Next Article in Journal
Influence of Solid Waste Material Content on the Properties of Steel Slag-Waste Clay Brick Ceramic Bricks
Next Article in Special Issue
Direct Jet Co-Electrospinning of Spinal Cord-Mimicking Phantom for Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of PVD Coatings for Anti-Wear Protection of the Press-In Connection Elements
Previous Article in Special Issue
Borneol-Modified Chitosan Coating with Antibacterial Properties via Layer-by-Layer Strategy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/coatings14040433
coatings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cinnamon Bark Oil as an Effective Fungicide in Protecting the Surface of Wood-Based Softboards against the Development of Mold Fungi

by
Izabela Betlej
1,
Bogusław Andres
1,
Krzysztof Krajewski
1,
Piotr Borysiuk
1,
Jerzy Szakiel
2,
Mateusz Kowalski
2,
Renata Salerno-Kochan
2,
Maciej Balawejder
3,
Tomasz Cebulak
4,
Radosław Auriga
1 and
Katarzyna Rybak
5,*
1
Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Institute of Quality Sciences and Product Management, Krakow University of Economics, 27 Rakowicka St., 31-510 Krakow, Poland
3
Department of Chemistry and Food Toxicology, University of Rzeszow, 1a Ćwiklińskiej St., 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland
4
Department of Food Technology and Human Nutrition, Institute of Food Technology and Nutrition, College of Natural Sciences, University of Rzeszów, 4 Zelwerowicza St., 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland
5
Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Science—SGGW, 159C Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2024, 14(4), 433; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14040433
Submission received: 28 February 2024 / Revised: 28 March 2024 / Accepted: 3 April 2024 / Published: 5 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Paper Collection in Bioactive Coatings and Biointerfaces)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Porous wood-based boards, like any lignocellulosic material, are susceptible to biocorrosion caused by mold fungi. Their durability can be extended by using biocides. Due to the fact that porous boards are considered an ecological material, it would be beneficial to also use natural agents to protect them. For this purpose, the surface of softboards was protected with a 30% solution of cinnamon bark oil in ethanol. Three application levels were used: 75 g/m2, 120 g/m2, and 200 g/m2 of solution. It has been shown that the cinnamon bark oil solution used at an application rate of 200 g/m2 is an effective fungicide, protecting softboards (SBs) against the development of mold fungi: T. viride and C. globosum. The dominant volatile component of cinnamon oil identified in the boards turned out to be cinnamaldehyde. Three months after treatment, this substance constituted 74% of the volatile components. The proposed treatment method allows for short-term preventive protection of boards against mold fungi.

1. Introduction

The use of wood protection agents called biocides is intended to ensure the durability of material used in various environmental conditions in which it may be exposed to the destructive effects of biotic factors. The use of biocides is regulated by the provisions of Regulation No. 528/2012 of the European Union of the Parliament and of the Council on the supply and use of biocidal products. This means that only biocides containing active substances approved for use in European Union countries can be marketed in the European Union [1]. The regulation in question significantly limited the market of active substances approved for use in biocidal products in the EU, which was dictated by ensuring maximum safety when using biocides. Among the biocidal substances used to protect wood against biodegradation, only those substances remain on the market for which it has been shown in appropriate toxicological, ecotoxicological, risk, and exposure assessment tests that they are safe for humans, animals, and the environment [2]. Taking into account the guidelines of European law related to environmental protection, research is increasingly undertaken to assess the biocidal effectiveness of substances or chemical compounds that come from the natural environment, which are safe and renewable. Both plant metabolites and substances of animal origin or microbial cultures are assessed [3,4,5,6]. The Biocidal Products Regulation guarantees the possibility of development and research on new biocidal substances and products. Taking into account legal regulations, it is worth looking for new, safe, and effective biocides that occur naturally in nature, which may constitute an alternative to a number of synthetic substances currently used in wood protection. Due to the increasing burden on the natural environment, decisive steps must be taken to design ecological wood protection products.
The fungicide potential of plants is enormous, as evidenced by numerous publications [7,8,9,10]. The effectiveness of extracts from Nerium oleander L. [11], Gynadriris sisyrinchium (L.) Parl [12], and mistletoe leaves (Viscum album) [13] in protecting wood against biocorrosion caused by fungi has been proven. Tascioglu et al. [14], using extracts from plants rich in tannins to impregnate pine, beech, and poplar wood, obtained satisfactory results in protecting the wood against brown-rot and white-rot wood decay fungi. Scientific literature indicates that essential oils [15], tannins [16], flavonoids [17], and alkaloids can be used to protect wood against biocorrosion [18]. Another interesting issue is the possibility of using natural extracts from various tree species to protect wood. The natural resistance of some tree species is associated with the presence of non-structural compounds located in the bark, heartwood, or leaves, whose role is to protect the tree against biotic decomposition factors [19,20]. These compounds are mainly terpenoids, terpenes, and tannins, especially numerous in Alaska cedar, Western juniper, and Port Orford cedar [21].
Cinnamomum osmophloeum Kaneh [22], Cinnamomum camphora Ness et Eberm [23], and Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J. Presl [24] are tree species whose extracts are characterized by fungicidal properties. Cinnamon leaf and bark extracts, although they differ in chemical composition, have strong antifungal properties. Wang et al. [25], in minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) tests, confirmed the high effectiveness of low concentrations of cinnamon leaf oils against a number of fungi causing white and brown wood decay. Chittenden and Singh [26] indicated that the fungicide effectiveness of cinnamon oil is mainly attributed to the substances it contains—cinnamaldehyde and eugenol. The same authors also proved that wood-decomposing fungi react in different ways to the toxic effects of these substances. Cinnamon extracts and oils are also considered natural remedies against mold growth. Matan and Matan [27] proved that cinnamon oil in combination with clove oil protects rubber wood surfaces against the development of mold fungi. Hu et al. [28] showed that cinnamon oil can effectively inhibit the growth of Aspergillus niger, Penicillium citrinum, Trichoderma viride, Botryodiplodia theobromae, Fusarium moniliforme, and Alternaria alternata.
According to literature reports, the biocidal effect of cinnamon bark oil is related to the biochemical activity of substances that are the components of the oil. The main phytochemical components, such as cinnamaldehyde and eugenol, are responsible for the inhibition of ATPase, amylase and proteases, regulation of ion transport through the cell membrane, limitation of DNA replication, and spore lysis [29,30,31].
The development of mold on wood and wood-based materials is not a rare phenomenon, especially when they are used in variable temperature and humidity conditions [32]. A huge problem of mold concerns Euro pallets, which become less resistant to damage and pose a health hazard to users. Therefore, manufacturers of this type of product carry out multiple disinfection processes to extend their durability. Introducing synthetic biocides to wood or wood-based materials always involves a certain risk of harm to the environment, therefore the search for new formulations of protection products based on natural substances means greater care for sustainable development and human health. The possibility of using natural biocides to protect porous boards (SBs), considered to be ecological materials (produced practically without the addition of chemicals), seems to be particularly important.
In our research, we wanted to demonstrate that cinnamon bark oil, known for fungicidal properties [23], can be successfully used by producers of wood protection products to protect the surface of materials against the development of mold and may be an alternative to synthetic biocides used for preventive protection of wood. Cinnamon oil is a product of natural origin, a renewable product, and scientific research shows that its killing effect against mold fungi can be used to protect wood [33].
The aim of the work is also to propose a method for protecting the surface of a porous board, which is a material that is difficult to impregnate. The use of a patented jet treatment device allowed for easy dosing of a specific dose of the preparation onto the board surface without damage in the form of warping and delamination of the board.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characteristics of the Research Material

