Fractioning of bark of Pinus pinea by milling and chemical characterization of the different fractions

Abstract

The bark of stone pine (Pinus pinea) from 50 year old trees grown in Portugal was submitted to grinding and fractioning into different particles sizes. The trees had a thick bark with an average 3,7 cm constituted mainly by the periderm and rhytidome (3,2 cm).The bark fractured easily into particles: yield of fines was low, and 74,0% of the particles were over 2 mm. The chemical composition, as a mass weighed average of all granulometric fractions showed a content of 1,1% ash 20,6% extractives (91% of which polar extractives) 2,2% suberin, 43,0% lignin and 37,6% holocellulose. The percentage of material dissolved by extraction with 1% NaOH was 42,3%. The chemical characterization of the different granulometric fractions showed that extractives were present preferentially in the finest fractions (<80 mesh and 60-80 mesh), representing 34-35%, particularly with enrichment in ethanol soluble extractives, that also showed lower content of lignin. The coarser fractions contained higher proportions of lignin and holocellulose. P. pinea bark grinding and fractionation by particle size may be used to selectively enrich the finest fractions in soluble materials, while the coarser fractions tend to have higher holocellulose content and will be therefore more suitable for carbohydrate related uses.

An integrated characterization of Picea abies industrial bark regarding chemical composition, thermal properties and polar extracts activity

“…The high extractives content (20%), and substantial apolar fraction (5%) follows the same behavior than other softwood species, with Douglas-fir, loblolly pine, scots pine and stone pine showing values in the range of 19–30% total extractives and 2–7% apolar ones. [ 3 , 14 , 35 , 36 ]…”

Green and Sustainable Valorization of Bioactive Phenolic Compounds from Pinus By-Products

“…The general chemical/nutritional composition of pine by-products has been described by several authors (wood [37][38][39][40][41][42], bark [43][44][45][46][47], needles [48,49], cones [41,50], seeds (nuts) [51][52][53], and resin or oleoresin [54,55]) and is summarized in Figure 2.…”

In Vitro Screening for Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition and Antioxidant Activity of Quercus suber Cork and Corkback Extracts

“…In corkback samples, the coarse fraction showed a high extraction yield (around 8%), while the fine fractions only yielded 1.5%. The differences in granulometric fraction yields are expected since, upon grinding, these fractions show specific structural features [ 37 , 38 ]. In the case of cork, materials other than the cork cells may be present, e.g., lignified sclereids or lenticular filling material that will preferentially be present in the finer fractions thereby leading to chemical differences [ 37 ].…”