## 2 Materials and Methods
### Thermal Modification  
TMW of the CS160 treatment was produced in an industrial autoclave with a capacity of 6 m\({}^{3}\) and the samples of this treatment were loaded along with the company's process wood. The process lasted around 720 min and was carried out according to a schedule developed by the company, as follows: (i) initial heating up to 110 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 1.30 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\); (ii) holding at 110 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 30 min; (iii) heating up to 140 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 0.50 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\); (iv) holding at 140 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 30 min; (v) heating up to 160 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 0.60 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\); (vi) holding at 160 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 90 min, when the process reached the highest pressure (0.60 MPa); (vii) cooling down to 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 0.25 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\), when the process is finished.  
TMW of the treatments OS185 and OS210 was produced in a 250 L electrical oven (Linn Elektro Therm, Bad Frankenhausen, Germany) and we adopted a similar schedule to the one used by [PERSON] et al. (2015, 2018), who worked with the same wood species and used equipment of the same model. The schedule was: (i) initial heating up to 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 0.50 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\); (ii) heating up to the target temperature (185 \({}^{\circ}\)C or 210 \({}^{\circ}\)C) at 2.60 \({}^{\circ}\)C min\({}^{-1}\); (iii) holding the target temperature for 180 min; (iv) switching off the heating system and consequent cooling down to 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The complete process took 362 min and 372 min, respectively, for OS185 and OS210.  
For the quality control of thermal modification, we measured the initial MC (before the process), the final MC (after the process), and the corrected mass loss (CML, %). These analyses were performed according to the method adopted by [PERSON] et al. (2016), with all 15 samples of each treatment described as follows.  
Moisture content was measured with the oven-drying method, and the initial moisture content (MCi, %) of each sample was estimated based on the mean MC between specimens A and B (Figure 2). Specim C was used for chemical analyses. Then, sample D, for thermal modification (Figure 2), was weighed to the nearest 0.01 g, resulting in the initial  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **Process** & **Temperature** & **Observation** \\ \hline CS160 & Closed system, pressurized & 160 \({}^{\circ}\)C & Temperature adopted by the company where the process was carried out \\ \hline OS185 & Open system, non-pressurized & 185 \({}^{\circ}\)C & Temperature similar to the ThermoWood process for hardwoods: Thermo-S product (185 \({}^{\circ}\)C) and Thermo-D \\ \hline OS210 & Open system, non-pressurized & 210 \({}^{\circ}\)C & (210 \({}^{\circ}\)C) [9] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Treatments’ description.  
Figure 1: Sampling scheme. MC: moisture content specimens; units in millimeters.  
mass (Mi, g). Based on Mi and MCi, it was possible to calculate the estimated initial oven-dried mass (M0%) of sample D, as in Equation (1).  
\[\text{M}_{0\%}=\frac{(100\cdot\text{Mi})}{(100+\text{MCi})} \tag{1}\]  
After thermal modification, the samples were immediately weighed (Mf, g) and the other, A and B, specimens (Figure 2) were taken for calculation of the final moisture content (MCf, %). Based on Mf and MCf, it was possible to calculate the estimated final oven-dried mass (Mf0%), as in Equation (2).  
\[\text{Mf}_{0\%}=\frac{(100\cdot\text{Mf})}{(100+\text{MCf})} \tag{2}\]  
The mass loss (ML, %) caused by the thermal modification process was calculated with Equation (3).  
\[\text{ML}=\frac{(\text{M}_{0\%}-\text{Mf}_{0\%})}{\text{M}_{0\%}}\cdot 100 \tag{3}\]