This document discusses the need for wood preservation in India due to increasing demand and limited domestic supply. It evaluates the performance of a new eco-friendly preservative called ZiBOC on imported timbers through termite mound tests and stake tests, and compares it to CCA. The termite mound tests found that at higher concentrations, both preservatives provided complete protection against termites for 1-2 seasons. The stake tests also showed that ZiBOC provided effective protection similar to CCA, with average retentions ranging from 15.35-19.60 kg/m3 for ZiBOC and 14.25-25.025 kg/m3 for CCA depending on the wood species and pre

1. Durability improvements of imported timbers
through ZiBOC and conventional preservative
Dr. Sadhna Tripathi,
Forest Products Division,
Forest Research Institute ,
Dehradun
tripathis@icfre.org5/31/2017 1

2. Why preservation is essential in the present scenario… ....?
Introduction
Demand and supply
gap
Industrial round wood consumption in 2005 was 27.8 million m3
and this is projected to increase to 38.1 million, 49.8 million and
63.1 million m3 in 2010, 2015 and 2020 (APFSOS II personal
communication from Dr. CTS Nair). Against 58 million m3 in 2000
and 74 million m3 in 2005, the FSI projected industrial round
wood demand at 95 million m3 in 2010, 123 million m3 in 2015
and 153 million m3 in 2020 (Pandey 2007)).
Consequences
5/31/2017 2
India’s round wood production in 2006 was estimated to be
about 240 million m3, of which 75% is the estimated share of
fuel wood and 15-20 million m3 industrial round wood,
including poles and small lumber for rural
households(NFCReport2006).http://www.fao.org/world/regio
nal/rap/APFSOS/2009-06India.pdf
Economic reforms begun in 1992 in India which had accelerated
the pace of development and industrialization leading to greater
demands for wood
Economic reforms
India is emerging as a major importer of tropical
timber.
International Tropical Timber Organization

3. Year Demand
(Million m3)
wood
Percent increase-
wood
(average per
annum )
Panel wood
Plywood Veneer Particle
board
MDF
board
Total o
panel wood
2000 58.00 -
2005 74.00 5.52 14.00 0.34 0.18 0.17 14.69
2010 95.00 5.68 17.96 0.43 0.22 0.21 18.82
2015 123.00 5.89 22.90 0.54 0.28 0.24 23.96
2020 153.00 4.88 29.20 0.70 0.35 0.28 30.53
Growth pattern and projected demand of wood and panel wood in India
Source: Table 5.4 of “Forest and Wildlife Statistics, India 2004; Source: (JIAWS) Dec.2011, Table 18, &22
Projected demand for panel wood in India
Source: (JIAWS) Dec.2011
The demand for nearly 31 million cubic meters is
estimated to be met by the farm and agro forestry
and other woodlots. The remaining has to be met
by imports, which has gone up almost three folds in
10 years.
The solution to the problem
i. imports
ii. use short rotation plantation fast growing
species besides utilization of non-wood
materials such as agro residues and bamboo.
(Chandrakanth et al., 1979)
5/31/2017 3

4. India’s major ports
Calcutta,Chennai ,Cochin,Jawaharlal
Nehru , Kandla ,Mormugao
,Mumbai(Bombay) ,New Mangalore,
Paradip ,Vishakhapatnam(‘Vizag’)
Tuticorin , 12%India’s suppliers of imported
round wood (ITTO 2004)
Kandla, 51%
5/31/2017 4

5. 5/31/2017 5
Sl. No Country Sl. No Country Sl. No Country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Australia
Belgium
Benin
Brazil
Cameroon
Canada
Congo
Columbia
Costa Rica
Central Africa
China
Denmark
ElSalvador
Ecuador
France
Fiji
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Gabon
Germany
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Georgia
Guyana
Hungary
Ivory Coast
Indonesia
Italy
Latvia
Liberia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Maldives
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
South Africa
Solomon Islands
Seira Leona
Singapore
Srilanka
Sweden
Sudan
Taiwan
Tanzania
Togo
Tena
Thailand
Uganda
Uruguay
U.A.E.
U.K.
U.S.A.
Vietnam
Venezuela
West Africa
Countries from which India is importing wood in south Indian seaports P. Manickama etal 2010 TDA 56 ;45-53

