Variation in intrinsic wood properties of Melia azedarach L. planted in northern Vietnam

Author

• Doan Van Duong
  • 1
  • 2
• Edward Missanjo
  • 1
• Junji Matsumura
  • 3
  Email author

1. 1.Graduate School of Bioresource and Bioenvironmental Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
2. 2.Faculty of ForestryThai Nguyen University of Agriculture and ForestryThai NguyenVietnam
3. 3.Laboratory of Wood Science, Faculty of AgricultureKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Original article

First Online: 23 August 2017

Abstract

Variations in intrinsic wood properties [growth ring width (GRW), specific gravity (SG), fiber length (FL), and microfibril angle (MFA)] of 17–19-year-old Melia azedarach trees grown in two sites in northern Vietnam were investigated for effective utilization of the wood. Five discs were collected at 0.3-, 1.3-, 3.3-, 5.3-, and 7.3-m heights above the ground. The estimated mean GRW, SG, FL, and MFA were 7.44 mm, 0.548, 1.07 mm, and 14.65°, respectively. There were significant (P < 0.05) differences among trees and between sites in SG, FL, and MFA. Longitudinal position significantly (P < 0.05) influenced GRW and SG. Radial position was highly (P < 0.001) significant to all the wood properties and contributed the highest (GRW: 52.58%, SG: 58.49%, FL: 77.83%, and MFA: 26.20%) of the total variations. FL and SG increased from pith to bark, while GRW and MFA decreased from pith to bark. Fiber length increment (FLI) tends to stabilize between 7th and 10th rings. This should be taken into account when processing logs. The results of this study, therefore, provide a basis for determining management strategies appropriate to structural timber production of M. azedarach plantation trees in northern Vietnam.

Acknowledgements

The first author was funded by Vietnam government for a Doctor course at Graduate School of Bioresource and Bioenvironmental Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.

References

1. 1.
   EL-Juhany LI (2011) Evaluation of some wood quality measures of eight-year-old Melia azedarach trees. Turk J Agric For 35:165–171Google Scholar
2. 2.
   Harrison NA, Boa E, Carpio ML (2003) Characterization of phytoplasmas detected in Chinaberry trees with symptoms of leaf yellowing and decline in Bolivia. Plant Pathol 52:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. 3.
   Rahman MK, Asaduzzaman M, Rahman MM, Das AK, Biswas SK (2014) Physical and mechanical properties of Ghora neem (Melia azedarach) plywood. Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res 49(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. 4.
   Nghia NH (2007) Atlas of Vietnam’s forest tree species. Agric Publ House 1:242Google Scholar
5. 5.
   Kamala FD, Sakagami H, Oda K, Matsumura J (2013) Wood density and growth ring structure of Pinus patula planted in Malawi, Africa. IAWA J 34(1):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. 6.
   Sharma CL, Sharma M, Jamir L (2014) Radial variation in wood properties of plantation grown Terminalia myriocarpa Heurck and Muell-Arg in Nagaland, India. Res J Recent Sci 3:9–14Google Scholar
7. 7.
   Zobel BJ, Van Buijtenen JP (1989) Wood variation, its causes and control. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. 8.
   Honjo K, Furukawa I, Sahri MH (2005) Radial variation of fiber length increment in Acacia mangium. IAWA J 26(3):339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. 9.
   Matsumura J, Inoue M, Yokoo K, Oda K (2006) Cultivation and utilization of Japanese fast growing trees with high capability for carbon stock I: potential of Melia azedarach (in Japanese). Mokuzai Gakkaishi 52(2):77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. 10.
    Zhu J, Nakano T, Hirakawa Y (2000) Effect of radial growth rate on selected indices for juvenile and mature wood of Japanese larch. J Wood Sci 46(6):417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. 11.
    Richter HG, Dallwitz MJ (2000) Commercial timbers: descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. Version: 25th June 2009. http://delta-intkey.com. Accessed 24 Febr 2017
12. 12.
    Trianoski R, Iwakiri S, Matos JLM (2011) Potential use of planted fast-growing species for production of particleboard. J Trop For Sci 23(3):311–317Google Scholar
13. 13.
    Wiemann MC, Williamson GB (2002) Geographic variation in wood specific gravity: effects of latitude, temperature, and precipitation. Wood Fiber Sci 34(1):96–107Google Scholar
14. 14.
    Nock CA, Geihofer D, Grabner M, Baker PJ, Bunyavejchewin S, Hietz P (2009) Wood density and its radial variation in six canopy tree species differing in shade-tolerance in western Thailand. Ann Bot 104:297–306CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
15. 15.
    Lin CJ, Chung CH, Cho CL, Yang TH (2012) Tree ring characteristics of 30-year-old Swietenia macrophylla plantation trees. Wood Fiber Sci 44(2):202–213Google Scholar
16. 16.
    Wahyudi I, Ishiguri F, Makino K, Aiso H, Takashima Y, Ohshima J, Iizuka K, Yokota S (2016) Evaluation of xylem maturation and the effects of radial growth rate on anatomical characteristics and wood properties of Azadirachta excelsa planted in Indonesia. J Indian Acad Wood Sci 13(2):138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. 17.
    Ofori J, Brentuo B (2005) Green moisture content, basic density, shrinkage and drying characteristics of the wood of Cedrela odorata grown in Ghana. J Trop For Sci 17(2):211–223Google Scholar
18. 18.
    Kim NT, Ochiishi M, Matsumura J, Oda K (2008) Variation in wood properties of six natural acacia hybrid clones in northern Vietnam. J Wood Sci 54:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. 19.
    Ishiguri F, Hiraiwa T, Iizuka K, Yokota S, Priadi D, Sumiasri N, Yoshizawa N (2012) Radial variation in microfibril angle and compression properties of Paraserianthes falcataria planted in Indonesia. IAWA J 33(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. 20.
    Todoroki CL, Low CB, McKenzie HM, Gea LD (2015) Radial variation in selected wood properties of three cypress taxa. N Z J For Sci 45:24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. 21.
    Abdul WM (2007) Physical and mechanical properties of noncommercial timbers of NWFP. In: A project titled “Strengthening the forest products research at PFI, Peshawar”. Pakistan Forest Institute (SFPR), Peshawar, PakistanGoogle Scholar
22. 22.
    Leal S, Sousa VB, Pereira H (2006) Within and between-tree variation in the biometry of wood rays and fibres in cork oak (Quercus suber L.). Wood Sci Technol 40:585–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. 23.
    Gartner BL, Lei H, Milota MR (1997) Variation in the anatomy and specific gravity of wood within and between trees of red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.). Wood Fiber Sci 29(1):10–20Google Scholar
24. 24.
    Shmulsky R, Jones PD (2011) Forest products and wood science: an introduction, 6th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. 25.
    Uetimane JRE, Ali AC (2011) Relationship between mechanical properties and selected anatomical features of ntholo (Pseudolachnostylis maprounaefolia). J Trop For Sci 23(2):166–176Google Scholar
26. 26.
    Hein PRG, Lima JT (2012) Relationships between microfibril angle, modulus of elasticity and compressive strength in Eucalyptus wood. Maderas. Ciencia y tecnologia 14(3):267–274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Wood Research Society 2017