Porous boards—softboards (SBs) (STEICO, Czarnków, Poland)—with a thickness of 5 ± 0.1 mm, humidity of 6 ± 0.5%, and a density of 229 ± 6 kg/m3 were used for the tests, used as a base for panels and floating floors. The boards were characterized by the following properties: MOR—3.1 ± 0.3 N/mm2, MOE—378 ± 76 N/mm2, swelling after 2 h of soaking—18.0 ± 1.3%, water absorption after 2 h of soaking—382.6 ± 21.3%. Tests of board properties were carried out in accordance with the following standards: EN 310:1994 [34], EN 317:1999 [35], EN 323:1999 [36].

2.2. Wood Treatment

The modification of softboards (SBs) was conducted using the spray method with a 30% solution of cinnamon oil in ethyl alcohol (70%). The study encompassed three quantitative variants: 75 g/m2, 120 g/m2, and 200 g/m2. To ensure uniform coverage of the sample material with the oil compound, the process was carried out using a proprietary laboratory spraying device [37] depicted in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. The device was based on computer-controlled movement of the spray head and the height of the working table using stepper motors, along with a set of solenoid valves regulating the flow of working material and compressed air. The device provides precise spraying of samples sized 15 cm × 40 cm.
During the application of compound, the following parameters of the device were used: forming and atomizing air pressure: 0.4 Mpa; substance pressure: 0.14 Mpa; distance between the sample and the spraying unit: 18 cm; movement of the spraying unit: bidirectional, single-axis, along the longitudinal axis of the spraying chamber over a length of 35 cm; the speed of the spray head movement ranged from 450 to 1250 mm/min (depending on the required quantity of sprayed solution per area unit of the sample). Samples were sprayed unilaterally. After modification, each sample was dried horizontally at a temperature of 25 ± 1 °C and relative air humidity of 40 ± 5% for 48 h.
Samples intended to assess fungal growth were divided into three test groups: (1) samples whose effectiveness in protection against mold fungi was tested 24 h after treatment (24); (2) samples whose effectiveness in protection against mold fungi was tested 2 weeks after treatment and subjected to accelerated aging conditions (2T). These conditions consisted in keeping the samples in the dark, at a temperature of 38 °C and a relative air humidity of 80 ± 5%; (3) samples whose effectiveness of protection against mold fungi was tested after 3 months of storage at a room temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and a relative air humidity of 65 ± 5% (3M). Test samples from group 3 were also stored in a place protected from light.
Control samples were also divided into three groups and stored under the same conditions as the test samples. Control samples were saturated with ethyl alcohol, the same alcohol used to prepare the oil solution.

2.3. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment against Molds

Samples of the treated softboard were placed on 2.5% MEA substrate (OXOID Ltd., Basingstoke, UK). The wood-based board samples were separated from the medium by glass spacers. This procedure was intended to prevent the components of the microbiological medium from having a direct impact on the material. The samples were placed in such a way that the treated surface was on the side of the Petri dish lid. Four inocula of the mold fungi Trichodema viride Pers., strain A-102 and Chaetomium globosum Kunze, strain A-141 (ATCC 6205) were placed at a specified distance opposite the center of each edge of the sample. The inoculum size was 2–3 mm. The cultivation of mold fungi was carried out in a Thermolyne Type 42000 thermal incubator (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), under temperature and humidity conditions of 25 °C and 66 ± 2%. The degree of fungi growing over the surface of wood-based board samples was determined on the basis of high-resolution photographs taken daily for 14 days. The effectiveness of treatment was determined as the percentage of fungal growth on the sample surface in relation to the total surface of the test sample (Figure 4a,b). The percentage growth of fungi on the surface of samples was determined with an accuracy of 5% using the ImageJ2 image analysis program (Fiji v.1.52i) [38].
Step1—checking whether the measurement of the total sample area is P = 100. Permissible measurement error ±1%.
Step2—determining the area of the surface not covered by mycelium P1.
Step3—determination of the mycelium growth area on the sample surface P2 = 100 − P1.