6. Reasons: why to
preserve wood
• Wood being a biological material
• Durability of wood
• Sap wood portion
• Depleting supplies of durable woods
•It is difficult to monitor economic losses directly but it is
substantial. Now-a-days sustained supply of wood is a big
question and it becomes more serious when nondurable
wood is not protected against decay.
Preservation of wood through chemical means is the
efficient method of wood protection.
•Pressure treatment of toxic chemicals such as Copper-
chrome-arsenate (CCA), Pentachlorophenate (PCT),
Creosote and many more.
•Most of the formulations contain arsenic or chromium.
• Hence these are under constant review
•Due to environmental reasons , these formulations face
threat to be phased out in the future.
Wood preservatives are under close scrutiny due to environmental
and health hazards.
Problems
Answer
Challenges
5/31/2017 6

7. Production of treated wood by preservative
type, 1994 to 2005 in Japan
Treated commodities by
preservative type, 2005
http://www.mokuzaihozon.org/english/prsvtn.html
5/31/2017 7

8. Copper complexes of Cashew Nut Shell Liquor (CNSL), Bhilawan
Nut Shell Liqour (BNSL), Copper resinate, CRCNSL(Copper resinate
and Cashew nut shell liquor) (Dev et al. patent : 2001) “Eco-
friendly copper Lignin complex A and B” 0(Patent 244254
25.11.2011Granted Tripathi and Dev). ) Patent No. 257393 “An
eco-friendly, economical and non hazardous wood preservative”
ZiBOC: 28.09.2013.
In view of this, worldwide search for environmentally benign
chemicals is being made to meet the preservative needs in
the twenty first century.
In recent years boron and zinc compounds have enjoyed
increasing applications as wood preservative biocides.
This has been due to their effectiveness against a wide
range of wood destroying organisms and their relative low
mammalian toxicity and limited impact on the
environment
•Sye Hee Ahna et al. 2010 Environmentally friendly wood preservatives
formulated with enzymatic-hydrolyzed okara, copper and/or boron salts.
•Scalbert et al. 1998 : 2 step impregnation of copper, zinc and boron with
tannins
•Novel biocides, such as copper azole (CuAz) and ammoniacal copper
quaternary (ACQ), are extensively used as substitutes for chromate copper
arsenate (CCA) in wood preservation
Need of the hour
Recent approach
Reason
Eco-friendly Formulations
Developed in WP, FRI
Recent work by other
researchers
5/31/2017 8

9. Objectives
To evaluate the performance of new preservative system
ZiBOC, developed in FRI, on non-durable /imported
timbers in exterior ground conditions and it’s comparison
with CCA.
Parameters Evaluated :
Treatment methods for Red meranti, Yellow meranti
, White meranti and Douglas fir
Treatability evaluation
Termite mound test
Stake test
•Ground contact in exterior locations
5/31/2017 9

10. Treatment methods for Red meranti, Yellow meranti , White meranti and Douglas fir:
Sadhna Tripathi (2012): Treatability evaluation of Meranti with ZiBOC and CCA
preservatives for efficient end utilization. International Wood Products Journal. 3 (2)
:70-76
•Variations in penetration of
preservative in sap, heart and pith of
meranti and Douglas fir
•White meranti exhibited treatibility
class ‘a’ while red and yellow exhibited
class ‘c’.
•Douglas fir is resistant to treatment
class ‘d’, Method developed to get
through and through treatment with
CCA, CCB and ZiBOC .5/31/2017 10

11. Performance evaluation of imported timber against termite in
mounds
Materials : Species: White, red ,yellow meranti and Douglas fir ; Preservative: CCA and ZiBOC
Concentration: 3, 4 and 6 % ; Size of specimens: 10 (L)X2.5(W)X0.6(T) cm
Species CCA (kg/m3) ZiBOC (kg/m3) Mean reten.
(kg/m3)3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
W. Meranti 14.7 20.1 29.0 13.2 18.6 32.0 21.26
R. Meranti 5.4 8.2 13.0 6.7 6.0 12.6 8.65
Y. Meranti 5.3 6.4 10.0 4.6 8.5 12.8 7.93
Douglas fir 12.8 18.3 27.0 13.4 16.4 29.1 19.5
MeanReten.(kg/m3) 9.55 13.25 19.75 9.47 12.37 21.62
MeanReten.(kg/m3) 16.4 14.4
Methods : Treatment of White, Red and Yellow Meranti and Douglas fir for mound test was done by air
pressure 100 lbs/sq inch for 1 hour followed by dipping for 1 hour. Samples were kept for air drying to fix the
preservative . Termite resistance tests were conducted in termite mounds
Results:Average retentions of CCA and ZiBOC in veneer samples of white, red and
yellow meranti alongwith Douglas fir for termite mound test
5/31/2017 11

