EPA/600/R-99/024
February 1999
SYNERGISTIC WOOD PRESERVATIVES
FOR REPLACEMENT OF CCA
By
Darrel D. Nicholas, Tor P. Schultz and Moon G. Kim
Forest Products Laboratory/Forest and Wildlife Research Center
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762
PROJECT CR 821788-01-1
Paul Randall
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
This study was
conducted
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of
Agriculture
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
partially funded the research described herein under Cooperative Agreement CR-821788-01 -1 to the
Mississippi State University. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review,
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives
to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand
how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation
of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering
information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support
and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this project was to evaluate the potential synergistic combinations of
environmentally-safe biocides as wood preservatives. These wood preservatives could be potential
replacements for the heavy-metal based CCA.
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride [DDAC] was combined with either chlorothalonil [CTN],
tribromophenol [TBP] or sodium omadine [NaO] to provide the synergistic mixtures. A total of five
systems were examined; one oil-borne [DDAC:CTN] and four water-borne [oil-in-water emulsions]
mixtures, including DDAC:NaO with a water repellant. Wood treated with these preservatives was
evaluated in both soil contact and above-ground exposures, with CCA and pentachlorophenol (penta)
treated wood used as positive controls. The treated wood was evaluated for both biocide efficacy
and depletion. Because of project deadlines, the outdoor exposure time was limited to two- to three-
years exposure, which is insufficient to fully evaluate the efficacy of most systems.
The water-borne DDAC:TBP and DDAC:NaO formulations performed poorly in the field tests and,
consequently, are not viable wood preservative systems. However, the addition of a water repellent
to the DDAC:NaO system greatly improve the performance in above-ground tests, suggesting that
this may be a good preservative for this application.
The oil-borne DDAC:CTN formulation is performing very well and may be a viable wood
preservative system. The water-borne DDAC:CTN formulation is performing moderately well at
this time but appears to suffer from excessive CTN leaching; this deficiency probably can be
corrected with a modified formulation.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract number CR 821788-01-1 under the partial
sponsorship of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1997 and work was completed as of May 5, 1998.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Biocide and Formulation Abbreviations xvi
Summary of Preservative Systems/Tests Examined xvii
1 Introduction 1-2
2 Problems with Developing a New Wood Preservative 3-4
3 Experimental Procedures 5-14
3.1 Wood 5
3.2 Wood Treatment 5
3.3 Biocide Efficacy and Depletion Tests 5
3.3.1 Agar Plate 5-6
3.3.2 Leachability 6
3.3.3 Fungus Cellar (Soft-rot) Exposure 6-7
3.3.4 Fungus Cellar Depletion 7
3.3.5 Field Stake (Ground Contact) Exposure 7-8
3.3.6 Field Stake Depletion 8
3.3.7 Above-ground (L-joint) Exposure 9
3.3.8 Above-ground (L-joint) Depletion 9-10
3.4 Formulations 10
v
-------
3.4.1 Initial Studies 10
3.4.2 Oil-borne DDAC:CTN 10-11
3.4.3 DDAC:TBP 11
3.4.4 Water-borne DDAC:CTN 11-12
3.4.5 Water-borne DDAC:NaO, Above-ground L-joint
Samples Only 12
3.4.6 Water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA, Above-ground L-joint Samples
Only 12
3.5 Analysis Methods 13
3.5.1 Treatment Retentions by Weight Gain Following Treatment 13
3.5.2 Biocide Retentions in Depletion Samples 13
CCA 13
Chlorothalonil 13
DDAC 14
TBP 14
NaO 14
4 Results and Discussion 15-20
4.1 Agar-Plate Synergism 15
4.2 Oil-Borne DDAC:CTN 15
4.2.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar 15
4.2.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar 16
4.2.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Stake Ground Contact Test 16
4.2.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Test 16
vi
-------
4.3 Water-borne DDAC:TBP 16
4.3.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar 16-17
4.3.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar 17
4.3.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Ground Contact Test 17
4.3.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Tests 17
4.3.5 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test 17
4.3.6 Above-ground Decay Test 18
4.4 Water-borne DDAC:CTN 18
4.4.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar 18
4.4.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar 18
4.4.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Ground Contact Test 18
4.4.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Test 19
4.4.5 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Test 19
4.4.6 Above-ground Decay Tests 19
4.5 Water-borne DDAC:NaO 19
4.5.1 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test 19
4.5.2 Above-ground Decay Test 19-20
4.6 Water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA 20
4.6.1 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test 20
4.6.2 Above-ground Decay Test 20
5 Future Work 21
6 Literature Cited 22
vii
-------
Appendices
A Treatment Formulations 23-28
B Tables
4.2.1.1. Average Strength Loss of 3mm Stakes Treated with the Oil-
borne DDAC:CTN Formulation After 96-weeks Exposure in
the Fungus Cellar 29
4.2.1.2. Analysis of Variance for Oil-borne DDAC:CTN Treated
Fungus Cellar Stakes Exposed to Dorman Soil for 96-Weeks 30
4.2.1.3. Analysis of Variance for Oil-borne DDAC:CTN Treated
Fungus Cellar Stakes Exposed to Saucier Soil for 96-Weeks 31
4.2.2.1. Average Depletion From Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure 32
4.2.2.2. Average Depletion From Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure 32
4.2.3.1. Average Depletion of Oil-borne DDAC and Chlorothalonil
Treated Field Stakes After 1-Year Exposure 33
4.2.3.2. Average Depletion of Oil-borne DDAC and Chlorothalonil
Treated Field Stakes After 3-Years Exposure 33
4.2.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings For Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes 34-35
4.2.4.2. Analysis of Variance of Termite Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at Saucier
for 3-Years 36
4.2.4.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at Saucier
for 3-Years 37
4.2.4.4. Analysis of Variance of Termite Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 3-Years 38
viii
-------
4.2.4.5. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 3-Years 39
4.3.1.1. Average Strength Loss of Stakes Treated With the Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Forrmulation After 80-Weeks
Exposure in the Fungus Cellar 40
4.3.1.2. Analysis of Variance for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Fungus Cellar Exposed to Dorman Soil for 80-Weeks 41
4.3.1.3. Analysis of Variance for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes Exposed to Saucier Soil for 80-
Weeks 42
4.3.2.1. Average Depletion From Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure 43
4.3.2.2. Average Depletion From Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure 43
4.3.3.1. Average Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Field Stakes After 1-Year Exposure 44
4.3.3.2. Average Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure 44
4.3.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure 45
4.3.4.2. Analysis of Variance of Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 2-Years 46
4.3.4.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 2-Years 47
4.3.4.4. Analysis of Variance of Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Saucier for 2-Years 48
ix
-------
4.3.4.5. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Saucier for 2-Years
49
4.3.5.1. Average Retentions of DDAC and Tribromophenol in L-joints
After 1-Year Exposure at Two Test Sites 50
4.3.6.1. Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated L-
joints After 1- and 2-Years Exposure 51
4.3.6.2. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated L-joints Exposed at Hilo for
2-Years 52
4.3.6.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for
DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated L-joints Exposed at Saucier
for 2-Years 53
4.4.1.1. Average Strength Loss of 3mm Stakes Treated With the Water-
borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Formulation After 62-Weeks
Exposure in the Fungus Cellar. The Positive Controls are CCA
(Water-borne) and Pentachlorophenol (Penta, Oil-borne) 54
4.4.1.2. Analysis of Variance for Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes Exposed to Saucier Soil for 62-
Weeks 55
4.4.1.3. Analysis of Variance for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes Exposed to Dorman Soil for 62-
Weeks 56
4.4.2.1. Average Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
From Fungus Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure 57
4.4.2.2. Average Depletion of Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil
From Fungus Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure 57
4.4.2.3. Average Percent Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil From
Stakes Treated With Water-borne Formulations After Exposure
to Two Different Soils 58-59
x
-------
4.4.3.1. Average Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil From Field
Stakes Treated With a Water-borne Formulation After 1-Year
Exposure 60
4.4.3.2. Average Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil From Field
Stakes Treated With a Water-borne Formulation After 2-Years
Exposure 60
4.4.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Field Stakes Treated
With Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA
Formulations 61-62
4.4.4.2. Analysis of Variance of Decay for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 2-Years 63
4.4.4.3. Analysis of Variance of Termite for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at
Dorman for 2-Years 64
4.4.4.4. Analysis of Variance of Decay for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at Saucier
for 2-Years 65
4.4.4.5. Analysis of Variance of Termite for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes Exposed at Saucier
for 2-Years 66
4.4.5.1. Average Retentions of DDAC and Chlorothalonil for L-joints
Treated With Water-borne Formulations After 1-Year
Exposure 67
4.4.6.1. Average Decay Ratings for L-joints Treated With Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil After 2-Years Exposure 68
4.4.6.2. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated L-joints Exposed at Hilo for 2-
Years 69
4.4.6.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated L-joints Exposed at Saucier for
2-Years 70
xi
-------
4.5.1.1. Average Retentions of DDAC in Water-borne DDAC:Na
Omadine Treated L-joints After 1-Year Exposure 71
4.5.2.1. Average Decay Ratings for the Water-borne DDAC:Na
Omadine Treated L-joints After 1, 2, and 2.5-Years Exposure 72
4.5.2.2. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Na Omadine Treated L-joints Exposed at Saucier for
2.5 Years 73
4.5.2.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Na Omadine Treated L-joints Exposed at Hilo for 2.5
Years 74
4.6.1.1. Average Retentions of DDAC in L-joints Treated with Water-
borne DDAC:Na Omadine:PABA After 1-Year Exposure 75
4.6.2.1. Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Na Omadine + PABA
Treated L-joints After 1- and 2-Years Exposure 76
4.6.2.2. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for DDAC:Sodium
Omadine + PABA Treated L-joints Exposed at Hilo for
2 Years 77
4.6.2.3. Analysis of Variance of Decay Ratings for DDAC:Na Omadine
+ PABA Treated L-joints Exposed at Saucier for 2 Years 78
C Figures
4.2.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil,
Penta and CCA Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 96-weeks
Exposure to Dorman Soil 79
4.2.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil,
Penta and CCA Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 96-weeks
Exposure to Saucier Soil 80
4.2.2.1. Average Percent Depletion for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes
After 12-weeks Exposure To Dorman and Saucier Soil 81
xii
-------
4.2.3.1. Average Percent Depletion for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 1-
Year Exposure 82
4.2.3.2. Average Percent Depletion for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 3-
Years Exposure 83
4.2.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil, Penta and CCA Treated Field Stakes
After 3-Years Exposure at Dorman 84
4.2.4.2. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil, Penta and CCA Treated Field Stakes
After 3-Years Exposure at Saucier 85
4.3.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Stakes After 80-
weeks Exposure to Dorman Soil in the Fungus Cellar 86
4.3.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Stakes After 80-
weeks Exposure to Saucier Soil in the Fungus Cellar 87
4.3.2.1. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Fungus Stakes After
12-weeks Exposure 88
4.3.2.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Fungus Stakes After
36-weeks Exposure 89
4.3.3.1. Average Percent Depletion of Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Field Stakes After
1-Year Exposure 90
4.3.3.2. Average Percent Depletion of Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Field Stakes After
2-Years Exposure 91
4.3.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Field Stakes After
2-Years Exposure at Dorman 92
xiii
-------
4.3.4.2. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Tribromophenol and CCA Treated Field Stakes After
2-Years Exposure at Saucier 93
4.3.6.1. Average Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Triboromophenol and CCA Treated L-joints After 2-
Years Exposure at Saucier 94
4.3.6.2. Average Decay Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Triboromophenol and CCA Treated L-joints After 2-
Years Exposure at Hilo 95
4.4.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil,
Penta and CCA Treated Stakes After 62-Weeks Exposure to
Dorman Soil In The Fungus Cellar 96
4.4.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil,
Penta and CCA Treated Stakes After 62-Weeks Exposure to
Saucier Soil In The Fungus Cellar 97
4.4.2.1. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA From Fungus Cellar Stakes
After 12-Weeks Exposure 98
4.4.2.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA From Fungus Cellar Stakes
After 36-Weeks Exposure 99
4.4.3.1. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA From Stakes After 1-Year
Exposure 100
4.4.3.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA From Stakes After 2-Years
Exposure 101
4.4.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-
Years Exposure at Dorman 102
4.4.4.2. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-
Years Exposure at Saucier 103
xiv
-------
4.5.2.1. Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Na Omadine and CCA
Treated L-joints After 2.5-Years Exposure at Hilo 104
4.5.2.2. Average Decay Ratings for DDAC.Na Omadine and CCA
Treated L-joints After 2.5-Years Exposure at Saucier 105
D Quality Control Results 106-117
xv
-------
BIOCIDE AND FORMULATION ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
CCA
CTN
DDAC
KB-3
NaO
PABA
Penta
TBP
Full Name
Chromated Copper Arsenate
Chlorothalonil
Didecyldimethylammonium
chloride
Ketone Still Bottoms
(Biocide Carrier/Solvent)
Sodium Omadine
Mixture of: Palmitic Acid,
Butyl Amine and Butyl Carbitol
Pentachlorophenol
Tribromophenol
Source
Hickson Corporation
ISK Biosciences
Lonza Company
Eastman Chemical Co.
Olin Chemical Corporation
Water-borne water repellent
formulated at the Forest
Products Laboratory, Mississippi
State University
Vulcan Chemicals
Aldrich Chemical Company
xvi
-------
SUMMARY OF PRESERVATIVE
SYSTEMS/TESTS EXAMINED
Preservative
Tests1
System
FC
FCD
FS
FSD
AG
AGD
Oil-borne DDAC:CTN
X
X
X
X
Water-borne DDAC:TBP
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water-borne DDAC:CTN
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water-borne DDAC:NaO
X
X
Water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA
X
X
Positive Controls
Water-borne CCA
X
X
X
X
X
Oil-borne Penta
X
X
X
X
FC = Fungus Cellar Exposure
FCD = Fungus Cellar Depletion
FS = Field Stake Exposure
FSD = Field Stake Depletion
AG = Above-ground Exposure
AGD = Above-ground Depletion
The field exposure and depletion tests were conducted at the Saucier, MS and Starkville (Dorman
Lake), MS sites. The fungus cellar exposure and depletion tests were run using soil beds made with
soil from Saucier, MS and Starkville (Dorman Lake), MS. Above-ground exposure and depletion
tests were run at Saucier, MS and Hilo, HI.
xvii
-------
1
INTRODUCTION: IS THERE A NEED TO
DEVELOP A NEW WOOD PRESERVATIVE?
Wood, a natural product obtained from trees, is extensively used in residential construction, utility
poles, railroad ties, decking, etc. As a natural organic material wood is degraded by many organisms,
principally fungi and insects (Preston 1993). Consequently, in certain U.S. applications (ground
contact or above-ground applications where the wood is wetted frequently) wood should be treated
with biocides to protect it against wood-destroying organisms. The three major wood preservative
systems currently used are the oil-borne, organic pentachlorophenol and creosote systems and the
water-borne, inorganic chromated copper arsenic (CCA) preservative. Most of the treated wood
products in the U.S., about 76%, are treated with CCA (Mickelwright 1992). Furthermore, CCA is
the principle preservative used in residential construction (Preston 1993) while pentachlorophenol
and creosote are mainly used in non-residential applications. Over 49.3 million lbs. of arsenic
pentoxide and 68.2 million lbs. of chromium trioxide are consumed each year in formulating CCA
(Mickelwright 1992).
Extensive testing and use has shown CCA to be highly effective at protecting wood against a variety
of fungi and termites. CCA is also low-cost, water-borne, and has good weathering and leach-
resistant properties. Since CCA is water-borne and thus has no petroleum odor or "oily" surface and
is very cost effective, it is extensively used in residential applications such as home decks. Thus,
CCA is a successful product which enjoys widespread consumer acceptance and market share.
However, the presence of the perceived environmental hazards of chromium and arsenate will
probably limit the use of CCA in the future. Indeed, the use of CCA-treated lumber has already been
greatly reduced in the Hawaiian Islands and use of CCA in above-ground applications has been
banned in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and other countries. Also, while current U.S. regulations
permit disposal of CCA-treated lumber by landfill burial, it is expected that discarding treated
lumber will become more expensive and onerous in the future (Preston 1993; FPS Proceedings
1995). Consequently, a need exists for developing alternative environmentally-benign wood
preservative(s), especially for use in residential applications. Creosote and pentachlorophenol will
probably continue to be used for a long time in non-residential applications such as telephone poles,
railroad ties, bridge pilings, etc.
In the intermediate term CCA replacements may be based on coppenorganic biocide mixtures
(Preston 1993; Nicholas and Schultz 1995). Wood products treated with coppenorganic mixtures
of ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ) and copper dimethyldithiocarbamate (CDDC) (Chen 1994;
Nicholas and Schultz 1995) are already commercially available. Other copper-based systems such
as copper citrate, copper:Na Omadine and copper azole have also been developed. However,
toxicological concerns associated with copper will probably limit the long-term application of these
"second-generation" wood preservatives in North America (Preston 1993). Consequently, it has
been suggested (Preston 1993) that "third-generation" wood preservatives will be totally organic and
1
-------
may consist of combinations of two or more biocides to minimize cost and assure broad efficiency
against the wide variety of wood-destroying organisms (Schultz and Nicholas 1995).
This study involved examining biocides which might be suitable CCA replacements. Since
copper:organic mixtures are already commercially available - and also because of possible future
restrictions on copper due to toxicological concerns - only organic [nonmetallic] biocide
combinations were studied. The relatively low-cost biocide didecyldimethylammonium chloride
[DDAC] (Walker 1995; Nicholas and Schultz 1995) was combined with a second organic biocide
(Chlorothalonil [CTN], tribromophenol [TBP], or sodium omadine [NaO]), with these binary
combinations selected since they may be synergistic (Schultz and Nicholas 1995). The DDAC:NaO
system was examined both with and without a co-added water repellant. Due to economic and other
advantages of water-borne formulations for treating lumber, especially in above-ground residential
applications which is the major market for CCA-treated wood, most of the wood samples were
treated using water-based (emulsion) formulations. One oil-borne system (DDAC:CTN), suitable
for use in ground-contact applications, was also examined. Data collected included emulsion
formulation studies, leaching under both laboratory and outdoor exposure conditions, and efficiency
testing against wood-destroying organisms in both laboratory (principally fungal cellar) and actual
field (ground-contact and/or above-ground) exposure conditions. For comparison, the positive
controls were CCA- and/or Penta-treated samples.
2
-------
2
PROBLEMS WITH DEVELOPING A NEW
WOOD PRESERVATIVE
The purpose of this brief section is to introduce readers unfamiliar with wood preservation with the
problems of developing a replacement for CCA. These challenges include costs, formulation of a
water-borne system, need for the biocide(s) to be active against a wide-variety of fungi and insects
and remain effective for a long period, and the long development time necessary.
Finding a biocide which protects wood is not difficult; developing a cost-effective preservative is.
Essentially all potential wood preservatives (Nicholas and Schultz 1995) are more expensive than
commercial biocides used today, with CCA selling for about $1.30/lb. Both the biocide cost ($/lb)
and retention level required (pounds of biocide per cubic foot of wood [pcf]) will affect the final
price of treated lumber/wood. In this study mixtures were selected which were believed synergistic,
since this would permit lower biocide retentions and, thus, the costs would be reduced (Schultz and
Nicholas 1995). A further consideration in the selection of replacement preservatives in the past
decade is that the biocide(s) must be relatively environmentally benign.