2.4. GCMS Analysis

The wood-based softboard material samples (5 g) were divided into fragments with a surface area of 0.5 cm2 each. The tested material was placed in a 100 mL conical flask secured with aluminum foil. Then, the sample was incubated for 2 h at room temperature to achieve maximum vapor pressure of volatile compounds. SPME solid-phase microextraction analysis was performed using 100 μm polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) fiber (Supelco Ltd., Bellefonte, PA, USA). Fiber exposure was performed using the surface method for 30 min at 20 °C. After exposure, the fiber was transferred to the gas chromatograph injector, where the analytes were thermally desorbed. The process time and temperature were 5 min, 250 °C, respectively. Gas chromatography was used to analyze the chemical composition (GC-MS, Varian 450GC compressed 240 MS, Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The carrier gas used was helium, the flow rate of which was 1 mL/min. The dispenser temperature was 250 °C. Separation of the analytes was carried out using a 30 m × 0.25 mm capillary column with a moderately polar HP-5 (polysiloxanmethylphenyl) stationary phase and a layer thickness of 0.25 µm. The column oven temperature program was as follows: start—50 °C for 5 min isotherm, then set to a temperature gradient of 10 °C/min to 300 °C (5 min isotherm). Based on NIST.08 and the Willey database, compounds found in the extracts were identified. GC-MS analysis was performed in duplicate.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the results was carried out in Statistica version 13 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test (α = 0.05) for significant differences between factors. A comparison of the means was performed by a Tukey test, with α = 0.05. In order to describe the relationships between the studied variables, the techniques of scaled heat maps made in R studio were used.

3. Results

3.1. Assessment of Biocidal Effectiveness against Mold Fungi

The assessment of biocidal effectiveness was expressed as the percentage of inhibition of the growth of mold fungi on the surface of wood-based softboard samples. The conducted research shows that the effective dose of biocide that completely inhibits the growth of Trichoderma viride cannot be less than 200 g/m2 (Figure 5a). However, subsequent studies indicate that it is not sufficient for long-term protection (Figure 5 c,e). The assessment of biocidal effectiveness carried out on SB samples 3 months after application of the product showed a slight—less than 3%—increase in T. viride (Figure 5e). Lower doses of cinnamon oil solution, 75 and 120 g/m2, did not protect the surfaces of wood-based board samples against growth by the T. viride (Figure 5 a,c,e). The application dose of 200 g/m2 also effectively inhibited the growth of the Chaetomium globosum, both shortly after treatment (Figure 5b) and during 2 weeks of incubation (Figure 5d) of wood-based softboards at elevated temperature. During this short period of time, a greater sensitivity of the fungus to a lower share of biocide on the board surface was also observed. The biocide dose of 120 g/m2 effectively inhibited the growth of C. globosum on the plate surface (Figure 5d). Three months after applying the oil to the plate surface, no fungicide effect was observed, although the growth of the fungus C. globosum on the sample with the highest dose of biocide was delayed in entrainment to the control plates (Figure 5f).
Considering the influence of all the tested factors (fungus, concentration, time since treatment, test day) and the interaction between these factors on the growth of fungi on SBs (Table 1), it should be concluded that all of them had a statistically significant effect on the growth of the samples (p < 0.05). Among the factors tested, the concentration of the biocide used had the greatest percentage impact (25.2%). The interaction between the type of fungus and the time since treatment was also characterized by a similar effect size (21.7%). However, it is worth noting here that individually both the fungus and the time since treatment had a small percentage impact (1.0% and 1.3%, respectively) on the growth of fungi on the surface of SBs. Similarly, most of the studied factors and interactions between these factors had a lower impact than the impact of factors not included in this study (error 6.4%).
Considering individually the influence of factors (concentration, time since treatment, day of the test) and the interaction between these factors on the growth of fungi on the surface of SBs by individual fungi: Trichoderma viride (Table 2) and Chaetomium globosum (Table 3), it should be stated that also in these cases, the greatest percentage impact was demonstrated by the concentration of the biocide used (31.8%—Table 2 and 21.9%—Table 3). The increase in concentration generally had a statistically significant impact on the percentage of samples covered by individual fungus (different homogeneous groups—Table 2 and Table 3). Both in the case of T. viride and C. globosum, the time since treatment also had a significant percentage influence (25.2%—Table 2 and 20.8%—Table 3). Extending the time after treatment also generally had a statistically significant impact on the percentage of samples fouled by individual fungi (various homogeneous groups—Table 4).

3.2. Identification of Biocide Volatile Components in SBs

Phytochemical tests were carried out on SB samples 3 months after application of the preparation. The study aimed to illustrate the percentage composition of volatile compounds in cinnamon extracts and which substances are dominant. The tests were carried out on samples that were not exposed to fungi.
Tests for the identification of volatile oil components contained in the boards three months after treatment indicated the presence of 26 substances (Table 5). The dominant oil component in the boards was cinnamaldehyde. The aldehyde content in the boards ranged from 67 to 74% (Table 5). The remaining volatile components occurred in amounts ranging from 0.2% to less than 6%.
In the control boards, not treated with the oil solution, three volatile substances were identified, originating from raw materials intended for the production of SBs (Table 6).

3.3. Graphical Identification of Research Results

The use of heat maps with a scaling function made it possible to capture hidden relationships between the analyzed variables in samples of wood-based boards treated with different doses of cinnamon bark oil solution (Figure 6). Figure 7 shows the relationships resulting from the growth of T. viride and C. globosum mycelium on softboards treated with cinnamon bark oil at a concentration of 200 g/m2 after a 3-month storage period. The heat map in Figure 6 clearly shows that the predominant chemically active compound present on the SB was trans-3-Phenol-2-propenol, the highest concentration of which was recorded in samples treated in essential oil at a concentration of 200 g/m2 (value A in the diagram). The content of this compound corresponded most closely with the content of 2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol, which was visible in the form of a cluster formed as a result of cluster analysis visible on the right. The analysis of the obtained data led to the distinction of the behavior of grafted mycelium on SBs after 3 months of storage and observation of their development for a period of 14 days (Figure 7). It is clearly visible that T. viride (Tv3M-200) did not develop on SBs protected with cinnamon oil, in relation to the control boards (Tv3-K), in which colonies of the studied fungus began to appear after 8 days, although much slower than in the case of C. globosum, where the beginnings of their colonies were visible after 3 days (Ch3M-K). Treatment of SBs with cinnamon oil at a dose of 200 g/m2 (Ch3M-200) delayed the development of C. globosum colonies by 8 days compared to the control but did not provide longer protection of the plates against colonization with the tested mycelium.

