Advertisement

Journal of Wood Science

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 255–266 | Cite as

Assessment of the properties, utilization, and preservation of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis): a case study in Malaysia

  • Yi Peng Teoh
  • Mashitah Mat DonEmail author
  • Salmiah Ujang
Review Article

Abstract

Rubber trees were introduced into the Malay Peninsula more than a century ago. The normal economical lifespan of a rubber tree is about 25 years, and, traditionally, rubberwood was used as firewood by the rural community. In recent decades, rubberwood has become an important timber for wood products, particularly in the furniture manufacturing sector, due to its attractive features, cream color, and good working properties. Sapstain, mold, and wooddecaying fungi are serious threats to rubberwood. Conventional chemical control has been a successful method of preventing staining fungal growth, but the effects of these chemicals are of concern because they create problems for the environment and public health. Thus, biological control has been recognized as an alternative approach to the problem. This article reviews the properties, potential utilization, and problems of protecting rubberwood against sapstain, mold, and wood-decaying fungi, and discusses the treatment methods available. Advances in biological control, particularly biofungicides, are emphasized as an alternative method for rubberwood treatment.

Key words

Rubberwood Molds Preservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Edwin L, Muhamed Ashraf P (2006) Assessment of biodeterioration of rubberwood exposed to field conditions. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 57:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhter K (2005) Preservative treatment of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) to increase its service life. The International Research Group in Wood Protection, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ismariah A, Norini H (1999) Availability of rubberwood resource in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilisation. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Killmann W, Hong LT (2000) Rubberwood — the success of an agricultural by-product. Unasylva 51(2):66–72Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anonymous (1982) Malaysian timbers — rubberwood. Malaysian Forest Service Trade Leaflet No. 58, FRI, KepongGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohd Dahlan J, Tam MK (1987) Natural durability of some Malaysian timbers by shake test. Malays Forest 48(2):154–159Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong AHH (1988) Natural decay resistance of Kempas (Koompassia malaccensis) with included phloem against rot fungi: A laboratory evaluation. J Trop Forest Sci 1(2):162–169Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hong LT, Wong AHH, Ho YF (1999) Durability of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds). Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho KS, Roslan A (1999) Primary processing: Sawing and peeling of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 67–90Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2010) Crop — rubber. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor. Accessed Oct 25, 2010
  11. 11.
    Hong LT (1999) Introduction. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou YD, Jiang ML, Gao RQ, Li XL (2007) Rubberwood processing manual. Demonstration of rubberwood processing technology and promotion of sustainable development in China and other Asian countries. Research Institute of Wood Industry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siti HAH (2008) Evaluation on the presence of hazardous material from medium density fiberboard. MSc thesis, University Sains Malaysia, Pulau PinangGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao Y (2008) Promotion of rubberwood processing technology in the Asia-Pacific region. In: Proceedings of the ITTO/CFC International Rubberwood Workshop. Haikou, China, Press Science, Press HangzhouGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ho KS (1999) Harvesting and log characteristics of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 57–65Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    George J (1985) Preservative treatment of bamboo, rubberwood and coconut palm — Simple methods for treating building timbers. In: Findlay WPK (ed) Preservation of timber in the tropics. Kluwer Academic, Massachusetts, pp 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Azizol AK, Rahim S (1989) Carbohydrates in rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis Muell Arg.). Holzforschung 43(3):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong AHH (1993) Susceptibility to soft rot decay in copperchrome-arsenic treated and untreated Malaysian hardwoods. Doctoral thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaidon A, Moy CS, Sajap AS, Paridah MT (2003) Resistance of CCA and boron-treated rubberwood composites against termites, Coptotermes curvignathus Holmgren. Pertaniki J Sci Technol 11(1):65–72Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hwang WJ, Kartal SN, Imamura Y, Tsunoda K, Shinoda K (2007) Comparative effectiveness of two alkylammonium compounds as wood preservatives. J Wood Sci 53:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohd Dahlan J, Hong LT, Azlan M, Wong AHH (1999) Preservation of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 97–113Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zaidon A, Norhairul NAM, Faizah A, Paridah MT, Jalaluddin H, Mohd Nor MY, Nor Yuziah MY (2008) Efficacy of pyrethroid and boron preservatives in protecting particleboard against fungus and termite. J Trop Forest Sci 20(1):57–65Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Vis RMJ, De Moraes GJ, Bellini MR (2006) Mites (Acari) of rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg., Euphorbiaceae) in Piracicaba, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Neotrop Entomol 35(1): 112–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kiam TS (2002) Forest plantation development in Malaysia and the potential of rubberwood as an important source of timber in the future. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Timber Plantation Development. FAO, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malaysian Rubber Board (2010) Natural rubber statistics. http://www.lgm.gov.my/nrstat/NRstatisticworld.aspx. Accessed Nov 29, 2010
