding the effect of weathering on adhesive bonds for wood composites using digital image correlation (DIC). Holzforschung: International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics, & Technology of Wood 73(2):155. Doi: 10.1515/hf-2018-0024. Links
  • Ormondroyd, G., M. Spear and S. Curling. 2015. Modified wood: review of efficacy and service life testing. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Construction Materials 168(4):187-203. Doi: 10.1680/coma.14.00072. Links
  • Pacheco-Torgal, F., M. V. Diamanti, A. Nazari, C. G. Granqvist, A. Pruna and S. Amirkhanian (Edits.). 2019. Nanotechnology in eco-efficient Construction: Materials, processes and applications. Elsevier. Duxford, Cambs., United Kingdom. 876 p. Links
  • Papadopoulos, A. N., D. N. Bikiaris, A. C. Mitropoulos and G. Z. Kyzas. 2019. Nanomaterials and chemical modifications for enhanced key wood properties: A review. Nanomaterials 9:607. Doi: 10.3390/nano9040607. Links
  • Peraza S., F. 2002. Protección preventiva de la madera. Asociación de Investigación Técnica de las Industrias de la Madera, AITIM. Madrid, Mad., España. 437 p. Links
  • Pockrandt, M., M. Jebrane, I. Cuccui, O. Allegretti, E. Uetimane and N. Terziev. 2018. Industrial Thermowood® and Termovuoto thermal modification of two hardwoods from Mozambique. Holzforschung: International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics, & Technology of Wood 72(8):701-709. Doi: 10.1515/hf-2017-0153. Links
  • Reinprecht, L. 2016. Wood deterioration, protection and maintenance. Wiley Blackwell. Oxford, Oxon, United Kingdom. 384 p. Links
  • Rowell, R. M. 2020. Innovation in wood preservation. Polymers 12(7):1-7. Doi: 10.3390/polym12071511. Links
  • Rust, M. K. and N.-Y. Su. 2012. Managing social insects of urban importance. Annual Review of Entomology 57:355-375. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120710-100634. Links
  • Sandberg, D., A. Kutnar and G. Mantanis. 2017. Wood modification technologies-a review. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry 10(6):895-908. Doi: 10.3832/ifor2380-010. Links
  • Schardosin, F. Z., S. Nisgoski, P. H. G. Cademartori, S. R. Morrone and G. I. B. Muniz. 2020. Comparison of the effects of acetylation and paraffin emulsion impregnation in Pinus caribeae. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 32(3):237-245. Doi: 10.26525/jtfs2020.32.3.237. Links
  • Stefanowski, B. K., M. J. Spear and A. Pitman. 2018. Review of the use of PF and related resins for modification of solid wood. Timber 2018:165-179. https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/20769793/Stefanowski_Review.pdf . (15 de abril de 2023). Links
  • Tarmian, A., I. Z. Tajrishi, R. Oladi and D. Efhamisisi. 2020. Treatability of wood for pressure treatment processes: a literature review. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 78(2):635-660. Doi: 10.1007/s00107-020-01541-w. Links
  • Teacă, C.-A., D. Roşu, F. Mustaţă, T. Rusu, … and C.-D. Varganici. 2019. Natural bio-based products for wood coating and protection against degradation: A review. BioResources 14(2):4873-4901. Doi: 10.15376/BIORES.14.2.TEACA. Links
  • Teng, T.-J., M. N. M. Arip, K. Sudesh, A. Nemoikina, … and H.-L. Lee. 2018. Conventional technology and nanotechnology in wood preservation: A review. BioResources 13(4):9220-9252. Doi: 10.15376/biores.13.4.Teng. Links
  • Wang, D., Q. Ling, Y. Nie, Y. Zhang, … and F. Sun. 2021. In-situ cross-linking of waterborne epoxy resin inside wood for enhancing its dimensional stability, thermal stability, and decay resistance. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 3(12):6265-6273. Doi: 10.1021/acsapm.1c01070. Links
  • Woźniak, M. 2022. Antifungal agents in wood protection-A review. Molecules 27(19):6392. Doi: 10.3390/molecules27196392. Links
  • Xie, Y., Q. Fu, Q. Wang, Z. Xiao and H. Militz. 2013. Effects of chemical modification on the mechanical properties of wood. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 71:401-416. Doi: 10.1007/s00107-013-0693-4. Links
  • Xu, E., D. Wang and L. Lin. 2020. Chemical structure and mechanical properties of wood cell walls treated with acid and alkali solution. Forests 11:1-11. Doi: 10.3390/f11010087. Links
  • Yang, T., C. Mei, E. Ma and J. Cao. 2022. Effects of acetylation on moisture sorption of wood under cyclically changing conditions of relative humidity. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 81(4):1-13. Doi: 10.1007/s00107-022-01903-6. Links
Prominent wood protection methods
  • Rev. mex. de cienc. forestales  vol. 15n. 84Prominent wood protection methods Núñez-Retana Víctor Daniel 1 González-Tagle Marco Aurelio 1 González-Rodríguez Humberto 1 Yáñez-Díaz María Inés 1 Himmelsbach Wibke 1 * Author affiliationPermissions
Sections
Article in PDFArticle in XMLAutomatic translationSend this article by email
Choose your color contrast
Top