12. Numerical rating Condition of the samples Abbreviation
0 No attack; samples free from termite attack. N
0- 0.5 Trace attack; Termite attacked area less than 5 per cent of
the surface.
Vsw ,Vswf , Vsf
1.0 Light attack; Termite attacked area between 5 and 20
percent.
Sw, Sf , Sf+Vsw, Sw+Vsf ,Swf
2.0 Moderate attack; termite attacked area between 20 and 35
percent
Mw, Mf, Mf+ Vsw, Mw+Vsf,
Mf+ Sw, Mf+ Sw, Mw+Sf
3.0 Heavy attack; Termite attacked area between 35 and 40
percent.
Mwf, Bw , Bf ,Bf+Vsw,
Bw+Vsf ,Bf+Sw, Bw+SF
4.0- 5.0 Bad termite and bad fungus attack, very heavy attack;
Termite attacked area more than 50 per cent of the surface
area.
Bf+Mw , Bwf, Dw, Df, Dwf
Numerical rating for assessment of decay due to termites(IS: 4873, 1993, Jain and Kumar 1991)
5/31/2017 12

13. Termite mound test observations in treated White, Red and Yellow
meranti and Douglas fir (1st and 2nd Season)
spp. CCA ZiBOC Control
3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
Season 1st 2nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2 nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2 nd
White
M
Vsw
(0.5)
Sw
(1.0)
N
(0)
Sw
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
Sw+VsF(
1.0)
N
(0)
N
(0)
N
(0)
N
(0)
Sw
(1.0)
Dw
(5)
Red M N
(0)
Vsw
(0.5)
N
(0)
N(0) N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
VswF
(0.5)
N
(0)
Vsw
(0.5)
N(0) N
(0)
N(0) Mw
(2)
Yellow
M
N
(0)
VswF
(0.5)
N
(0)
VswF
(0.5)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
Sw
(1.0)
N
(0)
VswF
(0.5)
N (0) N
(0)
N
(0)
Mw
(2)
Douglas
Fir
N
(0)
VswF
(0.5)
N
(0)
N
(0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
N
(1.0)
Sw
(1.0)
N
(0)
N(0) N
(0)
N
(0)
S
(1.0)
Dw
(5)
5/31/2017 13

14. 5/31/2017 14

15. Samples after 1st season of installation
5/31/2017 15

16. Samples after 2nd season of installation
Natural durability exhibited that yellow and red
meranti were not attacked by termites in the first
season while very moderately attacked in the second
season.
Natural durability of douglas fir and white meranti
exhibited that samples were badly decayed by termites
hence have no natural resistance against termites in
untreated form while treatment with both the
preservative protected specimens completely at higher
conc. i.e 4 and 6 %.
5/31/2017 16

17. Performance of ZIBOC treated wood species (imported/ indigenous)
through stake test in yard
Materials : Preservative: CCA and ZiBOC; Concentration: 3, 4 and 6 % ;
Size of specimens: 30x3.81x3.81 cm ; Location for field-test : Three ;
Dehradun( latitude 30o20’ N and 78o04’ E longitude), Chakrata (latitude
30o42’ N and 77o51’ E longitude) and Jodhpur (latitude 26o23’ N and
73o03’ E longitude)
Treatment Method : Full cell process (vacuum for 30 minutes and
pressure maintained for certain period) opted . Samples were left as
such for dipping in treatment solution for 24 hours.
5/31/2017 17

18. Average retention (kg/m3) in treated Meranti (Red, White & Yellow) and Douglas fir
with different concentration of CCA and ZiBOC by pressure process.
Species Concentration of Preservative Average
retn.
(kg/m3)
CCA ZiBOC
3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
R. Meranti 9.7 13.0 15.8 18.9 24.9 27.0 18.21
W.Meranti 21.8 26.9 36.1 14.6 18.2 27.8 24.23
Y.Meranti 7.1 11.0 12.9 7.5 9.8 13.7 10.33
Douglas Fir 18.4 23.5 35.3 20.4 25.5 34.7 26.30
Average
retn.(Kg/m3)
14.25 18.60 25.025 15.35 19.60 25.8
Average
retn.(Kg/m3)
19.63 20.25
5/31/2017 18