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10086-017-1652-1

Potential utilization of sodium fluoride (NaF) as a biocide in particleboard production

Author

• Cihat Tascioglu
  • 1
  Email author
• Kenji Umemura
  • 2
• Sukma S. Kusuma
  • 2
• Tsuyoshi Yoshimura
  • 2

1. 1.Department of Forest Products Engineering, Faculty of ForestryDuzce UniversityDuzceTurkey
2. 2.Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere (RISH)Kyoto UniversityUjiJapan

Original article

First Online: 07 August 2017

Abstract

The feasibility of sodium fluoride (NaF) incorporation as a biocide in the manufacture of particleboard was examined. Laboratory-scale particleboards prepared from untreated wood particles were incorporated with NaF powder at target retentions of 1, 1.5 and 3% of the total particle weight. An in-line treatment method was used to introduce the biocide during the blending stage just before adhesive application. Standard static bending and water resistance (water absorption and thickness swelling) tests indicated that embedding of the powder biocide up to the 3% level did not cause any detrimental effects on mechanical and physical properties. The laboratory decay and termite resistance tests showed that even the lower retention levels of 1 and 1.5% NaF were enough to suppress fungal and termite activity and significantly reduce the mass loss and consumption rate values of the specimens when compared to the untreated controls. Spectrophotometric analysis of leachate waters and the mass losses of the leached specimens revealed the tendency of the NaF to be depleted from the composite specimens. Therefore, the tested biocide was found to be appropriate for interior or protected above-ground outdoor exposure conditions.

Acknowledgements

The first author extends his appreciation to RISH, Kyoto University, for support under the Visiting Professor program between April 1 and September 29, 2016, and to Mr. Akio Adachi for specimen preparations and Ms. Nuriye Peaci for English proofreading of the manuscript.