4. Discussion

In recent years, the number of scientific reports on new biocidal preparations for wood protection applications based on substances of natural origin has increased [39,40]. The 30% solution of cinnamon bark oil used at a dose of 200 g/m2 turned out to be a good fungicide, protecting wood-based boards against the development of mold fungi, but not effective enough to provide long-term protection. An ethanol solution of cinnamon bark oil can be used for preventive, short-term protection of surfaces against molds. The obtained test results confirm the reports of other authors about the biocidal effectiveness of cinnamon oil against mold fungi [41,42]. Substances with fungicide properties can be obtained from various parts of plants. Cinnamon oil can be obtained from both leaves and bark, but the composition of the active substances of such oils is different. Cinnamon leaf oil is rich in eugenol, which is also believed to have a fungicidal effect. However, eugenol has a more irritating and allergenic effect than cinnamic aldehyde, which dominates in cinnamon bark [43]. Cinnamon bark oil therefore appears to be a safer biocide for users [44]. However, the chemical composition of cinnamon oil depends not only on the part of the plant from which it is obtained but also on the species. According to Li et al. [23], the main phytochemical components of Cinnamomum camphor are camphor, eucalyptol, terpineol, linalool, and 4-terineol. In the SB saturated with cinnamon bark oil, 26 volatile substances were identified, with cinnamaldehyde being the dominant component. Three months after applying the oil to the surface of the board, this substance constituted 70% of the composition of volatile parts identified in the wood-based board sample. As research by other authors shows, cinnamon oil also effectively prevents the development of wood decay fungi [45], however, the biocidal effect is better in combination with other active substances [46]. Maoz et al. [47] assessed the fungicidal effectiveness of a combination of cinnamon oil with carvacrol, thymol, and extracts from the Inula viscose plant, while Antonelli et al. [48] used combinations of three essential oils: cinnamon, thyme, and wild-type thyme to impregnate wet archaeological wood. These latest studies show that essential oils can also be an important biocide in the protection of wood, which is a cultural asset and, additionally, material that is difficult to impregnate.
SBs are materials that are difficult to impregnate. Due to their structure and the lack of ingredients in the form of resins that bind and stabilize particles, the introduction of impregnations may cause delamination of the material. The structure of SBs also excludes the possibility of using many useful and simple treatment methods, such as dipping or pouring. However, simple treatment methods, such as the use of hand sprayers, may not ensure even distribution of the preparation on the surface. In our research, we proposed a jet application method, which involves automatically applying the preparation to the surface of the tested material using a special nozzle. The proposed treatment method and the cinnamon oil used at a dose of 200 g/m2 allow for temporary protection of the board surfaces against mold fungi, but it does not guarantee long-term protection and is no longer effective 3 months after application. Based on the statistical analyses, it is clear that the dose of the introduced preparation is the factor that determines the effectiveness of wood protection. However, when developing biocides, economic considerations should always be taken into account, which include the costs incurred for treatment but also the impact of higher doses on other properties of the boards, including the preservation of their structure.
Another factor that should be considered when using cinnamon oil as a biocide is its chemical composition. Essential oil is a complex mixture of substances that can completely inhibit the growth of fungi or only slow it down [49]. The cinnamon oil used in the experiment contained 26 volatile compounds, with cinnamaldehyde dominating. Nazzaro et al. [50] report that small amounts of this substance permanently disrupt transport through cell membranes, which leads to rapid death of the organism. Combination with eugenol, another substance found in the essential oil, further enhances this biological effect. The synergistic effect of cinnamaldehyde and eugenol against wood decay fungi is confirmed by the research of Hsu et al. [51]. The authors of the study showed that the combination of these two substances has a better fungicide effect than each tested separately.
To summarize the research results, it should be stated that cinnamon oil is a substance worth considering as a component of biocides in the protection of wood-based materials. This substance can also be used at the post-production stage and not as it is most often used for wood-based materials, i.e., during the production process.

5. Conclusions

Natural compounds such as cinnamon bark oil have great potential for use in the protection of wood and wood-based materials, although, unlike synthetic biocides, they also have certain limitations due to their chemical nature. The high content of volatile phytochemical ingredients makes them weather much easier. The high content of volatile ingredients in essential oils means that oils as biocides will not provide long-term protection of wood-based materials.
Based on the conducted research, it can be concluded that a 30% solution of cinnamon bark oil in ethanol at a dose of 200 g/m2 protects SB samples against molds, but this protection is not long-lasting. It can therefore be concluded that cinnamon oil can be used for preventive, short-term protection of wood-based materials against mold fungi.
However, nothing stops us from conducting further research using this substance and trying to include it in the formulation of proven synthetic preparations intended for wood protection in subsequent research projects. Such actions could lead to a reduction in the amount of synthetic biocides in preparations, which is probably a good direction from the point of view of environmental protection.
It should be additionally added that an important contribution of the work is that it provides information on the effectiveness of cinnamon oil used to protect wood materials and, secondly, that the effect was documented in the process of surface protection at the post-production stage and not as it is most often used for plastics and wood, i.e., during the production process. All these findings open up the prospect of wider use of this product, not only for wood-based materials, but perhaps also for other products of natural origin, and this protection can be implemented in an environmentally safe manner, without the use of synthetic chemicals used today in the protection of technical materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.B. and P.B.; methodology, I.B., B.A., K.K., R.A., M.B., M.K., T.C., R.S.-K. and J.S.; software, I.B.; validation, P.B. and T.C.; formal analysis, I.B. and B.A.; investigation, I.B.; resources, I.B.; data curation, I.B.; writing—original draft preparation, I.B.; writing—review and editing, K.K.; visualization, I.B.; supervision, R.S.-K.; project administration, K.R.; funding acquisition, K.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in these studies.

