Maleic Anhydride Treated Wood: Effects of Drying Time and Esterification Temperature on Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve technical performance of wood siding, treatment with maleic anhydride was applied. The effects on technical performance of drying time and esterification temperature parameters were analyzed. Wood samples of lodgepole pine and white pine were treated and tested. Results indicated that treatment improves technical performance of wood (dimensional stability, fungal degradation resistance, and accelerated aging). FTIR spectroscopy analysis showed spectra with peaks at 1750 to 1730 cm-1. These correspond to ester bonds formed between wood hydroxyl groups and MA carboxylic groups. SEM images indicate that the MA quantity in wood cavities was increased with decreasing esterification temperature. Weight percent gain (WPG) increased with decreasing time and temperature of esterification. Artificial aging and fungal degradation performances were monitored using FTIR analysis. Esterification temperature had no important effect on fungal degradation. Weight loss after fungal exposure of treated samples was not only due to fungal action but also due to evaporation of MA during the drying step. Regarding artificial aging, degradation of wood components and ester bonds were less for samples esterified at 180 °C than those esterified at 160 °C or 140 °C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".