透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.226.34.117
  • 期刊

木材防腐藥劑添加防黴劑對其處理材抗發霉性質之改善

Enhancement of the Anti-mold Property of Preservative Treated Wood by Mixing Preservatives with Mold Inhibitors

摘要


為解決防腐處理材於儲存時易發霉的問題,本研究使用南方松(Pinus spp.)及黃柳桉(Shorea spp.)等兩種試材,銅烷基銨化合物(Alkaline copper quaternary type 1 and 3, ACQ 1 and 3)、微米化銅、唑化合物(Micronized copper azole, MCA)、八硼酸二鈉(Disodium octaborate, DOT)等4種木材防腐藥劑;硫酸銅(Copper)、四級胺Didecyldimethylammonium carbonate/bicarbonate(DDAC)與Benzalkonium chloride(BKC)、鐵不可唑(Tebconazole, Teb)等4種木材防腐劑的主要成分;Micro、CW、C45等3種商用木材防黴劑進行試驗。結果顯示,對二種試材當ACQ 1、ACQ 3及MCA防腐處理材的藥劑吸收量達到CNS 3000規範之K4等級(ACQ: 5.2 kg/m^3;MCA: 2.6 kg/m^3)時,黴菌不易在防腐處理材表面生長。DOT的藥劑吸收量在黃柳桉試材中達4.8 kg/m^3(boric acid equivalent, BAE)亦可有效抑制黴菌生長,但於南方松則藥劑吸收量需遠超過K2(8 kg/m^3, BAE)的要求,為不易達到的防腐處理操作。比較二種試材,黃柳桉處理材對抑制黴菌所需的吸收量低於南方松所需者,而處理材之含水率明顯影響黃柳桉材的發霉情形,但對於南方松防腐處理材則無明顯影響。在藥劑吸收量未達有效黴菌抑制劑量時,發生於南方松防腐處理材表面的黴菌種類依其處理藥劑種類而有差異,ACQ 1及MCA能抑制多數生長於DOT處理材及未處理材(對照組)上的黴菌種類,但卻不能抑制未在DOT處理材上發現的木黴菌(Trichoderma)屬真菌。依各試驗藥劑有效抑制發霉濃度試驗結果及其與水溶性防腐藥劑(water-borne preservatives)的混合性,選擇Micro, CW及C45等3種商用木材防黴劑加入防腐處理液中進行試驗。結果顯示,不同防腐藥劑可使用不同之防黴劑來提高處理材的抗發霉性質。在木材防腐處理廠內,若要實際將防黴劑應用於南方松及黃柳桉防腐處理材中,MCA適合使用C45,其於處理液所需的濃度為0.04~0.08%,ACQ 1, ACQ 3和DOT則適合使用CW,其於處理液所需的濃度分別為0.006%、0.02~0.04%及0.04~0.08%。

並列摘要


In order to solve the molding problem of preservative treated wood during storage, two wood species, southern pine (Pinus spp.) and yellow lauan (Shorea spp.); four wood preservatives, Alkaline Copper Quaternary type 1 and 3 (ACQ 1 and 3), Micronized Copper Azole (MCA), and Disodium Octaborate (DOT); four chemicals of preservative ingredients, Copper sulfate, DDAC, BKC, and Tebuconazole; and three commercial mold inhibitors, Micro, CW, and C45 were used in this study. The experimental results show that for both wood species, when the retention of ACQ 1, ACQ 3, and MCA reaches the K4 level (ACQ: 5.2 kg/m^3;MCA: 2.6 kg/m^3) as specified in CNS 3000, molds hardly grow on the treated wood surface. Mold growth is also inhibited while the retention of DOT in yellow lauan specimens reaches 4.8 kg/m^3 (boric acid equivalent, BAE), however, it takes way above the K2 retention level of DOT (8 kg/m^3, BAE) for the southern pine specimens to show effective mold inhibition, which retention is hard to be practiced commercially. Comparing the results between these two wood species, the effective mold inhibiting retention of all the preservatives tested for southern pine specimens are apparently higher than those of the yellow lauan. Moisture content after treatment is a factor that influences mold growth on yellow lauan specimens; however, it is not a factor for the southern pine. Besides retention of preservatives, wood species, type of preservatives, and moisture content of treated wood are factors that influence mold development on preservative treated wood surface. Types of mold develop on preservative treated wood with retention lower than the mold-inhibition requirement depends on the type of preservative that wood is treated, e.g. wood specimens of southern pine treated with ACQ 1 and MCA did inhibit most types of molds that grew on DOT treated and non-treated specimens, but did not inhibit the growth of Trichoderma which was not found on DOT treated specimens. According to the effective inhibition concentrations of chemicals tested and their affinity to water-borne preservatives, the three commercial mold inhibitors, Micro, CW and C45 were chosen to mix into preservative solutions to test for their effectiveness on mold inhibition. The experimental results reveal that different combination between preservatives and mold inhibitors are required to achieve goals. The suggestion for treating plants are while treating southern pine and yellow lauan with ACQ 1 or ACQ 3 or DOT, CW is the most effective mold inhibitors to mix into the treating solutions with a concentration of 0.006%, 0.02~0.04%, and 0.04~0.08%, respectively; if it is with MCA, then C45 with a concentration of 0.04~0.08% in the treating solution should be effective.

延伸閱讀