1. 1.
   Chung WY, Wi SG, Bae HJ, Park BD (1999) Microscopic observation of wood-based composites exposed to fungal deterioration. J Wood Sci 45(1):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. 2.
   Laks PE (2002) Biodegradation susceptibility of untreated engineered wood products. In: Enhancing the durability of lumber and engineered wood products, FPJ symposium Proceedings no. 7249. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI, USA, pp 125–130Google Scholar
3. 3.
   Larkin GM, Laks PE (2008) Evaluating the durability of wood-based composites. In: Shultz TP, Militz H, Freeman MH, Goodell B, Nicholas DD (eds) Development of commercial wood preservatives: efficacy, environmental and health issues. American Chemical Society symposium series, pp 152–167Google Scholar
4. 4.
   Tascioglu C, Yoshimura T, Tsunoda K (2013) Biological decay and termite resistance of post-treated wood-based composites under protected above ground conditions: a preliminary study after 26 months of exposure. BioResources 8(1):833–843Google Scholar
5. 5.
   Larkin GM, Merrick P, Gnatowski MJ, Laks PE (2008) In-process protection of wood composites: an industry perspective. In: Shultz TP, Militz H, Freeman MH, Goodell B, Nicholas DD (eds) Development of commercial wood preservatives: efficacy, environmental and health issues. American Chemical Society symposium series, pp 458–469Google Scholar
6. 6.
   Spear MJ (2015) Preservation, protection and modification of wood composites. In: Ansell MP (ed) wood composites, 1st edn. Elsevier and Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 253–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. 7.
   Tsunoda K, Watanabe H, Fukuda K, Hagio K (2002) Effect of zinc borate on the properties of medium density fiberboard. For Prod J 52(11/12):62–65Google Scholar
8. 8.
   Gardner DJ, Tascioglu C, Wålinder ME (2003) Wood composite protection. In: Goodell B, Nicholas DD, Schultz TP (eds) Wood deterioration and preservation: advances in our changing world. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. 9.
   Kirkpatrick JW, Barnes HM (2006) Biocide treatment for wood composites: a review. The International Research Group on Wood Protection Doc No. IRG/WP 06-40323, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
10. 10.
    Tascioglu C, Umemura K, Yoshimura T, Tsunoda K (2014) Biological performance of zinc borate-incorporated particleboard: effects of leaching on efficacy. Compos Part B 57:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. 11.
    Pan C, Wang C (2015) Sodium fluoride for protection of wood against field populations of subterranean termites. J Econ Entomol 108(4):2121–2124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
12. 12.
    Pan C, Ruan G, Chen H, Zhang D (2015) Toxicity of sodium fluoride to subterranean termites and leachability as a wood preservative. Eur J Wood Prod 73:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. 13.
    Thompson R (ed) (2005) The chemistry of wood preservation. Woodhead Publishing Limited, CambrideGoogle Scholar
14. 14.
    Chen H, Rhatigan R, Morrell JJ (2003) A rapid method for fluoride analysis of treated wood. For Prod J 53(5):43–45Google Scholar
15. 15.
    Unger A, Schniewin AP, Unger W (2001) Conservation of wood artifacts; a handbook. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. 16.
    O’Neil MJ (ed) (2013) The Merck Index: an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals, 15th edn. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
17. 17.
    JIS K 1571 (2010) Quantitative standards and testing methods of wood preservatives. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
18. 18.
    JIS A 5908 (2007) Particleboards. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
19. 19.
    SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17 (2008) SPSS Inc., Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
20. 20.
    JIS K 0102 (2013) Testing methods for industrial wastewaters. Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), Japanese Standards Association, TokyoGoogle Scholar
21. 21.
    Morrell JJ, Freitag CM, Chen H (2005) Sequential treatments with fluoride and copper: effects of solution concentration and dipping time on treatment. For Prod J 55(7–8):57–62Google Scholar
22. 22.
    Vick CB, De Groot RC, Youngquist J (1990) Compatibility of non-acidic waterborne preservatives with phenol–formaldehyde adhesives. For Prod J 40(2):16–22Google Scholar
23. 23.
    Laks PE, Manning MJ (1995) Preservation of wood composites with zinc borate. The International Research Group on Wood Protection Doc No IRG/WP 95-30074, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
24. 24.
    EWPAA (2017) Facts about particleboard and MDF. Engineered Wood Products Association of Australasia, Australia, p 41. http://www.ewp.asn.au/library. Accessed 13 Feb 2017
25. 25.
    Freitag CM, Morrell JJ (2005) Development of threshold values for boron and fluoride in non-soil contact applications. For Prod J 55(4):97–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Wood Research Society 2017

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10086-017-1654-z