Essentially all organic biocides - which this study involved - are soluble in one or more organic [oil]
solvents, and thus formulation of an oil-borne system is relatively easy. However, the relatively high
cost of an oil solvent as compared to water, the problems in formulating a consumer-acceptable oil-
borne system for residential use such as decking, and other considerations suggest that a wood
preservative used predominately for residential construction should be water-borne. A few organic
biocides such as DDAC are water soluble (Nicholas and Schultz 1995), and we concentrated on
developing oil-in-water emulsion formulation systems for the other biocides. Some organic
compounds are difficult to emulsify, however, and potential problems with emulsions might include
poor penetration and subsequent leaching while in service.
A wide variety of wood-destroying organisms exist and, unfortunately, most biocides have weak
activity against one or more types of organisms. This study employed biocide combinations since
a weakness of one biocide against a particular class of organisms might be offset by the second
biocide (Schultz and Nicholas 1995).
A large number of biocides can control organisms in the short term, but all organic biocides are
subject to chemical, light and/or microorganism degradation over time. Furthermore, biocides can
diffuse [leach] out of the wood during exposure. A successful preservative must remain in the wood
product at a minimal level for an extended period of time.
Finally, treated wood products are expected to have a long service life and early failures can prove
expensive in terms of product liability. Wood treating companies thus have a conservative outlook
and require extensive field exposure testing of wood samples treated to different retentions and
installed at multiple outdoor sites for 10 or so years. Consequently, commercial acceptance of a
3
-------
wood preservative requires many years. A good example of this is CCA, which was not fully
commercialized until about 30 years after its development.
4
-------
3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
3.1 WOOD
The wood used for all wood-containing tests was kiln-dried southern yellow pine (SYP) sapwood
(Pinus spp.). Defect-free, kiln dried boards were obtained from a local sawmill and machined to the
desired size.
3.2 WOOD TREATMENT
Samples were treated by the full-cell method in a pressure treating cylinder. The process consisted
of an initial vacuum cycle (27 in. Hg) for 30 minutes followed by adding the preservative
formulation to a tray holding the wood samples in the treating cylinder while maintaining the
vacuum and then the impregnation of biocides into the wood by a pressure cycle (150 psig for 60
minutes). Samples were weighed both before and after treatment to determine biocide retention in
pounds [of biocide] per cubic foot [of wood] (pcf). After treating and weighing the samples were
air-dried to remove the volatile solvent(s).
3.3 BIOCIDE EFFICACY AND DEPLETION TESTS
3.3.1 Agar Plate
AWPA Test Name: No standard method available.
Brief Description: This test is used for an initial rapid determination, under laboratory
conditions, of the relative activity of a biocide against one or more fungi. The agar medium
consisted of 1.5% agar, 2.0% malt extract and 0.2% yeast extract. The biocides were
dissolved in 1 ml of acetone and added to the hot autoclaved agar medium while stirring.
Controls consisted of agar containing 1 ml of acetone. After the agar had cooled, a 5-mm
agar disc with an actively growing fungus was added to the center of the plate and the plate
was then incubated at 28°C for four to six days. The radial diameter of the fungal mycelium
was measured and the growth relative to the solvent control determined (Archer et al. 1995).
Four fungi were examined, two white-rot (/. lacteus and T. versicolor) and two brown-rot
(G. trabeum and P. placenta) fungi, at levels of 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 75 and 150 ppm biocide
levels with five replicates per treatment level. Since the Pi's have already conducted an
extensive survey of biocides for synergistic action, and since most of the possible
combinations have already been studied, only a few combinations were examined.
5
-------
Sample Size: No wood was used in this test.
3.3.2 Leachability
AWPA Test Name'. Standard Method of Determining the Leachability of Wood
Preservatives; AWPA Standard El 1-97.
Brief Description: This test is used to determine if a biocide will diffuse [deplete] from
treated wood samples which are immersed in water over a relatively short period. Blocks of
wood are vacuum impregnated with a particular formulation and then dried. After
conditioning, the blocks are impregnated with water and kept in a beaker filled with water
for 14 days, with the water being changed at periodic intervals. The relative depletion was
determined by comparing the biocide retention of leached versus unleached matched blocks.
Sample Size: 19 mm cubes
3.3.3 Fungus Cellar (Soft-rot) Exposure
AWPA Test Name: Standard Method of Evaluating Wood Preservatives in a Soil Bed,
AWPA Standard E14-94 (Modified).
Brief Description: This test was used to determine the efficacy of wood samples exposed to
soft-rot fungi with sets treated to various biocide retentions. Test specimens, treated with a
particular formulation and retention, were positioned vertically in a soil bed maintained at
a moisture content of approximately 100% of the soil-water holding capacity to promote
soft-rot fungi and minimize basidiomycete activity (Nicholas and Archer 1995). The fungus
cellar beds were maintained at a temperature of about 80°F and relative humidity of 90%.
Stakes were removed periodically, water saturated, and the bending strength or stiffness
(maximum load required to deflect [bend] the 3 mm dimension by 2 mm) determined. The
AWPA test method has a visual inspection rating system, rather then a strength
measurement, to determine extent of decay which is a deviation from the standard. The
results are reported as % strength loss relative to the initial strength prior to exposure. Beds
were made with soil obtained from the Starkville (Dorman Lake), MS and Saucier, MS sites,
with soil from these sites chosen since these sites were used for the ground contact exposure
and depletion tests described below.
Sample Size and Number: Four wood slats measuring 3 mm x 19 mm x 950 mm (t x r x 1)
[tangential x radial x longitudinal] were pressure treated as described above. After drying,
these long pieces were cut into 6 stakelets, each 3 mm x 19 mm x 150 mm (t x r x 1), with
3 samples from each board put into the Saucier soil and 3 into the Dorman Lake soil, to give
a total of 12 sample stakelets for each soil type (four boards, 3 samples from each board for
each soil type).
6
-------
Treatments Studied: Oil-borne DDAC:CTN; water-borne DDAC:TBP; and water-borne
DDAC:CTN formulations were used. Negative controls were untreated and solvent-treated
samples, and positive controls were the commercial preservatives water-borne CCA and oil-
borne penta.
3.3.4 Fungus Cellar Depletion
AWPA Test Name'. No standard method available.
Brief Description: This test was used to determine biocide depletion from wood samples
exposed to unsterile, wet soil [the fungal soft-rot beds above]. Test specimens were treated
with selected formulations. After air drying, a 100-mm section was cut from the end of each
test specimen and used to determine the initial (unexposed) biocide retention. Test
specimens were then placed vertically in the soil beds described above, with the beds
containing either Saucier or Dorman Lake soils. Samples were removed after 12 weeks, and
a 12 mm segment removed from the bottom end of the sample and discarded. Following
this, a 50 mm sample was cut off the bottom of the stakelet and chipped, ground, and
analyzed along with the end-matched unexposed section. The remaining test sample was
then placed back into the soil bed and left for an additional 24 weeks (36-weeks total
exposure), at which time the above analysis procedure was repeated. Depletion was reported
as percent biocide loss relative to the unexposed end section.
Sample Size and Number: Test specimens measuring 5 mm x 19 mm x 250 mm (t x r x 1)
were treated, air-dried, then cut into 5 mm x 19 mm x 154 mm (t x r x 1) specimens. A total
of 24 test specimens were treated for each retention level. The specimens were then divided
into two groups for exposure in the Dorman Lake and Saucier soils.
Treatments Studied: Oil-borne DDAC:CTN; water-borne DDAC:TBP; and water-borne
DDAC:CTN formulations were used. The positive control was commercial water-borne
CCA. [One set of 19 mm x 19 mm x 150 mm (r x t x 1), treated with four different water-
borne emulsion formulations of DDAC:CTN, was also tested for extent of leaching by a 12-
week exposure in the fungus cellar test; the positive control was an oil-borne DDAC:CTN
formulation].
3.3.5 Field Stake (Ground Contact) Exposure
AWPA Test Name'. Standard Method of Evaluating Wood Preservatives by Field Tests with
Stakes, AWPA Standard E7-93.
Brief Description: This method determines the efficacy of biocides used to treat wood
exposed to outdoor, ground-contact exposure. Several different retentions of the biocides
were used so that the effective level required to inhibit wood decay fungi and termites could
be determined. Wood stakes were impregnated with an appropriate series of retentions of
the biocide, then air-dried and installed randomly at the field exposure site. The stakes were
7
-------
removed during each yearly inspection, cleaned and visually inspected for fungal and termite
damage. Separate decay and termite ratings, based on a semi-log system, are given which
are specified by the AWPA method above: [10 rating - sound to trace of degradation; 9 rating
- trace to 3% degrade; 8 rating - 3 to 10% degrade; 7 rating - 10 to 30% degrade; 6 rating -
30 to 50% degrade; 4 rating - 50 to 75% degrade; and a 0 rating - failure]. Following
inspection the stakes were returned to the original position at groundline mark. The average
decay and termite rating for each treatment/retention was reported. Test sites used were
Starkville (Dorman Lake), MS and Saucier, MS. Dorman Lake is located in Northeast
Mississippi near Mississippi State University, and has a heavy clay soil. The Saucier test
plot is located in the Harrison National Forest near the town of Saucier, and has a sandy loam
soil. Since this site is near the Gulf Coast, it has a relatively mild winter and wet summer.
Sample Size and Number: Wood sticks measuring 3/4" x 3/4" x 44" (t x r x 1) were treated,
air-dried, and then a 6" center was cut from each stake and stored for possible future analysis
for depletion measurement. Of the remaining two end pieces, 3/4" x 3/4" x 18" size, one
sample was installed at Dorman Lake and the other sample at Saucier. The number of
replicates per treatment/retention was 15 at each site.
Treatments Studied: Oil-borne DDAC:CTN; water-borne DDAC:TBP; and water-borne
DDAC:CTN formulations were used. Negative controls were untreated and solvent-treated
samples, and positive controls were water-borne CCA and oil-borne penta.
3.3.6 Field Stake Depletion
AWPA Test Name: Part 10 of AWPA Standard E7-93 described above.
Brief Description: This test determines biocide depletion from wood treated with a specified
retention of the biocide after ground contact exposure. Stakes were treated, dried, cut and
installed as described for the field exposure samples above. After exposure for a specified
time, five (5) of the 15 replicates [leaving 10 stakes for two (2) more depletion analyses]
were removed from each site (Dorman Lake and Saucier). The samples were cleaned and
a 25 mm section removed for analysis. The ground wood from all five depletion samples
were combined and analyzed using the appropriate procedure described below. The biocide
retention, relative to the biocide retention in the stored, unexposed 6" center cut, is reported.
Sample Size and Number: Fifteen samples, treated to a specified retention and of the size
described above, were randomly installed with the exposure stakes described above at each
site. Five samples were removed for analysis at each exposure period.
Treatments Studied: Oil-borne DDAC:CTN; water-borne DDAC:TBP; and water-borne
DDAC:CTN formulations were used. The positive control was CCA.
8
-------
3.3.7 Above-ground (L-joint) Exposure
AWPA Test Name: Standard Field Test for the Evaluation of Wood Preservatives to be used
in Non-soil Contact, AWPA Standard E9-97.
Brief Description: This test method is designed to determine the efficacy of wood
preservatives used in outdoor above-ground applications, with several different biocide
retentions used for each biocide studied. Wood samples were cut with a mortise joint on one
end and a tenon joint on the other end, treated with a specific biocide formulation and then
dried. A 2" piece was cut from the center of the wood and stored for possible later depletion
studies, then the two outside pieces were joined to form an L-shaped unit. These units were
then installed on an above-ground rack set up at the outdoor testing sites. Saucier, MS and
Hilo, HI were chosen because their weather conditions [warm winters and high rainfall]
result in relatively rapid decay. These samples were pulled annually, and the joint, both the
mortise and tenon, inspected for fungal attack and degradation. The rating system described
above for the ground-contact samples was used, where a "10" rating indicates no attack, a
"0" rating complete failure, etc. The test samples can be either painted or not painted prior
to outdoor exposure. In this study, the samples treated with water-soluble formulations were
painted while samples pressure-treated with oil-in-water emulsion or with water-repellant
formulations were not painted.
Sample Size and Number: The initial machined size was 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 18" (r x t x 1).
After treatment and drying, the center 2" was cut out and the L-joint assembled. The number
of replicates per biocide/retention was 20, with 10 samples installed at Saucier and 10 at
Hilo.
Treatments Studied: Water-borne DDAC:NaO, painted; water-borne DDAC:TBP,
unpainted; water-borne DDAC:CTN, unpainted; and water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA,
unpainted treatments were used. (PABA is a water-borne water repellent developed at the
Forest Products Lab, Mississippi State University, in which the active components are
palmitic acid and butyl amine, with butyl carbitol added for water solubility). The negative
controls consisted of untreated and solvent-treated samples, and the positive control was
water-borne CCA.
3.3.8 Above-ground (L-joint) Depletion
AWPA Test Name: Based on Standard E9-97 described above.
Brief Description: The purpose of this test is to obtain depletion data for treated wood
samples exposed to actual field conditions in an above-ground test. Wood samples are
prepared and treated as described above. The samples were installed at the same time as the
exposure samples treated with the same biocide formulation. After a specified exposure
period five (5) samples per site (Saucier, MS and Hilo, HI) were pulled. Biocide retention
in the matched, unexposed 2" center- cut sample was compared to the biocide retention in
the exposed joint. One problem encountered in this test was that the tenon and mortise joint
9
-------
have different dimensions than the center cut, and thus biocide penetration affected the
results. To partially offset this unanticipated problem, biocide levels in the outer 6 mm of
the center cut were determined. The outer 6 mm of the tenon joint was then cut off and
discarded, and the next 12 mm cut off, ground, and the biocide level measured with this
value compared to the biocide retention in the unexposed matched wood sample.
Sample Size and Number: The same size as described above was used. The number of
replicates at each site was 10, with five (5) samples pulled at one time at each site.
Treatments Studied: Water-borne DDAC:NaO; water-borne DDAC:CTN; water-borne
DDAC:TBP; and water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA formulations were used.
3.4 FORMULATIONS
3.4.1 Initial Studies
Initial experiments to develop oil-in-water emulsion systems consisted of determining: the
ease and ability to form an emulsion using selected additive(s); emulsion stability;
penetration uniformity as measured by treatment of wood samples (end-coated with a water
barrier) then analysis of biocide levels in inner versus outer sections of the treated wood; and
biocide leaching by immersion of treated, dried wood in water for several days.
3.4.2 Oil-borne DDAC:CTN
Formulation: The biocides were DDAC and/or CTN, which were dissolved in a mixture
consisting of 25% (by volume) of KB3:diesel fuel [9:1] and 75% toluene.
Concentrations:
• Ground contact and fungus cellar efficacy stakes DDAC at 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, and
1.50% [by weight]; CTN at 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00%; DDAC:CTN (3:1) at 0.252, 0.50,
0.667, 1.00 and 1.33%; DDAC:CTN (5:1) at 0.24, 0.48, 0.75, 0.90 and 1.20% were
used. The positive control, CCA-type C, was treated at 0.37, 0.63 and 1.00%, and
the positive control, penta, (treated with the toluene/diesel/KB3 mixture described
above), was treated at 0.50, 1.0 and 1.50%. [Note: the highest level of CCA, 1.00%,
was chosen in order to obtain an approximate retention of 0.40 pcf, the level
specified for CCA in ground-contact use with SYP lumber per AWPA Standard C2-
97. The highest level of penta, 1.50%, was chosen in order to obtain a retention of
about 0.60 pcf, the level specified for penta in SYP poles per AWPA Standard C3-
97.
• Ground contact and fungus cellar depletion stakes CTN at 0.25%; DDAC:CTN
(3:1) at 1.00%; DDAC:CTN (5:1) at 0.90%; and CCA at 1.00, 0.63, and 0.37% were
used.
10
-------
Note: Actual formulations for all five systems examined in this study are listed in
Appendix A.
3.4.3 DDAC:TBP
Formulation: The biocides were DDAC and/or TBP, which were formulated using an oil-
in-water emulsion using the surfactant Tween 40, N-butanol and water. Since each system
had different concentrations of DDAC and TBP, the concentration of Tween 40 and N-
butanol varied accordingly. Appendix A lists the components and amounts for each
formulation. DDAC was treated using both water and the emulsion system, so that the
effect, if any, of the Tween 40 and N-butanol on efficacy could be measured.
Concentrations:
• Ground contact and fungus cellar efficacy stakes - DDAC at 0.50,0.75,1.00 and
1.50% [both water alone and with the emulsion system]; TBP at 0.25 and 0.50%;
DDAC:TBP (1:1) at 0.50, 0.70, 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00%; DDAC:TBP (3:1) at 0.50,
0.667, 1.00, 1.33 and 2.00%. The positive control, CCA, was treated at 0.37, 0.63
and 1.00%.
• Ground contact and fungus cellar depletion stakes - DDAC with Tween 40 and
N-butanol at 0.75%; DDAC.TBP (1:1) at 1.00%; and DDAC.TBP (1:1) at 1.00%
were used. The positive control, CCA, was treated at 0.37, 0.63 and 1.00%.
• Above-ground L-joint efficacy samples - DDAC [both in water and with Tween
40 and N-butanol] at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00%; DDAC:TBP (1:1) at 0.25, 0.50,
0.70 and 1.00%; DDAC:TBP (3:1) at 0.252, 0.50, 0.667, and 1.00% were used. The
CCA positive controls were treated at 0.19,0.37 and 0.63%. [Note: The highest level
of CCA, 0.63%, was chosen in order to obtain a retention of 0.25 pcf, the level
specified for above-ground SYP lumber in AWPA Standard C2-97].
• Above-ground (L-joint) depletion - DDAC (with Tween 40 and N-butanol) at
0.50%; DDAC:TBP (1:1) at 0.70%; and DDAC:TBP (3:1) at 0.667% were used.
3.4.4 Water-borne DDACrCTN
Formulation: The biocides were DDAC and CTN, formulated using an oil-in-water
emulsion with xylene. DDAC, which is also a surfactant, is a necessary component of this
emulsion and therefore CTN alone could not be prepared. Appendix A gives the exact
formulation for each treatment, with the amount of xylene dependant on the biocide(s)
concentration(s).
Concentrations'.
• Ground contact and fungus cellar efficacy stakes - DDAC at 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 and
1.50%; DDAC:CTN (3:1) at 0.252, 0.50,0.667, 1.00 and 1.33%; DDAC:CTN (5:1)
at 0.24, 0.48, 0.75, 0.90 and 1.20% were used. The water-borne positive control
CCA was treated at 0.37, 0.63 and 1.00%, and oil-borne penta [toluene/KB3/Diesel]
was treated at 0.50, 1.0 and 1.50%.
11
-------
Ground contact and fungus cellar depletion samples - DDAC:CTN (3:1) at
1.00%; DDAC:CTN (5:1) at 0.90%, and CCA water-borne positive controls treated
at 0.19, 0.63 and 1.00% were used.
