Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Japan Wood Research Society

Table 1 Various moisture-related properties of the aspen and birch wood samples after treatment with oils (values in parenthesis indicate standard deviations)

From: Effect of oil impregnation on water repellency, dimensional stability and mold susceptibility of thermally modified European aspen and downy birch wood

Wood type

Oil type

Uptake (kg m−3)

Test at 65% RH

Water-soaked test after 768 h of soaking

EMC (%)

MEE (%)

WRE (%)

ASE (%)

Aspen

Tung oil

267.1 (±0.9)

6.7 (±0.3)

30.7

65.5

15.3

TM-aspen

245.0 (±25.6)

3.7 (±0.4)

61.9

69.0

52.1

Birch

241.7 (±15.2)

7.7 (±0.5)

27.3

64.1

8.0

TM-birch

67.6 (±4.4)

3.7 (±0.3)

65.1

44.6

69.9

Aspen

Pine tar

283.6 (±13.8)

6.1 (±0.4)

36.2

64.2

20.4

TM-aspen

250.9 (±25.0)

3.0 (±0.3)

68.3

60.9

44.2

Birch

247.1 (±18.5)

7.6 (±0.5)

27.9

52.4

10.8

TM-birch

95.3 (±39.6)

3.1 (±0.0)

70.4

43.0

69.5

Aspen

Beckers

371.2 (±33.9)

6.6 (±0.5)

31.1

33.6

0.9

TM-aspen

349.8 (±5.7)

4.2 (±0.3)

56.2

39.6

38.0

Birch

269.2 (±10.7)

7.8 (±0.5)

26.3

13.6

5.9

TM-Birch

118.7 (±25.6)

3.9 (±0.1)

63.4

10.9

56.4

Aspen

Unimpregnated

9.6 (±0.7)

TM-aspen

4.8 (±0.4)

50.5

22.6

36.7

Birch

10.6 (±0.5)

TM-Birch

4.1 (±0.6)

61.0

27.3

44.4

  1. The oil uptake data are from Ahmed et al. [11]. Unimpregnated samples from non-TM material of aspen and birch are regarded as control
  2. TM thermally modified, EMC equilibrium moisture content, MEE moisture excluding efficiency, WRE water repellent efficiency, ASE antiswelling efficiency and RH relative humidity