19. S.No Symbol Score Detailed description of attack
1 N 0 No attack (Normal)
2 Vsw 0.5 Very slight termite attack
3 Vsf 0.5 Very slight fungus attack
4 Vswf 0.75 Very slight termite and fungus attack
5 Sw 1 slight termite attack
6 Sf 1 slight fungus attack
7 Sf+Vsw 1.25 slight fungus and very slight termite attack
8 Sw+Vsf 1.25 Slight termite and very slight fungus attack
9 Swf 1.5 Slight termite and fungus attack
10 Mw 2 Moderate termite attack
11 Mf 2 Moderate fungus attack
12 Mf+ Vsw 2.25 Moderate fungus and very slight termite attack
13 Mw+Vsf 2.25 Moderate termite and very slight fungus attack
14 Mf+ Sw 2.5 Moderate fungus and slight termite attack
14 Mf+ Sw 2.5 Moderate fungus and slight termite attack
15 Mw+Sf 2.5 Moderate termite and slight fungus attack
16 Mwf 3 Moderate termite and fungus attack
17 Bw 3 Bad termite attack
18 Bf 3 Bad fungus attack
19 Bf+Vsw 3.25 Bad fungus and very slight termite attack
20 Bw+Vsf 3.25 Bad termite and very slight fungus attack
21 Bf+Sw 3.5 Bad fungus and slight termite attack
22 Bw+SF 3.5 Bad termite and slight fungus attack
23 Bf+Mw 4 Bad fungus and moderate termite attack
24 Bw+Mf 4 Bad termite and moderate fungus attack
25 Bwf 4.5 Bad termite and fungus attack
26 Dw 5 Destroyed by termite attack
27 Df 5 Destroyed by fungus attack
28 Dwf 5 Destroyed by termite and fungus attack
Grading of specimens on the basis of attack of decaying agencies Purushottam et al., (1967).
5/31/2017 19

20. Obs
mont
hs
Obser
vation
(mont
hs)
W. meranti (mean of 12) Y. meranti(mean of 12) R.meranti (mean of 12) D.fir (mean of 12)
3% 4% 6% 3% 4 6% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
Date of installation 20.03.2010 CCA
6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 24 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 30 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 36 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 48 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 60 N N N N N N N N N VSW VSW VSW
12 72 N N N N N N N N N VSW VSW VSW
Performance of stakes in graveyard test at Dehradun
5/31/2017 20

21. ZiBOC
6 6 N N N N N N N N N VSW N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N VSW N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N VSW N N
6 24 VSW N N VSW N N N N N VSW N N
6 30 VSW N N SW VSW N N N N VSW N N
6 36 VSW N N SW VSW N VSW N N VSW N N
12 48 SW N N SW SW VS
W
VSW VSW VSW SW N N
12 60 MW VSW VS
W
SW SW VS
W
SW SW SW SW SW SW
12 72 MW SW VS
W
SW SW VS
W
SW SW SW SW SW SW
Control
period till
normal
SW (1 month) N (6 months) N (6 months) SW (1 month)
Control
period when
decayed
DWF (24 months) DWF (42 months) MWSF( 72 months) DWF (18 months)
Performance of stakes in graveyard test at Dehradun
Ob
sm
ont
hs
Obser
vation
(mont
hs)
W. meranti (mean of
12)
Y. meranti(mean of
12)
R.meranti (mean of
12)
D.fir (mean of 12)
3% 4% 6% 3% 4 6% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
5/31/2017 21

22. Obser.
durati
on20.
03.20
10
Obs
erva
tion(
mon
ths)
W. meranti (mean of 12)
(Retn. Kg/m3)
Y. meranti(mean of 12)
(Retn. Kg/m3)
R.meranti (mean of 12)
(Retn. Kg/m3)
D.fir (mean of 12)
(Retn. Kg/m3)
3% 4% 6% 3% 4 6% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
CCA
6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 24 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 30 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 36 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 48 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 60 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 72 N N N N N N N N N N N N
ZiBOC
6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 24 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 30 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 36 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 48 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 60 N N N N N N N N N N N N
12 72 N N N N N N N N N N N N
Control
period till
normal
N (12 months) N (12 months) N (12 months) N (12 months)
Control
period when
decayed
SF (72 months) SF (72 months) SF (72 months) SF (72 months)
Performance of stakes in graveyard test Chakrata test yard
5/31/2017 22