Above-ground L-joint efficacy samples - DDAC (water/xylene) at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75
and 1.00%; DDAC:CTN (3:1) at 0.124, 0.252, 0.50, 0.667 and 1.00%; DDAC:CTN
(5:1) at 0.126, 0.240, 0.48, 0.75 and 0.90% were used. [Note: The DDAC:TBP
above-ground L-joint samples were installed at both locations at the same time as
these DDAC:CTN water-borne samples, and thus the CCA positive controls for the
DDAC:TBP sample set were used for both treatments].
Above-ground L-joint depletion samples - DDAC:CTN (3:1) at 0.50%;
DDAC:CTN (5:1) at 0.48% were used.
3.4.5 Water-borne DDAC:NaO, Above-ground L-joint Samples Only
Formulations: DDAC and/or NaO were/was dissolved in water. Since both components are
water soluble and would be presumably quickly leached out in soil contact, no ground-
contact field stakes or fungus cellar samples were tested.
Concentrations;
• Above-ground L-joint Efficacy Samples - DDAC at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00%;
NaO at 0.05; 0.10; 0.20 and 0.40%; DDAC:NaO (4:1) at 0.12, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and
1.00%; DDAC:NaO (7:1) at 0.17, 0.23, 0.46, 0.69, 0.91% were used. The positive
controls were water-borne CCA at 0.19, 0.37 and 0.63%.
• Above-ground L-joint Depletion Samples - DDAC at 0.50%; DDAC:NaO (4:1) at
0.50%; DDAC:NaO (7:1) at 0.46% were used.
3.4.6 Water-borne DDAC:NaO:PABA, Above-ground L-joint
Samples Only
Formulations: The biocides were DDAC and/or NaO, dissolved in water. The water-borne
water repellent, PABA, was co-dissolved with the biocides in all formulations. PABA
consisted of 5.0% palmitic acid, 3.0% butyl amine and 3.0% butyl carbitol dissolved in
water, with these concentrations based on the final formulation used [with the co-added
biocide(s)].
Concentrations:
• Above-ground L-joint Efficacy Samples - DDAC at 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00%;
NaO at 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 and 0.40%; DDAC:NaO (4:1) at 0.12, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and
1.00%; DDAC:NaO (7:1) at 0.17,0.23,0.46,0.69 and 0.91% were used. Since these
samples were installed at the same time as the DDAC:TBP, the positive controls of
the DDAC:TBP were used for this set.
• Above-ground L-joint Depletion Samples - DDAC at 0.50%; DDAC:NaO (4:1)
at 0.50%; and DDAC:NaO (7:1) at 0.46% were used.
12
-------
ANALYSIS METHODS
3.5.1 Treatment Retentions by Weight Gain Following Treatment
Biocide retentions in treated wood are based on the dimensions of the wood prior to
treatment, the % active ingredients of the biocide, and the weight gain following treatment
(weight of the wood just after pressure treatment - weight of the wood sample just before
pressure treatment). From this data, the pounds of biocide(s) per cubic foot of wood (pcf)
were calculated for each sample.
3.5.2 Biocide Retentions in Depletion Samples
Wood samples were obtained from the depletion samples and their matched unexposed
mates. Both the exposed and unexposed piece cut from one wood sample after treating and
drying the wood sample as described in Section 3.2, were ground in a Wiley Mill.
Generally, unless otherwise noted, the individual replicates were combined into a composite
sample. Biocide depletion was calculated as biocide level in the exposed sample relative to
biocide level in the matched, unexposed sample.
CCA
AWPA Standard: Standard Method for Analysis of Treated Wood and Treating
Solutions by X-Ray Spectroscopy, AWPA Standard A9-97.
Brief Description: This method is a non-destructive procedure for determining the
amount of CCA (as the specified oxides of chromium, copper and arsenic) in a given
mass of ground wood which has been compacted and mounted in a sample holder
prior to irradiation. A bench-top X-ray fluorescence instrument (model 8620),
specifically designed for the wood treating industry by ASOMA Instruments, Inc.,
was used. This instrument has built-in software to calculate the biocide retention,
expressed as pcf.
Chlorothalonil
AWPA Standard'. Standard Method for Analysis of Treated Wood and Treating
Solutions by X-ray Spectroscopy, AWPA Standard A9-97.
Brief Description: The same X-ray fluorescence instrument and method described
above for ground wood samples were used.
13
-------
DDAC
AWPA Standard: Standard for HPLC Method for Didecyldimethylammonium
Chloride Determination in Treated Wood, AWPA Standard A16-97.
Brief Description: This method involves overnight extraction of DDAC from the
ground wood samples with ethanol using an ultrasonic bath, then analyzing the
DDAC concentration using a high performance liquid chromatographic system. The
DDAC elution was monitored using indirect UV detection, where a UV-adsorbing
compound was put into the solvent system so that the UV detector is continuously
detecting a constant signal. When the DDAC or some other compound goes through
the detector cell, some of the UV adsorbing compound is excluded and thus the UV
signal is reduced. A Spectra Physics SP 8800 HPLC was used, with the Whatman
Partisile SCX cation exchange column with 5 |im particle size. Each sample was run
in triplicate, with 3 recovery controls [ground wood samples in which a known
amount of DDAC had been added] and one blank [solvent control] samples were run
for all 36 samples.
TBP
AWPA Standard: No Standard Test Method available.
Brief Description: Ground wood samples were extracted using methanol solvent and
an ultrasonic bath, as described above. The samples were then analyzed by HPLC,
using a Hewlett Packard HP 1090, with a UV detector set at 280 nm. An Alltech C-
18 reversed-phase column was used, with an isocratic solvent system consisting of
80% acetonitrile and 20% water. The water had 1% acetic acid added to prevent
peak broadening. Each wood sample was run in triplicate, with three recoveries
(ground wood in which a known amount of TBP had been added) and one blank
(solvent control) being run per 36 samples.
NaO
AWPA Standard: No Standard Test Method available.
Brief Description: Based on discussions with the manufacturer, Olin Chemical
Corporation, extraction of the treated wood followed by HPLC analysis was
attempted. Unfortunately, it appears that NaO quickly undergoes an oxidative
polymerization and thus the HPLC analysis was unsuccessful. Some samples were
submitted for elemental analysis of sulfur (Galbraith Laboratories, Inc, Knoxville,
TN). However, the relatively low level of sulfur present in wood treated with NaO
and the difficulty in obtaining very precise values limited the usefulness of this
method.
14
-------
4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 AGAR-PLATE SYNERGISM
Biocide mixtures (DDAC plus tetradecylamine, hexadecylamine, Irgastab 2002, and zinc omadine)
were examined for possible synergism using the agar plate test with the wood destroying fungi
Trametes versicolor (ATCC 12679), Gloeophyllum trabeum (ATCC 11539), Postiaplacenta (ATCC
11538) and Chaetomium globosum (ATCC 6205) using six biocide levels. Each biocide was run
alone and in combination with DDAC at 3:1 levels (three parts DDAC to one part of the second
biocide). Zinc omadine was found to be insoluble in any solvent, and thus could not be tested. All
other biocides were dissolved in toluene.
No combination was shown to be synergistic against at least three of the four fungi examined, and
thus further tests were not run.
Prior to this study we had already tested over 60 possible biocide combinations (Schultz and
Nicholas, 1995), and no other possible biocide combinations remained untested. Thus, no further
work in this area was performed.
4.2 OIL-BORNE DIDECYLDIMETHYLAMMONIUM
CHLORIDE/CHLOROTHALONIL (DDAC:CTN)
4.2.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar
A soft-rot test was carried out in the fungus cellar with both the Dorman and Saucier soils,
using bending strength as a measure of decay. It is apparent from the data in Table 4.2.1.1
that with regard to soft-rot the Saucier soil is more active than the Dorman soil. Of the
treatments evaluated, chlorothalonil and CCA are performing better than the other treatments
after 96-weeks exposure but two DDAC:CTN systems are also doing well (Table 4.2.1.1 and
Figures 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2). At the 5:1 ratio, the DDAC/CTN formulation is performing
better than the 3:1 ratio DDAC/CTN formulation or the straight DDAC formulation. This
DDAC/CTN formulation is also performing better than penta, suggesting that it may be a
viable commercial formulation. The average result, ranked with the best first, is shown in
a Duncan range test for the Dorman (Table 4.2.1.2) and Saucier (Table 4.2.1.3) soils.
15
-------
4.2.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar
The rate of biocide depletion from treated wood exposed to soil is an important factor
affecting the long-term performance. The average depletion of DDAC, CTN, and CCA from
the treated wood after 12-weeks exposure to the Dorman and Saucier soils is shown in Table
4.2.2.1 and 36-weeks depletion is given in Table 4.2.2.2. From this data it is apparent that
the loss of chlorothalonil is quite high for all three formulations tested. The depletion of
DDAC is considerably less and this is probably attributable to its ability to undergo ion
exchange reactions with the wood substrate. The depletion of CCA is also fairly low. There
do not appear to be any consistent differences in the amount of leaching that occurs in the
two types of soil (Figure 4.2.2.1).
4.2.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Stake Ground Contact Test
After 1-year exposure, the biocide depletion from the field stakes is similar to that found for
the fungus cellar leaching test (Table 4.2.3.1). That is, the chlorothalonil shows excessive
leaching in comparison with that of DDAC and CCA. The 3-years exposure did not show
as great a chlorothalonil loss, perhaps due to the oil carrier migrating down, as per Figures
4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2.
4.2.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Test
The field stake test data for the oil-borne DDAC.CTN treated wood and corresponding
controls is shown in Table 4.2.4.1 and Figures 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2. After 3-years exposure
all of the treatments are performing satisfactorily at medium and higher retention levels. In
view of the relatively high levels of chlorothalonil leaching found in the soil contact leaching
tests, the performance of the DDAC:CTN treated wood may suffer in the future. However,
additional exposure time will be required before the efficacy of these formulations can be
accurately determined. Tables 4.2.4.2 to 4.2.4.5 show the Duncan's range results for field
stakes at Dorman and Saucier plots for both decay and termite ratings. The exposure time
is insufficient for any statistical differences in the treatments.
4.3 WATER-BORNE DIDECYLDIMETHYLAMMONIUM
CHLORIDE:TRIBROMOPHENOL (DDAC:TBP)
4.3.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar
A soft-rot test was carried out with both the Dorman and Saucier soils, using bending
strength as a measure of decay. From the 80-week exposure data in Table 4.3.1.1 and Figures
4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2, it is apparent that TBP is not effective against the soft-rot fungi.
Consequently, the addition of this compound to DDAC does not have any advantages in
controlling this particular group of wood decay microorganisms, as can also be observed
16
-------
from the Duncan's Tables (4.3.1.2 and 4.3.1.3). The CCA-treated samples are preforming
much better than most of the other samples.
4.3.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar
The data presented in Tables 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 and Figures 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 show that
excessive leaching of both DDAC and TBP occurred in this soil contact depletion test. Since
previous studies indicate lower levels of DDAC depletion when the treated wood is exposed
to wet soil, it is probable that the surfactants and possibly other ingredients in these emulsion
formulations are responsible for this excess loss. Consequently, additional formulation work
will be required before these formulations can be used as treatments for ground contact
exposure.
4.3.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Ground Contact Test
The 1- and 2-years exposure depletion of both DDAC and TBP from the field stakes (Tables
4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2 and Figures 4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2) is considerably less than that observed
for these biocides in the lab leaching test. This difference is at least partially due to the small
stakes used in the lab test which accelerates biocide leaching. Despite the reduced depletion
in the field test, the amount of TBP lost is still quite high which will ultimately have an
impact on the service life of the treated wood.
4.3.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Tests
Data for the stake tests after two-years exposure are presented in Table 4.3.4.1 and Figures
4.3.4.1 and 4.3.4.2. It is apparent that TBP is not effective against either termites or decay
fungi. The stakes treated with the combination of both biocides are performing satisfactorily
against decay fungi, but this formulation appears to be less effective against termites. The
Duncan's test results are given in Tables 4.3.4.2 to 4.3.4.5, and it is very apparent that even
with only 2 years exposure that DDAC:TBP is not very effective.
4.3.5 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test
As expected, lower biocide depletion rates were observed for the above-ground test units in
comparison to those found for the soil contact stake tests. In this regard, the data in Table
4.3.5.1 shows very little loss of either biocide after 1-year exposure of the L-joints.
However, as mentioned earlier in Section 3.3.8, depletion data for the above-ground samples
should all be viewed with caution due to the differences in sample size for the unexposed
versus exposed samples.
17
-------
4.3.6 Above-ground Decay Test
The results of the above-ground decay test are shown in Table 4.3.6.1 and Figures 4.3.6.1 and
4.3.6.2. All of the decay ratings are still very high so additional exposure time will be
required to obtain meaningful data, as can be seen from the Duncan's test (Tables 4.3.6.1 and
4.3.6.2).
4.4 WATER-BORNE DIDECYLDIMETHYLAMMONIUM
CHLORIDE:CHLOROTHALONIL (DDAC:CTN)
4.4.1 Soft-rot Test in the Fungus Cellar
A soft-rot test was carried out in the fungus cellar using both Dorman and Saucier soils. In
general, the DDAC:CTN formulation was slightly less effective against the soft-rot fungi
than the CCA and penta controls after 62-weeks exposure (Table 4.4.1.1 and Figures 4.4.1.1
and 4.4.1.2), with the Duncan's results in Tables 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3. Nevertheless, this
experimental formulation shows promise in this particular test.
4.4.2 Biocide Depletion in the Fungus Cellar
It is apparent from the data in Tables 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 and Figures 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 that
the amount of CTN leached from the treated wood is considerably greater than that for CCA.
However, the biocide leaching rate decreased sharply after the initial 12-weeks exposure so
the long term effect may not be as bad as the initial data indicates. The comparative
leachability of DDAC and CTN from several other water-borne formulations were also tested
with the data presented in Table 4.4.2.3. This comparative data suggest that it may be
possible to develop formulations that are less susceptible to leaching.
4.4.3 Biocide Depletion in the Field Ground Contact Test
The depletion of CTN from the field stakes after 1-year exposure is very high (Table 4.4.3.1)
but did not further increase after 2-years exposure (Table 4.4.3.2). The depletion of DDAC
from these stakes was somewhat less, but still greater than that found in some of the other
formulations. There does not appear to be any major differences in the amount of biocide
leaching in the two different soils used in this experiment (Figures 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2).
These depletion results are comparable to the depletion observed in the fungus cellar test
discussed above (Section 4.4.2.).
18
-------
4.4.4 Field Ground Contact Decay and Termite Test
Decay and termite ratings for field stakes treated with this formulation along with the CCA
controls are presented in Table 4.4.4.1 with the Duncan's results in Tables 4.4.4.2 to 4.4.4.5.
With the exception of a few of the lower retentions, all of the treatments are performing
satisfactorily. All of the formulations, including CCA, are somewhat less effective against
termites (Figures 4.4.4.1 and 4.4.4.2). Several years of additional exposure time will be
required before the efficacy of these formulations can be determined.
4.4.5 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Test
It is apparent from the data in Table 4.4.5.1 that an excessive amount of both DDAC and
CTN has leached from the L-joints after only 1-year exposure which was also observed in
the other two tests. This abnormally high preservative loss will undoubtedly have a
significant effect on the service life of these treated specimens. The effect of the sample size,
however, which was discussed earlier in Section 3.3.8, makes all depletion data from above-
ground samples questionable.
4.4.6 Above-ground Decay Tests
At this time all of the L-joints are performing satisfactorily (Table 4.4.6.1), with the
Duncan's results in Tables 4.4.6.2 and 4.4.6.3. However, several more years exposure will
be required before any definitive conclusions can be made concerning the efficacy of these
formulations, since everything but the Hilo-control samples are all 10's.
4.5 WATER-BORNE DIDECYLDIMETHYLAMMONIUM
CHLORIDE:SODIUM OMADINE (DDAC:NaO)
4.5.1 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test
It is apparent from the data in Table 4.5.1.1 that there is no loss of DDAC from the L-joints
after 1-year exposure. Hence, biocide leaching should be a minor factor in the long term
performance of this preservative formulation. The size effect, discussed in Section 3.3.8,
makes it difficult to interpret depletion data from the L-joint samples, however.
4.5.2 Above-ground Decay Test
The results are given in Table 4.5.2.1 and Figures 4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2. The CCA-trcated
samples are all showing excellent results. The Hilo site shows more variation, as expected
from the warmer and wetter conditions at Hilo as compared to Saucier. It appears that this
19
-------
formulation may not be an acceptable preservative, based on the relatively poor results after
only 2.5 years at Hilo, as can be seen from the Duncan's tests (Tables 4.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3).
WATER-BORNE DIDECYLDIMETHYL AMMONIUM
CHLORIDE:SODIUM OMADINE: WATER REPELLANT
(DDAC:NaO:PABA)
4.6.1 Biocide Depletion in the Above-ground Decay Test
Overall, it does not appear that any appreciable amount of DDAC leaches from the L-joints
when they are subjected to exterior exposure (Table 4.6.1.1). As noted, one of the retention
values shown in the Table is very low but in view of the other data this is not realistic and
needs to be re-evaluated. This may be partly due to the size effect discussed in Section 3.3.8.
4.6.2 Above-ground decay test
It is apparent from the data in Table 4.6.2.1 that all of the treated L-joints are totally sound
after 2-years exposure. Several years additional exposure time will be required before the
long term efficacy of this formulation can be determined. At this time, however, it appears
that this formulation is performing as well as the CCA-treated samples not treated with the
PABA water repellant (4.5.2). The Duncan's data is given in Tables 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3.
20
-------
5
FUTURE WORK
The fungal cellar samples have all been pulled and no further strength loss data will be determined.
However, we will continue to conduct yearly inspections on the field ground-contact and above-
ground samples even though this project has officially ended. These inspections will continue until
a particular formulation has been shown to be much worse then the positive controls (CCA and/or
penta), or until 7-years exposure data has been collected which shows that the particular formulation
is performing adequately.
While the outdoor exposure time is limited to two or three years so far, it appears that two of the four
water-borne formulations examined are preforming poorly: DDAC:TBP and the DDAC:NaO system
used only for above-ground samples. The DDAC:TBP-treated stakes are giving very poor results
after only 2-years exposure, probably due to high TBP depletions. The halogenated phenol, which
would likely face poor user acceptance, further makes this system doubtful as a commercial wood
preservative. We also have concerns about the DDAC:NaO above-ground system, due to the
relatively poor decay ratings obtained at the Hilo site.
In contrast to the poor results discussed above, two systems appear - so far - to give results which
are approximately comparable to the commercial preservatives CCA and/or penta. These are the oil-
borne DDAC:CTN and the DDAC:NaO:PABA (water repellant) systems. Further exposure time
is needed to verify the initial positive results. Additional time will also determine the effectiveness
of the water-borne DDAC:CTN system. Further formulation work on this particular system, directed
towards minimizing the relatively high depletion of CTN, may be necessary, however.
21
-------
6
LITERATURE CITED
Archer, K., D.D. Nicholas and T.P. Schultz. 1995. Screening of wood preservatives: Comparison
of the soil-block, agar-block, and agar-plate tests. Forest Products Journal 45(l):86-89.
AWPA Standards. 1997. American Wood-Preservers'Association - Standards 1997. Gransbury,
TX.
Chen, A.S.C. 1994. Evaluating ACQ as an alternative wood preservative system. Final report to
the EPA, Contract 68-C0-0003. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH, and references therein.
FPS Proceedings. 1995. Wood Preservation in the '90s and Beyond. FPS Proceedings No. 7308,
Madison, WI, and references therein.
Mickelwright, J.T. 1992. Wood preservation statistics, 1990. AWPA, Granbury, TX.
Nicholas, D.D. and K.J. Archer. 1995. Soil beds for testing wood preservatives. In: Wood
Preservation in the '90s and Beyond. FPS Proceedings No. 7308, Madison, WI.
Nicholas, D.D. and T.P. Schultz. 1995. Biocides that have potential as wood preservatives - An
overview. In: Wood Preservation in the '90s and Beyond. FPS Proceedings No. 7308, Madison, WI.
Preston, A.F. 1993. Wood preservation: Extending the forest resource. Journal of Forestry
91(11): 16-18.
Schultz, T.P. and D.D. Nicholas. 1995. Utilizing synergism to develop new wood preservatives.
In: Wood Preservation in the '90's and Beyond. FPS Proceedings No. 7308, Madison, WI.
Walker, L.E. 1995. Alkylammonium compounds as wood preservatives. In: Wood Preservation
in the '90s and Beyond. FPS Proceedings No. 7308, Madison, WI.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
TREATMENT FORMULATIONS
-------
Appendix 4.2. Treatment Information the Oil-Borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
F4226189
80
Chlorothalonil
ISK
UN2881
100
KB 3
Eastman
R674-01UN
100
Toluene
Exxon
56023004
100
Diesel
100
Charge
Treatment Components
1C
25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
2C
0.5% DDAC + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
3C
0.75% DDAC + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
4C
1.0% DDAC + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
5C
1.5% DDAC + 25%; Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
6C
0.25% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
7C
0.5% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
8C
1.0% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
9C
0.189% DDAC + 0.063% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
10C
0.375% DDAC + 0.125% CTN + 25% Diescl/KB3 + 75% Toluene
11C
0.50% DDAC + 0.167% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
12C
0.75% DDAC + 0.250% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
13C
1.0% DDAC + 0.333% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
14C
0.20% DDAC + 0.04% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
15C
0.40% DDAC + 0.08% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
16C
0.625% DDAC + 0.125% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
17C
0.750% DDAC + 0.150% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
18C
1.0% DDAC + 0.20% CTN + 25% Diesel/KB3 + 75% Toluene
23
-------
Appendix 4.3. Treatment Information for the Water-Borne DDAC:Tribromophenol Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
F4226189
80
TBP
Aldrich
02712MT
100
Tween 40
Aldrich
07927AG
100
1-Butanol
Aldrich
0290HF
100
Charge
Treatment Components
1
6% Butanol + Water
2
0.5% DDAC + Water
3
0.75% DDAC + Water
4
1.0% DDAC + Water
5
1.5% DDAC + Water
6
0.5% DDAC + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
7
0.75% DDAC + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
8
1.0% DDAC + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
9
1.50% DDAC + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
10
0.25% TBP + 1.30% Tween 40 + 0.5% 1 N-Butanol + Water
11
0.5% TBP + 2.7% Tween 40 + 1.5% 1 N-Butanol + Water
13
0.25% DDAC + 0.25% TBP + 0.85% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
14
0.35% DDAC + 0.35% TBP + 1.0% Tween 40 + 3.4% 1 N-Butanol + Water
15
0.5% DDAC + 0.5% TBP + 1.5% Tween 40 + 0.5% 1 N-Butanol + Water
16
0.75% DDAC + 0.75% TBP + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
17
1.0% DDAC + 1.0% TBP + 1.5% Tween 40 + 0.5% 1 N-Butanol + Water
18
0.375% DDAC + 0.125% TBP + 1.0% Tween 40 + 0.3% 1 N-Butanol + Water
19
0.5% DDAC + 0.167% TBP + 1.0% Tween 40 + 0.3% 1 N-Butanol + Water
20
0.75% DDAC + 0.25% TBP + 1.0% Tween 40 + 0.3% 1 N-Butanol + Water
21
1.0% DDAC + 0.33% TBP + 1.10% Tween 40 + 0.5% 1 N-Butanol + Water
22
1.5% DDAC + 0.5% TBP + 2.0% Tween 40 + 0.7% 1 N-Butanol + Water
23
0.25% DDAC + 1.95% Tween 40 + 1.88% 1 N-Butanol + Water
24
0.125% DDAC + 0.125% TBP + 1.0% Tween 40 + 0.0% 1 N-Butanol + Water
25
0.189% DDAC + 0.063% TBP + 0.2% Tween 40 + 0.2% 1 N-Butanol + Water
26
0.25% DDAC + Water
24
-------
Appendix 4.3.(con't) Treatment Information for the Water-Borne DDAC:Tribromophenol Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
F4226189
80
TBP
Aldrich
02712MT
100
Tween 40
Aldrich
07927AG
100
1-Butanol
Aldrich
0290HF
100
Charge
Treatment Components
28
1.0% CCA
29
0.630% C-CCA + Water
30
0.370% C-CCA + Water
31
0.19% C-CCA + Water
25
-------
Appendix 4.4. Treatment Information for the Water-Borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
B5227262
80
Chlorothalonil
ISK
UN2811
100
Xylene
Aldrich
00408KG
100
Charge
Treatment Components
1
Water
2
0.5% DDAC + 1.67% Zylene + Water
3
0.75% DDAC + 2.50% Zylene + Water
4
1.0% DDAC + 3.33% Zylene + Water
5
1.5% DDAC + 4.93% Zylene + Water
6
0.189% DDAC + 0.063% CTN + 1.67% Zylene + Water
7
0.375% DDAC + 0.125% CTN + Zylene + Water
8
0.50% DDAC + 0.167% CTN + Zylene + Water
9
0.75% DDAC + 0.25%) CTN + Zylene + Water
10
0.189% DDAC + 0.063% CTN + Zylene + Water
11
0.20% DDAC + 0.04% CTN + Zylene + Water
12
0.40% DDAC + 0.08% CTN + Zylene + Water
13
0.625% DDAC + 0.125% CTN + Zylene + Water
14
0.75% DDAC + 0.15% CTN + Zylene + Water
15
0.10% DDAC + 0.20% CTN + 1.67% Zylene + Water
16
0.25%; DDAC + 1.67% Zylene + Water
17
0.093% DDAC + 0.031% CTN + Zylene + Water
18
0.105% DDAC + 0.021 CTN + Zylene + Water
26
-------
Appendix 4.5. Treatment Information for L-Joints and Positive Controls for the DDAC and Sodium Omadine
Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
F4226189
80
Na Omadine
Olin
4RC-124-P-007
40
Charge
Treatment Components
Nal
Water
Na2
0.25% DDAC + Water
Na3
0.50% DDAC + Water
Na4
0.750% DDAC + Water
Na5
1.0% DDAC + Water
Na6
0.05% Na Omadine + Water
Na7
0.10% Na Omadine + Water
Na8
0.20% Na Omadine + Water
Na9
0.40% Na Omadine + Water
NalO
0.10% DDAC + 0.02% Na Omadine + Water
Nail
0.20% DDAC + 0.05% Na Omadine + Water
Nal2
0.40% DDAC + 0.10% Na Omadine + Water
Nal3
0.60% DDAC + 0.15% Na Omadine + Water
Nal4
0.80%' DDAC + 0.20% Na Omadine + Water
Nal5
0.15% DDAC + 0.02%) Na Omadine + Water
Nal6
0.20% DDAC + 0.03% Na Omadine + Water
Nal7
0.40%) DDAC + 0.06 Na Omadine + Water
Nal8
0.6% DDAC + 0.09% Na Omadine + Water
Nal9
0.8% DDAC + 0.110% Na Omadine + Water
Na20
0.19% CCA + Water
Na21
0.370% CCA + Water
Na22
0.63% CCA + Water
PI
0.5% Penta + 25% KB3/Diesel + 75% Toluene
P2
1.0% Penta + 25% KB3/Diesel + 75% Toluene
P3
1.5% Penta + 25% KB3/Diesel + 75% Toluene
27
-------
Appendix 4.6. Treatment Information for L-Joints for the DDACrNa Omadine + PABA Formulations.
Component
Manufacturer
Lot No.
% a.i.
DDAC
Lonza
F4226189
80
Na Omadine
Olin
4RC-124-P-007
40
Palmitic Acid
Aldrich Chemical
10808CY
90
Butylamine
Aldrich Chemical
08629CN
100
Butylamine
Aldrich Chemical
05026DN
100
Charge
Treatment Components
1
5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
2
0.25% DDAC + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
3
0.50% DDAC + 0.50% DDAC + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
4
0.75% DDAC + 0.25% DDAC + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
5
1.0% DDAC + 1.0 % DDAC + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
6
0.05% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
7
0.10% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
8
0.20% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
9
0.40% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
10
0.10% DDAC + 0.02% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
11
0.20% DDAC + 0.05% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
12
0.40% DDAC + 0.10% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
13
0.60% DDAC + 0.15% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
14
0.80% DDAC + 0.20% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3%; Butyl Carbitol + Water
15
0.15% DDAC + 0.02% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
16
0.20% DDAC + 0.03% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
17
0.40% DDAC + 0.06% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
18
0.60% DDAC + 0.09% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
19
0.80% DDAC + 0.10% Na Omadine + 5% Palmitic Acid + 3% Butyl Amine + 3% Butyl Carbitol + Water
28
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES
-------
Table 4.2.1.1 Average Strength Loss of 3mm Stakes treated with the Oil-borne DDAC:CTN Formulation after 96-
weeks Exposure in the Fungus Cellar. CCA and Penta are the water and oil-borne positive controls,
respectively.
RETENTION
AVERAGE % STRENGTH LOSS
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FUNGUS CELLAR
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
FUNGUS CELLAR
96 WEEKS
DORMAN
SOIL2
FUNGUS CELLAR
96 WEEKS
SAUCIER
SOIL
UNTREATED
CONTROLS
0.000
96.89
+ 1.88
100
±0.00
CONTROLS
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)'
0.000
44.16
+ 10.22
64.46
±20.86
DDAC
0.141
37.78
+ 7.97
56.84
±8.86
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.211
27.64
+ 6.38
39.54
±8.95
0.293
34.46
+ 7.62
49.31
±11.42
0.413
33.44
+ 6.68
45.65
±9.38
CTN
0.079
23.72
+ 6.43
35.66
+ 7.35
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.133
23.42
+ 5.76
23.06
+ 8.57
0.318
19.43
+ 1.85
19.52
±3.60
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.074
33.52
+ 6.69
49.61
+ 15.65
(TO LU EN E\DS L\K H 3)
0.157
30.71
+ 7.60
37.27
±6.55
0.180
35.06
+ 6.68
48.72
5.83
0.312
32.40
+ 5.74
52.73
±15.36
0.373
28.21
+ 5.53
49.90
+ 8.61
DDAC.CTN (5:1)
0.068
38.96
+ 12.66
59.16
+ 8.52
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.144
38.74
+ 6.61
55.22
+ 10.85
0.215
30.59
+ 4.28
40.54
±6.10
0.255
26.00
+ 5.79
39.54
±13.72
0.327
30.40
+ 5.21
38.99
+ 11.48
CCA
0.146
28.42
+ 2.30
22.92
±3.52
(WATER)
0.290
28.99
+ 5.66
25.28
+ 5.75
0.475
25.94
+ 3.88
28.79
+7.07
PENTA
0.170
39.25
+ 9.32
51.38
±7.78
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.302
33.40
+ 11.73
44.38
±8.75
0.470
32.47
+ 5.61
41.25
+ 8.97
' Total pcf retentions of DDAC and DDAC+Chlorothalonil were calculated on the basis of weight
gain and solution concentration.
2 Average of 6 replicates; + = Standard Deviation
3 DSL = Diesel
29
-------
Table 4.2.1.2 Analysis of variance for Oil-borne DDAC:CTN treated Fungus Cellar stakes Exposed
to Dorman Soil for 96-weeks.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strength
Loss
T Grouping1
CTN in Toluene
0.318
19.43
I
CTN in Toluene
0.133
23.42
H
I
CTN in Toluene
0.079
23.72
G
H
I
CCA in Water
0.475
25.94
F
G
H
I
DDAC: CTN (5:1)
0.255
26.00
F
G
H
I
DDAC in Toluene
0.211
27.64
F
G
H
I
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.373
28.21
E
F
G
H
I
CCA in Water
0.146
28.42
E
F
G
H
I
CCA in Water
0.290
28.99
D
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.321
30.40
C
D
E
F
G
G
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.215
30.59
C
D
E
F
G
H
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.157
30.71
C
D
E
F
G
H
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.312
32.40
C
D
E
F
G
H
Penta in Toluene
0.470
32.47
C
D
E
F
G
H
Penta in Toluene
0.302
33.40
C
D
E
F
G
H
DDAC in Toluene
0.413
33.44
C
D
E
F
G
H
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.074
33.52
C
D
E
F
G
DDAC in Toluene
0.293
34.46
B
C
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.180
35.06
B
C
D
E
F
DDAC in Toluene
0.141
37.78
B
C
D
E
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.144
38.74
B
C
D
DDAC-.CTN (5:1)
0.068
38.95
B
C
D
Penta in Toluene
0.170
39.25
B
C
Controls Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.000
44.16
B
Untreated Controls
0.000
96.89
A
'Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
30
-------
Table 4.2.1.3 Analysis of variance for Oil-borne DDAC:CTN treated Fungus Cellar stakes Exposed to Saucier
Soil for 96-weeks.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strength
Loss
T Grouping1
CTN in Toluene
0.318
19.52
M
CCA in Water
0.146
22.92
M
CTN in Toluene
0.133
23.06
L
M
CCA in Water
0.290
25.28
L
M
CCA in Water
0.475
28.79
K
L
M
CTN in Toluene
0.079
35.66
J
K
L
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.157
37.27
I
J
K
L
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.327
38.99
H
I
J
K
DDAC in Toluene
0.211
39.54
G
H
I
J
K
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.255
39.54
F
G
G
I
J
K
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.215
40.54
F
G
H
I
J
K
Penta in Toluene
0.470
41.53
F
G
H
I
J
Penta in Toluene
0.302
44.38
E
F
G
H
I
J
DDAC in Toluene
0.413
45.65
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.180
48.73
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC in Toluene
0.293
49.31
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.074
49.61
C
D
E
F
G
H
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.373
49.90
C
D
E
F
G
H
Penta in Toluene
0.170
51.38
C
D
E
F
G
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.312
52.73
B
C
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.144
55.22
B
C
D
E
DDAC in Toluene
0.141
56.84
B
C
D
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.068
59.16
B
C
Controls Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.00
64.46
B
Untreated Controls
0.00
100.00
A
'Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
31
-------
Table 4.2.2.1 Average Depletion From Oil-borne DDACrChlorothalonil Treated Fungus Cellar
Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
12-WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
CTN
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.043
58.1
...
27.3
...
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.190
0.078
5.3
51.7
...
5.4
53.3
...
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.192
0.058
13.2
71.0
—
2.6
70.7
...
CCA
0.053
—
...
15.8
—
—
20.9
(WATER)
0.235
—
—
18.4
—
—
15.1
0.396
—
...
7.9
...
...
9.5
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
Table 4.2.2.2 Average Depletion From Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes
After 36-Weeks Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
36-WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
CTN
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)
0.043
34.7
-
35.6
-
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)
0.190
0.078
-16.4'
62.9
-
-31.9'
38.4
-
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.192
0.058
-29.9'
70.2
-
-33.4'
71.4
-
CCA
0.053
—
—
30.7
—
—
53.1
(WATER)
0.235
—
—
18.0
—
—
15.9
0.396
-
-
13.3
-
-
12.8
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
"Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
"The negative DDAC numbers are probably due to the oil migration down the stake.
32
-------
Table 4.2.3.1 Average Depletion of Oil-borne DDAC and Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes
After 1-Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
CTN
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)
0.072
—
12.8
—
—
28.7
...
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)
0.218
0.073
2.0
44.8
—
-15.2
67.3
...
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.022
0.043
-9.3
71.2
—
-17.5
62.9
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.069
—
—
35.9
—
...
18.5
0.234
—
—
7.6
...
...
8.4
0.377
—
—
3.2
...
...
1.3
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separ ate analysis of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
Table 4.2.3.2 Average Depletion of Oil-borne DDAC and Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes
After 3-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
CTN
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.072
...
23.6
...
...
38.1
...
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(TOLUENE/DSLVKB3)
0.218
0.073
6.7
32.2
...
8.1
35.3
—
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)
0.022
0.043
3.6
37.1
...
5.9
43.2
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.069
...
...
15.3
...
...
26.1
0.234
...
...
33.5
...
...
28.7
0.377
—
...
32.3
...
...
22.9
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analysis of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
33
-------
Table 4.2.4.1 Average Decay and Termite Ratings For Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated
Field Stakes.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FIELD STAKES
AVERAGE
TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
3-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING1
DORMAN3
SAUCIER
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
UNTREATED
CONTROLS
0
2.2 ±0.4
1.7 ±0.2
0.4 ± 1.2
0.4 ± 1.2
SOLVENT
CONTROLS
(TOLUENE/DSL/KB3)2
0
9.5 ±0.7
9.3 ±0.7
8.4 ±2.3
8.3 ±2.4
DDAC
0.138
9.5 + 0.8
9.5+0.7
9.2 + 0.8
9.0 + 0.9
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.205
9.5 + 1.0
9.7 + 0.6
9.6 + 0.6
9.4 + 0.6
0.281
9.9 + 0.3
9.9 + 0.3
9.9 + 0.3
9.3 + 0.9
0.436
10.0 + 0.0
9.9 + 0.2
9.8 + 0.5
9.8 + 0.4
CTN
0.072
9.9 + 0.3
9.6 + 0.7
9.7 + 0.6
9.4 + 0.8
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.142
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.5
9.6 + 0.8
0.292
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.4
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.074
9.8 + 0.4
9.7 + 0.4
9.3 + 0.7
9.1 + 1.0
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.142
9.7 + 0.6
9.7 + 0.6
9.9 + 0.3
9.1 + 1.0
0.189
9.9 + 0.3
9.7 + 0.5
9.9 + 0.3
9.7 + 0.5
0.286
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.4
9.9 + 0.2
9.6 + 0.5
0.386
9.9 ±0.3
9.6 + 0.6
9.7 + 0.4
9.3 + 0.9
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.069
9.9 + 0.3
9.6 + 0.6
9.5 + 0.8
8.8 + 0.7
(TOLUENE\DSL\KB3)
0.138
9.8 + 0.4
9.5+0.6
9.8 + 0.4
9.3 + 0.8
0.22
9.9 ±0.3
9.7 + 0.6
9.9 + 0.3
9.5 + 0.7
0.259
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.4
9.8 + 0.5
9.5 + 0.5
0.346
9.9 + 0 3
9.9 + 0 3
9.8 + 0.4
9.7 + 0.4
Average of 15 stakes
275% toluene and 25% diesel/KB3 (9:1)
310=No Decay, 0=FaiIure.