  26. 26.
    Hong LT (1995) Rubberwood utilization: a success story. Paper presented at XX International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) World Congress, Tampere, Finland, 6–12 AugustGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yahaya MP (1998) The availability of rubberwood resources in Peninsular Malaysia up to year 2000 and beyond. In: Malik ARA, Lim SC (eds) Proceedings of the Colloquium on Rubberwood: Resources and Technologies. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Star (2009) Sabah and Sarawak can go big in rubber plantation. http://envdevmalaysia.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/sabah-andsarawak-can-go-big-in-rubber-plantations/. Accessed Nov 29, 2010
  29. 29.
    Mohd Shukari M (1999) Physical and mechanical properties of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lim SC, Ani S (1999) Structure and characteristics of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 17–26Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mohd Nor MY (1999) Pulp and paper from rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilisation. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 195–202Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Killmann W (2001) Non-forest tree plantations. Forest Plantations Thematic Papers, Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gnanaharan R, Dhamodaran TK (1993) Mechanical properties of rubberwood from a 35-year-old plantation in Central Kerala, India. J Trop Forest Sci 6(2):136–140Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nganthavee V (2002) Rubberwood resources and its utilization in ASEAN. In: Proceedings of the 5th Joint Workshop of the Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the International Rubber Study Group on Rubber and the Environment. International Rubber Study Group, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lim SC (1996) Density and some anatomical features of the stem and branch woods of rubber trees. J Trop Forest Prod 2(1):52–58Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Minemura N (1999) Colour and discolouration of rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anthony YYJ (1998) Status of rubberwood processing and its utilization by the Malaysian furniture industry. In: Malik ARA, Lim SC (eds) Proceedings of the Colloquium on Rubberwood: Resources and Technologies. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 28–29Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Akhter K, De BC, Younus-uzzaman M (1994) Natural durability and treatability of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) wood. Bangladesh J Forest Sci 23(2):74–78Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Balsiger J, Bahdon J, Whiteman A (2000) The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series 50, FAD Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chan LH, Rabe’atun AA, Kanesan S, Ahmad FMA, Nor AAA, Fauziah AR, Kulwant K, Nik ARH, Alita SS (2005) The rubber industry in Malaysia. The evolution of the rubber industry in Malaysia. Malaysian Rubber Board, Trans-Edu, Petaling JayaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Norini H (2002) Supply and demand of timber for the wood-based panel industries in Malaysia. In: Yusoff MNM, Kadir WR, Sudin R (eds) In: Proceedings of the Third National Seminar on Wood-Based Panel Products. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 8–18Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Woon WC, Norini H (2002) Trends in Malaysian forest policy. Policy trend report. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 12–18Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hoi WK (1999) Charcoal and briquettes from rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 209–225Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hong LT, Sim HC (1999) Products from rubberwood — an overview. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 177–186Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hoi WK (2002) Rubberwood as an eco-friendly source of tropical timber. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Workshop of the Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the International Rubber Study Group on Rubber and the Environment, Glasgow, pp 26–36Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lew WH (1992) A study on the rubberwood industry in Malaysia. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/GATT Report, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rahim S (1999) Cement-bonded particleboard from rubberwood. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (eds) Rubberwood — processing and utilization. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kadir AASA (1998) Viability of rubber plantations for the production of timbers. In: Malik ARA, Lim SC (eds) Proceedings of the Colloquium on Rubberwood: Resources and Technologies. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 6–21Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Arokiaraj P (2007) Rubber. In: Pua EC, Davey MR (eds) Transgenic crops vol 60, biotechnology in agriculture and forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp 371–386Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gan KS (2009) Rubberwood R&D from agriculture wastes to wealth. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 3–4Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Salmiah U (1997) Basidiomycota in forest reserves and plantation forest in peninsular Malaysia. PhD Thesis, University of PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Matan N, Saengkrajang W, Matan N (2009) Inhibition of Aspergillus niger on tea box packaging made of rubberwood treated with vapour of peppermint oil. Asian J Food Agro-Ind 2(4): 767–772Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Robbins C, Morrell J (2006) Mold, housing and wood. Western Wood Products Association, Portland, OR, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lyskova P (2007) Saprotrophic microscopic fungi and dermatophytes accompanying infections of the skin and nails of patients in the Moravian-Silesian Region (Czech Republic). Czech Mycol 59(1):125–137Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zabel RA, Morell JJ (1992) Wood microbiology: decay and its prevention. