journal article·2017-04-03

Impact of enzymatic treatment on wood surface free energy: contact angle analysis

Hassan Barkai, Elabed Soumya, Moulay Sadiki, Balouiri Mounyr, Koraichi Saad Ibnsouda

Publisher page

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of cellulase treatment on wood surface physicochemical characteristics. The cedar wood samples were treated by cellulase for 30 min at different concentrations: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, and 1.2 mg/ml. Then the physicochemical properties (the wetting behavior and interfacial free energy) of the cedar samples surfaces were characterized by the sessile drop technique. The obtained results showed that the untreated cedar wood samples exhibited a hydrophobic character with a high water contact angle (θw = 71.9°) and a negative value of the interfacial free energy (∆Giwi = −59.3 mJ/m2). Thereafter, the wood hydrophobicity decreased continuously until it reached the hydrophilicity qualitatively (at the first concentration of cellulase (0.2 mg/ml)) and quantitatively (at 0.8 mg/ml of cellulase). The cedar wood surface treatment with cellulase also revealed a significant evolution of the acid-base parameters. Moreover, a linear relationship between the degree of hydrophobicity and the cellulase concentration has been found. This study clearly shows the impact that could have the produced enzyme by micro-organisms involved in wood biodegradation and especially their consequences on the physicochemical surface properties of the wooden materials.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Microplastics and Plastic Pollution · Botanical Research and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (36)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s00226-010-0326-610.1007/s00226-010-0326-6 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.02.01010.1016/j.ibiod.2014.02.010 ↗
3. 10.1016/S0964-8305(98)00070-510.1016/S0964-8305(98)00070-5 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00077-910.1016/S0964-8305(00)00077-9 ↗
5. 10.1163/22941932-9000024110.1163/22941932-90000241 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.02.00410.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.02.004 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2003.07.00310.1016/j.ibiod.2003.07.003 ↗
8. 10.1007/s00254-004-1044-x10.1007/s00254-004-1044-x ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.09.00110.1016/j.ibiod.2015.09.001 ↗
10. Van Loosdrecht MCM · Appl. Environ. Microbiol · 1987 · 53 · 189310.1128/AEM.53.8.1893-1897.1987 ↗
11. Whitehead KA · 2008 · 13
12. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.00710.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.007 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.msec.2012.12.02610.1016/j.msec.2012.12.026 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.10.00610.1016/j.foodcont.2013.10.006 ↗
15. 10.1007/s10295-007-0234-410.1007/s10295-007-0234-4 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.10.02810.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.10.028 ↗
17. 10.1016/0927-7765(96)01272-610.1016/0927-7765(96)01272-6 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.03.01010.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.03.010 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.08.04710.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.08.047 ↗
20. 10.1021/cr00088a00610.1021/cr00088a006 ↗
21. 10.1346/CCMN10.1346/CCMN ↗
22. 10.1080/00218464.2014.98322410.1080/00218464.2014.983224 ↗
23. Barkai H · J. Mater. Environ. Sci · 2015 · 6 · 749
24. 10.1016/j.dental.2013.07.02110.1016/j.dental.2013.07.021 ↗
25. 10.1080/01694243.2014.94334110.1080/01694243.2014.943341 ↗
26. 10.1080/01694243.2014.92919710.1080/01694243.2014.929197 ↗
27. 10.1002/admi.20140048010.1002/admi.201400480 ↗
28. Chia-Ching L · Adv. Mater. Interfaces · 2015 · 2 · 1
29. 10.1080/0021846740807223710.1080/00218467408072237 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0001-8686(97)00040-710.1016/S0001-8686(97)00040-7 ↗
31. Barkai H · Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. · 2015 · 6 · 767
32. 10.1163/15685610483933810.1163/156856104839338 ↗
33. 10.1021/la001080n10.1021/la001080n ↗
34. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2007.01.01610.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2007.01.016 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.08.00310.1016/j.indcrop.2009.08.003 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.01110.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.011 ↗