34
-------
Table 4.2.4.1(con't). Average Decay and Termite Ratings For Oil-borne
DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated Field Stakes.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FIELD STAKES
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
3-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING1
DORM AN
SAUCIER
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
CCA
(WATER)
0.100
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.117
9.3+2.4
9.1+2.5
9.3 ±2.4
9.2 + 1.1
0.386
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.5
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.5
PENTA
0.148
10.0 + 0.0
9.9 + 0.3
9.5 + 0.6
9.4 + 0.6
(TOLU EN E\DS L\K B 3)
0.294
9.9 ±0.3
9.9 + 0.3
9.9 ±0.2
9.5 ±0.5
0.465
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
9.9 + 0.2
9.9 + 0.3
'Average of 15 stakes
275% toluene and 25% diesel/KB3 (9:1)
310=No decay, 0=Failure.
35
-------
Table 4.2.4.2 Analysis of variance of termite ratings for Oil-borne DDAC: Chlorothalonil treated
Field stakes exposed at Saucier for 3-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.100
10.00
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.465
9.90
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.292
9.80
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.436
9.80
A
CCA in Water
0.386
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.346
9.70
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.189
9.70
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.286
9.60
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.142
9.60
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.294
9.50
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.259
9.50
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.220
9.50
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.148
9.40
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.072
9.40
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.386
9.30
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.281
9.30
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.138
9.30
A
CCA in Water
0.117
9.20
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.142
9.10
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.074
9.10
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.138
9.00
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.069
8.80
A
Solvent Controls:Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.000
8.30
A
Untreated Controls
0.000
0.40
B
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
36
-------
Table 4.2.4.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Oil-borne DDAC:ChIorothaloniI treated Field
stakes exposed at Saucier for 3-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.386
10.00
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.292
10.00
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.036
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.100
10.00
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in ToIuene/DSL/KB3
0.436
10.00
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.286
9.90
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.220
9.90
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB 3
0.281
9.90
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.142
9.90
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.465
9.90
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.189
9.90
A
Penta in Tol uene/DSL/KB 3
0.294
9.90
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.142
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.259
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.138
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.386
9.70
A
CTN in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.072
9.70
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.205
9.60
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.148
9.50
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.069
9.50
A
CCA in Water
0.117
9.30
A
DDAC in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.138
9.20
A
Solvent Controls:Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.000
8.40
A
Untreated Controls
0.000
0.40
B
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
37
-------
Tabic 4.2.4.4 Analysis of variance of termite ratings for Oil-borne DDAC:ChIorothaloniI treated Field stakes
exposed at Dorman for 3-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.142
10.0
A
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.292
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.100
10.0
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.465
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.346
9.93
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.294
9.93
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.436
9.93
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.148
9.93
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.281
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.286
9.80
A
B
CCA in Water
0.386
9.80
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.259
9.80
A
B
DDAC.CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.220
9.73
A
B
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.205
9.73
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.074
9.70
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.142
9.70
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.189
9.67
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.386
9.60
A
B
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.072
9.60
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.069
9.60
A
B
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.138
9.53
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.138
9.50
A
B
Solvent Controls:Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.000
9.33
B
CCA in Water
0.117
9.13
B
Untreated Controls
0.000
1.67
C
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
38
-------
Table 4.2.4.5 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil treated Field stakes
exposed at Dorman for 3-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.142
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.386
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.100
10.0
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.436
10.0
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.465
10.0
A
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.292
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.286
10.0
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.148
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.259
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.346
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.189
9.93
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.281
9.93
A
Penta in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.294
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.386
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.069
9.86
A
CTN in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.072
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.220
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.138
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.074
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.142
9.73
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.138
9.53
A
DDAC in Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.205
9.53
A
Solvent Controls:Toluene\DSL\KB3
0.000
9.53
A
CCA in Water
0.117
9.33
A
Untreated Controls
0.000
2.20
B
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
39
-------
Tabic 4.3.1.1 Average Strength Loss of Stakes Treated With the Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Formulation after 80-Weeks Exposure in the Fungus Cellar.
RETENTION
AVERAGE % STRENGTH LOSS2
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FUNGUS CELLAR
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION 1
(pcf)
FUNGUS CELLAR
80 WEEKS
DORMAN
SOIL
FUNGUS CELLAR
80 WEEKS
SAUCIER
SOIL
CONTROL
0.00
77.42
± 19.06
56.78
± 13.59
DDAC
0.21
64.48
+ 17.65
38.06
+ 7.26
(WATER)
0.34
48.23
+ 7.87
42.30
± 12.17
0.45
34.44
+ 8.31
35.00
±5.96
0.63
34.95
+ 10.08
28.22
±6.26
DDAC
0.21
81.41
+ 26.29
36.79
±9.99
(Twccn 40+N-butanol+water)
0.31
75.78
+ 18.68
34.62
±6.41
0.41
39.68
+ 8.27
27.94
±6.65
0.62
32.07
+ 12.30
20.19
±9.26
TBP
0.11
76.53
+ 22.20
45.92
± 12.49
(Twccn 40+N-butanol+water)
0.19
76.91
+ 21.35
47.38
+ 5.21
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.25
83.51
+ 13.83
39.04
±8.80
(Tween 40+N-butanol+watcr)
0.30
52.29
+ 20.20
30.26
+ 13.81
0.43
49.86
+ 21.12
30.82
+ 11.80
0.69
40.84
+ 17.88
24.48
+ 7.42
0.83
37.82
+ 13.85
25.50
±5.53
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
65.08
+ 21.46
43.49
+ 14.71
(Twccn 40+N-butanol+watcr)
0.23
76.11
+ 23.39
36.08
+ 8.01
0.39
44.63
+ 15.22
25.00
+ 5.57
0.54
38.58
+ 12.58
25.59
+ 5.31
0.89
32.90
+ 11.64
25.64
±5.01
CCA
(WATER)
0.16
16.39
+ 8.28
18.92
±3.10
0.27
18.54
+ 4.03
15.91
+ 7.09
0 4 fs
+ 9 97
?n in
+ S SO
Total retentions were calculated on the basis of weight gain and solution concentration.
Average of 6 replicates; ± = Standard Deviation
-------
Table 4.3.1.2 Analysis of variance for Water-borne DDAC:TribromophenoI treated Fungus Cellar stakes
exposed to Dorman soil for 80-weeks.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strength
Loss
T Grouping1
CCA in Water
0.16
16.39
I
CCA in Water
0.27
18.54
H
I
CCA in Water
0.46
30.88
G
H
I
DDAC
0.62
32.07
F
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.89
32.91
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC in Water
0.45
34.44
E
F
G
H
DDAC in Water
0.63
34.96
E
F
G
H
DDAGTBP (1:1)
0.83
37.83
D
E
F
G
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.54
38.58
D
E
F
G
DDAC
0.41
39.68
D
E
F
G
DDAGTBP (1:1)
0.69
40.84
D
E
F
G
DDAGTBP (3:1)
0.39
44.63
D
E
F
G
DDAC in Water
0.34
48.23
C
D
E
F
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.43
49.87
C
D
E
DDAGTBP (1:1)
0.30
52.29
C
D
DDAC in Water
0.21
64.48
B
C
DDAGTBP (3:1)
0.21
65.08
B
C
DDAC
0.31
75.78
B
C
DDAGTBP (3:1)
0.23
76.11
A
B
TBP
0.11
76.53
A
B
TBP
0.19
76.91
A
B
Untreated Control
0.00
77.42
A
B
DDAC
0.21
81.41
A
B
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.25
83.51
A
'Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
41
-------
Table 4.3.1.3 Analysis of variance for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol treated Fungus Cellar stakes
exposed to Saucier soil for 80-weeks.
T reatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strength
Loss
T Grouping1
CCA in Water
0.27
15.91
I
CCA in Water
0.16
18.92
H
I
DDAC
0.62
20.20
H
I
CCA in Water
0.46
20.27
H
I
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.69
24.48
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.39
25.00
F
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.83
25.50
F
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.54
25.59
F
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.89
25.64
F
G
H
I
DDAC
0.41
27.94
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC in Water
0.63
28.22
E
F
G
H
I
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.30
30.26
E
F
G
H
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.43
30.82
E
F
G
H
DDAC
0.31
34.62
D
E
F
G
DDAC in Water
0.45
35.00
C
D
E
F
G
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.23
36.08
C
D
E
F
DDAC
0.21
36.80
B
C
D
E
DDAC in Water
0.21
38.06
B
C
D
E
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.25
39.04
B
C
D
E
DDAC in Water
0.34
42.30
B
C
D
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
43.49
B
C
D
TBP
0.11
45.92
A
B
C
TBP
0.19
47.38
A
B
Untreated Control
0.00
56.78
A
'Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
42
-------
Table 4.3.2.1 Average Depletion From Water-borne DDAC:TribromophenoI Treated Fungus
Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
12 WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
(Tween 40+N-butanol+watcr)
0.280
20.2
...
...
20.5
...
...
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+watcr)
0.220
0.220
25.5
66.5
—
32.1
80.0
...
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.290
0.100
27.1
61.0
...
31.9
69.8
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.400
—
...
14.0
...
...
23.6
0.300
—
—
9.4
—
—
24.1
0.090
—
—
15.7
—
—
32.3
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
Table 4.3.2.2 Average Depletion From Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated Fungus
Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
36 WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.300
40.1
...
...
49.9
...
—
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.210
0.210
44.4
87.1
...
54.4
96.5
...
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+watcr)
0.240
0.080
38.3
84.1
...
51.2
91.3
—
CCA
(WATER)
0.140
...
...
23.4
...
...
31.5
0.260
...
...
8.1
...
...
20.6
0.440
...
...
11.0
...
...
16.5
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2
Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
43
-------
Table 4.3.3.1 Average Depletion of Water-borne DDACrTribromophenol Treated Field Stakes
After 1-Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.290
0.000
4.8
—
...
6.6
...
...
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.190
0.190
8.8
24.7
...
5.0
65.2
...
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.240
0.080
4.6
21.9
...
4.9
27.9
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.070
—
...
7.1
...
...
23.4
0.270
—
—
0.7
—
—
13.0
0.410
—
—
0.2
—
—
17.2
Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Averagc of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
Table 4.3.3.2 Average Depletion of Water-borne DDACrTribromophenol Treated Field Stakes After
2-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
TBP
CCA
DDAC
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.290
0.000
45.3
...
...
42.5
...
...
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.190
0.190
44.7
79.6
...
43.1
83.2
...
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.240
0.080
32.5
70.7
...
28.8
93.7
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.070
...
24.2
...
26.4
0.270
—
23.1
...
24.2
0.410
...
17.8
...
21.2
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2
Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
44
-------
Table 4.3.4.1 Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne DDAC;TribromophenoI Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure
BIOCIDE
FIELD STAKES
1-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING
(SOLVENT)
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
(ncfl
DORMAN2 1
SAUCIER
dort
rfAN
SAIJCIF.R
DECAY
TF.RMTTF.
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
CONTROL
0.00
7± 1.7
9+ 1.7
4.5 ±4.5
.5.6 ±4.0
3.3 ±4.4
3.2 ±3.7
3.0 + 3.9
1.3 ±3.5
DDAC
0.21
10+0
10 + 0
10 + 0
10+0
9.3+0.8
9.4 + 0.9
9.8 + 0.4
7.3 + 2.5
(WATER)
0.31
10±0
10 + 0
10±0
9.8 ±.6
9.3 ±0.9
9.1 ± 1.0
9.4 ±1.6
8.3 ± 1.8
0.39
10±0
10±0
10±0
9.9 ±.25
9.7 ±0.5
9.6 ±0.5
9.7 + 0.5
8.7 ±0.9
0.60
10±0
10 + 0
10±0
10±0
9.9 ±0.3
9.7 + 0.5
9.8 + 0.4
9.0 + 0.7
DDAC
0.20
10+ 0
10 + 0
9.9 ±0.4
9.4 ± 1.2
9.4 ± 1.0
9.3+1.0
9.7+0.5
7.2 + 2.6
(Tween 40+N-bulanol+water)
0.28
10±0
10 + 0
9.9 ±0.4
9.7 ±.6
9.3 ± 1.6
9.4 + 0.7
9.9 + 0.4
8.4 ± 1.0
0.29
10±0
10±0
10±0
9.7 ±.6
9.6 ±0.7
9.3 ±0.9
9.9 ±0.4
8.4 ±0.6
0.58
10±0
10±0
10±0
10±0
9.7 ±1.1
9.8 ±0.6
10±0
9.2 ±0.8
TBP
0.10
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.2 + 0.6
8.1 + 2.9
7.9 + 2.7
6.4 + 4.2
5.3 + 4.5
2.4 + 3.7
(Tween 4n+N-hiitannl+w3ler1
0 16
9 9 + 36
q q + 36
97 + 06
89+14
83 + 34
8 7+16
6 6 + 4?
?9 + 35
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.19
10+ 0
10±0
9.8 ± .0.4
9.5 ±.7
8.8 ±2.3
9.4 ± 1.1
9.7 + 0.5
6.2 ±3.7
(Tween 40+N-butanoI+water)_
0.26
9.9 + 0
10 + 0
9.9 + 0.2
9.5 + 1.2
9.7 + 0.7
9.4 + 1.1
9.7 + 0.6
6.6 + 2.5
0.38
10±0
10±0
10±0
10± 0
9.9 ±0.5
9.6 ±0.7
9.9 ±0.3
8.6 ±1.8
0.57
10±0
10j;0
10±0
9.9 ±.5
9.9 ±0.3
9.9 + 0.6
10 + 0
9.4 ± 0.9
0.68
10 + 0
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.9 + .3
9.9 + 0.3
9.8 ±0.4
9.9 ±0.3
9.2 ±0.9
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.19
10±0
10_+ 0
10±0
9.5 ±.7
9.7 ±0.6
8.9 ± 1.2
9.1 ±2.7
6.6 + 3.0
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.21
10 + 0
10+0
10 + 0
9.5 + .9
9.8+0.6
9.5+1.8
9.9 + 0.4
7.8 + 1.4
0.33
9.9 +.26
9.9 ± .26
10±0
9.9 ±.3
9.9 ±0.3
9.5 ±0.5
10±0
8.9 ±1.0
0.49
10 + 0
10±0
10±0
10±0
9.3 ±2.3
9.5 ±0.7
9.7 ±0.4
9.1 +0.9
0.74
10±0
10±0
10±0
10±0
10±0
9.9 ±0.3
9.9 ±0.3
9.7 ±0.5
CCA
0.15
10 + 0
10 + 0
10±0
9.9 + 0.3
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.9 + 0.3
9.9 + 0.3
(WATER)
0.26
10 ±.27
9.9 ±.27
10±0
10±0
9.9 ±0.3
9.4 ±0.4
10±0
9.8 ±0.5
041
Q9 + 0
10 + 0
10 + 0
io + n
in + n
99 + 03
>0 + 0
94 + 08
'Average of 15 stakes 210=No decay, 0=Failurc
45
-------
Table 4.3.4.2 Analysis of variance of termite ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol treated
field stakes exposed at Dorman for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.15
10.00
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.74
9.94
A
CCA in Water
0.41
9.93
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.57
9.93
A
B
DDAC
0.58
9.80
A
B
DDAC.TBP (1:1)
0.68
9.80
A
B
DDAC in Water
0.60
9.67
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.39
9.60
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.38
9.60
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
9.53
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.33
9.53
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.49
9.51
A
B
C
CCA in Water
0.26
9.41
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.19
9.40
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.26
9.40
A
B
C
DDAC
0.28
9.40
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.21
9.40
A
B
C
DDAC
0.20
9.33
A
B
C
DDAC
0.29
9.26
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.31
9.06
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.19
8.86
B
C
TBP
0.16
8.70
B
C
TBP
0.10
6.40
D
Untreated Control
0.00
3.20
E
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
46
-------
Table 4.3.4.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol treated field
stakes exposed at Dorman for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.41
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.15
10.00
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.74
10.00
A
DDAC in Water
0.60
9.93
A
CCA in Water
0.26
9.93
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.68
9.86
A
B
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.33
9.86
A
B
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.57
9.86
A
B
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.38
9.86
A
B
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
9.80
A
B
DDAC in Water
0.39
9.73
A
B
DDAC
0.58
9.67
A
B
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.26
9.67
A
B
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.19
9.67
A
B
DDAC
0.29
9.58
A
B
DDAC
0.20
9.40
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.21
9.33
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.31
9.33
A
B
C
DDAC
0.28
9.33
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.49
9.30
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.19
8.80
B
C
D
TBP
0.16
8.30
C
D
TBP
0.10
7.93
D
Untreated Control
0.00
3.30
E
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
47
-------
Table 4.3.4.4 Analysis of variance of termite ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol treated
field stakes exposed at Saucier for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.15
9.93
A
CCA in Water
0.26
9.80
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.74
9.66
A
B
CCA in Water
0.41
9.40
A
B
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.57
9.40
A
B
DDAC.TBP (1:1)
0.68
9.21
A
B
C
DDAC
0.58
9.20
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.49
9.13
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.60
9.00
A
B
C
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.33
8.93
A
B
C
DDAC in Water
0.39
8.73
A
B
C
D
E
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.38
8.60
A
B
C
D
E
DDAC
0.28
8.40
A
B
C
D
E
DDAC
0.29
8.40
B
C
D
E
DDAC in Water
0.31
8.30
B
C
D
E
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
7.80
C
D
E
F
DDAC in Water
0.21
7.31
D
E
F
G
DDAC
0.20
7.20
E
F
G
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.19
6.60
F
G
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.26
6.60
F
G
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.19
6.20
G
TBP
0.16
2.90
G
H
TBP
0.10
2.40
H
I
Untreated Control
0.00
1.33
I
10=No decay, 0=Failure.
9
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
48
-------
Table 4.3.4.5 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol treated field
stakes exposed at Saucier for 2-Years.
T reatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.41
10.00
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.33
10.00
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.57
10.00
A
DDAC
0.58
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.26
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.15
9.93
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.74
9.93
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.68
9.93
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.38
9.93
A
DDAC
0.29
9.91
A
DDAC
0.28
9.86
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.21
9.86
A
DDAC in Water
0.21
9.80
A
DDAC in Water
0.60
9.78
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.26
9.73
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.19
9.73
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.49
9.71
A
DDAC
0.20
9.67
A
DDAC in Water
0.39
9.66
A
DDAC in Water
0.31
9.40
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.19
9.06
A
TBP
0.16
6.60
B
TBP
0.10
5.26
C
Untreated Control
0.00
3.00
D
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
49
-------
Table 4.3.5.1 Average Retentions of DDAC and Tribromophenol in L-Joints After 1-Year
Exposure at Two Test Sites.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
SAUCIER
HI
LO
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)2
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)
DDAC
TBP
DDAC
TBP
DDAC
TBP
DDAC
TBP
DDAC
(WATER)
0.31
—
0.30
—
0.32
—
0.23
—
DDAC:TBP(1:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.22
0.12
0.30
0.22
0.22
0.11
0.23
0.15
DDAC:TBP(3:1)
(Tween 40+N-butanol+water)
0.31
0.05
0.32
0.09
0.31
0.06
0.33
0.09
'initial retentions from outer 3/8" inch of L-joint center section. Each value is the average of 3 analyses of
5 composite samples.
2Exposed retentions from inner 1/4" of L-joint tenon.
50
-------
Table 4.3.6.1 Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Tribromophenol Treated L-Joints After 1 and 2-Years Exposure.