Acknowledgments

This research was financed with a subsidy granted to Kracow University of Economics and Warsaw University of Life Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 Concerning the Making Available on the Market and use of Biocidal Products. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/pl/information-on-chemicals/biocidal-products (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  2. ESD for PT 8: Revised Emission Scenario Document for Wood Preservatives (OECD Series No. 2, 2013). Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/pl/guidance-documents/guidance-on-biocides-legislation/emission-scenario-documents (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  3. Pánek, M.; Reinprecht, L.; Hulla, M. Ten essential oils for beech wood protection—Efficacy against wood-destroying fungi and moulds, and effect on wood discoloration. BioResources 2014, 9, 5588–5603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mazela, B.; Bartkowiak, M.; Ratajczak, I. Animal protein impact on fungicidal properties of treatment formulations. Wood Res. 2007, 52, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  5. González-Búrquez, M.d.J.; González-Díaz, F.R.; García-Tovar, C.G.; Carrillo-Miranda, L.; Soto-Zárate, C.I.; Canales-Martínez, M.M.; Penieres-Carrillo, J.G.; Crúz-Sánchez, T.A.; Fonseca-Coronado, S. Comparison between In Vitro Antiviral Effect of Mexican Propolis and Three Commercial Flavonoids against Canine Distemper Virus. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2018, 2018, 7092416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lee, J.; Huh, N.; Hong, H.J.; Kim, B.S.; Kim, G.H.; Kim, J.J. The antagonistic properties of Trichoderma spp. inhabiting woods for potential biological control of wood-damaging fungi. Holzforschung 2012, 66, 883–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pop, D.M.; Timar, M.C.; Beldean, E.C.; Varodi, A.M. Combined Testing Approach to Evaluate the Antifungal Efficiency of clove (Eugenia caryophyllata) Essential Oil for Potential Application in Wood Conservation. BioResources 2020, 15, 9474–9489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sparacello, S.; Gallo, G.; Faddetta, T.; Megna, B.; Nicotra, G.; Bruno, B.; Giambra, B.; Palla, F. Thymus vulgaris Essential Oil and Hydro-Alcoholic Solutions to Counteract Wooden Artwork Microbial Colonization. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xie, Y.; Wang, Z.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, D. Antifungal Activity of Several Essential Oils and Major Components against Wood-Rot Fungi. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 108, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Z.; Yang, T.; Mi, N.; Wang, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, L.; Xie, Y. Antifungal Activity of Monoterpenes against Wood White-Rot Fungi. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 106, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goktas, O.; Mammadov, R.; Duru, M.E.; Ozen, E.; Colak, A.M. Application of extracts from the poisonous plant, Nerium Oleander L., as a wood preservative. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 2000–2003. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ozen, E. A Study about Poisonous Plant (Geophytes) Extracts as a Wood Preservative to Wood Decay Fungi. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Natural Science, Mugla University, Mugla, Turkey, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yildiz, Ü.C.; Kiliç, C.; Gürgen, A.; Yildiz, S. Possibility of using lichen and mistletoe extracts as potential natural wood preservative. Maderas-Cienc. Tecnol. 2020, 22, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tascioglu, C.; Yalcin, M.; Sen, S.; Akcay, C. Antifungal properties of some plant extracts used as wood preservatives. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr. 2013, 85, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussain, A.; Shrivastav, A.; Jain, S.K. Antifungal Activity of Essential Oils against Local Wood Degrading Cellulolytic Filamentous Fungi. Adv. Biores. 2013, 4, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  16. Missio, A.L.; Mattos, B.D.; Ferreira, D.d.F.; Magalhães, W.L.E.; Bertuol, D.A.; Gatto, D.A.; Petutschnigg, A.; Tondi, G. Nanocellulose-tannin films: From trees to sustainable active packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Laks, P.E.; McKaig, P.A.; Hemingway, R.W. Flavonoid biocides: Wood preservatives based on condensed tannins. Holzforsch. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Phys. Technol. Wood 1988, 42, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anouhe, J.-B.S.; Niamké, F.B.; Faustin, M.; Virieux, D.; Pirat, J.-L.; Adima, A.A.; Kati-Coulibaly, S.; Amusant, N. The role of extractives in the natural durability of the heartwood of Dicorynia guianensis Amsh: New insights in antioxydant and antifungal properties. Ann. For. Sci. 2018, 75, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eller, F.J.; Hay, W.T.; Kirker, G.T.; Mankowski, M.E.; Sellling, G.W. Hexadecyl ammonium chloride amylose inclusion complex to emulsify cedarwood oil and treat wood against termites and wood-decay fungi. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 129, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kirker, G.T.; Blodgett, A.B.; Arango, R.A.; Lebow, P.K.; Clausen, C.K. The role of extractives in naturally durable wood species. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2013, 82, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Broda, M. Natural Compounds for Wood Protection against Fungi—A Review. Molecules 2020, 25, 3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lin, C.-Y.; Cheng, S.-S.; Wu, C.-L.; Chang, S.-T. Contact and fumigant actions of trans-cinnamaldehyde against wood-decay fungi evaluated by using solid-phase microextraction. Wood Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, Q.; Wang, X.-X.; Lin, J.-G.; Liu, J.; Jiang, M.-S.; Chu, L.-X. Chemical composition and antifungal activity of extracts from the xylem of Cinnamomum camphora. BioResources 2014, 9, 2560–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stefanović, M.; Todorović, N.; Milić, G.; Lovrić, A. Antifungal protection of beech wood using plant extracts. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2023, 1298, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, S.-Y.; Chen, P.-F.; Chang, S.-T. Antifungal activities of essential oils and their constituents from indigenous cinnamon (Cinnamomum osmophloeum) leaves against wood decay fungi. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Chittenden, C.; Singh, T. Antifungal activity of essential oils against wood degrading fungi and their applications as wood preservatives. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2011, 2, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Matan, N.; Matan, N. Antifungal activities of anise oil, lime oil, and tangerine oil against moulds on rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2008, 62, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, L.; Qin, L.; Xie, J.; Xu, H.; Yang, Z. Application of plant essential oils in controlling wood mold and stain fungi. BioResources 2021, 16, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thoroski, J.; Blank, G.; Biliaderis, C. Eugenol induced inhibition of extracellular enzyme production by Bacillus subtilis. J. Food Prot. 1989, 52, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hyldgaard, M.; Mygind, T.; Meyer, R.L. Essential oils in food preservation: Mode of action, synergies, and interactions with food matrix components. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thobunluepop, P.; Pawelzik, E.; Jatisatienr, C.; Vearasilp, S. In vitro screening of the antifungal activity of plant extracts as fungicides against rice seed borne fungi. In Proceedings of the Acta Horticulturae; International Society for Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2009; Volume 837, pp. 223–228. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kamperidou, V. The Biological Durability of Thermally- and Chemically-Modified Black Pine and Poplar Wood Against Basidiomycetes and Mold Action. Forests 2019, 10, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cheng, S.-S.; Liu, J.-Y.; Chang, E.-H.; Chang, S.-T. Antifungal activity of cinnamaldehyde and eugenol congeners against wood-rot fungi. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5145–5514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EN 310; Wood-Based Panels-Determination of Modulus of Elasticity in Bending and of Bending Strength. European Committee for Standardisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
  35. EN 317; Particleboards and Fibreboards-Determination of Swelling in Thickness after Immersion in Water. European Committee for Standardisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
  36. EN 323; Wood-Based Panels-Determination of Density. European Committee for Standardisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
  37. Salerno-Kochan, R.; Czarnecki, W.; Szakiel, J.; Jankowski, P. No. 72886; Laboratory Device for Spraying Modification of Leather and Textile Products with Essential Oils. Patent Office of the Republic of Poland: Warszawa, Poland, 2023.
  38. Betlej, I.; Andres, B.; Krajewski, K.; Kiełtyka-Dadasiewicz, A.; Szadkowska, D.; Zawadzki, J. Effect of Various Mentha sp. Extracts on the Growth of Trichoderma viride and Chaetomium globosum on Agar Medium and Pine Wood. Diversity 2023, 15, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bi, Z.; Morrell, J.J.; Lei, Y.; Yan, L.; Ji, M. Eco-friendly and mildly modification of wood cell walls with heat treated wood extracts to improve wood decay resistance. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 184, 115079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vovchuk, C.S.; González Garello, T.; Careaga, V.P.; Fazio, A.T. Promising Antifungal Activity of Cedrela fissilis Wood Extractives as Natural Biocides against Xylophagous Fungi for Wood Artwork of Cultural Heritage. Coatings 2024, 14, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ventorino, V.; La Storia, A.; Robertiello, A.; Corsi, S.; Romano, I.; Sannino, L.; Pepe, O. Fungal Biodeterioration and Preservation of Miniature Artworks. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ioan, M.; Anghel, D.F.; Gifu, I.C.; Alexandrescu, E.; Petcu, C.; Diţu, L.M.; Sanda, G.A.; Bala, D.; Cinteza, L.O. Novel Microemulsions with Essential Oils for Environmentally Friendly Cleaning of Copper Cultural Heritage Artifacts. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kowalska, J.; Tyburski, J.; Krzymińska, J.; Jakubowska, M. Cinnamon powder: An in vitro and in vivo evaluation of antifungal and plant growth promoting activity. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 156, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Olszewska, M.A.; Gędas, A.; Simões, M. The Effects of Eugenol, Trans-Cinnamaldehyde, Citronellol, and Terpineol on Escherichia coli Biofilm Control as Assessed by Culture-Dependent and -Independent Methods. Molecules 2020, 25, 2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kartal, S.; Hwang, W.J.; Imamura, Y.; Sekine, Y. Effect of essential oil compounds and plant extracts on decay and termite resistance of wood. Holz. Roh. Werkst. 2006, 64, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khademibami, L.; Bobadilha, G.S. Recent Developments Studies on Wood Protection Research in Academia: A Review. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 793177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Maoz, M.; Freitag, C.; Morrell, J.J. Potential Synergy between Natural Product Extracts for Limiting Fungal Decay; Document no. IRG/WP 09-30495. 09-05-24/28 Beijing, China; International Research Group on Wood Protection: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  48. Antonelli, F.; Bartolini, M.; Plissonnier, M.-L.; Esposito, A.; Galotta, G.; Ricci, S.; Petriaggi, B.D.; Pedone, C.; Di Giovanni, A.; Piazza, S.; et al. Essential Oils as Alternative Biocides for the Preservation of Waterlogged Archaeological Wood. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ipek, E.; Zeytinoglu, H.; Okay, S.; Tuylu, B.A.; Kurkcuoglu, M.; Baser, K.H.C. Genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of Origanum oil and carvacrol evaluated by Ames Salmonella/microsomal test. Food Chem. 2005, 93, 551–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; De Martino, L.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Effect of essential oils on pathogenic bacteria. Pharmaceuticals 2013, 6, 1451–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hsu, F.L.; Yen, T.B.; Chang, H.T.; Chang, S.T. Antifungal Activity and Synergistic Effect of Cinnamaldehyde Combined with Antioxidants Against Wood Decay Fungi; Document no. IRG/WP 07-30445; The International Research Group on Wood Protection: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Coatings 14 00433 g001
Figure 1. Laboratory spraying device (source: own research).
Figure 1. Laboratory spraying device (source: own research).
Coatings 14 00433 g001
Coatings 14 00433 g002
Figure 2. Spraying head with sliding system (source: own research).
Figure 2. Spraying head with sliding system (source: own research).
Coatings 14 00433 g002
Coatings 14 00433 g003
Figure 3. Panel of solenoid valves controlling media (source: own research).
Figure 3. Panel of solenoid valves controlling media (source: own research).
Coatings 14 00433 g003
Coatings 14 00433 g004
Figure 4. Method for determining the growth of fungi on the surface of samples, using ImageJ 1.54f software: (a) Measurement of the total sample area; (b) Determination of the free field.
Figure 4. Method for determining the growth of fungi on the surface of samples, using ImageJ 1.54f software: (a) Measurement of the total sample area; (b) Determination of the free field.
Coatings 14 00433 g004
Coatings 14 00433 g005
Figure 5. Percentage of fungi growing on the surface of wood-based boards (control and saturated with cinnamon bark oil): (a,c,e)—T. viride, (b,d,f)—C. globosum. Research shows: (a,b) effectiveness after 24 h (24); (c,d) effectiveness after 2 weeks (2T); (e,f) effectiveness after 3 months (3M). Legend: Ch, Tv—type of mold, K—control board, 75, 120, 200—not carrying the preparation at a dose of 75, 120, and 200 g/m2.
Figure 5. Percentage of fungi growing on the surface of wood-based boards (control and saturated with cinnamon bark oil): (a,c,e)—T. viride, (b,d,f)—C. globosum. Research shows: (a,b) effectiveness after 24 h (24); (c,d) effectiveness after 2 weeks (2T); (e,f) effectiveness after 3 months (3M). Legend: Ch, Tv—type of mold, K—control board, 75, 120, 200—not carrying the preparation at a dose of 75, 120, and 200 g/m2.
Coatings 14 00433 g005
Coatings 14 00433 g006
Figure 6. Imaging variations in the content of volatile components of cinnamon bark oil in wood-based boards: 1—Benzaldehyde, 2—Tert-butylobenzen, 3—1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane, 4—4-methylidene-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[3.1.0]hexane, 5—3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-yl acetate, 6—2-Phenylethanol, 7—exo-1,7,7-Trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 8—4-Carvomenthenol, 9—3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, 10—Phenethyl acetate, 11—trans-3-Phenyl-2-propenal, 12—1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene, 13—Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 1,7,7-trimethyl-, 2-acetate, 14—p-menth-1-en-8-yl acetate, 15—2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol, 16—4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate, 17—1,3-dimethyl-8-(1-methyl ethyl) tricyclo(4.4.0.0.02,7-)dec-3-ene, 18—Bicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene, 4,11,11-trimethyl-8-methylene-, 19—3-phenyl-2-propen-1-yl acetate, 20—3-phenyl-2-propenoic acid ethyl ester, 21—-Methylene-4,12,12-trimethyl-5-oxatricyclo[8.2.0.04,6]dodecane, 22—Benzyl benzoate. A—fraction (HS) of 200 g/m2, B—fraction (HS) of 75 g/m2, C—fraction (HS) of 120 g/m2.
Figure 6. Imaging variations in the content of volatile components of cinnamon bark oil in wood-based boards: 1—Benzaldehyde, 2—Tert-butylobenzen, 3—1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane, 4—4-methylidene-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[3.1.0]hexane, 5—3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-yl acetate, 6—2-Phenylethanol, 7—exo-1,7,7-Trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 8—4-Carvomenthenol, 9—3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, 10—Phenethyl acetate, 11—trans-3-Phenyl-2-propenal, 12—1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene, 13—Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 1,7,7-trimethyl-, 2-acetate, 14—p-menth-1-en-8-yl acetate, 15—2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol, 16—4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate, 17—1,3-dimethyl-8-(1-methyl ethyl) tricyclo(4.4.0.0.02,7-)dec-3-ene, 18—Bicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene, 4,11,11-trimethyl-8-methylene-, 19—3-phenyl-2-propen-1-yl acetate, 20—3-phenyl-2-propenoic acid ethyl ester, 21—-Methylene-4,12,12-trimethyl-5-oxatricyclo[8.2.0.04,6]dodecane, 22—Benzyl benzoate. A—fraction (HS) of 200 g/m2, B—fraction (HS) of 75 g/m2, C—fraction (HS) of 120 g/m2.
Coatings 14 00433 g006
Coatings 14 00433 g007
Figure 7. Heat map imaging of the growth of mold fungi during 14 days of cultivation: Tv3M-200 SBs treated with a dose of 200 g/m2 of cinnamon oil solution, treated with T. viride; Ch3M-200 SBs treated with a dose of 200 g/m2 of cinnamon oil solution, treated with C. globosum; Tv3-K, Ch3-M SBs without protection—control; 1–14—day of analysis.
Figure 7. Heat map imaging of the growth of mold fungi during 14 days of cultivation: Tv3M-200 SBs treated with a dose of 200 g/m2 of cinnamon oil solution, treated with T. viride; Ch3M-200 SBs treated with a dose of 200 g/m2 of cinnamon oil solution, treated with C. globosum; Tv3-K, Ch3-M SBs without protection—control; 1–14—day of analysis.
Coatings 14 00433 g007
Table 1. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth of mold fungi on the surface of samples.
Table 1. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth of mold fungi on the surface of samples.
Source of VariationSum of Squares SSMean Sum of Squares MSFisher’s F-Test F Significance Level pPercentage of Contribution P [%]
Fungi20,75820,758110.3430.0000001.0
Concentration534,996178,332947.9330.00000025.2
Time since treatment28,46214,23175.6450.0000001.3
Test day257,00418,35797.5800.00000012.1
Fungi × Concentration39,94413,31570.7760.0000001.9
Fungi × Time since treatment460,021230,0111222.6340.00000021.7
Concentration*Time since treatment66,93611,15659.3000.0000003.1
Fungi × Test day20,98014997.9660.0000001.0
Concentration × Test day84,238200610.6610.0000004.0
