文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：杉木应压木和对应木的水分吸附特性比较研究

英文题名：Comparative Studies on Water Vapor Sorption Characteristics between Compression Wood and Opposite Wood of Chinese Fir

作者：李珠[1] 殷方宇[1] 蒋佳荔[1] 吕建雄[1]

第一作者：李珠

机构：[1]中国林业科学研究院木材工业研究所,北京100091

年份：2022

卷号：36

期号：5

起止页码：37-42

中文期刊名：木材科学与技术

外文期刊名：Chinese Journal of Wood Science and Technology

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2020】；

基金：国家自然科学基金项目“基于生长轮尺度的早材与晚材机械吸湿蠕变行为及其互作机制”(32071689);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项资金“基于生长轮尺度的木材干缩湿胀行为可视化研究”(CAFYBB2020MA001)。

语种：中文

中文关键词：杉木;应压木;对应木;水分吸附;GAB模型;H-H模型

外文关键词：Chinese fir;compression wood;opposite wood;water adsorption;GAB model;H-H model

分类号：S781.33;S791.27

摘要：以杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)应压木和对应木为研究对象,采用动态水蒸气吸附仪,借助GAB模型和H-H模型探究其水分吸附特性的异同。结果表明,当相对湿度低于70%时,应压木与对应木的平衡含水率较为接近;当相对湿度高于70%时,应压木的平衡含水率低于对应木。应压木和对应木均表现出明显的吸湿滞后现象,吸湿滞后值在相对湿度70%时均达到最大,分别为3.11%和3.28%。GAB模型和H-H模型均可用于描述应压木和对应木的水分吸附等温线(R2>0.995)。通过GAB模型计算得出应压木和对应木的单分子层吸附水含量分别为6.00%和5.40%;通过H-H模型计算得出应压木的单分子层吸附水最大含量(4.93%)略高于对应木(4.72%),而应压木的多分子层吸附水最大含量(13.57%)则低于对应木(14.79%)。杉木应压木与对应木水分吸附行为的差异与其化学组分含量密切相关。
In this research, differences in water adsorption behavior between the compression wood(CW) and the opposite wood(OW) from Chinese fir(Cunninghamia lanceolata) were investigated with the dynamic water vapor sorption analysis(DVS) using the GAB model and H-H model. Results showed that when the relative humidity(RH) of specimens was lower than 70%, the equilibrium moisture content(EMC) of CW was close to OW. When RH was above 70%, the EMC of CW was lower than that of OW.The hygroscopic hysteresis was observed for both CW and OW, and the max values of hysteresis of CW and OW was 3.11% and 3.28%, respectively. The GAB model and H-H model can be used to describe the water adsorption isotherms of CW and OW, with R2both above 0.995. In the GAB model, the monolayer molecules water adsorption for CW and OW were 6.00% and 5.40%, respectively. In the H-H model, the maximum of monolayer molecules water adsorption of CW(4.93%) was slightly higher than that of OW(4.72%), while the maximum of polylayer molecules water adsorption of CW(13.57%) was lower than that of OW(14.79%). The differences in water adsorption behavior of CW and OW were closely related to its chemical constituent contents.