TREATMENT
L-JOINT
TOTAL
RETENTION
(pel)
1-YEAR DECAY RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY RATING
HILO2
SAUCIER
HILO
SAUCIER
DECAY
DECAY
DECAY
DECAY
CONTROL/WATER
0.000
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
8.8 + 1.98
9.2 + 0.8
DDAC
0.27
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
IN WATER
0.65
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
1.04
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
1.48
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
DDAC
0.33
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
IN TWEEN 40 +
0.63
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
N-Butanol +WATER
0.97
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
1.16
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
DDAC:TBP (1:1^
0.30
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
IN TWEEN 40 +
0.69
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
N-Butanol +WATER
0.91
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
1.12
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.26
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
IN TWEEN 40 +
0.70
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
N-Butanol +WATER
0.70
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
1.29
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
CCA IN WATER
0.27
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.56
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
n 88
inn +nn
inn + n n
inn + nn
inn + nn
'Average of 10 L-Joints
210= No decay, 0= Failure
51
-------
Table 4.3.6.2 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for DDACrTribromophenol treated L-Joints exposed
at Hilo for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
DDAC in Water
0.27
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.65
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
1.04
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
1.48
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.33
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.63
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.97
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
1.16
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.30
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.69
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.91
10.0
A
DDAC.TBP (1:1)
1.12
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.26
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.70
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.70
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
1.29
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.27
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.56
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.88
10.0
A
Untreated Control
0.00
8.80
B
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
52
-------
Table 4.3.6.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for DDACrTribromophenol treated L-Joints exposed
at Saucier for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
DDAC in Water
0.27
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.65
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
1.04
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
1.48
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.33
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.63
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
0.97
10.0
A
DDAC in Tween 40+N-Butanol + Water
1.16
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.30
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.69
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (1:1)
0.91
10.0
A
DDAC.TBP (1:1)
1.12
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.26
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.70
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
0.70
10.0
A
DDAC:TBP (3:1)
1.29
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.27
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.56
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.88
10.0
A
Untreated Control
0.00
9.20
B
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
53
-------
Table 4.4.1.1 Average Strength Loss of 3mm Stakes Treated with the Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil
Formulation After 62-Weeks Exposure In The Fungus Cellar. The positive controls are CCA (water-
borne) and pentachlorophenol (penta, oil-borne).1
RPTFNTTON
AVFR AfYR c/r, STRFNnTT-T T OSS
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FUNGUS CELLAR
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)2
FUNGUS CELLAR
40 WEEKS
DORMAN
SOIL3
FUNGUS CELLAR
40 WEEKS
SAUCIER
SOIL
CONTROL
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.000
48.94
+5.87
42.62
±6.00
DDAC
0.201
32.83
+7.51
27.53
+ 11.86
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.299 j
22.68
+2.41
26.30
+3.56
0.393
25.73
+7.83
28.03
+4.97
0.532
17.63
+2.54
20.44
±4.21
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.100
36.45 j
±14.42 j
33.76 j
+ 11.64
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.201
27.10
+2.94
26.21
+2.61
0.255
22.96
+5.69
23.99
+4.55
0.400
25.04
+4.15
28.43
+2.80
0.537
23.50
+3.05
26.63
+3.43
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.096
28.81
+7.08
31.67
+9.60
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.190
25.14
+ 12.02
32.02
+4.22
0.281
28.69
+4.68
31.86
+2.60
0.365
27.32
+7.22
25.53
+4.75
0.477
25.19
+2.60
26.85
+3.01
CCA
0.150
17.46
+ 1.44
17.73
+2.14
(WATER)
0.279
16.02
+0.59
18.30
+ 1.57
0.449
16.58
+4.85
19.46
±2.19
PENTA
0.162
18.65
+5.24
20.92
+.5.29
(TOLUENE/DSLVKB3)
0.355
17.17
+5.79
19.21
+5.84
0 47*
IS 04
+9 44
19 34
+6 00
'The emulsion formulation required the presence of DDAC, and thus no treatments were made
with CTN alone.
2Total pcf retentions of DDAC and DDAC+Chlorothalonil were calculated on the basis of weight
gain and solution concentration.
'Average of 6 replicates; + = Standard Deviation
Disk epa RPT 9/96
File: Ctnli2o40.wpd
54
-------
Table 4.4.1.2 Analysis of variance for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil treated Fungus Cellar stakes
exposed to Saucier Soil for 62-weeks.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strengh
Loss
T Grouping1
CCA
0.150
17.73
H
CCA
0.279
18.30
H
PENTA
0.355
19.21
G
H
PENTA
0.476
19.34
G
H
CCA
0.449
19.46
G
H
DDAC
0.532
20.44
E
F
G
PENTA
0.162
20.92
E
F
G
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.255
23.99
E
F
G
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.365
25.53
E
F
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.201
26.21
E
DDAC
0.299
26.30
E
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.537
26.63
D
E
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.477
26.85
C
D
E
DDAC
0.201
27.53
C
D
E
DDAC
0.393
28.03
C
D
E
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.400
28.43
C
D
E
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.096
31.67
B
C
D
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.281
31.86
B
C
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.190
32.02
B
C
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.100
33.76
B
Control (water+zylene)
0.000
42.61
A
Means with the same letter are not significantly dif]
erent.
55
-------
Table 4.4.1.3 Analysis of variance for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil treated Fungus Cellar stakes
exposed to Dorman Soil for 62-weeks.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
%
Strengh
Loss
T Grouping1
PENTA
0.476
15.04
I
CCA
0.279
16.02
G
H
CCA
0.449
16.58
F
G
H
PENTA
0.355
17.17
F
G
H
CCA
0.150
17.46
F
G
H
DDAC
0.532
17.63
F
G
H
PENTA
0.162
18.65
F
G
H
DDAC
0.299
22.68
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.255
22.96
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.537
23.50
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.400
25.04
D
E
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.190
25.14
D
E
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.477
25.19
D
E
DDAC
0.393
25.73
C
D
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.201
27.10
C
D
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.365
27.32
C
D
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.281
28.69
C
D
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.096
28.81
C
D
DDAC
0.201
32.83
B
C
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.100
36.45
B
Control (water+zylene)
0.000
48.94
A
Means with the same letter are not significantly dif]
erent.
56
-------
Table 4.4.2.1 Average Depletion of Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil From Fungus Cellar Stakes
After 12-Weeks Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
12 WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.306
0.102
0.3
72.9
—
28.4
72.1
—
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.303
0.061
24.2
71.6
—
21.4
76.6
—
CCA
(WATER)
0.064
—
—
18.2
—
—
22.2
0.220
—
8.9
—
—
16.5
0.332
—
—
12.2
—
—
18.3
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2
Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
Table 4.4.2.2 Average Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil From
Fungus Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
36 WEEK AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN SOIL
SAUCIER SOIL
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.306
0.102
23.9
88.4
—
33.7
77.5
—
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.303
0.061
36.4
76.2
—
28.5
78.3
—
CCA
(WATER)
0.064
—
—
22.7
—
—
23.3
0.220
—
—
10.0
—
—
16.9
0.332
—
—
14.6
—
—
22.1
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 3 stakes.
57
-------
Table 4.4.2.3 Average Percent Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil From Stakes Treated with Water-borne
Formulations After Exposure to Two Different Soils.
Formulation #1 0.18% CTN / 1.0% DDAC / 0.7% Emcol 42/3.0% XyleneAVater
I.D. #
Soil
DDAC
CTN
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
1.01
Dorman
0.269
0.260
3.35
0.117
0.065
44.64
2.01
Dorman
0.272
0.259
4.78
0.113
0.049
57.08
3.01
Dorman
0.266
0.250
6.02
0.115
0.050
56.33
4.01
Dorman
0.249
0.210
15.66
0.112
0.058
48.21
5.01
Saucier
0.237
0.196
17.30
0.114
0.051
55.07
6.01
Saucier
0.267
0.218
18.35
0.119
0.049
59.07
7.01
Saucier
0.291
0.186
36.08
0.111
0.033
70.27
8.01
Saucier
0.237
0.161
32.07
0.110
0.023
79.09
Ave
Dorman
0.264
0.245
7.29
0.114
0.055
51.54
Ave
Saucier
0.258
0.190
26.26
0.113
0.039
65.67
Formulation #2 0.18% CTN /1.0% DDAC / 0.7% Emcol 42 / 3.0% Xylene / 0.25% PBD / Water
I.D. #
Soil
DDAC
CTN
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
1.02
Dorman
0.265
0.240
9.43
0.122
0.048
61.07
2.02
Dorman
0.286
0.266
6.99
0.119
0.068
42.62
3.02
Dorman
0.282
0.265
6.03
0.126
0.057
54.76
4.02
Dorman
0.281
0.248
11.74
0.131
0.061
53.26
5.02
Saucier
0.248
0.250
-0.81
0.112
0.055
51.12
6.02
Saucier
0.253
0.248
1.98
0.114
0.072
37.00
7.02
Saucier
0.247
0.230
6.88
0.109
0.070
36.24
8.02
Saucier
0.261
0.224
14.18
0.119
0.054
54.43
Ave
Dorman
0.279
0.255
8.53
0.124
0.058
53.02
Ave
Saucier
0.252
0.238
5.65
0.113
0.062
44.86
58
-------
Table 4.4.2.3 (con't) Average Percent Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil From Stakes Treated with Water-borne
Formulations After Exposure to Two Different Soils.
Formulation #3 0.18% CTN / 1.0% DDAC / 0.7% Emcol 55 / 3.0% Xylene / 0.25% PIBSA / Water
I.D. #
Soil
DDAC
CTN
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
1.03
Dorman
0.260
0.223
14.23
0.114
0.044
61.84
2.03
Dorman
0.253
0.209
17.39
0.117
0.041
65.38
3.03
Dorman
0.264
0.223
15.53
0.101
0.055
45.54
4.03
Dorman
0.264
0.193
26.89
0.120
0.050
58.75
5.03
Saucier
0.271
0.145
46.49
0.117
0.050
57.27
6.03
Saucier
0.246
0.183
25.61
0.111
0.042
61.99
7.03
Saucier
0.259
0.241
6.95
0.122
0.054
55.56
8.03
Saucier
0.261
0.207
20.69
0.111
0.055
50.23
Ave
Dorman
0.260
0.212
18.54
0.113
0.047
58.30
Ave
Saucier
0.259
0.194
25.17
0.115
0.050
56.26
Formulation #4 0.18% CTN /1.0% DDAC / 0.7% Emcol 55 / 3.0% Xylene / 0.25% PBH-300 / Water
I.D. #
Soil
DDAC
CTN
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
Initial
Ret'n
(pcf)
Final
Ret'n
(pcf)
% Loss
1.04
Dorman
0.311
0.207
33.44
0.113
0.041
64.00
2.04
Dorman
0.249
0.222
10.84
0.114
0.041
64.04
3.04
Dorman
0.230
0.218
5.22
0.108
0.048
55.35
4.04
Dorman
0.259
0.186
28.19
0.114
0.034
70.18
5.04
Saucier
0.282
0.208
26.24
0.117
0.042
64.53
6.04
Saucier
0.276
0.226
18.12
0.113
0.049
57.08
7.04
Saucier
0.290
0.256
11.72
0.122
0.053
56.56
8.04
Saucier
0.278
0.247
11.15
0.124
0.043
65.18
Ave
Dorman
0.262
0.208
20.59
0.112
0.041
63.50
Ave
Saucier
0.282
0.234
16.79
0.119
0.047
60.88
59
-------
Table 4.4.3.1 Average Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil from Field Stakes Treated with a Water-
Borne Formulation After 1-Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.228
0.096
19.8
43.4
...
9.6
37.0
—
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.288
0.058
17.3
57.1
...
22.4
62.3
...
CCA
(WATER)
0.059
—
...
21.9
...
...
31.6
0.235
—
...
23.6
...
...
31.2
0.375
—
—
11.9
...
...
9.8
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
Table 4.4.3.2 Average Depletion of DDAC and Chlorothalonil from Field Stakes Treated with a
Water-Borne Formulation After 2-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
INITIAL AVERAGE
RETENTION OF
STAKES (PCF)1
AVERAGE PERCENT DEPLETION2
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC
CTN
CCA
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.228
0.096
23.4
57.7
...
18.9
54.7
...
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.288
0.058
26.2
53.0
—
28.9
61.8
...
CCA (WATER)
0.059
...
...
19.8
...
—
21.3
0.235
...
...
26.8
...
...
11.4
0.375
...
...
10.2
...
...
6.5
'Based on retention of treated, unexposed samples.
2Average of 3 separate analyses of a composite sample of 5 stakes.
60
-------
Table 4.4.4.1 Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Field Stakes Treated with Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil and CCA Formulations.
BIOCIDE
FIELD STAKES
1-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING
(SOLVENT)
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
DORM AN
SAUCIER
DORMAN
SAUCIER
(pcf)1
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
CONTROL
(WATER+XYLENE)
0
6.8 ±4.1
8.5 ± 1.8
6.3 ±4.2
4.9 ±4.1
3.6 ± 4.1
3.6 ±4.4
5.1 ±4.5
1.5 ±3.4
DDAC
0.199
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.2
10.0 +0.0
9.1 +1.3
9.5 + 0.5
9.3 + 0.7
9.8+0.4
6.1 +3.7
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.268
9.9 +0.5
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.3
9.9 +0.4
9.5+0.6
9.3+0.7
9.9 + 0.4
9.3 + 0.8
0.386
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.4
10.0 +0.0
9.8+0.4
9.7 + 0.5
9.8 + 0.4
9.4 + 0.8
0.540
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.3
9.6 + 0.6
9.9 + 0.3
10 + 0
9.6 + 0.6
DDAC:CTN(3:1)
0.096
9.6 + 1.55
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.4
9.0 +2.7
8.7 + 2.8
8.9 + 2.7
9.7 + 0.8
7.1 +3.4
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.190
9.9 +0.3
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.6 +0.9
9.6 + 0.5
9.2+ 1.0
9.7 + 0.6
7.7 + 3.4
0.238
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.5+1.0
9.9 + 0.3
9.5+0.9
9.5+ 1.1
9.0+1.6
0.383
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 +0.6
9.9 + 0.4
9.8 + 0.6
10 + 0
9.3 + 1.2
0.517
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.7 +0.8
9.9 + 0.3
9.9 + 0.4
10 + 0
9.5+ 1.1
DDAC:CTN(5:1)
0.090
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.3
9.3 +0.3
8.5 +2.2
9.5 + 0.7
8.4+ 1.4
9.5 + 0.9
6.3+4.3
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.178
9.9 +0.3
10.0 +0.0
9.7 +0.6
9.4 +1.2
9.6 + 0.5
9.3+0.8
9.4+1.1
7.8 + 2.0
0.246
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.8 +0.4
9.9 + 0.3
9.4 + 0.6
9.9+0.4
9.1 + 1.0
0.347
10.0 +0.0
9.8 +0.5
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.4
9.9 + 0.3
9.8 + 0.6
9.7 + 0.6
9.7 + 0.5
0.468
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
9.9 ±0.3
9.9 ±0.4
9.9+0.3
10 + 0
9.7 ±0.6
CCA
0.120
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.8 +0.4
10 + 0
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.7 + 0.5
(WATER)
0.192
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.3
10 + 0
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.9 + 0.3
0378
10 0 +0.0
10.0 + 00
9.9 +0.3
9.9 +0.3
10 + 0
10 + 0
9 9 + 03
9.9 + 0.4
'Average of 15 stakes
61
-------
Table 4.4.4.1(con't) Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Field Stakes Treated with Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil and CCA
Formulations.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
FIELD STAKES
AVERAGE TOTAL
RETENTION
(pet)1
1-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY AND TERMITE RATING
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DORMAN
SAUCIER
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
DECAY
TERMITE
PENTA
0.147
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
9.7 ±0.5
9.8 ±0.4
9.9 ±0.4
9.9 ±0.3
9.7+0.5
(TOLUENE/DSIVKB3)
0.291
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10±0
9.9 ±0.3
9.9 ±0.3
9.7 ±0.5
ft 453
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 +0.1
9.9+0.4
10 + 0
10 + 0
10 + 0
9.8 + 0.4
'Average of 15 stakes
62
-------
Table 4.4.4.2 Analysis of variance of decay for Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil Treated field
stakes exposed at Dorman for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
Avg.
T Grouping2
(pcf)
Rating1
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.453
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.192
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.120
10.0
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.291
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.378
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.347
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.517
9.93
A
DDAC.CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.246
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.238
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.468
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.383
9.86
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.386
9.80
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.147
9.79
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.540
9.62
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.178
9.61
A
DDAC.CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.190
9.60
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.090
9.53
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.199
9.53
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.268
9.53
A
DDAC.CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.096
8.67
B
Untreated Control
0.000
3.60
C
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
63
-------
Table 4.4.4.3 Analysis of variance of termite for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated field
stakes exposed at Dorman for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
Penta in Toluenc/DSL/KB3
0.453
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.192
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.120
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.378
10.0
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.540
9.93
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.291
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.468
9.93
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.517
9.86
A
B
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.147
9.86
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.347
9.80
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.383
9.80
A
B
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.386
9.73
A
B
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.238
9.46
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.246
9.40
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.178
9.33
A
B
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.199
9.33
A
B
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.268
9.26
A
B
C
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.190
9.20
A
B
C
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.096
8.90
B
C
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.090
8.40
C
Untreated Control
0.000
3.60
D
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
64
-------
Table 4.4.4.4 Analysis of variance of decay for Water-borne DDAC: Chlorothalonil Treated
field stakes exposed at Saucier for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
(pcf)
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.453
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.468
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.517
10.0
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.540
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.120
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.192
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.383
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.378
9.93
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.147
9.93
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.268
9.86
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.246
9.86
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.291
9.86
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.386
9.80
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.199
9.80
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.347
9.73
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.190
9.73
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.096
9.73
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.238
9.53
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.090
9.53
A
DDAC:CTN (5:Water + Xvlene
0.178
9.40
A
Untreated Controls
0.000
5.06
B
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
65
-------
Table 4.4.4.5 Analysis of variance of termite for Water-borne DDAC: Chlorothalonil
Treated field stakes exposed at Saucier for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.192
9.90
A
CCA in Water
0.378
9.86
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.453
9.80
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.291
9.73
A
CCA in Water
0.120
9.73
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.347
9.67
A
Penta in Toluene/DSL/KB3
0.147
9.67
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.468
9.67
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.540
9.60
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.517
9.46
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.386
9.40
A
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.268
9.33
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.383
9.26
A
B
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.246
9.13
A
B
C
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.238
9.00
A
B
C
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.178
7.86
B
C
D
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.190
7.73
C
D
E
DDAC:CTN (3:1) Water + Xylene
0.096
7.08
D
E
F
DDAC:CTN (5:1) Water + Xylene
0.090
6.33
E
F
DDAC in Water + Xylene
0.199
6.13
F
Untreated Controls
0.000
1.53
G
'lO=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
66
-------
Table 4.4.5.1 Average Retentions of DDAC and Chlorothalonil for L-joints treated with Water-
Borne Formulations After 1-Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
SAUCIER
HI
LO
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)2
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)
DDAC
CTN
DDAC
CTN
DDAC
CTN
DDAC
CTN
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
(Water + Xylene)
0.28
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.24
0.05
0.07
0.02
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
(Water + Xylene)
0.31
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.33
0.03
0.06
0.02
'initial retentions from outer 3/8" inch of L-joint center section. Each value is the average of 3 analyses of 5
composite samples.
