Science Advances

Supplementary Materials

The PDF file includes:

  • Fig. S1. The chemical structures of matrix materials.
  • Fig. S2. SEM images of various MF-based composite woods.
  • Fig. S3. Large-scale fabrication of the polymeric wood.
  • Fig. S4. Photography of the homemade equipment to control the freezing rate.
  • Fig. S5. SEM images showing the changing trend of the microstructures of CPF woods with the increasing resol content and freezing rate, respectively.
  • Fig. S6. Statistical analysis of area distribution of the channels of CPF woods prepared at different freezing rates.
  • Fig. S7. Statistical analysis of wall thickness.
  • Fig. S8. SEM images showing the changing trend of the microstructures of CPF woods with the increasing resol content and curing temperature, respectively.
  • Fig. S9. Statistical analysis of area distribution of the channels of CPF woods prepared by using different curing temperatures.
  • Fig. S10. Statistical analysis of wall thickness.
  • Fig. S11. The averaged pore area and averaged wall thickness of CPF woods.
  • Fig. S12. SEM images of the CMF woods.
  • Fig. S13. Densities and porosities of the polymeric woods.
  • Fig. S14. The mechanical performances of CPF woods prepared at different freezing rates.
  • Fig. S15. The mechanical performances of CPF woods prepared at different curing temperatures.
  • Fig. S16. The mechanical performances of CMF woods prepared at different freezing rates.
  • Fig. S17. An Ashby chart plotting compressive stiffness versus density for CPF and CMF woods.
  • Fig. S18. The radial compression tests of balsa, CPF, and CMF woods.
  • Fig. S19. The axial compression of the balsa wood.
  • Fig. S20. The in situ micrographs show the failure of polymeric woods with relatively low density.
  • Fig. S21. The in situ micrographs show the failure of different polymeric woods with relatively high density.
  • Fig. S22. Thin-walled model for the compression simulations of low-density polymeric woods.
  • Fig. S23. The simulation models and results.
  • Fig. S24. A similar thin-walled model was also simulated as a comparison.
  • Fig. S25. Three-point bending test of balsa woods, polymeric woods, and a typical composite wood.
  • Fig. S26. The contact angles of the typical polymeric woods.
  • Fig. S27. The water resistance of balsa woods.
  • Fig. S28. The fire resistance of polymeric woods and balsa wood under an alcohol flame.
  • Fig. S29. The contrasts of CMF woods with various CMF-based composite woods in mechanical performance.
  • Table S1. The details of the synthesis of typical CPF and CMF woods and their respective parameters.
  • Table S2. Vertical burning test and LOI of the balsa (~300 mg cm−3) and polymeric woods.

Download PDF

Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

  • Movie S1 (.mov format). 3D observation of a typical CPF wood by x-ray microtomography.
  • Movie S2 (.mov format). The in situ observation of failure process of the low-density CPF-1-5 during the compression, revealing the gradual plastic bending of cell walls.
  • Movie S3 (.mov format). The in situ observation of failure process of the low-density CMF-1-5 during the compression, revealing the gradual plastic bending of cell walls.
  • Movie S4 (.mov format). The in situ observation of failure process of the high-density CPF-5-5 during the compression, revealing the brittle fracture behaviors.
  • Movie S5 (.mov format). The in situ observation of failure process of the high-density CMF-2-5 during the compression, revealing the brittle fracture behaviors.
  • Movie S6 (.mov format). The burning test of the CPF-1/GO-1 composite wood by using an alcohol lamp flame.
  • Movie S7 (.mov format). The burning test of the balsa wood by using an alcohol lamp flame.

Files in this Data Supplement: