Effects of Environmental Factors on Decay Rates of Selected White- and Brown-Rot Fungi
Keywords:Decay, <i>Postia placenta</i>, <i>Gloeophyllum trabeum</i>, <i>Trametes versicolor</i>, Douglas-fir, western hemlock, southern pine, modulus of elasticity, modulus of rupture
AbstractAssessing the impact of fungal decay in wood structures poses a major challenge for building inspectors. Although models have been developed to predict degradation rate of building components in varying climatic conditions, most are hampered by the lack of fundamental data on effects of fungal attack on engineering properties. Developing data on degradation rates in differing conditions would help enhance these models. The ability of two brown-rot and one white-rot fungus to degrade wood of three species was assessed in varying temperature and moisture conditions. Modulus of elasticity (MOE) was the most sensitive measure of fungal attack, whereas modulus of rupture (MOR) was affected more slowly. Wood species had no effect on MOR losses, but wood durability did influence fungal effects on MOR. The white-rot fungus caused comparable MOE losses to the brown-rot fungi but had a much decreased effect on MOR. Moisture content, within the range tested, had little influence on decay rates. Fungal effects tended to be slower at the lowest temperature tested (15°C) but differed little between 25 and 35°C. Results suggested that removal of wood that has been wet for some time is advisable if dynamic properties are critical. Results also supported incorporating temperature and time of wetting factors into building models.
ASTM (2011a) D 143-09. Standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber. Pages 20-50 in Annual book of ASTM standards. Vol. 4.09 Wood. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.nASTM (2011b) D 2017-05. Standard method of accelerated laboratory test of natural decay resistance of woods. Pages 248-252 in Annual book of ASTM standards. Vol. 4.09 Wood. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.nAWPA (2010) E 22-09. Standard accelerated laboratory method for testing the efficacy of preservatives against wood decay fungi. Pages 429-435 in AWPA annual book of standards. American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, AL.nClark JE, Symonds P, Morris PI (2006) Resistance of wood sheathing to decay. Pages 45-55 in Proc Wood Protection 2006, March 21-23, 2006, Omni Royal Orleans Hotel, New Orleans. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI.nCurling S, Winandy JE, Clausen CA (2000) An experimental method to simulate incipient decay of wood by basidiomycete fungi. Doc. no. IRG/WP 00-20200. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, Sweden. 13 pp.nDuncan CG, Lombard FF (1965) Fungi associated with principal decays in wood products in the United States. Res Pap WO-4 USDA For Serv, Washington, DC. 31 pp.nFoliente GC, Leicester RH, Wang C-H, MacKenzie CE, Cole IS (2002) Durability design for wood construction. Forest Prod J 52(1):10-19.nFPL (1999) Wood handbook: Wood as an engineering material. Gen Tech Rep FPL-GTR-113 USDA For Serv Forest Prod Lab, Madison, WI. 463 pp.nKent SM, Leichit RJ, Rosowsky DV, Morrell JJ (2004) Effects of wood decay by Postia placenta on lateral capacity of oriented strandboard sheathing and Douglas-fir framing members. Wood Fiber Sci 36:560-572.nLeicester RH, Wang C-H, Cookson LJ (2008) A reliability model for termite attack on housing. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(3):468-475.nMacKenzie CE, Wang C-H, Leicester RH, Foliente GC, Nguyen MN (2007) Timber service life design guide. FWPA Project No. PN07.1052. Forest & Wood Products Australia, Melbourne, Australia. 109 pp.nMankowski M, Morrell JJ (2000) Incidence of wood-destroying organisms in Oregon residential structures. Forest Prod J 50(1):49-52.nMomohara I, Ota Y, Sotome K, Nishimura T (2012) Assessment of decay risk of airborne wood-decay fungi II: Relation between isolated fungi and decay risk. J Wood Sci 58:174-179.nMorrell JJ, Corden ME, Graham RD, Kropp BR, Prybylowicz P, Smith SM, Sexton CM (1987) Basidiomycete colonization of air-seasoned Douglas-fir poles. Proc American Wood-Preservers' Association 83:284-296.nMorrell JJ, Newbill MA, Sexton CM, Zahora AR (1988) Fungal colonization of preservative treated Douglas-fir poles during storage. Forest Prod J 38(1):21-22.nNofal M, Kumaran K (2011) Biological damage function models for durability assessments of wood and wood-based products in building envelopes. European J Wood and Wood Products 69(4):619-631.nSAS (2008) The SAS system. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.nScheffer TC (1971) A climate index for estimating potential decay in wood structures above ground. Forest Prod J 21 (10):25-31.nScheffer TC, Morrell JJ (1996) Natural durability of wood: A worldwide checklist. Research Contribution 22. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 58 pp.nSmith S, Morrell JJ, Freitag C (1992) Residual strength of Douglas-fir sapwood and heartwood as affected by fungus colony size and number of colony forming units. Forest Prod J 42(4):19-24.nSuzuki H, Kitadani Y, Suzuki K, Iwame A, Nagai H (2005) Development on damage functions of wood decay for building envelope design. Doc. no. IRG/WP/05-10556. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, Sweden.nViitanen H (1997) Modeling the time factor in the development of brown-rot decay in pine and spruce sapwood: The effect of critical humidity and temperature conditions. Holzforschung 51(2):99-106.nViitanen H, Paajanen L (1988) The critical moisture and temperature conditions for the growth of some mold fungi and the brown rot fungus Coniophora puteana on wood. Doc. no. IRG/WP/1369. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, Sweden.nWang C-H, Leicester RH, Nguyen M (2008) Probabilistic procedure for design of untreated timber poles in-ground under attack of decay fungi. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:476-481.nWang J, Morris PI (2011) Decay initiation in plywood, OSB, and solid wood under marginal moisture conditions. Doc. no. IRG/WP/11-20469. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, Sweden.nWilcox WW (1978) Review of literature on the effects of early stages of decay on wood strength. Wood Fiber Sci 9(4):252-257.nWinandy JE, Clausen CA, Curling SF (2000) Predicting the effects of decay on wood properties and modeling residual service-life. Pages 261-263 in Proc 2nd Annual Conference on Durability and Disaster Mitigation in Wood-Frame Housing, November 6-8, 2000, Madison, WI.nWinandy JE, Morrell JJ (1993) Relationship between incipient decay, strength, and chemical composition of Douglas-fir heartwood. Wood Fiber Sci 25(3):278-288.nWinandy JE, Morris PI (2002) Limiting conditions for decay in wood systems. Doc. no. IRG/WP/02-10421. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, Sweden.nZabel RA, Morrell JJ (1992) Wood microbiology: Decay and its prevention. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 476 pp.n
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.