2
Exposed retentions from inner 1/4" of L-joint tenon.
67
-------
Table 4.4.6.1 Average Decay Ratings for L-Joints Treated with Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil After 2-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
L-JOINT
TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
1-YEAR DECAY RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY RATING'
HILO
SAUCIER
HILO
SAUCIER
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
CONTROL
(WATER)
0.000
9.5 ±0.5
10.0 ±0.0
6.5 ± 2.5
10.0 ±0.0
DDAC
0.088
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.186
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.254
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.388
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 ±0.0
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.032
10.0 +0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 ±0.0
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.067
10.0 +0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.134
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.164
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.260
10.0 +0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 ±0.0
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.041
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
(WATER+XYLENE)
0.068
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.140
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0.197
10.0 +0.0
10.0 ±0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 ±0.0
0 967
inn +nn
inn +nn
inn + nn
inn +nn
' Average of 10 L-Joints
210 =no decay; 0 =failurc
68
-------
Table 4.4.6.2 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil Treated L-
Joints exposed at Hilo for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
DDAC in Water
0.088
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.186
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.254
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.388
10.0
A
DDAC.CTN (3:1)
0.032
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.067
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.134
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.134
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.260
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.041
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.068
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.140
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.197
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.267
10.0
A
Untreated Control
0.00
6.50
B
10=No decay, 0=Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
69
-------
Table 4.4.6.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDACrChlorothalonil Treated L-
Joints exposed at Saucier for 2-Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
DDAC in Water
0.088
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.186
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.254
10.0
A
DDAC in Water
0.388
10.0
A
DDAC.CTN (3:1)
0.032
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.067
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.134
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.134
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (3:1)
0.260
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.041
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.068
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.140
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.197
10.0
A
DDAC:CTN (5:1)
0.267
10.0
A
Untreated Control
0.00
10.0
A
10=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
70
-------
Table 4.5.1.1 Average Retentions of DDAC in Water-borne DDACrNa Omadine Treated L-Joints After 1-
Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
SAU<
:ier
HI]
LO
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)2
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
(WATER)
0.225
0.309
0.303
0.307
DDAC:Na OMADINE (4:1)
(WATER)
0.196
0.235
0.258
0.215
DDAC:Na OMADINE (7:1)
(WATER)
0.219
0.268
0.273
0.311
Initial retentions from outer 3/8" inch of L-joint center section. Each value is the average
of 3 analyses of 5 composite samples.
2Exposed retentions from inner 1/4" of L-joint tenon.
71
-------
Table 4.5.2.1 Average Decay Ratings for the Water-borne DDAC:Na Omadine Treated L-Joints After 1, 2 and 2.5-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
L-JOINT
TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1-YEAR DECAY RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY RATING1
2.5 YEAR DECAY
RATING1
HILO
SAUCIER
HILO
SAUCIER
HILO
SAUCIER
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
CONTROL
0.000
9.8 +0.3
9.8 +0.3
8.5 + 1.2
9.8 +0.4
7.1 +2.8
9.3 + 0.5
DDAC
0.088
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 + 0.3
10.0 +0.0
9.6 + 0.7
10.0 + 0.0
(WATER)
0.169
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
0.259
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 + 0.3
10.0 + 0.0
0.335
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
Na Omadine
0.015
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
7.7 + 2.8
10.0 +0.0
6.6 + 2.4
9.6 + 0.7
(WATER)
0.037
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.6 + 0.7
10.0 +0.0
8.9+ 1.19
9.3+0.8
0.073
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
6.7 + 3.7
10.0 +0.0
8.0 + 5.1
9.5 + 0.7
0.127
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
8.4+ 1.3
10.0 +0.0
7.9 + 0.83
8.9 + 1.1
DDAC:Na Omadine (4:1)
0.039
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.5 + 0.5
10.0 +0.0
3.6 + 4.11
9.9 + 0.3
(WATER)
0.085
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 + 0.3
10.0 +0.0
6.1+4.28
10.0 + 0.0
0.154
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
8.1 + 1.37
10.0 + 0.0
0.239
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.2 + 1.03
10.0 + 0.0
nw
inn+fin
mn +nn
08 + n4
inn +nn
o fi + n 7
in n + n n
DDAC:Na Omadine (7:1)
0.057
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.5 + 0.8
10.0 +0.0
9.4 + 0.6
10.0 + 0.0
(WATER)
0.077
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.9 + 0.3
10.0 +0.0
7.5+4.08
10.0 + 0.0
0.143
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
9.4 + 0.7
10.0 + 0.0
n?no
inn + nn
inn +nn
mn +n n
mn 4-nn
^4.(14
mn + nn
CCA
0.27
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
(WATER)
0.56
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 + 0.0
nss
mn +nn
mn + n n
inn +n n
inn 4-nn
m n + n n
inn + nn
'Average of 10 L-Joints.
210=No decay, 0=Failure.
72
-------
Table 4.5.2.2 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDAC:NaOmadine Treated L-
Joints exposed at Saucier for 2.5 Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.27
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.56
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.88
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.239
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.363
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.057
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.077
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.085
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.143
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.154
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.209
10.0
A
DDAC
0.259
10.0
A
DDAC
0.335
10.0
A
DDAC
0.088
10.0
A
DDAC
0.169
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.039
9.9
A
B
NaOmadine
0.015
9.6
B
C
NaOmadine
0.073
9.5
C
NaOmadine
0.037
9.3
C
Control
0.00
9.3
C
NaOmadine
0.127
8.9
D
10=No decay, 0=Failure.
2 Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
73
-------
Table 4.5.2.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for Water-borne DDACrNaOmadine Treated L-
Joints exposed at Hilo for 2.5 Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
CCA in Water
0.270
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.560
10.00
A
CCA in Water
0.880
10.00
A
DDAC
0.335
10.00
A
DDAC
0.169
10.00
A
DDAC
0.259
9.90
A
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.209
9.80
A
DDAC
0.088
9.60
A
B
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.363
9.60
A
B
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.057
9.40
A
B
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.143
9.40
A
B
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.239
9.20
A
B
C
NaOmadine
0.037
8.90
A
B
C
D
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.154
8.10
A
B
C
D
E
NaOmadine
0.073
8.00
A
B
C
D
E
F
NaOmadine
0.127
7.90
B
C
D
E
F
DDAC:NaOmadine (7:1)
0.077
7.50
C
D
E
F
Control
0.000
7.10
D
E
F
NaOmadine
0.015
6.60
D
E
F
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.085
6.10
F
DDAC:NaOmadine (4:1)
0.039
3.60
G
110=No decay, 0=Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
74
-------
Table 4.6.1.1 Average Retentions of DDAC in L-joints Treated with Water-Borne
DDAC:NaOmadine:PABA After 1-Year Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
SAU(
HER
HILO
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)1
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)2
INITIAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1 YEAR
EXPOSED
RETENTIONS
(pcf)
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
DDAC
(PABA)
0.237
0.160
0.239
0.236
DDACiNaOMADINE (4:1)
(PABA)
0.248
o
o
o
0.242
0.215
DDACiNaOMADINE (7:1)
(PABA)
0.256
0.234
0.261
0.214
Initial retentions from outer 3/8" inch of L-joint center section. Each value is the average of 3 analyses of 5 composite samples.
2Exposed retentions from inner 1/4" of L-joint tenon.
3This DDAC value is unrealistically low, and needs to be rc-evaluated.
75
-------
Table 4.6.2.1 Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Na Omadine + PABA Treated L-Joints After 1- and 2-Years Exposure.
BIOCIDE
(SOLVENT)
L-JOINT
TOTAL
RETENTION
(pcf)
1-YEAR DECAY RATING1
2-YEAR DECAY RATING1
HILO
SAUCIER
HILO
SAUCIER
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
DECAY2
CONTROL + PABA
0.000
10.0 +0.0
9.8 + 0.2
10.0 + 0.0
9.8 + 0.2
DDAC + PABA
0.088
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
(WATER)
0.149
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.206
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.377
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
NaOMADINE + PABA
0.015
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
(WATER)
0.031
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.060
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.124
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
DDAC:Na OMADINE
0.039
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
+ PABA (4:1^
0.076
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
(WATER)
0.148
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0+0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.269
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
n 147
inn +nn
inn 4-nn
m n 4. n n
inn +nn
DDAC:Na OMADINE
0.064
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
+ PABA (7:1)
0.078
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
(WATER)
0.164
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.234
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0+0.0
10.0 +0.0
0.326
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
CCA
0.27
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
(WATER)
0.56
10.0 +0.0
10.0 +0.0
10.0 + 0.0
10.0 +0.0
0 R8
inn 4-nn
inn + n n
inn j-nn
mn + n n
'Average of 10 L-Joints.
210=No decay, 0=Failure
76
-------
Table 4.6.2.2 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for DDACrNa Omadine + PABA Treated L-Joints
exposed at Hilo for 2 Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating1
T Grouping2
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.088
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.149
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.206
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.377
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.015
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.031
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.060
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.124
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.039
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.076
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.148
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.269
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.347
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.064
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.078
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.164
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.234
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.326
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.27
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.56
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.88
10.0
A
Untreated Control + PABA
0.00
10.0
A
'lO=No decay, 0= Failure.
2
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
77
-------
Table 4.6.2.3 Analysis of variance of decay ratings for DDAC:Na Omadine + PABA Treated L-Joints
exposed at Saucier for 2 Years.
Treatment
Retention
(pcf)
Avg.
Rating2
T Grouping1
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.088
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.149
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.206
10.0
A
DDAC +PABA in Water
0.377
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.015
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.031
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.060
10.0
A
NaOmadine + PABA in Water
0.124
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.039
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.076
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.148
10.0
A
DDAC.NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.269
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (4:1)
0.347
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.064
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.078
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.164
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.234
10.0
A
DDAC:NaOmadine + PABA (7:1)
0.326
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.27
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.56
10.0
A
CCA in Water
0.88
10.0
A
Untreated Control + PABA
0.00
9.80
A
B
10=No decay, 0=Failure.
2Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
78
-------
APPENDIX C
FIGURES
-------
Figure 4.2.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorotha!onif, Peota and CCA
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 96-Weeks Exposure to Oormart Soil.
w
w
o
CD
c
0
i—
CO
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
7
ov\Dv Qyvtv'V'y vk-cv ^cv
QyQy\y\y QyQyQy Qyty Qy °
-------
jure 4.2.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Oil-borne DDAC:Ch!orothaSonII and CCA
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 96-Weeks Exposure to Saucier Soil.
100
cyO'v or vk-'V'b vk W cv^cv
•
-------
Figure 4.2.2.1. Average Percent Depeletion for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil and
CCA Treated Fungus CellarStakes After 12- Weeks Exposure To Dorman and
Saucier Soil.
100
c
o
Q)
Ql
CD
Q
DDAC
DDAC
0.043
0.190/0.078
CTN DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Toluene Toluene
Diesel/KB3 Diesel/KB3
0.192/0.058
Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Toluene
Diesel/KB3
0.396 0.235 0.053
CCA
Water
IDorman ¦Saucier
81
-------
Figure 4.2.3.1. Average Percent Depletion for Oil-borne DDAC:Chlorotha!oni! and
CCA Treated Field Stakes After 1-Year Exposure.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.072
0.218/0.073
CTN DDAC/CTN (3:1'
Toluene/ Toluene/
Diesel/KB3 Diesel/KB3
.0216/0.043
Retention (pcff
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Toluene/
Diesel/KB3
0.377 0.237 0.069
CCA
Water
¦ DORMAN ¦SAUCIER
82
-------
Figure 4.2.3.2. Average Percent Depletion for Oil-borne DDAC:Ch!orotha!oni! and
CCA Treated Field Stakes After 3-Year Exposure.
.0216/0.043
Retention (pcfj
0.072 0.218/0.073
CTN DDAC/CTN (3:1) DDAC/CTN (5:1) CCA
Toluene/ Toluene,' Toluene/ Water
Diese!/KB3 Diesel'KB3 Diesei/KB3
¦ DORMAN ¦SAUCIER
83
-------
Figure 4.2.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Oil-borne DDAC:Ch!orothalonil, Penta
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 3-Years Exposure at Dormars.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
/l
'M$4; Y: J
#11iff-? \
;/y';/ #
lirir; #
otMHi >
t
A* /(
' % '>}'/% h
A ''' /i't '
,
' v,'f' t '
*/,f /,#, ^
' ' s /
Pf's
-k"4m
*<
& "t, $
it'
'* ¦:
/' i, i
# <
' "/ ,,
'
- ^ tfi
$s%*
-------
CD
L_
"ro
LL
"O
c
13
O
tt>
ii
o
o>
_c
ro
C£
0)
CD
I-
¦D
c
03
>.
03
O
CD
Q
Figure 4.2.4.2. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Oil-borne DDACiChlorothaionii,
Penta and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 3-Years Exposure at Saucier.
10
9
8
/I
5
4
0
m
;mm
(if ^
ililll
\
A
I III fit
~t,v%
mm
W0$m
'i im
:
¦&;*w
i'i.
Jll||
S ft M lH il
^w'mm
y/A '/£//, ¦££?,
liii
mMm,
¦ V(M $
- fe-'-xyi
ff^fi
'0kM,
Q> "
W
Control Control
Toluene/
Retention (pcf)
DDAC CTN DDAC/CTN (3:1) DDAC/CTN (5:1) CCA
Toluene/ Toluene/ Toluene/ Toluene/ Water
Diesel/KB3 Diesel'KB3 Diesel/KB3 Diesel/KB3
Diese!'KB3
Penta
Toluene/
Diesel/KB3
¦Termite ¦ Decay
85
-------
Figure 4.3.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Triforomophenol and CCA
Treated Stakes After 80-Weeks Exposure to Dorman Soli in The
Fungus Cellar.
?M>>>>> i
444: Jrr
>444: vzh?
444: >>44
Retention (pcf)
Control DDAC DDAC TBP DDAC-'TBR (1:1) DDAC/TBP (3:1) CCA
Water Tween 40 Tween 40 Tween 40 Water
N-butanol N-butanol N-butanol
Water Water Water
86
-------
Figure 4.3.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol and
CCA Treated Stakes After BO-Weeks Exposure to Saucier Soil In
The Fungus Cellar.
MM
Q> * Q> * Or Or Or Qr Qr QyQrQrQrQr Q>- Q>* Q>-
Control
DDAC
Water
DDAC
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
Retention (pcf;
TBP DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-butano!
Water
DDAC/TBP (3:1) CCA
Tween 40 Water
N-butano!
Water
87
-------
Figure 4.3.2.1. Average Percent Depeletion for Water-borne DDAC:Tribrormophenol
and CCA Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure.
0.28
DDAC
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
0.220/0.220
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
0.290/0.010
" Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
0.4 0.3 0.09
CCA
Water
IDorman ¦Saucier
88
-------
Figure 4.3.2.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
Treated Fungus Cellar Stakes After 36-Weeks Exposure.
0.28
0.220/0.220
DDAC
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
0.290/0.010
_ Retention (pcfV
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
Butanol
Water
0.4 0.3 0.09
CCA
Water
IDorman ¦Saucier
89
-------
Figure 4.3.3.1. Average Percent Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 1-Year Exposure.
100
DDAC
DDAC
0.29
0.190/0.190
0.240/0.080
0.41 0.27 0.07
DDAC
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
CCA
Water
IDORMAN ¦SAUCIER
90
-------
Figure 4.3.3.2 Average Percent Depletion of Water-borne DDAC:Tribromopheno!
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-Year Exposure.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DDAC
DDAC
0.29
0.190/0.190
DDAC
Tween 40
N-butanoi
Water
DDAC/'TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
0.240/0.080
Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanoi
Water
0.41 0.27 0.07
CCA
Water
IDORMAN ¦SAUCIER
91
-------
Figure 4.3.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Trlbromophenol
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure at Dorman.
¦VI ////.//, ////Ah
€W?/ / 7''
fmm
¦ -4' VW-:\
iilii
S'/'\ ' ' 'p
firm
mmm
§mmmm
%< /V'M
' / 7 " /'/ft
0
J3
'co
Li_
"O
c
o
CO
CD
C
V-<
CO
tr
CO
o
0
Q
Control DDAC
Water
OAytyty^- CAy^-vb- fc-cfo-
ReientioH (pcf)
DDAC
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
TBI
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-bulanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
uOA
Water
ITermite MDecay
92
-------
gure 4.3.4.2. Average Decay and termite Ratings for Wafer-borne DDAC:Tribrornophenof
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure at Saucier.
v y.
"'W^H
'' // ">
% >%¦¦
?/'¦(/
?/'»> #«' 'A-Mt, %
'(/ / ; ^
/y// y, A'! ' X'
*///','/' "'// />'/
10
9
8
/I
3
2
1
0
—pp
fill
§||<# A.y
fulfill
''%* W ¦/'
,/ft/ '/ y/
QS$>
Retention (pcf)
Control DDAC
Water
DDAC
Tvveen 40
N-buiano!
Water
TBP DDAC/TBP (1:1'
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (3:1'
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
CCA
Water
ITermite ¦Decay
93
-------
Figure 4.3.6.1. Average Decay Ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Tribromophenol
and CCA Treated L-Joints After 2-Years Exposure at Saucier.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
fpl
'/A '*'/ ¦>¥: A
'/¦:>//// fys. 4y/^y/
ife x
/ ' t's
'f '' '<
1, 'M <''
/-M-. i
If |l||f||p
;v ¦ tiC'/.
/ J,?/%%%'. !
fHPtfF /
-fa -t
'' 'p'if '
; '*"%/' 'y',
Mr\
iaf?4iiip-
" 'M7', % w '
. -y,f»
' '4', ' { /I, ?'' '/'
ry4'
'/ Y" " ' ' , ' t
QyQyW
-Qy Qy
Retention (pcf)~
Control DDAC
Water
DDAC
Tween 40
M-butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-butano!
Water
I Decay
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
CCA
Water
94
-------
Figure 4.3.6.2. Average Decay Ratings for Water-borne DDAC.Tribromophenol
and CCA Treated L-Joints After 2-Years Exposure at Hilo.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
tyy.'/Jfc %/s.v - ''
W'A
f A
Wf$-<%'¦
"tywW 'A
WM :i
\trnt
a'''MM
/A//A/,
WM,"
y//'A
y.-y.y//.-
'J *
I ''
"At / //
% '
% A//
f *4'
'/ /
y,• ¦ •;/¦/ /v. /
Q- Qr \-V
&
Q* Q* Q* V
\-
r^Op/V-ZV nR>
Retention (p;
Control DDAC
Water
DDAC
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (1:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
DDAC/TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
CCA
Water
IDecay
95
-------
Figure 4.4.1.1. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil, Penta
and CCA Treated Stakes After 62-Weeks Exposure to Dorman
Soil In The Fungus Cellar.
100
-------
Figure 4.4.1.2. Average Strength Loss for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil, Penta
and CCA Treated Stakes After 62-Weeks Exposure to Saucier
Soil in the Fungus Cellar.
Q r& d?> oCt"
cv (\- ^ C\- C\ C\- V> C\-C\- C\- C\ C\-
Control DDAC
Water
Xylene
Retention (pcf)
DDAC/CTN (3:1) DDAC/CTN (5:1) CCA
Water Water Water
Xylene Xylene
oy oy oy
Penta
Toluene
DSL/KB3
97
-------
Figure 4.4.2.1. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
and CCA FrorrFungus Cellar Stakes After 12-Weeks Exposure.
0.306/0.102
DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Water
Xylene
0.303/0.061
Retention (pcfV
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Water
Xylene
0.332 0.22 0.064
CCA
Water
IDorman ¦Saucier
98
-------
Figure 4.4.2.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothalonil
and CCAFromFungusCellarStakes After 36-Weeks Exposure.
DOAG
0.306/0.102
DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Water
Xylene
0.303/0.061
Retention (pcf
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Water
Xylene
0.332 0.22 0.064
CCA
Water
IDorman ¦Saucier
99
-------
c
.o
+->
0)
Q.
CD
Q
Figure 4.4.3.1. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne DDAC:ChlorothaIoni!
and CCA From Stakes After 1-Year Exposure .
100
0.228/0.096
DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Water
Xylene
0.288/0.058
Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Water
Xylene
0.059 0.235 0.375
CCA
Water
IDORMANBSAUCIER
100
-------
Figure 4.4.3.2. Average Percent Depletion for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorot
and CCA From Stakes After 2-Year Exposure .
lornl
100
DDAC
LlDAC
0.228/0.096
DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Water
Xylene
0.288/0.058
Retention (pcf)-
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Water
Xylene
0.059 0.235 0.375
CCA
Water
IDORMANBSAUCIER
101
-------
Figure 4.4.4.1. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Ch8orotha!or?if
and CCA Treated Field Stakes After 2-Years Exposure at Dorrnan.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
/l
*0- >WW3,
A\ %
} /f
- %/fyyyy,
/' S '
!l '
. ...
Ǥ
yyyy; '-fy tyyy #2
:^A &•>:#}& 'fyyZvffy iyfr/y'y,
yy///<^y//'/' %-yy'v/' hfw,yyz
;•!# v, ^y-wyy 'yyyy-/.
;H Ppll fwfy
Control
^
^ /\J2) (jS)
rvV tJP
^ y•
-------
Figure 4.4.4.2. Average Decay and Termite Ratings for Water-borne DDAC:Chlorothaloni!
and CCA Treated Fieid Stakes After 2-Years Exposure at Saucier.
0
L_
"ro
LL
¦a
c
o
CO
ii
o
D)
C
(0
0£
0
0
I-
*a
c
ro
>
ro
o
0
O
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control
CV - Qy ^
CV ^ Qy CV Qy
Retention
r& /A kfe »A
ry v qr "T V?
^ Qy CV Qy
^ CV Qy
DDAC
Water
Xvlene
DDAC/CTN (3:1)
Water
Xyiene
DDAC/CTN (5:1)
Water
Xylene
CCA
Water
ITermite MDecay
103
-------
Figure 4.5.2.1. Average Decay Ratings for DDAC:Sod!um Omadine and CCA Treated
L-Joints After 2.5-Years Exposure at Hilo.
'ro
LL
"O
c
13
o
CO
D)
C
ro
CC
>*
ro
o
Q)
O
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
£
/ / /
/y / '//
y /'
' / '
1
/^W'A
4v''''
wm
^rA/v'bnV cQ) cS) * Qy Qy Qy oy oy Qroy
n><£s?>
-------
Figure 4.5.2.2.. Average Decay Ratings for QD.4C:Socfium Qmacfine and CCA Treated
L-Joints After 2.5-Years Exposure at Saucier.
e
_3
'ro
LL
11
o
"O
c
3
O
w
11
o
D)
C
CO
DC
>»
8
03
O
Control
q5b (&> $8> cfo & riX /(b rj\
v Ky ny , sr
; >,|'
/ " /
£ '{
Y< '?%$>>&
'&
'/s '
/' "'/ /f
' '$? 1
t ' '
4 1
I
¦. I
j
' 4
'' -r
t
- ;
y ''
# -
¥ i
' ' l
~4- ^
(s /"
wmrn.
s* ' ' s
*4 A /
I v''tyy'S' 'ft
' t
; J'/'
DDAC TBP DDAC/T8P(1:1;
Tween 40 Tween 40
N-butanol N-butanol
Water Water
K>r&>
O- O* <5- Cy
DDAC'TBP (3:1)
Tween 40
N-butanol
Water
qW
CCA
Water
I Decay
105
-------
APPENDIX D
QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
-------
QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
Several different tests were used in this research project. The QAPP procedures and results for
each of these tests are outlined below.
SAMPLE TREATMENT
Wood samples for the agar block, soft-rot, L-joint, and field stake tests were treated by a
vacuum/pressure process. The vacuum and pressure gauges were calibrated in accordance with
the QAPP and found to be satisfactory (see Log A).
AGAR BLOCK TEST
In this test an autoclave was used for sterilization and the tests were carried out in an incubator
cabinet. Logs for time/temperature/pressure calibrations were developed for the autoclave and
for the incubator cabinet thermometer calibrations were maintained. All calibration
measurements were found to be satisfactory (see Log B).
SOFT-ROT TEST
The amount of decay in the wood samples was determined by periodically measuring the
bending stiffness (MOE) after exposure to unsterile soil. The bending test apparatus was
calibrated periodically with a standard metal bar in accordance with the QAPP. The test
apparatus was found to be within the specified limits in all cases (see Log C).
L-JOINT AND FIELD STAKE EVALUATION
These test units were randomly arranged in the test plot and periodically evaluated visually. The
ratings were recorded on a data sheet without any knowledge of the treatments or previous
ratings. Both positive and untreated controls were included for comparison.
BIOCIDE DEPLETION
The amount of CCA and Chlorothanlonil leading from test specimens was determined by
analyzing treated wood samples by x-ray fluorescence. The instrument was calibrated
periodically with standard pellets for CCA and chlorine. All of the calibrations were found to be
in accordance with the QAPP (see Log D).
The amount of DDAC and Tribromophenol leaching from test specimens was determined by
HPLC analysis. The HPLC was calibrated using a series of prepared standards consisting of 50,
100, 200, 400, and 600 ppm DDAC. Following this, test samples were extracted and run in
106
-------
triplicate according to the QAPP. The DDAC recovery from treated sample controls was
determined with each set of samples submitted. The range of recovery was found to be 78 to
114% (see Log E) which we considered to be satisfactory.
Attempts were made to measure the amount of sodium salt of omadine remaining in the wood,
using a HPLC method provided by the manufacturer (Olin Corp.). Unfortunately, while a
sodium omadine peak was observed in the standard samples, no sodium omadine was detected in
either the exposed or unexposed L-joint samples. Based on discussions with Olin Corp., we
concluded that the sodium omadine monomer was probably oxidized to the dioxide dimer (based
on the acidity of the wood which will neutralize the salt, and the ease of oxidation of the phenol).
Therefore, to estimate the level of omadine remaining in the samples, selected samples were
submitted for elemental sulfur analysis with the sulfur content then converted to omadine levels.
However, since trace sulfur analysis is inherently difficult and inaccurate, some sulfur is
normally present in wood at levels of about 70 to 300 ppm (Roger Patterson, USDA-Forest
Products Lab, Madison, WI), and any oil contamination can easily affect the results. Therefore,
this alternate method should only be used to give a rough estimate of the omadine level present.
Since sulfur levels were higher in wood treated with DDAC:Sodium Omadine than with DDAC
alone, this does suggest that some omadine remains in the wood in some form.
107
-------
Log A. Phase I and II Treatment.
Vacuum Gauge Calibration Log
Date
Dial Gauge
Reading
(In Hg)
Manometer Vacuum
Reading
(In Hg)
Within Calibration
Standard
(±5%)
29 August 1994
29
29
Yes
23 November 1994
29
30
Yes
12 April 1995
29
29
Yes
28 June 1995
29
29
Yes
27 September 1995
29
29
Yes
Pressure Gauge Calibration Log
Date
Dial Gauge
Reading
(psig)
Calibration Set
Reading
(Psig)
Within Calibration
Standard
(±5%)
29 August 1994
148
150
Yes
23 November 1994
152
150
Yes
12 April 1995
147
150
Yes
28 June 1995
150
150
Yes
27 September 1995
148
150
Yes
108
-------
Log B. Phase 1 Agar Plate Test.
Autoclave Calibration Log
Date
Autoclave
Time/Tempera ture/psig
Standard
Time/Temperature/psig
Within
Standard
20 May 1994
30 min @ 126° / 16 psig
20 min @100°/15psig
Yes
Low temperature Incubator Cabinet Calibration Log
Date
Digital
Thermometer
Reading (°C)
NIST
Certified
Thermometer (°C)
Within Calibration
Standard
(±2° C)
21 June 1994
28
28
Yes
24 June 1994
28
28
Yes
25 June 1994
28
28
Yes
27 June 1994
28
28
Yes
28 June 1994
28
28
Yes
109
-------
Log C. Phase I Bending Stiffness Apparatus Calibration.
Date
Maximum Bending
Stiffness
(grams)
Steps Used for
Calibration
Within Calibration
Standard
(1135+10 grams)
6 June 1995
1138
12
Yes
7 June 1995
1139
14
Yes
18 July 1995
1135
13
Yes
19 July 1995
1144
14
Yes
20 July 1995
1145
14
Yes
21 July 1995
1145
14
Yes
24 July 1995
1144
14
Yes
26 July 1995
1136
14
Yes
27 July 1995
1145
14
Yes
23 August 1995
1141
12
Yes
28 August 1995
1139
14
Yes
29 August 1995
1142
14
Yes
30 August 1995
1142
4
Yes
31 August 1995
1142
4
Yes
1 September 1995
1138
4
Yes
5 September 1995
1139
4
Yes
6 September 1995
1138
4
Yes
7 September 1995
1144
4
Yes
4 January 1996
1133
10
Yes
8 January 1996
1145
10
Yes
9 January 1996
1137
10
Yes
10 January 1996
1132
9
Yes
11 January 1996
1135
10
Yes
110
-------
Log C. Phase I Bending Stiffness Apparatus Calibration.
Date
Maximum Bending
Stiffness
(grams)
Steps Used for
Calibration
Within Calibration
Standard
(1135+10 grams)
24 January 1996
1137
10
Yes
25 January 1996
1140
9
Yes
26 January 1996
1140
10
Yes
29 January 1996
1142
10
Yes
31 January 1996
1144
10
Yes
5 February 1996
1143
10
Yes
7 February 1996
1136
10
Yes
9 February 1996
1143
9
Yes
12 February 1996
1139
9
Yes
13 February 1996
1135
9
Yes
14 February 1996
1140
10
Yes
15 February 1996
1135
9
Yes
16 February 1996
1141
9
Yes
2 May 1996
1143
10
Yes
3 May 1996
1144
10
Yes
6 May 1996
1138
10
Yes
7 May 1996
1144
5
Yes
8 May 1996
1144
6
Yes
9 May 1996
1144
7
Yes
10 May 1996
1135
5
Yes
14 May 1996
1135
6
Yes
15 May 1996
1143
10
Yes
16 May 1996
1136
9
Yes
21 May 1996
1144
4
Yes
22 May 1996
1144
7
Yes
Ill
-------
Log C. Phase I Bending Stiffness Apparatus Calibration.
Date
Maximum Bending
Stiffness
(grams)
Steps Used for
Calibration
Within Calibration
Standard (+10 grams)
23 May 1996
1140
9
Yes
28 May 1996
1140
9
Yes
28 May 1996
1144
6
Yes
29 May 1996
1135
5
Yes
30 May 1996
1142
6
Yes
31 May 1996
1143
7
Yes
14 June 1996
1142
5
Yes
15 July 1996
1139
8
Yes
16 July 1996
1144
10
Yes
26 July 1996
1136
9
Yes
29 July 1996
1136
9
Yes
30 July 1996
1142
9
Yes
3 September 1996
1141
5
Yes
4 September 1996
1135
5
Yes
5 September 1996
1138
5
Yes
6 September 1996
1135
5
Yes
9 September 1996
1143
6
Yes
10 September 1996
1138
5
Yes
12 September 1996
1145
6
Yes
17 September 1996
1135
8
Yes
22 November 1996
1139
5
Yes
25 November 1996
1138
7
Yes
26 November 1996
1140
10
Yes
27 November 1996
1140
10
Yes
2 December 1996
1145
8
Yes
112
-------
Log C. Phase I Bending Stiffness Apparatus Calibration.
Date
Maximum Bending
Stiffness
(grams)
Steps Used for
Calibration
Within Calibration
Standard
(1135+10 grams)
3 December 1996
1137
9
Yes
4 December 1996
1139
8
Yes
6 January 1997
1144
10
Yes
12 February 1997
1142
8
Yes
17 February 1997
1135
6
Yes
18 February 1997
1142
6
Yes
19 February 1997
1141
6
Yes
21 February 1997
1144
9
Yes
25 February 1997
1133
7
Yes
3 March 1997
1141
7
Yes
18 March 1997
1136
7
Yes
19 March 1997
1139
7
Yes
20 March 1997
1138
5
Yes
21 March 1997
1145
5
Yes
23 March 1997
1141
8
Yes
6 June 1997
1137
9
Yes
9 June 1997
1139
10
Yes
10 June 1997
1144
7
Yes
11 June 1997
1141
6
Yes
12 June 1997
1137
6
Yes
13 June 1997
1136
7
Yes
23 September 1997
1140
6
Yes
24 September 1997
1142
6
Yes
25 September 1997
1137
5
Yes
30 September 1997
1145
9
Yes
113
-------
Log C. Phase I Bending Stiffness Apparatus Calibration.
Date
Maximum Bending
Stiffness
(grams)
Steps Used for
Calibration
Within Calibration
Standard
(1135+10 grams)
1 October 1997
1145
10
Yes
2 October 1997
1143
9
Yes
8 October 1997
1143
9
Yes
9 October 1997
1142
6
Yes
13 October 1997
1145
6
Yes
14 October 1997
1138
9
Yes
22 October 1997
1142
9
Yes
114
-------
Log D. Phase I and II Asoma X-ray Apparatus Calibration.
Date
External Standard Used
Calibration
(pcf)
Within Calibration
Standard
20 March 1996
CCA
0.998
Yes
21 March 1996
CCA
1.034
Yes
21 March 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.984
Yes
22 March 1996
Chlorothalonil
1.001
Yes
1 April 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.999
Yes
2 April 1996
CCA
0.978
Yes
2 April 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.988
Yes
16 July 1996
CCA
1.054
Yes
18 July 1996
CCA
1.011
Yes
26 August 1996
CCA
0.981
Yes
27 August 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.997
Yes
28 August 1996
CCA
0.949
Yes
29 August 1996
CCA
0.985
Yes
12 September 1996
CCA
0.988
Yes
13 September 1996
CCA
1.014
Yes
16 September 1996
Chlorothalonil
1.013
Yes
17 September 1996
Chlorothalonil
1.021
Yes
8 November 1996
CCA
1.007
Yes
8 November 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.992
Yes
12 November 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.981
Yes
13 November 1996
CCA
0.996
Yes
14 November 1996
CCA
1.003
Yes
15 November 1996
CCA
0.999
Yes
25 November 1996
Chlorothalonil
0.989
Yes
22 September 1997
Chlorothalonil
1.003
Yes
115
-------
Log D. Phase I and II Asoma X-ray Apparatus Calibration.
Date
External Standard Used
Calibration
(pcf)
Within Calibration
Standard
3 April 1998
CCA
0.988
Yes
6 April 1998
CCA
0.992
Yes
8 April 1998
CCA
1.011
Yes
9 April 1998
CCA
1.017
Yes
116
-------
Log E. Phase I and II LC Analyses Calibration.
Date
LC Analyses
of
Control
Meets
Calibration
Standard1
1
2
3
8 September 1995
DDAC
0.3879
0.3899
0.3927
Yes
3 April 1996
DDAC
0.3758
0.3659
0.3702
Yes
9 July 1996
DDAC
0.378
0.3777
0.4042
Yes
9 July 1996
DDAC
0.3961
0.3976
0.3922
Yes
9 July 1996
TBP
0.4186
0.4189
0.4199
Yes
9 August 1996
TBP
0.4619
0.4527
0.4545
Yes
9 August 1996
DDAC
0.3943
0.3979
0.3922
Yes
12 August 1996
DDAC
0.3392
0.3438
0.3369
Yes
14 November 1996
DDAC
0.2879
0.2898
0.2844
Yes
14 November 1996
TBP
0.4240
0.4208
0.4249
Yes
10 October 1997
DDAC
0.3433
0.3573
0.3485
Yes
10 October 1997
TBP
0.4178
0.4172
0.4237
Yes
12 August 1996
TBP
0.4653
0.4608
0.4643
Yes
22 May 1997
DDAC
0.3055
0.2917
0.2989
Yes
22 May 1997
TBP
0.4292
0.4321
0.4205
Yes
30 April 1996
DDAC
0.3197
0.2842
0.2804
Yes
11 November 1996
DDAC
0.2895
0.2942
0.2763
Yes
7 November 1996
DDAC
0.4129
0.3979
0.3968
Yes
22 May 1997
DDAC
0.3055
0.2917
0.2989
Yes
'Calibration range for DDAC is 0.25 - 0.36 pcf
Calibration range for TBP is 0.40 -0.50 pcf
117
-------
WRMRT —fTN—N0S07 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
"UJU/ (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
E P A/600/R-99/024
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Synergistic Wood Preservatives for Replacement of CCA
5. REPORT DATE
Fehrnary 1 QQQ
6. PERFORMING^ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Darrel D. Nicholas, Tor P. Schultz, and Moon G. Kim
TION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Forest Products Laboratory
Forest and Wildlife Research Center
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR 821788-01-1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Paul M. Randall (513) 569-7673
of this project was to evaluate the potential synergistic combinations of environmentally-
safe biocides as wood preservatives. These wood preservatives could be potential replacements for the
heavy-metal based CCA. Didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) was combined with either
chlorothalonil (CTN), tribromophenol (TBP) or sodium omadine (NaO) to provide the synergistic
mixtures. A total of five systems were examined; one oil-borne (DDAC:CTN) and four water-borne (oil-
in-water emulsions) mixtures, including DDAC.NaO with a water repellant. Wood treated with these
preservatives was evaluated in both soil contact and above-ground exposure, with CCA and
pentachlorophenol (penta) treated wood used as positive controls. The treated wood was evaluated for
both biocide efficacy and depletion. Because of project deadlines, the outdoor exposure time was limited
to two- to three-years exposure, which is insufficient to fully evaluate the efficacy of most systems. The
water-borne DDAC:TBP and DDAC:NaO formulations performed poorly in the field tests and,
consequently, are not viable wood preservative systems. However, the addition of a water repellent to the
DDAC:NaO system greatly improve the performance in above-ground tests, suggesting that this may be a
good preservative for this application. The oil-borne DDAC:CTN formulation is performing very well
and may be a viable wood preservative system. The water-borne DDAC.CTN formulation is performing
moderately well at this time but appears to suffer from excessive CTN leaching; this deficiency probably
can be corrected with a modified formulation.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Arsenic, Chlorothalonil, Chromated copper
arsenate (CCA), Chromium, Didecyldimethyl-
ammonium chloride (DDAC), Fungal
degradation, Pentachlorophenol, Sodium
omadine, Synergism, Termites, Tribromophenol,
Wood, Wood degradation
Wood treating
Wood preservation
Pollution prevention
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
IINCT ASSTFTF.D
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) previous edition is obsolete
------- |