23. Obser.
Duration
Observati
on
(months)
W. meranti (mean of
12)Conc. /reten.kg/m3
Y. meranti(mean of 12)
Conc. /reten.kg/m3
R.meranti (mean of 12)
Conc. /reten.kg/m3
D.fir (mean of 12) Con
/reten.kg/m3
3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 6%
CCA
6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 24 N N N VSW N N N N N VSW N N
6 30 N N N VSW VSW N SW SW SW VSW N N
6 36 VSWF N N VSW VSW N SW SW SW VSW N N
12 48 VSWF N N SW VSW N SW SW SW VSW N N
12 60 SW VSW VSW SW SW VSW SW SW SW SW SW SW
12 72 SW VSW SW SW SW SW SW SW MW SW SW SW
ZiBOC
6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 12 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 18 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 24 N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 30 N N N VSW N N N N N N N N
6 36 VSW VSW N VSW N N SW SW SW N N N
12 48 SW VSW N VSW N N SW SW SW SW SW N
12 60 SW VSW N SW MW SW MW MW MW SW SW VSW
12 72 SW SW VSW MW MW SW MW MW MW SW SW SW
Control
period till normal
SW (1 month) SW (1 month) SW (1 month) SW (1 month)
Control
period when decayed
DW (36 months) DW (36 months) DW (42 months) DW (36 months)
Performance of stakes in graveyard test Jodhpur test yard (20.03.2010)
5/31/2017 23

24. Average of score to determine natural durability and durability after treatment at various
Centers/locations
Average score of durability at three centers
Species/Preservative Location CCA ZiBOC Control
W. meranti DDN 0 0.33 5.0(Complete decay )
Chakrata 0 0 1.0
Jodhpur 0.20 0.24 5.0(Complete decay )
Average Score 0.06(negligible) 0.19(negligible) 3.66 (bad decay)
Y. meranti DDN 0 0.44 5.0(Complete decay )
Chakrata 0 0 1.0
Jodhpur 0.35 0.38 5.0(Complete decay )
Average Score 0.11(negligible) 0.27(negligible) 3.66(bad decay)
R.meranti DDN 0 0.29 2.5
Chakrata 0 0 1.0
Jodhpur 0.59 0.66 5.0(Complete decay )
Average Score 0.19(negligible) 0.31(negligible) 2.83(moderate termite
and fungus attack)
D.fir DDN 0.11 0.37 5.0(Complete decay )
Chakrata 0 0 1.0
Jodhpur 0.29 0.27 5.0(Complete decay )
Average Score 0.13(negligible) 0.21(negligible) 3.66(bad decay)5/31/2017 24

25. Samples of Douglas fir at Jodhpur test yard in December 2012
5/31/2017 25

26. Samples of meranti at Jodhpur test yard in
December 2012
5/31/2017 26

27. Samples of meranti and fir
at Chakrata test yard in
March 2016
5/31/2017 27

28. Samples of meranti and fir at Dehradun test yard :2016
5/31/2017 28

29. Conclusion :
Termite mound test : preservative treated veneers of test species
were normal in second season at higher concentrations of preservative
with both CCA and ZiBOC.
Natural durability revealed that white meranti and Douglas fir were
completely destroyed in the second season in mounds while moderate
damage could be seen on control of red and yellow meranti.
•The overall data of stake test in field revealed that natural durability
at Dehradun and Jodhpur of all species was minimum i.e 2. 5 score
which comes under non durable category except red meranti which
had exhibited moderate damage.
•After treatment the average data of damage revealed that both the
preservatives had protected all test species exhibiting score less that 0.5
which amounts to negligible .
• Hence, the overall study showed that all test species were non
durable when untreated, but after treatment all species were
completely protected .
•The activity of both the preservatives i.e. CCA and ZiBOC is at par.5/31/2017 29

30. 5/31/2017 30
For sustained supply of timber there is a need to strengthen research and
development in clonal plantations , silviculture and other management practices and
technologies for development of short rotation and high yielding plantations.
Properties of imported timbers must be evaluated in Indian Climatic condition
Desk research, coupled with visits to major cities and ports in India is required in
order to build a clear picture of the entire Indian market for wood and wood products.
Indian importers do not have the knowledge of species characteristics , need to be
educated .
Users are not aware of wood species , difference between hard and soft wood
Literature on imported species is limited
Awareness for utilization of imported timbers in specific locations is limited
The Bureau of Indian Standards, which lays specifications and standards determining
materials to be used for buildings in the public sector, should be approached for
educational and awareness building initiatives.
Industry should be encouraged to take up studies on imported timbers in
collaboration with Research institutes .
Preservation practices should be adopted for long service life of indegenious and
imported timbers .
Constraints and Opportunities

31. 5/31/2017 31
Thank you for kind
attention pl !
SAVE WOOD AS WOOD IS GOOD