Your search resulted in 5 documents.
Wood preservation in the USA
1982 - IRG/WP 3215
This report is a comprehensive survey of the status of the wood preservation field in the U.S.A. at the start of the 1980s. The importance of wood preservation is discussed and its industry described. Various statistics and analyses regarding the use of treated wood have been compiled. Both pressure and non-pressure applications have been covered, as well as remedial treatments and pest control operations. A list of American organizations concerned with wood preservation have been included, together with the various research laboratories which are studying the biodeterioration of wood and its protection. Information is given on the standards and specifications which are in current use. The report, which is fully referenced, ends by suggesting possible future trends for wood preservation in the U.S.A.
D D Nicholas, R Cockcroft
Wood Preservatives Science Issues: US EPA’s Perspective
2005 - IRG/WP 05-50224-2
The USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Antimicrobials Division (AD), regulates the use of chemicals registered as wood preservatives in the United States. An overview of the registration and re-registration process is presented. The wood preservatives data requirements include toxicological, human exposure, ecological, and environmental fate data. A detailed discussion of wood preservatives data requirements is presented. Currently, the three heavy duty wood preservatives (Pentachlorophenol, Chromated Copper Arsenate, and Creosote) are undergoing the re-registration process. This process is mandated by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The re-registration process ensures that older pesticides meet contemporary safety standards and data requirements. The challenges of regulating the treated wood will be discussed.
EPA’s Current Views on Heavy-Duty Wood Preservative Regulation
2003 - IRG/WP 03-50206
This paper describes the current EPA system for regulating pesticides and wood preservatives. In particular it focuses on the voluntary phase-out of CCA for residential uses after December 30, 2003, which was agreed between the CCA manufacturers and EPA. Even though the EPA reached an agreement with industry to phase out CCA for residential uses, EPA is continuing the most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide. One risk assessment is considering children’s exposure at residential sites and the other focuses on the uses that are not subject to the phase-out agreement, e.g. fence posts and wood in permanent foundations.
F T Sanders
Immunoassays for detecting and tracking wood-protecting chemicals
1998 - IRG/WP 98-50101-10
To respond to new environmental regulations, forest products industries are reducing or eliminating the release into the environment of chemicals used to protect wood products. For this, mills need tools that support practical and reliable programs for monitoring concentrations of wood protectants in processes and the environment. Conventionally, wood preservatives are detected mainly by gas-liquid, high performance liquid and thin layer chromatography, and by mass spectrometry. Before target chemicals can be identified and quantified by such analyses, they have to be extracted and purified. The preparative steps limit the number of samples analyzed, and are difficult to implement in mills. Further, the instrumentation is expensive, and its operators require a high level of technical expertise. Immunoassays may offer alternative approaches for monitoring wood protectants in processes and the environment. They can deliver high specificities, low detection limits and high sample throughputs; are applicable to a wide range of chemicals; and can complement the traditional analyses. They are increasingly accepted for screening samples at contaminated sites. In this paper, we will describe the concept for and development of an immunoassay for a commercial wood protectant, commenting on key issues, and will review the status of the field kit immunoassays available to solid wood products industries.
C Breuil, J Bull
CCA wood preservative: Trust with destiny
2019 - IRG/WP 19-30731
This paper traces the history of Copper-Chrome-Arsenic (CCA) and its current status in India and worldwide. CCA was invented as ASCU at the Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun in 1933 by Dr. Sonti Kamesam. Although its efficacy was doubted by the British colonial rulers resulting in several hiccups at home, the patent rights were purchased by US Bell Telephone Co. and it was adopted by the US wood industry. Indian wood industry never took up preservation of wood seriously. Original CCA composition was changed to yield various oxide based formulations more due to commercial aspects rather than any technical advantages. Many countries around the world adopted it and CCA became the most used wood preservative among the water-borne preservatives. Commercial aspects started playing roles to push out CCA, as pesticide industry was striving hard to recover money spent on new molecules and formulations and wood preservation industry held a huge potential. This culminated in hate ‘arsenic campaign’ and media played a major role in the same. Despite the fact that several studies could not reveal any positive report for ill effect of CCA treated wood on humans (even children) and animals, Environmental Protection Agency of USA succumbed to media pressures advising wood-treatment industry to move away from CCA. Some wood scientists in USA do feel that there is no virtual replacement for CCA in performance as well as cost-effectiveness. Technology has become available to process CCA treated wood to reuse residual wood/chemicals effectively. This can make more wood available negating processing costs. The substitutes currently available are not only less effective and more costly; these may subsequently be found to pose different types of problems as has been observed in TCMTB and Chloripyrifos. If the current attitude towards effective formulations continues to make room for less effective new molecules/formulations, the requirement of wood as well as preservatives will increase over time resulting in diversion of farm land to tree plantations, which may have serious implications/repercussions.