Session 28 ic2011 barnes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Session 28 ic2011 barnes






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Session 28 ic2011 barnes Session 28 ic2011 barnes Presentation Transcript

  • Session 28: It’s not Just Rot: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Wood Product Durability Ground Contact Performance ofCreosote Amended with Chlorothalonil: Can we Reduce Retentions? H. M. Barnes, M. G. Sanders, G. B. Lindsey, and T. L. Amburgey Forest Products Laboratory
  • Background Creosote supply Reduction of impact (92-192 kg/m3) BMPs Chlorothalonil highly effective  Ag crops, paints, mold & sapstain  Broad spectrum, low mammalian toxicity  Combined with insecticides, antioxidants  Removed from AWPA BoS, 2004, lack of use
  • ObjectivesThis study asks: To what extent can creosote retentions be reduced by the addition of chlorothalonil?
  • Materials & Methods Wood  All sap southern pine  19 x 19 x 1120 mm (r x t x l)  Cut into matched halves Preservatives  P2 Creosote  Chlorothalonil  Both met AWPA 2003 specs
  • Sample Treatment Treated full cell at room temperature 91 kPa vacuum for 30 min Introduction of preservative under vacuum Pressure increased to 1034 kPa in 5 minutes Held for 60 min Vent to atmospheric, drain, remove samples, wipe & weigh 102 mm retain cut from end
  • Sample Exposure & Evaluation  Matched samples placed in Dorman (AWPA Hazard Dorman = silty clay loam Zone 4) & Saucier (AWPA Hazard Zone 5) test plots at depth of 230 mm  Rows 0.75 m apartSaucier = loamy sand
  •  Evaluated annually for decay and termite attack
  • AWPA (2003) visual grading scale for rating decay and termite attack Decay Rating TermitesSound; suspicion of decay 10 Sound; 1-2 small nibblespermitted permittedTrace decay to 3% of cross 9 Slight feeding to 3% of crosssection sectionDecay from 3-10% of cross 8 Attack from 3-10% of crosssection sectionDecay from 10-30% of cross 7 Attack from 10-30% of crosssection sectionDecay from 30-50% of cross 6 Attack from 30-50% of crosssection sectionDecay from 50-75% of cross 4 Attack from 50-75% of crosssection sectionFailure (>75% of cross section) 0 Failure (>75% of cross section)
  • Data Evaluation Approach 1:Dose response curves CTL after 6 years of exposure
  • •Approach 2: Depreciation curves
  •  Curves were fitted Time to score of 70 (t70) was calculated for comparison purposes
  • • Fitted curves constructed to give a dose-response curve over time
  • Organism Response Decay was more severe than termite attack in both test plots Decay was generally greater at the Dorman site than Saucier Termite attack was generally greater at the Saucier site compared to Dorman
  • Test Plot Response
  • Impact of CTL addition
  • What does the study show? At P2 retentions lower than the AWPA minimum (<92 kg/m3), the addition of CTL improves the performance even for the lowest CTL addition rates For P2 retentions >92 kg/m3, significant improvement is seen only for the highest CTL addition rate
  • So, can we reduce creosoteloadings and get equivalent orbetter performance by adding CTL? YES, . . . . . but, Will we?
  • Future research papers will report on Different species including:  Red oak (Quercus rubra)  Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
  • Thank you----Any questions?????