Time since treatment × Test day30,11110755.7160.0000001.4
Fungi × Concentration × Time since treatment152,13125,355134.7770.0000007.2
Fungi × Concentration × Test day39,1259324.9520.0000001.8
Fungi × Time since treatment × Test day92,354329817.5330.0000004.3
Concentration × Time since treatment × Test day44,3985292.8100.0000002.1
Fungi × Concentration × Time since treatment × Test day116,03213817.3430.0000005.5
Error135,075188--6.4
Table 2. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth of T. viride on the surface of samples.
Table 2. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth of T. viride on the surface of samples.
Source of VariationSum of Squares SSMean Sum of Squares MSFisher’s F-Test F Significance Level pPercentage of Contribution P [%]
Concentration368,996.9122,999.0430.8390.00000031.8
Time since treatment291,613.5145,806.8510.7290.00000025.2
Test day92,436.16602.623.1270.0000008.0
Concentration × Time since treatment156,571.226,095.291.4060.00000013.5
Concentration × Test day60,303.91435.85.0290.0000005.2
Time since treatment × Test day37,236.41329.94.6580.0000003.2
Concentration × Time since treatment × Test day49,956.1594.72.0830.0000024.3
Error102,204.5285.5--8.8
Table 3. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth by C. globosum on the surface of samples.
Table 3. ANOVA for selected factors influencing the growth by C. globosum on the surface of samples.
Source of VariationSum of Squares SSMean Sum of Squares MSFisher’s F-Test F Significance Level pPercentage of Contribution P [%]
Concentration205,963.968,654.6751.9020.0021.9
Time since treatment196,416.198,208.11075.5700.0020.8
Test day186,252.013,303.7145.7020.0019.8
Concentration × Time since treatment62,606.010,434.3114.2760.006.6
Concentration × Test day62,723.61493.416.3560.006.7
Time since treatment × Test day85,219.13043.533.3330.009.0
Concentration × Time since treatment × Test day110,473.11315.214.4040.0011.7
Error32,870.891.3--3.5
Table 4. Homogeneous groups regarding samples overgrown by fungi.
Table 4. Homogeneous groups regarding samples overgrown by fungi.
FactorValueHomogeneous Groups Regarding the Covered Area
Trichoderma virideChaetomium globosum
ConcentrationControla, bA
75bB
120cC
200dC
Time since treatment24aA
2TaB
3MbC
Table 5. Chemical composition of the headspace fraction (HS) of softboard.
Table 5. Chemical composition of the headspace fraction (HS) of softboard.
Systematic Substance NameCommon
Name		No. CASRT
[min]		Retention of the Preparation in the Sample
[g/m2]
20012075
Peak Share in the Chromatogram [%]
Benzaldehyde-100-52-78.280.260.200.31
Tert-butylobenzen-98-06-69.70trace0.560.40
Isopropenyl-1-methyl-1-cyclohexeneD-Limonen5989-27-59.80trace0.31-
1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octaneEucalyptol470-82-69.850.220.970.57
p-mentha-1,4-dieneƴ-Terpinen99-85-410.39trace0.29-
4-methylidene-1-propan-2-ylbicyclo[3.1.0]hexaneSabinene3387-41-510.94trace0.330.31
3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-yl acetateLinalyl acetate115-95-711.141.301.631.81
2-Phenylethanol-60-12-811.370.430.320.23
exo-1,7,7-Trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-olIsoborneol12-76-512.31trace0.240.22
4-CarvomenthenolTerpinen 4-ol562-74-312.490.420.500.57
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanolalfa-Terpineol98-55-512.713.164.053.90
Phenethyl acetate-103-45-713.682.352.692.99
trans-3-Phenyl-2-propenaltrans-Cinnamaldehyde14371-10-914.0574.4568.3867.84
1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzeneanethol 104-46-114.162.372.622.82
Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 1,7,7-trimethyl-, 2-acetateIsobornyl acetate125-12-214.210.701.020.99
p-menth-1-en-8-yl acetateTerpinyl Acetate80-26-215.022.402.893.3
2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenolEugenol97-53-015.133.803.893.64
4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetateLavandulyl acetate20777-39-315.400.400.420.46
1,3-dimethyl-8-(1-methyl ethyl) tricyclo(4.4.0.0.02,7-)dec-3-enecopaene3856-25-515.450.420.980.98
4-Allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene,Methyl eugenol93-15-215.70tracetrace0.25
Bicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene, 4,11,11-trimethyl-8-methylene-β-Caryophyllene87-44-516.060.671.611.75
3-phenyl-2-propen-1-yl acetatecinnamyl acetate103-54-816.264.725.375.73
3-phenyl-2-propenoic acid ethyl esterethyl (Z)-cinnamate4610-69-916.530.33trace0.39
-Methylene-4,12,12-trimethyl-5-oxatricyclo[8.2.0.04,6]dodecane-1139-30-618.100.85trace0.48
Benzyl benzoate-120-51-420.040.26trace0.33
Octahydro-3,6,8,8-tetramethyl-1H-3a,7-methanoazulen-6-ol-6-acetateCedryl acetate77-54-320.130.42--
Table 6. Chemical composition of the headspace fraction (HS) of control boards.
Table 6. Chemical composition of the headspace fraction (HS) of control boards.
Systematic Substance NameOrdinary
Substance
Name		No. CASRT
[min]		Peak Share in the Chromatogram [%]
2-isopropyl-5-methylphenolTymol89-83-814.309.29
hexyl hexanoate-6378-65-015.4412.46
3,7,11-trimethyldodeca-1,3,6,10-tetraeneFarnesene502-61-417.0277.24
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Betlej, I.; Andres, B.; Krajewski, K.; Borysiuk, P.; Szakiel, J.; Kowalski, M.; Salerno-Kochan, R.; Balawejder, M.; Cebulak, T.; Auriga, R.; et al. Cinnamon Bark Oil as an Effective Fungicide in Protecting the Surface of Wood-Based Softboards against the Development of Mold Fungi. Coatings 2024, 14, 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14040433

AMA Style

Betlej I, Andres B, Krajewski K, Borysiuk P, Szakiel J, Kowalski M, Salerno-Kochan R, Balawejder M, Cebulak T, Auriga R, et al. Cinnamon Bark Oil as an Effective Fungicide in Protecting the Surface of Wood-Based Softboards against the Development of Mold Fungi. Coatings. 2024; 14(4):433. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14040433

Chicago/Turabian Style

Betlej, Izabela, Bogusław Andres, Krzysztof Krajewski, Piotr Borysiuk, Jerzy Szakiel, Mateusz Kowalski, Renata Salerno-Kochan, Maciej Balawejder, Tomasz Cebulak, Radosław Auriga, and et al. 2024. "Cinnamon Bark Oil as an Effective Fungicide in Protecting the Surface of Wood-Based Softboards against the Development of Mold Fungi" Coatings 14, no. 4: 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14040433

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop