Comparisons of Pentachlorophenol Formulations in Soil-block Tests

Authors

  • Rodney C. DeGroot

Keywords:

Pentachlorophenol, Gloeophyllum trabeum, Coniophora puteana, preservatives, wood decay, brown-rot

Abstract

Sapwood blocks of southern yellow pine, pressure treated with waterborne emulsions of pentachloro-phenol, a solution of pentachlorophenol in water, and a solution of pentachlorophenol in oil diluted with toluene, were incubated for 12 weeks in soil bottles with either Gloeophyllum trabeum or Coniophora puteana. Coniophora puteana was more tolerant of pentachlorophenol in some formulations than was G. trabeum, and was less sensitive to differences between formulations than was G. trabeum as evidenced by threshold values for pentachlorophenol in the different formulations.

References

Amburgey, T. L., M. De Fatima Castro Cardias, and S. V. Parikh. 1985. Comparing the efficacies of water-emulsifiable formulations of pentachlorophenol with that of technical-grade pentachloro-phenol by soil-block bioassays. Proc. Am. Wood-Preserv. Assoc. 81:10-17.nAmerican Society For Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard method of testing wood preservatives by laboratory soilblock cultures. ASTM D 1413-76. Pages 450-458 in Annual book of standards. Part 22. Wood adhesives. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA 19103.nBaechler, R. H., and H. G. Roth. 1962. Effect of petroleum carrier on rate of loss of pentachlorophenol from treated stakes. For. Prod. J. 12(4):187-190.nDuncan, C. G. 1953. Soil-block and agar-block techniques for evaluation of oil-type wood preservatives: creosote, copper naphthenate, and pentachlorophenol. Forest Pathol. Spec. Release No. 37. USDA, Bur. Plant Ind. 39 pp.nDuncan, C. G. 1957. Evaluating wood preservatives by soil-block tests: 9. Influence of different boiling fractions of the petroleum carrier on the effectiveness of pentachlorophenol and copper naphthenate. Proc. Am. Wood-Preserv. Assoc. 53:13-20.nDuncan, C. G. 1958. Studies of the methodology of soil-block testing. USDA, Forest Serv., Rep. No. 2114. For. Prod. Lab., Madison, WI. 126 pp.nDuncan, C. G. and C. A. Richards. 1950. Evaluating wood preservatives by soil-block tests: 1. Effect of the carrier on pentachlorophenol solutions. 2. Comparison of a coal tar creosote, a petroleum containing pentachlorophenol or copper naphthenate and mixtures of them. Proc. Am. Wood-Preserv. Assoc. 46:131-145.nHighley, T. L., and T. C. Scheffer. 1970. A need for modifying the soil-block method for testing natural resistance to white rot? Mat. und Org. 5(4):281-292.nKaufert, F., and H. Schmitz. 1937. The effect of arsenic, zinc, and copper on the rate of decay of wood by certain wood-destroying fungi. Phytopathology 27:780-788.nLeutritz, J., Jr. 1946. Wood soil contact culture technique for laboratory study of wood-destroying fungi, wood decay, and wood preservation. Bell System Tech. J. 25:102-135.nLink, C. L., and R. C. DeGroot. 1987. A statistical approach to determining preservative threshold retentions in soilblock tests. Wood Fiber Sci. 19(4):392-406.nUnligil, H. H. 1968. Depletion of pentachlorophenol by fungi. For. Prod. J. 18(2):45-50.nU.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. The biologic and economic assessment of pentachlorophenol, inorganic arsenicals, creosote. Cooperative impact assessment report. Volume 1: Wood Preservatives. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1658-1. Washington, DC. 435 pp.n

Downloads

Published

2007-06-22

Issue

Number 2 / April 1988

Section

Research Contributions

License

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.