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Balasundaran M, Gnanaharan R (1990) Laboratory evaluation of preservative-treated rubberwood against fungi. J Trop Forest Sci 2(4):303–306Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schmidt O (2000) Wood and tree fungi — biology damage, protection and use. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dass C, Teyegaga A (1996) Growth suppression of some wooddecay and other fungi by Bacillus subtilis. Aust J Bot 57(7): 705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wong AHH, Hong LT, Mohd Shapiei J (1995) Sapstain in timber evaluation of anti-sapstain preservatives. Timber Technology Bulletin, Timber Technology Centre, FRIM, KepongGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chirra F (1995) Ohio pesticide applicator training: wood preservation: student handbook. Bulletin 740: Wood Preserving Chemicals and Procedures. OSU Extension, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Malik ARA (1998) Reviews of recent technologies in processing and utilization of rubberwood. In: Malik ARA, Lim SC (eds) Proceedings of the Colloquium on Rubberwood: Resources and Technologies. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, pp 30–36Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Salamah S, Wan AI, Habibah M, Faezah A (1993) Determination of Cypermethrin content in oscillating pressure treated rubberwood. J Trop Forest Sci 5(3):342–352Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gnanaharan R (1984) Evaluation of an alkyl ammonium compound as a fungicide to control sapstain and mould during diffusion storage. Document Number IRG/WP/3282, International Research Group on Wood Preservation, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Salamah S, Mohd Dahlan J (2008) Vacuum-pressure treatment of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) using boron-based preservative. J Trop Forest Sci 20(1):1–7Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dhamodaran TK, Gnanaharan R (2001) Optimizing the schedule for CCA impregnation treatment of rubberwood. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 59:294–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Halimahton M, Rasadah MA (1991) Antifungal activity of pyrolytic oils of tars from rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) pyrolysis. J Trop Forest Sci 4(4):294–302Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Inoue M, Amemiya S, Matsuoka S, Suzuki K, Yamamoto K (1987) Stake test at Asakawa Experimental Forest VIII — inspection data of treated stakes at Asakawa over a period of 28 years and at other sites. Bull Forest Forest Prod Res Inst 347:1–33Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Diawanich P, Matan N, Kyokonh B (2010) Evolution of internal stress during drying, cooling and conditioning of rubberwood lumber. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 68:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sattho T, Yamsaengsung R (2005) Vacuum drying of rubberwood. Paper presented at the PSU-UNS International Conference on Engineering and Environment, ICEE, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro, 19–21 MayGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Matan N, Woraprayote W, Saengkrajang W, Sirisombat N, Matan N (2009) Durability of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) treated with peppermint oil, eucalyptus oil, and their main components. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 63:621–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Matan N, Matan N (2007) Effect of combined cinnamon and clove oil against major moulds identified from rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis). Walailak J Sci Technol 4(2):165–174Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Soliman KM, Badeaa RI (2002) Effect of oil extract from some medicinal plants on different mycotoxigenic fungi. Food Chem Toxicol 40:1669–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tripathi P, Dubey NK (2004) Exploitation of natural products as an alternative strategy to control postharvest fungal rotting of fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol Technol 32(3):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Verma M, Brar SK, Tyagi RD, Surampalli RY, Valero JR (2007) Antagonistic fungi, Trichoderma spp.: Panoply of biological control. Biochem Eng J 37:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Carlile MJ, Watkinson SC, Gooday GW (2001) The Fungi, 2nd edn. Academic, Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ricard JL, Ricard TJ (1997) The ethics of biofungicides — a case study: Trichoderma harzianum ATCC20476 Elsanta Strawberries against Botrytis cinerea (Gray Mold). Agric Hum Value 14: 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hofstein R, Chapple A (1998) Commercial development of biofungicides. In: Frinklin RH, Julius JM (eds) Methods in biotechnology: biopesticides, use and delivery. Humana, New York, pp 77–102Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Soytong K, Srinon W, Rattanacherdchai K, Kanokmedhakul S, Kanokmedhakul K (2005) Application of antagonistic fungi to control anthracnose disease of grape. Int J Agric Technol 1:33–41Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kaewchai S, Sotong K, Hyde KD (2009) Mycofungicides and fungal biofertilizers. Fungal Divers 38:25–50Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Wood Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi Peng Teoh
    • 1
  • Mashitah Mat Don
    • 1
    Email author
  • Salmiah Ujang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaSeberang Perai South, PenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Chemistry and Wood Protection Programme, Forest Product DivisionForest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM)Selangor Darul EhsanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations