Research Article

A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity

Volume: 17 Number: 3 November 27, 2017
EN TR

A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity

Abstract

Abstract

Aim of study: The need for eco-friendly and bio-soluble wood preservatives has increased recently. In this study, antifungal effects of tree barks were researched.

Area of study: The maritime (Pinus pinaster L.), iron (Casuarina equisetifolia L.), mimosa (Acacia mollissima L.), calabrian pine (Pinus brutia Ten.), and fir (Abies nordmanniana) tree barks were used.

Material and Methods: The the solution at two concentrations was prepared to the substance obtained with alcohol benzene extraction method from the tree bark according to TAPPI standard. The effectiveness of bark extracts was evaluated against brown-rot fungus; Coniophera puteana, and white-rot fungus; Trametes versicolor.

Main results: This study indicates that tree bark extracts have potential to use as wood preservatives. Maritime pine and fir tree barks showed good resistance against T. versicolor more than C. puteana. On the contrary, iron and mimosa tree barks were more resistance against brown-rot fungus, C. puteana. Concentration is the most important factor for inhibition of fungal activity. Inhibition of fungal growth increased parallel with concentration.

Research highlights: It is thought that the rich structure of the bark extract in terms of natural phenolic compounds could inhibit fungal activity. This study indicates that tree bark extracts have potential to use as wood preservatives. 

Keywords

Antifungal activity,Bark extract,Wood preservation,Tree bark

References

  1. Fradinho D.M., Neto C.P., Evtuguin D., Jorge F.C., Irle M.A., Gil M.H., Jesus J.P. 2002. Chemical characterization of bark and of alkaline bark extracts from maritime pine grown in Portugal. Industrial Crops and Products, 16, 23-32.
  2. Gao H., Shupe T.F., Eberhardt L., Hse C.Y. 2007. Antioxidant activity of extracts from the wood and bark of Port Orford cedar. J. Wood Sci, 53, 147-152.
  3. Hamburger M., Hostettmann K. 1991. Bioactivity in plants: The link between phytochemistry and medicine. Phytochemistry, 30, 3864-3874.
  4. Harun J., Labosky P. 1985. Antitermitic and antifungal properties of selected bark extractives. Wood and Fiber Science, 17 (3), 327-335.
  5. Jerez M., Selga A., Sineiro J., Torres J.L., Nùnez M.J. 2007. A comparison between bark extracts from Pinus pinaster and Pinus radiate: Antioxidant activity and procyanidin composition. Food Chemistry, 100, 439-444.
  6. Jiang G.G., Fang G.Z, Li L.L., Shi Z.X., Zhang Z.R. 2014. Study on antioxidant activity of catalyzed hydrogen degradation product of polymeric proanthocyanidins (LPPC) from Larixgmelinii bark. BioResources, 9 (1), 662-672.
  7. Kartal S.N., Hwang W.J., Imamura Y., Sekine Y. 2006. Effect of essential oil compounds and plant extracts on decay and termite resistance of wood. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 64 (6), 61-455
  8. Kirker G.T., Blodgett A.B., Arango R.A., Lebow P.K., Clausen C.A. 2013. The role of extractives in naturally durable wood species. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 82, 53-58.
  9. Kocaefe D., Saha S. 2012. Comparison of the protection effectiveness of acrylic polyurethane coatings containing bark extracts on three heat-treated North American wood species: Surface degradation. Applied Surface Science, 258, 5283-5290.
  10. Maoz M., Weitz I., Blumenfeil M., Freitag C., Morrell J.J. 2007. Antifungal activity of plant derived extracts against G. trabeum. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, IRG/WP 07-30433, Stockholm, Sweden.
APA
Özgenç, Ö., Durmaz, S., Yıldız, Ü. C., & Erişir, E. (2017). A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 17(3), 502-508. https://doi.org/10.17475/kastorman.282637
AMA
1.Özgenç Ö, Durmaz S, Yıldız ÜC, Erişir E. A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. 2017;17(3):502-508. doi:10.17475/kastorman.282637
Chicago
Özgenç, Özlem, Sefa Durmaz, Ümit Cafer Yıldız, and Emir Erişir. 2017. “A Comparison Between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 17 (3): 502-8. https://doi.org/10.17475/kastorman.282637.
EndNote
Özgenç Ö, Durmaz S, Yıldız ÜC, Erişir E (November 1, 2017) A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 17 3 502–508.
IEEE
[1]Ö. Özgenç, S. Durmaz, Ü. C. Yıldız, and E. Erişir, “A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity”, Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 502–508, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.17475/kastorman.282637.
ISNAD
Özgenç, Özlem - Durmaz, Sefa - Yıldız, Ümit Cafer - Erişir, Emir. “A Comparison Between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty 17/3 (November 1, 2017): 502-508. https://doi.org/10.17475/kastorman.282637.
JAMA
1.Özgenç Ö, Durmaz S, Yıldız ÜC, Erişir E. A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. 2017;17:502–508.
MLA
Özgenç, Özlem, et al. “A Comparison Between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity”. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, vol. 17, no. 3, Nov. 2017, pp. 502-8, doi:10.17475/kastorman.282637.
Vancouver
1.Özlem Özgenç, Sefa Durmaz, Ümit Cafer Yıldız, Emir Erişir. A Comparison between Some Wood Bark Extracts: Antifungal Activity. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty. 2017 Nov. 1;17(3):502-8. doi:10.17475/kastorman.282637

Cited By